Pursuant to section 22 of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Act 2023, I present the Commonwealth parliamentary workplace report for 2025.

Document made a parliamentary paper.

I move:

That further statements on David Malouf AO be permitted in the Federation Chamber.

I thank the shadow minister for joining in the remarks.

Question agreed to.

I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 stands referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill.

I present report No. 10 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 25 May 2026. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business

1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 12 May 2026.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 12 May 2026, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 25 May 2026, as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 DR HAINES: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, and for related purposes. (Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Communications in Natural Disasters) Bill 2026)

(Notice given 10 March 2026.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

2 MS PENFOLD: To present a Bill for an Act to establish a commission of inquiry into the behaviour, practices and performance of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder Commission of Inquiry Bill 2026)

(Notice given 30 March 2026.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

3 MS PENFOLD: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and for related purposes. (Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sex-based Rights) Bill 2026)

(Notice given 31 March 2026.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

4 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act relating to the human rights and freedoms of all Australians and all people in Australia, and for related purposes. (Human Rights Bill 2026)

(Notice given 12 May 2026.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

5 MR CALDWELL: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes the Government has repeatedly broken promises to Australians on cost of living, energy prices, and housing affordability, leaving families worse off financially; and

(2) calls on the Government to take responsibility for its broken promises and deliver living standards and ease pressure on Australian households.

(Notice given 12 May 2026.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Caldwell 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.

6 MR GEORGANAS: To move:

That this House notes that:

(1) the Government is delivering a further $2 billion of investment in infrastructure to enable new housing, and that this brings the Government's total investments in housing-enabling infrastructure to $6.3 billion;

(2) this total investment is more than 50 times what the Opposition invested in housing-enabling infrastructure after over almost a decade in office;

(3) this new funding lifts the Government's housing investment to $47 billion; and

(4) the Government is delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes, nearly 150 times what the Opposition built during their time in Government.

(Notice given 12 May 2026.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.

Speech time limits

Mr Georganas 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MS WATSON-BROWN: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) despite the overwhelming support of the Australian people for gas corporations to pay their fair share for our resources, the Government has instead listened to the gas lobby and refused to implement a 25 per cent tax on gas exports;

(b) despite the overwhelming support of the Australian people for a ban on gambling advertising, the Government has instead listened to the gambling lobby and refused to implement a full ban; and

(c) prior to the 2025 federal election, the major parties received millions in donations from fossil fuel corporations and the gambling industry; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) implement a minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports;

(b) implement a total ban on gambling advertising; and

(c) commit to addressing corporate control over our political system.

(Notice given 12 May 2026.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Watson-Brown 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

2 MS J RYAN: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the opening of an additional 11 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics across Australia, with all 33 clinics now open, supporting women and girls; and

(2) notes these clinics:

(a) are delivering a key part of the Government's landmark Women's Health Package, which is investing almost $800 million to deliver improved health care and access for women and girls;

(b) provide expert, multidisciplinary care for women and girls living with endometriosis and pelvic pain as well as perimenopause and menopause care; and

(c) have already provided care for over 10,000 Australian women and girls, with more than 28,000 services to those with endometriosis and persistent pelvic pain conditions.

(Notice given 12 May 2026.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms J Ryan 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

3 MR REBELLO: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes the Government's decision to cut the private health insurance rebate for Australians over 65, which will significantly increase health costs for older Australians during a cost of living crisis;

(2) recognises analysis showing couples over 65 with gold cover could face an additional $1,614 in costs from April 2027, representing a record increase in private health insurance costs;

(3) condemns the Government for targeting older Australians and pensioners on fixed incomes, forcing many to either pay substantially more or abandon their private health cover altogether;

(4) expresses concern that this policy will place even greater pressure on already stretched public hospitals, leading to longer elective surgery waitlists, increased ambulance ramping and worse patient outcomes; and

(5) calls on the Government to immediately reverse these rebate cuts, release the modelling underpinning the decision, and protect older Australians from further cost of living pressures and declining access to healthcare.

(Notice given 12 May 2026.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Rebello 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

4 MS CLUTTERHAM: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the significance of the recent signing of the Australia-European Union Security and Defence Partnership;

(2) notes that this broad ranging partnership reflects the:

(a) meaningful cooperation between Australia and the European Union across the defence and space industries;

(b) collaborative motivation to build capacity to manage and resilience to meet complex security threats in the Indo-Pacific and European regions; and

(c) joint determination to combat online radicalisation and terrorism financing; and

(3) affirms the Government's commitment to continue to provide new international opportunities for Australian businesses at the cutting edge of defence technology and innovation, in parallel with a Future Made in Australia.

(Notice given 12 May 2026.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Clutterham 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

5 MR CHESTER: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that the:

(a) Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has reported that:

(i) common or European carp (Cyprinus carpio) is an invasive freshwater species that has been established across Australia's inland waters for several decades;

(ii) their large mouths and feeding style contribute to their environmental damage;

(iii) carp populations can also increase quickly with their numbers fluctuating in response to changing breeding conditions associated with seasonal rainfall;

(iv) in some river systems, carp can make up as much as 90 per cent of total biomass, outcompeting native fish;

(v) their high abundance increases water turbidity, damages aquatic plants, and degrades freshwater ecosystems; and

(vi) carp are now in every state and territory in Australia except the Northern Territory;

(b) National Carp Control Plan report suggests the carp herpes virus could reduce Australian carp populations by up to 60 per cent; and

(c) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has found the carp herpes virus is effective in killing carp and does not transfer to native species;

(2) notes that:

(a) the Victorian Fisheries Authority is advocating strongly for the release of the carp herpes virus at trial sites to help reduce the damage caused by this invasive fish;

(b) the Opposition has written to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to offer bipartisan support for the Government to set clear timelines for the release of the virus; and

(c) a meeting of key stakeholders in Nagambie, on 30 April 2026, unanimously supported the release of the virus as part of a coordinated plan to control carp numbers and formed the Murray-Darling Carp Action Alliance to unite efforts, resources, and advocacy against the invasive species; and

(3) urges the Government to work in partnership with the Opposition, key stakeholder groups and local communities to design and implement the release of the carp herpes virus by 2028 at the latest.

(Notice given 12 May 2026.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.

Speech time limits

Mr Chester 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Orders of the day

BROKEN PROMISES: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Caldwell—That this House:

(1) notes the Government has repeatedly broken promises to Australians on cost of living, energy prices, and housing affordability, leaving families worse off financially; and

(2) calls on the Government to take responsibility for its broken promises and deliver living standards and ease pressure on Australian households.

Time allotted 45 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices — continued

6 MS K COOK: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that during Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month we raise awareness, support victim survivors and promote zero tolerance for violence in our country;

(2) commends the Government's National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-32;

(3) recognises the Government's record investment to end violence against women and children and work undertaken under the First Action Plan 2023-2027; and

(4) supports the Government as it develops the second action plan towards its goal to end violence against women and children in Australia in one generation.

(Notice given 26 March 2026.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms K Cook 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

7 MR CHAFFEY: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that Inland Rail was conceived as a nation building freight rail project connecting Melbourne and Brisbane through regional Australia;

(2) recognises that Inland Rail was designed to:

(a) reduce freight transit times between Melbourne and Brisbane from around 33 hours to under 24 hours;

(b) remove up to 200,000 truck movements from Australian roads annually;

(c) improve national fuel security by shifting freight from road to rail;

(d) reduce freight costs for Australian producers and consumers; and

(e) support jobs, investment and economic growth across regional Australia;

(3) further notes official modelling shows Inland Rail could:

(a) reduce freight transport costs by approximately $213 million annually; and

(b) significantly increase rail freight capacity between Melbourne and Brisbane;

(4) condemns the Government for:

(a) cutting and delaying Inland Rail funding;

(b) abandoning the original vision of a completed Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail corridor; and

(c) failing regional communities, freight operators, farmers and exporters who were promised a completed national freight corridor; and

(5) calls on the Government to:

(a) commit to completing the full Inland Rail corridor connecting Melbourne to Brisbane;

(b) restore certainty around project delivery and funding; and

(c) recognise Inland Rail as a critical national productivity, fuel security and regional development project.

(Notice given 12 May 2026.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Chaffey 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

8 MR M SMITH: To move:

That this House:

(1) commends the Government's plan to build Australia's energy sovereignty, alongside growing our fuel reserves and supporting more fuels made in Australia to stay in Australia; and

(2) notes that a 20 per cent liquified natural gas exports domestic reservation scheme will:

(a) put strong downward pressure on domestic gas prices;

(b) shield our industry and households from global price volatility; and

(c) ensure Australia's energy security by avoiding potential gas supply shortfalls.

(Notice given 12 May 2026.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.

Speech time limits

Mr M Smith 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

THE HON D. M. DICK MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

13 May 2026

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australians have faced extraordinary economic challenges over the last few years, driven by events beyond our shores. This week's budget outlined the government's strategy to respond to these challenges through responsible savings and supporting intergenerational equality and by building an economy that is more productive and more resilient.

In particular, higher productivity is the key to boosting the real value of our wages and our standard of living. A more productive economy is a more resilient one, and reversing the decay to Australian productivity, which set in during the 2010s, is a key economic goal for the government.

Better regulation is a key piece of this economic picture. Regulation touches on nearly every aspect of everyday life. From road rules to housing construction, regulation sets the 'ground rules' which govern how individuals behave and how businesses and institutions operate. Last year's Economic Reform Roundtable highlighted the importance of getting regulatory settings right and the strong desire from businesses and community organisations for better regulation.

The government is delivering an ambitious regulatory reform agenda to facilitate investment, protect Australians from harm and reduce unnecessary regulatory costs across the economy. Through this agenda, we have been identifying and implementing continuous improvements to regulatory settings on a government-wide basis. When our agenda is fully implemented, the gains delivered for Australians will include:

Regulatory reform omnibus bills will be instrumental in delivering needed legislative reforms under this agenda. Last October, the Treasurer introduced the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025, which was about better regulation, cutting compliance costs and launching the ambitious transition to a 'tell us once' approach to government service delivery. Today, I am proud to continue the government's regulatory reform agenda by introducing the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026.

This bill continues the work from last year's omnibus act by further simplifying regulation, particularly for businesses, progressing additional measures to support the government's 'tell us once' agenda and making technical amendments to get regulation working better for Australians.

In total, it amends 26 acts, repeals two acts and will improve the operations of 19 government agencies.

First, the bill will update Australia's intellectual property laws.

It will provide the Registrar of Trade Marks with more discretion over the amount of costs, prescribed by the regulations, to be awarded in a trademark opposition matter. Currently, the registrar can only award scheduled amounts regardless of how much a party spent in legal fees. Giving the registrar more flexibility to determine costs will further build integrity into the oppositions process for businesses and deter poor behaviour intended to run up the costs of the other party.

It will also introduce a six-month grace period for plant breeders to renew their plant breeder rights where they are late in paying the annual renewal fee. Under the current settings these rights are automatically lost if the fee is paid late, and the plant breeder must apply again to get them back. We know that life and business get hectic sometimes. This change means that plant breeders won't accidently lose valuable rights just because they missed a renewal payment deadline.

It will boost protections by allowing investigations and discipline of patent and trademark attorneys to continue, even if an attorney de-registers to try to avoid the process. It will also impose stricter requirements for re-registration where a patent and trademark attorney is found guilty of misconduct. Together, these changes will help businesses maintain confidence in the IP attorney profession. It will close an unintended loophole, while still allowing easy re-registration for attorneys with a clear conduct record.

Beyond intellectual property, the bill will remove the mandatory 30-day appeal period for importers who advise they don't intend to appeal a negative preliminary decision by the Anti-Dumping Commissioner for a partial refund as part of the duty assessment process. This change will allow importers to receive faster refunds when they advise that they don't intend to appeal the decision.

The commissioner's preliminary decision is subject to being finalised by the minister. When the decision is finalised, the importer can be paid the refund they are entitled to. However, even when an importer has no intention of appealing the decision, the commissioner must wait the full 30-day period before recommending that the minister finalise the decision. This amendment will allow the commissioner, on receiving confirmation from the importer that they don't intend to appeal, to immediately recommend that the decision be finalised. This change means faster cash flow for businesses by adding fit-for-purpose flexibility to an administrative process.

The bill will also simplify business reporting requirements.

It will simplify workplace gender equality reporting and target-setting requirements by adding a 12-month window at the end of a target cycle. Right now, reporting at the end of a target cycle comes with additional regulatory burden for businesses. Not only must they finalise their data and reporting for the current cycle; they must also select new targets for the next cycle.

This amendment will give employers more time to identify high-quality, meaningful targets by adding a 12-month window to identify and nominate them. This change means more time for employers to analyse and understand their performance in the previous cycle, leading to more considered targets and more sustainable progress towards gender equality in our workplaces. The amendment also reduces the administrative burden for employers that comes at the end of a target cycle.

The bill will also align the reporting period for public and private sector employers to ensure comparable data on gender equality in the workplace is available for both Commonwealth and private sector employers.

Another improvement to business reporting made by the bill is to move reporting under the new eligible drama expenditure scheme from a financial-year to calendar-year basis. This aligns these reporting requirements for subscription television broadcast licensees and channel providers with other Australian content reporting schemes. This change will make it easier for businesses who are reporting under multiple schemes to prepare, compare and lodge the required information.

A core part of the 2025 omnibus act was supporting a shift towards a 'tell us once' approach to how government works for Australians.

A realised 'tell us once' approach across government means Australians and businesses won't have to enter the same information more than once when interacting with government.

This bill will advance the government's efforts to embed a 'tell us once' approach across a wider range of government activities and services.

For importers, it will allow goods that are covered by a tariff concession order to be exempt from dumping and countervailing duties in certain circumstances, without requiring a further administrative decision. This removes administrative delays in exempting some goods from dumping and countervailing duties and means importers can get on with business more quickly.

The bill will make it easier for people who are 'nominees' under the social security law to cancel their nominee arrangements by removing the requirement to cancel in writing. Nominees are appointed to assist social security, family assistance and paid parental leave recipients who need help interacting with Services Australia. Currently, when nominees want to cancel their nominee appointment they must notify Services Australia in writing, even if they've already said they want to cancel their appointment over the phone.

This adds administrative burden and can cause delays in the cancellation of arrangements that may no longer be appropriate or tenable (for example due to the presence of family or domestic violence). This change will ensure that nominee arrangements are simple to cancel on a 'tell us once' basis and can be actioned by Services Australia as soon as possible with minimal impost on the nominee.

The bill will also make it easier for recipients of some Commonwealth pensions to comply with their proof of life obligations and reduce duplication of effort by Services Australia. These obligations apply to Australians aged 80 years or over who have been away from Australia for at least two continuous years. These amendments will allow Services Australia, in some cases, to rely instead on information it has already collected from other places. This is a significant change that will reduce the regulatory burden not just on elderly pensioners but also on Australia's consular officials, who often help prepare the certificates.

The bill will also make changes that will get government working better for Australians.

It will improve the Australian Human Rights Commission complaints process by removing excessive mandatory complaint notification requirements. These requirements were introduced in an attempt to increase procedural fairness. In practice, they have only applied to people who play no role in the resolution of complaints and aren't able to formally respond. Receiving a notification can be a confusing and stressful experience for these people, and they may contact the commission for support even though there are no legal consequences for them. The notification process has also not helped complainants get better outcomes. This change will mean more time for the commission to spend supporting complainants and less stress for people who would otherwise receive these notices.

The bill will also allow eligible Defence Force Superannuation Scheme members to access an account based pension from CSC when they retire. This will give former ADF members more choice to manage their money in retirement and has support from serving and former ADF members.

Finally, the bill will also make various technical amendments to improve the operation of existing regulations. It will repeal acts that have become redundant. It will clarify and align legislative definitions and concepts to support more efficient and timely administrative decision-making.

I am introducing this bill into the House on behalf of my colleague in the other place Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Government Services. I want to acknowledge her and thank her for her work in bringing this bill together. It is a reflection on the commitment of this government to continued regulatory reform that we are able to introduce another regulatory reform omnibus bill so soon after the first.

As the Treasurer said when he introduced the 2025 omnibus bill, regulation should be there to protect Australians and empower them, not weigh them down.

This bill is about making sure regulation supports businesses to get the most out of their investment and their hard work.

It is about sensible changes that simplify regulations while maintaining essential safeguards for the community.

It takes further steps towards a wider 'tell us once' approach across all of government.

It will support the government's work to build an economy that is more dynamic, more resilient and more productive for all Australians.

We understand that there is more work to do and expect to introduce further omnibus bills in the future.

This bill is another step forward towards delivering the better regulation that Australians deserve.

Full details of all the bill's measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

I start by acknowledging all those that continue to serve our nation in uniform, our veterans and their families. And I note that the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard fought battles, wars and sacrifices that they have made through peacekeeping missions, natural disasters, humanitarian and combat operations. In recognition of their service, it is incumbent upon us in this parliament to ensure that Defence Force members, veterans and their families are treated with respect and dignity and get the appropriate support that they deserve.

Today I rise to speak on the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. The coalition will not oppose this bill. This legislation implements key recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, a landmark inquiry that was established by the former coalition government. It was in 2021 when I stood, in government, in the corner, and looked up and saw families of those whose sons had died by suicide sitting in the gallery holding photos of their sons and saying that we must have a royal commission. The coalition called it. The Labor government is implementing it, and I thank the minister for his genuine bipartisanship through this process.

When we established the royal commission, we said its aim was to shed a light on the critical steps needed so we can reduce the heartbreaking cases of suicide. The findings confirmed what service members of the Australian Defence Force, veterans and their families have been saying for years. They deserve truth, accountability and genuine reform. With more than half a million Australians having served or currently serving, we have a profound obligation to ensure that issues identified are acknowledged and that necessary action is taken.

The coalition believes we have a personal responsibility to care for the physical and mental wounds of our Australian Defence Force personnel past, present and future. Our Defence Force and veteran community must always be recognised for the incredible sacrifices they have made and continue to make, and their unique health challenges must always be prioritised and addressed. We've seen far too many of our brave men and women succumb to their war within—their invisible wounds. That is why, at the last election, the coalition committed to implementing an agreed response to the royal commission to deliver better outcomes for the Defence Force and veteran community. The coalition remains committed to addressing the unacceptably high rates of suicide among Defence Force and veteran communities.

This bill provides the necessary framework to implement recommendations 18, 20, 23, 34 and 63. It also introduces reform to the military justice system, which is an integral framework underpinning military discipline and command. The coalition understands that delays in resolving discipline matters adversely affect morale, welfare and operational effectiveness. Prolonged uncertainty places a strain on personnel that can undermine unit cohesion and trust. A fair, effective and timely system is essential for protecting personnel and ensuring that the Australian Defence Force remains mission-ready.

I'll turn to the specifics of the bill. Schedule 1 directly implements several of the royal commission recommendations designed to protect victims and enhance accountability. Recommendation 18 called for enhanced safeguards to ensure alleged victims are not required to work alongside alleged perpetrators during investigations. This sounds like something that shouldn't have occurred, but it has occurred in many units over many years. Currently, a member suspected of a minor service offence can be suspended, but a member suspected of a serious civilian criminal offence, such as rape, sexual assault or even murder, often cannot be suspended. This can create inconsistent and unsuitable outcomes where serious criminal offences do not trigger the same protective actions as minor service matters. The bill resolves that inconsistency by introducing a new suspension power where a member is under investigation by civilian authorities.

Furthermore, schedule 1 implements recommendation 20, requiring service tribunals to consider victim impact in sexual offences cases. It also addresses rank disparity in sentencing. We also see the implementation of recommendation 21, establishing a framework to ensure serious service convictions are disclosed to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission for inclusion in the national policing records. Additionally, in line with recommendation 63, the bill removes stigmatising language like 'malingering' from the Defence Force Discipline Act, replacing it with descriptions that do not carry the same negative connotation for wounded, ill or injured members.

Schedule 2 streamlines superior tribunal procedures. This gives effect to recommendation 34, which required a review of provisions where court martial panels were not required to give reasons for punishment. This legislation now requires that any conviction and sentencing decision by the superior tribunals or reviews is to be accompanied by formal reasons. By requiring these reasons, this bill seeks to enhance transparency and accountability within the system. This schedule also makes changes to the trial phase, where the complex task of sentencing is becoming the responsibility of the judge advocate and not a lay panel. The government has stated that these measures are intended to align the practice of the superior tribunals more closely with those of the civilian justice system. The bill also provides for matters to be prescribed by a regulation, enabling the framework to remain responsive to future reforms and developments across civilian judicial jurisdictions.

To strengthen procedural fairness, the schedule also introduces reforms allowing either the accused person or the prosecution, prior to a plea being entered, to apply for the election of the reform or mode of trial. This includes the ability to seek a trial by judge advocate alone, the escalation of proceedings from restricted court martial to general court martial or a referral of a matter from a Defence Force magistrate to court martial. To reduce the likelihood of retrials and improve trial continuity, the Registrar of Military Justice is granted flexible powers to appoint and substitute judge advocates and panel members in response to illness or operational demands. This is reform that seeks to ensure the wheels of justice do not halt due to the unique pressures of military service. We note measures to align court martial proceedings to contemporary civilian practice may prove more difficult in practice owing to the unique nature of court martial, where it could be argued that there is no direct equivalence between a court martial and a civilian jury.

Schedule 3 updates the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Act concerning the management of mental impairment in service tribunal proceedings. Part 1 of the schedule updates the powers of service tribunals. We're dealing with those suffering from mental health impairment, with part 2 establishing a defence mental health tribunal as a specialised decision-making body. The current framework lacks the mechanism to address mental health conditions that fall short of legal incapacity but still impact an accused person's wellbeing or the fairness of superior tribunal proceedings.

This bill introduces new diversionary measures permitting a service tribunal to adjourn proceedings for up to six months. Under the proposed subsection 137E, a service tribunal must dismiss a charge entirely where 'reasonably satisfied that the accused person is suffering from a mental impairment', the judge advocate rules that 'trying or continuing to try the charge is not in the interests of maintaining discipline in the Defence Force' or 'the prosecution has had an opportunity to be heard'. Factors that must be considered to dismiss the charge include 'the nature, severity and expected duration of the mental impairment' and 'the nature and seriousness of the charge'.

Part 2 of schedule 3 establishes a Defence mental health tribunal. This will allow for the provision of a clinically informed alternative to the outdated custodial provisions, which are currently in the Defence Force Disciplinary Act, allowing for orders related to treatment, care or appropriate detention. These orders will be reviewed every six months, ensuring that the restriction of liberty is always proportionate and subject to clinical oversight. This is a trauma informed approach that supports the wellbeing of the accused while also maintains confidence in the discipline system. This part is to commence by proclamation or on 1 January 2028, to allow for the negotiation of state and territory funding to access facilities. We urge the government, and will work with the government, to expediate these discussions.

Schedule 4 seeks to simplify the middle tier of the disciplinary framework, creating the summary contravention scheme. The current three-tier system can be complex and a major source of delay and inefficiency. This bill replaces that system with a single streamlined scheme. The new scheme is administrative, not criminal, and uses the civil standard of proof. It allows Defence to manage minor misconducts in a proportionate way while reducing escalation into the service offence system. This balances the need for efficiency with the fundamental right to a fair trial.

Schedule 5—this is the one I had a little bit of concern about—contains 16 parts. It's very big and it covers a broad range of amendments. In particular, the part that I am concerned about—and I thank the minister for allowing some defence members to go through the process with me—is the establishment of a clear statutory basis for Defence Force police members to carry, handle and use specified policing equipment. That means MPs, military police, would be able to hold tasers. MPs can't use tasers on the civilian force; they would only be able to use them on those still serving or to defend a military base against those who have broken in.

As a former enlisted soldier, I am concerned because the likelihood of who these tasers would be used upon would be enlisted soldiers. I have some concerns around this. I spoke with three service people yesterday, including a warrant officer class 1. In some jurisdictions they already carry the taser. I am sceptical of it. I am worried that it's going to be used on enlisted soldiers more than on officers. I think we've got to keep an eye on this. I know what I was like when I was a soldier! I'm glad there were no tasers then!

Part 1 does allow for specified military police to use specified policing equipment: tasers. Part 2 amends the DFDA to update prescribed quantities for drug offences by repealing definitions of 'controlled drug' and 'controlled plant'. Part 2 also repeals a new definition of 'prescribed quantity'. This will align the DFDA definitions to other Commonwealth legislation.

Part 3 amends the DFDA to enable the disclosure and protection of certain information in proceedings before service tribunals or for law enforcement purposes.

Part 4 amends DFDA service offences, removing outdated location based elements and modernises the scope of assault and harassment related offences. These amendments seek to ensure that service offence provisions reflect contemporary expectations.

Part 5 amends the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed by a restricted court martial from six months to two years.

Part 6 amends the DFDA to ensure that a reviewing authority cannot consider a petition relating to proceedings that it has already reviewed under section 152 as part of the automatic review process. This is seen as a fairness measure.

Part 7 amends the DFDA to increase the maximum term of appointment of legal officers appointed under section 154 from three years to five years. This part also clarifies that a reviewing authority should not commence a review without obtaining a report on the proceedings, which can be provided by a legal officer appointed under section 154 or a DJAG.

Part 8 makes amendments to vest all statutory discipline powers to the CDF rather than with the CDF and other service chiefs, allowing the CDF to delegate those powers to service chiefs and other Defence Force officers at or above the rank of commodore, brigadier or air commodore.

Part 9 amends the Defence Act 1903 and the DFDA to update the title Director of Defence Counsel Services to Director of Defence Legal Assistance. This is to reflect the increased scope, over the years, of the director.

Part 10 amends the DFDA to expand the statutory functions of the DMP to include representing the CDF and other service chiefs in specified Federal Court and High Court proceedings relating to the DFDA.

Part 11 amends the DFDA to modernise and harmonise the termination provisions for the JAG and the DJAG, aligning with contemporary judicial office termination standards.

Part 12 amends section 146 of the DFDA to enable regulations to apply, adopt and incorporate evidentiary rules that operate in the Jervis Bay Territory, for use in the DFDA proceedings.

Part 13 amends the DFDA to modernise and broaden the concept of the investigating officer. These amendments ensure that DFDA investigations are conducted appropriately by appropriately trained people and support the professionalism of Defence investigative practice.

Part 14 amends section 84A of the DFDA to expand the existing removal order power so that it applies not only to cyberbullying offences under section 48A but also to any service offence that involves the provision of intimate images of another person via social media or electronic services. This ensures service tribunals can order the removal of harmful intimate image material whenever it is posted or otherwise shared as a part of the DFDA offending, not only when it constitutes cyberbullying.

Part 15 creates a power to extinguish historical homosexual service offences.

Part 16 amends the DFDA to relocate all disciplinary infringement provisions from part IA into a standalone schedule 1. The aim of this amendment is to improve readability and simplify the numbering of infringement provisions.

Finally, schedule 6 provides a transitional rule-making power to the minister. This will allow the minister to make rules by legislative instrument. The government sees this as a necessary measure to deal with unintended outcomes or unforeseen issues as we move from the old framework to the new. The coalition expects the minister to use the powers judiciously, ensuring that the rules made are in the interests of justice and accord fairness to all proceedings.

The highlight of the bill, for me, is around streamlining and marrying up the offences. If you're in Defence and the Defence Force are investigating you, you get stood down and are given appropriate support, and it's up to the command element around your pay structure, but, if you're investigated by the Queensland Police Service or another state police service for a serious crime, then at this stage you would not be stood down. We have seen cases in Townsville, Darwin, Brisbane and Tasmania, at different units, where an alleged perpetrator of sexual assault was working with the alleged victim. That is not good enough, and this is a protection to make sure that that doesn't occur, because in many cases where an alleged perpetrator does get convicted and becomes the perpetrator, this poor victim has been made to work with the person that has assaulted them, sexually assaulted them or been convicted of raping them. I do think this is an appropriate change, and we do support this. It marries it up and makes a lot of sense to me.

