I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gippsland resigning from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence.

I move:

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

on Tuesday, 12 May 2026, standing orders 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) being suspended for the sitting;

on Thursday, 14 May 2026:

standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) being suspended for the sitting; and

after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically standing adjourned until 10 am on Monday, 25 May 2026, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting; and

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

For the information of members—this is a motion to allow the budget speech tonight and the budget reply on Thursday night. I'd remind members that you've got to vote for both; you can't just pick one of the two. In terms of procedure and how the House will operate—tonight and on Thursday, at around six o'clock, we'll suspend the sitting so that the attendants are able to do the work that's done preparing the chamber for each of the two speeches. The bells will then ring at about 7.25, or a little bit before that, for us to start at 7.30. I remind members that, with these two speeches, the clock doesn't apply in the normal way. That's just for members to be aware of. Tonight, after the budget speech, the Assistant Treasurer will introduce the remaining budget bills and then the House will adjourn. Similarly, on Thursday, the House will adjourn following the budget reply. That means that the only night there will be an adjournment debate this week is, in fact, tomorrow evening. I commend the resolution to the House.

Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.

I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026; and (2) Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 and Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026.

I rise to speak on the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026. The repealing offences bill is a bill that reshapes where the criminal law ends and where civil liability begins in the protection of Commonwealth information. The coalition will not oppose this bill in the House. The government has the numbers and it will, of course, pass this chamber. But that's not the end of the matter. The coalition has questions about the bill's scope, about its gaps and about choices the government has made that no independent reviewer recommended. These are questions that must be examined by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which is due to report next month. The coalition will finalise its position, including on whether amendments are necessary, once that process is complete.

Let me start with some history, because this bill cannot be understood without it. In 2018, the former coalition government introduced the most significant overhaul of Australia's counter-intelligence and secrecy laws since the 1970s. It repealed section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914, a century-old provision, and replaced it with a modern framework in part 5.6 of the Criminal Code. This was part of a broader and essential overhaul of our national security legislation and was enacted through the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference Act) 2018. This was a deliberate, measured and careful reform process. We were conscious that, with the repeal of the old section 70 of the Crimes Act, hundreds of nondisclosure duties around the Commonwealth law could potentially lose their criminal consequences, so we created section 122.4 of the Criminal Code as a transitional measure, a temporary safety net deliberately built into our criminal law architecture, to hold the line while each of those duties was individually reviewed to determine whether criminal liability was actually warranted.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, recommended inserting a sunsetting clause. The coalition accepted that recommendation. Section 122.4 was never intended to be permanent. The sunsetting clause was our mechanism to ensure that the review happened. That review has now been completed through the 2023 AGD secrecy review and the 2024 Independent National Security Legislation Monitor review of part 5.6.

The Commonwealth secrecy law operates at two levels. At the top, hundreds of specific acts contain their own criminal secrecy offences, in taxation, national security, intelligence, social services and financial regulation. This bill largely leaves those untouched. The criminal protection for genuinely sensitive national security information is unchanged. Below that sat section 122.4, the safety net. It made breach of any nondisclosure duty a crime, regardless of motive or harm. Over 300 duties relied on it for criminal liability. This bill removes criminal liability from those 300-plus duties. The duties themselves remain on the statute book. The obligation to keep information confidential survives, but breach is now a civil and administrative matter—a matter of dismissal, APS Code of Conduct action and civil remedies rather than prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. In place of the old catch-all, the bill introduces new targeted offences. Where the old section 122.4 criminalised any breach of any duty, regardless of why it occurred, the new offence requires proof of improper intent—specifically an intention to obtain a personal benefit or cause harm. Around 16 specific duties retain criminal liability where civil sanctions were assessed as insufficient, principally where personal health information, census data or commercially sensitive information is involved.

The bill also makes important reforms to the existing general secrecy offences, implementing INSLM recommendations to improve clarity, proportionality and rule-of-law consistency. Schedule 5 corrects three technical drafting errors.

I want to turn to issues with schedule 1. The coalition supports the policy direction of schedule 1, but there are a number of specific issues we expect the Senate committee to examine. These include, first, the term 'improper'. The new offence turns on whether a reasonable person would conclude that the conduct was improper. The term is not defined anywhere in the legislation. Courts will determine its meaning on a case-by-case basis. People connected to government may not know with confidence whether their conduct crosses the criminal line. Prosecutors may face contestable standards at trial. The Senate committee should examine whether a definition or a non-exhaustive list of factors is needed.

Second, there's no sensitivity threshold. Unlike every other offence in part 5.6, the new offence does not require the information to meet a defined harm or sensitivity threshold. In theory, entirely innocuous information could satisfy elements if the intent and impropriety tests are met. The 'improper' test does the filtering work, but, without a definition, that is an uncertain standard. The Senate committee should examine this.

Third, the new offence extends for the first time to people providing services to the Commonwealth, whether paid or unpaid. Advisory board members, pro bono industry experts and people who have no formal contract have received no secrecy training and may have no idea they're now exposed to criminal liability. That's a significant change in scope and reach, particularly in the absence of clarity as to whether conduct is criminal in nature. Further, the change is immediate. The measures in this bill will commence on the day after royal assent, with no transition period. The government should tell Australians what information campaign or guidance material will be provided before the law takes effect.

Fourth and most significant, under the old section, 122.4, motive was entirely irrelevant. A public servant who leaked cabinet deliberations because they disagreed with government policy faced criminal sanctions. Under the new offence, the same person may not be guilty at all, because the prosecution must prove an intention to obtain personal benefit or cause harm. The AGD secrecy review specifically identified this problem and recommended an additional offence covering disclosures prejudicial to the effective working of government to capture ideologically motivated leaks of cabinet material, pre-budget decisions and diplomatic cables where there's no personal gain and no intent to harm. The government declined to implement that recommendation. That was a deliberate choice. It was not an oversight. This must also be explored by the Senate committee.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends existing Commonwealth secrecy offences and non-disclosure duties in other legislation. The schedule affects some 300-plus provisions that set out secrecy and non-disclosure obligations. Among those 300-plus provisions, the outright repeals of existing duties include, for example, the secrecy obligations of staff from the old Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, a body that ceased to exist in 2005. This is appropriate. However, the coalition notes one genuine gap in the civil substitutes: they do not apply to former officials. Once a public servant leaves government, the APS code no longer binds them. Civil litigation against a former employee is expensive and uncertain. For the most serious potential breaches, a departing official misusing sensitive information, the criminal law was the primary deterrent. The Senate committee should examine whether that gap is adequately addressed.

I'll now turn to schedule 3, the provision that the coalition has significant concerns about. Schedule 3 requires the Attorney-General to give written consent before a journalist or news organisation staff member can be prosecuted for any Commonwealth secrecy offence. If the Attorney-General refuses consent, the prosecution cannot proceed. Let me begin with where this came from. In 2019, AFP raids on News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst and the ABC attracted significant public and political attention. Whether to investigate and prosecute offences was, of course, a matter determined independently by police and prosecutors. But there was clear community concern about the impact on journalism. Attorney-General Christian Porter responded to that concern at the time by directing the Commonwealth DPP to seek his written consent before prosecuting a journalist for a defined list of national security and intelligence secrecy offences.

That direction was signed on 19 September 2019. It came shortly after another safeguard, put in place by Peter Dutton as the responsible minister at the time, setting out expectations on the investigation of journalists. The direction by Attorney-General Porter was a deliberate and highly targeted safeguard. It was welcomed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security as an initial step to restore confidence in press freedom. I served on that relevant committee at the time of the inquiry. Rightly, it has never been used. No prosecution of a journalist for a secrecy offence has been brought since. On 21 November 2023, when releasing the AGD's Review of secrecy provisions final report, Attorney-General Dreyfus announced the government's intention to legislate the Porter direction, contradicting the opportunistic and misleading criticisms that he made at the time. This bill takes that highly targeted safeguard and expands it significantly.

Under Labor, the consent requirement will apply to every Commonwealth secrecy offence that does not already require ministerial consent. That is an extraordinary reach. Neither the AGD secrecy review nor the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor review recommended schedule 3. It's the only provision in this bill without an independent expert recommendation behind it. Australia's Right to Know submitted to the AGD secrecy review on 5 May 2023. Their 57-page submission is a detailed, sophisticated legal document. On the consent mechanism, at page 57, Australia's Right to Know said that it was 'at best a complement to proper reforms of the type outlined in the balance of this submission' and that 'it cannot be a substitute'. What Australia's Right to Know primarily sought, in the overwhelming substance of 57 pages, was fundamental reform of the journalist protection in section 122.5(6) of the Criminal Code. They describe the existing defence as a 'dead letter in practical terms'. They argue the prosecution should bear the full evidential burden of disproving the protection, not the journalist. They argued that the reasonable-grounds standard should be replaced with a bona fide belief standard, removing the ability of courts to second guess journalistic methodology and professional judgement.

Australia's Right to Know raised three specific concerns about the consent mechanism: first, it creates a chilling effect by vesting discretion in a member of the government whose own actions may be under journalistic scrutiny; second, it makes no difference to police investigations, which will proceed regardless; and, third, the Attorney-General may simply fail to grant consent, leaving journalists in indefinite legal limbo.

The government seems to have ignored that submission, and it appears that Australia's Right to Know's concerns are realised in schedule 3 as drafted. The government has turned a targeted, responsive and carefully reviewed direction into a legislative procedure that applies much, much more broadly, without explanation. Time and again, when it comes to secrecy and access to information, this is a government that cannot be trusted.

There are clear questions the coalition expects the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs to pursue: Why did the government choose schedule 3 rather than implementing INSLM recommendation No. 13, which recommended clarifying the existing journalist defence? What specific evidence base exists for massively expanding the existing highly targeted approach in Attorney-General Porter's direction so that it covers every Commonwealth secrecy offence and locks it into legislation? How will this work in practice, in the absence of statutory criteria, with no reasons requirement and no time limit but a very broad scope?

The government must be upfront. It must provide a complete schedule of all 300-plus provisions being decriminalised, showing for each which civil and administrative substitute applies. It must confirm whether the relevant agencies were consulted. And there are broader concerns. What criminal sanction now applies to the ideologically motivated leaker of cabinet material—the public servant who discloses sensitive government information with no personal gain and no intent to harm? Is that person engaged in criminal activity, as was the case in Australian legal history to date, or are they now out of scope? The government has a responsibility to explain these things, to identify any gaps and to say what, if anything, it intends to do about it.

We will consider whether these provisions are fit for purpose, as well as other schedules in the bill, which, in the interests of time, I don't propose to run through now. The coalition will engage with the Senate committee process in good faith. We will press for answers and we will finalise our position on the bill, including on whether amendments are necessary, once we have those answers.

Let me turn now to the second bill in this cognate debate, the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026. This bill is short, it's technical, and, importantly, it's necessary. It makes a single amendment to the Criminal Code Act 1995 by extending the sunsetting date for section 122.4 of the Criminal Code by six months, from 29 June 2026 to 29 December 2026. As I explained earlier, section 122.4 is the Commonwealth's general secrecy offence. It applies where a current or former Commonwealth officer or contractor discloses information obtained through their official role in breach of secrecy or non-disclosure obligations imposed by another Commonwealth law. Those obligations exist across a broad range of Commonwealth legislation. They protect highly sensitive information, including Australians' personal information, health records, taxation information, commercially sensitive material and law enforcement information. These are not abstract categories of information. They include real information that Australians trust their government to protect—their health records, their tax data, their personal details and sensitive commercial information.

The provision was drafted as a temporary measure to preserve criminal liability for relevant secrecy obligations while national security reforms were implemented and broader Commonwealth secrecy law reform was considered. It created a clear and enforceable criminal framework to sit alongside a wide range of existing Commonwealth secrecy obligations. Importantly, the provision was always intended to operate as an interim measure. That's why the parliament included a sunset clause. The sunset mechanism ensured that the offence would be revisited and would not be continued indefinitely without reconsideration by parliament. This bill represents the third occasion on which parliament has been asked to extend the operation of section 122.4. That reflects a straightforward reality: the broader Commonwealth secrecy reform process has still not concluded.

The other bill in this cognate debate, the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026, proposes broader reforms dealing with section 122.4 and related secrecy offences, but that's separate legislation. As I've explained, a range of stakeholders have raised concerns about the proposed changes, and it's important that the coalition works through that legislation carefully and on its merits. But supporting this sunsetting bill does not predetermine the coalition's view on the broader repeal bill and reform bill. Those are separate matters, and the purpose of this bill is much narrower. It's about ensuring continuity in the law while parliament properly scrutinises the government's broader reforms.

The case for that continuity is straightforward. Parliament cannot properly scrutinise the government's proposed reforms if the existing framework collapses in the meantime. If this bill doesn't pass before 29 June 2026, section 122.4 will sunset automatically. The consequences would be immediate and serious. There would be a significant gap in criminal liability for breaches of a wide range of Commonwealth secrecy obligations. Sensitive information entrusted to government could be disclosed without the operation of this general criminal offence. There would be uncertainty across Commonwealth agencies about the enforceability of relevant secrecy obligations, and there would be weakened protections for information Australians rightly expect their government to safeguard. Allowing a legal vacuum to emerge, even temporarily, is not acceptable.

This bill ensures those protections remain in place while parliament considers the government's broader secrecy law reforms. It does not expand, alter or restrict the existing operation of section 122.4. It does not predetermine the outcome of the larger policy debate currently before the parliament. It simply preserves the current legal position for a further six months to avoid a potentially serious gap in the law.

The coalition supports this bill and will vote for its passage. We have long supported strong, proportionate protections for sensitive Commonwealth information. At the same time, we recognise the importance of ensuring secrecy laws are workable, proportionate and subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. That's why the interim extension is necessary. It provides continuity, certainty and stability while the parliament completes consideration of the broader reforms. I thank the House.

Debate adjourned.

I rise today to debate the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill and the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill, and, at the outset, I want to make it clear that the coalition will be supporting these bills. They are sensible, non-controversial measures that update the governance and administration of important schemes that support Australian authors and publishers.

Public Lending Right and Educational Lending Right are longstanding Australian government programs. They compensate authors and publishers for the free multiple use of their books in public and educational libraries. These schemes recognise a fundamental principle. While we rightly support free public access to books and knowledge, creators should not be financially disadvantaged as a result, and borrowing a book from a library, including the school library, means authors are supported. For example, Trent Dalton is able to benefit from this program as he's listed his many books, including Boy Swallows Universe, Lola in the Mirror and Love Stories. I note that he is from the great state of Queensland. Andy Griffiths is a beneficiary for his storied Treehouse series. Anyone who has read these books with children may agree that it's great that our library borrowers can experience the joy of Andy's 78-flavours ice cream parlour—serving every flavour imaginable, from chocolate to roasted ants—and that Andy is able to receive financial support for that and for that story. Ash Barty is also a beneficiary of the program, with My Dream Timeand what a wonderful contribution Ash continues to make to our country. The program supports a range of authors, from those we are more familiar with to those who are emerging.

The Public Lending Right scheme has been governed by legislation since, in fact, 1985. The Educational Lending Right, by contrast, has operated as a program administered within the department. What these bills do is pretty straightforward. They consolidate both schemes into a single legislative framework, bringing educational lending rights into legislation for the first time. They also transition the existing advisory committee to cover both schemes and provide the minister with the power to establish legislative instruments governing their operation. These are administrative and governance improvements. They indeed modernise the framework and provide greater consistency across the two schemes.

But let me address what this bill actually does not do. Despite its title, 'better income for authors', this bill does not actually increase the amount of compensation paid to authors or publishers. There is no new funding attached to this legislation. The total pool of funding remains fixed, and the way payments are calculated remains simply unchanged. Payments are distributed from a capped annual allocation of around $28 million in recent years, with rates determined per book held in libraries as set out in ministerial instruments. In 2024-25, more than 17,600 payments were made, totalling $28.16 million. That system, in fact, continues under this bill. There is no change to that. So, while the government may seek to suggest in the title of this legislation that it delivers better income, the reality is that it primarily delivers structural and administrative change, not increased financial support as the public would think from the name of this bill. To be fair, bringing educational lending rights into legislation does provide greater certainty and security for that funding stream. That is a positive step. But we should not conflate certainty with expansion. The government may also point to funding announced in 2023, at $12.9 million over four years, associated with expanding eligibility to include ebooks and audiobooks. However, that funding has already been flowing since the 2024-25 financial year. It's not new funding associated with this bill, as the government would have you think from the title.

This legislation arises from the government's broader National Cultural Policy agenda. As part of that process, additional advisory bodies and committees were established, including the Writing Australia Council. This reform is one of the outputs of that process, aimed at modernising lending rights legislation. Again, modernisation is welcome, but it must be matched with meaningful support and delivery.

The coalition indeed has a strong and consistent track record in this area. We have supported these schemes since their inception. Coalition governments have maintained and delivered payments to authors and publishers for decades, and it was a coalition government that established the Educational Lending Right scheme in the 2000-01 budget under Prime Minister Howard. Our support for Australian authors is longstanding and genuine.

In preparing for this legislation, we met with representatives from the Australian Society of Authors, and they, of course, support the bill, as do we. However, it's no surprise that they and many others in the sector are calling for additional funding to support authors, and that is a conversation that should continue because, while governance changes are important, they do not, on their own, address the financial pressures facing authors.

I now turn to some of the specific changes in this bill. One key reform is the incorporation of educational lending rights into the legislative framework, and this brings greater transparency and accountability to the scheme. The roles of the secretary and the advisory committee are also updated. Notably, appeals regarding payment calculations will now be determined by the secretary, providing a clearer decision-making pathway, and eligibility criteria are also being updated. Currently, eligibility is based on being a resident for taxation purposes. Under the new framework, eligibility will be based on citizenship or permanent residency status, providing a clearer and more contemporary definition.

There are also changes to the remuneration arrangements for the advisory committee. The chair will move from an annual stipend to a per-meeting payment structure, which is expected to result in lower overall remuneration. Committee members' remuneration will remain unchanged and aligned with standard tribunal rates. Importantly, the number of committee members and the individuals serving will not change. These are measured administrative updates. The bill is not controversial, and it is not time sensitive. It is a practical piece of legislation that tidies up and strengthens existing arrangements.

But, while we support the bill, we must also place it in its proper context, because authors across Australia are facing real challenges. They are dealing with rising costs, evolving publishing models and increasing competition in a global digital marketplace, and, for many, income from writing alone is not sufficient. Lending rights payments are an important supplementary income stream, but they are not a complete solution. That is why the broader policy settings matter, it is why funding levels matter and it's why delivery matters. Too often we see a gap between government announcements and real outcomes on the ground. We see programs announced with fanfare but without the follow-through needed to make a tangible difference.

This bill, while welcome, is not a substitute for a comprehensive approach to supporting Australian writers and the broader creative sector. Access to books through libraries and educational institutions is one of the great strengths of our society. It, of course, supports literacy, education and, indeed, opportunity. But that access must be balanced with fair compensation for the creators. That is the purpose of lending rights schemes, and that is why they are worth maintaining and strengthening. This legislation contributes to that objective by providing a clearer and more robust framework. For that reason, the coalition will support it, just as we have supported the program for decades.

The coalition would also like to support the lesser-known Australian authors who benefit from the scheme. For example, Jack Heath is a Canberran who attended Lyneham High School and has written a range of children's books such as the Spy Academy series and 300 Minutes of Danger. Books like these are in many school libraries, where he benefits from the Education Lending Right program. Jack also volunteers a lot of his time to appearing in schools, inspiring our young Australians to read and even become authors themselves. Jack, thank you for the work that you do.

The coalition will continue to ask questions about funding, about delivery and about whether the government is doing enough to support Australian authors in a meaningful way, because governance reform is only part of the equation. If we truly want better income for authors, we must be honest about what it will take. It will take sustained investment, it will take clear and effective policy, and it will take a government that prioritises outcomes over announcements. Yes, the coalition supports these bills. They are sensible administrative reforms that modernise and strengthen important programs. But we should be clear about their scope. They do not increase funding, they do not change payment calculations and they do not, on their own, deliver better income for authors, and that remains the challenge for the government to address.

Debate adjourned.

():  I rise to speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, and I move the amendment circulated in my name:

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

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

(1) the Opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices;

(2) Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms;

(3) the Government has failed to clearly identify the gap in existing law that the bill is intended to address;

(4) the bill's broad new prohibition on 'unfair trading practices' risks creating significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years;

(5) despite the Government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $124 million per year, including more than $100 million per year on small businesses;

(6) these additional compliance burdens will fall on small businesses already under pressure from high inflation, rising energy costs, higher rents, higher insurance premiums, the Government's new taxes, and a slowing economy;

(7) these costs will be passed on to everyday Australian consumers; and

(8) the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny, stakeholder consultation and consideration of its impact on small businesses".

I just want to read, before I go to my speech, some of the essence of what the amendment is—firstly, 'that the opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices'. The amendment also notes that Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms. The amendment also says that the bill's broad new prohibition on unfair trading practices will create risks through significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years.

The amendment also says that, despite the government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $100 million per year; this will all be worn by small business. The amendment also mentions the additional compliance burdens that will fall on small businesses already under pressure from higher inflation, energy costs, rents, insurance et cetera and that these costs will eventually—obviously, if they're passed on to business—be passed onto everyday consumers in what is already a cost-of-living crisis. The amendment also says that the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny.

I often feel it in this chamber; there's an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are some things about this bill, which I will go into in a minute, where I think the intention is warranted and good. But, as I mentioned in the amendment, we're concerned that in this bill there will also be a new legal test about what is unfair trading. This will create a lot of uncertainty in the business sector, especially in the small business sector, around what will be considered fair or unfair trading, which I think will be a lawyer's picnic. We're not convinced that this is needed, given we already have the consumer laws. As the amendment mentions, there's $100 million a year in red tape that this is predicted to put onto small business. We know and you know, Deputy Speaker, the pressures that are already on small businesses. Of course, they will pass it onto consumers. While the coalition won't oppose this in the House, we are sceptical of this bill, which is why we want to refer it to a Senate inquiry.

If I can go into some of the targeted measures that I think have merit in this bill, one is drip pricing. We all know an example of this would be buying something online; you might start off at $12, and, by the time you've clicked 'buy', it's gone up to $24 because of costs that get added as you keep clicking, whether it be booking fees, service fees processing fees, handling fees or et cetera. I think there's some merit in the bill in that area. The other one is subscription traps. To subscribe to something is very easy; 'Just click here and subscribe,' and you're subscribed. But, if you try and get out of it, you've almost got to take your dead grandmother in to prove who you are. Those types of things have merit, and I think that is warranted.

But, again, I want to touch on the problem that we have with the general prohibition on unfair trading. Who will define what unfair trading is? What this bill will do is open up the question of what is unfair trading. If it's very broad, then a business may breach the law and not even necessarily know it's breaching the law until that is determined in a court. We think that will unreasonably distort decision-making and cause detriment to the small business, which will be financial but can also be non-financial. There'll be wasted time, stress, compliance costs, red tape costs and inconvenience. Who's going to decide what is unfair? When does normal marketing become manipulation? When does inconvenience become legal detriment? Again, the bill doesn't go into all of this. The courts and lawyers will decide this. This will be a lawyers picnic, and they'll be feasting on small businesses and, again, increasing costs.

Again, Labor have promised to cut red tape and to boost productivity. I would say that opening up this new general definition of what is unfair trading is doing exactly the opposite of both of those. This will lower productivity and increase red tape and red tape costs. Treasury estimates the bill will impose more than $123 million a year in regulatory costs. Why would we want to do that right now? Why do we want to have this new general definition of what unfair trading is—

Because we don't want consumers to be ripped off.

Labor are interjecting. They obviously think increased regulatory costs are good. That's great. I'm glad that Labor are interjecting that they think increased regulatory costs are good, because that will be passed on to the consumer. If you think an increase in the cost of living is good for the consumer right now, good on you—I take that interjection from those opposite. I'm sure that the Labor interjector thinks that, for the 1.5 million small businesses that are going to be affected, it's good for them to have more governance, red tape and regulatory costs, and I note that.

Again, this will be especially harsh on small business. Obviously big business will have problems with it as well, but often they will have in-house compliance departments and in-house lawyers. Small business just doesn't have those resources. This means that small businesses, trying to get ahead and trying to make a living, will just have more things that they need to worry about when they go home, more forms that they need to deal with.

This bill needs a Senate inquiry, and one of the reasons we think it needs to be referred to the Senate is that, as I note in my amendment, we already have strong consumer laws in this country. We're not operating in a vacuum here. There are already protections for consumers, as there should be. We already prohibit misleading and deceptive conduct. We prohibit unconscionable conduct. We have unfair-contract-terms protections. I don't think the government has explained exactly what gap the new general prohibition in this bill will fill. Again, the measures deserve proper and serious scrutiny.

I also note that the exposure draft consultation was only open for two weeks, but that's not surprising anymore, with this government that campaigned on increased transparency. Allowing two weeks of consultation for an exposure draft is just normal practice for them.

I encourage the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to test whether the general prohibition is too broad, whether the detriment goes too far, whether the bill overlaps with the general consumer protection laws we already have and whether small business needs more protection. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Senate committee recommends. Maybe there can be small-business protections and carve-outs, given they don't have the resources here.

I'll end by saying that the coalition supports protecting consumers—obviously, we need to do that—but we do not support vague new laws that punish small business and enrich lawyers. The road to ruin can often be paved with good intention. We need to make sure that these laws do not do that. We don't want a law that puts $100 million of red tape on small businesses for no real gain, and I look forward to this bill receiving proper scrutiny through a Senate inquiry.

Is the amendment seconded?

It is.

I rise to speak in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. At its core, this bill is about fairness. It's about whether people can trust the prices they see, whether they can leave a subscription as easily as they joined it, whether businesses compete by offering a better product or by wearing people down through confusion, pressure and manipulation.

Australians are smart consumers. We compare prices, we budget carefully and we shop around, especially right now, but increasingly we are navigating markets that are designed to exhaust us. We click on what looks like a cheap ticket, and a few screens later the price has jumped. We sign up for a free trial in under a minute and then spend half an hour trying to cancel it. We try to compare products online, only to be flooded with countdown clocks, pop-ups, hidden charges and endless prompts, pushing us towards a decision. We all feel that frustration every single day, and what frustrates us even more is the sense that these practices are not accidental; they are designed that way. This bill says clearly, 'This is not good enough.'

This legislation modernises the Australian Consumer Law to reflect the way Australians buy things now. We buy things online, through apps, through subscriptions and through digital platforms designed to shape our behaviour. Importantly, this bill recognises something we already know: there is a difference between persuasion and manipulation. Businesses should absolutely promote their products. Competition matters, advertising matters, innovation matters—but there is a line. When businesses deliberately create environments that confuse us, pressure us, hide information or trap us into spending money we did not intend to spend, governments have a responsibility to act.

Through this bill, the Albanese Labor government is stepping up in three ways: first, the general ban on unfair trading practices; second, the crackdown on subscription traps; and, third, the ban on drip pricing. Each of these reforms responds directly to experiences we are already having in our daily lives.

The first reform is a ban on unfair trading practices across the economy. This is significant reform. For too long there has been a gap in our consumer laws. There have been practices that clearly feel unfair to consumers—practices that distort decision-making and practices that cause harm—but those practices have not always met the threshold of misleading conduct or unconscionable conduct under existing laws. This bill closes that gap. It establishes a clearer principle: businesses must not manipulate consumers or unreasonably distort the environment in which consumers make decisions, in ways that cause harm. That matters enormously in a digital economy, because design is no longer neutral. Buttons matter, defaults matter, timers matter and the order in which information appears matters.

We know businesses can shape behaviour through design. Increasingly, small businesses are relying on behavioural pressure as part of their business model. This bill recognises that reality. Importantly, it is principles based. That means the law can evolve as markets evolve. Because technology changes quickly, digital platforms change quickly and consumer habits change quickly. If we rely only on narrow, piecemeal rules, the law will always lag behind. This approach creates a broad standard of fairness that can respond to harmful conduct as it emerges, and the bill gives practical guidance about what that looks like. It includes examples such as failing to disclose important information; presenting information in a way that is confusing or overwhelming; making it difficult for consumers to exercise legal rights; and using digital design features that place unreasonable pressure on people.

These are practices Australians encounter all the time. Most people listening to this debate would recognise them immediately. They are not abstract legal concepts; they are lived experiences—the app that keeps pushing 'buy now' warnings designed to create panic, the online forms that hide the cancellation button, the checkout screen where the final cost suddenly jumps.

Australians expect businesses to compete fairly. This bill makes that expectation enforceable. Importantly, this is not antibusiness legislation. Good businesses already operate fairly. Good businesses already communicate clearly. Good businesses already complete honestly. I've heard that directly from small-business advocates in Melbourne, including through conversations with business associations across the Melbourne electorate. Businesses doing the right thing should not be undercut by competitors relying on hidden fees, confusing terms or manipulative design to win consumers. Fair competition depends on fair rules, and fair rules create stronger markets.

The second major reform deals with subscription traps. Honestly, we have had enough of them. Subscriptions are now everywhere: streaming services, fitness apps, software, meal kits, news subscriptions and gaming services. Subscriptions can absolutely be convenient. Many businesses use them responsibility, but, too often, subscription systems are designed around one assumption, which is that we will forget—that we will miss a renewal or give up trying to cancel. That is where the problem starts.