We remain deeply committed to addressing the high rates of suicide among our defence and veteran community. I know that is a bipartisan statement in this parliament. Last year the coalition supported the legislation to establish the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner, which was recommendation 122 of the royal commission. It is imperative that we work together to roll out these recommendations. We will continue to engage with key advocacy groups to ensure the unique challenges of Defence personnel and veterans are prioritised.

No good ideas come out of Canberra. No good ideas come from politicians. They come from the experts, and it's our job to listen, work and deliver for those ESOs and defence groups and veterans that come to us and say, 'Hey, why aren't we rolling out this?' or, 'How do we move it quicker?' We will not stand in the way of this bill. A strong, fair, effective military justice system is essential to maintaining discipline, operational effectiveness and the confidence of the Australian people in our Defence Force. Our servicemen and women deserve a system that is transparent and timely. We must do better by those who defend us, our families and our way of life. The implementation of the royal commission recommendations is a critical step in that direction.

Debate adjourned.

I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026. This bill addresses a simple but fundamental principle of justice: perpetrators of child sexual abuse should not be able to hide behind complex financial structures to avoid accountability. For too long, our legal and financial systems have contained an inadvertent and deeply unjust loophole, one that has allowed convicted offenders to shield their assets in superannuation accounts while the victims and survivors of their crimes are left without the compensation that they are legally or morally owed. Today we move to close that loophole. This is not just a technical correction to our Treasury laws; it is a moral alignment of our financial systems with the values of Australian people. We are making a clear statement that the perpetrator's right to a comfortable retirement does not and will never outweigh a survivor's right to justice and redress.

It is essential that this House understands why this reform is so urgent. Child sexual abuse is not a crime that ends when the physical act stops. Its impacts are enduring, complex and profound. Survivors frequently carry the effects of their abuse into their adulthood, and the experience may ripple through every facet of their lives, affecting their mental health, physical wellbeing, ability to form stable relationships and educational outcomes. We often hear from survivors who have spent decades navigating the world in silence, carrying a burden that was never theirs to carry or to bear.

For many, this trauma directly impacts their ability to participate fully in the workforce. When we talk about the harm caused by the abuse, we are not just talking about the emotional scars; we are talking about material disadvantage. Survivors may face lifelong barriers to stable employment and financial security. They may require ongoing medical care, psychological support and specialised services, which may come at a significant financial cost. The courage it takes for these individuals to come forward, often decades after the events, cannot be overstated. They choose to relive their most painful experiences in pursuit of justice, knowing full well that legal outcomes are never guaranteed. As a parliament, our response must be equally serious, sustained and, above all, centred on those who have been harmed.

For too many survivors, a court ruling in their favour has proven to be nothing more than a paper victory. They have endured the gruelling, often retraumatising experience of legal proceedings. They have stood in front of the law and asked for acknowledgement and yet, even after being awarded compensation, they face the further distress of seeing those orders go unpaid. This compounds the original harm. It sends a message to the survivor that, even after the state acknowledges their suffering, the perpetrator can still win by playing the system. It is a failure of our institutions to deliver on the promise of meaningful redress.

I have met with constituents who have walked this path. They have won their cases only to be told by lawyers that the perpetrator's assets are untouchable because they have been funnelled into superannuation. This is a perversion of the intent of our retirement savings system. Superannuation was designed to provide security in old age, not to act as a safe haven for those seeking to dodge a debt of justice.

Under these reforms, we are introducing a practical, targeted mechanism for enforcement that levels the playing field. Point 1 is direct access to contributions. Where a court-ordered compensation debt remains unpaid after 12 months, victims-survivors will be able to seek access through a court order to specific superannuation contributions. Point 2 is targeting voluntary shielding. We are specifically targeting additional personal and salary-sacrifice contributions. These are the voluntary payments that have previously been used by offenders to park their wealth out of reach. We are not touching their basic employment contributions required for baseline retirement, but we are ensuring that any extra wealth accumulated by the criminal perpetrator is available to pay their victims first. Point 3 is ending the bankruptcy refuge. Crucially, this bill 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 for accountability for such serious harm. These changes will apply not only to future bankruptcies but also to those that are currently in progress. This recognises that justice delayed is justice denied and that we must act for those who are struggling with the system today.

We acknowledge that the superannuation and bankruptcy systems, although the bedrock of our financial stability, are highly technical. Changes to these systems must be carefully designed to be effective and enforceable, while remaining consistent with broader legal principles. Getting the technical details right is how we ensure that justice is real. We have consulted extensively with legal experts, financial regulators and survivor advocates to ensure these mechanisms will work in practice and not just on paper. This bill should be understood as a significant and necessary foundation. It closes a clear, inadvertent loophole and sends a strong signal about the direction of reform.

We have heard the voices of survivors and advocates clearly, and they are looking to us to continue to build on these reforms, following the passage of this bill. Their lived experience must remain at the centre of the conversation. When survivors tell us where the system falls short, it is our responsibility to listen and act, and that is why the review measure included in this bill is so critical. We are not just passing legislation and moving on to the next item of the agenda; we are committed to remaining engaged. We will assess whether victims are genuinely benefiting, and we will identify additional changes that are required to remove remaining barriers. Our policy must continue to be informed by those who use the system: the survivors, the legal practitioners and the advocates.

Ultimately, this measure is about restoring fairness and dignity. It is about ensuring that the law does not inadvertently protect those who have caused profound harm and are deemed criminals, while leaving their victims without recourse. When an offender retains substantial retirement savings while their victim struggles financially, often as a direct consequence of abuse, it is unacceptable and amoral and it undermines public confidence in our justice system. It risks perpetuating a cycle where the burden of the crime continues to fall on the shoulders of the person who has been harmed.

This bill aligns with our laws and our values. It says that perpetrators must be held accountable. It says that survivors deserve not only recognition but also meaningful support and redress. By passing this bill, we are making it clear that this parliament is committed to the long-term work of listening, improving and building a foundation of justice that survivors can rely on.

To summarise, this bill closes a loophole that has allowed perpetrators of child sexual abuse to shield assets in superannuation and avoid paying court ordered compensation. Survivors can win in court and yet receive nothing, because offenders can park their wealth in protected accounts or use bankruptcy to escape enforcement. These reforms in this survivors bill ensure that judgements can be enforced and that justice is meaningful and not merely symbolic. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise today with honour to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026. Before I address the substance of the bill, I want to acknowledge those who have made this reform possible: advocates like Super for Survivors, Bravehearts, the Grace Tame Foundation, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia, the Carly Ryan Foundation and the many victims-survivors and advocates who have shared their stories, often not just once but over and over again during consultation, media moments and closed-door discussions. We thank you, and we are deeply sorry for the pain you've been forced to carry. It takes an incredible amount of courage to speak up about what has happened to you, and even greater courage to do so on behalf of others to ensure that it will not happen to them. This is, sadly, too often how important legislation like this can happen.

Let's turn to the bill. This bill attempts to confront a unique injustice: perpetrators of child sexual abuse who use the superannuation system to shield assets from compensation claims. Currently, perpetrators can make large contributions to their superannuation, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars, which are, in most cases, protected from creditors, and then declare bankruptcy to avoid paying compensation that their victims are owed. This is no longer just a loophole; it has been documented to be a deliberate way that perpetrators can continue their abuse by denying victims-survivors the financial compensation and justice they are owed. I'm pleased that the government is finally denying perpetrators the opportunity to utilise this loophole.

This bill creates a framework that enables victims-survivors of child sexual abuse and similar offences to seek access to a perpetrator's superannuation to satisfy unpaid compensation orders arising from criminal or civil proceedings. The legislation includes important safeguards. The framework only applies where a compensation order has remained unpaid for 12 months or more and where the perpetrator has been convicted of or found guilty of certain offences to a criminal standard. In this legislation, these offences relate to child sexual abuse offences. Victims-survivors who meet the criteria must apply to the commissioner, who can then facilitate the release of funds through the creation of a new type of release authority. Perpetrators retain the right to challenge any such order.

This justice matters deeply. We know that victims-survivors experience long-lasting impacts of their abuse beyond the abuse itself. This trauma can go on to impact their mental health, their relationships and their ability to work, study and trust others. We have a responsibility to ensure that the justice, including compensation, that victims-survivors are owed is delivered in its fairest form. Compensation cannot undo harm, but it can recognise these impacts. When perpetrators are able to manipulate the legal system to avoid this justice, this injustice compounds.

I've expressed my support for the bill and will vote for it. However, I want to flag an omission in this legislation which my amendment is seeking to address. The minister himself acknowledged in his own second reading speech that mechanisms for review are necessary to ensure that legislation is functioning as intended. Despite this, there is no such provision in this bill. We cannot simply implement legislation and consider the job done. This is not just for the sake of trust and integrity but for the very victims-survivors this government and this parliament are seeking to protect and empower through this bill. We have an obligation to monitor outcomes, identify gaps and act where a framework is falling short. The government has a responsibility to respond to these reviews as well. Accountability is what turns good intentions into lasting change. My amendment also invites the review to consider whether the framework should be extended beyond child sexual abuse offences.

This bill has rightly been driven by high-profile cases involving child sexual abuse. The advocacy has been sustained, powerful and effective. But the question I ask is: are there other victims-survivors of sexual violence, domestic and family violence or other offences who might equally benefit from a framework that prevents perpetrators from using superannuation to evade their obligations? I want to be unambiguous. I am not seeking to delay this legislation with this question. The reform that victims-survivors of child sexual abuse have fought for deserves to be implemented without hesitation.

I also recognise that different offence categories involve different complexities. Careful consultation with stakeholders and lived experience advocates would be required before any expansion could responsibly be undertaken. That is exactly why this is a question for a review after this legislation has been operating for some time, not a precondition for the bill's passage. My amendment requires the minister to cause an independent review within two years of the legislation coming into effect. The reviewer will have six months to complete the review, and then the minister must table the report in parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving the final report. This review will be asked to consider: (a) whether the amendments are achieving their objective of enabling victims-survivors of child sexual abuse offences to access compensation from a perpetrator's superannuation; (b) the effectiveness of the safeguards established by the amendments; (c) any barriers that have prevented victims-survivors from accessing the framework; (d) whether any further amendments are necessary or desirable; and (e) whether the framework established by the amendments should be extended to victims and survivors of offences other than child sexual abuse offences and, if so, what offences and conditions ought to apply.

This is a modest amendment which enforces a commitment that the minister has already indicated the government would like to make. It is an obligation on us as elected representatives to ensure that the legislation we are writing and voting on is indeed working as intended. I understand that the government is intending to move a second reading amendment in the Senate to show their commitment to a review. Whilst I understand that the government wishes for this legislation to pass swiftly through both houses and, as such, has opted for a second reader, it is frustrating that this cannot be committed to formally through amending the bill itself, rather than through a non-binding commitment. I trust the government's intention on committing to such a review. However, this commitment should be in the form of clear accountability mechanisms, not just words.

This bill is long overdue. It seeks to correct continuing injustices which should never have occurred. It tells a powerful message to victims-survivors that we will not allow the justice system to be manipulated to deny what you are rightly owed. I support this bill and commend it to the House.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to standing with victims-survivors, and I want to thank all victims-survivors and advocates for their work in informing this Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026. We are committed to ensuring our legal and financial systems work in the interests of justice, not in the interest of offenders seeking to evade responsibility. That's exactly what this legislation does. It works in the interests of justice.

This is an important and overdue reform. It is a reform grounded in justice, accountability and dignity for victims-survivors of child sexual abuse. It is a reform that says clearly and unequivocally that perpetrators of these abhorrent crimes should never be able to hide behind financial loopholes to avoid paying compensation owed to those they have harmed. We will always stand with victims-survivors. I will always stand with victims-survivors. For far too long, there has been a deeply unfair loophole in our system, a loophole that has allowed convicted child sexual abusers to shield assets in superannuation accounts while refusing or avoiding paying court ordered compensation to victims-survivors.

That loophole has caused immense distress and frustration for survivors. After enduring unimaginable and horrendous abuse, after showing the incredible courage to come forward, after participating in deeply traumatic legal proceedings and after securing a compensation order through the judicial system, too many survivors are left facing the devastating reality of the offender still refusing to pay. They have to face the reality that the assets of the offender remain protected. This means that justice is incomplete. This means that justice is not delivered. This can no longer be the case. This bill closes that loophole.

The bill establishes a very clear principle that convicted perpetrators of child sexual abuse cannot use the superannuation system as a shield against accountability. Under these reforms, victims-survivors will be able to apply for a court order to access additional or salary-sacrificed superannuation contributions made by the offender where a related compensation order remains unpaid after 12 months. Importantly, victims-survivors will also be able to apply to the Australian Taxation Office with appropriate safeguards to identify whether eligible superannuation exists before seeking that court order. This is a really practical, targeted measure and, most importantly, it is a reform designed to deliver meaningful outcomes for survivors.

We know child sexual abuse causes profound and lifelong harm. Its impact extends across every aspect of a person's life. It affects mental health, physical wellbeing, relationships, educational outcomes, employment and financial security. For many victims-survivors, the trauma does not end when the abuse ends. It's carried on for years and often decades. Too many people face ongoing barriers to stable work and economic security as a direct consequence of the abuse they suffered as children. So this issue before the House is not simply about financial compensation; it's about recognition and accountability. It's about ensuring that victims-survivors are not left carrying the burden alone while perpetrators continue to benefit from protected assets.

Justice often means more than just securing a conviction. It's about ensuring meaningful redress. What message does it send when a perpetrator can accumulate significant savings while refusing to pay compensation ordered by a court? What message does that send to survivors who have already endured so much? By not closing this loophole, we undermine confidence in the justice system. What has happened before compounds trauma. It perpetuates unfairness. It's wrong. It needs to change. This bill seeks to restore balance. Our reforms say very clearly that our financial systems must align with our values, and our values demand justice and accountability.

This bill also introduces important amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966. These amendments will ensure compensation debts owed to victims-survivors survive bankruptcy. That's a critical part of what we're putting before the House today. Bankruptcy should never become a refuge from accountability for perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Financial manoeuvring must never override moral and legal responsibility, and these reforms ensure offenders cannot simply walk away from debts owed to survivors through bankruptcy processes.

Another important feature of this legislation is that it applies not only prospectively but also to historical compensation orders that remain legally enforceable. That matters greatly, because there are survivors right now who have been denied justice under the existing framework; there are survivors who have waited years for compensation that was lawfully ordered by the courts. This legislation recognises their experiences and seeks to address those existing inequities.

These reforms did not emerge in isolation. They are the product of years of incredible, courageous advocacy from survivors, families and organisations determined to improve a system that has too often failed victims-survivors. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary courage of, and to deeply thank, the survivors who have spoken publicly about their experiences. That bravery cannot be overstated. Coming forward is never easy. Reliving trauma in public is never easy. Yet survivors and advocates continued to push for change because they believed future survivors deserved a better system. And because of their advocacy, because of their courage, our government is acting.

I want to acknowledge, too, the organisations that have campaigned tirelessly for reform in this area—organisations like Bravehearts, the Grace Tame Foundation, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia, the Carly Ryan Foundation and Super for Survivors. These organisations, alongside survivors and advocates, have played a vital role in bringing these issues to national attention, and their advocacy has made a real difference.

Our government has listened to what these organisations and survivors have had to say. We've listened to the many Australians who believe that perpetrators should not be able to exploit legal and financial loopholes to escape accountability and to deny people justice. I want to thank very deeply those in my community of Chisholm who've taken the time to contact me and speak to me about this very important issue.

Importantly, our government has also committed to reviewing the operation of these laws, after full commencement, to ensure that they are operating effectively for victims-survivors. This is really important, because this legislation should not be viewed as the end of the conversation. Instead, it is a significant step forward and establishes an important foundation. But we must continue listening to survivors and looking for opportunities to improve outcomes and strengthen justice at every juncture.

I believe this place is at its absolute best when we work together to deliver meaningful reform for those in our communities who need it most. I do want to acknowledge the bipartisan and crossbench support that has been expressed for this legislation, because protecting children and supporting victims-survivors should never be a partisan issue.

The reforms before us today are about basic fairness, about justice, about accountability and about ensuring the law reflects community expectations. At the heart of this bill is a very simple idea: if a court has ordered compensation for a survivor of child sexual abuse, convicted perpetrators should not be able to shield their wealth while refusing to pay. I think this is fair and long overdue.

To any victims-survivors watching this debate today: the message from the government and the parliament is clear. We hear you, we believe you and we are committed to ensuring our systems deliver accountability and justice. I commend the bill to the House.

Behind every piece of legislation are real people whose lives have been profoundly impacted, and this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026, is a stark reminder of that fact. At its core, this bill responds to a simple but fundamental principle: perpetrators of child sexual abuse should not be able to use financial structures to avoid accountability. For too long, a deeply unjust loophole in our system has allowed convicted offenders to shield wealth held in superannuation while survivors have been left unpaid the compensation that courts determined was owed to them.

As the minister stated in his second reading speech, these reforms have not emerged in isolation. They are the result of a sustained advocacy from survivors, from families and from advocates who have worked for years to ensure that survivors would not be left without justice or meaningful compensation. It is because of them and for them that we are here today. This legislation takes an important step forward in addressing that injustice and ensuring that our legal and financial systems better reflect basic principles of fairness, accountability and dignity for those survivors.

This bill closes a loophole that has undermined confidence in both our financial system and our justice system. Under the current framework, survivors may successfully pursue a compensation order through the courts by enduring lengthy legal processes, having to stand up and repeat their stories again and again and again. They relive deeply traumatic experiences but may still be left without meaningful compensation, without meaningful redress, because assets remain protected inside superannuation. This needs to change, and this needs to change now.

The law should never be allowed to operate in a way that allows those who have caused profound harm to retain significant protected assets while survivors are left carrying the financial consequences of that harm as well as the emotional and personal consequences of that harm. This bill changes that. It creates a framework that allows survivors of child sexual abuse offences to seek access through a court order to certain superannuation contributions made by a perpetrator where compensation debts remain unpaid.

Importantly, this is not an unlimited or sweeping measure. The framework has been designed carefully and specifically. It applies in circumstances where there has been a criminal conviction and where compensation ordered by a court remains unpaid after a significant period of time. That matters, because reforms in this area must balance the need for justice with the integrity and stability of our superannuation system. Super exists to provide dignity and security in retirement. It is a famous Labor reform, but that principle cannot be distorted into a shield against accountability for serious criminal harm.

This legislation recognises that financial systems should reflect community values and basic fairness. When this bill is passed, they will. One of the most important ideas underpinning this bill is that justice cannot stop at conviction alone. Nothing can stop the horrific experiences of survivors. But what we can do is listen to their experiences, understand what they need and take action.

There is a growing recognition in our community that accountability is not only about securing a guilty verdict; it is also about ensuring meaningful redress for victims-survivors. For many survivors, the impacts of abuse do not end when criminal proceedings conclude. Child sexual abuse leaves deep and lifelong scars. Survivors often carry the effects of those scars into their adulthood, affecting their mental health, physical wellbeing, relationships, education, employment and financial security.

The trauma does not simply disappear with the passing of time. Many survivors continue navigating its impacts day in and day out, often quietly and without adequate support. For some survivors, the harm is not only emotional and psychological but deeply material as well. Some face barriers to stable employment and financial security directly connected to the abuse that they experienced. When compensation orders remain unpaid, it compounds that harm. It sends a message, whether intended or not, that the burden continues to fall on those who were harmed rather than those who caused the harm. It flips the accountability switch, and this legislation is intended to put it right. This bill seeks to rebalance that inequity. It recognises that compensation orders are not symbolic; they need to mean something and they need to be real. They are intended to provide real acknowledgement, real accountability and some measure of justice.

Another important feature of this legislation is the amendment to bankruptcy laws to ensure compensation debts can survive bankruptcy proceedings. This is a significant reform. Bankruptcy exists for important reasons within our legal and our economic systems. But bankruptcy should never become a mechanism through which perpetrators can escape responsibility for causing serious harm to others. This bill sends a clear and necessary message: financial manoeuvring must not override moral and legal accountability in a fair system in this country. Where compensation has been ordered because of the devastating impacts of child sexual abuse, those debts should not simply disappear through bankruptcy while survivors continue living through the consequences.

Again, this reform is about restoring balance, and it's about restoring fairness to the system. It is about ensuring that the law does not inadvertently protect perpetrators while leaving survivors without recourse. As I stated at the beginning of this speech, these reforms have not emerged in isolation. They are the result of sustained advocacy from survivors, from their families, from legal experts and from organisations that have worked tirelessly to expose where the system has fallen short. Many survivors who advocate for reform do so while carrying extraordinary personal pain, and the courage it takes to come forward, often years after the abuse occurred, can never be overstated. Many victims-survivors have spent years and in some cases decades seeking accountability and recognition through systems that too often compounded their trauma rather than eased it. They have had to repeatedly revisit traumatic experiences in pursuit of justice, knowing outcomes were never guaranteed. That takes enormous strength. It takes enormous tenacity.

And this parliament has a responsibility not only to listen to survivors but to act when the system is failing. When survivors tell us that a loophole is allowing perpetrators to avoid accountability, we should take that seriously. This legislation reflects that listening, but it also reflects what happens and what must happen after that listening, which is action to make sure that that listening is not in vain. It reflects the understanding that lived experience must be central to policy development and to reform in this area. These are technically complex reforms. Superannuation law and bankruptcy law are highly specialised areas. Any changes must be carefully designed to ensure that they are enforceable, workable and consistent with broader legal concepts. This bill adopts a targeted approach. It focuses specifically on circumstances involving criminal convictions for child sexual abuse offences and unpaid compensation orders. That targeted design is important because it demonstrates that the government has sought to address a serious injustice while maintaining confidence in the broader superannuation framework.

The bill also includes a review mechanism once the reforms are in operation, and this is critical because legislation like this should not simply pass through parliament and then be forgotten. It needs to have teeth, and it needs to mean something. We have an obligation to ensure these measures are working effectively for survivors in practice. Reviewing the operation of the reforms provides an opportunity to identify whether barriers remain and whether further changes may be necessary in the future.

Listening to the experiences of survivors does not stop at the passing of this legislation. It has to continue. We need to ensure that these laws work for the people that they are intended for.

Superannuation is one of Labor's proudest legacies. It reflects the long-term and responsible view that Labor took all those many years ago of Australians' future: every Australian deserves the dignity and security of an independent retirement after a lifetime of hard work. Over more than three decades, our superannuation system has strengthened retirement incomes. It has reduced pressure on the age pension. It has helped deliver greater security and peace of mind for millions and millions of Australians.

But the purpose of superannuation was never to shield predators from accountability. This bill ensures that those convicted of the most serious offences cannot exploit protections within that superannuation system to avoid paying compensation that courts have determined are owed to victims-survivors. In doing so, it protects both the integrity of the system and the principles of fairness and accountability that must always underpin it.

This bill should also be understood as part of a broader journey of reform. It is a significant and necessary foundation. It closes a clear loophole, it sends a strong signal about the direction of reform and it establishes a framework that can be built upon in the future if additional changes are required. Importantly, it also acknowledges something many survivors have told us for years: justice systems and financial systems cannot operate separately from human consequences. When perpetrators retain substantial protected assets while survivors struggle financially, confidence in those systems is undermined—and confidence in those systems is important for every Australian, particularly those who've experienced the hurt that we are talking about today.

People rightly expect our laws to reflect fairness, to reflect accountability and to reflect community standards. This legislation moves us closer to that. At the beginning of my remarks, I spoke about the seriousness and sensitivity of this debate. I also spoke about the survivors and the advocates whose persistence has brought this issue to this place and before the parliament. This bill will not undo the harm survivors have experienced—no legislation can. But it's an important step in the right direction.

Can I start by first acknowledging all the victims-survivors. We can stand in this place and speak to bills such as this one, the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026, and we can work in the sectors that support victims-survivors, but we can never understand what they have been through and the scars that they endure for the rest of their lives. I'd just like to start by acknowledging them, their strength and their advocacy for the people they support as well.

Perpetrators of child sexual abuse should never be able to hide from justice or retribution, and our legal system should never provide those found guilty with loopholes to hide behind in plain sight. These heinous acts must be punished with the full force of the law and all perpetrator freedoms must be duly revoked. I believe that these offenders have a special place reserved for them in hell.

I often speak about my time in the police as a country copper, as a detective and then as a prosecutor. I saw some terrible things—countless fatalities, suicides—but nothing stuck with me like child sexual assault or child exploitation material. That was the only thing that continued to bother me when I left the police. As a result, I went into law and I made a decision there and then, on day one, that I would never take a brief for child sexual assault or child exploitation material. And I slept well every single night. As I said, these people have a special place reserved for them in hell, and we can never know and never understand the true trauma that the victims-survivors actually go through. We can watch it, we can observe it and we can walk with them, but we'll never understand. That is why this bill is so important.

Victims-survivors carry the scars inflicted upon them for life through no fault of their own. They live with mental health challenges and stigma every single day. In many cases, these ongoing impacts affect the survivors' ability to maintain healthy and positive relationships, including long-term employment opportunities, and achieve financial stability and security. It is imperative that we as a parliament provide the framework to support those people.

The bill we are discussing here today is a positive and necessary step, and I know it will be a welcome relief for the many contributors to the final iteration we see in the House today. It's been an excruciating wait over eight years since the original coalition led consultation that specifically dealt with superannuation. I'm sure that, on both sides of the floor, we agree with its swift and immediate passing in the best interest of all survivors of child sexual abuse and their families.

These measures are entirely apolitical and bipartisan, and so they should be. I'd like to genuinely thank the Assistant Treasurer for his open and considered approach in relation to these issues to date. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the former coalition minister for financial services Kelly O'Dwyer for making a start on these reforms back in 2018. I do need to stress that this is a first step and that there is much more to be done when it comes to victims of crime more broadly. I say that with the survivors and the advocates in mind. Please know that we have heard you and we know there are more considerations that must be taken into account as quickly as possible that this bill may not have directly addressed. To give credit where credit is due—I know that the Assistant Treasurer is committed to working through all the implications for the final steps.

With that, I'd like to run through the specific problem that this bill seeks to address and why it is critical that we do what we are doing. In the past, where an offender knows that they will be facing court, they have transferred assets into their superannuation in an attempt to avoid compensation to the victim-survivor. That was a gaping loophole and one that was identified by victims-survivors and advocates a long time ago. You might ask, 'How could that possibly occur?' The answer is as simple as it is unethical. The perpetrators have hidden their assets in their superannuation and declared bankruptcy to avoid having to pay their victims the amounts they have legally been awarded through our justice system. Due to the historic protections around superannuation accounts, this evil loophole has been easily exploited.

As I indicated, as a former prosecutor and later a defence lawyer, I'm well aware that the burden of proof in these case lies squarely with the victim and prosecution. In order for a court to find an accused perpetrator guilty, the amount of evidence that needs to be supplied, retold and relived is as necessary as it is horrific. To know that a victim can be subjected to that torture, finally awarded with a guilty verdict and handed down a compensation amount only to have that compensation ripped away by a legal loophole that goes unchecked is simply unthinkable.

This bill will now shut that loophole. By creating a court supervised process for survivors of child sexual abuse to access certain superannuation amounts held by a perpetrator, this bill allows a court to order the release of the perpetrator's funds that were previously protected under superannuation law. It also allows a court to make an order to release superannuation information that was previously confidential. This is important because transparency and strong deterrent will ensure that abusers can't hide their assets.