Research shows Australians are wasting enormous amounts of money on subscriptions that they no longer want to use. We are not staying subscribed because we love the product. We are staying subscribed because leaving has become too difficult. That is not consumer loyalty. That is friction by design. This bill changes that. Businesses will have to clearly disclose key information before someone signs up. We must be told that we are entering a subscription, what it costs, how long it lasts, how renewals work and how we can cancel it. And that information must be prominent and easy to understand, not buried in pages of fine print, not hidden behind vague language and not scattered across multiple screens but simple, clear and visible. The bill also creates a framework for reminder notices. If a free trial is about to end, we will be told. If a renewal is approaching, we will be reminded. That sounds basic, but right now too many systems rely on silence.

That is why this bill also addresses cancellation. This part matters. Cancellation must be straightforward. It must be easy to find, it must be easy to do, and it must only require steps that are reasonably necessary. A contract that can be entered into in seconds should not have half an afternoon to escape. We all know exactly what that feels like when we can subscribe online instantly but to cancel suddenly we need to phone during business hours, navigate endless menus, answer retention questions or search through page after page, trying to find the right button. This is deliberate friction. This bill says, 'Enough.' Again, this reform supports good businesses too. Many businesses already make subscriptions simple and transparent. Those businesses should not be disadvantaged by competitors relying on confusion and exhaustion to keep customers paying.

The third major reform deals with drip pricing, and Australians know this one well. We see a product advertised at one price. We click through, invest time and fill in our details, and suddenly extra fees appear—booking fees, service fees and processing fees, one charge after another. By the final screen, the original price barely resembles the real one. That is drip pricing, and Australians are tired of it. This bill tackles that directly by requiring businesses to show mandatory fees upfront and at the same time the advertised price is displayed. Right now, too many of us only discover the true cost after we have already spent time working through the purchase process.

In Melbourne, people know exactly what that feels like. We are a city built around live music, comedy, theatre and major events, and too often a ticket that looked affordable at the start suddenly becomes much more expensive by the final check-out screens once booking fees and service charges are added on. This bill says that the full mandatory costs should be clear from the beginning. People should be able to decide what they can afford before they commit to buying a ticket, and supporting Melbourne's creative life should feel exciting, not frustrating. Importantly, this bill does not ban transaction fees. It bans hiding them. That distinction matters because transparency matters. Businesses that disclose the true price upfront should not be punished for doing the right thing.

These reforms form part of a much broader agenda from the Albanese Labor government to strengthen competition, improve productivity and create fairer markets, because stronger consumer protections and stronger competition go hand in hand. This government has already delivered the most significant overhaul of merger laws in 50 years. We have increased funding to the ACCC so it can take stronger action against misleading pricing practices. We have outlawed unfair contract terms and introduced penalties for companies that breach those laws. We are strengthening the unit-pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation so we can clearly see when products shrink while prices stay the same. We made the food and grocery code mandatory, backed by real penalties, and we have increased the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $100 million. Penalties matter. If penalties are too weak, they simply become part of the business model. Strong consequences matter because fairness matters, and this agenda stretches right across the economy.

Through National Competition Policy reforms, the government is working with states and territories to remove barriers to stop new businesses entering the market. We are improving occupational licensing, supporting the right to repair, improving labour mobility and helping workers move more freely across jurisdictions. Stronger competition drives productivity, and stronger productivity supports living standards.

I also want to acknowledge the businesses that are already doing the right thing. Small businesses especially are already operating transparently and fairly. They are not the problem. In fact, many small businesses are hurt by unfair practices from larger competitors. This bill helps create a marketplace where businesses succeed because they offer better value and better service, not because they are better at hiding fees or trapping consumers.

Markets work best when people trust them—when prices are what they seem, when information is clear, when consumers can make genuine choices, when businesses compete fairly—and trust matters deeply right now. The people we represent are working hard. Families are budgeting carefully. Every dollar matters more. We should not have to fight hidden fees, confusing systems and manipulative design just to buy a concert ticket, cancel a trial or compare prices online.

This bill restores something simple but important: clarity. It gives people back time, back confidence, back agency, and it sends a clear message that in Australia fairness is not an option. This legislation modernises consumer protections for the economy our communities live in today, and it builds a marketplace where good businesses can thrive by doing the right thing. That matters for consumers, that matters for competition and that matters for trust in our economy.

Whether someone is buying groceries, signing up for a subscription or heading out to support Melbourne's live music and creative scene, they deserve transparency and fairness. People across our communities are all working hard for their money right now. They deserve markets that respect that effort: markets where prices are clear, where cancelling a service is simple, where businesses compete fairly and openly. That is what this bill moves us to do: a fairer marketplace, stronger consumer protections, better competition and an economy where trust matters again. That is good for consumers, good for honest businesses and good for Melbourne. I commend this bill to the House.

Australians are under serious financial pressure. Across the country, households are finding that everyday expenses have become unaffordable. Grocery bills have risen sharply. Energy costs remain high. Insurance premiums continue to climb for homes, for cars, for health care. Renters are spending more and more of their income on their housing. Many Australians are deciding not where to put money but which essential expense they can now afford to delay. For some families, Australia's cost-of-living crisis means skipping medical or dental appointments to pay for groceries. For some pensioners, it means deciding whether or not they can afford to heat their homes through winter. For some younger Australians, it means trying to establish a degree of financial security in an economy in which stable employment no longer guarantees financial stability. It's in this context that Australian consumers are more vulnerable than ever.

When household budgets are already stretched, manipulative pricing tactics, unfair subscription arrangements and deceptive conduct can cause real harm. So it's entirely appropriate that this parliament should act where regulatory gaps in the Australian Consumer Law have allowed those practices to flourish. From the consultations on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill, it is clear that there is broad agreement across regulators, consumer advocates, academics and industry that there are significant gaps in our legislation, and, as the minister has pointed out, existing consumer protections have not kept pace with sophisticated methods of influencing consumer behaviour, particularly in digital markets where businesses can actively shape purchasing decisions. That's what this legislation seeks to address.

The bill introduces disclosure obligations for drip pricing, establishes clearer exit requirements for subscription contracts and creates a general prohibition on unfair trading practices. These are sensible reforms. They strengthen Australia's consumer protection framework, and I support them. But while I support the objectives and the policy intent of this bill, I cannot ignore the fact that submissions on the exposure draft to this legislation raised some very valid concerns which have not been reflected in the final drafting of this bill.

Firstly, the prohibition on unfair trading practices has been drafted very narrowly. The bill prohibits conduct only where it manipulates the consumer and causes detriment. While no-one wants prohibition so broad that it will capture ordinary commercial persuasion, many submissions to this bill cautioned that this threshold is so high that the prohibition will be difficult to enforce in practice.

Secondly, the bill addresses drip pricing by requiring transaction charges to be displayed prominently and in close proximity to the advertised base price. That is a sensible requirement, but the bill still does not require businesses to display a single total price upfront. Consumers are still expected to calculate the final cost themselves. This means that, despite this reform, the underlying commercial logic of drip pricing—which, after all, is attracting consumers with a low initial figure before progressively adding unavoidable costs—will remain largely intact.

Finally, the bill contains exit provisions to ensure that subscription cancellations are easier to find and straightforward, and that is genuinely meaningful. Signing up to something can take 30 seconds, but cancelling, as we've all experienced, can take a phone call, a waiting queue and sometimes several billing cycles. Ending that asymmetry for consumers is the right thing to do. However, the legislation also contains substantial exclusions. Leases, higher purchase agreements, childcare services, school tuition arrangements and any other additional contracts excluded by regulation will fall outside these consumer protections.

While the reforms contained in this bill are worthwhile, they're also cautious, limited and incomplete. Notably, this legislation won't commence until 1 July 2027. Every practice that this bill seeks to regulate will remain lawful for at least another 12 months before consumers receive the benefit of the protections that we should legislate this week. That is too long at a time when money for many families is as tight as it has ever been. I do welcome the minister's announcement that further legislation will be introduced later this year to extend aspects of these protections to small businesses and franchisees. Many small operators experience the same asymmetries of bargaining power and information as consumers do. I look forward to examining those reforms closely when they arrive.

The government has presented this bill as part of its response to the cost-of-living crisis. But the bill, in fact, does not materially alter the economic pressures that face Australian households. At most, it introduces important but very limited protections against some particularly exploitative commercial practices. The minister himself has described these practices as irritants, and they are. Drip pricing, manipulative interfaces and obstructive subscription cancellations do cause harm, but they're not the primary drivers of financial stresses in this country. A family paying a few extra dollars because a booking platform hid a service fee—that's frustrating. But if that family can't afford its power bills or if its grocery spend has increased by hundreds of dollars a month, or if it can't find a rental property within its budget, then it will not be materially helped by this legislation or by the government's wider competition agenda.

The minister has claimed that this bill forms part of a wider agenda to strengthen competition, improve transparency and support consumers across the country. But that broader agenda is still avoiding confronting the central issue, which has been identified repeatedly in inquiries into essential sectors: the role of concentrated market power in driving poor consumer outcomes. Highly concentrated markets are less competitive. That can mean higher prices, weaker consumer choice and reduced pressure on firms to improve outcomes for customers.

We see this most clearly in Australia's supermarket duopoly. The ACCC's 2024 supermarket inquiry identified persisting concerns about market concentration, weak competition and inadequate price transparency. It recommended a range of reforms to improve transparency and to strengthen competition within that sector. The government has acted on some of those recommendations. The Food and Grocery Code of Conduct has been made mandatory. The government is consulting on stronger unit-pricing rules to address practices like shrinkflation. Additional ACCC funding has been provided to pursue misleading pricing practices, and, from 1 July of this year, new regulations relating to excessive supermarket pricing will come into effect. But these measures are still focused on price transparency rather than the underlying uncompetitive structure of a highly concentrated market.

The ACCC's inquiry pointed to the significant market power held by the two dominant supermarket chains. It noted that Coles and Woolworths account for two-thirds of supermarket sales in this country, and yet the government remains reluctant to pursue the reforms that would generally require it to confront entrenched market concentration. The Prime Minister has looked away from calls for stronger anticoncentration measures, including divestiture powers as a last-resort remedy against entrenched anticompetitive conduct. The supermarket industry, let's remember, is the area where the government has been most willing to act.

The government still has not addressed excessive concentration in our insurance markets. It hasn't addressed energy retail margins. It hasn't addressed the broader conditions that have allowed essential goods and services to become significantly less affordable while corporate profits in those sectors have remained consistently strong. We've seen this in the government's reluctance to adopt any general economy-wide prohibition on excessive pricing or price gouging.

Unlike the EU, the UK, Canada, South Africa, India and several states of the USA, Australia continues to rely on consumer protection provisions rather than direct price regulation, and we saw the consequence of this approach in recent months in which Australian fuel prices have outpaced international markets amid reports that more than 500 specific allegations of price gouging had taken place. In response to that global fuel crisis, the Prime Minister promised that the ACCC would take action against overcharging service stations, but, as Allan Fels, the former head of the ACCC, has noted, the commission actually has no real power to do anything about price gouging—a fact that was confirmed when I asked the Treasurer about that in this place.

Price gouging will only be illegal in relation to supermarkets going forward, and even that prohibition hasn't yet come into force. Encouragingly, the government has increased ACCC funding to pursue misleading pricing practices by $30 million, and that is welcome. The regulator has to be properly equipped to protect consumers and to enforce the law. But stronger enforcement against misleading pricing is not the same thing as addressing the underlying concentration of market power and price controls in essential sectors. A regulator can prosecute misleading discounts while the structural conditions that weaken competition and sustain high prices remain unchanged.

Australians deserve honesty about what the government is doing and about the scale of the problem that we are facing. When people are making choices between heating and eating, between renewing their insurance and paying their rent and between filling a prescription or filling a tooth and buying their groceries, they deserve more than this bill, and they deserve more than the other measures that this government has undertaken.

Presenting legislation like this as a major breakthrough for consumer protections risks understating how serious that crisis has actually become. The legislation mandates a ministerial review of the subscription contracts regime after two years, and I welcome that review. I expect that it will identify further shortcomings in both the scope and the enforcement of this legislation. I hope that the parliament approaches those findings then with greater ambition than it is showing today.

I support this bill because the protections that it introduces are preferable to the status quo. Consumers will be better protected with these reforms than they would be without them. But I will not join the government in presenting this legislation as meaningful, significant consumer protection legislation. This is modest reform, in a narrow area of consumer law. The problems it leaves unresolved are larger, more consequential and much more urgent than the problems that it addresses.

This bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, is about fairness. It's about making sure Australians get a fair go, because right now too many Australians feel like the deck is stacked against them. Families are doing everything they can to make ends meet—they are budgeting carefully, comparing prices and looking for value wherever they can find it—and what frustrates people the most is that, when they do the right thing, they still get caught out by hidden fees, confusing terms, automatic renewals or cancellation processes designed to wear them down. Australians are sick of the tricks and traps. And, frankly, of course they are.

This bill says very clearly: businesses should compete by offering better products and services, not by confusing people or manipulating them, or hiding the true cost until the last second. This is what this reform seeks to change, for people in communities like mine, in Maribyrnong—those who are working hard, every single day, to stay ahead of rising costs. A few dollars here and there might seem insignificant to some, but, for many people in my community, those extra dollars are crucial. The hidden booking fee, the subscription that quietly renews, the streaming service that is impossible to cancel, the gym membership that somehow takes three clicks to join but three phone calls to leave—all of these quickly make a dent in household budgets. Over time, these chip away not just at the bank balance but also at trust, because Australians expect fairness, they expect honesty and they expect that if you want to cancel something then you can actually cancel it without being dragged through a maze of obscure settings or impossible customer service channels.

This legislation modernises our consumer laws to reflect the reality of how Australians now live and transact. More and more of our economy now operates online, so the laws that regulate the modern economy must keep pace. From ordering takeaway to booking flights and from buying concert tickets to managing subscriptions, consumers are increasingly navigating digital systems designed to influence their decisions. Now, there's nothing wrong with businesses promoting their products and there is nothing wrong with advertising. This bill is not about stopping legitimate business activity, but it draws a line between persuasion and manipulation. It is about recognising that some business models now rely on confusion, pressure and friction as a source of profit. And that's just not good enough.

This bill introduces an economy-wide prohibition on unfair trading practices. That means businesses will not be allowed to manipulate consumers or distort decision-making in ways that cause harm. Importantly, this is principle based reform, because markets and technology evolve quickly, and, if the law only prohibits a narrow list of behaviours, some businesses will simply invent new tricks around the edges. So this bill establishes a clear standard: all Australian consumers deserve to be treated fairly.

This bill also tackles two practices that Australians know all too well: subscription traps and drip pricing. Subscription traps are one of the most frustrating examples of unfair conduct in our modern economy. We all know a time where we've fallen into this trap. Many Australians sign up for a free trial because they want to watch the latest hit TV show or just want to use a service temporarily, then suddenly find, months later, the charges have been adding up, because the subscription quietly rolled over; or they try to cancel and discover that the process is deliberately difficult: most likely the cancellation button is hidden, or the website redirects endlessly, or the app says to use the desktop version, or the desktop version says to call customer support. Customer support usually says, 'Send an email,' and the cycle can go on and on. A contract that can be entered into in seconds then takes half a day to escape.

Thankfully, this bill fixes that. Businesses now will have to clearly disclose key terms upfront. They will need to tell consumers what they are signing up for, how much it costs, when it will be renewed and how to cancel. Cancellation pathways will need to be simple, straightforward and easy to find, and, importantly, consumers will receive reminders before trial periods end or renewals occur. These are basic standards of fairness, and I suspect most Australians will wonder why they didn't already exist.

This bill also cracks down on drip pricing. Like subscription traps, drip pricing is something we have all experienced. You can see one price advertised online, so naturally you click through, and then you spend some time filling out your details, but, at the end of the process, you're suddenly met with mandatory fees that have come out of nowhere—booking fees, service fees, processing fees, transaction fees. By the end, the price bears little resemblance to what was advertised in the beginning. None of that is transparent, and it undermines competition because businesses doing the right thing—businesses that disclose the full cost upfront—end up looking more expensive than competitors hiding charges until the very last moment. This bill restores fairness by requiring businesses to disclose mandatory transaction fees at the time that they are advertising the base price. Consumers deserve to know the real cost upfront, and good businesses deserve a level playing field.

One thing I particularly support about this legislation is that it recognises that consumer harm is not always dramatic or obvious. Sometimes harm is cumulative. These practices drain money, but they also drain time. Markets work best when people feel confident participating in them. When consumers trust that prices are genuine, they are more willing to compare products, switch providers and engage in the market. That drives competition, that drives productivity, and ultimately that benefits our entire economy.

This reform is therefore not antibusiness. It is, in fact, pro-competition. It supports the many businesses already doing the right thing, and there are many in my electorate. Maribyrnong is home to thousands of hardworking small businesses—cafes, restaurants, retailers, tradespeople, creative businesses and service providers—all of whom build customer loyalty through honesty and good service. They should not be undercut by businesses relying on manipulation or hidden costs. They deserve a marketplace where fairness is rewarded.

This bill forms part of our government's broader agenda to strengthen competition and deliver real cost-of-living relief for Australians. We want to see markets that are fairer and more competitive so Australian consumers can get better prices and more choice. That is why our government has delivered the most significant overhaul of merger laws in half a century; it is why we have made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, have strengthened penalties for unfair contract terms and are cracking down on shrinkflation; and it is why we have increased penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $100 million, because breaches of consumer law should not ever become simply a cost of doing business. There must be real consequences, and this legislation delivers those consequences. Businesses that engage in unfair trading practices will face significant penalties.

I also want to acknowledge that these reforms are especially important for vulnerable consumers: senior Australians, young people navigating subscriptions for the first time, people with limited digital literacy and, of course, busy parents juggling work and caring responsibilities. These groups are often the most exposed to manipulative practices because they have the least time, the least flexibility or the least ability to navigate intentionally confusing systems. In an electorate like mine, there are many households who are already under financial pressure. Every dollar counts. A hidden fee is money that could have gone towards groceries, petrol, rent or school supplies. That is why this legislation will have a significant impact, because Australians should not need a law degree or an IT qualification just to cancel a subscription or understand the true cost of something online.

This government is also taking a sensible and balanced approach to implementation. The reforms will commence from 1 July 2027 to ensure businesses have time to understand their obligations and adapt their systems. Guidance will be developed by the ACCC, and the government will review the operation of the subscription provisions after two years to ensure the laws are working as intended.

Importantly, this reform is not the end of the conversation. This government will also consult on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses, including franchisees, because small businesses can also be vulnerable to unfair conduct from larger players, and that has big impacts across communities where small businesses play such a vital role in our local economies.

Australians believe in a fair go. It is one of the defining values of our country. People understand the importance of competition. They understand that businesses need to make a profit, but they believe in the fair go. They believe that people should know what they are paying for, that all businesses should be upfront and that companies should not profit by deliberately confusing or trapping consumers. This legislation reflects those values. It says clearly that markets should reward innovation, service and transparency, not tricks, traps and hidden charges. It outlines that consumers deserve genuine choice, and it levels the playing field for good businesses doing the right thing.

This is practical reform that responds to our ever-evolving modern economy, and it is reform that will make a real difference to Australians trying to get ahead and challenging this cost-of-living period. For families in my community and right across the country, these laws will help restore confidence that the system works fairly and removes the frustrations that many feel. I commend the bill to the House.

Australians are already paying more for just about everything. Groceries are up. Power bills are up. Insurance is up. Fuel is up. Interest rates are biting. The average Australian family with a mortgage is now paying, after tax, $29,000 a year more on their mortgage than they were paying under the last coalition government. Right now, small businesses across Australia are under enormous pressure just trying to keep their doors open. That is certainly what I'm hearing around the Sunshine Coast and everywhere else I go around the country. From the cafe owner in Caloundra trying to manage rising wages and energy costs, to the tradie in Palmwoods battling fuel prices and supply costs, to tourism operators, retailers, family businesses and local manufacturers right across the seat of Fisher, they are all saying the same thing: Canberra—this place, this House—just keeps making their lives harder and making it harder to do business.

Australians absolutely deserve strong consumer protections. Consumers should not be misled. They should not be trapped in subscriptions that they cannot cancel. They should not be hit with hidden fees halfway through a purchase, and we've all experienced it. Businesses deliberately doing the wrong thing should absolutely be held accountable. The coalition supports that principle very strongly. But consumer law must also be practical, it must be proportionate and, critically, it must be clear enough for honest businesses to understand exactly what is expected of them before they can comply with it. That is a fundamental tenet of our justice system.

That is where this bill raises serious concerns, because, while the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 contains some targeted reforms addressing genuine consumer frustrations, it also introduces a broad and uncertain new prohibition on so-called unfair trading practices that risks creating massive legal uncertainty for Australian businesses. Let me be clear. The coalition will not oppose this bill in this House. However, we will move a second reading amendment and support referring this legislation to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for proper scrutiny, because legislation of this size and consequence deserves proper consultation, proper scrutiny and clear legal drafting, not rushed lawmaking, which we continue to see under this chaotic Labor government. That makes for bad laws.

This bill contains three major components. Firstly, it creates a broad new prohibition on unfair trading practices. Secondly, it introduces new rules around drip pricing and mandatory transaction based charges. Thirdly, it introduces new obligations for subscription contracts, including cancellation processes and disclosure requirements. Let me say this very clearly. Australians are rightly frustrated by subscription traps. They are frustrated when signing up online takes 30 seconds but cancelling becomes an impossible maze involving hidden forms, endless emails, phone calls or mandatory waiting periods. Australians are also frustrated when they see one advertised price at the beginning of a transaction only to discover compulsory fees suddenly appearing at the check-out. Consumers deserve transparency. Consumers deserve honesty. Consumers deserve to know exactly what they are paying before they commit their money. That is why the coalition is more open to the targeted reforms dealing with drip pricing and subscription contracts. Those are real issues. Those are identifiable problems, and targeted reforms addressing specific conduct are always preferable to broad and vague legal overreach.

But the major concerns in this legislation are not those targeted reforms. The major concern is the sweeping new general prohibition on—and in parenthesis—unfair trading. The bill prohibits conduct that may manipulate consumers, distort consumer decision-making or cause detriment, including non-financial detriment such as stress, inconvenience or wasted time. That is where the real uncertainty begins. While those words may sound reasonable at first glance, they are extraordinarily broad in practice. What constitutes manipulation? When does ordinary marketing become unlawful pressure? When does inconvenience become legal detriment? When does persuasive advertising suddenly become unfair conduct? The bill does not properly answer those questions. Instead, those questions will be answered over years through litigation, court decisions, regulator interpretation and legal disputes.

This legislation in its current form is a lawyer's picnic, and in the meantime Australian businesses will be left guessing. Uncertainty creates risk. Risk creates compliance costs, and compliance costs ultimately get passed onto consumers. This bill will become a lawyer's picnic because when laws are vague it is lawyers, regulators and courts who end up deciding years later what parliament supposedly intended. That is not good lawmaking. That uncertainty may not concern large multinational corporations with armies of lawyers and compliance departments, but it absolutely concerns small businesses. It concerns the family retailer on the Sunshine Coast. It concerns the local cafe owner already battling Labor's cost-of-living crisis. It concerns the tradie employing a handful of apprentices and subbies. It concerns local tourism operators trying to survive in an economy where confidence is already weakening. Those businesses do not have endless legal resources. They do not have compliance teams sitting in corporate head offices. They simply want clear rules, practical regulation and the ability to focus on running their businesses instead of hiring lawyers to interpret vague legislation.

Australia already has very strong consumer protection laws. The Australian Consumer Law already prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct. It already prohibits unconscionable conduct. It already prohibits unfair contract terms and a range of specific unfair practices. So the obvious question becomes this: what specific conduct currently escapes the law that justifies such a dramatic expansion?

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

I want to warmly congratulate Archbishop Amel Nona on his election as patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church, now known as His Beatitude Mar Paul III, elected by the Synod of Bishops in Rome on 12 April. This is a deeply significant moment for Chaldean Catholics around the world, and especially for the many Chaldean Australian families who call Fairfield, Liverpool in south-west Sydney their home. Over the years, I've had the honour of engaging with His Beatitude at many community events. Every time I've been struck by his warmth, his humility and his genuine welcome.

Born in Alqosh in northern Iraq and ordained a priest in 1991, he served his people through some of the darkest years for Christians in Iraq. In 2015, he came to Australia to lead the Chaldean Diocese of St Thomas the Apostle for a decade of quiet and faithful service—from Mosul to Sydney, from Sydney to leading one of the oldest Christian churches on Earth. To His Beatitude Mar Paul III, congratulations. And to every Chaldean Australian, especially in Fowler, this moment belongs to you.

I also want to thank Laith Alchino, Samir Yousif, Marlin Toma and all the religious leaders of the Chaldean Catholic Church in my electorate, as well as the volunteers from the Chaldean League of NSW and Australia for their ongoing engagement and for including me in all of their significant celebrations and milestones that we celebrate in Fowler regularly. It was an honour to be invited and a privilege to witness your community come together with such pride and love.

I rise today on behalf of my community whose hearts are breaking right now following the recent tragedy in Ballina. Early last week, a crew of six marine rescue volunteers went out in difficult and dark conditions, answering the call to assist a vessel in distress. They did what emergency service volunteers and personnel across the north coast and across the country do every single day: they put the safety of others before their own. Tragically, local heroes and marine rescue volunteers Bill Ewen and Frank Petsch made the ultimate sacrifice and died during the rescue. And the sailor they'd gone to rescue, Matthew Clayton, also died, after his boat struck the South Ballina breakwall.

It takes a remarkable kind of person to head into dangerous conditions to help others seeking safety. Bill and Frank did so without hesitation because they believed in service over self. That is a legacy worthy of our deepest respect and gratitude. The courage, dedication and selflessness of these two brave heroes must always be remembered. Our community stands united in grief with the survivors, the families and the friends affected and with our dedicated local marine rescue volunteers, who have been devastated by this tragic event.

I also pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery of all emergency service personnel who responded to this horrific incident with courage and compassion. My heart breaks for everyone impacted, especially the loved ones of those involved. May they rest in eternal peace.

Tonight, it appears the cost of ambition is about to go up. Based on what has already been leaked to the media, tonight's budget is looking like a direct tax on success and a calculated betrayal of the people who do the heavy lifting. Think of the small-business owners, the people who have skipped holidays, worked through the night and salary sacrificed every spare cent to build a future. For them, their assets are their superannuation. It is their reward for a lifetime of risk. Now, Labor wants to slash that reward the moment they cross the finish line.

This budget is set to be framed as a hand up for the next generation, but it's more like a government robbing Peter to pay Paul. Peter is the hardworking Australian who sacrificed everything for their retirement, while Paul is a bloated government spending spree that is out of control, a government that wastes billions on net zero and fuels a migration surge that it simply cannot house. This government is setting itself up to take on the people who have worked the hardest. This budget isn't looking like reform; it's looking like a raid. Labor is burning the floorboards to keep the furnace going, and it's starting with the incineration of every single Australian's future.

I rise today to acknowledge the passing of two remarkable women—former senator Trish Crossin AM, and Jocelyn Cull—who both gave so much to our Northern Territory community.

Trish Crossin was a true trailblazer: the first woman to represent the Northern Territory in this place, in the federal parliament, over in the Senate. From teaching in eastern Arnhem Land to serving as a senator, Trish dedicated her life to service. She cared deeply about fairness, equality and our Northern Territory community, and about making sure that the communities don't get forgotten. She was also a friend and mentor to me and she'll be deeply missed. My thoughts are with her husband, Mark, her children and her grandchildren. Vale, Trish Crossin.

I also acknowledge the passing of Jocelyn Cull, a former president of our St Mary's Vinnies Conference and later the president of Vinnies NT. Jocelyn's compassion and service touched many lives. She was a fierce advocate for better housing, emergency relief and support services, particularly for Aboriginal communities who didn't have much but also for regional communities and for Territorians that are doing it tough. She helped shape Vinnies' housing and homelessness work in the Territory, and our thoughts and prayers are with Graeme and their young children. Vale.

I welcome the $4.9 million in funding for mental health services for Strathbogie, Murrindindi and Towong shires, which are recovering from the recent devastating Longwood and Walwa bushfires. I've been advocating for immediate and ongoing mental health funding under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, and I thank the Commonwealth and Victorian governments for their commitment. However, I am concerned that these expanded services are coming from over 100 kilometres away and that this funding runs out in 12 months time. People impacted by disasters want accessible, trusted and long-term mental health services that are delivered close to home.

The Yea Saleyards program, run by Yea and District Memorial Hospital, is a strong example of existing trusted local health services. Yea hospital brings health professionals to the saleyards. They've established trust by meeting farmers where they gather for conversations about health and mental health. I hope this investment works with existing services such as Yea hospital and supports models that are already working.

Murrindindi, Strathbogie and Towong have faced multiple significant bushfire disasters over recent years. We can't just fund mental health services when there's a disaster. The Commonwealth and Victorian governments should deliver ongoing investment in mental health services to give the communities of Indi certainty that care will be there when they need it.

Anzac Day is a time for reflection, remembrance and gratitude. It is a day when Australians come together to honour the courage, sacrifice and service of those who defended our nation and the freedoms we enjoy today. I was honoured to attend the dawn service at Hampton Park, the morning march in Cranbourne and the commemorative match hosted in Tooradin. Across Holt, our community gathered to pay tribute to those who served and those who continue to serve our country. This year marks 111 years since the Gallipoli landings and 110 years since Australians first served on the Western Front during the First World War. We remember all Australians who have served, across generations, from Europe, Korea, Malaya and Vietnam to East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan, and all the peacekeeping missions around the world. This year also marks five years since the Kabul airlift, which ended Australia's longest war, in Afghanistan, where more than 39,000 Australians served with professionalism and bravery.

I thank the Hampton Park Progress Association, the Dandenong Cranbourne RSL and the Tooradin Dalmore Football Netball Club for their work in honouring this important day. Lest we forget.

Australians know something isn't right. No matter how hard they work, they're just not getting ahead. After the Prime Minister himself said 50 times 'no changes to housing taxes', Labor now wants to change the rules. Working Australians are told they'll receive a $220 tax offset, while bracket creep takes away double that. That's not relief. It's giving with one hand and taking with the other.

While housing pressures persist, instead of focusing on increasing supply, Labor is targeting investment, including higher capital gains tax on assets people rely on to build their financial security. For younger Australians already struggling to enter the market, that doesn't create opportunity; it closes it off. When negative gearing was wound back under Paul Keating, rents didn't fall; they went up. If you remove the ability to offset losses, the costs don't disappear. They're passed on, and the renters pay.

Labor talks about intergenerational equity, yet the choices being made today are narrowing the opportunities available tomorrow. Pathways that allowed earlier generations to invest, build security and get ahead are being closed. To paraphrase Churchill, trying to tax your way into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up by the handle. We must weigh the decisions of today on the scales of tomorrow because, with government spending rising, the next generation foots the bill.

I was here in parliament on 1 April when news broke that Councillor Preet Singh had stepped aside as mayor of Wyndham City Council because in 2024 he had written a character reference for Kashyap Patel, who was convicted of grooming and sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl, and signed it as a Justice of the Peace. I was pleased that he had stepped aside and acknowledged his error, and I assumed he would resign as mayor after further reflection.

I rise today at the first opportunity because after five weeks he has not resigned as mayor, and there is, disappointingly, yet another story in the Melbourne press about the city I love, the people I represent in this place and the mayor who refuses to resign. He does this despite losing the support of the councillors who voted to make him mayor and have unanimously called for him to resign and unanimously supported a no-confidence motion. It is untenable for them to work with him as mayor. This has, in fact, seen one councillor resign.

Despite community concern being expressed through petitions and protests, he insists that he is a victim of politically motivated attacks. This is ridiculous. His initial grievous lack of judgement is now compounded by his incapacity to understand the message his reference sends to our community about sickening, sustained criminal behaviour being trivialised. It is further compounded by his failure to see the damage he continues to cause. He should resign as mayor today.

People in my electorate are already hurting, and they're about to be let down by tonight's budget of broken promises and higher taxes. I hear them loud and clear, because Gippslanders in Monash are feeling the impact of these broken promises across the board. I saw it last week when I volunteered at Frankies Community Kitchen, helping out. They do a great job, but they are doing more with less. Likewise at the Corinella & District Community Centre. Thanks to Janice Orchard, the president there, for inviting me along. They do a great job. Most of their volunteers are retirees, and some of them drive an hour and a half just to help out. The people who are accessing the support of the food pantry in some cases walk up to an hour just to get there. These people have every right to feel let down by the Prime Minister because he promised a better Australia. Instead, Australia's standard of living has disintegrated. They've broken promises on mortgage reductions, energy rebates, housing targets and changes to superannuation. The deficit of trust continues. The first thing they did when they got into government was put a tax on super.

Finally, I just want to acknowledge Geraldine Shellcott and Robert Bruce from my electorate of Monash. They drove up from Leongatha yesterday, and they're in the gallery. I'm very proud to have the great privilege of representing them as their federal member. Thanks for everything you do for our community.

I rise today to congratulate the Shellharbour Hospital Auxiliary on its 40th anniversary and to thank this dedicated group of volunteers, affectionately known as the Pink Ladies, for their extremely valuable contribution to our community. Shellharbour Hospital Auxiliary was established in 1986, the same year that Shellharbour Hospital opened, and they have raised more than $1.3 million over the past four decades to purchase vital medical equipment for that hospital. In its first year, the auxiliary donated a television set worth $530, while more recent purchases have included a $38,000 portable ventilator for the emergency department.

In the 2025 financial year, Shellharbour Hospital Auxiliary donated eight items worth over $50,000 to the Shellharbour Hospital. This wonderful organisation conducts a range of fundraising activities, including stalls selling cakes and craft items baked and created by the Pink Ladies themselves. There are events, morning teas and Mother's Day lunches. I've had the great pleasure of meeting and attending several of the events organised by these amazing women, who are so dedicated to families in our region. At the beginning of 2026, the Pink Ladies were named Community Group of the Year by Shellharbour City Council. The award recognised the 32 active members who contributed more than 13,000 volunteer hours last year. On behalf of the people of Shellharbour and the broader Illawarra. I sincerely thank these ladies for their amazing work. Thank you.

Last week in my electorate of Hinkler, I launched my small business survey. Every single response that I've received so far confirms that this Labor government is making it harder to do business. Every single submission confirms that small businesses are under pressure. One of the questions on the survey is, 'Do Hinkler small businesses feel confident about their future?' One hundred per cent of responses say 'no'—they're not confident. A local engineering and manufacturing business says:

We will be shutting up shop if there is no change, after nearly 30 years of servicing this community. It is very disappointing it has come to this.

In Queensland, the month of May is Small Business Month, celebrating the role small and family businesses play in building our regional economy and communities. But this government is not interested in making it better. Instead, Labor is committed to slugging small business. They changed their position on negative gearing and capital gains tax, simply hitting the hip pockets of family business. The Prime Minister committed that you'd be better off under Labor—power prices would drop by $275, there was a promise of cheaper mortgages, and there would be no changes to super.

But the exact opposite has happened. In each of the last two years, the economy has recorded its slowest growth outside a recession. Australians don't deserve a budget of broken promises and higher taxes, and small businesses in Hinkler don't deserve a budget of broken promises and higher taxes either.

When Bennelong residents hear the words 'local journalism', a few key names are likely to come to mind. For those in Lane Cove, it's Jacky Barker. Jacky founded local independent news publication In the Cove 13 years ago to deliver community-first journalism for her suburb of Lane Cove. Through an abundance of social media posts, newsletters, articles and, of course, the infamous In the Cove chat, locals in Lane Cove have been kept informed about matters from lost dogs to 'breadgate' and to plenty of local, state and federal government matters, of course. In the Cove also promotes community events for schools, sports clubs and not-for-profits. They connect small businesses with potential customers and share thousands of stories that would otherwise go untold in our modern media landscape.

A few weeks ago, In the Cove made the huge announcement that Jacky Barker is retiring from her role. She's passing the baton to long-time business partner Renee Merrill-Maxwell, who has been a crucial part of In the Cove for the past eight years. While we're all shocked to see Jacky go, Bennelong and Lane Cove are immensely grateful for her work and what she started and has achieved.

In a world of increasing misinformation and fake news, backing trusted publishers and authors is more important than ever. Jacky has devoted herself to this cause and made invaluable contributions through her work. All the best in retirement, Jacky, and long liveIn the Cove.

The Treasurer will hand down the government's much anticipated budget tonight, and Australians are already getting a glimpse of what's in store. Let's look at what's already been reported. The Labor government has scrapped the Inland Rail project to Queensland, despite previously claiming to support it. This is a major blow to regional communities, producers and freight operators, who are relying on the project to improve productivity and strengthen supply chains across rural and regional Australia. At the same time, the government has committed another $3.8 billion to Victorian Labor's underfunded $200 billion Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop, a project that many experts say lacks transparency and clear funding pathways.

Reports also suggest there will be changes to negative gearing and the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for property investors, and that comes despite the Prime Minister repeatedly denying during the 2025 election campaign that Labor would alter those arrangements. Australians who have worked hard, invested responsibly and planned for their future have a right to be concerned. There are also expected to be new taxes and tighter rules on family trusts—another policy area Labor said would not be touched before the election. The old saying, 'When Labor runs out of money, they come after yours,' has never been more relevant and obvious.

Today, on the international day of the nurse, we don't just celebrate a profession; we celebrate the backbone of our healthcare system. As a nurse myself for over 40 years, I know that behind every statistic and every bedside is a nurse who has dedicated themselves to the quiet, often exhausting, but deeply profound role of caring.

I want to pay tribute to a true Australian hero, Lieutenant Colonel Sister Vivian Bullwinkel. In 1942, after the sinking of the SS Vyner Brooke, Vivian was the sole survivor of the Bangka Island massacre. She was wounded, a prisoner of war for over three years, and yet her spirit never broke. She returned home not with bitterness but with a renewed mission to serve, eventually becoming a leader in our nursing profession and a champion for the recognition of her fallen sisters. Her legacy is a testament to the resilience that defines nurses. Whether it was a battlefield in the 1940s or the remote area communities where I worked, or whether it's research institutions or the front line of the modern pandemic, nurses show up. We advocate for the vulnerable and we carry the weight of our patients when they have some of their hardest days.

To my fellow nurses: your work is seen; your sacrifices are valued, and today we celebrate you. Let's continue to lead with the courage of Vivian Bullwinkel and the compassion that makes our profession the most trusted profession in the world.

After four years in office, this government has a trail of broken promises in its wake. Now its only remaining playing card is pitting young Australians against older generations—telling young Australians that, if the government taxes older Australians more, miraculously more houses will be available and younger Aussies will suddenly be able to afford one. It's this government that has lost control of the economy and inflation. It's not the war, as the Treasurer will tell you. It is this government that has caused higher inflation, which has pushed up house prices. It is this government that has pushed up energy prices by 32 per cent and pushed up interest rates 15 times. Australia has had the largest fall in living standards and has the highest inflation rates in the developed world.

While Australians can't pay their bills, this government is addicted to taxing and spending. 'Taxing and spending' should be the budget headline. Because this government is appalling at economic management, younger Australians will pay the debt bill for their lives and for their children's lives. What about the no changes to the coalition's stage 3 tax cuts promise we heard? Labor's changes to that promise are causing bracket creep and costing workers $440 next year. This is what Labor does. It takes $440 from you in one hand and promises to give you $250 in the other. They call that cost-of-living relief they've rescued you with, when they are the ones who caused it. What a con! What a joke!

I want to recognise an incredible woman from Kilaben Bay who's making a real difference in our community through adventure, fitness and mental resilience. Katrina Croquett has just completed something most of us wouldn't even dream of attempting: trekking to Everest Base Camp twice, back to back through the Himalayas. That's more than 260 kilometres through snow, ice and mud and brutal high altitude conditions.

What I love most about Katrina's story is why she did it. Her first trek was with her husband and her boys, Luke, Jake and Tyler. She wanted to show her sons the importance of getting out of your comfort zone, setting hard goals and backing yourself in. She wanted them to see that strong physical and mental health comes from being challenged and from discipline and resilience. After completing the trek with her family, most people would have headed home for a rest—I know I would have—not Katrina. She turned around and did it all again, this time leading a group of Hunter women as part of her business, Women Embrace Adventure.

Katrina is one of those quiet achievers who does so much for our community. She inspires women to build confidence, stay active and support one another. She's an incredible mum, a fantastic local businesswoman, and someone the Hunter is very, very proud to have in our community. Thank you, Katrina, for what you're doing for our community. That would have been bloody hard doing base camp twice.

When I was the Deputy Prime Minister and minister for infrastructure—and I know the member for Gippsland held that role, too, of the minister for infrastructure—in the halcyon days of Australian democracy, we used to look forward to budget night. We used to look forward to a Treasurer coming to the dispatch box, just there, and talking up, and not only talking up but funding, infrastructure. But the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government now, the member for Ballarat, who sits opposite—and I'm glad she has come in early—I don't think will be smiling tonight when Dr Chalmers announces his fifth budget. I don't think she'll be happy, because there's nothing in there for infrastructure.

Well, I look forward to that, Minister, because the only thing that's been built in your time is complaints in your in-tray, because you've actually derailed Inland Rail. You've taken that off the plan—off the budget. And that is neglecting regional Australia. That is going against the needs and wants and expectations and demands of rural constituents.

Honourable members interjecting—

And you can yell all you like—

Now, now—enough with the interjections. Interjections will come to a cease, please. The member for Riverina has the call.

And she's calling out because she knows what I'm saying is right. She knows in her heart of hearts that there is nothing in there tonight for regional Australia. And I say: shame on Labor. Start protecting and preserving regional Australia.

To the little child who's been living with trauma, to the pre-teen who perhaps needs some coaching to help with their emotional regulation: the Midland Medicare Mental Health Kids Hub is there to help. This is a service I fought hard to secure for our community in Hasluck, and it's the very first of its kind in Western Australia.

The Albanese government delivers on mental health needs. I opened the Medicare kids hub in Midland in January 2025, and just last week I visited the hub again, with the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, the Hon. Emma McBride—so completely impressed with our Midland facility. She mentioned that she was really impressed with how adroitly it is managed, with Parkerville Children and Youth Care in collaboration with Koya Aboriginal Corporation, Lifespan Psychology Centre, the Mental Illness Fellowship of Western Australia and Pregnancy to Parenthood.

Parents, if you live within the City of Swan and your children need psychology, occupational therapy or counselling, or could perhaps benefit from participating in workshops, or whether you just need an additional connection to community services, I strongly urge you to access the kids hub to enhance the wellbeing of your children and your family. The Midland Medicare Mental Health Kids Hub is one of 17 that are being delivered around the country, and this initiative, along with our Medicare mental health clinics and support for teens through headspace, is a testament to our government's commitment and genuine readiness to help meet the real needs of community in mental health, where you need only your Medicare card and not your credit card.

This Labor government has declared war on Aussie aspiration. Tonight the Treasurer will outline his battle plan when he hands down the Albanese budget. The Prime Minister has given the Treasurer a clear mission: to destroy aspiration; to destroy ambition; to destroy the Australian dream.

Now, how will the Treasurer do this? Through new taxes on the Australian people to pay for Labor's reckless spending. Labor will impose new taxes on housing, savings, small business and retirement. Families trying to save will be taxed. Tradies trying to build their businesses will be taxed. Entrepreneurs building something new will be taxed. Farmers producing food for Australians will be taxed. All of them will be hit by Labor's new taxes.

What's worse is that Labor has already softened up the economy with its record spending. Australia has some of the highest inflation in the world. We've seen 15 rate rises by the Reserve Bank under Labor. Bracket creep is already costing Australians $2,000 extra in income tax per year. People are doing it tough. And tonight, under the cover of darkness, Labor launches its surprise attack on Aussie aspiration with new taxes. They've cleverly used deception to get to this point, having ruled out these tax changes before the election. You know you did, Prime Minister. But now we all see the truth: Labor's budget is built on broken promises and higher taxes.

Before I begin, I just want to give those in the National Party a trigger warning: I am talking about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, because we have really good news about what we've announced in government to deliver for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Minister for the Environment and Water visited Bendigo in the break, and we announced $120 million to upgrade the Coliban rural water supply network in Bendigo. It dates back to the 1870s. It's inefficient, and we lose about 80 per cent of the water to evaporation, leakage and other means.

What is really good about this investment by our government is it will also contribute to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We will return 4.6 gigalitres of water to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan's 450-gigalitre water-recovery target. This is great news for all our South Australian colleagues, this is great news for the health of the Murray, and this is really great news for my electorate because we will not lose our water through leakages, through seepage and through evaporation. This is what a Labor government does for regional Australia. We are delivering for Bendigo, we are delivering for regional Australia, and we are delivering the health of the Murray. Those opposite just freak out—trigger warning.

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

on indulgence—Yesterday evening, the ADF lost one of its finest. Warrant Officer Lachlan Muddle died in a parachuting accident at the ADF's parachute school at Jervis Bay. Warrant Officer Muddle was involved in a midair collision with another parachutist, which resulted in his death. The other parachutist received minor injuries. Both of them were deeply experienced parachutists. They had both done in excess of thousands of jumps, and they were participating in a six-week-long advanced parachuting training block. As a result of last night's accident, for the moment, parachuting in the ADF has been paused.

Lachlan Muddle joined the Australian Army in 1994. He was a member of the Special Air Service Regiment, the SAS, and he qualified for the SAS in 2007. He was deployed on five separate occasions, including to Afghanistan. He was an expert sniper. He was a seriously experienced special forces soldier. He's remembered for his sense of humour and for his commitment to service.

As a result of last night's accident, a series of investigations will now take place, both within the Defence Force and beyond. It's really important that they are as thorough as possible so that every necessary lesson is learnt here. Let me say that the Defence Force trains as it fights, and, necessarily, there is risk in Defence Force training, and so Lachlan Muddle's sacrifice is every bit as meaningful and significant as that of those we have lost on the battlefield. This afternoon, our thoughts are very much with Lachlan Muddle's family and with his defence family, the SAS, who I know will be feeling his loss acutely.

on indulgence—I thank the Minister for Defence for his words. Once again, we are reminded ever so cruelly about the costs of serving one's country. Once again, we're reminded ever so cruelly about the risks war fighters take on in their jobs. With the tragic death of Warrant Officer Class 2 Lachlan Muddle last night in the parachuting exercise we just heard about, Australia has lost an honourable man, a patriot. Our hearts break for those closest to him. His family has lost a loved one. Friends have lost a mate, and the Special Air Service Regiment has lost a brother in arms. We acknowledge their loss and their grief as we mourn our nation's loss of such a fine Australian.

To every generation, our nation asks, 'Who among you will keep Australians safe?' and, at every march-out parade, we find those who, despite the dangers, have answered, 'I will.' To echo the profound and timeless words, spoken almost 2½ thousand years ago:

… the man who can most truly be accounted brave is he who best knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and of what is terrible, and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.

We honour Lachlan's service and the service of every member of the Australian Defence Force. Our thoughts are with Lachlan's family and friends, members of the SAS and the wider defence community.

As a mark of respect to the memory of Warrant Officer Lachlan Muddle, I ask all to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the House.

I also inform the House, sadly, of the deaths of former senators Patricia 'Trish' Margaret Crossin AM and Kay Janet Denman and of former member of this House William 'Bill' Leonard Grayden AM. Trish Crossin died on 13 April 2026. She represented the Northern Territory from 1998 to 2013. Kay Denman died on 20 April 2026. She represented the state of Tasmania from 1993 to 2005. Bill Grayden died on 28 April 2026. He represented the division of Swan from 1949 to 1954. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, I invite all present to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the House.

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

I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today. I will answer questions on his behalf.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said:

My word is my bond. I've always been a man of my word, and I believe that when you go to an election, and you make commitments, you should stick to them.

Yet reports in all major newspapers confirm that the government is about to impose new taxes on housing, savings, small businesses and farmers. Why should Australians ever trust another commitment this Labor government makes?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Indeed, in May last year we did promise to cut income taxes for every taxpayer this year and next. And tonight's budget will confirm, indeed, that we're cutting taxes this year and next. We promised a $1,000 instant tax deduction, and tonight's budget will fulfil that, helping low- and middle-income earners. We promised to strengthen Medicare, and tonight's budget will provide an additional $25 billion for hospitals. It will provide support for urgent care clinics to be made a permanent part of Medicare. It will provide for cheaper medicines. It will provide the funding for the endo clinics that are up and running, assisting with women's health. It will provide support for Medicare mental health clinics as well.

We also committed to improving aged care, giving Australians dignity and security in later years—in contrast to what we inherited, which was summed up in one word: neglect. Tonight's budget will provide additional funding for aged care as well. Our commitment, of course, was also to make the economy more resilient through our Future Made in Australia plan, and tonight's budget will do that as well.

The budget will also show that we've halved the fuel excise, something that before the election we didn't say we would do but something that we've done in response to the circumstances which are there.

Order! The Leader of the Nationals in the House of Representatives.

Honourable members interjecting—

I think the joke was on you on Saturday.

Honourable members interjecting—

And it went well for you!

Order! Members on my left. Member for Cowper, we're just going to take the temperature down. The Prime Minister is answering the question. He was asked a question; he's giving information to the House. I'd like to hear what he'd like to say.

The worst they're going, the louder they get. That is something that we know is the case. Tonight's budget will deliver reform. It will deliver resilience. It will be the budget that Australia needs in 2026. We have been working through the global fuel crisis that has been imposed on us. We've been working on delivering for Australians, and tonight's budget will do just that again.

My question is to the Prime Minister. As the conflict in the Middle East continues to disrupt global fuel supplies, how is the Albanese Labor government taking action to shield Australians from the worst of the crisis and bolster our national fuel security and supply?

I thank the member for her question. From the outset of 28 February, we said that the longer the war goes on the more serious the economic impact will be. We've continued to call for a de-escalation. We want to see peace in the region. We want to see the Strait of Hormuz opened up to normal traffic. We can see, though, that it is having an impact here at home, even though this is a war in which Australia is not a protagonist.

But we are shielding Australians from the worst, and so far we have made a positive difference. The fuel excise cut is easing pressure, and the release of some fuel reserves has helped distribution, especially in the regions. We're constantly engaging with our trading partners in the region. I travelled to Malaysia, to Brunei and to Singapore. Minister Wong has travelled to Japan, Korea and China. I've hosted the Prime Minister of Japan and spoken with Premier Li of China. This is all making a difference—something that was actually criticised by those opposite. Through Export Finance Australia, extra cargoes of shiploads of fuel and fertiliser and hundreds of millions of litres of diesel are coming to Australia. That shows why our reputation internationally as a stable, reliable partner is really important for us.

Tonight's budget will focus on making Australia's economy even more resilient as we go forward. Central to that will be our $10 billion Australian fuel security and resilience package; a government owned fuel reserve of one billion litres—the first since World War II—lifting our national fuel reserves to 50 days; establishing a fuel and fertiliser security facility, increasing supply and storage; and getting Australia through this crisis, but doing it in a way so that we're stronger on the other side of it. That is our aim.

We do live in very turbulent times. There is a great deal of uncertainty about when this conflict will end and about what the impact will be. All we can do is put in place every measure at our disposal to protect Australia's national interest. That's what I've been doing. That's what the minister for energy has been doing. That's what the Minister for Trade, who has responsibility for EFA, has been doing as well. And it is making a positive difference. The fact that there is more fuel in Australia today than there was on 28 February says that we have got these measures right, but, of course, we're not through what is a global crisis going forward.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said 'for the fiftieth time' that he would not impose new taxes on Australian homes and savings. All major newspapers report that the Prime Minister is about to do the exact opposite. Why should Australians ever trust another commitment this Labor government makes?

Our budget tonight will build on everything that Australia is doing to shield Australia from the worst of the global fuel crisis but also to ensure that we come out the other side with a stronger, fairer and more resilient economy. Our budget will be true to Labor values and Australian values—fairness and aspiration as we go forward.

The Leader of the Opposition raises the issue of housing taxes. Of course, there was a committee report commissioned by the Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals in the Senate, who asked for there to be a full public inquiry into capital gains taxation. That is something that was initiated by those opposite and something that we voted against. Indeed, so many of those opposite have said, including the member for Canning—I'm asked about quotes—who said:

… if that includes negative gearing then we should make changes.

That was the member for Canning. The shadow treasurer said:

… it's time to be honest: the tax system is screwing over young Australians.

Screwing over!

The manager on a point of order?

Standing order 104 says this:

An answer must be directly relevant to the question.

The question was, just to remind you: why should Australians—

Resume your seat.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order, I'll just deal with this—

I'll hear from the Leader of the Nationals in the House of Representatives.

Point of order—have I got the call?

I just said—

Well, the Prime Minister is just standing there. I'm just not sure if I've got the call.

What's your point of order?

As the Manager of Opposition Business was making his point of order, his microphone was turned off before you called to order—

Yeah, I did.

and the Prime Minister had already stood to—

Resume your seat. I did, and I have the power to do that as the House has given me that power. I have been crystal clear about taking points of order. That is not the time to then restate the question. It's not the time to restate the question. You raise the point of order on relevance, which the manager did. That's not an opportunity to have a second go or a third go. We're getting into those bad habits, and I'm starting—you've raised your point of order. The question was about whether Australians should ever trust another commitment of government. I think everyone could agree that's a pretty broad question, so you're going to get a broad answer.

I haven't finished, but I'll listen out of respect.

Further to the point of order, it says 'that Labor governments make', not what the opposition is doing. It's what Labor government makes. And that's the point I was trying to point out to the Prime Minister.

I thank the manager. The relevance here is that it is a broad question that you've asked about policy. If we're going to just have broad questions about trust and policy announcements, you're going to get a broad answer. If it were about a fact or a figure or a yes or a no, sure. The Prime Minister will continue.

Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. The shadow treasurer had this to say:

… it's time to be honest: the tax system is screwing over young Australians. Instead, it favours well-off, established interests against those trying to get ahead. … In short: if you work hard to get ahead, you get hit hard; if you live off assets, you don't.

But it's not just ancient history. The member for Groom said this:

I think there are some real issues we need to address. I'm open to a discussion on CGT …

The former member for Menzies said this:

Housing supply matters most—

Opposition members interjecting—

Listen to the former member for Menzies, because he's not here anymore. He's not here anymore, so he can't speak for himself, but I can speak on his behalf. He said this:

Housing supply matters most, but supply alone will not solve the problem.

…   …   …

Current tax settings tilt incentives toward investors, particularly in existing stock. They reward bidding rather than building.

…   …   …

The Liberal Party should lead with this: cap negative gearing for established dwellings at one property per investor, while allowing the deduction for up to five newly constructed homes.

Those opposite had a committee to look at these issues. Australians will see a budget tonight that acts in their interests. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How has the Albanese Labor government acted to secure additional fuel for Australia? What actions will the government take in this budget to ensure we are better placed for any future uncertainty?

I thank my honourable friend for her question and, more importantly, for the representation she gives to the workers of the Lytton refinery in her electorate, which she's very proud of and we're very proud of too.

The situation in the Middle East has led to what the executive director of the International Energy Agency has said is an impact on world energy supply as big as all the 1970s energy shocks and the Ukraine war—and, worse than that, all put together. That, of course, has had an impact right around the world, including in Australia. In fact, in Australia we've also dealt with a very badly timed fire at the Geelong refinery. We're very pleased no-one was hurt, but there's no doubt it came at the worst time possible.

Despite all that, I am in a position to tell the House that Australia has more fuel here in our country today than we did on 28 February. We have 42 days worth of petrol, 35 days worth of diesel and 29 days worth of jet fuel. That is more petrol and diesel than on 28 February. In fact, in relation to diesel, it is the second-highest result we have had since the minimum stock obligation came into force in 2023. That is a result of government and industry working together. It's a result of the Prime Minister working with our South-East Asian trading partners so closely, ensuring that those trading relationships and our foreign affairs relationships are in good working order and ensuring that our friends and trading partners are aware of the importance for Australia. It's a result of decisions the government has made in relation to sulphur and the flashpoint of diesel and so much more.

The honourable member asked me what further steps we will take. The government has been focused on the short term, in shoring up fuel supply, but also, importantly, building our resilience for the future, because these international shocks are likely to get more frequent, not less. That's the international environment in which we work. As a result, the Albanese government has made a decision to build a government-owned strategic reserve. It comes at considerable cost, but it's an investment that's worthwhile. A billion litres will be owned by the government and kept in reserve, to be used and deployed to areas of regional shortage when that emerges, as it can often do and as we saw in the early days of this situation. That is building for the future. That is using the government for good purpose.

The private sector holdings are important, and we've increased the obligation on them as well, but that alone is not enough. Twenty-two out of the 32 International Energy Agency governments hold a strategic reserve. Until today, that has not been the case for Australia. That changes tonight as the Albanese government ensures that the Australian people will own a fuel reserve, to be used at the behest of the government for the best interests of the Australian people. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Great Western Highway at Victoria Pass has now been closed for two months. Our businesses are desperate. They're going broke because of the negligence of successive governments. It's a debacle, and the response by state and federal governments has not been good enough. You announced plans for a tunnel under Victoria Pass in 2010. Will you now put some serious money down for a business support package and also high-speed road access to the Central West?

I thank the member for Calare. I know that his community is highly concerned about this, and I respect that that's the spirit in which he's raised it. As you're aware, the Great Western Highway does remain closed at Mitchell's Causeway, following what has been a major geotechnical failure. I remain in contact with Minister Aitchison's office—the New South Wales roads minister—and I continue to seek the latest updates about the situation. I continue to be advised by the NSW government that the road is simply not safe and cannot reopen until it is. There can't be any shortcuts on that.

The New South Wales roads minister has made it clear there is currently no firm timetable for reopening, with the closure expected to extend beyond the three-month estimate that was originally given. It does reflect the seriousness and the complexity of the failure and the need to get the solution right. Significant cracking and movement have been detected in the substructure of the Mitchell's Causeway, and detailed geotechnical investigations have confirmed that the underlying fill has deteriorated, creating voids and instability within that structure. Transport for NSW has completed extensive testing and is now moving into the next phase, working with industry to identify and finalise an engineering solution to safely reopen the road.