I would like to acknowledge and recognise the contributions of Carolyn Kelly. Carolyn is a New South Wales solicitor in Port Macquarie. She's a grandmother to Edan Van Haren, a child who suffered horrific abuse at the hands of prominent CEO Maurice Van Ryn. Van Ryn was found guilty in July 2023 and ordered to pay compensation amounting to $1.4 million plus legal costs. To date, Edan has not received his court directed amount, and that's due to Van Ryn's exploitation of the Bankruptcy Act. With Edan and his family in mind, we must pass this bill as swiftly as possible to immediately assist all victims currently left waiting and without their due compensation.

I do want to note some of the concerns and suggestions from the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Lawyers Alliance and ask that we monitor cases closely once the changes begin. The Law Council said:

It appears likely that once in place, the proposed framework will create a demand for legal assistance from victim-survivors seeking to access the scheme. Consideration should be had to ensuring these reform measures are accompanied by adequate increases to frontline legal services, to ensure there is sufficient capacity to respond to this increase in legal need.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia said:

It would be possible for an offender to fund a contribution to the superannuation account of a third person, such as a family member or friend, with an understanding that when that person becomes eligible for a benefit they will remit a portion of their superannuation benefit to the offender.

We have to ensure that closing this loophole does not open another one and that victims are adequately supported to take advantage of the new legislation.

But we will not let perfect be the enemy of good in this instance, and I fully agree with my colleagues around the floor. This legislation is critical. This legislation is just and considered, and this legislation must be passed immediately.

At the outset, I acknowledge victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, including those whose courage, persistence and advocacy have helped bring the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill before parliament.

Some survivors have spoken publicly. Many have not. Some have shared their experiences in courtrooms, in submissions, in media conferences, in meetings with members of parliament or in quiet conversations with people they trust. Others have carried their story privately for many years, often without the recognition, support or justice they deserved. To every survivor who has contributed to this reform, whether publicly or privately, I say thank you. Your courage has helped change the law and your advocacy has helped secure this.

Parliament sees a gap that should never have been allowed to remain. I also acknowledge the families, friends, advocates and supporters who have stood beside survivors through very difficult processes. I acknowledge the victims and survivors who spoke so powerfully before the introduction of this bill. Speaking publicly about trauma is never easy, and it can come at a personal cost. When survivors choose to speak, this parliament has a responsibility to listen with care, with respect and with a willingness to act.

I acknowledge the organisations that have advocated for this reform over a long period, including Super for Survivors, Bravehearts, the Grace Tame Foundation, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia and the Carly Ryan Foundation. I also acknowledge those members across this parliament who have worked towards this reform, including the member for Boothby, the member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Lyne, members across the chamber and across parties and the crossbench who have supported this very important work. I thank the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and the Attorney-General for bringing forward this bill.

When we debate laws like this, we are speaking about people's lives. We are speaking about the children who were harmed, the adults who carried out that harm and the families who have stood beside the victims-survivors. We must approach this debate with care and avoid language that diminishes, sensationalises or turns a person's story into a political point. We should also recognise that survivors are not a single group with a single experience. Some seek public advocacy, while others seek privacy. Some want court action, while others do not. Some want to speak, while some never will. All deserve respect and all deserve systems that are safe, fair and responsive.

A survivor-centred response starts by recognising that the person who was harmed should not be forced to carry that cost alone. Justice can take many forms: being believed, a conviction, an apology, support to heal or compensation that is actually paid. No single bill can meet every need, but this bill meets a real and serious gap. It gives survivors a new avenue for enforcement, makes it harder for perpetrators to use superannuation as a shield and ensures bankruptcy cannot simply wipe away compensation debts owed to victims and survivors.

This bill goes to a fundamental principle: perpetrators of child sexual abuse should not be able to hide behind financial structures to avoid accountability. For too long, a deeply unjust loophole has allowed convicted offenders to shield assets and superannuation while victims and survivors are left without the compensation that they are owed. That's not only a technical failure in the law; it's a failure in fairness. When a court has recognised harm and ordered compensation, that order should mean something in the real world. A survivor should not be forced to endure the trauma of legal proceedings, secure a court order in their favour and then find that the person responsible can avoid repayment by relying on protected financial structures. That compounds the harm and undermines confidence in the justice system.

No law can undo the abuse that has occurred. No payment can erase the trauma or return the safety, peace or trust that may have been taken away. But compensation can still matter. It can help pay for counselling, health care, housing stability, education, work, care responsibilities and the long process of recovery. It can also provide practical recognition that the person responsible must not be able to walk away from their obligations.

Child sexual abuse can leave deep and lifelong impacts affecting mental health, physical wellbeing, relationships, education, employment, housing, trust and a person's sense of safety in the world. I do want to acknowledge all of the victims-survivors who have come to me since I have been elected as the member for Griffith to talk to me about their personal experiences with this in our community. Some survivors experience financial insecurity not because of any lack of effort or resilience but because abuse can reach into every aspect of a person's life. That is why compensation should not be treated as an abstract legal debt. We are speaking about the cost of therapy, medical care, lost opportunity, instability and years of navigating trauma without adequate support. We're speaking about dignity.

Under these reforms, where a related court ordered compensation debt remains unpaid after 12 months, victims and survivors of child sexual abuse will be able to seek access, through a court order, to certain superannuation contributions made by the offender. This includes additional personal contributions and salary-sacrifice contributions, which have previously been able to operate as a vehicle for shielding assets from enforcement. Victims and survivors will also be able to apply to the Australian Taxation Office with appropriate safeguards to identify whether there may be eligible superannuation before deciding whether to seek a court order. Without visibility, a survivor may be left in the dark, facing cost, uncertainty and stress before they even know if a pathway exists.

This bill improves transparency, gives survivors more information and makes it harder for perpetrators to wait out their obligations while their financial position remains protected. This is not an unlimited or automatic access regime. The bill is targeted, and it is designed to address the misuse of particular superannuation contributions as a shield against lawful compensation. Superannuation and bankruptcy systems are highly technical, and changes must be carefully designed so they are effective, enforceable and consistent with broader legal principles. But the technical nature of the system should never obscure the human reality. If a person has been convicted of child sexual abuse and a court has ordered compensation, they should not be able to use complex financial arrangements to avoid responsibility. Financial manoeuvring must not override moral and legal responsibility.

The bill also amends the Bankruptcy Act to allow compensation debts to survive a perpetrator's bankruptcy. Bankruptcy should not become a refuge from accountability for such serious harm. A survivor should not finally receive a compensation order only to see that obligation disappear because the perpetrator enters bankruptcy. These are not ordinary debts. They arise from profound harm, from abuse and from conduct that has damaged lives. Allowing those debts to survive bankruptcy sends a clear message that accountability does not end because a perpetrator's financial circumstances change.

The bill also recognises historical injustice. Unfulfilled historical compensation orders brought into existence before commencement will be eligible if they remain largely enforceable and were awarded in relation to a criminal conviction or finding of guilt for child sexual abuse. This reform is also for survivors who have already fought for recognition, endured the legal process and still have not received what they are owed.

The bill also reflects a trauma informed approach by protecting the identity of victims and survivors. Certain courts must not publish the name of the victim in relation to these proceedings or related appeals. For a survivor, privacy can mean safety, dignity and control. It can be the difference between being able to seek justice and being deterred from taking another step. A justice system that asks survivors to come forward must also take seriously the risk of retraumatisation. It must not force people to give up their privacy in order to enforce their rights.

I come to this debate informed by my work on the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. After joining this parliament about a year ago now, I asked to be nominated to serve on this committee because I believe deeply in its work. Before coming to this place, I worked with children and young people for more than two decades, and I know how important it is that every child is safe, supported and protected by the adults and institutions around them.

The joint standing committee has a critical role in examining whether the National Redress Scheme is delivering what it was intended to deliver—acknowledgement, accountability and a small measure of justice for people who experienced institutional child sex abuse. As a member of that committee, I have heard firsthand from people who have carried the trauma of childhood sexual abuse for years, often for decades. I have heard harrowing accounts of abuse, of institutions that failed to protect children and of the systems that too often required survivors to keep proving their pain before they could be heard. Those experiences stay with you. They reinforce why redress must be more than formal recognition. It must be practical, accessible and grounded in the lived experience of survivors.

I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary work of Micah Projects and their Lotus Place program based in Stones Corner in my electorate of Griffith. Lotus Place provides a safe and trusted place for people living with lifelong impacts of institutional childhood abuse, including forgotten Australians, former child migrants, care leavers and people seeking redress through the National Redress Scheme. They help people understand their options, navigate complex systems, seek redress, access support and rebuild connection, dignity and trust. For many survivors, that kind of support can make the difference between a system that feels impossible to face and a process where they are not left to walk alone. The team at Lotus Place understands that redress is not just paperwork. It is often tied to some of the most painful experiences in a person's life. It requires patience, care, trust and an understanding of trauma. It requires listening without judgement, supporting people at their own pace and recognising that every survivor's path is different. In our community, Micah Projects has long shown what survivor centred support looks like in practice.

I want to acknowledge their team leader, Mark Reimers, and their entire team. When I went to meet with the team at Lotus Place recently, I was expecting a meeting with one or two of their team, but their entire team showed up and sat around the table because of the importance of the work they're doing and how passionate they are about representing and supporting the victims-survivors in our community. I thank Micah Projects, Lotus Place, every worker across our country and every advocate who supports survivors through this difficult and important work.

When offenders retain substantial retirement savings while victims struggle financially, often as a direct consequence of the abuse they suffered, confidence in the justice system is undermined. It tells survivors that the system may recognise their harm in one breath and then protect the perpetrator's assets in the next. That's not fair. This bill helps shift that burden. It says that, if the perpetrator owes compensation and if they have used certain superannuation contributions to protect assets, there must be a pathway for survivors to pursue what they are legally owed. It's a practical reform, but it's also a value statement. It says that our financial system should not be misused to avoid accountability and that our legal system should not unintentionally protect those who have caused profound harm. This bill is a significant and necessary foundation. It closes a clear loophole, sends a strong signal about the direction of reform and creates a framework that can be built upon in the future.

The bill also provides for a full review, after commencement, to assess whether the law is operating effectively for victims and survivors, and that review will be critical. We will need to know whether survivors can access the information they need, whether the court process is workable and whether legal costs or delays remain barriers. In communities like Griffith, and right across Australia, people expect the law to reflect basic fairness. They expect that, when a court says compensation is owed, the law will not then make the compensation impossible to recover. This bill aligns our laws more closely with those expectations.

This bill has been shaped by the voices of people who know, far better than any of us, what it means when the justice system recognises harm but still does not deliver redress. To survivors who have advocated for this change, thank you. To the families and supporters who have stood beside them, thank you to you also. To the organisations who have kept this issue on the agenda, I also say thank you. And to the members of this parliament, from both sides of this chamber, who have worked constructively across party lines, I thank all of you.

This bill is about restoring fairness and dignity. It's about ensuring that the law does not inadvertently protect those who have caused profound harm while leaving victims and survivors without recourse. It is about recognising that justice must be more than words on a page. It must be felt in people's lives. It is about making clear that this parliament is committed to continuing this work, to listening, improving and building on this foundation.

I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026. I came to this parliament to help make Australia a better place and to stand up for people facing injustice, especially those who too often feel invisible, unheard or left behind by the system. This bill is one of those moments where I can play a very direct role in this parliament to genuinely change lives for the better.

Today we have a chance to fix a serious injustice that has hurt survivors of child sexual abuse for far too long. For years, convicted offenders have been able to avoid paying court ordered compensation to their victims simply by declaring bankruptcy and shielding assets through superannuation laws. That is simply wrong. For survivors, it can feel like being failed by the system all over again—not just once through the abuse they suffered but again by a legal system that allows offenders to escape accountability.

This issue was brought directly to me by one of my constituents, Carolyn Kelly, a strong, determined and deeply compassionate woman who refused to stay silent after seeing the injustice her grandson, Edan Van Haren, experienced. Carolyn did not come to me asking for sympathy; she came asking for justice. She has fought tirelessly, not just for her grandson but for survivors right across Australia, who deserve fairness, dignity and recognition. After meeting with Carolyn in my office in Wauchope and hearing Edan's story, it became immediately clear to me that the law needed to change, particularly when it was obvious there were already many other legal precedents where certain debts survive bankruptcy. Child support debts survive bankruptcy, certain fraud related debts survive bankruptcy and some debts owed to the government survive bankruptcy. So how could it possibly be the case that compensation owed by a convicted paedophile to their victim could simply disappear? That made no moral sense, and, frankly, it made no common sense either. So I took the issue directly to the minister. I advocated strongly for reform, through parliamentary speeches and through a submission to the government's discussion paper on the exposure draft to this bill.

Today I want to sincerely acknowledge and thank the Assistant Treasurer and the government for listening, for engaging seriously with this issue and for acting. In this place, difficult reforms can sometimes take years to progress. When governments are prepared to genuinely listen to survivors and opposition members, and to respond constructively—that certainly deserves recognition. This legislation exists because brave people refused to give up.

Edan Van Haren is a survivor of horrific abuse. Following civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, he was awarded compensation by the court. But the offender later declared bankruptcy from prison, effectively avoiding responsibility for paying that judgement debt. That should never have been allowed to happen. I want to acknowledge Edan's extraordinary courage in speaking publicly about his experience so that others may not have to endure the same injustice.

Edan said something incredibly powerful in a speech that I wish he could have delivered in this chamber. In it, he said:

This is not about vengeance; it's about the mechanics of healing.

Those words go to the very heart of why this legislation matters, because this debate is not really about money. No amount of money can restore a stolen childhood, no amount of money can undo years of trauma, and no court ruling can fully repair the damage caused by abuse. And, as Edan so powerfully explained, how do you even begin to quantify trauma? How do you put a monetary value on not being able to hold down a job because of PTSD? How do you quantify the panic and fear triggered by ordinary daily tasks that most people take for granted? How do you measure lost confidence, lost opportunities, broken relationships or the life someone should have had? The truth is you cannot. But compensation still matters, because compensation is about recognition. It's about accountability. It's society saying to survivors: 'We hear you and we believe you. And what happened to you was wrong.'

When the legal system allows offenders to use bankruptcy laws or protected superannuation to avoid those obligations, it sends exactly the opposite message. It tells survivors that the system still protects perpetrators more than victims. That is why this bill matters so much. The bill has two principal objectives. Firstly, it creates a mechanism to allow certain amounts held in a perpetrator's superannuation to be accessed in order to satisfy unpaid compensation orders relating to child sexual abuse offences. Secondly, it amends the Bankruptcy Act so that these compensation debts survive bankruptcy and cannot simply be wiped out. These are significant reforms.

I acknowledge this bill is legally and technically complex. It intersects with criminal law, family law, bankruptcy law, taxation law and superannuation law. There are detailed provisions dealing with competing claims, court oversight and interactions with other legal processes. I acknowledge the considerable work undertaken by officials, legal experts and ministers to bring the legislation to this point. While the legislation itself is technically complex, its moral purpose is actually very simple: if a court has ordered compensation to be paid to a survivor of child sexual abuse, the offender should not be able to evade responsibility through legal loopholes.

This legislation also recognises something important about the purpose of superannuation—superannuation exists to provide dignity and security in retirement. It was never intended to become a shield that allows perpetrators to avoid accountability for horrific crimes. As the bill itself makes clear, these powers are limited to exceptional circumstances and operate under court supervision. Put simply, you cannot commit a heinous crime and then expect to hide behind your superannuation or hide behind bankruptcy, nor should human rights arguments be distorted in ways that deny justice to survivors.

Importantly, the bill also sends a much broader message to victims-survivors across Australia. Many survivors still suffer silently. Many still struggle to trust institutions, many still feel shame for crimes committed against them and many still feel the system is not truly on their side. Edan spoke movingly about reaching a point in his life where, in his words, the pain of existing was heavier than the fear of dying. Those words should stop every one of us in our tracks because behind every statistic is a human being carrying unimaginable pain. But Edan also said something else, which speaks to remarkable courage and resilience: 'In surviving that moment, I realised—why not stay alive for the other victims?' That courage deserves the respect of this parliament and this nation. This legislation matters because it tells survivors they are not alone. It tells them their suffering matters, it tells them their accountability matters and it tells them that parliament is prepared to act.

This bill may not resolve every issue. There may well be aspects that require refinement or strengthening in the future. But the most important thing we can do today is to finally close these loopholes so offenders can no longer abuse the system to avoid paying court-ordered compensation to survivors.

I want to again acknowledge Carolyn Kelly for her determination and advocacy. I want to acknowledge all survivors who've spoken publicly and relived unimaginable trauma in pursuit of this reform. I want to acknowledge all those across government departments, advocacy organisations and the legal profession who have worked to bring this legislation forward. Most importantly, I acknowledge survivors like Edan, whose bravery has helped drive meaningful change for others. As Edan said, it's time for Australia to heal. I commend this bill to the House.

():  Working in the homelessness sector brings you into contact with many people who have experienced trauma. It's a very common story to hear that someone who in later life becomes homeless turns out to have a trauma history. Trauma has a long tail. We would hear from people who turned up in the homelessness system about various forms of trauma at various stages of life. Perhaps the most heartbreaking stories were from those whose experience of trauma was as a child.

We've also heard similar stories from those giving evidence at the inquiry into the link between family, domestic and sexual violence and suicide. They tell of lives riven by the inability to trust; the inability to form relationships, be they intimate-partner relationships, collegial work relationships, family relationships or friendships; the inability to hold down a job; and the impact of triggers—seemingly minor things: a word, an aroma, a familiar environment, a song—that would catapult them back into their trauma, into panic, into helplessness, into fear and into distress; into fight or flight or being frozen; back into their childhood, back into their trauma. The damage done to the child, in so many instances, remains with them long after the abuse stops, chasing them into adulthood.

For many years, just as their abusers had told them would happen, survivors were not believed, and so they kept it inside. The heavy silence, which for decades was a feature of our collective response, is unforgivable. For far too long, there's been a culture of secrecy and avoidance when it comes to confronting the realities of child sexual abuse. This culture extends not just to the abuse itself but to the structures of justice and redress that should be supporting the most vulnerable individuals in our communities.

I was shocked when I found out that, in our existing legal framework, perpetrators can evade paying their victims-survivors court-ordered compensation by hiding assets in superannuation and declaring bankruptcy. This is the experience of Edan Van Haren, who lives in my electorate of Boothby. Edan is a victim-survivor of child abuse. He has very kindly given me permission to tell his story and use his name in my speech. Unusually, Edan has managed to get both criminal and civil convictions against his perpetrator—and I say 'unusually' because we know that few cases are disclosed, few cases make it to court and it's difficult to establish evidence, and to prosecute, years or sometimes decades after the fact. In 2023, the New South Wales Supreme Court ordered that Edan's abuser pay out $1.4 million to him in compensation. And, from his jail cell, Edan's abuser declared bankruptcy. This meant that the payments that Edan's abuser would ordinarily have had to have paid would become void, while protecting his assets in superannuation—a deliberate and brazen exploitation of our laws that is nothing less than malicious: designed to inflict more pain, more hurt, more trauma. The perpetrator is reaching out from their jail cell and exerting power over their victim all over again, and thousands of other victims-survivors today remain exposed to these underhanded and callous tactics.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 seeks to rectify this shortcoming in our financial structures. It will close a loophole by which perpetrators who have been criminally convicted can avoid paying settlement to their victims-survivors. It will ensure that superannuation is no longer a haven in which perpetrators can seek financial refuge. It will deny perpetrators the opportunities that exist in our current framework to evade accountability. It will affirm the bravery and dignity of victims-survivors, who, having endured so much, continue to endure on their road towards justice.

The bill seeks to do two things: to give victims-survivors access to additional contributions in their offender's superannuation in order to satisfy unpaid compensation orders, and to ensure that compensation debts are not extinguished where the offender has declared bankruptcy. Where offenders fail to meet their legal obligations to satisfy a compensation claim within 12 months, victims-survivors will be able to apply to the ATO for information about the perpetrator's superannuation in advance of applying for a court order. Victims-survivors will then be able to apply for a court order to access certain superannuation contributions of their abuser. Perpetrators will have no recourse to wait out a court order, while shielding their assets in their superannuation, in order to defeat a compensation claim. Victims-survivors will therefore have another tool to be able to enforce unpaid compensation.

The bill will also amend the 1966 Bankruptcy Act to ensure that it continues to fulfill its intended purpose of allowing those in financial distress to make a fresh start, but it will no longer facilitate convicted child-sex-abuse criminals being able to avoid paying court-ordered compensation. Such debts will now survive a declaration of bankruptcy, applying to both current and future bankruptcies. This bill seeks to reset the scales in the victims-survivors' favour by giving victims-survivors real and substantive tools to pursue court ordered compensation—at the end of what is often a long and traumatic process of litigation—and by realigning our financial and legal structures with those values which are at the heart of victim-survivor redress: justice, fairness and accountability. By removing the barriers to victim-survivor compensation, we avoid compounding survivors' harm, trauma and distress.

Of course, this bill is not a magic bullet. It is a first step. Superannuation and bankruptcy are complex and technical legal terrains that require complex and technical legislative responses, and it is the government's intention to get this right. But this bill provides the foundation on which conversation can be had and maintained—the foundation on which future reforms are now conceivable. As I wrote in my submission to the 2023 consultation, 'I'm particularly committed to seeing these changes embrace a civil—not just a criminal—component in the future.' Where an abuser has been found liable in a civil proceeding, where a judge has looked at the evidence and decided, on balance, that abuse did occur even though there may not be a criminal conviction, victims-survivors should have the same ability to enforce compensation—but that is for another time, and this legislation now is a very welcome first step.

Because the government wants to get these changes right, the changes will later be subject to review. Such a review will ensure that these new mechanisms are practical, enforceable and adhere to legal principles; that they make a genuine difference in survivors' lives; and that they are work for survivors and not against them.

The government will continue to consult with those voices that have been instrumental in the creation of this bill: victims-survivors, advocates and legal experts. It is no small thing to have to relive childhood abuse. In fact, it takes a courage that most Australians will never have to muster and hopefully will never have cause to need to muster in their lifetime, especially when it can feel like you're shouting into a void. I therefore thank victims-survivors, their advocates and supporters for speaking out, for sharing their stories and for continuing to share their stories. Be in no doubt: your efforts have changed lives and will continue to change lives far into the future.

For victims-survivors, conviction—where it can be had—is not the end of it and nor is compensation, for that matter. There can be no monetary value on the trauma and pain that victims-survivors experience. But compensation can assist in rebuilding a life. Beyond compensation, what this bill hopes to do is deliver justice—a justice that victims-survivors have already had to fight long and hard for or what Edan has termed 'mechanics of healing'.

Edan's advocacy is not necessarily about himself, although it goes without saying that his story is absolutely important. It is about fixing a fault in the system that enables perpetrators to not only evade the consequences of their actions but continue to victimise their victims through financial means. Edan has asked me to read his words to this House, and it is as follows:

My name is Edan Van Haren.

I am a survivor. For years now, I have fought to close legal loopholes that allow the architect of a child's trauma to hide behind bankruptcy laws and protected superannuation.

Laws that paedophiles used to further abuse their victim-survivors.

This is not about vengeance; it is about the mechanics of healing.

Compensation payments attempt to quantify pain and suffering.

But how do you quantify the pain caused by not being able to hold a job or the pain you feel when someone asks you something as simple as "can you do the dishes for me" and suddenly you are right back there reliving everything.

How do you put a monetary value on not being able to add a time schedule to your 'to do' list because even telling yourself that something needs to be done triggers your PTSD and now you can't even get yourself out bed.

The answer? You can't.

The legal system can't give me back the life and the potential I have lost so it does the next best thing and puts a monetary value on it, because that's all we have.

But for too many years paedophiles have been able to hide assets, sequester funds in superannuation and, worst of all, declare bankruptcy to extinguish the compensation our courts have awarded them.

This in particular added to the pain and suffering.

At twenty years old, I tried to end my life.

I reached a point where the pain of existing was heavier than the fear of dying.

But in surviving that moment I realized, why not stay alive for the other victim-survivors?

When you have already walked to the edge and looked over, you lose the ability to be intimidated.

I am here because I have nothing left to fear, and everything to fight for.

Those were Edan's words, and I'd like to thank him for his advocacy and for his bravery in pursuing his perpetrator and exposing his evil with both criminal and civil convictions. It takes guts to face your perpetrator in an adversarial legal process. Edan's advocacy and the advocacy of so many others, including Lawyer Andrew Carpenter, are what have made a difference. It will change the law now, and it will help, sadly, the so many other victims-survivors in the same situation.

I'd also like to thank former assistant treasurer Stephen Jones, who started this process with a consultation in 2023, which I submitted to, and the Assistant Treasurer, Daniel Mulino, who picked up the baton and kept on the journey to get this done.

To Edan and all the other survivors and advocates, I know for you this is only the start. There is much more you are fighting for. You want recognition of civil findings, not just criminal findings. You want all superannuation on the table, not just additional payments. After all, if somebody is going to be living in poverty as a result of this heinous criminal activity, it should be the perpetrator, not the victim-survivor. This legislation is a really important step forward, and I know that you will keep pushing for the next steps. I want you to know that this government hears you. I hear you and I will keep working with you.

Changing these laws is more than just providing access to financial compensation; it is recognition, it is support, it is the delivery of justice. It is saying to every victim-survivor in Australia 'we hear you; we stand by you; we are on your side'. This bill needs to be passed for the silent pandemic: the hundreds of thousands of Australian victims-survivors, whose lives were irrevocably changed through no fault of their own and who are suffering. I commend the bill to the House.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 is incredibly important legislation. It honours the incredible bravery of so many in coming forward to highlight this problem, people who have already been through so much to get to this point: victims of child sexual abuse.

This bill is built on a simple proposition: a compensation order made by a court should mean something. We would think that goes without saying. It should not be possible for a convicted child sexual abuse perpetrator to hide assets in superannuation, declare bankruptcy and escape accountability. This leaves a survivor holding a court order that is, in practice, worth less than the paper it's written on. Superannuation exists to provide dignity in retirement. It was never intended to become a legal bunker for people seeking to avoid accountability for serious crimes.

The bill establishes a framework for survivors of specified child abuse offences to seek visibility of, and access to, certain superannuation amounts held by perpetrators where compensation remains unpaid. It also amends the Bankruptcy Act so that relevant compensation debts are not extinguished by bankruptcy. This is not about turning superannuation into a general compensation pool. It's targeted. It applies to victims and survivors of specified child abuse offences where there has been a conviction or a finding of guilt, where court has made a compensation order and where that order remains unpaid. The bill does not create compensation from scratch. It makes existing court ordered compensation enforceable by giving survivors a targeted pathway to recover unpaid debts from certain superannuation amounts, sitting alongside proceeds of crime laws rather than replacing them. It's long-overdue reform. Survivors have already had to endure the abuse, the trauma, the legal process and the indignity of chasing accountability through systems that too often exhaust them before they deliver justice.

No community, including mine in Warringah, is immune from the curse and the scourge of child sexual exploitation. Warringah is comprised of communities built around families, schools, sporting clubs, surf clubs, multifaith groups and small businesses, but they are also communities where survivors live, work, study, volunteer, raise families and rebuild their lives.

Nationally, the data is really confronting. The Australian Child Maltreatment Study found that 28.5 per cent of Australians aged 16 and over have experienced child sexual abuse. That's quite confronting—28.5 per cent. It also found that child sexual abuse is often repeated, with 78 per cent of those experiencing it reporting that it happened more than once. And the Australian Bureau of Statistics has also reported that 7.5 per cent of adults experienced sexual abuse before the age of 15, and that the majority of women who experienced childhood sexual abuse never told police. In New South Wales, police-recorded sexual assaults have increased significantly over the past decade, with BOCSAR reporting that recorded child sexual assault incidents increased by around 10 per cent per year over the decade to June 2025.