A competitive process is underway with multiple engineering proposals shortlisted and a final solution expected to be selected shortly. I don't underestimate. This is a very serious situation, and it is not a quick or simple fix. The work required will involve substantial reconstruction to modern standards. There are a number of actions the New South Wales government has already taken in response to the closure, as you're aware: establishing the Great Western Highway Community Coordination Taskforce; delivering extra public transport services to support connectivity; boosting maintenance and resilience works on key detour routes including Bells Line of Road, Darling Causeway and Chifley Road; and committing $50 million to strengthen and upgrade all of the detour routes as well. Transport for NSW continues to engage.

I'll hear from the member for Calare on a point of order.

I'd be grateful if the answer could address the questions which were raised. It's on relevance.

The issue is relevance. The minister was asked some specific questions as part of the broad issue. So I'm listening carefully to make sure she's updating the House on actions taken by both governments. But I'll listen carefully.

The Commonwealth will continue to engage with New South Wales, and we have made it very clear that we stand ready, if New South Wales does have a request for funding to assist, to consider that very seriously.

But let's be really clear about this. When we came to office, there was $2 billion allocated for works along the Great Western Highway for either end, with some idea—no funding, no planning—that there would be an 11-kilometre tunnel dug underneath the Blue Mountains. Now, nobody—nobody—was serious about that. So there was no solution. There was a false promise—again, given pretty often by those opposite. We'll do the work to try and get this road open as soon as possible, and I'll update you when we've got news about that. (Time expired)

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence. How is the Albanese government delivering historic investment in our defence force?

I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his service in the Australian Army. Four weeks ago, the government released the National defence strategy 2026 and the accompanying update of the Integrated investment program, Defence's 10-year procurement plan. In 2023 the Defence Strategic Review recommended doing away with the old system of intermittent, haphazard defence white papers, replacing it with a consistent two-yearly drumbeat of updated strategy and procurement. NDS '26 is the second iteration of this. As a result, the Defence Force now operates against contemporary strategy and refreshed procurement plans.

NDS '26 observed that over the last two years the world has become a much more difficult place, and I think we can all see that—not just in the war in the Middle East and in ongoing conflict in Ukraine and other parts of the world but in continued great power contests, China's continued massive military build-up and the global rules based order being placed under acute pressure. As a result, NDS '26 provided for yet another significant major increase in the Defence spend—$14½ billion over the forward estimates, $53 billion over the decade—and this will be reflected in tonight's budget.

What that means is that, since coming to office, the Albanese government has increased Defence spending over the next four years by $30 billion relative to what we inherited and $117 billion over the decade. Two years ago we reprioritised $70 billion of Defence spending. This time we reprioritised just $10 billion. And I think that reflects a continuity since 2023 in the type of defence force which we are seeking to build, one that can fundamentally project. But what has changed over the last two years is the rise of autonomous systems, the rise of drones. So NDS has a provision of $12 billion to $15 billion over the next decade to ensure that we are investing in this critical capability, such that it is, at the heart of our modern defence force. NDS '26 is another step that the Albanese government has taken in building up a much more capable defence force which, in a troubled world, can keep Australia safe.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised Australians he would not impose any new taxes on farmers and small businesses. The Prime Minister has said:

I'm a prime minister who, when I make a commitment and when I say I will do something, I do it.

I think the Australian people understand that. Prime Minister, why should Australians ever trust another commitment this Labor government makes?

I'm asked about tax policy and about whether changes should be made to tax policy. Indeed, the—I'm not sure of all their titles; whatever the title is of the member of the National Party opposite—member for Gippsland's party was a part of having the review that was called for, voted for and conducted by the Senate, along with their sometimes partners in the Liberal Party and also the Greens political party. Indeed, one of the senators of those opposite, Senator Kovacic, said:

We should not be afraid to consider tax changes, whether they be capping the number of properties that can be negatively geared … A serious plan by this parliament has to deal with the housing crisis and would go a long way to restoring the electorate's faith in political leadership solving big problems and delivering reform.

That is what they had to say. Now, until 1985, of course, there was—

Order! The Prime Minister will pause. He's concluded his answer. We'll move to the next question.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! Members on my left, we're going to regain order in the House. The member for Bullwinkel will be shown some courtesy.

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the Albanese Labor government helping our farmers, fishers and producers to manage the impacts of the conflict in the Middle East and to keep our food production strong? Further, what have been the responses to these measures?

I want to thank our terrific member for Bullwinkel. It was terrific to be with her in WA's Wheatbelt talking to farmers on the ground about how they're actually dealing with what is a global conflict and how it's impacting them on the ground, particularly in relation to fuel and fertiliser availability. Price, of course, was concerning to them in the conversations that we had.

We do know that the impacts of this war are being felt globally, and right here in Australia as well, which is why I've been holding weekly roundtables with the agriculture industry and why we have been working as a government day and night, as you've heard from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, to help Australians, but particularly our farmers, manage these impacts and keep Australia moving.

We recognise the critical role our farmers, our fishers and our producers play in supporting our food security, our economy and our regional communities. We've been focused on easing the immediate pressures and securing more fuel and fertiliser to provide farmers with confidence for the future. We've amended fuel and diesel standards. We've released 20 per cent of our strategic fuel stockpile to help get more fuel into our regions and to our farmers and our fishers.

We have passed the legislation to underwrite additional shipments of fuel and fertiliser, with over 450 million litres of additional diesel secured to date. We've worked with industry and with the Indonesian government to help secure an additional 250,000 tonnes of urea supply from Indonesia, with the President of Incitec Pivot Fertilisers, Scott Bowman, saying:

… this additional volume will go a long way to shoring up critical supplies to Australian farmers.

We're streamlining, but we're not compromising on, our biosecurity processes to help get fertiliser and feed inputs to our farmers faster. We're also deferring the implementation of changes to agricultural export services for an additional year. Of course, we've made our announcement in relation to tonight's budget, which will include an Australian fuel security and resilience package. This includes $7½ billion for the establishment of a fuel and fertiliser security facility to increase supply and storage of fuel and fertiliser right here in Australia, as we've heard, and over $3 billion to establish a government owned Australian fuel security reserve of around a billion litres.

This is about doing more in our own backyard. It's about minimising the impacts of global disruptions, and it's about keeping our food production system strong. These are critical investments that have been welcomed right across the agriculture industry, including by the President of the National Farmers' Federation, Hamish McIntyre, who said last week that it is 'a welcome step toward building the sovereign capability we need to protect our food system'. While those opposite are focused on whether or not they should do a deal with One Nation, we're focused on deals for the nation.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told Australians:

I'm a Prime Minister who will promise to do things and then go and do them. I think that's how you restore faith in politics.

Given reports in all major newspapers that the Prime Minister is about to impose new taxes on small businesses, when did the Prime Minister promise these changes?

I'm asked a question about taxation policy—when it comes to investment and when commitments are made—from someone who's made a commitment to stand by his leader but who undermines him at every single opportunity. And when it comes to—

Honourable members interjecting—

The Prime Minister is about 20 seconds in, but we'll hear from the—the Prime Minister has concluded his answer. We'll move to the next question.

Opposition members interjecting—

The manager is seeking leave to table a document.

I seek leave to table a document, the Labor Party talking points from this morning: 'Have you broken a promise?' I'd like to table that.

Leave not granted.

My question is to the Minister for Resources and the Minister for Northern Australia. How's the Albanese Labor government securing affordable gas for Australian households and businesses, and are there any alternative approaches?

I want to thank the member for her question. As Chair of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries she knows, more than anyone, the importance of gas in Australian manufacturing and that Labor is the true party of the Australian resources sector.

Mr Speaker, as you know, as we all know, gas is a vital Australian resource, and it should work for all Australians.

The member for Casey is now warned.

It should work for households, for businesses, for our manufacturing industry and, really importantly, to firm renewable energy sources. That is why this Albanese Labor government will implement a 20 per cent domestic gas reservation scheme. This government will ensure that Australians get more of the gas that we produce here and at an affordable price. We will implement this domestic gas reservation in a responsible way. We have been very clear that existing export contracts will be respected.

Australia takes very seriously its role in supporting regional energy security. We will remain a reliable energy partner for our region, including for our friends and partners in Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and other partners as well.

Implementing a domestic gas reservation scheme is a major structural reform. It will mean more Australian gas is made available for Australian households, Australian manufacturers and Australian industry. It will drive a wedge between the domestic gas prices and high international gas prices, and, really very importantly, it will shield Australian gas users from the volatility we see in global markets.

I am asked about alternative approaches. One approach we saw from those opposite was to deliver to the Australian people a gas price of $31 a gigajoule. That was as they were leaving office; they even hid that at the time. Today that price is under $10. Those opposite had a decade to act on gas supply and prices and did absolutely nothing. They negligently left the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism to expire, leaving us to urgently fix it in 2022. Those opposite voted against lower gas prices. They voted against the gas market code of conduct, which secured new gas for more Australians and more gas enough gas to power the state of Queensland for two years.

Another approach they had was to cut government departments and slow down approvals processes for new projects. Those opposite also voted against energy price relief for all Australians. Just like they voted against tax cuts for all taxpayers, they voted against the price cap on Australian gas for Australian people. And if the last budget in reply speech is anything to go by—and we expect the coalition to still be drafting their gas policy down the corridor—while we are reserving gas, they are just all so much hot air.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said his word is his bond. Will the Prime Minister raise taxes on houses, savings, small businesses and farmers?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I encourage him to turn up here at 7.30 pm and to hear the budget speech, because what budget speeches do is they outline the direction that a government wants to do. And then, on Thursday night, we'll get to see—maybe—the direction that the opposition want to do. But he has, of course, the opportunity to give a budget reply, unlike the former member for Farrer, who was not allowed the opportunity to even last to give one budget reply—not one. The boys sat down and plotted, prior to a funeral of one of their former colleagues, on how they would replace the member for Farrer.

Also when it comes to budgets and taxation measures, there will be consideration, of course—as there always is—on investment. Well, I'll tell you what has got a very low rate of return—that is the investment made in knocking off the member for Farrer and putting this bloke in.

My question is to the Prime Minister following the tragic—

Opposition members interjecting—

No! We're going to do this properly. The same rules will apply to both sides. The member for Lingiari is going to be shown the same respect as I've shown members on my left. The member will begin her question again. Order! We're going to reset. Members are entitled to be heard in silence. That's for everyone. The Leader of the Opposition! We're just going to reset—all members—so we can hear, out of respect to the member for Lingiari.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, following the tragic death of Kumanjayi Little Baby in my community of Mbantua in Alice Springs, how are the parliament and the government standing in solidarity with the family and our community at this sad time, during sorry business?

I thank the member for Lingiari for her question and for her leadership, along with the Minister for Indigenous Australians, on what is an extraordinarily difficult period. On behalf of the government and the parliament, I extend my deepest condolences to the family of Kumanjayi Little Baby. They are trying to bear what must be unbearable. Amid their devastation, they have asked for the space to allow sorry business to occur, so the memory of their beautiful child can be cherished and honoured. Kumanjayi Little Baby was just five years old, a bright young soul who loved the world in the joyful, curious, uncomplicated way that five-year-olds do. She loved puppies and Bluey and the colour pink. She loved going to kindy, and she loved her family because they so profoundly and deeply loved her.

Our hearts go out to the community in Alice Springs. Over days, hundreds of people, volunteers from all walks of life, joined law enforcement in their search for Kumanjayi Little Baby, in a spirit of unity. They now come together in their grief. This tragedy has shattered a family and shaken a community. We know that amidst the pain there is also anger, and that is understandable. The simple truth is that all governments of all persuasions over generations have not done enough to deal with what are generational challenges. Every Australian child has the right to grow up safe and loved, with the security of a roof over their head, with the opportunity of a great education, to be empowered to make the most of their potential and their life. Kumanjayi Little Baby deserved all of that.

For all those around the nation devastated by her loss, we look to the words of her mum, who has asked all Australians to 'look up to the night sky and find the brightest star where Kumanjayi Little Baby is now in heaven'. Together, let us reflect on that wish as we mourn the loss of a bright young life in an extraordinarily sad tragedy.

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. Leslie and Bernice from Wodonga in my electorate are 90 and 85. They've been approved for home support services but have been told it will take at least nine months for the funding to come through. Pamela and her husband from Alexandra have been trying to access home supports since 2024. They're in their 80s. I've written to you about all of them. Minister, are these delays acceptable, and, if not, how will you fix them?

I thank the member for Indi for her question. I acknowledge that she engages very regularly and very constructively with me about ensuring that older people in her community can access the very best aged-care services, and I appreciate that engagement very much. I'm aware of the correspondence that she has provided to me and my office, some of which we have discussed.

As we know, demand for aged-care services has increased extraordinarily rapidly with an ageing population. Today, we have more than 350,000 Australians receiving care under our Support at Home program. That's more than double the number of places compared to the Home Care Packages Program that it replaced just five years ago. We also have 830,000 Australians receiving care under the Commonwealth Home Support Program. We are in the process of finalising the allocation of an additional 83,000 Support at Home places this financial year to help with wait times and to get more Australians, such as those that the member's question refers to, the care that they need. These extra allocations are taking pressure off the national priority system and making sure that more people are getting the compassionate and dignified care that they need faster.

It's worth the House understanding that 99 per cent of the people more broadly that are on the national priority system are already eligible for some form of home support while they wait for their approved level package and that every single person assessed as urgent priority is allocated their full funding within a single month. On 31 December 2025, the waitlist under the Support at Home program was 94,963 people. That was a drop of more than 25,000 people from 30 September 2025.

Older Australians deserve a system that works for them, and this government is getting on with building one. This evening's budget will be one that proves this Labor government's commitment to continuously investing to build an aged-care system that Australians can be proud of. We've already announced our commitment to remove co-contributions for personal care services, such as showering, dressing and continence care, and we've stepped out the foundations of our plan to make residential care sustainable, affordable and prepared to keep up with the demands of an ageing population.

Our government is working tremendously hard and with great focus on ensuring that every Australian across our community can get the aged-care services that they require. I'm more than happy to continue to meet and discuss those issues in the member's local community and work to resolve those for the people that you've spoken about today.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to protect Australians and to support the quarantine of passengers that have been affected by the hantavirus outbreak?

Thank you to the member for Solomon. I know how proud he is of his beautiful community in the Top End in the Northern Territory, but I also know how particularly proud he is of the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre that has been headquartered in Darwin for almost a quarter of a century. Most recently, he's talked with pride about their deployment of a field hospital to east Katherine to help that community during the recent floods—just one example of almost 25 years of service from those terrific personnel. We'll be relying on their services to help deal with the hantavirus outbreak as well.

Hantavirus is a very, very rare virus for humans, and even rarer still is the transmission from human to human. But, where it does happen, we know it can be a very serious, even deadly, disease. There has, as I think all members of the House understand, been an outbreak of this virus on a cruise ship, Hondius, in the Northern Hemisphere. There have been five Australians—four Australian citizens and one permanent resident—as well as a New Zealander impacted by that outbreak, as passengers on the cruise ship. Yesterday, I reported that there had been eight reported cases of this, from cruise ship passengers, and three deaths. Very sadly, overnight that number has increased and there has been a report of a French national being hospitalised after returning to France and being currently in a critical condition.

Now, those five Australians and that New Zealander are in the process of being repatriated to Australia overnight. They were flown from Tenerife to the Netherlands. They are in good health. They are being kept informed about the arrangements that we are putting in place, and Foreign Affairs is in the process of finalising a flight to repatriate them to Australia.

Our government has a very clear view that quarantine arrangements for people arriving in Australia are a national responsibility—not something to be left, potentially, to different state governments putting in place different arrangements across state borders. So these travellers will be subject to arrangements that have been determined by our government.

Hantavirus, over the last 24 hours, has been listed as a human disease under the Biosecurity Act, which means it can now be subject to quarantine orders that will be made. These passengers will be flown into RAAF Base Pearce, north-east of Perth, and they will be immediately transferred to the national resilience centre or quarantine centre at Bullsbrook, which is effectively next door and will be staffed by staff from the NCCTRC deployed from Darwin. They will be quarantined there for three weeks, which is the strongest quarantine arrangement by any government that is receiving repatriated passengers from this cruise ship. After those three weeks, we'll be taking further advice from public health officials.

My question is to the Minister for Communications. Does the minister stand by her declaration to the independent inquiry into her travel that, on the evening of Saturday 7 June last year, she held an official ministerial meeting with South Australian Labor minister Chris Picton at Mrs Picton's 40th birthday party, which was held at a live music venue?

Thank you very much for the question. Yes, I stand by everything that I have said to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, and they have reviewed all the documents that I have contributed on that matter. I also note Minister Picton has confirmed that series of events in a series of media outlets.

My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General please update the House on the work of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, including its recently published interim report?

I thank the member for his question. I acknowledge this issue is one that is deeply personal to him and to others in this place. We will never forget that on 14 December last year the deadliest terrorist attack on Australian soil occurred, taking the lives of 15 innocent people and wounding dozens more. This must never happen again. It was an attack not only on Jewish Australians but on all Australians, and people in this country should not feel unsafe simply because of their identity.

In the aftermath of this horrific attack, the government acted to address abhorrent incidents of hatred and ensure that our laws are effective against evolving threats. And, on 8 January, the government also established the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, led by former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell. This royal commission is an important opportunity for Australians, particularly Jewish Australians, to have their voices heard. I've been moved by the evidence given by individuals since the hearings commenced on 4 May, and I'm heartened to hear of the safe and respectful environment the commission has enabled for its witnesses. Appearing before a royal commission and sharing these deeply personal, often confronting experiences is significant, and we should acknowledge that as a parliament. I'm sure I speak for all members in this place when I thank those who've shown such bravery in appearing before the commission, and I note that more than 10,000 submissions have been made so far. I continue to encourage members of the public with experience or knowledge relevant to the royal commission to make a submission and to follow the proceedings.

On 30 April, the royal commission delivered its interim report, which has been widely welcomed by peak Jewish groups, including the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies and the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. While Commissioner Bell found no gaps in existing legal or regulatory frameworks impeded the ability of law enforcement and security agencies to prevent or respond to the Bondi attack, the commission did make 14 recommendations, including with respect to enhancing our national counterterrorism arrangements and capabilities. The government will adopt and implement all recommendations of the interim report as they relate to the Commonwealth. I thank Commissioner Bell and the royal commission for their work to date and note that a final report will be delivered by 14 December.

As the Prime Minister has said, this royal commission is not the start or the end of what Australia must do to eradicate antisemitism. We'll continue to support the work of our Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, and work with states and territories to implement Australia's Counter-Terrorism and Violent Extremism Strategy 2025. We've taken action against hate crimes and we're delivering tougher gun laws. This royal commission strengthens our collective actions to help keep all Australians safe and ensure this tragedy never happens again.

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The minister has claimed that there is a $31 billion blowout in the cost of the construction of the Inland Rail. To give confidence to the validity of this number, as it seems rather incredible, can the minister nominate the five largest cost items and the amounts associated with them that are part of the $31 billion? And, if you can't nominate the five largest ones, can you nominate one and the cost item that is associated with it?

Well, I can nominate who's responsible for this debacle of a project, and that might be the person who asked me this question and some of his National Party colleagues. The Inland Rail, frankly, is an absolutely and utterly perfect example of why the National Party and their One Nation colleagues should never, ever, ever again be allowed near the Treasury coffers. This is the worst project in the country in the way in which it was developed, and I'm going to talk you through this.

In 2013, we provisioned $1 billion to do the planning work for Inland Rail—the planning work. It was never done. The government went out and announced a $9 billion program, funded by debt—not funded off cash balance, but funded off debt—to build Inland Rail without any planning and without any idea about how it was going to get into the port of Melbourne or into the port of Brisbane. They had no idea about that at all. Instead, they announced $9.3 billion to fund the whole thing. I'm giving you a history lesson here.

The minister will pause. The member for New England on a point of order?

I think I've been very fair. I've asked her to nominate items that make up the $31 billion. We haven't heard one as yet. I even offered that she just nominate one item and the amount that's associated with it. So it's most definitely on relevance. If she can't be relevant, can you please ask the minister to sit down.

I'm going to ask the minister to be directly relevant about the claims of the construction cost blowouts on the Inland Rail. She was asked about specifics regarding that. So far she's explaining to the House the costs that have been incurred. She does have another one minute and 40 seconds to get to the rest of the question. I'll make sure she is being directly relevant. She's giving cost breakdowns already. I don't know where she's going, but I'll listen carefully.

By 2020 the cost estimate had then risen to $16.4 billion, again funded from debt. Of course, when we came to office in 2022, we inherited this project. The first thing that I was told by the Australian Rail Track Corporation, the ARTC, who all of the figures come from, was that the project would need substantially more funding to finish it, but the ARTC could not tell us how much. They did not know how much it would cost. So we commissioned an independent expert to review the project. Dr Schott, when she released her review—the figures were based on those from the ARTC itself—said it looked like it was going to cost an additional $31.4 billion, but she couldn't be sure. So we then got ARTC and then Inland Rail, having accepted all of those recommendations, to have a look at it again, and they said to us very clearly that it is now a $45 billion project. The summary of the ACIL Allen work, if you care to go and have a look, is on my department's website. It will show to you that all of the ARTC estimates say that it is now a $45 billion project.

Frankly, every single one of the people who've been involved in this project should hang their heads in shame. It is a project that, frankly—we will now get to Parkes, which will see us begin to get a return, finally, on our investment. We will never get the money back for Inland Rail. As I'd say in Victoria, you've got more front than Myers to ask that question. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for Australians to see a doctor when they need urgent care? How are urgent care clinics helping to strengthen Medicare after a decade of cuts and neglect?

Mr Speaker, you could not find a better advocate for Medicare than the member for Dickson. She understands better than most just how important a high-quality universal health insurance system is for Australia and its people. That's why she campaigned so hard for more bulk-billing, for more doctors and nurses, for cheaper medicines and, of course, for more urgent care options.

Last week, yet again, she hosted the Prime Minister at the Murrumba Downs Medicare urgent care clinic. He loves it up there. I'm not quite sure how many times he's been. It's a lot.

Three.

Three times. And what's not to love? This is a big, busy general practice, which, since our investment on 1 November, is now 100 per cent bulk-billing. It's co-located with this terrific urgent care clinic, which has now seen almost 35,000 patients from the member for Dickson's community, taking pressure off the emergency department at the Redcliffe Hospital and delivering really high-quality urgent care. I go to Google reviews to just get some sense of that quality service people are getting. Sam, for example, said:

Came here—

that's the Murrumba Downs Medicare urgent care clinic—

after waiting for help in the emergency room for over 4hrs—

either Redcliffe or Caboolture, I suspect—

… I was seen and taken care of. The staff are lovely and the doctor was amazing and made me feel comfortable the whole time. Would recommend 100%.

This is just one of 135 Medicare urgent care clinics that are now open and operating. Two more will be open in coming weeks—Caloundra, on the Sunshine Coast, and Darwin is due to open in the next couple of weeks—rounding out our network of 137. They've already seen about three million Australian patients. When they're fully up and running, they'll see two million a year, half of whom tell us they would otherwise have gone to the local hospital emergency department, so it's taking that pressure off our busy hospital system. They're open seven days a week. They're available extended hours. They're seeing lots of kids who are suffering sports injuries or getting sick quickly. And, importantly for us, they are fully bulk-billed.

This is still a new model for Australia. After we introduced it, it's only been up and running for three years, but we know it is making a huge difference to patients and to our hospital system, and that's why the budget delivered tonight locks in urgent care as part of Australia's Medicare system forever. As the Prime Minister has said, $1.8 billion over five years to lock this thing into our Medicare system is just another investment in our commitment to deliver a stronger Medicare. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Communications. I refer to your previous answer. Were any ministerial staff or departmental officials present at the meeting, and were any notes taken?

I thank the member for her question. This has been the subject of a full audit of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority. I voluntarily referred myself to IPEA to review all of my travel across 2022 to 2025. IPEA reviewed nearly 2,000 line items and 243 different trips during that time. During this trip, IPEA has deemed this trip's dominant purpose to be for parliamentary purposes. It encompassed four different matters across two days: an announcement of Sporting Schools funding and three other appointments across the two days. IPEA has viewed this to be entirely within the rules. If you have further questions, I can refer you to the report, which is publicly available and 256 pages long.

Opposition members interjecting—

Do you have a problem with reading over there?

Order! The member for McEwen is warned.

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering meaningful action on gambling harm? Why are these reforms important?

I thank the member for Boothby for her question and for her and other caucus members who worked tirelessly on this issue over a long period of time. At the National Press Club in April, I announced that we will build on the reforms we've already delivered to combat gambling harm, working to (1) minimise children's exposure to wagering advertising, (2) break the connection between wagering and sport and (3) reduce the saturation and targeted nature of wagering advertising. This package forms our response to the social policy and legal affairs committee inquiry into this issue, which will be tabled later today.

These reforms get the balance right so that children don't grow up thinking sport and gambling are inextricably linked but that we let adults have a punt if they want to. Our changes will empower all Australians to opt out of all gambling advertising on all streaming services and digital platforms. They will ban all gambling ads during live sports broadcasts between 6 am and 8.30 pm and ban all gambling ads on radio during school pick-up and drop-off time. Celebrities and sports players will not be able to appear in gambling ads, and we'll ban the use of odds-style ads that target sporting fans. Gambling ads in sports venues and on players' jumpers and uniforms will be banned, and we're cracking down on online lottery products and banning online keno 'pocket pokies'. We will make match fixing a criminal offence across Australia and boost enforcement against illegal offshore gambling providers. We will strengthen BetStop further, expand financial counselling support and increase public awareness of online gambling harms. These build on our previous reforms. They will make a meaningful difference, and I encourage all members of the parliament to support them

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

Before members leave the House. I have a statement to make about proceedings for the budget.

Okay. It's normally courtesy to advise the Speaker of a question, but that's okay. I'll take the question now.

Speaker, obviously it goes to the essence of democracy in this place that we can ask questions of the government and that we know when the microphone is going to be switched off and when it's not going to be.

Government members interjecting—

No, this is critically important, and I'm asking this. I have met Tony Smith.

Government members interjecting—

I have met Tony Smith. I have. Why won't you, for once, let someone talk without your interjections?

Manager, what is the question to me?

The question is: would you please be able to come back to the opposition around the rules which dictate how the microphone is turned on and off in this place?

I can answer that question right now.

Alright. Okay.

Resume your seat. When the Speaker says, 'Resume your seat,' that's when the microphone goes off. That has always been the case.

Honourable members interjecting—

Alright, just resume your seat. Resume your seat for a moment, because I do have information to give to the House. I'm happy to meet separately with the manager to discuss this item. I understand what he is trying to get to, but every Speaker has had that authority. Once the Speaker says, 'Resume your seat,' in a question, in an answer or on a point of order, the microphone gets turned off. That has been the case since Broadcasting.

Okay, as long as we can be brief, because I don't want to detain the House, because I know members have commitments. If you have a question to me about the operations of the House, I'm happy to hear it.

Speaker, could you please have a look at what happened for the first question, because you did not say, 'Resume your seat,' and the microphone was turned off?

Out of respect for the manager, I'm happy to investigate that matter for him, and I shall report back to him. People are entitled to ask me questions. If it's a technical question, I'm always happy to hear it.

Before members leave the House, I have a statement to make about proceedings for the budget and budget reply. I just ask all members to note the usual arrangements in place for the budget week and, importantly, the courtesies that will apply to the Treasurer's budget speech this evening and equally to the Leader of the Opposition's speech in reply on Thursday evening. The Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition are entitled to speak without interruption. In accordance with precedent, should I determine that a member be required to leave the House under standing order 94(a), the member will be advised by written note and shall leave immediately. I ask all members to ensure that their guests arrive in the galleries in good time to undertake the secondary security clearance and to be seated by 7.10 pm. I trust there will be cooperation from members and their invited guests in the galleries, for whom they are responsible.

Finally, for the information of members, the speech clock will be on but, as the Leader of the House has indicated, it is only a guide. There is no time limit for the Treasurer or the Leader of the Opposition for this debate. I thank the House.

I present the Auditor-General's audit reports Nos 29 and 30 for 2025-26.

Documents made parliamentary papers.

I present the quarterly reports of the Commonwealth Ombudsman under section 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

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

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

The Government's broken promises and failure to deliver for regional Australia.

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—

At the moment, in the government, there is much more than an Agatha Christie novel going on. It's a whodunnit: who leaked, or who misplaced, the talking points? Some are suggesting the Butler did it! But we don't actually know. But I tell you what: it makes for very interesting reading on this, the fifth budget day by the member for Rankin.

What we see here is the main message: 'We will deliver a responsible budget for working Australians, focused on relief, resilience and reform.' I think not. Moreover, the Australian public thinks not, as well.

Then there's this subheading, in bold, just so that it stands out, and it reads:

HAVE YOU BROKEN A PROMISE

It should carry a question mark, but grammar has never been the strong point of those opposite. What it should actually say is: 'You have broken a promise,' because each and every one of them—particularly the Prime Minister—has broken a promise.

The first dot point under 'Have you broken a promise'—lack of question mark—is:

The right decision is to do the right thing with the right policies at the right time

I agree with that—tick! The second dot point is:

Young people, and their parents and grandparents are worried they will never own their own home

I agree with that, too—a tick for that.