This is no small problem. These numbers remind us that this is not an abstract legal issue. This is real. It is impacting real lives, and the ongoing consequences are often long and really damaging. It's about people who have already had agency stolen from them, who should not then be forced into another grinding battle simply to enforce a lawful compensation order. So I do very much welcome this legislation.

It's important to be clear, again, that this legislation is not creating a right or a compensation from scratch. Courts can already make compensation orders requiring perpetrators to pay survivors. The problem is that an order does not always mean payment, despite the pain and the difficulty of going through court processes and getting to a compensation order and a finding of guilt through the courts. If a perpetrator refuses to pay, hides money and assets in superannuation or relies on bankruptcy provisions, then survivors can be left without any practical redress despite findings of guilt and compensation orders. So this bill is about enforcement. It helps ensure that a lawful compensation order is not just symbolic but can actually lead to the recovery of funds that will help those survivors.

I've previously spoken in this place about child sexual abuse as one of the most serious violations a person can experience and about the royal commission's finding that institutional child sexual abuse was a national tragedy. I've also supported reforms to make the justice system more victim centred, while making clear that further reform would be needed. The survivors law is one of those further reforms.

The problem this bill addresses is painfully specific. Survivors may obtain a compensation order through criminal or civil proceedings, but, if the perpetrator does not pay, the survivor is left to enforce that order. In some cases, perpetrators have been able to shift wealth into superannuation or rely on bankruptcy in ways that make compensation far harder to recover. And that is, I would argue, a grotesque outcome. The law recognises the harm, and a court has ordered the compensation, yet our system still enables that avoidance of responsibility and payment and denies practical redress to survivors.

Public reporting has shown why reform is needed. Survivors and advocates, including Grace Tame and others, have campaigned for years to close this loophole. In one reported case, survivor Edan Van Haren was awarded $1.4 million in damages while the perpetrator declared bankruptcy and his superannuation remained protected. That's unacceptable.

There are legitimate reasons why superannuation is protected, but in these instances I welcome this legislation change. We need to protect retirement savings. I absolutely agree with that primary position. But we should not have criminals using the superannuation system to hide and move assets around. Again, this is very welcome legislation. The Super Members Council has said that superannuation is a safe haven for the future of most Australians but should not be a safe haven from justice and that the bill strikes the right balance between caution and urgency.

The key question is whether this bill responds proportionally to the problem. The bill creates a pathway for survivors to apply to the Commissioner of Taxation for information about a perpetrator's superannuation. That matters, because survivors often don't know where a perpetrator's superannuation is held or whether there are amounts that may be available. The survivor may then apply to a court for an order releasing certain amounts from superannuation, where compensation remains unpaid after 12 months. It's important to understand that this is distinct from proceeds of crime laws. Proceeds of crime laws are generally about the state confiscating assets linked to criminal offending. This bill is very different. It's about ensuring unpaid compensation reaches survivors. It's targeted and practical, as I've said.

Again, this bill is about accountability. It also addresses bankruptcy. Compensation debts owed to survivors of specified child abuse offences will not be extinguished by a perpetrator's bankruptcy where the relevant criteria are met. That is important. I also welcome the fact that historical compensation orders may be eligible, provided they are still legally enforceable. I hope that finally results in payment to so many that hold compensation orders.

I commend this bill to the House. I thank everyone who has so actively campaigned and advocated for these changes. I can't begin to understand the trauma and the difficulty for so many, but, if this plays a small part in helping gain redress, I welcome it.

The Australian child maltreatment study estimates that around one in four Australians aged 16 years and over have experienced child sexual abuse, with females twice as likely to have experienced child sexual abuse than males. These estimates are conservative because they do not include many online forms of child sexual abuse. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation has reported that online child sexual abuse and exploitation have grown exponentially in recent years.

We must also acknowledge that child sexual abuse rarely occurs in isolation: 78 per cent of victims-survivors of child sexual abuse said the abuse occurred more than once, 42 per cent said it occurred more than six times and 11 per cent said it occurred more than 50 times. These numbers are confronting and very sobering, but behind every statistic is a person—not just a person but a child, a child whose trust was violated, a child whose safety was stolen, a child who was failed by adults and by systems that were supposed to protect them.

Legislation like this is one of the reasons I came to this place. Legislation like this, supported in a bipartisan way, reminds us of the power of this parliament to affect meaningful change for some of the most vulnerable in our society. This reform should remind us all in this chamber that some issues rise above politics. Protecting children, supporting survivors and ensuring accountability for perpetrators are not partisan values; they are national values.

For too long, perpetrators of child sexual abuse have been able to hide assets in their superannuation—shielding wealth, evading accountability and denying survivors compensation they are owed. That is not simply a loophole; it is a profound failure of our system. Justice must be more than words on paper. Justice must be real, enforceable and meaningful. It must be felt by those who have already endured the unimaginable.

Survivors of child sexual abuse carry with them a burden that no person should have to bear. We've heard many accounts in this chamber over the last day and today about the trauma and the grief they carry as well as the lifelong impacts they carry of crimes committed against them when they were at their most vulnerable. For too long, many survivors have carried something else as well: the knowledge that, even after finding the courage to come forward, even after fighting through the courts and even after securing a judgement in their favour, they could still be denied that compensation—denied because perpetrators manipulated the system and offenders hid their assets in superannuation accounts, denied because bankruptcy protection was used in calculated ways to avoid paying compensation owed to those survivors. That is not justice; it is injustice compounded. Survivors should never have to fight for justice twice.

We know from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that many survivors do not disclose abuse for years—sometimes decades, sometimes never—not because they are unwilling to speak but because trauma does change people, and shame also silences people. Many survivors have been manipulated into believing that what happened to them was somehow their fault. For many survivors, pursuing civil action is not about financial gain; it is about acknowledgement and accountability and having a court formally recognise the harm that was done to them. That process can take years. It can involve reliving trauma repeatedly through court proceedings, medical evidence and cross-examination. As a former lawyer, I have seen that happen over and over again through our court systems, not just in circumstances of child sexual abuse but also in domestic violence and criminal cases. And after all of that, after finding the courage to come forward and after enduring the retraumatisation that legal processes can involve, survivors should not have to discover that their entitlement to compensation can be defeated through financial engineering.

That is why the Albanese Labor government has introduced this legislation known as the survivors law, a reform that sends a clear and unequivocal message: there is no place in our system for perpetrators to exploit legal and financial structures to evade responsibility for the harm they have caused. This reform did not emerge in isolation. It is the product of years—indeed, nearly a decade—of tireless advocacy under this government and the former government. It built on the voices of survivors, the determination of advocates and the courage of individuals who refuse to accept that the system should work against those it was meant to protect. I want to acknowledge those survivors who shared their stories publicly, often at enormous personal cost—those who relived trauma in pursuit of reform, those who persisted despite setbacks, delays and disappointment. Their courage has driven this legislation, their advocacy helped shape it, and their voices will continue to guide future reform.

The problem we are addressing is clear: under existing arrangements, superannuation has, in many cases, been treated as an untouchable asset, effectively beyond the reach of civil compensation processes. Perpetrators have exploited this reality. They have structured their finances to minimise visible assets while transferring wealth into superannuation accounts. In some cases, millions of dollars have been shielded. Some offenders have even declared bankruptcy while significant funds remained in superannuation accounts and out of the reach of the very people they harmed. The law has not kept pace with the reality of how these individuals operate. That is the loophole, and we have a duty to close it.

Through this legislation, we will be doing exactly that. This bill ensures that, where there is a valid court order for compensation relating to child sexual abuse and where the compensation remains unpaid, victims-survivors may seek access to certain superannuation contributions made by the perpetrator. Specifically, this includes additional contributions such as voluntary contributions and salary sacrifice amounts paid into superannuation accounts. This is a targeted reform. It does not dismantle Australia's superannuation system, nor does it undermine the broader principle of retirement saving protections. What it does do is ensure that superannuation can no longer be weaponised as a shield against accountability. Importantly, the bill also amends the Bankruptcy Act to deliver practical and enforceable change.

Under existing settings, superannuation is largely protected during bankruptcy proceedings, even where an individual has substantial outstanding liabilities. This bill makes clear that such protections must not extend to circumstances where they are being used to avoid paying court ordered compensation to victims-survivors of child sexual abuse. Specifically, the amendments enable trustees and courts to identify and recover certain superannuation contributions that would otherwise remain shielded. These are funds that in many cases were deliberately channelled into superannuation to place them beyond reach. By bringing their contributions within scope, the bill ensures that the true financial position of a perpetrator can be considered and that bankruptcy cannot be strategically used to frustrate justice.

Alongside these changes is a carefully designed mechanism involving the ATO. For many survivors, a key barrier has been the absence of information—whether superannuation assets exist and whether pursuing legal action is likely to result in any meaningful outcome. This bill also addresses that gap. Victims-survivors will be able to apply to the ATO for limited information about a perpetrator's superannuation interests for the purpose of informing a decision about whether to seek a court order.

Importantly, this is not an unrestricted disclosure regime. It is tightly controlled, subject to strict eligibility and supported by safeguards. Requests will only be available where there is a relevant connection to the child sexual abuse claims, and the information released will be limited to what is necessary to indicate whether eligible superannuation contributions may exist. These technical measures matter. They ensure survivors are not forced to pursue costly and retraumatising legal action without knowing whether assets are actually available. They provide transparency and they reinforce the principle that our legal and financial systems must not be capable of being manipulated to avoid accountability. Together, these amendments transform this reform from principle into practice, delivering a system that is fairer, more transparent and more firmly on the side of survivors.

There are complexities in this legislation, particularly regarding civil findings and broader retrospective application. These issues must be worked through carefully and responsibly. That is why this legislation includes mechanisms for review and ongoing assessment of how the law operates in practice. In developing this legislation, the Albanese Labor government listened closely to survivors and advocates.

In January 2023, the government released a discussion paper exploring options to better support victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. The government listened to feedback and acted on it. As a result, the bill was strengthened, the scope of accessible contributions was expanded, and certain defined benefit accounts were brought within scope in appropriate circumstances. Likewise, the look-back provision for contributions was extended because we know financial manipulation often occurs over a longer period of time. These changes matter because they reflect the lived experience of survivors and the practical reality of how perpetrators act. They will help ensure this reform is not merely symbolic but actually effective.

I also want to say clearly to victims-survivors that this legislation is an important milestone, but it is not the final destination. There are further issues requiring consideration, and there may be additional reforms needed in the future. Parliament must continue to listen to survivors, continue examining how systems can be weaponised against vulnerable people and continue identifying opportunities for reform. That is our job in this place.

I want to again acknowledge the persistence of survivors, advocates, community leaders and organisations who brought this issue to national attention and whose stories were told, again and again, in the hope that someone would finally listen. I particularly acknowledge those who stood alongside the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Dan Mulino, when this legislation was introduced. I was proud to stand there on that day and hear the words of Edan Van Haren, who said:

As a survivor of child abuse, I stand here not just for myself but for every child who hasn't found their voice yet. This is not just a personal issue; this is a community responsibility.

…   …   …

As a country we need to do better. We need stronger laws and we need longer sentences for offenders. They must have real consequences for the lies that they destroy. It takes us all and it starts with these laws.

I want to acknowledge advocates like Edan who transform deeply personal pain into a campaign for change that will benefit others. I also want to acknowledge organisations in Queensland, like Bravehearts and the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, who do extraordinary work advocating for victims-survivors for legislative change over not just years but decades and who continue to work every single day to keep our kids safe.

The Albanese Labor government will not stop until we are confident that our systems are delivering for survivors and protecting the most vulnerable members of our community. Child sexual abuse is the most abhorrent crime imaginable. It leaves lifelong scars—physical, emotional and psychological—and is committed against those who are least able to protect themselves. It demands a response that is compassionate, practical and strong. No law can undo the harm of child sexual abuse. No legislation can restore what has been taken. But this parliament can decide whether our system protects perpetrators or supports survivors. This bill makes that choice clear. It closes a loophole that never should have existed, it strengthens accountability and, most importantly, it tells survivors that this parliament has heard them and that their voices matter. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 because, at its heart, it's about a simple proposition: perpetrators of sexual crimes against kids should not be able to manipulate the laws to avoid providing financial compensation for their crimes, and survivors should not be forced to keep fighting for justice.

Under the current law, superannuation is generally protected from creditors. That protection is important for most Australians, but it has created a loophole that has been manipulated by criminals and, in this case, the most evil people in our society. We have seen circumstances where offenders have moved assets into superannuation or declared bankruptcy and, in doing so, sought to sidestep court ordered compensation. This is completely and utterly intolerable, and it is something that I can't believe we haven't already fixed but I'm so glad we are fixing, and I commend the government for doing this.

Survivors can do everything to bring about justice for the horror that's occurred to them. Making the complaint and coming forward is hard enough. Taking part in a process that is extremely difficult—the court process—where the offender is found guilty and then having this happen must feel like they're being offended against again. The same type of deception and manipulation and vile behaviour that was perpetrated on them as a child is at play again but being used to hide assets that should be going to the victim to help them recover or live on and survive the horror that's occurred. The bill addresses that injustice by enabling survivors of child sexual abuse, where there is an existing court ordered compensation, to seek access to eligible superannuation amounts held by the perpetrator to satisfy that unpaid order. The bill allows a survivor to apply to the Australian Taxation Office for limited information about a perpetrator's superannuation so they can make an informed decision about whether a court application is worthwhile. Critically, the bill amends bankruptcy law so that compensation debts for child sexual abuse can survive bankruptcy action, which closes the loophole some offenders have used to defeat valid court orders.

We should be clear about why this matters. Child sexual abuse causes lifelong harm and, for many survivors, the abuse does not end when the offending does. Survivors have gone through the court process, as I said before. Just coming forward is extraordinarily difficult. But to go through this and then, as I said, have these evil individuals, who are just human garbage, continue to perpetrate their deception must be so difficult. The coalition's position is clear. We support survivors, and we'll support the bill. Survivors and their families have waited too long while gaps in Australia's superannuation and bankruptcy framework have been exploited by the worst criminals. I acknowledge the work of the former coalition government in bringing the legislation forward. Most importantly, I acknowledge those survivors, their families and advocates, many of whom have come to this place and shared their stories with extraordinary courage. This reform is a result of years of persistent advocacy.

Of course, no single bill will capture every circumstance. There is more work that should be done in the future to give victims of other serious crimes similar pathways to compensation. But this bill is a major step forward. It restores a measure of fairness to a system that has too often compounded harm and reinforces the principle that court ordered compensation means something in practice, not just in theory. Convicted perpetrators must never be able to get away with their crimes. They must not be allowed to lose in court, declare bankruptcy and expect to be able to preserve their retirement savings while the victim receives nothing. The parliament has the opportunity today to close this loophole and strengthen justice for survivors, and I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

by leave—I move:

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

Question agreed to.

In rising to support this bill, I want to acknowledge the deep pain and hurt of members of my own community. This legislation seeks to right an historic wrong that affected people in communities across Australia, including my own. These are people who have already suffered too much: victims-survivors of child sexual abuse.

This legislation follows a fundamental principle that perpetrators of child sexual abuse should not be able to hide from accountability. Trauma does not end when the abuse ends. For many survivors, it is something that they must navigate every day, often in silence and without adequate support. Some survivors face barriers to stable employment and financial security, meaning the harm they experience is not only emotional and psychological but also material. Our compensation legislation should support victims and victims-survivors.

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.

An important component of this schedule ensures that compensation debts do not 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 serious harm.

A 2019 Deloitte study estimated that violence against children and young people cost $11.2 billion in New South Wales alone. This legislation is deeply personal to many people in my electorate. I have heard their stories and have been moved by their courage. The passage of this bill is the culmination of a sustained and honourable campaign by a dedicated collection of people in my electorate of Eden-Monaro.

Everyone in the Bega Valley was shaken by the crimes committed by Maurice Van Ryn, who was convicted of abusing nine children between 2003 and 2014. Van Ryn was also convicted of abusing a 10th child in 2019. In 2023 the Supreme Court of New South Wales awarded the 10th victim, Edan Van Haren, $1.4 million in damages for the abuse he endured. Van Ryn then declared bankruptcy in December 2023. Under the existing laws, this would extinguish his debt and deny victims-survivors justice. This legal escape-clause allowed Van Ryn's abuse of Edan to continue, hiding his superannuation against the compensation he owed to his victims.

When I was first elected as the member for Eden-Monaro, in 2020, the campaigners for this change in my community came to me and explained the work that had already been done. I was moved enough to use my privileged position to take up this cause. I want to thank Attorney-General Michelle Rowland and Assistant Treasurer Dan Mulino, who have worked tirelessly to deliver this life-changing reform for victims-survivors. These new laws will close a deeply unjust loophole and give victims-survivors access to the compensation they are owed.

I want to extend my genuine gratitude and admiration to victims-survivors like Edan Van Haren for their bravery to sustain this campaign and push the government to make our laws fairer for victims. For Edan, this took countless meetings with the Assistant Treasurer and the Attorney-General to iron out the specific ways this reform could be implemented that could stand against challenge and pass through the parliament as quickly as possible after introduction.

Other campaigners that I would like to thank for their sustained efforts include Nicholas Cavanagh, who was another victim of Maurice Van Ryn; Edan's grandmother Carolyn Kelly, who is a solicitor on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales; David Neyle, a Super for Survivors campaigner and local community advocate from the Bega Valley; Andrew Carpenter, a partner at Websters Lawyers; Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia founder Adam Washbourne; abuse survivor, actor and advocate Madeleine West; and all the campaigners from the Super for Survivors campaign.

In preparation for delivering this speech, Edan asked me to say this:

I know there is a lot of anger around this topic of survivors—and everyone wants to 'get revenge' on these monsters and make them pay.

And I've been angry, so bloody angry. Wishing I could just start life over again, wishing I could make this insidious pain and struggle I deal with everyday just disappear.

But that's not what this is about, this is about all of us, this is about Australia, this is about the absolutely monumental effect the cause of child sexual abuse has on every aspect of Australian life.

The sheer number of people who contact me to share their story—everyday my heart tearing just a little bit more.

We should not have had to spend our lives suffering because of a decision adults made towards us as innocent children.

We need a change, we need to heal, Australia needs to heal. So I beg you, please help us heal. Please help us heal at the expense of the responsible party, not at the expense of the rest of Australia.

No more hiding money in super, and absolutely no more to allowing bankruptcy to be used to clear the pain caused by this disgusting behaviour.

Super for Survivors campaigner and local Bega community advocate David Neyle also asked me to relay his words:

I started this campaign in 2017, after recognising that perpetrators of child sex offences were able to weaponise the existing legal system, and use it against victims who dared to seek civil compensation for the harm done to them.

With the passing of this Bill, we can bring this abhorrent practice to an end.

As one victim-survivor of Maurice Van Ryn said, after witnessing this Bill presented to Parliament in March, 2026, we have taken back the power from this monster.

I also would like to thank local media, with particular reference to Bega District News, Power FM, ABC South East NSW, A Current Affair and Region Media Group for continuing to shine a light on this issue and ensuring it did not leave the agenda of government. As a parliament, 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. For too many 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, compounding the harm. When survivors tell us that the system still falls short, it is our responsibility to listen. It is important to remember the voices that we do not hear. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, only a third of sexual assaults are reported to police.

Making sure our legislation remains fit for purpose and meets the expectations of community is critical, which is why reviewing this measure after its implementation is also essential. This will ensure that parliament does not simply pass legislation and move on but remains engaged with how those reforms are working in practice. It provides an opportunity to assess whether victims and survivors are benefiting and whether additional changes are required.

This reform is about righting wrongs, restoring fairness and ensuring accountability in our legal system. I am proud to be part of a government that has delivered this reform. I'll continue to support victims-survivors and advocate on behalf of our community, and I am really proud that this parliament will come together over this bill. I proudly commend the legislation to the House.

I understand that the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into Hansard in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.

() (): The incorporated speech read as follows—

Today I rise in strong support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026. This is an important and overdue reform—one that addresses a longstanding injustice faced by survivors of child sexual abuse and other serious abuse who have fought through the courts for recognition and compensation, only to find that the compensation awarded to them is beyond reach because of loopholes in our legal and financial systems.

For too long, survivors have endured not only the trauma of abuse itself but also the trauma of navigating legal systems that too often failed to deliver meaningful outcomes. Many have shown extraordinary courage in coming forward, recounting painful experiences in courtrooms and inquiries, only to discover that perpetrators could shield assets, hide behind superannuation arrangements or use bankruptcy to evade responsibility. This bill seeks to close those loopholes and ensure that justice is practical, enforceable, and real.

In my electorate of Pearce, these issues are not abstract. They affect families and communities across suburbs including Wanneroo, Clarkson, Banksia Grove, Tapping, Alkimos, Butler, Yanchep and Two Rocks. They affect people involved in local schools, sporting clubs, faith organisations and community groups—places that should always be safe and trusted environments.

Over recent years, many Australians have listened with deep sadness and anger to the testimonies that emerged through the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Those testimonies resonated strongly within communities across Pearce. Constituents contacted my office not only to express support for survivors, but also to speak about their frustration with systems that appeared to protect perpetrators more effectively than they protected victims. Some survivors and advocates in Pearce have spoken about the emotional toll of obtaining a court judgement, only to encounter further delays, obstruction, or legal manoeuvring that prevented compensation from ever being paid. For survivors, that experience can feel like a second injustice. It can reinforce feelings that the system does not truly see them, hear them or value their suffering. This legislation directly addresses that problem.

The bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to ensure that survivors can better identify and access certain superannuation interests held by perpetrators for the purpose of satisfying court ordered compensation. It also prevents compensation debts arising from child abuse from being extinguished through bankruptcy proceedings.

These are significant reforms because they recognise an important truth: debts arising from abuse are fundamentally different from ordinary commercial debts. They arise from profound harm—harm that can affect every aspect of a survivor's life, including their mental health, physical wellbeing, education, employment, relationships and long-term financial security.

In communities like Pearce, where many families are working hard to build stable and secure lives, access to justice matters deeply. People expect that, when a court makes a decision, that decision will have practical force and effect. They expect accountability to mean something tangible. Yet, too often, survivors have found that, even after years of legal proceedings, perpetrators were able to structure their affairs in ways that frustrated compensation orders. In some cases, assets were transferred or concealed. In others, bankruptcy was used as a shield. Superannuation, which is ordinarily protected for legitimate reasons, could become part of a broader strategy to avoid responsibility. That has undermined confidence in the justice system and caused enormous distress for survivors. This bill sends a clear message that accountability cannot simply be avoided through technicalities.

Importantly, this legislation is not about punishing people beyond the law; it is about ensuring that lawful court orders can actually be enforced. It restores integrity to the legal process and reinforces public confidence that the system stands with survivors rather than with those seeking to evade responsibility.

For many survivors in Pearce, compensation is not merely symbolic. It can provide practical support for counselling, trauma recovery, medical treatment, housing stability, education and rebuilding lives interrupted by abuse. Local support services and community organisations throughout the northern corridor of Perth have consistently highlighted the long-term impacts trauma can have on individuals and families.

Organisations working from Yanchep to Wanneroo have spoken about the growing need for trauma informed support services, particularly for survivors dealing with complex legal and financial pressures. Community legal centres, counselling services, family support organisations and victim advocacy groups understand that justice does not end with a court ruling. Enforcement matters. Outcomes matter.

This reform also reflects the tireless advocacy of survivors themselves. Many survivors have spent years campaigning for systems that are fairer, more compassionate and more effective. Some have done so publicly; others have worked quietly within their communities, sharing their experiences with parliamentarians, legal advocates and support organisations. Their courage has helped bring about this change.

I particularly want to acknowledge the role of community advocates who work across Pearce—often without recognition—supporting survivors through lengthy and emotionally exhausting legal processes. Whether through counselling services, grassroots advocacy networks, women's support services, youth organisations or legal assistance providers, these individuals have helped survivors navigate systems that can too often feel overwhelming and impersonal. Their work reminds us that trauma informed justice is not simply about legal reform; it is about designing systems that minimise further harm and respect the dignity of survivors at every stage.

That principle is reflected in this bill. By reducing the ability of perpetrators to delay or avoid payment, this legislation helps spare survivors from repeatedly reliving traumatic experiences through prolonged enforcement battles. It recognises that survivors should not have to spend years chasing compensation that courts have already determined is rightfully owed to them.

The significance of this reform is therefore both practical and symbolic. Practically, it improves access to compensation and strengthens enforcement mechanisms. Symbolically, it affirms that the parliament is willing to act when systems fail survivors. It says that justice should not depend on whether a perpetrator is able to exploit legal loopholes or financial structures. For large and fast-growing communities like Pearce, that message matters enormously. Pearce is home to many young families, community volunteers, sporting groups and local organisations that contribute to a strong sense of social cohesion. Trust in institutions—schools, clubs, churches, community organisations and the legal system itself—is essential to maintaining that cohesion. When accountability is weak, that trust is damaged. When the law responds decisively and fairly, confidence can begin to be restored. This bill helps strengthen that confidence. It demonstrates that parliament is prepared to confront gaps in the system and ensure that survivors are treated with fairness, dignity and respect. It also reinforces the broader principle that perpetrators of abuse should not benefit from protections or loopholes that were never intended to shield wrongdoing.

At the same time, this reform should be viewed as part of a broader commitment to supporting survivors and improving institutional accountability. Legislative change alone cannot undo the devastating harm caused by abuse, nor can financial compensation erase trauma. But meaningful compensation can provide support, stability, acknowledgement and a measure of justice.

As this legislation is implemented, it will be important to ensure that survivors can access the system effectively in practice, including in outer metropolitan and regional growth areas such as those represented within Pearce. Ongoing engagement with legal practitioners, survivor advocacy organisations, financial regulators and community support services will be essential to ensuring that the reforms operate as intended. We must also continue working to ensure that support services are accessible, trauma-informed and responsive to the needs of survivors from diverse backgrounds, including young people, women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and people living in rapidly growing outer suburban areas.

The experiences of survivors in Pearce reflect the experiences of survivors right across Australia: people seeking not special treatment but fairness; not sympathy alone but accountability; not promises but outcomes. This bill moves us closer to delivering those outcomes. It restores meaning to court-ordered compensation by ensuring that perpetrators cannot too easily evade responsibility through bankruptcy or asset protection arrangements. It strengthens confidence in the justice system by ensuring that judgements can be enforced. And it sends a powerful message that this government is prepared to stand with survivors and act to remove barriers to justice.

Importantly, it also reflects a broader cultural shift in Australia—a growing recognition that survivors must be heard, believed and supported, and that institutions must be accountable not only for preventing abuse but also for responding appropriately when abuse occurs. In Pearce, I know that many constituents expect this parliament to take practical action when injustices are identified. They expect us to strengthen systems where weaknesses exist and to ensure that laws reflect community expectations of fairness and accountability. This legislation does exactly that.

While no law can fully repair the damage caused by abuse, this reform ensures that survivors who have already endured the immense burden of legal proceedings are not denied the practical outcomes they have fought so hard to secure. This is a serious, measured and necessary reform. It is legislation grounded in fairness, accountability and dignity. Most importantly, it is legislation that will make a genuine difference to survivors in Pearce and across Australia.

I commend the bill to the House.

I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026. I'd like to acknowledge the moving contribution of the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, which preceded this, for giving voice to some of the victims-survivors that she spoke about earlier.