I would suggest Labor members don't go out to the doors and repeat this next dot point:

They are frustrated with the intergeneration all equity.

I'm not quite sure what that actually means, but don't repeat it. Anyway, the next is:

Any responsible government must take these issues seriously.

Well, this isn't a responsible government; it's actually an irresponsible government, and it has been for four years. It has let Australians down so often.

Now, up the top—and it might give Cluedo, or whoever is investigating this, some sort of point and guide as to who might have misplaced it—it says either '6,060' or '6,000'—I don't know which—'social and affordable homes since elected'. It also then adds '23,000 in planning'. Well, that's a long way short of the one million, which then became 1.2 million, homes that Australia said it would build—a long, long way short.

The government's broken promises and failure to deliver for regional Australians is the topic of the matter of public importance debate today, and never has there been a better time to discuss this important topic. We heard the Prime Minister today so often saying that he has not broken his promises, when he actually has, on numerous occasions, whether it came to energy relief, whether it came to the number of houses he was going to build—whatever the case might be.

We also heard, interestingly enough, from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Now, she was talking about the Inland Rail, and that is yet another broken promise by this broken government. When she said that ministers should go and hang their heads in shame—any of those before her responsible for this project—I tell you what: she's not in agreement with the now Premier of Victoria, Jacinta Allan, because it was on 16 March 2018 that Jacinta Allan, then a Victorian minister responsible for infrastructure and transport, actually said this. She thanked the Deputy Prime Minister—I wonder who that could be?

An opposition member: Who was that?

I might have been me!—for acting quickly to release the funds which would provide much-needed upgrades to every regional rail line through the Regional Rail Revival program. Tick! That was under a coalition federal government. And we know, when there's a coalition federal government in Canberra, the split between federal and state is 80-20. And when Labor gets to power, gets to office in Canberra, it's fifty-fifty. And so, therefore, the states hold off on building infrastructure. They hold off on building anything. And this minister for infrastructure is now the minister for no structure, because the only thing she's building is complaints in her in-tray. And they are coming, rest assured, under the Rescue our Rail commitment that we're making to ensure that Inland Rail is actually delivered—not just half baked, under this mob; not just Parkes to Melbourne, but indeed Melbourne to Brisbane. And Minister Allan said: 'I'm also pleased that, in addition to the $1.57 billion Regional Rail Revival package, the Commonwealth will increase its contribution by $135 million to upgrade the north-east rail line to a class 2 standard to allow faster modern trains and give communities along the north-east line the services they expect and deserve.' See, there's a minister saying how pleased she is with what a federal government will do. The only thing that Premier Allan is now banking on is the Suburban Rail Loop. Do you know what the reason is? I made a mistake when I was the Deputy Prime Minister. I did, and I'm happy to fess up right here, right now. You know what I did?

A government member interjecting

Go on. I'm being goaded now by the minister. I enlisted the services of the ARTC to build the Inland Rail. I should have got the CFMEU on board. Had I got the CFMEU on board, the Comancheros, the Bandidos and all of those bikie gangs that benefit from the CFMEU, Inland Rail would continue. It would be continuing right now, and it would continue from Melbourne to Brisbane. Unfortunately, I erred. I mucked up. I apologise to the Australian public. I apologise to regional Australia for not getting the CFMEU on board. Anyway, there we go.

Jacinta Allan was right. I have to say Mark Bailey, another Labor minister, was right, because he also signed the intergovernmental agreement for inland rail. They recognised the importance of Commonwealth-state relations in building infrastructure. I'll tell you what, there are a lot of Labor infrastructure ministers and roads ministers who are now not so sure that they've got the right team, the right colour, in Canberra, because they're unable to build anything because they've got to stump up a whole lot more money. Certainly, tonight's budget will not bring the relief or the resilience or restore the funding that they so desperately need.

Our roads in regional Australia are crumbling. The National Stronger Regions Fund, which became the Building Better Regions Fund, has been axed by this mob, and, when they came to power, the member for Ballarat, the minister for infrastructure, said that they were going to pause and they were going to review and that there was going to be a 90-day review of all the infrastructure spending. It then became a 206-day review, but we haven't seen any programs or projects built since then. Regional Australia and certainly our councils on low rate bases are crying out for infrastructure. Their roads are deteriorating. They can't see any light at the end of the tunnel. Certainly, the Inland Rail has caused so many businesses so much heartache in the last 48 hours since Labor axed the program and said it was going to only become a Melbourne to Parkes line—less than half the distance of the total 1,700-kilometre corridor of commerce, which was first talked about in the 1890s and which was funded and started under a coalition government in 2018.

I remember when the first lot of steel was dropped off at Peak Hill on 15 January in that year, 2018, and it took a Labor government in 2026 to shelve it, to axe it, to bring the sledgehammer to it, and that is typical Labor, because typical Labor brings the sledgehammer to anything that's aspirational in this country. The Treasurer and every infrastructure minister and regional development minister stand condemned for doing this. It is just not right. What they should be doing is picking up the phone and talking to some of those hardworking businesses—such as AusRock Quarries at Parkes, such as Calvani Crushing at Forbes, and such as KB Concrete, which has offices in Dubbo, Wellington, Narromine, Coonabarabran and Gilgandra—who were left high and dry by axing the Inland Rail, not to mention Austrak at Wagga, which was going to build the sleepers for the Parkes and Narromine section through to Brisbane. It's simply not good enough, and Labor needs to explain why it is not delivering this nation-building piece of infrastructure.

More than that, it's in defence, it's in housing, it's in the capital gains, and it's in the whacking pensioners who need that rebate for the private health insurance that Labor said that they wouldn't touch and are now bringing the sledgehammer to. This budget will not bring the resilience or the restoration or the recovery or the relief to Australians right throughout this country. It's only going to bring more heartache, and Labor stands condemned because of that. Every single item tonight—you're not going to see the hope and confidence, the cost-of-living measures that the people of Australia are so desperately seeking. They want a government to succeed. They want a government to have their backs. And this government is doing nothing but bring more heartache and less hope to Australians—Mr and Mrs Average, farmers, small businesses, people right across particularly regional Australia, regional Australians who keep the lights on, who keep the exports going and who produce the food and fibre. They've been neglected by this shameful government. (Time expired)

I'm glad to stand here today to have another opportunity to talk about regional Australia. It's one of my favourite pastimes, although I was a bit surprised that the member for Riverina chose to raise our record on delivering for regional Australia this week. Going by the results of the Farrer by-election, I would have thought that the Nationals and Liberals might want to stay quiet for a bit longer. They've got a lot of work to do to win back the trust of regional Australia—a lot of work.

Honourable members interjecting—

The interjections—they were not forthcoming previously. I'd like the debate to be heard. I'm warning everybody.

I am a proud regional member of this place, and it's a great privilege to stand here as the minister for regional development. I'm incredibly fortunate to have spent my entire life living in regional Australia—to raise a family there, to run a business there and, now, to represent a regional community. I'm proud of our record in delivering for regional Australia, because that is exactly what we are doing: delivering. We're delivering programs across all portfolios that help regional Australians, with health, with housing and with education, from home batteries to cheaper child care to more home packages—no-one held back and no-one left behind—unlike those opposite, who pork-barrelled, issued press releases and called it a day whilst never actually delivering on so many of these 'projects'.

Our government is investing billions of dollars in remote, rural and regional Australia, and tonight's budget will reinforce that, with investment to increase access to housing, to deliver better health care, to create opportunities to study closer to home and to ease cost-of-living pressures. Our government wants every hard-earned dollar to go further for regional Australians. That's why, from 1 July this year, Australians will see further tax cuts as part of our broader agenda to ease cost-of-living measures. Not only that, our government is also saving small businesses thousands of dollars by making the instant asset write-off permanent. This means small businesses will be able to immediately deduct up to $20,000 for new equipment, from new tech to tools and machinery.

Speaking of dollars in pockets, we've got cheaper home batteries, which permanently cuts power bills for every Australian. In my electorate, Ray from Braidwood got in touch and said that his home battery system has already lowered his electricity bill. In the first month since his battery was installed, his bill dropped to $22. It has helped him change his usage habits so he can make better use of electricity in off-peak hours. But, instead of supporting regional Australians like Ray, those opposite are continuing to fight the climate wars. They're out of touch and out of reality.

I want to acknowledge the pressure that is on regional Australians as a result of the international fuel crisis. The conflict overseas is having an impact on our country, but nowhere more so than across our regions. We have further to travel. We need to access affordable diesel for our machinery, for long-haul freight and simply to get around. The availability of fertiliser is absolutely critical for our farmers. By acting quickly to secure fuel for industries most exposed to the shortage, which is agriculture, transport and mining, we are protecting regional productivity. We've moved quickly to more than halve the fuel excise and reduce the road user charge to zero for three months, to the end of June. This has helped to keep freight moving across our country, because we know Australians are feeling the pinch.

The availability of fertiliser is absolutely critical for our farmers, and that's why our government secured a deal for 250,000 tonnes of additional agriculture-grade urea for the upcoming planting season. We have also underwritten the purchase of fertiliser for the private sector, to make sure that we can support availability. Farming and agriculture have always been the backbone of our country and of regional Australia in particular.

We know how important it is to support these industries, and that is exactly what we are doing. That's why tonight our budget will deliver a landmark $10 billion Australian fuel security and resilience package, to safeguard the nation's energy sovereignty. This will secure more fuel and fertiliser supplies for Australians by targeting financial support and establishing a government owned reserve. Our government will protect Australia's energy interests, support essential industries and help secure reliable fuel access during future supply issues.

While we're on the topic of keeping regional Australia moving—our government is delivering when it comes to vital transport infrastructure. We've doubled Roads to Recovery funding to $4.4 billion, with 85 per cent of that program being spent in our regions. We've increased the road Black Spot Program to $150 million annually, with around half of that going to our regions. I was lucky enough to join Minister Catherine King and Minister Gallagher yesterday for the announcement of $100 million upgrades to rail infrastructure between Sydney and Canberra, which is another good news story for our regions, making rail travel from Queanbeyan, Bungendore, Tarago, Goulburn and more more efficient and more reliable on that Sydney to Canberra line.

We're also making access to health care more reliable for people in the regions. Our Medicare urgent care clinics have been a game changer for our health systems. They are providing free, timely and high-quality access to thousands of Australians closer to home. Of the 137 urgent care clinics, 47 are in regional, rural or remote communities. I know what a difference it makes. Mary from my electorate, in Googong, took the time to let me know about the excellent service her granddaughter received at the Queanbeyan urgent care clinic recently. She was so impressed she was able to see a doctor after hours, with no wait time and professional and attentive staff who even took the time to draw a couple of pictures on her granddaughter's hand to distract her from the procedures.

We've delivered more regional university study hubs to help country students access higher education without moving. It's critically important, because your postcode should never be a barrier to opportunity. In April I was delighted to open the new country university centre in Tumut, in the Snowy Mountains. In fact, the member for Riverina was also there, and he was quite impressed with the investment that our government had made to provide access to more tertiary education where people are, closer to home.

A government program or a policy doesn't have to have the word regional in it to benefit regional Australians. One-third of Australians live outside our major capital cities. I think it should be more. Those of us who live there know how good it is. Not only do they not have to have regional in the title but, every time a policy comes in front of us, we've got to make sure it works for every Australian and that they are considered across our work, no matter where they live.

Those opposite have talked a big game about their infrastructure investments. But it wasn't the case. A billion dollars was committed by this side of the House in 2013, before we left government, to plan Inland Rail. When those opposite took government, they announced Inland Rail and they wanted to fund it through debt—$9.3 billion, and that would get from Melbourne to Brisbane. We know that never happened. By 2020, the cost estimate rose to $16.4 billion. That's what happens when you don't have a plan. By 2022, when we came to government again, the ARTC said, 'We no longer know how much it will cost.' So we got a review—$31.4 billion. Now, according to independent estimates, it's $45 billion and it can no longer be funded by debt equity. I know the member for Riverina is passionate about rail. I think a lot of people across this place are passionate about rail. But Wes Judd, a dairy farmer in Millmerran, said, 'In an environment of necessary budget restraint, this decision protects taxpayers from an unsustainable project while safeguarding prime agricultural land.'

There is a time to make sure that things get done properly, and, each and every time the Nationals and the Liberal Party have tried to deliver an infrastructure program, it has been poorly planned with colour coded spreadsheets and poor audit reports. The Building Better Regions Fund, which the member for Riverina referenced, was so badly planned and was so totally dismissed by the ANAO that we had to can it. There was no saving the project. Inland Rail has been described as 'let down by weak ministers and gutless politicians'. Some have said:

The corridor was wrong from the start, and regional Queensland has paid the price for a decade.

They're not my words; they're the words of the former leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, and they are about the former, former leader of the Nationals, Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England.

On that, I'll conclude my remarks. Those opposite want to talk a big game about regional Australia, but time and time again it's left to this side of the House, the Labor Party, to deliver. That's why there are more regional members on this side of the House than there are on that side of the House—because regional Australia no longer believe what the Liberal and National parties say. They rely on the Labor Party to deliver, and that's exactly what we're doing. (Time expired)

Today is an incredibly important day. It is budget day. We're all hanging out, waiting to hear what the Treasurer is going to bring to us. I've compiled a playlist especially for tonight using some of the Prime Minister's top songs. I'm not going to sing them. It's okay! Songs include 'nobody held back', 'nobody left behind', 'no-one worse off in aged care' and don't forget the old faithful 'my word is my bond'. Well, they have been clearly broken. They have been broken, every single one of them, especially in regional Australia.

I want to start with the private health rebate. This government has run out of its own money to spend and therefore is coming for, in this instance, our older folk, our over-65s. It is raiding the private health fund to, apparently, pay for aged care a little bit later. The fact is that these people have been paying their taxes all their lives. They now get to 65, when they just might require more medical intervention, and, as pensioners, they are now going to be having to pay potentially up to $1,000 extra. There will be so many who exit the private health fund for their own needs. They've been responsible all their lives, and now guess what? They're going to have to rely on the public health system. I don't think that's a good move. I just don't think that's a good move, and I don't think anyone in that situation is going to think that's a good move. Minister Butler is going to be ripping $3 million from private health consumers for aged care. What for? It's for beds, for home-care packages. I heard what Minister Rae had to say during question time—that there are over 230,000 people waiting for Support at Home, waiting for their Commonwealth home-care package.

In the regions, there is no-one to deliver those services. We have aged-care providers who are saying to potential elderly clients 'sorry, our books are full; our books are closed; we'll get back in touch with you when we've got a space'. What are they doing? Are they actually waiting for people to die—is that the plan?—because there's not enough money in the Commonwealth Home Support Program? Two hundred and thirty thousand people waiting is just not good enough. And I can assure you that in my electorate of Mallee they have been coming to tell me so.

We have assessments being done with AI, for crying out loud! Whoever thought that was a good idea ought to lose their job. The fact is that I have a deaf man who is 80 years old and who had his assessment for functionality done on the phone. Who thought that was a good idea? They've done the assessment, and now he's on a waitlist. This goes on and on under this Labor government. It cannot manage its portfolios, and it is the people in the regions who are particularly suffering.

The Commonwealth Home Support Program—I could go on about this all afternoon. The reality is that even gardeners and the people who would clean your home are not around; there is no-one out in the regions who is able to do this. So we have elderly people who don't want visitors coming to their homes because their grass is up to their doorhandle and because their homes are filthy. They can't clean them. Where is the minister on this? Why does it matter so little, while the government is expending and building debt like there's no tomorrow? A trillion dollars of debt is what Australians are going to be paying for into the future.

If I hear a spiel from the Treasurer tonight about intergenerational equity and fairness, I tell you what: I will go spare. I will have to control myself because I'm in the House, but I am so done with this argument. It is our young people who are going to be paying off this debt into decades to come. The way this Labor government has treated the people of Australia on an ongoing basis is a disgrace, and for the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to gaslight Australians is unbelievably poor. (Time expired)

I have to confess I had a little chuckle when I saw the title of this MPI. Possible a better title would have been 'Nats running scared over One Nation's surge in the region'.

Opposition members interjecting—

I think it's a little bit triggering when you mention the success that One Nation is having in their heartland. Who really has broken the promises to regional Victorians, and who really has betrayed regional Victorians? The seat of Farrer wasn't a Labor Party seat, yet its voters sent a pretty big message to this place about what they think about the opposition, the Liberal and National parties. I see people on that side exiting the chamber—people whose electorates share borders with the seat of Farrer. Echuca-Moama is a really good example. Echuca is in the seat of Nicholls; Moama sits in the seat of Farrer. In Moama, 75 per cent of the vote went to One Nation. Last time they got about, I think, seven per cent in that seat. Yet the Nationals come in here and attack our record. Perhaps it's got something to do with their side and the way they've broken trust with regional Australia.

Let me take a moment to reset the record and remind the House what Labor is doing for regional Australia and why it is we are now in this historic place where there are more regional MPs in the Labor Party government than there are National Party MPs. In fact, there are more crossbenchers than there are National Party MPs. That is the state of the parliament that we have today.

Bulk-billing is a really good example. We are rolling out bulk-billing across the whole of Australia, and who benefits the most? Regional Australians. There are more doctors and more bulk-billing clinics in my electorate than ever before. Three out of five clinics in my electorate are now bulk-billing. New clinics are opening up and bulk-billing.

There are tax cuts for every worker—all workers—not their outdated old stage 3 tax cuts, which would have seen the top end of town—people living in inner-city Melbourne and Sydney—receiving the biggest tax cut. We are making sure every Australian gets a tax cut—every worker. Who benefits the most? Those on the lowest incomes. And where do they predominantly live? In regional and rural Australia and outer metro areas.

We have supported award-wage workers with getting a wage increase. Those opposite said it would break the bank and break small business. We are supporting those low-paid workers and ensuring they get a fair day's return for a fair day's work. We are the government that is making sure that people keep more of what they earn and earn more. That is what we're doing.

The cuts to student debt are really making a difference, particularly for those who live in the regions—those who choose to live in the regions and support people in the regions and forgo big salaries in town to work in the regions. That is making a real difference to their cost of living. In my own electorate of Bendigo, just over 17,000 constituents benefited from that one measure alone.

But it's not just in health and education that we're delivering real changes for people in the regions. On infrastructure, just using my own electorate of Bendigo as an example, since we came to government we've seen the million-dollar investment that we've got into stage 1 of the North Bendigo Recreation Reserve start. We've seen funding go into the Heathcote Civic Precinct upgrade and the Frederick Street precinct upgrade—$12 million to transform that part of Castlemaine. Funding has gone into Marong through the Housing Support Program to make sure that Marong has the water pressure that it needs to build more homes. Funding is going into what I mentioned prior to question time: updating our rural water system to ensure that we have piped water in parts of Greater Bendigo which are currently being serviced through gold-rush channels.

We're also investing more in Bushmasters and securing that workforce for the next five years. We're investing more in manufacturing and helping really innovative small local manufacturers grow, double their footprint and give more people in our region a job. This is just my example. We have so many regional MPs that we could have this MPI go all afternoon, and they should be given the opportunity to stand up and talk about the great achievements of this government and how we're delivering for regional Australia. As our minister said, a third of Australians live in regional Australia. We have not forgotten them. We are delivering for them, and that's why there are more people who represent regional electorates on this side of the House.

Today we're on the brink of what looks like yet another brick being kicked out from the foundations of our nation. Australians know that anyone can front the camera ahead of an election and make promises. Over the last few years, we've heard promises like this: $275 off your power bill; protecting the rights of those who have worked all of their life by not scrapping negative gearing and not increasing capital gains tax; and no health cuts. But it takes leadership, integrity and responsibility to the Australian people to keep those promises and to do the work that makes those promises a reality.

It is becoming alarmingly apparent that we have a Labor government that's not willing to do the work. Just last week, the government announced the Inland Rail would not go ahead north of Parkes. As the member for Parkes, I am aware of what this means to Australia, and I'm acutely aware of what it means to the electorate of Parkes. Businesses, organisations and families have been planning around this landmark project for many years. This is not a new project. There has already been significant money spent on this freight route between Melbourne and Brisbane. Some of it has been built, including 160 kilometres of upgraded track between Narrabri and North Star—that's passed—to the north of Parkes. Now this is a rail line to nowhere. Businesses have invested and relocated for the Inland Rail. Families have planned their lives around it, and whole communities are now facing a different future.

This project is critical to the growth of our nation. It would take hundreds of thousands of trucks off the road every single year. It would cut emissions, build jobs and ensure that we have the capacity to increase productivity. Have you heard that word, 'productivity', as well as 'population' and 'economy'? I'll now quote from the ALP website:

… the Albanese Government continues to deliver the infrastructure, skills, jobs and services that will stimulate regional economies and build thriving communities.

How does axing one of the single most important infrastructure projects drive regional economies, and how does it build thriving communities? It doesn't.

This is just one of a series of betrayals by this government. Earlier this year, I asked councils across the Parkes electorate what they needed from the federal government in the budget. Councils, the very organisations that provide so many essential services to Australians, are experiencing severe financial stress. They're facing higher and higher costs. Their grant funding and funding streams have been cut, and they're being handed more and more responsibilities by both state Labor and federal Labor governments. This is the No. 1 priority for councils, not only in the electorate of Parkes but right across regional Australia. As the shadow assistant minister for local government, I have heard this message time and time again. Local government is hurting. Local government is hurting from announcements such as axing the Inland Rail and cutting road infrastructure.

Councils have more responsibilities in aged care, child care and health care, where the state and federal governments have let them down. They are struggling to fund the infrastructure our communities need. Where is the money to help them with the facilities Australians use every day for water security, community halls, emergency airstrips, libraries, public pools and roads? They ask, but they're not being heard by this government. They ask, but they're being ignored by this Labor government. This is from a government that claims it's putting regional Australia at the centre of its plans for prosperity and a resilient future.

The government's promises to local government ahead of the 2022 election are being broken. There is no respect and no trust, just broken promises. Cut by cut, brick by brick, this government is bringing down the foundations of regional Australia that have been built by hard work over many generations. Cut by cut, brick by brick, this government is cutting the legs out from under the people who have made our country. In the past year alone, we have seen their rights and their services undermined through changes to water law, devastating cuts to the NDIS, a rapidly rising cost of living and a lack of planning for or even recognition of the fuel crisis, backward-sliding telecommunications and hasty changes to the gun laws without any consultation. These are just some of the ways in which the Labor government is targeting regional Australians through a thousand cuts. In tonight's budget, you can bet your bottom dollar there'll be another thousand more.

The Albanese Labor government is investing billions in remote, rural and regional Australia. We don't just deliver a pork-barrel chunk of money for regional infrastructure and call it a day, like those opposite did. We are delivering all our programs, across all portfolios, to help regional Australians with their health, housing and education.

I represent a rural, remote and regional electorate in the electorate of Braddon, which spans across the north-west coast of Tasmania, down the west coast—the wild west—across to King Island.

An honourable member: It's beautiful.

It is beautiful, thank you. I was shocked when I read what this MPI is about, because I wanted to come in here and talk about some of the things that we are delivering not only for the electorate that I represent, which is rural, remote and regional, but also right across the country in.

In Burnie, we have delivered an urgent care clinic that has seen 1,800 presentations, and it opened in March; 1,800 people have been able to go through the doors of that urgent care clinic to keep them out of the Burnie hospital emergency department. The Devonport Urgent Care Clinic, open for two-and-a-bit years now, has seen over 40,500 presentations. I had to actually go back and look at that figure because I thought it was wrong. It offers free walk-in care when people need it over extended hours, seven days a week, taking pressure off both our North West Regional Hospital and the Mersey Community Hospital. It is improving accessibility to health services for regional Australians—the people that live in my region.

Our government has committed to deliver more urgent care clinics right across the country, with four out of five Australians living within a 20-minute drive of their local clinic. So don't try and stand there and tell us over on this side that we are not delivering for regional Australia, because that is one part. There are Medicare mental health centres offering free walk-in mental health care and support. We are establishing a national network of 92 Medicare mental health centres, including five in Tasmania. In the electorate of Braddon there are two, one in Burnie and one in Devonport. There's no need for an appointment and no need for a referral. Access to timely mental health care is available without delay, without a referral and without cost. The really important thing that I love about these centres is the support from support workers who have travelled their own journey with mental health issues.

We delivered tax cuts for every taxpayer, including more coming this year and next year. That will benefit all taxpayers right up and down the income scale—not just those on the big money up there but everyone, on every scale of the system. The average tax cut was $43 a week in 2026-27, and that is benefiting over 45,000 taxpayers in my electorate of Braddon alone.

On penalty rates: we've passed legislation to protect penalty and overtime rates. That benefits 2.6 million Australians who work on our public holidays, and we can thank them for that. But, also, the fact is that they now get recognition for their weekends, late nights and early mornings, and that delivers on a commitment that we put to the electorate in 2025.

And just take a look at the number of regional electorates that we represent right around this horseshoe. They put their faith in us, and we have delivered on that. We're funding road upgrades in regional programs like Roads to Recovery and the Black Spot Program. These programs support the construction and maintenance of local roads. Again, in the electorate of Braddon, between 2024 and 2029, local councils—those people that do rely on us to support them, which we do really well—will receive almost $29 million through Roads to Recovery. That's important for people who travel the roads every day to go to work and for our transport industry in coming and going from our ports. Those are really important issues.

We have cheaper medicines, bulk-billing and hospital funding. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive, helping pensioners, concession-card holders and families with young children. In Braddon, we've got 70 per cent of GPS now fully bulk-billing. We've got 27 Medicare bulk-billing practices—10 of these switched to bulk-billing after we made the changes on 1 November. That is making quality health care accessible, along with the urgent care clinics and the cheaper PBS medicines for people who live in our regions. There is so much more, if only I had more time, but we are delivering for regional Tasmania. (Time expired)

I'm going to start with an apology to the member for Riverina. When I came into this place in 2020, he was the infrastructure minister at the time, and I was very hard on him. I was very hard, as a local member looking after my community that had Inland Rail running through it. We all saw the benefits, but it's difficult to deliver big infrastructure. I see the member for Blair, and he has equally raised the concerns of his community in the Lockyer Valley, and that's been important because local communities need to be represented when we deliver these big projects. They impact us. The impact is not just local; it benefits the whole nation. That's what nation-building infrastructure is about.

I pushed the minister of the time hard and I said some things that I probably should have considered a bit more deeply, but at no stage was there ever any doubt that it was our intention to deliver Inland Rail, to overcome the challenges, to work through them with our local communities and to spend the time that it took to get that job done. That was important to me because Inland Rail has been a dream for Toowoomba for some time. It was back in the 1930s that Littleton Groom, one of my predecessors in the role, after whom the seat is now named, first started talking about an inland rail coming up through to Toowoomba and connecting us with Melbourne. Of course, the war got in the way, but subsequent members have talked about it, and, under Ian MacFarlane, we started to get this thing going in consultation and working with the Labor government of the day. John McVeigh played a huge role in getting the project through, and I think about the work that was done in getting the project aligned with the Wellcamp airport.

We have three major highways running through Toowoomba—the Warrego, the Gore and the New England—and, at each of those intersections, we started planning for Inland Rail. We had the Second Range Crossing come through—a $1.2 billion injection of infrastructure into our region that was lined up so that, when the Inland Rail came through, we'd have a great trucking route that would access the highways, to enable us to move freight from rail to road easily. We made that investment. I think of places like InterLinkSQ. This is an investment that's been made right on the connection between the east-west rail line that Queensland Rail own, and Inland Rail was going to intersect with it. They've invested more than $50 million of private money into preparing that site for Inland Rail. In the same area, there were grants given by local, state and federal governments of both sides over the past 10 years. The Labor government in Queensland contributed to that as well. And we got ready for it. We saw, at the 2022 election, a change of government, and the Prime Minister promised my electorate that this project would be delivered, that Inland Rail would be delivered. They said they needed to fix it, but they would deliver it, and at a no stage was there any suggestion this project would be cut short.

When questions were raised about the cost of the project, I pointed out multiple times that the opportunity was there to pause the project at Toowoomba, where you would get 90 per cent of the benefits of the project, that most of the cost is between Toowoomba and Brisbane and that that's where most of the challenges, as raised by the member for Blair, come through. I made that suggestion, and I put it through many, many times. It was an important piece of discussion. I sent 31 questions in writing to the minister during the last four years, asking when this project is going to be delivered, when we will start seeing works and what things are holding it back. At no stage, in any of the 31 answers I got, was there ever a suggestion that this project would get cancelled. I wrote six letters to the Prime Minister. At no stage in their response did they suggest that this project was going to get cancelled. After all of that, here we are. This is a project that Toowoomba has been waiting for, has invested in and has built its future around. It was promised that it would come to us. The Prime Minister has just canned it and walked away. He didn't consult with us. He didn't talk to anyone who'd invested money in the project. He didn't talk to anyone locally. There was no consultation. He just canned it and walked away. We've heard some wonderful speeches here, all talking about the wonderful things Labor does. No-one on the Labor side has acknowledged that Toowoomba has invested significantly in this project based on the promises made by this Prime Minister that he has now broken.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then under the former Liberal-National coalition government, let me tell you: it was a colour coded origami horror show of press releases and false promises for our regions. The roads, infrastructure and sporting facilities, if they were built—who will ever remember that bastion of regional sport, North Sydney, getting a pool? They took our regions for mugs.

The claim that this government has made broken promises and failed regional Australia is patently untrue. It's not what I see in Paterson, and it's not what I see across regional Australia. Regional Australia is not being talked about from a distance under this government; we're here representing it. It's being backed with real investment in real communities with real outcomes that are already changing real people's lives. And that's exactly what governing for regional Australia should look like.

In the last month alone, we've seen significant projects and investments delivered across my electorate of Paterson, all while keeping a clear focus on strengthening regional communities, regional jobs and regional services. The Hunter Veteran and Family Hub that has just been opened is supporting 22,000 veterans right across the Hunter, Newcastle and the Central Coast. Five hundred veterans have passed through the doors, not to mention the 3½ thousand serving Defence personnel from RAAF Base Williamtown and those that serve at Singleton, who are all using this fantastic hub in Maitland. Kurri Kurri has just received new netball courts. Maitland has received the new Max McMahon sporting facilities.

Delivering for regional Australia isn't just about major highways and big announcements; it's about making sure our kids have the same opportunities as kids everywhere else, right across the country. Port Stephens Koala Hospital has just received $3 million for groundbreaking research, because we're saving the koalas in regional Australia as well. MGA Thermal, an incredible company, got $3.2 million through ARENA to commercialise cutting-edge energy storage technology that will save energy for businesses in the regions and the cities alike. That means local jobs, local industry and regional economic growth.

These aren't promises on paper; they're projects on the ground. They're already being delivered. And, when we look at the last 12 months, the scale of delivery for regional Australia becomes even clearer. The expansion and opening of our magnificent Newcastle Airport as an international gateway opens up new opportunities for tourism, trade and economic growth right across our region. For too long, communities like ours were told to wait our turn, but international connectivity, economic support and investment shouldn't only be for capital cities—and we know it's not. Our airport is the airport that our region deserves, and that's why a Labor government has delivered it.

We have the Kongsberg missile factory that's just under construction in my electorate, a $50 million solar foundry at Black Hill that will create 300 jobs, $1 million for Carrie's Place, supporting women and children escaping family violence and $1.6 million in black spot funding for local roads in Port Stephens. These aren't false promises. They're delivering—we are delivering.

The Maitland Urgent Care Clinic has also opened its doors and is already making a difference for families across our region. Every week around 300 people are walking through those doors to access free urgent care close to home without the long waits of an emergency department or the cost of private care. That's exactly what Medicare was designed to do and exactly what regional Australians deserve.

Alongside these local investments, we're backing nation-building infrastructure that will transform regional Australia for generations to come. We've committed $667 million to progress high-speed rail from Newcastle to Sydney, and we are doing the proper planning. This will not be the debacle that we've seen through the Inland Rail. For the Hunter and New South Wales, it means faster connections and a greater opportunity. Alongside that, we're delivering the M1 Pacific Motorway extension to Raymond Terrace—a $1.7 billion investment—and we're going to deliver it on budget and more than 12 months early. That's right—early and on budget! That's what an Albanese Labor government does in the regions. Right next door in my neighbouring electorate, we've got the Singleton Bypass, the Hexham Straight Widening and the Newcastle Inner City Bypass—over $3 billion worth of roadworks happening in our region. That's not a government that just delivers with a press release. That's a government where the rubber hits the road.

To understand the country, you actually have to visit it. But, more than that, you have to listen. Only yesterday I was in Coober Pedy—just one of the many communities forgotten by Labor. I've been travelling and listening every day, recently in the far west coast, the far north and the far north-east. There I heard from residents, station owners and industry leaders. Whilst these communities are remote, they are vital to South Australia. Out in the bush, your word is all you have. If you make a promise, you keep it. If you say you're going to help a neighbour, you help them. If you say you're going to do something, you do it. Unlike Labor, this is the code we live by in the country. To them a promise is just a script for a TV ad. Their word is absolutely useless.

Let's look at the facts. I spoke with David Bell from Dulkaninna Station. He told me about the Birdsville Track. This road carries over half a billion dollars worth of stock every year. It is a vital freight path. It needs to be sealed. It has been closed for 150 days, and station owners can't get their stock in and out and are instead still going through Queensland. The Albanese government is looking to slash local road funding, essential support, from $78 million to $60 million. Even with supplementary funding, South Australia remains the lowest funded state in the nation on a per capita basis. Since 2017, our supplementary funding has been frozen at $20 million, meaning that Labor's inflation has already silently cut this vital program by more than 20 per cent. This is a broken promise from a government that said it would leave no Australian behind.

Labor also promised to deliver on regional health, but in Port Lincoln, amazingly, they are still waiting on an Medicare urgent care clinic. Whyalla received a clinic, which I welcome, but the data shows a greater need in Port Lincoln. This is an act that looks decidedly political. The government promised to fix child care. I have the lowest access to child care in the whole country. They announced the Building Early Education Fund grant program. We got excited, but look at the rules. In Crystal Brook, Andrew Sargent and the community group is ready to build, but the rules say that you must already own a centre to apply. It locks out the very people—the community volunteers—who need it the most. It is a plan for the city, made by people from the city.

I'll say it again: in the country, if you make a promise, you keep it. My electors in Grey will remember those broken promises. If you say you're going to help a neighbour, you help them. This is another broken promise from a government that said it wouldn't leave the country behind. Its word is worthless.

Finally, we come to this very budget. Anthony Albanese promised no new taxes, no changes to super and no changes to CGT.

I will remind the member to use correct titles in the House, please.

But, as you know, his word is his bond, and, just like Pinocchio, his nose gets longer. He is now planning a housing tax and a tax on family and farming trusts, and he's letting bracket creep take $2,000 a year from workers. This is the highest-taxing government in history. The government's new tax on discretionary trust distributions and adjustments to the capital gains discount pose a massive risk to family planning. Farmers use trusts to manage volatile income and to transition family ownership. If trusts lose that flexibility, regular farming families could face crippling tax bills. Combined with potential changes to CGT on land transfers, these policies risk draining finances. There is the old adage that farmers die rich but live poor. Increased tax liabilities will disrupt family farming models and force unintended asset sales just for farmers to stay afloat.

This government gave its word to regional Australia, but it broke it on roads, broke it on health and broke it on taxes because Labor's word is worthless.

Today, the Albanese Labor government holds more regional seats in this parliament than the Liberal Party does and than the National Party does. We don't just represent the regions; we are the voice of the regions. Since I became the member for Bullwinkel, I've made it my mission to ensure that our regional towns are seen and heard. I'm proud to say that I have welcomed more than 16 ministers to our electorate in the last year, and bringing those decision-makers of this country directly to our farms and our clinics and our local business is important.

While I was born and raised in the city, I served as a remote area nurse for two decades. I've been on the frontlines in the communities where the nearest hospital isn't just a few suburbs away but is a journey. I understand on a personal level that in the regions health care isn't just a policy area; it's a lifeline. And that's why I'm so proud that our government is delivering in health care, including the largest investment in the history of Medicare to ensure that nine out of 10 people are bulk-billed by 2030. We aren't just patching up a system; we are strengthening it from the ground up. We've committed an additional $1.8 billion to our public hospitals to reduce waiting times, bringing our total hospital funding to a record $33.9 billion.

In Northam, I had the honour of opening up our Medicare mental health urgent care clinic, which has already become a pillar of the community there. And, just 40 minutes up from the regional town, in the periurban township of Mundaring, we've opened the new Mundaring Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, which has already, in the last couple of months, seen over 1,600 visits. This is a fully bulk-billed urgent care clinic located right on the highway artery that serves our electorate and those people in regional areas. By June 2026, 47 of the 137 urgent care clinics will be in regional areas, providing the quality care that our families deserve.

But clinics, of course, are nothing without the people that staff them, and attracting professionals to the regions is a longstanding challenge that we acknowledge. That didn't just happen overnight, and it won't be fixed overnight, but we are making the biggest investment in decades. For example, we have waived HECS debt for doctors and nurses who work in our regions for five years. We've provided over $600 million to grow our health workforce, supporting hundreds of scholarships for nurses and midwives, and we are funding a record cohort of GP training places, 1,750 for this year alone. There is a huge focus within that on the Remote Vocational Training Scheme for hard-to-fill locations.

We know that productivity is lifted when we invest in our people, and that's why we also want our regional students to have the same opportunity as those in the city. Last year, I was incredibly proud to join Minister Jason Clare to officially open the northern Regional University Study Hub. This is one of 56 regional study hubs nationwide that have supported nearly 21,000 students. From Northam to Broome, we are ensuring you don't have to leave your home in the regions to get world-class education.

We stand with our primary producers. In York, I recently walked the farms with agriculture minister Julie Collins to meet with grain growers who were dealing with the high cost of diesel and fertiliser. To protect them, we're delivering a landmark $10 billion Australian Fuel Security and Resilience package. We also met with the shearers association to ensure that woolshed shearers are trained in the off season.

And, of course, beyond that there are cost-of-living relief measures—tax cuts for everyone, capping PBS medicines and 1800MEDICARE—and a doubling of the Roads to Recovery funding to $4.4 billion, with 85 per cent of that funding going to regional areas. And we're fixing the telecommunications and digital divide through our $1.1 billion Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia, bringing fibre upgrades to nearly one million regional premises. We are governing for all Australians. (Time expired)

The time for this discussion has now concluded. I just remind the House that, when people are on their feet speaking, it's courteous not to have too much chat in the chamber.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, I present the following reports: Examination of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission annual report 2024-25 and Examination of the National Anti-Corruption Commission annual report 2024-25, incorporating a dissenting report.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—The NACC holds a very significant role in Australia's democratic architecture. Its role in investigating and deterring serious or systemic corruption is central to maintaining trust in Commonwealth governance and institutions. This is supported by the NACC's broader work and its functions in anticorruption education, monitoring and reporting.

In the committee's examination of the 2024-25 reporting period, the committee has noted the growing scale and complexity of the NACC's work. The NACC has received a significant volume of referrals and progressed assessments, preliminary investigations and corruption investigations across a range of matters and subject areas, including procurement, recruitment and senior public sector decision-making.

The committee's examination has recognised this important work the NACC has undertaken, and we have also identified areas for further improvement. It's important for me to note that the committee does not oversight or reprosecute individual investigative outcomes, as this is not part of our oversight role.

The committee has made three recommendations as a result of our examination. These are focused on improving the timeliness of the NACC's processes, improving the effectiveness of the NACC's communication with referrers, and improving the focus the NACC brings to building public confidence.

Further to this examination, the committee has also commenced a standalone inquiry into aspects of the commission's performance in fulfilling its functions. I look forward to examining emerging issues in greater depth as part of the committee's broader oversight responsibilities under the NACC Act.

The committee has also examined the NACC inspector's annual report and acknowledges the significant work of the inspector during the 2024-25 reporting period. During this period, the inspector received 75 complaints, compared with 50 complaints in the first year of operation.

These complaints include the NACC not investigating a particular referral; challenges in communicating with the NACC; and concerns about the time it takes the NACC to respond to referrals.

The committee has noted the inspector's decision to investigate the complaints received about the NACC commissioner's involvement in defence related referrals and his ongoing role with the IGADF, as complaints of agency maladministration or officer misconduct under section 184(1)(e) of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022.

The committee acknowledges the considered approach the inspector is taking to this issue, and we appreciate the transparency with which she's communicated with the committee and the public.

I want to thank the NACC and the NACC inspector for their engagement throughout this examination and this report. Thank you to my fellow committee members, including the deputy chair, the member for Indi, for their work, and to the committee secretariat for their ongoing support.

I commend the reports to the House.

by leave—The year 2024-25 reflects the second year of operation for the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and these reports represent the second time the parliamentary joint committee has undertaken its statutory function of examining the annual reports of the NACC and the NACC inspector. This is an important part of the committee's oversight role because it provides a yearly opportunity to review the performance of Australia's federal integrity body and its watchdog. Are these offices properly resourced? How are they spending their time? What activities are they focused on? Are they fulfilling their mandates? We ask these questions on behalf of all Australians, who have a right to expect a federal integrity body that delivers real accountability.

It's through the annual report that we learned the NACC has held 24 private hearings over more than 30 days in its purpose built hearing room but not one single one in public. It was my questioning that revealed the commissioner's understanding of his conflicts of interest is not shared by his deputies. We heard from the inspector about the types of complaints her office is receiving and the underlying issues they point towards. I thank the inspector for her frank and open engagement with the committee.

I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the chair, the member for Jagajaga, and of the other members of the committee as well as our hardworking secretariat. As a result of our examination, the committee has made three recommendations to the National Anti-Corruption Commission around addressing the backlog of referrals, exploring ways to communicate more effectively with referrers and building public confidence and trust in its systems and processes. I look forward to monitoring progress against these clear objectives.

Parliamentary oversight is a crucial part of the federal integrity system. I take my role as deputy chair of this committee very seriously. The establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission was a hard fought reform, and I stand committed to seeing it succeed.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 5 of 2026.

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

by leave—I am pleased to present Report 5 of 2026 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was tabled out of session last week.

In this report, the committee considered 27 new bills and 130 legislative instruments. It has commented on four bills and six legislative instruments and concluded its examination of one bill and one legislative instrument.

In this report, the committee commented on two criminal justice bills, which would introduce new warrants and expand existing warrant powers in Commonwealth legislation.

In particular, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 seeks to enhance the powers of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to obtain, analyse and communicate intelligence information relating to serious and organised crime. The measures in the bill would engage and limit various rights, including children's rights; criminal process rights; and the rights to effective remedy, fair trial, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of expression, privacy and work. The committee is seeking further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of the measures in the bill with these rights.

The Combating Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 would amend the Commonwealth acts to expand telecommunications interception warrants, create a new warrant power for tobacco offences and expand coercive powers in the proceeds of crime regime. These measures engage and limit the right to privacy by expanding powers to covertly intercept private communications and authorising frisk searches and access to personal information and property. The committee has had a longstanding human rights concern with the acts being amended by this bill and has accordingly recommended that the government undertake a foundational review of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for compatibility with human rights.

In this report, the committee has also concluded its consideration of extradition regulations relating to Denmark, Iceland, Japan and the Republic of Fiji. This instrument removes the mandatory grounds for refusal, which automatically prevented Australia from extraditing persons to these countries if the alleged offending was committed wholly or partly in Australia or where the relevant limitation period for the alleged offence has expired in accordance with Australian law.

The committee considers that it has not been demonstrated that the measures pursued are legitimate objectives, noting that the measures do not appear to be strictly necessary to prevent a person from evading justice, as the person could be prosecuted in Australia where the relevant offending occurs in Australia. The committee considers that, while the measure is accompanied by some safeguards, it is not clear that these are adequate. It has therefore been demonstrated that the measures are compatible with the prohibition on removing noncitizens without due process. Further, as the measure will potentially increase the number of extradition requests accepted, the committee's underlying human rights concerns with the extradition process generally are enlivened. The committee has reiterated the previous recommendations to amend the Extradition Act to improve its human rights compatibility.

I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. With these comments, I commend the committee's scrutiny report No. 5 of 2026 to the House.

I am speaking on behalf of the shadow assistant treasurer, the member for Page, who is in the federal budget lock-up as I speak. I rise to speak about Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026, noting it is an important piece of legislation. The coalition's position is clear: we support survivors, and we will support this bill. Victims-survivors and their families have waited too long, and I think we all know that. Australia's superannuation and bankruptcy laws have been weaponised by the worst criminals, and, for far too long, the parliament has failed to act.

Under the current law, perpetrators have been able to hide assets in superannuation and avoid paying court ordered compensation. When I became the member for Riverina back in 2010, my predecessor mentioned that this particular element would take up a lot of my time. Kay Hull was right then, and it hasn't changed since then. Under the current law, as I say, perpetrators have been able to hide these assets, and we do acknowledge the work of the Assistant Treasurer for his work to get this law before the parliament. Dr Mulino has done a power of work in this regard. We also want to acknowledge the work of the former minister for financial services and former member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer, who began the work on these reforms back in 2018. Most importantly, we thank the survivors. Above all else, we do thank the survivors, we acknowledge them, and we recognise them. We also acknowledge their families and the advocates, many of whom came to parliament in March, showing bravery, showing resilience and certainly demonstrating perseverance and persistence.

This reform is the result of years of advocacy by survivors and their advocates. There is more work that could be done to strengthen these laws even further. Indeed, I will put on the record that the 2018 reforms considered whether all victims of serious violent crimes should be able to access a perpetrator's superannuation as compensation. But we will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, particularly when it comes to supporting victims of child sexual abuse. This is not about politics. It isn't, and it should never be. This is not a partisan issue. It should be one that unites the parliament in our shared goal to protect children and to rebuke predators. I think the parliament is seen at its best when it comes together on issues such as this to bring about reform that is good, that is lasting and that is incredibly worthwhile.

Under the current law, we have a situation where paedophiles—the lowest of the low, the worst of the worst—have been able to boast that their victims won't see a penny of their superannuation. Survivors should not have to fight their abusers once in court and then fight them all over again to get compensation. This must not be so. The current loophole has allowed perpetrators to shield assets in superannuation, declare bankruptcy and leave survivors with absolutely nothing. The Australian parliament is saying, with a unified voice, that enough is enough. It's time for change. Superannuation is for retirement. It should not be used to deny compensation to survivors of child sexual abuse.

I just want to outline some of what this bill does. It creates a court supervised process for survivors of child sexual abuse to access certain superannuation amounts held by a perpetrator. It applies where there is a court ordered compensation debt. The bill allows survivors of child sexual abuse to seek limited information from the Australian Taxation Office about a perpetrator's superannuation. It allows a court to make an order to release eligible superannuation amounts. It requires the Commissioner of Taxation to issue release authorities to superannuation funds to facilitate payment, and that's important. It also ensures compensation debts for child sexual abuse survive bankruptcy. Perpetrators should not be able to abuse a child, lose in court, declare bankruptcy and then preserve their retirement savings whilst their victim receives nothing.

We know that child sexual abuse causes lifelong harm. It does. It truly does. It can affect a person's health. It can affect a person's relationships, a person's education, their employment, their employment prospects and their financial security. For many survivors, the abuse does not end when the offending ends. They carry the trauma, the stigma and the psychological and physical effects for years and years. Many also carry the financial consequences. This must be changed, and this bill goes part of the way—a lot of the way—to addressing that.

Some survivors have gone through court, relived their trauma—and how difficult must that be?—obtained compensation orders and yet still received nothing, and that is wrong. I think we all agree that that is palpably wrong. A conviction should not be the end of the justice process. A compensation order should not be a piece of paper that can be ignored. If a perpetrator has assets in superannuation, they should not be able to hide behind the law while their victim is left with nothing. This bill helps to fix that.

Swift passage of this bill matters. Survivors, as I said earlier, have waited far too long. They've waited long enough. Some survivors and advocates have been fighting for this reform for almost a decade, under both the coalition and Labor. That is why we do not support sending it off to another Senate inquiry. It's all too easy, sometimes, with legislation that might be difficult and might need to have further fine-tuning, to send it off to an upper house inquiry. Not this time—too important. There will be time to review and strengthen the law after it starts operating. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen now. There are survivors who need the benefit of this law right now. Delay would only benefit the lowest of the low, the worst of the worst: the perpetrators.

Survivors and advocates made this happen. We thank them and we acknowledge what they did and what they went through—what they should no longer have to go through or have to endure. These reforms are the result of grassroots advocacy for almost a decade—people power, years of advocacy by survivors, by families, by lawyers and by child protection advocates.

We acknowledge the work of survivors and advocates, including but not limited to Andrew Carpenter, Madeleine West and Eden Van Haren. There are many others—many, many others. We acknowledge organisations including: Super for Survivors, Bravehearts, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia and the Carly Ryan Foundation—good organisations all. Their advocacy has exposed a serious injustice; a huge gap that we are now, hopefully, bridging. Their persistence has brought this bill before the parliament. Parliament should honour that work by passing this bill and doing it swiftly. This work builds on the work initiated by the former coalition government.

In January 2020, the then assistant treasurer, the honourable Kelly O'Dwyer MP, announced consultation on allowing survivors to access perpetrator superannuation. Work was delayed due to her retirement. More's the pity. The COVID-19 pandemic didn't help, nor did reprioritisation of Treasury resources. The coalition's reforms were put out for consultation to allow broader input, and victims of violent crimes, not just child sex abuse victims, were fed into that process. The coalition is supportive of what Labor is doing. This sees parliament being at its best.

Under the current law, superannuation is generally protected from creditors. It has created a loophole where perpetrators can hold or move assets into superannuation to clear bankruptcy and avoid paying compensation ordered by a court. That is the problem that this bill is endeavouring to fix—and not before time. The government has described the bill as closing a loophole where offenders have shielded assets in superannuation and declared bankruptcy to avoid valid court orders.

The bill allows survivors of child sexual abuse to apply to the ATO for some information. There's always going to be privacy issues et cetera, but this bill allows the disclosure of limited information about a perpetrator's super. The survivors of child sexual abuse can then use that information to determine whether or not to seek a court order to apply to a court for a perpetrator contributions release order or to access eligible super amounts to satisfy unpaid compensation orders and/or enforce compensation debts even when the perpetrator has entered bankruptcy. All of these provisions are important. They go a step toward helping the perpetrators have their money taken from them, ultimately assisting the process of doing the right thing by the victims.

The bill also amends the bankruptcy law. The purpose is to stop perpetrators from using bankruptcy to defeat compensation claims. Compensation debts should survive bankruptcy. Finally, the bill is a major step forward. It truly is. It has bipartisan support, but it may not capture every case. There are victims of other serious violent crimes not covered by this bill. Survivors and advocates have called for future work on civil findings. Some advocates have also called for broader retrospective application. The Assistant Treasurer has done a power of good and a power of work in this regard. I thank him again for the diligence he has shown. He has said that future work may consider whether some civil findings can be included, but the government did not want to delay the current bill while those issues were being worked through. We certainly give a commitment—I do, on behalf of the opposition—to work with the minister and any future ministers to make sure that there is support if the bill can be refined in a better way in the future. That said, I commend the bill to the house.

I begin by acknowledging victims-survivors of child sexual abuse as well as their advocates who have fought for many years to improve a system that has too often failed them. The reforms contained in the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill have not emerged in isolation. They follow years of determined advocacy to ensure that victims-survivors of child sexual abuse receive the court ordered compensation they deserve and are entitled to. Shockingly, it is estimated that 11 per cent of women and almost four per cent of men in Australia are victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by an adult before they are 15 years old.

My predecessor as the member for Whitlam, Stephen Jones, revealed in his valedictory speech last year that he was a victim-survivor of child sexual abuse. It was the first time he had made this known publicly. Stephen decided to disclose this painful information because he wanted to highlight former prime minister Julia Gillard's establishment of a royal commission into child sex abuse as one of the great government achievements during his 15 years in parliament. Over four years, the royal commission received over 1,000 individual contributions, conducted 8,000 private sessions and received 26,000 letters and emails, resulting in 2,500 referrals to police. These are sickening numbers. Stephen noted in his valedictory speech that the royal commission wasn't inevitable. It was contested, and it took courage from all involved to ensure that it proceeded. He added that when the Gillard government established the royal commission, it sent an important message: we see you, we hear you and we believe you.

All children and young people have the right to be safe from sexual abuse, and the Albanese government is committed to protecting Australia's children from harm and to supporting early intervention, response, healing and recovery services. In November last year we announced $12 million in grants to support 23 specialist and community support services across Australia, to expand their crucial work responding to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and children who have displayed concerning or harmful sexual behaviours. That grant program is part of the $80 million commitment agreed at National Cabinet to enhance and expand child-centric, trauma informed supports for children and young people who have experienced or witnessed family, domestic and sexual violence. It also contributes to our ongoing reforms under the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030.

The Albanese government is committed to holding perpetrators of child sexual abuse to account, and this bill introduces long-awaited and meaningful reforms. A major focus is our superannuation system because Australia has a trust structure for the governance of superannuation funds. This means that beneficiaries of the funds do not hold superannuation assets. Instead, the assets are managed on behalf of the beneficiaries by trustees who have fiduciary and statutory obligations to act in the beneficiaries' best interests. Superannuation trustees are currently able to pay preserved benefits in specified situations including retirement, reaching preservation age and death. But superannuation trustees are not able to pay preserved benefits where a beneficiary owes compensation to a victim of crime. Unfortunately, people subject to criminal or civil proceedings, or those anticipating such proceedings, take advantage of this situation.

In recent years there have been a number of high-profile reports of convicted child sex abuse offenders deliberately hiding millions of dollars worth of assets in superannuation accounts to defeat compensation claims. This includes Maurice Van Ryn, a former CEO of Bega Cheese, who was found guilty of abusing nine children, between 2003 and 2014, and then a 10th child, in 2019. In total, he was sentenced to 22 years in prison. In 2023 the Supreme Court of New South Wales awarded the 10th victim $1.4 million in damages for the abuse he endured in Van Ryn's home. But Van Ryn declared bankruptcy in December that year, and the victims-survivors were unable to access hundreds of thousands of dollars he had in superannuation. Unjust situations like this add further to the emotional distress suffered by victims-survivors.

This bill will amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and other relevant Commonwealth acts to create a mechanism that enables the release of certain amounts from a perpetrator's superannuation interests in certain circumstances. To initiate the release process, victims-survivors must first meet the following application criteria: the perpetrator must have been convicted of—or, where there is no conviction recorded, found guilty of—a specified child abuse offence to a criminal standard; a court has made an order requiring the perpetrator to pay compensation to the victim for injury, loss or damage suffered by the victim as a direct result of a specified child abuse offence; the amount has been due and payable for at least 12 months; the perpetrator has not paid the full amount of compensation specified in the order; and the period within which recovery of the amount may be pursued in a court in the jurisdiction where the order was made has not expired.

A victim-survivor who reasonably believes that they meet the application criteria for a court order can apply to the Commissioner of Taxation for certain information relating to the perpetrator's superannuation assets. This information will help them to assess whether it is worthwhile pursuing an order in relation to the perpetrator's superannuation interests. It also means victims-survivors are not required to undertake a more costly exercise—for example, using subpoenas to superannuation providers—in order to pursue enforcement of outstanding compensation debts. I note the application to the Commissioner of Taxation may be made by the victim-survivor's legal representative, legal personal representative, registered tax agent or financial counsellor. Where the victim or survivor is under 18, their parent or a person who has been granted guardianship of the child may make an application on their behalf.

After reviewing the information, the victim-survivor can then apply for a court order for the Commissioner of Taxation to facilitate the release of moneys from the perpetrator's superannuation interests. This is called a perpetrator contributions release order. Where a perpetrator contributions release order is made, the Commissioner of Taxation must then issue one or more release authorities to relevant superannuation providers to secure the release of moneys from the perpetrator's superannuation interests and pay this to the victim-survivor. This bill also amends the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to allow compensation debts to survive perpetrators' bankruptcies, improving the chances of victims-survivors seeking to enforce such debts.

Our superannuation and bankruptcy laws are complex. However, this bill has a simple principle at its core: the perpetrators of child sexual abuse should not be able to hide behind financial structures to avoid accountability. It closes an unjust loophole that has allowed convicted offenders to shield assets and superannuation while victims-survivors are left without the compensation they are owed. This bill not only closes that loophole; it affirms that financial systems must not operate in a way that undermines justice, and it reflects the growing recognition that justice is not only about conviction but about meaningful redress. The reforms in this bill improve transparency, reduce uncertainty and strengthen the enforcement of court ordered compensation for victims-survivors.

The tragic reality is that child sexual abuse crimes often leave deep and lifelong impacts that extend far beyond the period of abuse itself. Victims-survivors frequently carry the effects into adulthood, affecting their mental health, physical wellbeing, relationships, education and ability to participate fully in work and community life. The trauma does not end when the abuse ends. For many, it is something they must navigate every day, too often in silence and without adequate support. Some victims-survivors face barriers to stable employment and financial security, meaning the harm they experience is not only emotional and psychological but also deeply material. We must recognise that the impacts of child sexual abuse are enduring, complex and profound and that our response must be equally serious, sustained and centred on those who have been harmed.

I have huge admiration for the courage it takes for victims-survivors to come forward, often years or decades after the abuse has occurred. They must relive deeply painful experiences in the pursuit of justice while knowing that outcomes are never guaranteed. For too many victims-survivors, a court ruling in their favour has not translated into real-world outcomes. They have endured the trauma of legal proceedings only to face further distress when compensation orders go unpaid. This outcome further compounds the harm, and it undermines confidence in the justice system. Under these reforms, where a court ordered compensation debt remains unpaid after 12 months, victims-survivors will be able to seek access through a court order to certain superannuation contributions made by the offender. This includes additional personal and salary sacrifice contributions, which have previously been used as a vehicle to shield assets from enforcement. This is a practical, targeted step. It introduces a mechanism to ensure that perpetrators cannot simply wait out their obligations while their financial position remains protected.

Importantly, this bill also ensures that compensation debts do not simply disappear through bankruptcy. By allowing these debts to survive bankruptcy proceedings, we are reinforcing a clear and necessary message: financial manoeuvring must not override moral and legal responsibility. Bankruptcy should not be a refuge from accountability for such serious harm. These changes will apply not only to future bankruptcies but also to those currently in progress. This is a significant step because it recognises that there are victims-survivors who are being denied justice today under the existing framework. By applying to both current and future bankruptcies, this bill seeks to address present inequity as well as future harm.