For all members of parliament, for parents like me and for anyone with children in their lives, there are few crimes more horrifying and more devastating than child sexual abuse. Of course, there is the sickening cruelty and betrayal of the act or acts themselves, which are often perpetrated by someone in a position of trust or authority. But the impacts for victims-survivors can be lifelong. Many may not be aware of or acknowledge, let alone disclose, abuse until much later in life. For survivors, the harm does not end when the abuse stops. In many cases, it follows people for years and decades afterwards. It affects mental health, relationships, education, employment, financial security and the ability to feel safe in everyday life. Victims-survivors may experience post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, substance abuse, self-harm and suicidality.

The reality is this issue touches far more people and families than many Australians realise. According to the Australian Child Maltreatment Study, more than one in four Australians have experienced child sexual abuse. Research shows more than one in three girls and almost one in five boys have experienced child sexual abuse in Australia. These are confronting figures. National data tells us that more than half of recorded sexual assault victims in Australia are children and teenagers under the age of 18. They are people we know. They are our neighbours, friends, colleagues and family members.

Across communities like ours, there are survivors quietly carrying trauma—raising children, working and moving forward while dealing with experiences that never fully leave them. Years can pass before somebody feels able to speak about what happened to them. Many fear they will not be believed. Many fear reliving the trauma through police investigations and court proceedings. Others carry shame and silence that was imposed on them as children by people who abused trust, power and authority. And, even when survivors do everything the system asks of them, justice can still be incomplete.

That is the problem this bill seeks to address. Too often, survivors have gone through lengthy court processes and secured compensation orders and still been unable to access the compensation they are legally owed. But in reality some offenders have been able to shield assets and avoid responsibility, including through the use of superannuation arrangements and bankruptcy processes. When I worked at the County Court of Victoria as a judge's associate, we had a case that had been in the court for years, through different legal proceedings, where the victim-survivor had successfully obtained compensation, and then, in exactly the circumstances that this bill seeks to address, the perpetrator had filed for bankruptcy. The victim-survivor had had to follow them through a number of Federal Court proceedings and then back to the county court in a way that can only be described as systems abuse. Perpetrators are causing further harm and trauma by using the justice system and by frustrating justice.

There is a saying that justice delayed is justice denied. This only talks about half the picture, because often legal processes themselves can be traumatic and gruelling. They are, of course, expensive. Sometimes victims-survivors are required to give evidence in civil proceedings in ways that they would usually be shielded from in criminal proceedings. They can consume weeks and sometimes years of people's lives, especially where proceedings are drawn out in the way that they often are by people who engage in systems abuse. After years of trauma and the stress of legal proceedings, after finally hearing a court acknowledge the harm that has been done to them, victims-survivors are still forced into further, exhausting battles simply to enforce what the justice system has already recognised. And that is why this reform matters.

This reform has been in discussion for years. In 2018, the Turnbull government announced it would legislate to allow victims of serious crimes to access a perpetrator's superannuation to satisfy compensation orders. But the legislation was never introduced, and survivors were left waiting. The Albanese Labor government is now delivering the reform survivors and advocates have been calling for for years. This bill closes a loophole that should have been closed long ago, and it helps ensure accountability has real meaning in practice, not just in principle.

This debate is about more than just financial enforcement alone. It is about whether the justice system can be weaponised by perpetrators to cause further harm to people who have already experienced immense trauma. This is in circumstances where the court has already recognised harm and a judge has awarded compensation. If survivors cannot access what is owed to them, the justice that compensation can represent is never fully realised.

This reform exists because survivors and advocates refused to let this issue disappear. It is incredible that some people can bring the hardest experience of their life and channel it into advocacy in this space and in so many other spaces where we have the privilege to meet victims-survivors who advocate around issues in this place. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary advocacy of survivors, families, lawyers and child protection organisations over many years, including organisations such as Bravehearts, Fighters against Child Abuse Australia and the Carly Ryan Foundation, alongside so many others who continued to push this issue into the national spotlight and refused to let it be ignored.

I've come into contact with some of these advocates and victims-survivors through our work in the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into domestic, family and sexual violence and suicide. Of course, the terms of that include victims-survivors of child abuse. The fact that this inquiry seeks to investigate and reduce the risk of suicide that results from domestic, family and sexual violence reflects the real ongoing consequences of childhood sexual abuse. I'd particularly like to acknowledge a couple of victims-survivors who gave evidence before the inquiry: Connor and Camille, who spoke very powerfully and affectingly about their experiences. They will certainly inform the final outcomes of that inquiry. It is a very brave but also a generous thing that advocates do, using their time and their energy to help us in this place better understand how we can legislate to ensure that the harms that are caused to them are less likely to happen to others in the future and understand how we can close loopholes like this to make sure that the law is delivering justice.

Child sexual abuse often exists alongside family violence and coercive control, emotional abuse and financial manipulation. This bill closes a very serious loophole. It means offenders who owe court ordered compensation to survivors of child sexual abuse will no longer be able to shield certain superannuation contributions while leaving survivors unpaid. If compensation remains unpaid for more than 12 months, survivors will be able to access certain contributions made into the offender's superannuation account in order to satisfy that debt. The bill also ensures that debts cannot simply disappear through bankruptcy. That matters because bankruptcy should never become a mechanism for avoiding responsibility for serious criminal harm.

At its core, this bill says something very simple: if somebody commits profound harm against a child, they should not be able to protect their finances while survivors continue to carry the lifelong consequences of abuse. It's not about undermining the purpose of superannuation. Australians rightly value the superannuation system. But it was never intended to operate as a shield against reparations for such serious criminal conduct. It's about basic justice. People know the difference between protecting retirement savings and protecting offenders from responsibility, and this bill draws that line clearly.

What becomes very clear quickly is that abuse affects every part of somebody's life. I've met with survivors of abuse in my office, and they talk about how it can affect their confidence, their health and their stability, including economic and housing. It can affect a person's sense of safety and self-worth in everyday life. That is why this reform matters.

Frontline workers see the impacts of this every day. In my electorate of Menzies, in Manningham in Melbourne's east, organisations like Doncare community services and Eastern Community Legal Centre work every day with families facing trauma, financial stress and family violence. They understand that the effects of abuse do not simply disappear once court proceedings end. Trauma can shape a person's mental health, financial stability, relationships and employment. Recovery is often long, uneven and deeply difficult. The workers at these organisations, like Doncare, focus on recovery because they recognise that it is often a long road and that expert support is needed, often from people who have been through the same experiences.

Survivors need more than recognition of harm. They need systems that deliver practical accountability and real support. This is also why broader investment matters. Last year, the government announced $12 million in grants to support specialist and community organisations responding to child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours in children. That funding means more trauma informed counselling, earlier support for vulnerable children and families and stronger frontline services in communities dealing with the long-term impacts of abuse. And, as part of the broader $80 million National Cabinet commitment to strengthen responses to family, domestic and sexual violence, it means more support reaching communities earlier. That matters because early intervention can change the course of somebody's life. It can mean a child receives support before trauma deepens further. It can mean families receive help sooner. It can mean cycles of violence are interrupted before they continue into another generation.

These investments are important because no single reform on its own can fully address the lifelong impacts of abuse, but legislation like this still matters enormously, because it addresses a clear injustice that survivors have identified themselves. For too long, survivors have done the hard part and carried the burden of advocacy. They have come forward. They have relived trauma. They have participated in difficult legal processes and advocacy. They have secured compensation orders through the justice system. And then those orders for compensation have been delayed or denied. Some offenders have been able to protect assets while survivors remain unpaid.

People expect accountability to mean something real. This bill helps restore that principle. It strengthens accountability in a targeted and measured way. Importantly, it reflects the voices and advocacy of survivors themselves. Many survivors have spent years pushing for changes like this because they understand better than anyone where the system has failed. Their advocacy has helped expose gaps in the law that allow offenders to avoid responsibility, even after criminal convictions and court ordered compensation. Their advocacy matters. It has helped move this parliament towards a fairer outcome, and it's important that this parliament continues listening to those voices.

At its heart, this bill is about dignity, fairness and responsibility. It is about making sure our legal and financial systems do not leave survivors carrying the burden while offenders continue to enjoy their assets. When a court says compensation is owed to survivors of childhood sexual abuse, that compensation should be paid as soon as possible. It should not be out of reach because of financial loopholes. Survivors deserve better than that.

This legislation will not erase trauma, and it will not undo the harm caused. No amount of compensation can ever truly do that. But this reform does move us closer to a system where justice is real, enforceable and meaningful. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

The Albanese Labor government understands— it's a truism, I guess—that you do get the best policy outcomes when you meaningfully engage with the people that the policy is actually for. That's why have listened to and continue to listen to survivors of child sexual abuse and advocates, who have long called for stronger accountability for perpetrators and improved justice outcomes. Many people might not know, but convicted perpetrators of child sexual abuse in Australia can be ordered to pay financial compensation to their victims. There are multiple ways that that is done through court orders and so on, at the state level as well, and I'll run through those. But what people might not know is that a loophole actually exists in existing legislation that has meant that the perpetrators have been able to shield their assets in their superannuation, which effectively leaves victims and survivors without the compensation that they are owed and that has been determined that they should be paid.

This bill, the survivors law, closes that loophole for good. It allows victims and survivors to seek access to a perpetrator's superannuation to satisfy unpaid compensation orders where a criminal conviction has been made. The bill really goes to a very simple but fundamental principle: that perpetrators of child sexual abuse should not be able to hide behind financial structures to avoid accountability for their crimes. Justice is not only about conviction. It is also about meaningful redress, and the survivors law will provide meaningful redress for victims.

There are three avenues, as I mentioned earlier, in the manner in which victims are paid compensation. It includes state and territory compensation schemes, where the state or territory, rather than the offender, pays the compensation to the victim. There's compensation or reparation orders handed down as part of the sentencing process in a criminal proceeding, or there is a civil action pursued by the victim against the offender for damages. None of these options, however, allow the victim to access any financial compensation through the perpetrator's superannuation. According to the Department of the Treasury, there have been many such cases where offenders who are either subject to or anticipating criminal proceedings have made large voluntary personal contributions to their superannuation to avoid having to pay the compensation, and this has allowed the offender to shield their assets from those compensation claims. Obviously, this cannot continue, and the Albanese Labor government has introduced this bill to shut this loophole for good, ensuring that those who have suffered so horribly from abuse are no longer blocked from the compensation they deserve.

This bill seeks to amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and other relevant Commonwealth acts to allow victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to apply for a court order for the release of certain amounts from a perpetrator's superannuation interests. Under these reforms, where a court ordered compensation debt remains unpaid after 12 months, victims and 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 very practical and targeted step. It also introduces a mechanism to ensure that perpetrators cannot simply wait out their obligations while their financial position remains protected.

Importantly, this schedule 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 the legal and the moral 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. That's significant because it recognises that there are survivors right now, today, who are being denied justice under the existing framework.

When offenders retain substantial retirement savings while victims struggle financially, often as a direct consequence of the abuse they've suffered, it really undermines confidence in the justice system. It risks perpetuating a cycle where the burden continues to fall on those who were harmed, rather than those who caused the harm. Child sexual abuse crimes often leave deep and lifelong impacts that extend far beyond the period of abuse itself, and that trauma does not end when the abuse ends. For many victims and survivors, it is something they must navigate every single day, too often in silence and without the adequate support that they need. Some survivors face barriers to stable employment and financial security, meaning the harm they experience is not only deeply emotional and psychological but very material as well. For those who seek the pursuit of justice, they must then relive the painful experiences they went through from their abuser as part of that process.

This bill is our government's way of recognising the deep and lasting pain that victims do endure and trying, in an important way, to redress some of that pain. Under our government, no victim of child sexual abuse should have to endure the risk of financial insecurity due to the lasting effects of the abuse that they suffered. Our government is committed to protecting our most innocent and vulnerable citizens and holding those who seek to do them harm accountable. As a parliament, we must recognise that the impacts of child sexual abuse are enduring. They're complex. They're profound. Our response must be equally serious, sustained and centred on those who have been harmed. Importantly, we will continue to listen and improve and build upon these laws.

That is why this bill should be understood as a significant and necessary foundation for more work that needs to be done. It lays the groundwork for potential future reforms, because enclosed within these reforms is a framework that can be built upon in the future. This ensures the critical measure of being able to review these reforms after their implementation. We should and will remain engaged in our policies to ensure that they are making a tangible impact on those that they affect. That's why the review mechanisms enclosed in this bill allow our government the opportunity to assess whether victims and survivors are genuinely benefiting and whether additional changes are required. The legislation will continue to be informed by voices of survivors, advocates, legal experts and practitioners. Engaging with these stakeholders is critical to ensure it is delivering on its intent and whether barriers remain that need to be removed.

The reforms enclosed within this bill will make a real difference in the lives of victims and survivors. They cannot wipe away the pain and the trauma, but they will make a difference. The ability to provide new avenues for enforcement and financial compensation will allow for a greater chance of achieving some measure of justice for the survivors. Our government can't—no government can—reverse the harm that has been experienced by these victims-survivors. No-one can do that. Survivors of child sexual abuse have gone through a horrific experience. We can't reverse that. We can, however, legislate reforms here in this place to ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes feel the full enforcement of the law, because those who seek to harm children should know that this government and this parliament will not stop until survivors get the justice they deserve.

This bill is about aligning our financial and legal systems with—in effect—our values in many respects. These are values that say perpetrators must be held accountable and that the victims and the survivors deserve not only recognition and acknowledgement of their pain and understanding but also meaningful support and redress.

So we stand in this parliament today—I think both sides of the House do—to demonstrate that recognition of the courage shown by so many survivors who've spoken out about the abuse that they have endured as children. It's no easy task to go through that experience and then speak about it many years later. Their lives have been shaped by pain, by injustice and by all that occurred to them at such a young age. It's so difficult to cope with at any age, but for them to go through this experience as children is horrific. Many of us here are parents, but even any of us who are not parents would all probably agree, very clearly, that no children should ever have to experience a suffering that so many victims and survivors have had to face.

This parliament, I think, is doing a good thing in reaffirming our responsibility to ensure that those voices are heard, that the injustices that they experienced at some level are addressed with some measure of justice and that the failures that have occurred in the past are never repeated. I commend this bill to the House.

The debate is interrupted now in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If any members require a continuation of speaking when the debate is resumed, permission will be granted.

Yet again, I have a meeting with people who have had their money stolen. Lion Property Group has their 400 victims—$250 million has gone. The Albanese government, under the Assistant Treasurer at the time, Stephen Jones—he said the system had to prevent collapses, malfeasance, mis-selling and catastrophic consumer losses. You haven't done that. That's on the back of me representing First Guardian and Shield Master Fund. What is going on? Who is looking after this? What is ASIC up to?

I'm going to give some tips, as an old auditor, for what they should look at in some of these authorising bodies. Who authorised MWL to have a licence? Who audited MWL? When was the last audit of MWL? What type of audit was undertaken—qualified or unqualified? What fees did MWL receive for placing the business? What security did the directors of MWL receive? What fees did Equity Trustees receive for handling the money of MWL? What fees did the directors of Equity Trustees receive to manage the funds? Who are the audit partners of Equity Trustees? What are the auditors' fees? What report did the auditor deliver on where Equity Trustees were investing? What working papers can the auditor present to describe diligence in their job? How much did they charge in Equity Trustees? No answers have been given. And, if they can't do the job, hand it over to me. I'll do it for them.

On Saturday 18 April, the voters of Liverpool City Council South Ward went to the polls after the resignation of a councillor. Setting aside the unnecessary costs of this election, quoted by the media as at least $800,000, the election was because the CEO did not organise for a countback procedure at the beginning of the council term. Congratulations go to Labor's Zeli Munjiza, whose positive focused campaign meant that she won every booth in South Ward. This amazing result sends a clear message that the lack of services and broken promises should be addressed by council and the mayor, as the ratepayers have had enough of the grandiose ideas and want back to basic delivery. I'd love to see council use the grants that have been received from the federal government to fix many roads in the electorate of Werriwa or deliver on the parks in Austral as promised and funded by the federal government. When the council is slow to act, it's always the residents who were inconvenienced or, worse, put at risk.

Speaking of which, I also want to add my concern about the proposed job losses that went to an extraordinary meeting of council last night. These job cuts, should they go ahead, will no doubt result in the cancellation of further basic services and see workers sacked when we need to be hiring workers to make sure that our normal services, like parks, run properly. Ratepayers are again paying the price for a council's poor administration.

My phone was ringing hot in the morning, with constituents in the electorate of Wright letting me know their disappointment with the trail of broken promises from Labor as a result of the budget last night. I said, 'Where are the broken promises?' They said: 'We were promised $275 to reduce our electricity some time back, and that never happened. We were told that electricity prices were going to go down, and they've actually increased 43 per cent, and we were told that, if Labor spent $43 billion on housing, it would supercharge the economy and more houses would be built and that it would be easier for young Australians to get access to the market.' The reality is, when we left government, we were building 220,000 homes a year. Under these guys, it's 40,000 fewer. Recent data from Housing Industry Australia had 183,000 homes built in the reporting period last year—broken promise after broken promise after broken promise. Of course, we remember the clanger. What was that one? The 'my word is my bond' on the stage 3 tax cuts where we got a 2.2 per cent reduction. It's broken promises time and time again. You just can't trust Labor. We've got the highest spending Labor government for 40 years, outside the pandemic. Interestingly, we don't have a taxing problem. These guys have got a spending problem.

One of the great privileges of representing a seat such as Leichhardt is the unmatched natural beauty. Recently, I had the good fortune of being able to share that with the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman. He came to speak to businesses and locals across the river at Cape Tribulation about some of the issues they'd been having post floods.

As many of you would already know, the ferry was washed away, which cut off the Daintree and Cape Tribulation from the rest of the world. We had to helicopter in fuel, food and other supplies. But the Daintree Ferry is back! And the Douglas Shire Council has waived all fees for anyone in Far North Queensland. All Far North Queensland locals can now head across the river for free and enjoy one of the world's great natural wonders. I would encourage absolutely everybody to do so. From the views out at Cape Tribulation and across the mighty Daintree River to some of the most beautiful and pristine beaches on the planet, you may even see a cassowary.

The beaches are not necessarily for swimming, because there are bitey things in there, but there are some fantastic swimming holes that are crocodile free. Just head up to Mason's, stop at Floraville and grab yourself an ice cream. It's a really special day. Not a single person ever in the history of the world has regretted a moment they've spent in the mighty Daintree. I recommend that everybody in the Far North get in the car and head across the river to support local businesses. They've been doing it tough, but they're going to show you one of the best places on the planet.

I have been agonising over whether or not to raise this issue on the national agenda. I just can't put it off any longer. The life expectancy of First Australians has slipped from 54 to 49, whilst the rest of us have a life expectancy of 82. I hope no-one will call this genocide, but you know this is going on and you do nothing about it. I have repeatedly raised this issue—not just myself but other people as well—and you do absolutely nothing about it. They can't grow their own fruit and vegetables, because you abolished their right to have backyard fruit and vegetable gardens in the Torres Strait, and they are not allowed to own land anywhere in the Aboriginal communities in northern Australia. I can't speak for the rest of Australia, but it's probably the same.

There are two million hectares in above-24-inch-rainfall areas supposedly owned by the First Australians, but you mob over there and you mob over here have said that it has to be owned by the tribe. Well, why don't we put that on you? Why don't we say, 'Oh, no, you can't own land here; you're Scottish, go back to Scotland'? (Time expired)

I'll just remind people to direct your comments through the chair. We don't want a personalised debate.

Parliament and Canberra can sometimes feel like something that is very far away. While we all get the pleasure of welcoming school groups to parliament when they visit, it is also important that sometimes this place comes to them. That is why it was my pleasure a few weeks ago to welcome the Speaker of the House to Panania North Public School in my electorate of Banks for the Parliament in Schools program and the Australian Parliament House National Flag Roadshow. The students at Panania North got a great lesson about how both our parliament and our democracy function and how their voices can be heard. They also got to unfurl one of the flags that fly on top of this building in their very own playground. It was fantastic to see the leaders of tomorrow so engaged and interested in learning about how our country works, how decisions are made and how they can have an impact.

I want to say a big thank you to the teachers, staff and students at Panania North Public School for helping to facilitate an amazing visit. I also want to thank the Speaker himself and his office for making the time to visit us in the electorate of Banks and Panania in particular. Since the visit, I've had countless families tell me how enjoyable that visit was.

Madam Speaker, I don't need to tell you or any other member of this place just how tough things are out there in the economy at the moment, whether you're talking to businesses watching their cash dry up or charities finding it harder to raise the money they need to do the good things in our community. But two areas of the community that are really struggling are young people struggling to get on the property ladder and renting pensioners. Costs are going up everywhere for pensioners on fixed incomes, and they are hurting. In this context, Australia turned its eyes to the government, hoping they would deliver a budget that would provide some relief, some hope, a light at the end of the tunnel that would help them out. Instead we got the highest taxing budget ever delivered by a government since records have begun. It is the highest taxing budget.

What has it done? It's done what all taxes do: it's taken away hope and ambition. I'll give you just one example. Page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1 reveals that 35,000 fewer homes will be built in Australia over the next 10 years because of these tax measures. That is a direct quote from their own budget papers. If you tax high, you kill off investment, and that is what is happening. For young people who are hoping that opportunities will grow for them on the housing ladder, no. Labor have just taken them away.

Sudden cardiac arrest can impact people of all ages, genders and lifestyles. It does not discriminate. Approximately 10 per cent of people who experience a cardiac arrest outside of hospital survive. However, if good-quality and timely CPR and AED are utilised, survival rates can increase to 70 per cent. That is where the work of organisations such as St John Ambulance comes in. St John Ambulance asks governments, partners, funders and communities to get behind public access to defibrillators.

Working together with StreetBeat, an initiative led by GoodLoop Mutual in partnership with St John Ambulance ACT, I sponsored the installation of one of these life-saving devices in my community. I was also able to run community training on how to use this AED last week, in recognition of Heart Week. This program has so far installed 47 publicly accessible AEDs across Canberra. Last week, it was announced that, due to the generosity of people such as Mat Franklin and Capital Chemist, we will see an AED installed in every residential suburb in Canberra, making our city one of the first in the world to achieve this. Every Australian should have access to this life-saving equipment. Any Australian can learn first aid and how to use one. I commend St John Ambulance and GoodLoop Mutual for working to make this a reality.

After last night's budget debacle, hardworking Australians are waking up to the realisation that the harder they work the more this Albanese Labor government takes from them. In this misguided attempt to address intergenerational inequity, they have achieved the complete opposite, and they have managed to do this while delivering another kick to the older generations, who've worked hard, done without, saved, paid off their homes under high interest rates and then been able to invest. This generation has been taxed on its wages, taxed on its savings, taxed on its super, and now it's being absolutely gouged on its investments. This might have been the legacy that they left for the next generation. Now this has all become more difficult, more expensive and less possible.

This budget is kicking Australians when they're down, and no-one knows more or better than the people who represent Australians in local government. Some of my mayors are here today in the gallery—and I'd like to acknowledge Darrell from Narrabri, Marg from Parkes, Kathryn from Warrumbungle shire and Doug from Gilgandra. They are here to try and move past the chaos that is the axing of the Inland Rail north of Parkes in this budget. It's another day, another blow and another absolutely devastating budget from a Labor government.

Last Sunday, I participated in the Mother's Day Classic with my son alongside 100,000 Australians walking and running to support life-saving breast and ovarian cancer research. I was inspired by my constituent Melanie Warman. She is the chair of the Sydney organising committee for this incredible national event. She is also the founder of Boobs on the Run, an incredible women-only running group. Her drive to raise funds and improve women's health is deeply personal. She lost her mother to breast cancer almost 20 years ago, and she's turned that loss into action that's helping thousands of women feel supported, informed and empowered. It was a privilege to walk alongside her and other participants who showed up with love, courage and solidarity for this deeply emotional but also hopeful event.

The classic was founded by Louise Davidson AM and the late Mavis Robertson AM, with the support of Women in Super, as a small event in Sydney and Melbourne in 1998. Today it's grown to be so much more than a fun run. It's a national message of hope with 1.9 million Australians taking part, raising over $50 million—and a reminder that research saves lives.

Numbers matter. When the government brings down a budget, the numbers matter even more—$50 billion in more taxes on the Australian people. The disgrace from the budget last night is who the government has decided to tax more: our elderly. Surprisingly, the government has decided to go after our elderly, and that is while the aged-care system is failing them dreadfully. At the moment, as I said, numbers matter. There are 200,000 elderly Australians waiting to get assessed or to receive home-care support, Support at Home. Commonwealth home-care support—I really don't care what the name is. The fact is our elderly are being ignored, and their dignity is at stake under this government.

Last time we checked, 5,000 people had died waiting to get onto aged-care support. This is an absolute shame on this government. Rather than talking about those things and making sure that more funding is available—guess what? They're coming after the over-65-year-olds to take their private health insurance so they theoretically can pay for the aged-care debacle.

At the launch of the national plan for the Push, here in Parliament House, there was a different kind of buzz in the air. Young people were talking about music, what they were building and where they were taking it next. That is what the Push does. For more than 30 years it has backed young people to jump in, try new things and turn their love of music into something real. That's not just for the artists on stage, but for the people behind the scenes as well—the ones running the gigs, mixing the tracks and building the sets from the ground up.

In Melbourne, young people are right at the heart of the live music scene, which is alive, loud and constantly changing. They are filling our venues, starting bands, running shows and moulding the sounds of our city. That energy was right here in Parliament House, because, when you back young people in music, you back their confidence, their creativity and the culture we all get to be part of.

I want to thank the Push for the work they do—for bringing young music and young people together, for bringing the spark back into this place and for backing a generation that is ready to take to the stage.

The budget rhetoric we heard last night from Labor shows they are taking the Australian people for mugs. While proclaiming to take pressure off Aussie families and lift living standards, Labor is, in reality, taxing aspiration, lifting the ladder from young would-be investors and pouring an irresponsible level of migrants into our already overstretched networks—from housing to health and everywhere in between.

For the regions, it appears that any savings made in this budget are at our expense: $4.7 billion cut from infrastructure; $103 million cut from the national water grid; $191 million cut from pest and disease, regional trade and drought funding for farmers; and $21 million cut from regional communications funding. That's money being ripped away from nation building and redistributed to Labor's metrocentric pet projects, with a tax cut of $4.80 a week—not enough to even buy you a coffee.

Infrastructure and communications funding are, literally, lifelines for my communities. We're seeing them brutalised by this Labor government, and that shows the true lack of care they hold for my electorate of Cowper. The irony is that solutions to so many of our nation's problems lie in the regions: housing, resources, food and sovereignty. That's what the regions have to offer in this country. But Labor continues to ignore us. (Time expired)

Last night's budget provided $24 million to upgrade major safety hotspots on Bagot Road in Darwin, in my electorate. This issue is very close to my heart, as someone who's very well aware that a road user is four times more likely to die in a road incident in the Northern Territory than in other parts of Australia, and I'm also the chair of our local blackspots committee. It's a very important issue.

We all know the physical, mental and social impacts of road injuries and deaths, not only on the individual themselves but on their families and the whole community. Improving road safety is a challenging issue, particularly when it comes to pedestrians, as well, as is the case on Bagot Road. There are Aboriginal communities that are located close to that road, with little public transport and safety infrastructure, so it's both the pedestrians and the drivers that become vulnerable.

I met with the Menzies School of Health Research team last week to hear about the Roadmaps for NT project, funded by our government, which talks to Aboriginal community members in Darwin, service providers, policymakers and researchers to get more effective local road strategies, and I thank them for that work.