When offenders retain substantial retirement savings while victims struggle financially, often as a direct consequence of the abuse they have suffered, it undermines confidence in our justice system. It risks perpetrating a cycle where the burden continues to fall on those who are harmed, rather than on those who have caused the harm. Our superannuation and bankruptcy systems are complex, so changes to them must be carefully designed to ensure they are effective, enforceable and consistent with broader legal principles. That is why this bill should be understood as a significant and necessary foundation that lays the groundwork for potential future reforms. In fact, through the extensive consultation process that preceded the introduction of these reforms, victims-survivors and advocates encouraged us to build on the reforms contained in this bill. So, while the bill closes a loophole, it also sends a strong signal about the direction of reform. It creates a framework that can be built upon in the future.

Importantly, the regime established by this bill will be subject to a review after it commences full operation to ensure that it is operating effectively for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. This review process is critical to ensure that this parliament does not simply pass legislation and move on but instead remains engaged with how these provisions are working in practice. It provides an opportunity to assess whether victims and survivors are genuinely benefiting and whether additional changes are required. Our policy will continue to be informed by the voices of survivors, advocates, legal experts and practitioners.

The experiences shared by victims-survivors, including those who have been unable to access compensation despite court orders in their favour, make it clear how important it is that we progress this measure. It is clear to me that these reforms will make a real difference. They will provide new avenues for enforcement and a greater chance of achieving some measure of justice. Ultimately, this bill is about restoring fairness and dignity. For these reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

What I'm going to talk about this evening is going to upset some people, and I just want to give an acknowledgement that, if what I talk about tonight causes you distress, you're able to call Kids Helpline on 1800551800 or Lifeline on 131114. When I was the shadow Attorney-General last year, I worked with a number of people, including Jon Rouse, who was previously with Task Force Argos. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, which Peter Dutton established a number of years ago, identified that there were 82,764 reports of online child sexual exploitation in 2024-25. That's an average of 226 reports each and every single day. Just let those figures sink in: 226 reports of online child sexual exploitation. That's why this bill is so important. The Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 is about justice. It's about whether the laws of this country stand with survivors of child sexual abuse or whether they continue to allow perpetrators to exploit loopholes to avoid accountability. The coalition absolutely supports this bill. We support it clearly, strongly and without hesitation.

Many people will remember a name. That name is Ashley Paul Griffith. Ashley Paul Griffith is a former childcare worker from the Gold Coast. He was sentenced on 2 September 2024 in the Brisbane District Court, where it was alleged that he had perpetrated some 1,623 child sexual offences. He pleaded guilty to 307 of those charges and was imprisoned for life with a 27-year non-parole period. The charges that he pled guilty to included 15 counts of repeated sexual conduct with a child, 28 counts of rape and 190 counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16. Offences were committed against 65 children in South-East Queensland and four children in Italy in 10 different childcare centres.

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the good work that was done by Senator Maria Kovacic when she led a Senate inquiry in relation to this very issue of systemic abuse by paedophiles in childcare centres. It is incumbent upon us to listen to people like Jon Rouse, who has spent his professional life trying to identify these heinous individuals. We have an opportunity in this place—and it's for another bill, so I won't go on to it too much—to look at using technology like Clearview AI to be able to identify these people who exist on the dark web. They perpetrate their offences in real life, but then they record it and put it on the dark web. We have the opportunity in this country to be able to utilise these tools, yet we don't. We go to the FBI and get their assistance because apparently it offends our privacy laws here in Australia. That madness has got to stop. We have got to acknowledge that we have a huge problem here in this country, and we've got to be utilising every single tool that we can to save children from these child sexual exploitation offences—save the children but also identify these heinous individuals.

Victims-survivors and their families have waited far too long for this sort of reform that we're talking about tonight. For too long, Australia's superannuation and bankruptcy laws have been weaponised by some of the worst criminals imaginable. Under the current law, perpetrators have been able to shield assets inside superannuation, declare bankruptcy and avoid paying court-ordered compensation. That is fundamentally wrong. A compensation order should not become a meaningless piece of paper simply because an offender has found a way to hide their money from the people that they harmed. This bill begins to fix that injustice.

While this legislation is before the parliament today under the current government, it's important to acknowledge the long policy history behind it. The coalition began the work on these reforms in 2018, under Kelly O'Dwyer. Consultation papers were released. Stakeholders were engaged. Draft reforms were developed. This legislation builds on that work. I want to acknowledge the work of Daniel Mulino, the Assistant Treasurer, for bringing this bill before the House tonight, and I want to thank him for his leadership in so doing. Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the survivors, their families and the advocates who fought for this reform for almost a decade. This reform did not happen by accident; it happened because survivors refused to give up.

Before speaking to the mechanics of the legislation, I want to speak briefly about the human impact behind it, because these are not abstract statistics; these are lives. The Australian Child Maltreatment Study found that 28½ per cent of Australians—more than a quarter—have experienced child sexual abuse. Let that figure sink in. More than a quarter of our kids have suffered some form of child sexual abuse. An even scarier statistic is that 37.3 per cent of women have experienced child sexual abuse, and 18 per cent of men. These numbers are staggering. They represent millions of Australians carrying trauma that often lasts a lifetime. And it doesn't just impact on them; it impacts upon their siblings and their mums and dads. It even has a generational impact, as the generations go down.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse heard repeatedly that survivors often experience decades of mental health challenges, including depression, anxiety, PTSD and substance abuse. It impacts on relationships, employment, education, financial security and, of course, physical health. For some survivors, after reliving that trauma in court and obtaining a compensation order, they still receive nothing. Imagine going through that process. As a former barrister, I can tell you it is harrowing for even the strongest of individuals. Imagine finding the courage to come forward and make a complaint to police. Imagine enduring what is a very difficult legal process. Imagine having the court believe you and a conviction ensuing, only to discover that the perpetrator has hidden away their assets in superannuation and you are left with nothing. That is the injustice that this bill seeks to redress, because superannuation is for retirement; it should never be used as a shield against accountability.

This should not be political. This should not be a partisan issue. This should unite the parliament. The protection of children should never be political. Supporting survivors should never be political. Holding perpetrators accountable should never be political. The Australian parliament should speak with one voice when it comes to rebuking predators and standing with victims-survivors. Under the current law, we've seen situations where perpetrators have been able to boast that their victims would never see a cent of their superannuation. That is appalling, and this bill begins the journey forward to seeing that that does not happen into the future. Enough is enough. This parliament has an obligation to close this loophole. That is why the coalition supports the swift passage of this bill.

At its core, the bill creates a court supervised process, allowing survivors of child sexual abuse to access certain superannuation amounts held by a perpetrator where there is an unpaid compensation debt. Importantly, this only applies where a court has already ordered compensation. It is not speculative. It is not arbitrary. This is about enforcing lawful court orders that have already been made. The bill allows survivors to seek limited information from the Australian Taxation Office about whether a perpetrator holds eligible superannuation assets. That matters because survivors should not be forced into expensive litigation without knowing whether there are assets capable of satisfying the debt.

The bill then allows a court to make a perpetrator contributions release order. That order enables eligible superannuation amounts to be released in order to satisfy the unpaid compensation debt. The bill also ensures that compensation debts relating to child sexual abuse survive bankruptcy. Again, this is critical because perpetrators should not be able to abuse a child, declare bankruptcy and still preserve their retirement savings while their victims receive nothing. The coalition supports these changes. We believe they are measured, we believe they are proportionate, and, above all, we believe they are just.

This reform exists because survivors and advocates refused to let this issue disappear. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary advocacy of survivors, families, lawyers and child protection organisations over many years. That includes organisations such as Super for Survivors, Bravehearts, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia and the Carly Ryan Foundation. We also acknowledge advocates, including Andrew Carpenter, Madeleine West, Edan van Haren and many others who continued pushing this issue into the national spotlight. Their advocacy exposed a serious injustice in this country. Their persistence brought this bill before the parliament, and parliament should honour that work by passing this bill swiftly. I want to acknowledge the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, which is headquartered in my electorate of Fisher. Bruce and Denise Morcombe have spent two decades turning unimaginable grief into action. Through child safety education, victim support and the Day for Daniel initiative, they have helped protect countless Australian children. Their work reminds us that prevention and justice must go hand in hand, because protecting children is not a one-off legislative task. It requires constant vigilance, constant education and constant resolve.

Finally, I want to say those numbers again. If I have said anything tonight that distresses people, Kids Helpline is available on 1800551800 or Lifeline on 131114. This bill is one of the most important bills that we will deal with in this parliament, and I do want to thank the Assistant Treasurer for bringing it forward. It's times like this it's good to see the parliament come together for the benefit of this nation.

I rise to speak in strong support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026. I want to begin by acknowledging the survivors, advocates and families whose work, courage and persistence brought this legislation to this parliament, because laws like this do not appear out of nowhere. They are built by people who refuse to stay silent after systems failed them; people who carry trauma into courtrooms, into media interviews and into meetings with governments and members of parliament; and people who keep pushing for justice through exhaustion, grief and disappointment. This bill exists because survivors demanded that we do better.

At its heart, this legislation is built on a very simple principle: people who commit child sexual abuse should not be able to hide their money while survivors are left carrying the cost of that harm done to them. Yet, for too long, that is exactly what has happened. A survivor could fight through the legal system, relive the worst experiences of their life, secure a compensation order through the courts and still walk away without justice being delivered in practice, because offenders could shield assets through super arrangements and bankruptcy structures while survivors were left unpaid. That is not justice. That is cruelty built into the system. This bill closes that loophole, and it matters deeply that we do that.

Child sexual abuse leaves lifelong impacts that shape how people move through the world. It affects mental health, physical health, relationships, education, employment, financial security, safety and trust. For many survivors, the abuse may have happened in childhood but the consequences follow them into adulthood every single day. Too often, those impacts become material as well as emotional. Some survivors struggle to stay in stable housing. Some find it difficult to maintain constant employment. Some carry interrupted education pathways. Some live with long-term health costs. Some spend years rebuilding a sense of stability after violence and abuse shattered it. That reality matters when we talk about compensation because compensation is not abstract. It's often connected to survival, to rebuilding, to counselling, to housing, to health care and to creating some form of safety after profound harm. When compensation orders go unpaid, survivors are forced to absorb another layer of injustice.

This bill recognises that. It recognises that accountability must mean something real. This government has made clear that accountability for child sexual abuse cannot end at conviction alone. Justice must mean something in practice. That is why these reforms matter so much. A compensation order should not become meaningless simply because an offender has found a way to hide assets behind technical financial protections.

Under these reforms, where a court ordered compensation debt remains unpaid after 12 months, survivors will be able, through a court order, to seek access to certain super contributions made by the offender. The bill also ensures that compensation debt can survive bankruptcy proceedings, because bankruptcy should not become a hiding place for people who have committed crimes against children. Financial manoeuvring cannot outweigh moral responsibility, and I think people across this country instinctively understand that. They understand that there is something fundamentally broken when survivors are struggling to build their lives while offenders continue protecting retirement savings behind legal loopholes.

This legislation says clearly that our legal and financial systems should never operate in a way that shields perpetrators from accountability. I think what makes this issue especially confronting is that survivors are so often asked to carry that burden of proving, explaining and reliving what happened to them, while the people who caused that harm spend years protected by systems that were never designed with survivors in mind. That imbalance matters, because justice is not only about what happens in a courtroom; it is about what happens afterwards—whether someone can rebuild, whether they can access stability, whether they feel the system stood with them or abandoned them once the headlines faded.

This bill says survivors should not be left carrying that burden alone. In my electorate of Melbourne, our community speaks openly and honestly about child abuse, institutional failure and the lifelong impacts trauma leaves behind. In a city full of advocates, frontline workers, legal services, support organisations, and survivors who have spent years pushing for change, when representing the people of Melbourne I hear passionately from people working in this space about what recovery really looks like. It's not linear, it's not quick and it does not happen simply because somebody survives.

I've spoken with people in my electorate who've spent years trying to rebuild a sense of normality after abuse; people navigating housing insecurity; people trying to stay connected to work while carrying trauma; people trying to trust systems again after being failed repeatedly. One thing comes through clearly, every single time: survivors should not have to spend their lives fighting systems that are meant to support them. But, too often, they do. They fight to be believed. They fight to access services. They fight through courts. They fight through administrative processes. They fight to rebuild financially. And then, sometimes, even after all of that, they are still denied the compensation they were legally awarded. That compounds the harm. It tells the survivors that, even after they'd found the courage to speak, even after they'd endured the courtroom, even after the court had ruled in their favour, the system still could not deliver justice. This is unacceptable.

This bill is an important step towards changing that, and, while the legislation deals with highly technical areas of super and bankruptcy law, its purpose is deeply human. At the centre of this bill are people—people who were harmed as children; people whose lives were permanently shaped by abuse; people who have already carried far more than anyone should ever have to carry.

Sometimes, in this place, we speak about legislation in highly procedural terms: schedules, mechanisms, frameworks and technical amendments. But behind every part of this bill is a survivor who deserves better. That matters, because systems can sometimes become so focused on processes that they lose sight of people. This bill pulls that focus back where it belongs: on survivors, on accountability and on making sure that justice has meaning in the real world.

I can only imagine how difficult it must be for survivors of sexual abuse to be forced into silence, sometimes by fear and sometimes by shame; sometimes because they were children who did not yet have the words for what happened to them; sometimes because systems around them failed to listen when they did speak. The courage it takes to come forward years or decades later cannot be overstated. To tell your story publicly; to enter legal proceedings; to re-live deeply traumatic experiences—that takes extraordinary strength. When survivors do that, the least we can do, as a parliament, is to ensure that the system does not fail them again, at that final hurdle.

That is why these reforms matter. They are practical reforms, targeted reforms, carefully designed reforms. But they are also moral reforms, because this bill draws a line. It says clearly, without apology, that, if you commit crimes against children, you should not get to hide your assets while survivors are left carrying the financial consequences of your abuse. That is the line this parliament is drawing today.

It also wants to acknowledge something else that matters in this conversation. For many survivors, the hardest part is not only the abuse itself; it is what happens afterwards: not being believed; being ignored; being told to move on; being left to navigate broken systems alone. And that failure can deepen trauma for years.

When institutions protect themselves instead of children, the damage does not stop when the abuse stops; it ripples outward, through entire lives, into relationships, into education, into employment, into housing, into mental health and into a person's ability to feel safe in the world. That is why accountability matters so deeply, because accountability is not about revenge; it's about recognition—recognition that harm was done; recognition that survivors deserve protection; recognition that justice should not stop halfway; and recognition that systems must never make survivors carry the burden while perpetrators protect their wealth and wait out legal obligations. This bill responds directly to that injustice. It creates a pathway for survivors to pursue compensation that courts have already determined they are owed, and it closes a loophole that should never have existed in the first place.

I also welcome the review mechanisms included in this legislation, because this bill should not be viewed as the final word on this issue; it should be viewed as a foundation—a significant foundation, a necessary foundation. We must continue listening to survivors and advocates to better understand where barriers still remain, we must continue assessing whether systems are delivering meaningful outcomes, and we must continue improving laws where gaps still exist, because survivors have already spent too long carrying the burden of institutional failure.

This parliament cannot afford complacency in response to that, and I think there is something important about the unity we have seen around this bill. Some issues rise above political pointscoring. The protection of children is one of them. The pursuit of justice for survivors should be one of them, and making sure perpetrators cannot exploit loopholes in financial systems should be one of them. This parliament is at its best when it listens carefully to lived experiences and responds with seriousness and purpose. That is what this legislation represents.

There is a line that has stayed with me while reading through this legislation and listening to survivors speaking about it: for many survivors, the trauma did not end when the abuse ended. That is the reality this bill confronts. It confronts the fact that abuse creates consequences that ripple through entire lives, that justice delayed or denied compounds the harm, and that systems built without survivors at the centre can unintentionally protect the wrong people. This bill shifts that balance. It says clearly that accountability should follow perpetrators, not burden survivors forever. Ultimately, this legislation is about fairness, dignity and responsibility. It is about ensuring that our financial and legal systems reflect our values—values that say child sexual abuse is among the gravest harms imaginable, values that say survivors deserve meaningful redress, not symbolic gestures, and values that say perpetrators should not be protected by loopholes while survivors carry the lifelong consequences of abuse.

The Albanese Labor government is choosing to act, choosing to close this loophole, choosing to strengthen accountability and choosing to listen to survivors who have spent years demanding change. That matters because, every time a system is improved, every time a loophole is closed and every time survivors are met with seriousness instead of indifference, we send a message about what kind of country we want to be—a country where justice means something in practice, a country where survivors are heard and a country where people who commit these crimes cannot hide behind structures that shield them from accountability. This bill says something powerful about whose side this parliament is on—not on the side of loopholes, not on the side of technicalities and not on the side of people trying to hide wealth while survivors rebuild their lives piece by piece. This parliament stands with survivors, and today, with this bill, we do just that. I commend the bill to the House.

In rising to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026, I want to commend the thoughtful and reflective remarks made by my colleague the member for Melbourne and associate myself with her contribution.

The coalition supports this bill. We support it because this parliament should stand with survivors, not with loopholes that protect perpetrators. For too long, Australia's superannuation and bankruptcy laws have been manipulated by offenders to avoid paying court ordered compensation to the very people whose lives they have destroyed. Under the current law, perpetrators of child sexual abuse have been able to move assets into superannuation accounts, shield those assets from compensation claims, declare bankruptcy and leave survivors with nothing. That is not justice. It is frankly unacceptable that this loophole has been able to exist for so long. This should never be a partisan issue. This national parliament should speak with one united voice when it comes to protecting children, supporting survivors and ensuring perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.

I acknowledge the work of the Assistant Treasurer, Daniel Mulino, in progressing this legislation. He is a good man. I had the privilege of working with him when he was the member for Eastern Victoria Region and I was CEO of the Committee for Gippsland. I commend his progression of this legislation. I also acknowledge the fine contribution a short time ago of Andrew Wallace, the member for Fisher, my colleague on this side, who I know cares deeply about standing up for victims of child sexual abuse. Above all else, this debate belongs to survivors. It belongs to the victims-survivors, the families, the advocates and the organisations who have spent years exposing this injustice and demanding change.

Many have fought for close to a decade to ensure this parliament has finally acted. I know many are relieved, but it goes without saying that they have had to endure deeply traumatic experiences in the hope that future survivors would not face the same barriers to justice. As someone who previously served on the board of Lifeline Gippsland, I know that Lifeline and many other organisations are there to support victims-survivors in the battles and the hurdles that they face ahead. This is important work. This legislation exists because those survivors refuse to remain silent.

The purpose of this bill is straightforward, but it is profoundly important. It amends the Commonwealth law to allow victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to apply for a court order to access certain superannuation amounts held by perpetrators. The bill also amends the Bankruptcy Act to ensure perpetrators cannot simply declare bankruptcy in order to escape compensation debts. At present, superannuation trustees are generally prohibited from releasing preserved benefits, except in very limited circumstances. Compensation owed to victims of crime is not one of them.

This has created a serious loophole—a loophole where offenders facing criminal or civil proceedings can deliberately move assets into superannuation accounts to shield wealth from victims seeking compensation, and, in some cases, those perpetrators have boasted about such moves. As a result, survivors can endure years of abuse, pursue justice through the courts and be forced to relive their trauma through legal proceedings before obtaining compensation orders—and still receive absolutely nothing. A compensation order should mean something. It should be enforceable to the full extent. Justice should not exist only on paper.

This issue is about far more than money. The impacts of child sexual abuse are lifelong. They affect mental health, physical health, relationships, education, employment, housing stability and financial security. They rob Australia of the prospects, the input and the talents of so many brilliant Australians who have had to endure such horrendous circumstances. For many survivors, the abuse does not end when the offending stops. The trauma continues for years and often decades. Many survivors face ongoing medical expenses, counselling costs and lost opportunities because of the abuse they endured as children. For some, maintaining stable employment becomes difficult. For others, trust, safety and stability are things they spend years trying to rebuild. No amount of compensation can ever undo what has happened. No amount of money can erase that trauma, but compensation can help survivors access treatment, counselling and support services. It can help provide stability, and, importantly, it can represent acknowledgement—acknowledgement that harm was done and that accountability matters. As a national parliament, we're coming together in a bipartisan manner to do just that.

Many survivors have described the current loophole as a second injustice. Not only were they abused; they also, after enduring lengthy legal proceedings, discovered the perpetrator had deliberately protected their wealth while the survivor was left carrying the emotional and financial burden. That compounds the trauma, it compounds the sense that the system failed them and it undermines public confidence in the justice system itself—because Australians rightly expect that, when a court orders compensation, perpetrators cannot simply manipulate the system to avoid responsibility.

The need for this legislation becomes painfully clear when we look at the real cases that exposed this loophole. One of the most notorious examples is the former magistrate Peter Liddy. Back in 2001, Liddy was jailed for horrific offences involving the abuse of multiple children. But, before sentencing, he transferred substantial assets into superannuation accounts, effectively shielding his wealth from victims pursuing compensation claims. Lawyer Andrew Carpenter described it as becoming a 'blueprint for paedophiles everywhere'. That statement should disturb every single one of us in this place, because it demonstrates that this was not an isolated technical oversight. It became a known strategy, a loophole that offenders could exploit while survivors were left without justice.

Andrew Carpenter has spent years advocating for reform and supporting survivors through these processes. I recently listened to a podcast he was on and was most significantly impressed by his dedication, over many years, to this cause and by his broader support of abuse victims. Andrew Carpenter put it plainly when he said:

There is not one legal justification for sexually abusing a child. Paedophiles should be made to pay and closing this loophole is a no-brainer.

And he was right.

Another shocking example involved the former boss of Bega Cheese, Maurice Van Ryn. Before being sentenced to prison, he, too, moved assets into superannuation. They were substantial. When victims later sought compensation, they discovered he was broke on paper. Survivor advocate Howard Brown said Van Ryn even boasted:

Everything I have is in my super—and you can't touch that.

Imagine hearing that as a survivor. Imagine enduring the abuse, going through the court proceedings and then hearing the perpetrator openly taunt victims because the law protected his assets. That should outrage all of us, and indeed it does, because we are coming together, as a parliament, in a bipartisan manner in the Australian national interest to say to those abuse victims that we all—every single member in this place—stand with you.

The case of Edan van Haren further demonstrates why reform is urgently needed. In 2023, Mr van Haren was awarded $1.4 million in damages by the New South Wales Supreme Court after being abused by Maurice Van Ryn. Yet legal loopholes enabled the perpetrator to avoid paying damages. It cannot continue. We must not stand for this. Perpetrators should not be able to abuse children, lose in court, declare bankruptcy and preserve retirement savings while survivors are left with nothing. Superannuation was never intended to become a shield for predators. It exists to provide dignity and security in retirement, not protection from accountability.

This bill establishes a court supervised process that seeks to restore fairness, it allows survivors to seek limited superannuation information from the Commissioner of Taxation, it allows courts to issue release orders where compensation debts exist, and it requires the Commissioner of Taxation to facilitate payment through release authorities issued to superannuation funds. Importantly, this is not an arbitrary process. Perpetrators retain the ability to challenge orders on specified legal grounds. There is judicial oversight. There are safeguards. But, critically, there is finally a pathway for survivors to pursue meaningful compensation where perpetrators have attempted to shield assets within superannuation.

The coalition also believe it's important to recognise the organisations and advocates who have fought tirelessly for this reform. I want to acknowledge Andrew Carpenter, who I mentioned earlier, but also Hetty Johnston and the extraordinary work of Bravehearts. I would like to acknowledge Super for Survivors, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia, the Carly Ryan Foundation and many others who have spent years exposing this injustice and pushing for change.

Hetty Johnston said these reforms would 'give the power back to the victims' and take away from offenders, who 'love' exploiting these loopholes. She's right. That is an incredibly important point, because, at its heart, this legislation is about power and accountability. For too long, offenders retained power over survivors even after criminal convictions and court proceedings. This legislation begins to rebalance that in the way that it needs to. It sends a message that our parliament—this national parliament—will not allow legal loopholes to be weaponised against survivors.

I want to also recognise that this bill may not be the final word on reform in this area. Indeed, there is always more to be done. There are advocates who believe broader categories of serious violent crime should eventually be captured by similar provisions. I know there are ongoing discussions around retrospective application and the treatment of civil findings. These conversations are important, and they should continue. Indeed, earlier consultation proposals contemplated access for victims of serious violent crimes beyond child sexual abuse alone. But we should not allow the pursuit of a perfect model to delay meaningful reform that survivors need right now—today—not when survivors have already waited years and not when every further delay risks prolonging injustice. That is why the coalition does not support unnecessary delays or referral processes that would simply postpone the operation of these reforms.

Today, this parliament has an opportunity to send a clear and united message from both sides—a message that survivors matter; a message that justice should be meaningful, not symbolic; a message that perpetrators should never be able to manipulate the law to escape accountability; and a message that superannuation should never again become a safe haven for those who commit horrific crimes against children. The coalition supports this bill. I commend it to the House.

Before I begin my remarks, I too want to recognise the contribution of the member for Monash and acknowledge her meaningful contribution and absolutely agree with the point that she made around this being an issue that rises above partisan politics, so thank you very much for that.

There are moments in this parliament when the weight of what we are asked to do is felt so deeply. This is one of those moments. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was a watershed moment for our nation. It opened many Australians' eyes to the systemic violence that had robbed too many children of their innocence and of their futures. For years—decades—victims-survivors had carried their pain alone. And then, finally, their country listened. The royal commission's findings prompted profound change, but that work is not finished. The people who lived through that abuse, who found extraordinary courage to speak, to testify and to name what was done to them, know that better than anyone. Today we continue that work. Today we slam shut a loophole that has allowed perpetrators to avoid accountability.

Before I speak to the details of this bill, I want to pause to acknowledge the strength, the resilience and the bravery of victims-survivors: those who fought for years through the courts to be heard and who lived the worst moments of their lives in pursuit of something that looked like justice only to be left without the compensation a court told them they were owed; those who have suffered in silence, held back by shame that should never have been theirs to carry in the first place; and those who found their voices, often at great personal cost, to advocate for reform to make sure what happened to them would not keep happening to others. Each and every one of those victims-survivors deserves better. They deserved better then; they deserve better now. And this legislation is one more step towards making that a reality.

So why is this legislation needed? Currently, the courts have been awarding compensation to victims-survivors of child sexual abuse. That is the system working as it should be. But too often the system stops there. Perpetrators who have been found guilty of devastating crimes have then been able to dodge that compensation. They have sheltered assets in superannuation accounts beyond the reach of enforcement, or they have declared bankruptcy, causing compensation debts to simply disappear.

So, right now, a victim-survivor gathers the courage to come forward. They endure the police process. They enter an intimidating court system. They relive their abuse. A judge finds in their favour. And then they wait and wait. And the money that was ordered to be paid to them is never paid—because the person who harmed them found a loophole. That is not justice, and it has gone on for far too long, but this bill ends it. It ends it because it makes two important and targeted reforms.

First, it addresses superannuation. Under these changes, where a court ordered compensation debt remains unpaid after 12 months, victims-survivors will be able to apply to a court for an order to access certain superannuation contributions made by the offender. This specifically captures personal contributions and salary sacrifice contributions—the very mechanisms that have been used to shield assets from enforcement. This process will be supported by the Australian Taxation Office so that victims-survivors can identify any potential eligible superannuation before proceeding. There are appropriate safeguards built into the framework. This is not a blunt instrument, but it is carefully designed to deliver on a clear principle.

Second, it addresses bankruptcy. Compensation debts owed to victims-survivors of child sexual abuse will no longer simply vanish when a perpetrator enters bankruptcy proceedings. These debts will survive bankruptcy. And, critically, these changes will apply not only to future cases but to bankruptcies currently in progress. There are victims-survivors right now, today, who are being denied justice under the existing framework. This bill reaches them, too.

There is nothing radical about these reforms. They are a logical and long overdue consequence of a simple belief—that perpetrators of child sexual abuse should not be able to use financial structures to escape accountability.

When the royal commission gave a platform to victims-survivors, our nation had a mirror held up to itself. We learnt that child sexual abuse does not end when the abuse ends. Its effects are lifelong and profound. We know that victims-survivors frequently carry trauma into adulthood, where it affects their mental health, their physical wellbeing, their relationships, their education and their ability to fully participate in work and community life.

The website for the royal commission has a section dedicated to sharing the stories of victims-survivors. I'm reminded of one, from Trev. During his session, Trev outlined how the abuse he endured had shaped his life—his need for lifelong psychiatric help over 40 years and his many trips to psychiatric hospitals. He disclosed that he had been diagnosed with PTSD and severe depression and has been on medication for a very long time.

Trev's story, like that of so many other victims-survivors, highlights why this legislation is so crucial. Many face persistent barriers to stable employment and financial security. The harm they have experienced is not only emotional and psychological; it is deeply material. The financial compensation a court awards is not symbolic. It is a recognition of real, ongoing harm. It's resources that may help a person access therapy, maintain stable housing or rebuild a life that was disrupted in the most fundamental of ways.

When a perpetrator shields their assets in superannuation while a survivor struggles financially, often as a direct result of the abuse they suffered, it does not just deny them money; it reinforces the concern that many victims have that the system is not built for them. That cannot be a message allowed to stand. Compensation orders cannot be unenforced, otherwise it corrodes confidence in the justice system more broadly. If victims-survivors and the wider community cannot trust that court orders will be meaningful and that accountability will be real, then we are failing in our most fundamental obligations.

The courage and fortitude that is required to reach the point where this legislation becomes relevant is enormous. Coming forward is not a simple process, especially decades after the abuse. It requires a kind of strength that is difficult to fully comprehend. Victims-survivors must confront not only their own pain but often disbelief, scrutiny and the retraumatising of legal proceedings. They must relive painful experiences in pursuit of outcomes that are never guaranteed.

For many, the decision to go to the courts represents years of internal struggle. They don't do it only for themselves but because they believe and they hope that the system will deliver justice for them—that the law will say, 'What was done to you was wrong, and there are consequences.' When a court does exactly that, it awards compensation, and then that award goes unpaid, we are not only failing the individual; we are betraying the trust of every victim-survivor who is watching, wondering whether it is worth coming forward. This legislation is an answer to that question. It is worth it.

We know how important this bill is, but we also know that it is not the end of the road. The superannuation and bankruptcy systems are technical and complex. This legislation is carefully designed to be enforceable and consistent with broader legal principles. It closes a clear loophole, but there is more work to do, and the Albanese Labor government is committed to continuing this work. We have heard clearly and powerfully the voices of victims-survivors and advocates who are already looking to us to build on these reforms. Their lived experiences must remain at the centre of this conversation. They know where the system is still falling short.

When victims-survivors tell us that, it is our responsibility to listen and to act. That is why reviewing the implementation of this measure is required. This parliament must not simply pass this legislation and move on. We must remain engaged with whether these provisions are working in practice, whether victims-survivors are genuinely benefiting and whether changes are needed. Our policy work must continue to be shaped by victims-survivors, advocates, legal experts and practitioners. We must ask honestly whether the law is delivering on its intent and whether barriers remain that must be removed.

A court order has to mean something. When a judge awards a compensation to a victim-survivor of child sexual abuse, that shouldn't be the start of another fight; it should be the beginning of some kind of resolution. This bill makes sure perpetrators can't just move money around or declare bankruptcy to get out of paying. That is what this bill does. But, for victims-survivors who have been waiting sometimes for years for that compensation to arrive, this matters a great deal.

I think about the people who will never see this debate and who have contributed to us getting to this point: those who were let down by a system that was weighted against them; those who decided that, after all they had endured, another fight wasn't worth it because nothing ever seemed to change; and those whose light was extinguished by an act of pure evil. I hope this is evidence that it does change—yes, sometimes slowly and imperfectly, but it does change.

I also think about the victims-survivors who are still in the middle of their fights right now, still waiting on a court, still wondering if the compensation order they're hoping for will actually mean anything. We're doing this for them. It means that, if they get that order, we've done more to make sure it sticks. We owe it to every single one of them to get this right, to keep listening and to keep going. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit concerning the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2026-27. On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present this statement on the draft budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office, the ANAO, and the Parliamentary Budget Office, the PBO.

The committee is required, under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, to consider the draft budget estimates of the ANAO and PBO respectively and to make recommendations regarding these estimates to both houses of parliament. This statement on behalf of the committee, in advance of the budget being handed down, is an important transparency measure that informs the parliament and the public on the adequacy of the resourcing of both the ANAO and the PBO.

The committee considers both agencies to be vital in supporting the work of this parliament and in strengthening the integrity and transparency of public administration. We have carefully scrutinised the ANAO's and PBO's draft budget estimates for 2026-27, subject to further review of the costings and final estimates which may be agreed with the Department of Finance.

There are four parts to the ANAO's request in the upcoming budget which are the stated guiding principles for its proposed sustainable funding model. The long-term financial position of the ANAO continues to be uncertain, and this has troubled the JCPAA for some years. The past five years have seen the ANAO record average annual operating losses of around $5 million, with a projected loss of $4 million in 2025-26. This has a significant limiting effect on the Auditor-General's ability to provide a robust accountability mechanism for the activities of executive government on behalf of the parliament.

The components of the ANAO's model include, first and foremost, a projected increase of $10.5 million per annum to its base funding commencing in 2026-27. This is supported by the committee as a priority. The ANAO will find it increasingly more difficult to meet its statutory obligations and the expectations of the parliament without this increase. It will also be more difficult in this circumstance for the ANAO to maintain robust IT systems, respond to growing cybersecurity threats and utilise modern auditing tools.

The committee also supports the ANAO's proposal for a scalable framework that ties performance audit funding to the growth in Commonwealth expenditure. The Australian government's expenditure over the past decade has grown more than twice the rate of the appropriation available to the ANAO for performance auditing. The committee agrees that such a scalable system would ensure proportionate audit coverage that is also capable of addressing the increasing complexity of the modern Commonwealth.

The committee continues to support the removal of the efficiency dividend from the ANAO—another plank of its sustainable funding model. The efficiency dividend, or ED, has been a principal driver of the ANAO's periodic supplementary funding requests. The ANAO's base funding is currently $10.3 million lower than it would have been if the ED had been removed 10 years ago. Removal of the ED from audit institutions has occurred in other jurisdictions, including New South Wales and New Zealand. The committee did discuss the precedent of removing the ED for the ANAO, while keeping it for other government agencies, and has noted that the priority of the JCPAA is an increase in the ANAO's baseline funding.

The remaining component of the ANAO's proposed funding model is the retention of fees that it charges to corporate Commonwealth entities, companies and subsidiaries. These fees are estimated to total approximately $15.9 million in 2025-26 and are currently returned to consolidated revenue. The committee accepts and sympathises with the fact that these fees have increased by far more over the past decade than the appropriation funding to the ANAO. However, committee members expressed concerns that returning these fees to the ANAO could produce unintended incentives that would undermine the perceived integrity and neutrality of the ANAO. These include the raising of such charges beyond what is reasonable in circumstances of funding pressures and the potential for prioritisation of activities that generate fees over those that are important but not revenue raising.

In conclusion, the funding of the ANAO continues to be of serious concern to the committee, as it threatens the robustness of the vital audit function that this agency conducts for the Commonwealth. The committee regards the reports of the Auditor-General as a crucial driver of efficiency and effectiveness throughout the public sector.

On the Parliamentary Budget Office, the committee endorses the PBO's 2026-27 budget proposals, which include additional ongoing funding of $1.9 million a year, equating to $7.5 million over four years. The PBO has indicated that this increase is required to sustain its level of service, including 10 additional staff to manage costing models and adequate resourcing of essential ICT systems. The PBO informed the committee that the average turnaround time for its costings analysis has increased from 15 to 24 days, reflecting a year-on-year heightened demand for this service and the growing complexity of the work involved. The PBO has further reported that requests from parliamentarians were 40 per cent higher in the first six months of this parliament than for the comparable period in the last parliament.

The request to add 10 staff to the 44 current ongoing employees at the PBO is fully supported but also acknowledged by the committee as a significant increase. We will continue to monitor the outputs and effectiveness of PBO, going forward, to ensure that its staff levels are appropriate.

Also supported by the committee is the PBO's request to increase its election-year funding, from $500,000 to $1 million, to cover the actual costs of delivering its mandated election reporting. The Election commitments report is a key PBO function, assisting parliamentarians to prepare campaign platforms. The $500,000 election-year funding boost to cover the cost of this extensive analysis, including four supplemental staff, has not been subject to indexation or adjustments since the PBO's established establishment in 2012. This amount is unsurprisingly no longer adequate to resource this important and mandated activity, and it is indicated by the PBO as a core reason for its current and ultimately unsustainable operating losses.

Finally, to support its operational independence, the committee supports the replenishment of the PBO's special appropriation back to $6 million, requiring a top-up of just over $4 million. The replenishment of the PBO's special appropriation fund has been supported by the committee over many years. The PBO continues to draw on these funds, which are a vital resource for managing unexpected financial risks and safeguarding the PBO's operational independence.

The PBO makes a significant contribution to the parliament and to parliamentarians right across this chamber, and thereby to the democratic process, by providing valuable and vital information and analysis to parliamentarians to better inform public debate. The committee is concerned that this function will be seriously eroded if the PBO's current funding shortfall is not addressed. These are not the views of the committee alone. Recommendation 16 of the recently tabled Independent post-election review of the Parliamentary Budget Office, commissioned by the committee and conducted by the highly respected Dr Martin Parkinson, states:

The PBO's resources should be rebased to ensure it can continue to effectively meet its legislative mandate and deliver high-quality and timely outputs …

A further recommendation of Mr Parkinson's review, recommendation 19, is:

… the Government should provide dedicated resourcing to the PBO to support core maintenance and security within its ICT and data environment, as well as ongoing innovation, recognising that the PBO's requirements are outsized relative to its size.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Budget Office for their work in the support of the parliament and our committee. I also thank the former deputy chair of the committee, Senator Matt O'Sullivan, for his service. I thank the current deputy chair, my fellow committee members and the secretariat, who are extraordinary people, and they have worked very hard this year in their detailed consideration of these budget measures.

I also want to finally thank Ms Rona Mellor, who was the Deputy Auditor-General and who has retired after 11 years in the ANAO and many more in distinguished public service of our country. Her explanations of very complex issues to our committee have been a great help. She's a great person, and I wish her well for the next chapter. On that, I thank the House. I now ask leave of the House to present a copy of my statement.

Leave granted.

I present a copy of my statement.

Sitting suspended from 18:15 to 19:30

I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people here and the Yagara and Yugambeh people back home in Logan, and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is the most important and ambitious budget in decades.

It's important because the world is throwing a lot at us—and this budget is about helping Australia deal with these challenges.

It's ambitious because we have so much going for us—and this budget is about Australia seizing those opportunities.

War in the Middle East has been pushing up prices, pushing down growth, and punishing Australians.

It has exposed weaknesses in the global economy and intensified longstanding challenges here at home.

We didn't decide when this war began and we have no control over when it will properly end.

But how we respond is up to us—how we help each other through and how we come out of this a stronger, fairer, more productive and more resilient nation.

This budget is ambitious in the face of adversity.

It's a responsible budget and it's a reforming budget, which builds resilience and bolsters our economy.

There is more cost-of-living relief, more Medicare, more aged care and more housing.

It makes the tax system fairer and stronger for workers, businesses, first home buyers and future generations, responding to the pressures of the here and now while embracing our intergenerational responsibilities.

The core of this budget is an economic strategy with five main parts:

G lobal and domestic outlook

We are dealing with the fifth economic shock in less than 20 years.

The conflict in the Middle East and closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted the global economy and the global outlook.

Oil production fell by eight million barrels a day in the first month of the war—almost eight times more than any of the oil shocks we've seen since the 1970s.

The global oil price started the year around $60 and has now been above $100 for the bulk of the past two months.

A third of the world's seaborne fertiliser has been stuck, putting pressure on food production, food security and supermarket prices.

All of this has made the outlook more uncertain.

Treasury's central forecast assumes oil stays around $100 per barrel until the end of next month and glides to $80 by the end of June next year.

On that assumption, it would still be above its pre-conflict price in 12 months time.

This means Treasury now expects global growth to slow from 3½ per cent last year to just three per cent this year.

Inflation is spiking all around the world—and Australia is not immune from these global price rises.

Australians have been paying a hefty price for this war, at the bowser and beyond.

We were already dealing with price pressures in our economy, but Treasury's now forecasting inflation to peak around five per cent in the middle of the year because of the conflict.

For the same reasons, it's expecting growth to come in half a percentage point lower next financial year, to be 1¾ per cent overall.

In this budget, Treasury also presents a more severe scenario where the oil price peaks at $200 a barrel and takes three years to fall back down.

We would still avoid a recession, but unemployment would spike to pre-pandemic levels, and inflation would peak above seven per cent.

As Australians, we confront these serious challenges together from a position of strength.

We are much better placed and better prepared than most countries to deal with this global crisis.

Growth here is still higher than our peers, real incomes have been growing strongly, unemployment is historically low, and we have one of the strongest budgets in the world.

Before the war, GDP growth was strengthening and broadening.

The outlook for business investment remains robust, with a solid pipeline of data centre and renewable energy projects.

Employment is still growing, and even if unemployment ticks up as expected it will still stay around the mid-fours.

Nominal wages growth is expected to remain above three per cent, and annual real wage growth will return from next year, after growing for eight of the last nine quarters.

We know there's more work to do because the immediate costs and consequences of this war are already serious and could be severe.

At the same time, our economy is being reshaped by structural shifts across energy, industry, technology, demography and geopolitics.

And we have longstanding challenges when it comes to our productivity performance, our housing market and our tax system.

This budget is about getting us through the global oil shock and taking pressure off Australians while building a stronger economy, a better tax system and a more sustainable budget and lifting living standards for our people.

R esponding to the global oil shock

We are responding to the biggest oil shock in history with a comprehensive $14.8 billion plan to secure more fuel, strengthen our supply chains, build resilience and take the sting out of prices.

The Strengthening Australia's Fuel Resilience package will deliver more fuel for drivers and industry, more fertiliser for farmers and more fuel security for our economy.

Its centrepiece is a $10 billion investment in immediate fuel supplies and a permanent Australian fuel security reserve to get the fuels and fertiliser that we need.

We're helping businesses and manufacturers bolster supply chains, with $1 billion in interest-free loans through the National Reconstruction Fund and incentives to get more freight moving on trains and ships.

Targeted support for electric vehicles, building more charging stations, and heavy vehicle reform are all investments in our long-term fuel resilience.

We'll produce more fuel through our $1.1 billion Cleaner Fuels Program, backed with reforms to our low-carbon liquid fuels market to support demand.

We're reserving 20 per cent of gas exports for Australian users so there's more supply at lower prices.

And we're making more progress on our Future Made in Australia agenda, supporting mining and processing through our Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve, and investments in domestic smelting and manufacturing.

T aking the pressure of f Australians

We understand that this crisis is adding to the cost-of-living pressures facing Australians.

That's why we are taking some of the sting out of global price rises, by:

Tax cuts to help with the cost of living

Immediate relief from the fuel crisis is coupled with lasting and responsible cost-of-living measures.

This government cut taxes two years ago. We're cutting them again this year, and next year too.

Tonight, we are proud to be delivering another round of ongoing tax cuts for Australian workers.

We will put more money into the pockets of 13.3 million workers with a new $250 Working Australians Tax Offset.

It will begin from the second half of 2027 and be paid each year after that, ongoing and automatically in your tax return just like the instant deduction that we are rolling out as well.

This offset is targeted to workers and it represents the most meaningful, permanent increase to the effective tax-free threshold since Labor increased it more than a decade ago.

Altogether our five different tax cuts will benefit the average worker by up to $2,816 in 2028.

Averaged out over the year, our three tax cuts, our instant deduction and the new offset are the equivalent of up to $54 back in the average earner's pocket each week.

Cheaper medicines and better health care

Now, the $6.4 billion tax offset is the biggest cost-of-living measure in this budget—but it's not all we're doing to support families under pressure.

As a Labor government, we will always invest in Medicare and cheaper medicines and public health so Australians get the care that they need, when they need it.

This budget includes another $25 billion for public hospitals.

We're also investing $5.9 billion to list more medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, so Australians continue to access life-changing medicines at cheaper prices.

For example, cutting the cost of treatment for cystic fibrosis will save some Australians around $250,000 a year.

Medicare Urgent Care Clinics reduce out-of-pocket costs, because more bulk-billing means less pressure on household budgets and emergency departments.

By July, four in five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of one of the 137 clinics around the country.

We're permanently funding every one of them with $1.8 billion over the next four years and about half a billion dollars every year after that.

More homes and a fair go for first home buyers

Australia's longstanding housing shortage is making homes unaffordable.

This challenge hits young workers and families hard and we're addressing it from every responsible angle.

The reforms in this budget will lift our total investment in housing to a record $47 billion.

We're levelling the playing field for first home buyers with five per cent deposits and tax reform to help more young Australians into their own home.

We'll invest another $2 billion in the power, roads and drains that we need for new housing developments, which will help build around 65,000 new homes over the next decade.

We're working with the states to cut red tape and planning delays which could unlock tens of thousands more.

We're extending our ban on foreign investors buying existing homes to take pressure off the market and helping to fix the youth housing penalty, to secure homes for 4,000 young people at risk of homelessness.

Reforms to build an economy that works for more A ustralians

These housing reforms go to the very core of our budget strategy, dealing with the very real pressures on people right now—while taking responsibility for the challenges facing the next generations.

The shocks from around the world are coming at us faster and more frequently.

That global uncertainty is not a reason to delay reform, it's why we must move with urgency and with ambition.

The challenges coming at us, the opportunities ahead of us and the better future that Australians deserve will not wait for a time when all is quiet in the world.

That's why this budget invests in resilience and reform, to grow our economy the right way and lift living standards over time.

We'll do that through three ambitious policy packages: a productivity and investment package, a tax reform package and a savings package as well.

Making our economy more productive

To lift wages and living standards we have to lift productivity.

In the market sector, productivity has now grown for five consecutive quarters. It was 1½ per cent last year.

But this budget is about going further and moving faster.

This productivity package will help us attract and absorb more investment, make it easier and quicker to build, and it will slash compliance costs.

The reforms we are announcing tonight will cut regulatory costs by $10.2 billion every year.

Our efforts in National Competition Policy alone could boost GDP by $13 billion a year.

This is the broadest productivity push in a budget since the 1990s.

Boosting p roductivity

Our productivity plan starts with incentivising investment and innovation through the tax system for businesses, startups and venture capital.

We're cutting the unnecessary red tape holding us back, including $780 million every year in the financial sector alone.

We're also making tax time simpler for small businesses, which will save them 376,000 hours a year.

We're getting rid of almost 600 more tariffs to reduce trade barriers, as well as expanding our Trusted Trader program and streamlining biosecurity for fertiliser imports.

We're also building a single national market through our National Competition Policy reforms so Australia works as one economy, not eight, with new work to make mandatory standards free for workers and businesses.

And we're making government simpler to deal with, through a 'tell us once' approach so Australians don't have to keep submitting the same information, and expanding Digital ID.

We will speed up approvals so businesses can quickly move from an investment decision to shovels in the ground.

That's the motivation behind our environmental law reforms, the Investor Front Door and a second round of foreign investment changes.

We'll also simplify building regulations for when these projects begin construction.

And we're doing more on skills recognition and education so tradies can get their qualifications recognised more easily and businesses can find the skilled workers that they need.

We're progressing the most significant reforms to the national electricity market since the 1990s, as the world moves to net zero, including changes to help attract more investment in renewable energy and increase competition.

We're also modernising our energy system with a domestic gas reservation and getting more solar and batteries into homes, which could save $7 billion in systems costs by 2050.

We're seizing the vast opportunities from AI, with grants to commercialise AI innovations, and making government more efficient.

We're investing billions more in science and innovation, through the Medical Research Future Fund and in the CSIRO and the Square Kilometre Array, and billions in the infrastructure that we need to get people to work and to improve our regions, towns and cities.

We're also strengthening the performance test so our $4½ trillion super sector isn't being discouraged from investing productive capital in areas like energy and housing.

T ax reform for workers, businesses and future generations

The productivity package is ambitious and so are our tax reforms.

This budget includes the most significant tax reform package in more than a quarter of a century.

This is about tax relief and tax reform to make our economy work for more Australians, for more businesses and for future generations.

We're delivering a fairer tax system for workers, first home buyers and young people.

This will help rebalance a system which is more generous to assets than it is to labour and help rebalance a system where house prices have decoupled from incomes.

Since 1999, house prices have risen over 400 percent—more than twice as fast as average incomes.

Our tax changes will help about 75,000 Australians achieve the dream of homeownership.

We'll limit negative gearing for residential property to new builds from July next year.

And we're replacing the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with inflation-adjusted indexation to restore the taxation of real gains.

These changes will be prospective, and new builds will retain the option to use the 50 per cent discount.

We'll also introduce a minimum 30 per cent tax rate on capital gains from July next year and on discretionary trusts from July the year after.

This is about better aligning the taxes paid on these types of income with the taxes paid on wages.

These changes will level the playing field for workers and first home buyers and support investment in productive assets, including new housing supply.

They will fund our new round of tax relief for more than 13 million Australian workers.

We're building a better tax system for businesses, too, with over $3½ billion in new measures that lower taxes to encourage investment and innovation.

We'll permanently introduce two-year loss carryback for all companies with up to $1 billion in turnover—bolstering resilience and risk-taking.

We'll introduce loss refundability for startups, to help new businesses invest and grow in their first two years.

We'll also expand tax incentives for venture capital and better target the research and development tax incentive to support more high-impact innovation.

The third part of our tax reform package is to make the tax system simpler and more sustainable.

Simpler for workers with a $1,000 instant deduction, and simpler for small businesses with a permanent instant asset write-off and more dynamic tax instalments.

And we'll put in place more sustainable long-term settings to support the take up of electric vehicles.

Our tax reforms will help workers, create a fairer housing market, and drive more productive investment across our economy.

They build on the significant reforms we've already delivered, and they complement our other efforts to increase housing supply, boost productivity and reduce compliance costs.

The new revenue raised will be returned to workers and businesses over the next four years—so more Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn.

S avings and budget sustainability

This means the heavy lifting on budget repair is being done by savings and spending restraint, not tax increases.

This budget delivers the largest savings package on record.

All up, there are $63.8 billion in savings.

Our decisions improve the budget in net terms by $26.1 billion once you take our responsible provisions into account.

A big part of our savings package will restore the NDIS to its original intent and secure its future, so it grows in a sustainable way in line with programs like Medicare.

This difficult but necessary reform will save $37.8 billion over the forward estimates.

On top of savings there's also very substantial spending restraint.

Real spending growth averages just 1½ per cent for the eight years to June 2030.

This is the lowest average growth rate in any eight-year period for almost three and a half decades and less than half the 30-year average.

As a result:

This responsible economic management means:

Debt is lower and the budget position is stronger in every year of the medium term because of our savings.

The medium-term budget position is much stronger and more sustainable as a consequence, creating more room for future tax relief.

M aking room for our priorities

We've made progress getting the budget in much better shape at the same time as we've found room to fund the services and security Australians rely on.

This budget includes record investments in healthcare, defence, and economic resilience.

Reforming and strengthening care

There's $3 billion to deliver more beds, more packages and better aged care for older Australians.

There's $2 billion for the Thriving Kids program and a $3 billion provision for other foundational supports outside the NDIS.

And there's $2.2 billion to strengthen Services Australia and ensure Australians continue to receive safe, secure and reliable services quickly and easily.

Broadening opportunity

We're building an economy that is stronger, fairer, and gives more Australians a stake in our success.

We're investing an extra $1.2 billion to close the gap, doubling the number of jobs created as part of the Remote Jobs and Economic Development program and improving housing quality and expanding our support for grocery stores in remote First Nations communities.

Supporting gender equality

The gender pay gap has never been narrower and women's workforce participation hit record highs last year.

We are proud to have backed $21 billion in wage rises for women working in sectors like aged care and early childhood education, which have been undervalued for too long.

Since 2022, we've also invested more than $4.4 billion to deliver the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.

This budget includes hundreds of millions of dollars for frontline services and to make our child support system safer, so children get the financial support they need and women are protected from abuse.

Resilience and national security

Economic security, economic resilience, and national security are now one and the same.

We're investing an additional $53 billion over the next decade in our defence force to keep Australians and our region safe.

And there's almost $800 million for veterans as part of our response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

We're also taking action to strengthen our national security and national unity since the devastating antisemitic terror attack at Bondi Beach.

We're adopting every recommendation from the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion's interim report and fast-tracking tougher gun laws through the National Cabinet.

There is $600 million in this budget for a new Counter-Terrorism Online Centre, grants to support affected communities and money for our law enforcement agencies to crack down on the hate speech, the violent extremism and the terrorism which has absolutely no place in this country.

Conclusion

Against a backdrop of global uncertainty, this budget invests in Australia's resilience, its economic sovereignty and its national security.

At a time when Australians are under pressure, this budget delivers more help with the cost of living and new tax cuts for workers.

And in an era where people feel like the system no longer works for them, this budget doesn't just acknowledge that—it acts on it.

By levelling the playing field for first home buyers, backing the aspiration and innovation of small businesses.

And renewing the fundamental bargain between generations to help bring the dream of homeownership within reach of more young Australians.

No other budget in the 2000s has set out this much responsible budget repair and this much economic reform.

These are difficult decisions to ensure a stronger bottom line every year, to give us greater insurance in uncertain times at the same time as we build a more resilient, productive and competitive economy.

This is a strategy which helps shield people from the harshest consequences of a global oil crisis.

Stabilises our economy and our budget at a time of extreme uncertainty and volatility in the world.

And strengthens Australia for the next shock.

Faced with a choice between resilience or reform, this budget demonstrates our government and our country are capable of both.

Tonight, we choose the hard road of reform, not the path of least resistance.

By responding to the pressures Australians confront today.

And fulfilling our obligations and responsibilities to the generations to come.

That is why I commend this bill and this budget to the House.

Debate adjourned.

For the information of honourable members, I present the following documents in connection with the budget of 2026-27:

Budget strategy and outlook—Budget paper No. 1—2026-27.

Budget measures—Budget paper No. 2—2026-27.

Federal financial relations—Budget paper No. 3—2026-27.

Agency resourcing—Budget paper No. 4—2026-27.

I also present the following ministerial statements: the Women's budget statement 2026-27, 12 May 2026, and Regional ministerial budget statement 2026-27: Investing in Australia's regional growth and prosperity, 12 May 2026.

Documents made Parliamentary Papers.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, are the budget appropriation bills for 2026-27.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) seeks approval for appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund of $33.7 billion. This bill provides appropriations for services that are not the ordinary annual services of government for the 2026-27 financial year.

This budget is all about taking pressure off ordinary Australians by reforming the tax system to make it fairer for everyone.

We are helping people keep more of what they earn, with more than 13 million Australian workers benefiting from a new $250 working Australian tax offset.

We are reforming trusts to level the playing field between workers and families who earn a living through wages and salary and people who live off income from assets held in trusts.

We are helping more Australians own their own home with changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing.

These reforms will mean more Australians have the opportunity to buy a home, help millions of Australian workers earn more and keep more of what they earn, and ensure our tax system is simpler and more sustainable for the long term.

I now outline the most significant items provided for in this bill.

The Department of Defence will receive $15.3 billion to support the implementation of the 2026 National Defence Strategy and the 2026 Integrated Investment Program, including through investments in military capacity.

The Department of Finance will receive approximately $6.4 billion, including funding for Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty Ltd and Snowy Hydro Ltd.

The Department of the Treasury will receive over $4.2 billion to provide funding for loans to support social and affordable housing, including concessional loans for housing projects under the Housing Australia Future Fund and loans for the Australian Housing Bond Aggregator.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts will receive $3.6 billion to continue to deliver projects and programs. This includes funding for the Australian Rail Track Corporation for the Inland Rail project; WSA Co for the Western Sydney International Airport; the National Intermodal Corporation for the development of intermodal projects; NBN Co for the National Broadband Network updates; and funding for the Roads to Recovery Program.

The bill also contains an Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM) provision of $3.6 billion to provide the government with the capacity to allocate additional appropriations for urgent and unforeseen expenditure. The AFM comprises:

Strong transparency and accountability safeguards will apply to the AFM allocations. This includes publication of a ministerial media release for each allocation and consultation with the shadow minister for finance for any proposed AFM allocation over $1 billion.

This bill also sets debit limits for payments under the Federal Financial Relations Act that will apply in 2026-27, and they are:

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the portfolio budget statements. I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) provides appropriations for decisions taken by government in the 2026-27 budget for the operations of parliamentary departments. Together with appropriation bills 1 and 2, this bill forms part of the government's budget appropriation bills.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $345.4 million. Funding provided through this bill will support the following significant items of parliamentary departments.

The Department of Parliamentary Services will receive close to $274 million to support the work of the Australian parliament, through services to parliamentarians and as custodians of Parliament House.

The bill also includes an advance to the responsible presiding officer of $1.9 million.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the portfolio budget statements.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, the government introduces the 2025-26 supplementary additional estimates appropriation bills. These bills are:

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $2.7 billion. This would ensure there are sufficient appropriations to cover estimate variations related to existing programs, for example, changes in demand driven programs. These bills also pay for the 2025-26 financial year impact of decisions made since the 2025-26 MYEFO, including those in the 2026-27 budget.

Key items in this bill include:

The Department of Defence receiving over $1.8 billion in funding brought forward to address updated expenditure requirements under the 2024 National Defence Strategy and the Defence Integrated Investment Program.

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing receiving approximately $643 million, including over $598 million for the National Disability Insurance Agency to provide reasonable and necessary supports for National Disability Insurance Scheme participants.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $1.1 billion for the 2025-26 financial year. These appropriations will support the following key items.

The Department of Defence will receive $900 million brought forward to meet revised expenditure requirements under the 2024 National Defence Strategy and the Defence Integrated Investment Program.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts will receive over $204 million for the Australian Rail Track Corporation to continue to deliver the Inland Rail project.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

House adjourned at 20 : 12