Last night's budget told you everything you need to know about this Labor government's priorities: in the macro, punish ambition, tax wealth, make it harder for everyday Australians to get ahead, lift rents, keep pressure on interest rates and, in doing so, crush the construction industry's willingness to build the homes we so desperately need. By Labor's own data, 35,000 fewer homes will be built over the next decade. But the true-believer, pro-union, anti-employer bias is in the microdetail of the budget, too. Last night the Albanese government set aside $5.3 million to prop up the CFMEU's administration, a union mired in allegations of corruption, criminal infiltration, intimidation and bikie links. How much money for small businesses trying to navigate the impossible morass of Labor's ever more complicated Fair Work system? It's $1.3 million.

Labor is spending five times as much on shielding the CFMEU as it is on helping small business find its way through the Fair Work quagmire Labor has created. Every day I meet small businesses being crushed by it—the cafe owner in Rosebud, the tradie in Hastings, the restaurant owner in Sorrento, the family business struggling in Somerville. All are expected to keep pace with Labor's endless industrial relations changes with next to no support. Australians are now literally paying more to keep a dysfunctional, corrupt union afloat than to help small businesses create jobs and opportunity.

Last night, Labor announced we are investing almost $183 million to make the child support system safer and fairer. There is currently $2 billion in unpaid child support debt in Australia, and women make up around 83 per cent of recipient parents. These historic reforms will help prevent the weaponisation of child support and protect parents and children from financial abuse.

These are the most significant changes to the child support system in nearly 20 years. They include $3.6 million to ensure that when Services Australia identify systems abuse they have the power to stop it. From 1 July next year, the Child Support Registrar will be able to refuse applications made for the purposes of harassing the other parent. There's also $6.1 million from July this year to support the ATO to prosecute parents who repeatedly fail to submit their tax returns, and there's $12.4 million to improve income data checking so that income changes can be flagged. About half of the 70,000 income estimates each year are incorrect.

There is more to come. Labor is making the child support system safer and more effective, delivering accountability and justice for those who need it most.

The Treasurer stood up last night and hit us with hard news—that housing prices have increased more than 400 per cent since 1999. For many Australians, the dream of homeownership is dead. Every week people line up at open homes only to have their dreams crushed. I hear these stories in my community of Mandurah all the time. What's Labor's plan to fix this? New taxes on housing—taxes they ruled out before the last election.

The Treasurer failed to mention immigration. He didn't mention that, under Labor, Australia's population has grown by 1.8 million people, and that growth has been driven by 1.4 million migrants—at a time when our fertility rate has hit a low of 1.4 births per woman. We're not having enough children to replace ourselves, and Labor is running the fastest immigration program in our history.

The Treasurer also failed to mention that we've only built around half a million homes under Labor. No wonder young Aussies are locked out of the housing market. Now we learn that Labor will welcome another 750,000 migrants over the next three years. Labor is on target for two million migrants before the next election, yet we can't build fast enough to house these people.

Prime Minister, here's a tip. Why don't you tie immigration to housing builds? Look after Australians; get our people into a home, before you open our borders to everyone else.

One of the line items in last night's budget, I am proud to stand here and say, was our government's commitment to building more Bushmasters in Bendigo, with an extra $750 million to deliver extra Bushmasters to the Australian Defence Force—268 in total—which will secure work at the site for the next seven years, securing the jobs of 300 locals and encouraging Thales to bring on that next generation of tradies. They are already talking to local schools about the opportunities that could exist at Thales once they leave school.

This is an exciting moment for Bendigo—locking in these jobs and securing the site. I just want to remind the House where the site was at, prior to the 2022 election. Thales had reached out to say that they had no work secured by those opposite. The site would close if Labor did not win the election. The good news is: we did win the election, and, with the dedication of this government, we've secured the jobs and secured contracts now and into the future.

I want to pay tribute to the workers and their union, for hanging in there and for committing to the site, and to this government, for backing in these workers and this future manufacturing that will continue at the site, locked into our budget, now and into the future.

Now we know the truth. Australians went to the ballot box taking the Prime Minister at his word. Fifty times over, red-hot with rage, he said he wouldn't tax houses, he wouldn't tax rents and he wouldn't hit small businesses. Now, entrusted with a supermajority in this parliament, that power has all gone to the Prime Minister's head.

This government has ignored the cost of living, continuously, and Australians are looking at this budget and saying: 'What has this got to do with us? It's doing nothing to lower our costs, but it is hitting us with higher taxes.' Last night, the government handed down a bad-faith budget—bad faith because it was built on broken promises, 50 times over; bad faith because it increases taxes, the highest on record for a government; bad faith because, by its own admission, it will increase rents; bad faith because it will lower living standards, three per cent, over the life of this government, as a share of real wages; and bad faith because it will build fewer homes.

I have never seen a budget document like this, where they go out and boast so strongly that they're going to address intergenerational incomes and fairness and then go on and build 35,000 new homes. If you've got a story of how this budget dudded you, go to www.notthetax.com.au.

With a world in a state of flux and marred by conflict, global disruption and rising pressures beyond our shores, we could have used last night's budget to really retreat from these challenges as an excuse for hesitation. We could have curled up into a conservative ball and rolled along with the status quo, using the events of the world as a cover to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Instead, we, as a government, have chosen something different. We've chosen to strengthen our sovereignty, to invest in our capacity to make, to build, to care for and house ourselves, and to secure our place in a rapidly changing global economy—not as passengers on the journey, but as active shapers of it. At its core, this budget understands something simple but powerful: every person is driven by the same basic needs—shelter; health; connection; bettering ourselves; a safe and affordable home; access to quality healthcare when you need it; and the opportunity to stay connected to family, to community, to work and to purpose. Nimbleness, fairness and bravery in government are essential if we are to meet the demands of a rapidly changing world. This government is answering those challenges, and I am proud to be part of it.

In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. If members can take their seats quickly and quietly, we shall move to questions without notice.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did Labor lie to Australians about your plan to tax them more?

Order! I just want to deal with the word 'lie'. We just want to make sure that it is not directed to a person. Former speakers have directed it to parties and governments. I'm just going to be careful with that word today to make sure it's not directed to an individual. I'm just putting everyone on notice. I've got a list of examples here where we can have that withdrawn. As long as everyone knows the rules, we'll be fine.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. We are changing the tax system to give young people a fair crack at their first home. That is what we are doing.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The member for Forrest! Members on my left will cease interjecting. There is far too much noise. If the member for Herbert has a prop, he'll not use that. I'm just putting him on notice as well so everyone is crystal clear. No props today as well. If any props are used, you won't be here for the remainder of question time. When the House comes to order, we'll hear from the Prime Minister.

This is a change in our policy, and I'm upfront about that. But, unless we act now, we're looking at a generation missing out. Indeed, someone who was appointed by the Leader of the Opposition had this to say when reflecting about how their political party was going. I quote:

We were timid. We weren't prepared to lean in to the challenges and the lived experience of the next generation of Australians. I'm quite happy to put things up that will robustly challenge the status quo if it means we're going to build a better future …

Order! No! The member for Herbert will leave the chamber. He's holding up a prop. I've asked him not to do that. He'll leave. We're not having props today. I can be crystal clear on this. Nice try, but we're not having them today or any other day, okay?

The member for Herbert then left the chamber.

There's far too much noise. The House is going to come to order, and the Prime Minister is going to be heard in silence.

That was the shadow Treasurer talking in February—words of wisdom and reflection from the shadow Treasurer, when reflecting on how well they were going in replacing the former member for Farrer as leader with this bloke here.

The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?

It's on relevance. The question was about Labor's lies.

Order! Well, if you're going to ask a question like that, you're going to get quite the answer. There was just far too much noise. I know everyone seems to exercised today, but we are going to show restraint and respect. We just cannot have this continue. I ask the Prime Minister to be directly relevant to the question.

I talk to young Australians who are this close to giving up any opportunity to aspire to own their own home. I speak to their parents and grandparents, who say that they are worried that their children and grandchildren will never be able to own their own homes. What we are not prepared to do is just sit back and kick the can further down the road. What we are doing is acting—acting in support of aspiration, acting in support of growing the economy, acting in support of housing supply—because there is a difference between investing in an existing home, with negative gearing that benefits the investor, and investing in a new home, which benefits the investor and it benefits the nation.

Honourable members interjecting—

There's been far too much noise from the member for Barker, the member for Casey and the member for Goldstein, who is the author of the MPI today. I'm sure he'll want that to proceed.

My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the Albanese Labor government's budget help ease cost-of-living pressures, help younger Australians get into their own home and make our economy more resilient for future generations?

I thank the fantastic member for Bass for her question. She came into this place as a former schoolteacher and understands that the kids she used to teach in those classrooms need to be able to aspire to their own home. Our budget helps Australians with the cost of living. Our budget backs aspirations—

The Prime Minister is going to pause. Member for Gippsland, you are not going to interject anymore. You've been yelling non-stop through yesterday's question time and today. You're on a warning. One more word and you're not going to be here for the remainder of question time. The member for Bass has asked her question; the Prime Minister is entitled to answer it.

Importantly, as well, it builds Australia's resilience. At a time of global instability and turbulence, we have managed today to have more fuel in Australia than we had on 28 February, and the package in this budget on fuel security will further help that. Those opposite said, 'Why are they bothering to talk in South-East Asia?' They took the same principle that they did in government, where they ignored our neighbourhood, where we live. They've taken that principle into their ever-diminishing opposition. Now, we've also—

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

On relevance, the question was very clear—

Resume your seat.

Resume your seat. Under the standing orders, you're entitled to raise a point of relevance, which you did. You don't need to explain what that is. I've got plenty of examples we can go through of former Speakers who have handled this exactly the same way, and I'm happy to list them to the member if he requires it.

We have cut taxes for 13 million Australians five times. The first one was the one that they said they'd reverse. Then, of course, our second tax cut, our top-up, begins on 1 July. The further top-up begins on 1 July next year. Then there is the thousand-dollar automatic tax deduction. Then, of course, there is our Working Australians Tax Offset. If you add all that up for average workers, they will be better off by around $2,800.

We've not only done that; we've put in place measures such as cheaper medicines and we've made permanent the urgent care clinics as part of Medicare—something opposed by those opposite, but now they all want one on their corner. We have made free TAFE permanent. We are making a difference, with cheaper batteries benefiting hundreds of thousands of Australians as well. But, importantly as well, we are giving Australians a fair crack at buying their first home, backing aspiration.

The coalition have already told us what they are against. In interview after interview, asked about helping young Australians into their own home, they've said they're against it. They'll repeal it now—they'll repeal it. It's a repeat of what happened one year ago, and we know how that ended. These geniuses are going to go to an election saying that they will repeal young Australians getting a fair go.

The member for Forrest will leave the chamber under 94(a) for that continual interjection and yelling during the Prime Minister's answer, and plenty of people will follow him today if that continues.

The member for Forrest then left the chamber.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that 35,000 fewer homes will be built as a result of Labor's new taxes?

What I can confirm is as a direct result—and it's there in the budget papers—is increasing housing supply by at least 30,000 as a direct result. The $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund will support up to 65,000 new homes over the decade. Budget Paper No. 1, statement 4, on page 158, says:

The measures in this Budget are expected to improve home ownership and increase the overall supply of housing.

That is what we are doing. This additional $2 billion takes our Homes for Australia plan to $47 billion. Whether it's increased public housing through our Housing Australia Future Fund, opposed so strongly by those opposite, whether it is private rentals through our build-to-rent scheme, whether it be our shared-equity scheme, whether it be our support for local infrastructure or whether it be the changes that we are proposing, which will ensure that people who want to negatively gear an investment property in the future will invest in new supply, therefore benefiting not just themselves but the nation as well—all of those measures, every single one of them, are about boosting supply as we go forward.

We're doing more than that as well, because we're reserving a whole range of those houses for first home buyers alone, making sure that we deliver on successful programs that are underway right around the country. But in addition to that, of course, we're making sure that the workforce is there to build those houses. That's why we have free TAFE. That's why we have a $10,000 incentive for construction apprentices or for electrical apprentices as well. All of it is opposed by those opposite, who didn't even bother to have a housing minister during most of their time in office.

Now, we want to make sure that we continue to give Australians a fair crack going forward. Those opposite have blocked every single housing measure that we've put forward. They delayed a whole range of them, along with their friends in the Senate. What we're doing is moving forward. Labor is the party of aspiration, and this budget last night shows that.

My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's budget help to reform our economy and make Australia more resilient to economic shocks? How does that compare to other approaches?

A big thank you to the member for Banks, an absolutely outstanding and valued member of our team on this side of the House. He knows that this is a responsible budget which is all about resilience and reform at the same time—not resilience or reform but resilience and reform. It's all about getting Australians through this global oil shock and building an economy that works for more people. This budget helps Australians today and lifts living standards into the future by responding to the global oil shock; by taking pressure off Australians with cost of living and housing; by making our economy more productive over time; by delivering tax reform for workers, businesses, homebuyers and future generations; and by making sensible and responsible savings to make sure that the deficits are smaller every year of the forward estimates.

In this budget, when it comes to fuel, in addition to all of the good work done by the PM, the minister for energy and others, we've got a fuel security package which is investing in more fuel for more motorists and more industries to keep our country moving. We're also more than halving the fuel excise and reducing the Heavy Vehicle Road User Charge, as well as the fuel and fertiliser security facility. On housing, we're reforming the tax system to support more first home buyers, and we're investing in extra $2 billion to build up to 65,000 more homes in our plan which now goes to $47 billion, as the Prime Minister said.

We're rolling out tax cuts for every working Australian, in addition to the three tax cuts already on the way plus the instant tax deduction. This is a government cutting income taxes for working Australians five times, five different ways in just four years. We've got a comprehensive package to boost productivity, to save business more than $10 billion a year in compliance costs and to boost long-run GDP. We've got big investments in innovation and investment to make sure that we support all kinds of businesses, the dynamic part of our economy, which will create wealth and opportunity into the future.

And we're doing all of this while finding an historically high amount of savings in the budget—$63.8 billion of savings—with a net improvement to the budget of $25.1 billion for the first time in the history of this country. We are in two consecutive budget updates, banking every extra dollar of revenue when it comes to revenue upgrades. This is an ambitious budget. It provides immediate support to Australians. It delivers urgent economic reforms. And, very importantly, it also doesn't forget our obligations to future generations.

I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are participants of the Disability Trust Next Step program, an initiative for young people focusing on employment pathways, skill building and workplace experiences. They are guests of the member for Whitlam.

I'm also pleased to advise the House that we have representatives from WattleNest, a non-profit organisation that provides support for emerging athletes and aspiring Olympians who may be experiencing financial stress and resulting mental health issues. With the group is the WattleNest founder, Rachel Condos-Fields, as well as WattleNest athlete Jess Lloyd, an Australian representative archer from the Sunny Coast chasing her Olympic dream.

And we've got the mayors from the Parkes electorate, including the Deputy Mayor of Parkes Shire; Councillor Darrell Tiemens, the mayor of Narrabri Shire Council; and Councillor Kathryn Rindfleish, the Mayor of Warrumbungle Shire Council, as guests of the member for Parkes.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Prime Minister, you cannot have agriculture without fertiliser. Diammonium phosphate is the most common fertiliser. The only plant in Australia is in Mount Isa, supplying almost half of Australia's needs. It is being choked to death by a monopolistic Woolworths-and-Coles-type gas supply. Prime Minister, congratulations on the reserve resource policy, but it has no teeth. Without price controls, we will still be left in a monopolistic situation. Prime Minister, will you save Australia's phosphate plant and 17,000 jobs, or will your government continue with this free-market, teacher's-pet mentality and import 100 per cent of our fertiliser?

():  I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I'll ask the minister for resources to supplement my answer, but can I say that my government has been very focused on this. As the member for Kennedy knows, I've visited the great town of Mount Isa on many occasions, including with him, and we have intervened, together with the Crisafulli government, in a bipartisan way across the Commonwealth and the Queensland governments to defend industry there, particularly because we know the phosphate industry is critical for Australia. Had we not intervened last year, if we'd had the free market 'let it rip' approach, then we would have been in a really dire situation right now. That's the truth. The Minister for Industry and Innovation, Tim Ayres, worked very closely as well with his counterparts to make sure that we weren't in that position. I'll ask the Minister for Resources to add.

I thank the member for the diligent and passionate way in which he represents that community to make sure that jobs and industry are protected, not just in the interests of the people of Kennedy but, of course, in the national interest, because those industries are so important for our national economy.

The member for Kennedy is, of course, quite right to say that agriculture depends on fertiliser. I congratulate the Treasurer and the minister for agriculture for the fuel security and resilience package in this budget. Part of that is a $7.5 billion fuel and fertiliser security package. I'll turn to the way forward in a moment. We have secured, through the new powers given to Export Finance Australia, 90,000 tonnes of urea to Australia—we're supporting Incitec Pivot and CSBP—and 250,000 tonnes of urea from Indonesia. That's through that new mechanism. You're right to identify the supply chain challenge.

Moving to the future—this government has invested, as many will be aware, over $475 million through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility for the Perdaman urea facility in Karratha. The government, and I as the Minister for Northern Australia, have supported a $220 million loan to Perdaman to build the largest urea plant, a $160 million loan to the Pilbara Ports Authority and a $95 million loan to the Water Corporation. This in total $475 million federal commitment to the project and supporting infrastructure will see over $8 billion of investment. I know those opposite want to take credit, but the thing is that they didn't secure the approvals for the project. That is the truth. They talk a big game, but they don't do anything and they failed to invest more in NAIF. Member for Kennedy, as you know, we will make this country urea independent. By the middle of next year is when production will commence. I think we can look forward to that.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government helping first home buyers get into a home of their own, and is the minister aware of any risks to this work?

The member for Deakin is a fantastic champion for aspiring homeowners in his electorate, and I want to thank him for this question. Too many Australians today feel that the housing system is stacked against them, especially younger Australians, and they're not imagining it. Right across our community, homeownership rates are declining. They're declining across all age brackets, but the effects are particularly pronounced when we look at what's going on for younger Australians.

As housing minister, I often get asked what things keep me up at night. Here's one of them: since the year I was born, a low-income young couple in this country are half as likely to own their own home than they were in 1980. We know those opposite are obsessed with division and conflict, and they're talking about these important changes as though this is some kind of fight between the generations. But they know and I know that, as people representing the Australian community, we are just as likely to get stopped in the street by grandparents who are worried about their grandchildren and parents who are worried about their kids. Our housing challenge is affecting the whole country. That's why our government has built the boldest and most ambitious agenda to tackle this that a Commonwealth government has had in 70 years.

We're building more homes. We know the main game is building, building, building because more housing means more affordable housing for Australians. But it's really important that we address the playing field and level that playing field for first home buyers. Our five per cent deposit program helps you get to the auction sooner. It's gone from 11 years to save a deposit down to two or three. That's already changed the lives of 240,000 Australians around the country. We help you get to the auction faster, and now we're giving you a fair shot when you get here. Our homeownership package will help an additional 75,000 Australians go from renting into homeownership.

I'm asked about risks, and we've already got one on the table. We've heard that the Liberal Party plan to oppose these reforms and unwind them at the next election. This is a political party one of whose foundation beliefs was a belief in homeownership. They have completely lost their way. They speak of aspiration—there is no greater aspiration in this country than young people wanting to get the keys to their first home. Why is it that Liberals have come in consistently over the last four years and voted against every initiative that we have put forward to help first home buyers? First home buyers have a hell of a challenge out there, but I want them to know that they have a Labor government and 93 Labor members behind me that are with them and fighting for them every single day.

My question is to the Treasurer. Since Labor came to office, 1.4 million people have arrived in Australia. This year alone, the government is also running 77,000 homes behind its housing target. Treasurer, where will all these new migrants live?

I hope the shadow treasurer is aware that, when he blows on the dog whistle, they can hear it in Goldstein too. And, when the shadow treasurer said he was prepared to be in a government with One Nation, I think they heard that in Goldstein too. When it comes to the migration numbers in the budget and the housing numbers in the budget, it's very inconvenient to those opposite that, when we came to office, the net overseas migration number was surging. What we've been able to do in the four years that we've been in office is to see net overseas migration come down 45 per cent off its peak. And there are additional steps in the budget to put more downward pressure on net overseas migration.

So 45 per cent down from the peak after the surge that we inherited from those opposite—that's on the net overseas migration numbers, down 45 per cent from their peak. In the last full year, that came in as 30,000 fewer than the Treasury forecast in the budget. We've been managing that down. Obviously there are calculations around departures and the like which are altering the forecast this year and next year, but, overall, net overseas migration has come down. I didn't see you mentioning that when you were traipsing from disappointed door to disappointed door in Farrer. That's the first point. The second point—and the housing minister just made this point, I think, in a very compelling way—is our budgets, and not just the budget on Tuesday night but all our budgets, have been—

Gutless Jim!

The Treasurer will pause. We're not going to have that sort of language. I ask for that to be withdrawn.

I withdraw.

I thank the member for Maranoa.

The point that the housing minister was making is that our big investments in the budget on Tuesday night in housing supply were not the first time that we had come to the table with very substantial investments. An extra $2 billion in the budget means an extra 65,000 homes, because it invests in the small-scale infrastructure, the drains, the power infrastructure and the local road infrastructure to get more projects over the line. That's just the latest instalment in this government's enthusiastic investment in trying to make up the lost ground from the decade of those opposite doing almost nothing when it came to housing supply.

I'm asked about housing and I'm asked about progress that this government has made. Let me give you a few sets of numbers. Dwelling commencements are up 26 per cent; they were falling 28 per cent under those opposite. Dwelling building approvals are up 13 per cent; they were falling 21 per cent under those opposite. Dwelling investment is up 5.5 per cent; it was falling 3.6 per cent under those opposite. We know that there's more work to do to build more homes in local communities, and that's why there's extra investment in the budget.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government continuing the work of strengthening Medicare after a decade of cuts and neglect?

Last night, the Treasurer delivered his and the government's fifth budget. In every single one of those budgets, a priority of this government has been strengthening Medicare.

I struggle to think of a community that has benefited more from our Medicare investments than north-west Tasmania, and I struggle to think of a candidate who has campaigned more energetically for those investments than the member for Braddon. It may be part of the reason why she got the biggest swing to her at the last election of any one of the 150 members in this House—other than, of course, her endless charm and energy as a candidate!

Last night we provisioned $25 billion in additional hospital funding. That's $25 billion more than the states and territories would have got if the agreement negotiated under the Morrison government had been continued. I'm really pleased to say that the biggest beneficiaries of that additional investment are the smaller states, because they had been getting a raw deal for far too long.

Tasmania will get an additional almost $1 billion, really lifting them up to the level they should have been at for years and years. I know that's going to make a difference not just to Braddon but to all of the communities in Tasmania. We also locked in that investment for Medicare urgent care clinics, making them a permanent feature of our Medicare system. The Devonport urgent care clinic has already seen more than 40,000 people, all bulk-billed. The Burnie urgent care clinic, which was recently opened in the soon-to-be-opened Burnie Health Hub, has already seen thousands of patients from that part of Devonport as well.

Can I also say that Braddon has had one of the best responses to our bulk-billing investments of any community—one of the best to the first investment we made for 2023, targeted at pensioners and concession card holders. Since our additional record investment in November, the number of bulk-billing practices in Braddon has more than doubled. Now, seven out of 10 general practices in Braddon bulk-bill all of their patients all of the time. That's not to mention the cheaper medicines benefits—2½ million cheaper scripts just in the member for Braddon's community and hundreds of millions across the broader nation—or the mental health investments to open a new Medicare mental health centre in Devonport late last year, with another one to come in Burnie in the future, as well as uplifting the headspace at Burnie, which will now be full service as well.

We know the difference that these investments in strengthening Medicare make, not just in the member for Braddon's electorate but in electorates right across the country—those represented by those opposite, the crossbench and Labor as well—because Medicare is the core social program for our country. (Time expired)

I'm pleased to inform the House that we've been joined in the gallery today by a large parliamentary delegation from the National Assembly of Kenya, led by the Hon. Jeremiah Omboko Milemba CBS, member of parliament and of the speaker's panel. Accompanied by the delegation is His Excellency Dr Wilson Kogo, the High Commissioner of Kenya to Australia. I see we've got a group of Melbourne University political activists joining us today—a large delegation as guests of the member for Moncrieff—and year 11 and 12 students from Catholic College Wodonga, from the electorate of Indi.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Prime Minister. Jack earns $25,000 in income and realises a capital gain of $10,000. The tax on Jack's capital gain is $1,400, equal to his marginal tax rate of 14 per cent. As Jack's marginal tax rate is lower than Labor's new 30 per cent investment tax, Jack needs to pay an additional $1,600 in tax. Prime Minister, why is this government stealing $1,600 of Jack's future home deposit, taxing lower income earners and undermining the tax-free threshold?

Order! We're going to withdraw that part of the question accusing someone with that term.

I'll withdraw that.

Just remember that's all parliamentary language.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! Members on my left. Members on my right. The member for Moncrieff. We're not going to do anything until the House comes to order. The Treasurer has the call.

I appreciate the question being flicked to me from the Prime Minister, from the shadow Treasurer. The question is about the examples provided in the budget to help people understand the very important and very ambitious tax reforms which are in the budget that we released last night. An important part of that is about dealing with a big distortion that exists in our tax system which makes it harder and harder for young people to buy their first home, particularly young people. What we're doing with this tax package is better aligning the tax levied on people who work versus people who earn their income in other legitimate ways, and we're levelling the playing field in the housing market. I think any objective observer of our housing market and how it interacts with our tax system would conclude that the combination of those two things is making it too hard for Australians, particularly younger Australians, to get a toehold in the housing market.

That's why we are making these changes. We understand that those opposite are heading towards making the same mistake that they made at the last election in repealing, saying that they will repeal our tax package. Our tax package gives tax cuts to 13.3 million workers. For anyone who's looking for evidence that they haven't learned a thing and they haven't changed a bit, they're coming back and saying that they will repeal our tax package.

The question from the shadow Treasurer is about capital gains. I want to tell the House what the shadow Treasurer wrote in his own book about capital gains. This is what he said, and I'm quoting—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The member for Lingiari. The Minister for Social Services. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

It goes to relevance. The question wasn't about the shadow Treasurer's book. It was about Jack and the impact on Jack from your budget. You're cutting $1,600—

If the Treasurer has a quote and he's going to use a quote to talk about Jack or the—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! But if he's going to talk about the person that he was asking, he'll need to make sure the quote is directly relevant to what he was asked about. I don't know what the quote is going to be. I haven't read the book, but I'll hear what the—

Honourable members interjecting

Order! I haven't read the book yet.

The member for Wannon might not think the shadow Treasurer's views are relevant, but I do, and they're very relevant to Jack and the example that we provided in the budget papers, because this is what the shadow Treasurer said:

… capital gains from appreciation of holding assets is taxed at half the applied rate, effectively entrenching the benefit of having the holding assets which can only exist if you're established … There's no intergenerational justice in such preferential arrangements …

That was the shadow Treasurer. Also relevant to Jack is what the shadow Treasurer said in the parliament. This is what he said:

Today 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 … people who can predominantly live off of income from their assets can pay very little tax and get discounts on capital gains from increases in asset values.

This is what he said. I'm quoting:

Young Australians need to demand a fairer tax system, where they aren't the only ones carrying the burden to cover the cost of Australia.

Well said!

My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax reforms benefit Australian workers, first home buyers and businesses? How does this compare to other approaches?

Thanks to the absolutely terrific member for Bean for his question and for all of the work that he does in our team as well. A big part of the ambitious budget that we handed down last night from this dispatch box was tax reform. In that tax reform package, we took on a number of difficult issues, recognising that the tax system is often part of the problem rather than part of the solution when it comes to ensuring that our economy can work for more Australians. Our tax reform package was really all about three objectives. The first one was about better aligning the tax treatment of people who work and people who get their income from other legitimate sources. The second motivation was to try and level the playing field to help more Australians, particularly younger Australians, get a toehold in a really difficult housing market. The third objective is to improve productivity by encouraging more investment and more innovation in our economy.

Each of the elements of the tax package that we released last night is about satisfying one or more of those objectives that we have. And so there are tax cuts for more than 13 million workers. There were big incentives for innovation and investment and supporting small business. I shout-out the wonderful small business minister for her work on the small business part of this package. There were also, of course, some of those admittedly politically contentious changes to capital gains and negative gearing. Again, that's about recognising that, when the Howard-Costello government changed the arrangements for capital gains, they introduced a big distortion into the tax system which made it harder for Australians to buy their first home in particular. We are acting in the budget to try and address those legitimate concerns that people have about the opportunity to own their first home.

I noticed that the word aspiration is being used by those opposite to explain locking more and more Australians out of the housing market. This side of the House knows about aspiration from our local communities. That side of the House learns about aspiration from focus groups. The reason we know that is because there is nothing aspirational about stacking the deck against young Australians. I say to the young Australians in the gallery today: this side of the House is on your side when it comes to getting a toehold in the housing market. There is nothing aspirational about a status quo that turbocharges the issues in the housing market and makes it harder and harder for more people to get ahead. This side of the House is about aspiration for more people. That side of the House sees aspiration as the exclusive preserve of a very few Australians.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has confirmed he has used negative gearing and the CGT discount, and the Prime Minister, I note, has bought a $4.8 million property in Copacabana. Why is the Prime Minister stopping the next generation of Australians from using the very opportunities he has personally benefited from?

I thank the member for his question, and I remind him and others that, when people in the front here hand you a question, you don't have to ask it. But so be it. What we are doing is precisely the opposite of the suggestion which he put forward. I have had access to homeownership, and I had it in my 20s, and I had it because my mother, who lived in the one public house her whole life, used to say to me, 'When you get a chance in life, own your own home.' It was drilled into me. It's the aspiration that's drilled into working-class people, who want the next generation to be better off than they are. And that is precisely what we are doing here.

Order! Members on my left—

The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Groom! This is completely unacceptable!

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right aren't helping the situation either. I want there to be some respect and dignity back in the House.

I'm proud that I wasn't born to rule. I'm proud that I work hard. I'm proud of what I've achieved. And that is why I want other young—

Honourable members interjecting—

The Leader of the Opposition, and the minister for infrastructure and the minister for environment—if the three of you continue in such way, I'll be left with no other choice but to take action. And that is the last thing I wish to do. Show some restraint.

And that is why, in last night's budget, we made sure that we do not want to leave a generation behind. We are not prepared to sit here, and know that, increasingly, young people are being priced out of the market, and to say, 'It's too hard to make this change; we'll just occupy the space.'

But the other thing that we are doing is making sure that people can still negatively gear properties and that they can, as well, apply the 50 per cent capital gains discount, if they wish. The difference is: they will buy a new home rather than an existing one, which means that not only are they helping their aspiration; they're helping the aspiration of the country as well, going forward.

Our idea of helping young people is to do something practical that will help them get ahead. Their idea of the future and young people is having a ballot between Tony Abbott and Alexander Downer over who will be the next leader of the Liberal Party! They are reduced to a farce.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.

Government members interjecting—

Order! The members on my right can begin silent—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I'd like to hear from the honourable member for Bendigo.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How does the budget strengthen Australia's fuel security and resilience and protect Australians from future energy shocks? What policies would weaken resilience?

The member for Bendigo is a champion for rural and regional Australia, and I thank her for the question. The member for Bendigo knows the importance of fuel security for her constituents, and that's why this government has worked so hard over the last 2½ months to ensure that we now have more fuel in Australia today than we did on the day the Iran war broke out.

But this government also knows we need to build for the future. That's why there was a $14.8 billion package for fuel security and cost-of-living relief in last night's budget, and that package has many elements. One of them of importance to rural and regional Australia is the $1.1 billion fund that the minister for transport and the Treasurer and I have announced to support cleaner fuels—that is, biofuels—so that the farmers of Australia can take products like canola and tallow and turn them into fuel, which improves our fuel resilience and is great for Australia's farming sector.

But we also know that there's even more to do, and that's why another element is a $3.2 billion commitment for a strategic fuel reserve owned by the government for the people. That's a key initiative, and that's been welcomed across regional Australia. GrainGrowers Australia said:

Establishing a domestic government-owned Australian Fuel Security Reserve demonstrates significant progress …

The National Farmers' Federation have said:

Todays' announcement of a $10 billion Australian Fuel Security and Resilience package is a welcome step toward building the sovereign capability we need to protect our food system.

The Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association has said:

The Government has made the right call. A strategic national reserve is long overdue …

And they commended the government for getting it done. These are all rural and regional peak groups that have welcomed a government owned strategic reserve.

I'll tell you who hasn't welcomed a government owned strategic reserve: the Leader of the Opposition, who said, 'They're going to compete in the market with the private sector; that's what this government always thinks—that the government is always the entire answer.' So the opposition—or at least the Liberal Party; I'm not sure about their coalition partners, the Nationals and One Nation—would oppose a government owned strategic fuel reserve and take us backwards.

But it's even worse than that, because we believe a government owned fuel reserve is an important complement to increasing the minimum stock obligations of the private sector. You need to do both. The opposition leader announced he would increase the minimum stock obligation to 60 days and said it was a billion litres. Well, a billion litres gets you to 37 days. They couldn't even get the maths right. Not only would they not have a government owned reserve; their private reserve doesn't add up. It doesn't matter whether it's 800 million or 80 billion; the fact of the matter is that, whatever figure they choose, they haven't done the homework. Their maths don't work. They would weaken Australia's fuel security. They would weaken Australia's resilience, and the Albanese government will strengthen it.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, up to 160,000 Australians with disability will be worse off under your government's NDIS cuts. You plan to slash $7,000 per participant from social and community supports, the very thing that connects people in multicultural communities like Fowler to culturally and linguistically appropriate care. With your $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund, how much of that money is actually quarantined for the CALD community?

Thank you to the member for Fowler for her question. Can I take the opportunity just to say a couple of things about investments for her community in the budget last night. She will have seen $80 million provisioned for the upgrade of the emergency department at the Fairfield Hospital, part of a $630 million total upgrade. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy talks to me a lot about the importance of that to that community. The Liverpool Urgent Care Clinic is working well, and can I say to the member there is no electorate that has done better from our bulk-billing investments than the electorate of Fowler. Now 97 per cent of general practices in Fowler are bulk-billing 100 per cent of their patients. I know how often the member acknowledges the benefit of our investments in strengthening Medicare, and I thank her for those frequent acknowledgements.

But she asks about the NDIS, and I thank her for that question and her interest, particularly around CALD communities. We've had a discussion already about that. First of all, can I say how determined we are to get this scheme back on track. It's growing too fast. It's got too big. There's, frankly, too much money going to shonks and fraudsters. We see it as a very deep responsibility of a government, particularly a Labor government that put this scheme in place in the first place, to secure its future for the long term.

A series of those changes are about essentially urgent financial controls, and I will be introducing legislation this week to put those controls in place and to get that cost growth under control. But there are other reforms that will need more work, in close consultation with the disability community that will take place over coming months, and that must include CALD members of the disability community. Given that our recognition of CALD participants in the NDIS relies on voluntary identification, frankly, we're currently underdoing that engagement. Only nine per cent of NDIS participants are registered as CALD. In a country with 30 per cent of the population identifying as CALD, that is obviously an underrepresentation, and we've been working very hard to improve that engagement. Our CALD strategy was co-designed with more than 800 people working with us—CALD NDIS participants. Over the last few months of last year, we had 68 sessions, with more than 3,000 CALD participants and other stakeholders. To inform that work, we've got an expert advisory group that is advising us about implementation on things like better data and making sure that that markets and services are attuned to the cultural needs of participants. I've made the decision to expand the remit of that group's work to include the reforms that the member asked me about.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is Australia engaging with other countries in relation to the Strait of Hormuz? How will last night's budget improve capability for the Australian Defence Force, and how does this compare to other approaches?

I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her extensive experience in Australia's defence industry. Last night, along with 40 defence ministers from around the world, I participated in a meeting of the multinational military mission in respect of the Strait of Hormuz, and we were all resolute that the Strait of Hormuz be open and that freedom of navigation apply. When conditions allow, a defensive military mission will underpin this. Australia has made a commitment to this mission—indeed, we've committed an E-7 Wedgetail—and we will have further talks with the UK, with France and with our other partners about how else we can contribute.

The conflict in the Middle East has highlighted the volatile nature of the world in which we live, the acute pressure which is being placed upon the global rules based order and the impact on Australia, our region and the world of disrupted sea lines of communication. Looking forward, this is really our most consequential strategic risk—that a future adversary would seek to coerce Australia by disrupting those sea lines. So, in last night's budget, we had a significant increase to defence spending: $14½ billion over the forward estimates and $53 billion over the decade. So, since coming to government, we have increased defence spending over the next four years by $30 billion, relative to what we inherited, and $117 billion over the decade.

To try and put that in some kind of context, during the entire period of the former coalition government, they increased defence spending by just $10 billion over the planning decade, which is to say that, in the last four years, we have done 12 times as much in respect to increasing defence spending as what the Liberals did in their entire nine years in office. They were very big about awarding the defence ministry as a trophy to those on the frontbench. Six different people won that prize, and, since going into opposition, another three have won the prize, including the Leader of the Opposition. But, while they've been completely focused on the defence trophy, they have utterly ignored defence policy and, with that, the nation.

Now, the Albanese government is changing all of that. Since 2023, we have increased defence spending each and every year. What we did last night was the biggest step, and the result is to provide a much more capable Defence Force, which, in a challenging world, can keep Australians safe.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor's budget of broken promises and higher taxes contains a budget bomb with more than $18 billion in new net zero spending. At the same time, Labor has ripped more than $600 million from essential health services for our veterans. Why has the Prime Minister decided to prioritise breaking promises, raising taxes and spending big on net zero while cutting vital support services for our veterans, including funding for the Invictus Games?

I thank the member for his question. I'll say that both the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs might want to supplement my answer. I say this when it comes to veterans—we have significant additional investment in this budget as a result of the royal commission into veteran suicide and the response. That comes on top of something like $800 million, which is the package in this budget.

In addition to that, of course, one of the big expenditures that we had upon coming to government was addressing the backlog that was there of people waiting forever and ever. The member for Calare knows something about this because he stood up, to his great credit, to the former government—of which he was a part, as a minister—and said he was just not going to cop the cuts that were there in the budget.

You took $9 million from my electorate—

Order! The member for Cowper will cease interjecting.

So we put significant investment in the budget to make sure—

and you haven't replaced it.

No, when I say, 'cease interjecting', that means cease interjecting. You'll leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Cowper then left the chamber.

We put significant investment in our budgets to make sure that that delay where people literally were leaving this Earth while they were waiting for payments to come through—it was a complete outrage. It is one of the things that led us to a significant increase in public servants so that we could clear that backlog. I might see if either of the ministers want to supplement.

I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to address something that the member has raised, which is actually a great success of this year's budget for veterans. What we have been able to do here is make sure that, as we've improved the system, as the Prime Minister said, more people have been able to get their claims processed and get access to the health care they need. But what that has also seen is a degree of overservicing coming into the system, where practitioners are taking advantage of veterans.

So what we have done is introduce an annual monetary cap for allied health services which is well above what the vast majority of veterans ever actually access. For a small proportion, it will mean that we remove overservicing, restoring integrity to the system. Importantly, by doing this we are increasing the fees that will be paid to allied health professionals by $169 million over the forwards. That means it's easier for veterans to access health care.

Veterans and health professionals have been saying to us for a long time, 'You need to increase fees.' The royal commission said to us, 'Increase the fees.' That is what this budget is delivering so that our veterans get better access to health care. That is what you're seeing reflected in the budget and the additional funding that is going into implementing royal commission recommendations as well. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. How is the Albanese Labor government's budget building Australia's future through historic investment into aged care?

I thank the member for Petrie. She's an extraordinary representative for her community and she stands up for older people every single day. Last night the Treasurer delivered a budget that is responsible, that is ambitious and that is squarely focused on building Australia's future. It's a budget that backs workers and strengthens Medicare. It builds the homes, the workforce and the skills that this country needs for the decades ahead. For older Australians in need of care, it builds more aged-care beds and improves home care so that more older Australians can access the high-quality aged care they deserve.

We cannot build the Australia of tomorrow without delivering on our promise to the people who built the Australia of today. That's why at the centre of our aged care agenda in this budget there is a significant boost to residential aged care. Labor has already invested more than a billion dollars through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program since 2022, and we're not stopping there. In response to the accommodation pricing review, we're building on our record investments to deliver more beds in the places that need them most, built in partnership with a sector that we're determined to keep strong and sustainable in the interests of every older Australian. These are 5,000 real beds every year for the parents and grandparents that raised each of us. It'll mean real jobs in care and in construction. It'll mean older Australians getting the care they need closer to home sooner. It'll have a particular focus on ensuring those who need financial support to get into appropriate aged care are never left behind.

This is a budget that lives Labor's values. First Nations elders who have received Stolen Generations redress payments will no longer have those payments counted against them in residential aged care means assessments. That's the right thing to do. This budget will continue our work to make sure that more Australians can age at home with dignity, purpose and quality care. No older Australian with a place in the Support at Home program will be out of pocket for help with showering, dressing or continence care. We'll extend care for older Australians in the final weeks of their lives, giving them continuity and certainty so they can focus on precious moments with their loved ones.

This is what a responsible, ambitious budget looks like. It builds on our generational reforms and record-breaking investments in aged care. It shows we've listened to older Australians, to their families, to workers and to providers. And it delivers on our promise to build a fairer and more compassionate aged-care system that every Australian can trust. It is one more step in this Labor government's careful, considered work of building an aged-care system worthy of the Australians who rely on it every single day.

My question is to the Treasurer. I support the capital gains tax reform for housing, but my community and I are concerned about its impact on the startup sector, which contributes significantly to productivity. The reforms announced could undermine investment in innovative, high-risk, early-stage businesses. I acknowledge your commitment to consult with stakeholders on this issue. Could you outline the consultation process and whether the government is considering a carve-out for early-stage businesses?

I thank the member for Curtin for her important question. I do acknowledge that, in parts of our economy—and in this very important part of our economy, the startup and VC sector—there is more work to do and more consultation to do to make sure that we get the right set of arrangements. I want to acknowledge members on this side of the House, including the member for Chifley and other members, whom I've been engaging with. The member for Parramatta is obviously across these issues, and a bunch of other colleagues are as well.

The budget is very supportive of venture capital—VC. There are a number of tax changes in there which are about supporting, assisting, encouraging and incentivising more of this really important part of the economy. But I do acknowledge that, even before last night, this sector had raised some issues with us. We had been consulting privately with the sector already, before last night, to make sure that we can get the right arrangements in place. I say to this part of the economy, we think that you are a really important part of the economy in lots of ways—the hope of the side, when it comes to dynamism and productivity—and we will reflect and recognise that in our policy.

There are particular circumstances in this part of the economy when it comes to the calculation of the cost base for CGT, which is the concern that the member and other members are reflecting. My commitment to the sector, publicly and privately, has been to continue to work on these issues to get the best landing that we can. It's a very, very small part of our economy, so it's not a big part of the changes that we are announcing, but it's an important part of the economy, and our work will reflect that.

My question is to the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. How is the Albanese Labor government working to secure the NDIS for future generations?

Thank you to the member for Whitlam. I don't think there's anyone in this chamber who knows more about the NDIS and disability services than the member for Whitlam. She has worked with it and in it for the entirety of the scheme's life, including, before coming here last year, as the chief executive of one of the country's largest disability institutions. So I value her advice very deeply.

The NDIS is unarguably one of Australia's great modern reforms. It's gone from being the dream of generations of activists through the seventies, eighties and nineties to becoming a truly cherished institution. It's changed the lives, as all of us know, of literally hundreds of thousands of people with disability and their families as well. But the truth is it currently costs too much, it's growing too fast and it's become a soft target for too many fraudsters and shonks as well as, frankly, for serious organised crime. We simply can't go on like this. We can't afford for the NDIS to continue to fail. The steps we've taken over the last few years to get it back on track simply aren't delivering the results that we need to see in the scheme. Since just last December and the mid-year budget review in MYEFO, costs have already blown out by more than $13 billion. These blowouts simply can't continue.

That's why, later this week, I'll introduce legislation to get a grip on that scheme inflation—and on plan inflation as well—and to set the clearest possible path to a secure, sustainable future for the NDIS. That path rests on four pillars: fighting fraud and stopping rorts, which everyone wants to do; slowing rapid cost increases of the type we've seen in the latest cost blowouts since December; clearer eligibility requirements to get the scheme back to its original intent; and, most importantly, delivering quality supports and services to people living with disability.

I stress: even with these changes, the NDIS will continue to grow every single year. But by the end of the decade we project it will cost $55 billion rather than the current projection of $70 billion. It will still be the largest social program we have in this country, outside the aged pension, and still the centrepiece of the most comprehensive framework of supports for people with disability you will find anywhere on the planet.

The bill I'll present later this week is simply good financial management and good financial control. The deeper reform I telegraphed in my speech to the press club will be conducted in close consultation with the disability community and with the states and territories as well. (Time expired)

My question is to the Treasurer. Why is the Albanese Labor government introducing a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for foreign multinationals investing in renewable energy projects, saving them $450 million, while taxing hardworking Australian mum-and-dad investors more?

The member is referring to the transitional arrangements in the renewable energy sector where we're moving from a more generous treatment to a less generous treatment over time. He's not quite accurately representing the situation. What we're doing in capital gains for foreign investors is equalising the arrangement because it was too generous to foreign investors. We're making it more consistent with the tax paid by Australians, and that means, in some important areas of the economy, a transition from the existing arrangements to the new arrangements—just like in the capital gains tax changes we announced last night; there are transitional arrangements there too.

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. How is the Albanese government easing pressure on small businesses and ensuring they can plan for the future?

I thank the member for Brisbane for her question. It was an absolute pleasure to visit some of the really inspiring small businesses in her electorate around two weeks ago; I thank her for that.

Since we came to government, I'm pleased to inform the House that Australians have established an additional 180,000 small businesses—visionary individuals who are strengthening our workforce, strengthening our supply chains and strengthening our communities. Yesterday's budget delivers for them, ensuring they have the settings they need to thrive. As one masthead put it, 'Gee whiz, it's a win for small biz'—clever!—declaring that Aussies running small businesses are a surprise winner in this year's budget, even going so far as to call it 'a cash flow hug' from our great Treasurer here.

We're backing small businesses as part of our $3.5 billion of new business tax relief to boost investment, to increase cash flow and to support growth. The $20,000 instant asset write-off has been a lifeline for small businesses seeking to upgrade or purchase assets to grow their businesses and to keep their cash flowing. But, for many years, they've had to navigate whether or not the instant asset write-off would be available for them in future years; they've had to navigate that uncertainty. That's now a permanent feature of this government's small-business assistance, making it a permanent feature for small businesses, and, importantly, saving small businesses around $32 million per year in compliance costs.

The budget also contains a permanent two-year loss carry-back, so that small businesses can return to profitability faster and can have the confidence to invest earlier. The big one is that we are slashing red tape, simplifying the tax system, harmonising national systems with a 'tell us once' approach and cutting regulatory costs by over $10 billion right across the economy. Along with fee-free TAFE and incentives for apprenticeships, we're improving skills recognition and skilled migration systems so that small businesses can have access to the skilled workforce they need.

Red tape, cash flow and access to skilled workers are the three big things that small businesses raise with me every time I see them. This budget sends a clear message to them that the Albanese government has listened. We're delivering the kinds of changes that they need to thrive and grow, because they have an Australian story—a story of nation building, of aspiration and of giving back.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. After months of sustained advocacy and almost 8,000 campaign emails, I am thrilled that the budget includes an additional $508 million for medical research. This means that disbursements from the Medical Research Future Fund will increase to $1 billion a year from 2030. It's a huge win for the medical research community, but it is contingent on your government releasing the long-overdue national health and medical research strategy. Minister, when are we going to see the strategy?

Thanks to the member for Kooyong for that question. As she knows, Australia punches way above its weight in health and medical research. We're about No. 7 in the world, although we don't even rate in the top 50 by way of population. That was the objective, the mission, of Billy Hughes 80 years ago this year when he established the NHMRC, and we've achieved it. We have year upon year added great potential for health care, not just for people here in Australia but for people right across the world. But I acknowledge people have wanted us to do more, including the member herself.

The member for Melbourne, who has the great honour of representing one of the most important biomedical precincts on the planet, at Parkville, has been a strong advocate. The member for Chisholm and the Minister for Housing have that rival precinct down in Clayton and have also been strong advocates. And there are many, many others besides. I want to acknowledge the Treasurer, who, with a very busy workload, thought about this very carefully after the 10-year review of the MRFF and lobbying from many in the community.

That is why I was so very pleased to be able to find, in a very challenging budget, around half a billion dollars in new funding to start to see those disbursements ramp up from $650 million a year to $1 billion a year by the end of this decade. As the member probably knows, we've also found $15 million to do the next stage of the one-stop shop for clinical trials to improve the clinical trials and research environment in Australia. Once we hit that $1 billion mark, when you put it alongside the NHMRC funding, we'll be investing $2 billion or more every single year in our world-class health and medical research workforce. It is going to be a terrific thing when we get to that.

To the national strategy—as the member knows, and many members on our side have engaged in this as well, we asked Rosemary Huxtable, a very esteemed former public servant who was secretary of Finance and deputy secretary of Health as well as holding many other positions, to do a unified strategy rather than having an NHMRC strategy and an MRFF strategy. That has been delivered to government. I want to wait until we have a budget outcome around MRFF disbursements as well as the one-stop shop before we look at releasing that, but I'll have more to say about that in the coming days.

My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How will the Albanese Labor government's budget deliver for regional Australia, and how does this compare to other approaches, Minister?

I want to thank the member for Paterson for her passionate representation of her community in Paterson. I'm thrilled to once again rise and speak in this place about how the Albanese government is delivering for regional Australians, because that is what we're continuing to do. We are delivering. We're delivering on the cost of living, on health and in housing because your postcode should never be a barrier to opportunity, particularly in regional Australia. When it comes to the cost of living in regional Australia, not much bites us harder than the cost of fuel, and there's no doubt regional Australia has been hit hardest by the impacts of the global fuel shortage. That's why our comprehensive $14.8 billion plan to secure more fuel, to strengthen our supply chains, to build resilience and to take the sting out of prices is so incredibly important to regional communities.

Speaking of stings and bites, our Medicare urgent care clinics are the place to be if you need treatment, which is why this government's nearly $580 million investment to keep them open and free matters most, particularly for Australians living in regional and rural communities. There are 137 clinics providing accessible urgent care services across the country, and 47 of those are supporting communities in regional, rural and remote Australia. Then there's our $25 million investment to establish six new bulk-billing clinics across the Central Coast, Newcastle, Lake Macquarie and the Hunter. That's right. We're supporting more GP practices bulk-billing, unlike those opposite, who stood by as GP practices closed in regional Australia under their watch.

This government is committed to addressing the housing challenges faced by regional Australians. That's why $500 million has been dedicated to local enabling infrastructure in regional Australia—the power, the roads, the drains that are needed for new housing. On top of that, our tax changes make sure that 75,000 Australians achieve the dream of homeownership. I want to highlight our commitment of an additional $750 million for further rounds of our flagship programs, the Growing Regions Program and the Thriving Suburbs Program, bringing our total investment since 2022 to $1.7 billion.

Our government is getting on with the job of delivering for regional Australia, which is in stark contrast to those opposite, who paid to hold our fuel reserves in Texas. Last time I checked, that wasn't in the country. It reminds me of a saying—all sizzle and no steak. That's what they have opposite—all statement, no substance. That's why regional Australia relies on this side of the House and a Labor government.

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

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

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

The failure of the Government's 2026-27 Budget to deliver on its promises to Australian families, leaving them worse off through higher taxes, higher costs, and broken commitments and a budget of breaking the Australian dream.

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—

Australians voted at the last election and went into a ballot box thinking that they could trust their government and that the policy pronouncements that were put forward before the Australian people would be honoured on the other side. The Prime Minister said 50 times over—he was red hot with rage and indignant, as the member for Riverina said, about journalists having the hubris and the arrogance to keep asking the same questions of 'will you change the taxes on capital gains? Will you change the taxes on trust? Will you abolish negative gearing?'. The response was, 'For the 50th time, no.' And he consistently demanded that journalists stop asking the questions, because it was so impertinent and rude to do so. We now know why.

Last night the government provided their bad-faith budget that broke so many promises to the Australian people. It broke the fundamental promise from the Prime Minister himself, and it has shredded any integrity or trust that the Australian people have in him for the future. The government have broken promises so many times over, by promising they wouldn't change tax rules around homes, saying they wouldn't change tax rules around rentals and saying they wouldn't change tax rules around family savings. Instead, they simply got the knife and slit each one left, right and centre.

What's the story we now know? This budget, a bad-faith budget, is built on a house of broken promises but won't build any new homes. We're seeing this in their approach where they explicitly state, despite the denials from the Prime Minister in question time, that they are going to build 35,000 fewer homes. It's extraordinary! They come publicly into this House, with this budget, and say to the Australian people, 'This is all about intergenerational fairness because, as a government, we want young Australians to buy their own home,' but, instead, what they do in this budget is go through—measure by measure, step by step—and undermine the chance for young Australians to be able to afford their first home.

Deputy Speaker Claydon, you're looking at me almost in a state of surprise. The budget papers explicitly state that rents will go up under the government's tax changes. I don't know about you, Deputy Speaker, but I'm pretty sure that people tend to rent before they own their own home. So you're going to take with one hand and increase the rents for young Australians saving for their house deposit.

Then, the government is turning around and applying an increase in capital gains tax on the savings of first homebuyers trying to get ahead, trying to save their deposit. In some cases, it's almost doubling the tax on first home deposits when they're invested. So they're increasing rents and taxing people's first home deposits when they invest them to bring the future forward. And now they are building 35,000 fewer homes while, on the government's own projections, they continue to bring more people into Australia—beyond their targets. They're pumping in people to prop up their budget numbers. Australians will simply live under this budget with broken promises, higher taxes, lower living standards, fewer houses and higher rents. We've had a three per cent decline in real wages under this government, and their solution now is to kneecap young Australians through measures that will make it harder for them to save to buy their first home.

And we've heard story after story—there's been contact with us—of young Australians who buy shares, ETFs and crypto; they use that as their home deposit. According to the Australian Stock Exchange's own research, 43 per cent of Australians own their own shares at the age of 21, and now the government is coming with their tax agenda and going after their first home deposits. This is where this government is kneecapping Australians—they're constantly doing it, on the basis that they somehow think they're helping young Australians get ahead—and Australians can see through it.

We are seeing more and more stories come through our NOT THE TAX WE VOTED FOR website, www.notthetax.com.au. If you have a story, I encourage you to submit it because some of them are truly shocking. Here's one:

My brother and I are millennials. We both rent yet we have worked hard over the past 3 years investing all our savings in a tech startup. The business is in electronics/ edge AI space with onshore manufacturing. We have scaled the business quickly. We now employ people locally, and our devices are now sold to 12 countries across Europe and NZ. A true made in Australia sold to the world story we were proud of. This is a high tech product … We have each invested a Sydney-sized house deposit multiple times over in our business without taking a salary because we saw a problem we wanted to solve and we expected to see some upside. This is productive economic activity that help Australia build skills and competition. I'm all for changes to—

certain—

… taxes as we should be directing capital to things that boost productivity. However, Jim's changes kill younger people who try to start a business to get ahead …

There are other stories, like this one:

My wife and I started with nothng and have worked so hard to try to get ahead. We have both worked full time whilst raising a family, stretching ourselves and taking on risk, hassle and huge stress to buy and renovate investment property. To have Labor change the goalposts on CGT and negative gearing is heartbreaking and a huge impact on our plans for the comfortable retirement we deserve. Albanese—

the Prime Minister—

and Chalmers—

the Treasurer—

are breaking an election promise in a cynical tax grab whilst turning a blind eye to billions lost to CFMEU and NDIS corruption and giving handouts to others who haven't had a crack like we have.

Finally, here's another example:

Less than 18 months since I left PAYG to set up a business. The business has been structured in a way that will enable me to pay myself a salary—

the dignity of a salary—

but profits … will be earned by my family trust as the shareholder of my business. I'm subject to strict professional services rules and so I can't push all income into the trust to the benefit only becomes large when income for the business grows substantially above what is reasonable for a similarly qualified employed professional. So, if trust tax is 30% min, the incentive is gone.

This government has overseen record numbers of small-business insolvencies, and now their solution to all those small businesses who are struggling to get ahead, all those small businesses that are suffering under the crippling regulation and taxation of this government, is to—

Go into debt!

Well, there is a point! There is one thing they're proposing: why don't you go into more debt? The other one is to increase taxes on small business. Remember, small business is not just the place where people can get ahead and support themselves and their families; so often, it is the first place that a young Australian in a community gets their first job. The Labor government's answer is: 'Let them eat taxes!' This is the problem with this government: they simply have no understanding of the consequences of their measures, and the Treasurer has the temerity to come into this parliament and quote my own book at me.

I'm reminded of that old quote: 'What's the difference between a capitalist and a communist? Both have read Marx; one understands it.' The difference between a shadow treasurer and a Treasurer is this: the shadow treasurer wrote the book; the Treasurer clearly doesn't understand it.

I did an actual search. I have an electronic copy on my phone. A number of times I typed in 'higher taxes', 'higher taxes', 'higher GDT' and 'higher capital gains', and each time it came back with 'search completed; no matches found'. That's the difference between writing a book and understanding it, but I don't expect the Treasurer to ever understand that. When it comes down to it, this government does not understand the consequences of their measures, but Australians do because they're living through the pain and the punishment of the Albanese government. Australians, if you have a story about how this betrayed trust is impacting you, please submit your story at www.notthetax.com.au because we want those stories. We can shine a bright light on what this government is actually doing.

We know that tomorrow night the Leader of the Opposition is going to come into this chamber and offer Australians hope. This government will end. It will end when their taxing agenda is finally over. It will end. This government will end because Australians see through their deception and their deceit, and we are going to offer a better future where young Australians look to the horizon with confidence.

Thank you, Tiny Tim!

That's enough of the interjections. Yes, a point of order?

The member for Isaacs used inappropriate terms and didn't refer to the member by his title.

I remind all members of this House to refer to people in this chamber by their correct titles, always. What is your point of order?

The member for Isaacs should withdraw the remark and refer to members by their proper titles.

Is there a comment you need to withdraw, Member for Isaacs?

I withdraw.

Thank you. It would please me if you would all talk to each other in a respectful way and use correct titles. That would be really helpful. I'm now going to give the call to the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury.

My maternal grandfather, Roly Stebbins, was born in a tent in 1922. His dad was a veteran who'd fought in World War I, and his dad could never afford a home of his own; he never owned a home. During the Great Depression, my grandfather left school at age 14 to support the family and then worked as a boilermaker. It was only after World War II that he was able to afford to buy a home of his own. He got a block of land in Seaholme, near Williamstown, and he and mates worked together to fire the bricks. He and my grandmother, Jean Stebbins, raised four kids in a home they built themselves.

My grandparent's story was the story of Australia in that period. In the interwar era, about half of Australians owned a home, but, by the time you got to 1966, thanks to the Curtin, the Chifley and, yes, the Menzies government, the homeownership rate had gone up to two-thirds. Yet, what we've seen over recent years is the reversal of that great Australian dream. We've seen the Australian homeownership rate falling now to a 60-year low. We've seen the abandonment of what used to be a great principle of the Liberal Party, just as the Liberal Party members in this House have abandoned so many principles of their party.

At street stalls and town hall meetings, teachers, tradies, nurses talk to me about their sense that it's become too hard to buy a home in Australia, that the statistics out there in the community are what they're feeling in their own lives, as homeownership soars out of reach. They keep on saving for a deposit, but house prices are soaring out of reach. And it's not just young Australians; it's their parents and their grandparents that are repeatedly getting in touch with me and so many members on this side of the House, saying we need to do something to boost homeownership.

We have the most ambitious plan on housing supply of any government in recent decades, but we're also, through this budget, tackling the challenges in the tax system. How did we get here? Well, it's the combination of two policies. In 1936, Australia moved to allow taxpayers to deduct interest losses against their salary. You can't do that in Britain. You can't do that in the United States. And then, in 1999, the Ralph review was handed to the Howard government. With not a word on real estate, it was a report that suggested that putting in place a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount would turbocharge investment in innovative firms, and we immediately saw the result of that. The impact was principally felt in the housing investment sector. Previous to that, net tax paid by landlords was positive, but it very quickly turned negative, and, in most of the period since those changes, we've seen landlords lose on net some $4 billion to $10 billion a year. Landlords in Australia have become among the biggest recipients of tax handouts.

It has disordered investment decisions. The incentive now is to overinvest in loss-making assets and to invest largely in existing properties. Four out of five investor loans are for existing homes. This budget changes that. It responds to calls that experts have been making for decades for reform on capital gains and negative gearing. You will still be able to negatively gear a new home, but you won't be able to negatively gear an existing home if you buy it after these measures take effect.

That approach, of course, is the approach that we take with foreign investors. Those on the other side of the House support it when it comes to foreign investors. They will happily argue why foreign investors should only be able to buy new built homes—because we're asking them to add to housing supply. But somehow they walk away from that principle when it comes to negative gearing, and the idea is exactly the same: if you want to benefit from negative gearing, we want you to benefit the whole community by adding to the housing supply. We're seeing very clearly this week who the coalition is fighting for. We know from analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Office that the top 10 per cent get three-quarters of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount and about 40 per cent of the benefits of negative gearing.

The Grattan Institute has crunched the numbers to ask the question: what has been the benefit of these policies to the typical income earner since the year 2000? They estimate that the typical income earner has benefited to the tune of about $12,000, cumulatively, over the last quarter century. What about the top one per cent, though—those now earning over $800,000? Well, the benefit to the top one per cent cumulatively has been around $700,000, so these are policies whose benefits are more than 50 times larger to the top one per cent than they are to the median income earner.

What these tax reforms do is fund a working Australian tax offset for everyone—not just for the fortunate few but for every working Australian who earns a salary. That's why the Grattan Institute has referred to this as 'the budget we've been waiting for'. It's a set of reforms which respond to the Economic Reform Roundtable last year, and it's a set of reforms that respond to calls that have been issued across the political spectrum.

I remember sitting here in this House when Joe Hockey gave his valedictory speech, and he said in that valedictory speech:

… negative gearing should be skewed towards new housing so that there is an incentive to add to the housing stock rather than an incentive to speculate on existing property.

Well, Joe, we're doing exactly that. We've heard calls from the member for Canning, who, in response to the question, 'Is this why you're also open to negative gearing and capital gains tax changes?' said:

This is a new era … I just think we need to overhaul the whole system.

And we've heard from the member for Goldstein, who has said:

… the tax system is screwing over young Australians. Instead, it favours well-off, established interests against those trying to get ahead.

He went on to say:

In short: if you work hard to get ahead, you get hit hard; if you live off assets, you don't.

Senator Kovacic has said:

We should not be afraid to consider tax changes, whether they be capping the number of properties that can be negatively geared …

We've heard from the member for Groom, who said:

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

The former member for Menzies, who held it when Menzies was a seat held by the Liberal Party, said this year:

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.

Even Scott Morrison, former Liberal Treasurer, when asked, 'Does negative gearing need to be reformed?' replied, 'There are excesses.' Dom Perrottet and Rob Stokes, sensible Liberals from New South Wales, have made exactly the same case.

What we are doing is responding to a huge run-up in house prices relative to incomes. Unlike the shadow treasurer, I'm not afraid to have written a book or two and to be able to quote from those books. In Battlers and Billionaires, I crunched the numbers, looking at how house prices have moved relative to the earnings of the average worker. If you go back to the 1980s, the typical house cost four years of average earnings. It then ran up to five or six during the nineties and then to seven in the 2010s. In the 2020s, buying the typical house took the typical worker 11 years of earnings. We had more than a doubling in the house-price-to-income ratio. No wonder young Australians are mad that they can't break into the property market.

It has taken a Labor government to act on boosting supply, working with states and territories to overcome unnecessary regulation on an abundance agenda but also working to ensure that we have the right tax settings—fair tax settings that fund a tax cut for every working Australian and ensure that our tax system is fairer and the incentives are there for people who want to take advantage of negative gearing to invest in new-build homes. This is a budget for all Australians and a budget that tackles the central issue of housing affordability in Australia.

Well, that was quite the economic lecture from the minister opposite.

I hope you were listening. It was excellent!

It was excellent. But it begs the question: where was that lecture to the Prime Minister in May last year, when the Prime Minister said that he would not change negative gearing and he would not change the capital gains tax? He got quite upset. 'Fifty times,' the Prime Minister said. So it is amazing that the minister would give that economic lecture today. He obviously didn't have the ability to give that lecture last year. He just thought of it now. Suddenly, 12 months later, the world has changed. This is the reality. Every backbencher over there has broken their word with their communities. They all went to their communities and said they wouldn't change the tax settings. They made a promise and a commitment. Those first termers lasted about 12 months before they broke faith with their communities. It's not that surprising that they've had to break faith with their communities, betray their communities and mislead their communities.

We understand what it's like to be a backbencher in the Labor government. One of them had the courage to background the Saturday Paper this week. How did they describe the PMO? And I quote:

PMO is like North Korea, right? They're like Pyongyang …

I guess that would make the Prime Minister Kim Jong Un. It means the backbenchers know that they have to follow orders. They have to break faith with their communities. They have to break their own word to their communities, and that's something they'll have to live with. The worst part about this broken promise is that it was a clear, deliberate decision 12 months ago to mislead their communities. What makes it even worse is that it's actually not going to work. Supply is so important to getting housing down and affordable for everyone in Australia, including first home buyers.

The Prime Minister himself, in a moment of honesty, said that supply was the most important way to make housing sustainable. The problem with the tax changes and the broken promise of this government is that its own budget papers, its own word, confirm that these measures will decrease supply. Their own measures will make it harder for young people to get into a home.

It does say that. I can give you the page. Stop taking the talking points. Learn to read the budget paper yourself. Member for Banks, the budget papers confirm—

Order! You need to direct your comments through me as the chair, and I'd like the member for Hunter to stop the interjections.

And the member for Banks should read the budget papers himself. The budget papers confirm that 35,000 fewer houses will be supplied because of these tax changes. The budget papers also confirm that rents will go up because of these tax changes. So maybe don't follow orders from Kim Jong Un and do your own work, and don't break your own word to the Australian people. This is the reality. They follow their talking points without understanding the detail, and they're actually going to make it harder for the Australian people.

While we're on the budget paper, let's have a look at what is happening—

Is this on a point of order?

Yes, it is a point of order. I would ask the member to withdraw his comments around Kim Jong Un.

He's not a member of parliament.

You can't say things like that. That's harsh.

It is a matter of taking offence. A lot of things are said in this House for an offence, and as long as you are not referring to a particular person and you're not ascribing that person to another, then I will allow it.

While we're looking at the budget papers, we should also think about what comes next. Page 137 of the budget papers says, and I quote:

… access to home ownership increasingly depends on the wealth of the previous generation—'the bank of mum and dad'. This entrenches higher levels of wealth inequality across generations.

What's that? The bank of mum and dad. Sounds a lot like an inheritance tax. Sounds a lot like a tax on the primary place of residence. It's the logical next step. It's in their own budget papers. Guess what? When the Prime Minister gets asked about it—he already has—he'll deny it. Gee, we've heard that one before. He's broken his word once; he's broken his word twice. Come the next election, he's coming after your money and he's going to break his word again.

I'd remind the member for Casey that only one side of this chamber voted against a tax cut for every taxpaying Australian last year. When we talk about this MPI in this debate today, I want to give you this quote again, because we heard it earlier in the day:

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

And you might think that that is a quote from the Treasurer. You might think that that is a quote from the Prime Minister. You might think that that is a quote from Minister Gallagher. But it's not. It's a quote from the person who moved this MPI—it's a quote from the member for Goldstein; it's a quote from the shadow treasurer.

I think that quote proves that conviction politics for the Liberal Party of Australia is not just dead; it is buried and cremated, because, when you think about that quote, it isn't just the first Cirque-du-Soleil-worthy backflip that the member for Goldstein has made to date, because he made another one, just the other day, and that was that he's opened the door up to a potential Liberal, National and One Nation marriage—a terrifying prospect, but potentially not as terrifying as what the Leader of the Opposition said just yesterday.

What the Leader of the Opposition said should have every everyday Australian shaking in their boots, because he said this: 'whatever it takes to unwind this budget'—'whatever it takes'. So if you're a young person yearning to get into your first home, the Leader of the Opposition doesn't want you to have an even playing field; in fact, he'll do whatever it takes to unwind the reforms of this budget. If you're a working Australian who's looking forward to getting a $250 tax offset, the Leader of the Opposition is gunning for you. If you are a taxpayer looking forward to another tax cut, the Leader of the Opposition still doesn't want you to have that.

When we talk about economics, we talk about it being a function of two things. It's a function of choices and of scarcity. And I think two things are really clear when it comes to those who sit opposite. The first is that they have made a choice, in their response to this budget so far, and that choice is not for everyday Australians. That choice is not for young people. That choice is not for everyday taxpayers. And, when it comes to scarcity, if you consider the result in the Farrer by-election and you also consider the member for Flynn's potential defection to One Nation, people from the LNP in this place are getting scarce!

The intergenerational vandalism of those sitting opposite puts a target on the back of thousands of people in my community and on the back of millions of Australians across our country, because, when it comes to housing, this is a budget that has a reform of tax systems to support 75,000 more Australians into the housing market. It's creating homes for Australians. And that investment is now over $47 billion. That's on top of Help to Buy. That's on top of five per cent. It's limiting negative gearing for residential property so it can only be used for new builds. The dream of homeownership can be back again, because we are making significant reform that will address intergenerational equality.

The budget bottom line is nearly $45 billion better compared to MYEFO. This is more than a trillion dollars better than what the coalition left us with.

On the cost of living, we know that the Labor government is investing in things that ease pressure for everyday Australians. So, when we talk about an aspirational budget, a budget that is based on resilience and on reform, the Labor government is focused on driving the opportunities for the next generation, not leaving them behind.

This budget is un-Australian. It treats aspiration like a problem to be managed, not a value to be rewarded. You know the system's wrong when Queensland got a tokenistic acknowledgement of country mention, but there was not a single mention of infrastructure in this budget. This Labor budget's message is simple: lower your expectations and clap politely for crumbs. The Labor treasurer really should have included that in his talking points on how to mislead the Australian people. You can't claim to back housing while punishing the people who actually provide it. Mum-and-dad investors are not monopoly men; they're nurses, tradies and retirees just trying to get ahead. The Treasurer said 'war' more times than he said 'Queensland'. You have to be real here. This is four years of poor decisions by a Labor government, not a four-month-old war.

Last night's budget was presented as a plan for relief, but, for many in Townsville—small businesses and investors—it will feel more like pressure with better gimmicks and branding. People are working harder than ever, but they don't feel like they're getting ahead. In Townsville, mum-and-dad investors are not the big end of town. They're just teachers with one investment property, tradies trying to build some security for retirement, or small-business owners who have backed themselves and taken risks. Many of them are now feeling like aspiration is being punished instead of rewarded.

This budget adds billions of new taxes over the coming years, including higher taxes that will ultimately affect investors, small businesses, superannuation and housing. Because, when investors pull back, fewer homes get built. When small businesses lose confidence, fewer people get hired. And, when businesses are hit with high operating costs, families end up paying more at the check-out. Families are already dealing with rising grocery costs, power bills, insurance premiums and mortgage repayments. Despite all the announcements and spending, inflation is still expected to remain high. That means interest rates could stay high for longer, and, for many households, that's the difference between coping or falling behind.

Small-business owners are carrying wage pressure, energy costs and supply costs, while customers themselves are cutting back. Despite all the government spending, we are still left asking, 'Why doesn't life feel easier?' The reality is this: if inflation stays higher for longer, interest rates stay higher for longer, and that hits regional communities like Townsville particularly hard. Townsville is growing, and growth is a good thing, but growth without enough housing, infrastructure and planning puts enormous pressure on everyday Australians trying to buy, rent or build.

In this budget, many papers have now reported that there have been significant cuts to veteran services—a $5,000 cap on allied health that veterans can get starting next year, which is not enough for those that have been injured, wounded or ill from their service. People need more physio, more occupational therapy, more time in front of the GP and more time in front of the doctors, but, with this cap, they will be out of pocket or living with chronic pain. This is a bad cut. This shouldn't have happened. Another part of this budget that I think is quite concerning is the defunding of Invictus Australia. Invictus Games is a tier-1-level sporting event that supports people who have been wounded, injured or ill from their service. Prince Harry was the founding father of it. I have been at Invictus Games events. I was at the inaugural one and then went back as a coach. I've seen it change lives and I've seen it save lives, because sport is a healing power.

To cut veterans' services, to cut supports to veterans, is absolutely shameful. This government needs to have a long, hard look at itself when it comes to what its priorities should be. Because I know that Invictus—I've heard testimony from families who have said that, without this sporting event and without this coming together as veterans, their son, their daughter or their husband wouldn't be here any more. This needs to be overturned. Invictus Australia should be funded.

What a farce this MPI is—an MPI criticising the budget, from a shadow treasurer whose great economic idea was a thought bubble to force young people to make an absurd Faustian bargain to either raid their retirement savings or accept never to be able to buy their own home, the shadow treasurer who, as the chair of the economics committee, went around the country with a scare campaign telling pensioners that they would be made worse off by our policies, which was completely incorrect. It's little wonder that the Liberal Party are currently polling so low they're on the verge of becoming non-existent come the next election. They have zero vision, they have zero capacity to put forward a positive agenda for Australia and they have absolutely zero credibility. We saw the results of that just over a year ago at the federal election, and we saw the results last weekend in Farrer. Voters have made up their minds on those opposite.

Contrary to the proposition in this MPI, this budget delivers much-needed hope and a real plan to increase housing affordability for first home buyers. Our changes will open the door to 75,000 new homebuyers. We're making the tax system fairer by reforming negative gearing and the capital gains tax to ensure that every Australian has a chance at homeownership—and I know that everyone in this place, including those opposite, will be hearing from their communities, as I do, about the difficulty of breaking into that housing market, particularly for young people.

The changes to negative gearing are grandfathered so that those who currently negatively gear will not be affected; they can continue to do so. The capital gains that people have made to 1 July next year will be unaffected. Gains procured on existing investments prior to the start date will retain the 50 per cent discount. Most importantly, investors can still use negative gearing on new homes, so it's building into the tax system the incentive to invest in new houses and more homes, which is about addressing the supply issue as well.

For Australian workers, this budget is cutting taxes for 13 million people. In the ACT, that includes 260,000 workers who will receive a tax cut of up to $250 through the working Australians tax offset, and 140,000 Canberran workers will benefit from a new $1,000 instant tax deduction. This is money going back into people's pockets. Labor governments always deliver. We said we'd cut income taxes—done. We said we'd invest in housing—done, to the tune of $47 billion since we've come to government. And we've said that we would take the pressure off working families, and that's exactly what this budget delivers and what the previous four Albanese Labor government budgets have delivered.

The shadow treasurer wants to talk about broken promises. Where was the shadow treasurer when his government promised to fix housing and then proceeded to oversee a decade of doing absolutely nothing? We don't need a lecture on promises from a party that spent a decade in government and left Australians with nothing to show for it.

This budget is about who this government is fighting for: for the hard workers doing double shifts, who will keep more of what they earn; for the young couple in any electorate—mine or that of anyone here—who thought homeownership was out of their reach; and for the small-business owner who now has a permanent $20,000 instant asset write-off. This budget is about fighting for hardworking Australians—all of them, right across this country. That is what Labor does and what this budget does.

It also invests in my own community here in Canberra, which is something we didn't see much of at all under the previous government. Yet, since coming to office, our government has committed more than $4 billion to the ACT. This is what it looks like when we are recognised as a community like the communities all around this country. Our government is investing $50 million, matched by the ACT and New South Wales governments, to upgrade the Canberra-Sydney rail link. This is something people have talked about for so long, and it is finally happening under our government. We're investing in our national institutions, which were falling into rack and ruin under the previous government, and we're ensuring that the CSIRO's groundbreaking research will continue with an additional $387 million funding boost.

This is a budget that is delivering for Australians all around this country, helping them to earn more and keep more of what they earn and find stable housing, whether it's buying a new home or getting into homelessness support.

You know who I feel for today, apart from all those mums and dads that are out there that are really struggling under this government? You know who I feel sorry for? I feel sorry for Bill Shorten, because Bill Shorten would be sitting in his vice-chancellor's office at the University of Canberra and be thinking: 'Why? I tried to do the right thing. I took these policies to the to an election. I took these policies to the people, and they knocked me back.' But this government, under this Prime Minister, learnt their lesson. You've got to give them that much. This government knows that, if you take unpopular policies to the people in an election, then the people will figure you out, and they'll let you know about it. But, under the cover of darkness—and not just the cover of darkness—the Prime Minister and the Treasurer consistently said: 'No, there'll be no new taxes on housing. It's not going to happen. How many times have I got to tell you? Fifty times, I've got to tell you it's not going to happen.' Guess what? It's happened.

Believe it or not, we cop a lot of you-know-what with the members of the public as politicians. Is there any wonder why, when you have people like the Prime Minister making those solemn promises, looking squarely down the line of the camera and saying, 'It's not going to happen under my leadership.' And then there's a change of heart, and it's sold like this: 'We've had a change of heart because things have changed. There's this intergenerational equity issue.' What a load of rubbish. This is socialism from that lot, the government over there. This is the biggest form of redistribution of wealth in this country since the Whitlam government.

A government member interjecting—

If you thought these policies were so good, why didn't you take them to an election? You didn't take them to an election, because you knew you would lose, just in the same way—

I will ask comments to be directed through me. Stop this personal attack across the chamber.

It's just in the same way that the government knew it would lose, so it didn't take them to an election. That's why the Australian public is so upset. It's not just about the negative gearing. It's not just about the CGT. It's not just about discretionary trusts. I've got an older electorate. People in my electorate are white hot with rage. You know why? It's because they've worked all their lives—they're a bit older than you and me—for 40 years. When they were in their 20s, they listened to the government, and they were encouraged to go out and get private health insurance. They were even told, 'If you don't get private health insurance before you turn 30, then we're going to actually penalise you the older you get.' On good faith, they've gone out and taken out private health insurance.

I received an email from a member of my constituency this morning. She's a pensioner on a fixed income. I don't know how they do it, but so many of my pensioners still pay their private health insurance. And now, under this health minister—who, unfortunately, has just walked out of the chamber—is going to rip those concessions away from you when you turn 65. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this government wants to rip those rebates away. What's the magical figure? When do you most need private health insurance? It's when you're getting to your and my age, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Are you reflecting on the Speaker?

When you're getting to that age and need that help and medical assistance, this government is going to make my people and Australians around this country who are over 65 pay $1,600 a year extra. Shame on this government!

Is there a point of order?

There is a point of order. It's in relation to the member for Reid, who, as you pointed out, was continually interjecting.

I've already dealt with that.

She's a long way out of her seat.

I've dealt with the issue of interjections already.

I believe her seat is somewhere down there.

Please resume your seat. I've already asked the member for Reid to stop her interjections, and I'd ask all of the people not to be reflecting on the chair in future discussions, either.

I grew up in towns of timber, agriculture, defence and mining, and I represent the most Australian place in Australia. I know the Australian dream, unlike the member for Goldstein, who, when he's not desecrating Billy Joel—the temerity to attack the piano man in such a way!—is downloading his own book, as we discovered today during the MPI, which I guess is akin to the member for Hunter wearing his Commonwealth medals into the place. He's put together a website so he can speak to working people. Fantastic! I don't need a website. I grew up with them. I know them. These are my friends, my family.

I'm going to talk about a guy who I went to high school with. His name was Niz. It's an abbreviation of his last name. He was the first one of us to shave. He was a sprinter. He played basketball with us. He was built like a bowling ball. Niz wanted nothing more in life than to be a mechanic. He was a good mechanic. He went and worked for Holden—the great Australian car—and he climbed the ranks, to the point where his job was to take the new car out into the bush and do his level best to break it. Then he'd come back, fix it up and start again. We'd have beers when we got to catch up, every now and then, and he would take us through the new car, with sound effects. My favourite would be when it dropped from fifth to third. He loved that job. He loved everything about it. That was his dream.

The member for Goldstein is an economic rationalist. He called the Australian car manufacturing industry 'terminal' and celebrated its demise. What about Niz's dream? That was all he wanted, and it was snatched away. Most people's dreams aren't like those of the member for Hunter here, a five-time Olympian. They're modest, easy. They want to go camping with the kids. They want a nice family. They want security. These are the things my children speak to me about. More than anything else, they want their own home. Homeownership is that part of Australia that belongs to you, where you'll bring your babies home to, where the grandparents will meet the grandchildren for the first time, where memories are forged. My parents live in the house I grew up in. They've owned it for 46 years now. The stickers that I put on the door are still there, because they own that home.

Renting cannot give you that, and that is why we have to address this. We have to give young people the opportunity and let them back into the property market, because they don't have hope. They look at it and go, 'This is ridiculous—$1.2 million for a house!' It's a number that you can't even think about when you're working slinging boost juice for $42,000 a year or working at the local council for $85,000 to $90,000 a year. You're never going to get there. Changes have to be made, and to make changes you have to be courageous. This government is courageous. It identified a problem that has been brewing since I was a child: house prices going up, up, up. It looks fantastic on paper, but, as the economic rationalists do not see, there is a living cost, a real cost, and that is snatching the hopes and dreams of young Australians.

This change will boost supply. We're not saying don't negatively gear; we're saying negatively gear, but build the house. Get more housing. Get more people into the housing. Let them rent it at a reasonable rate to start their lives. Then they can enter the housing market for themselves and, in 40 years time, the stickers from their child will still be on the door. They can have their holidays and return to their home, with their dog or their cat. They won't be living under the rules of someone else. They won't be paying off someone else's mortgage. Homeownership used to be something that everyone could aspire to, but it was taken away. This Labor government is giving it back. We are looking young people in the eye and saying, 'Yes, we have heard you; we are acting, and Australia is as much yours as it was the previous generations.'

I'm proud of this budget, I'm proud to be a member of this government, and I am proud that young Australians will have their own homes.

This budget fails to deliver on a list of key promises made to Australians, leaving them worse off through higher taxes, exorbitant costs and a string of broken commitments. Before the election, the Prime Minister looked the Australian people in the eye and proudly declared 'my word is my bond'. Well, we now see exactly what kind of bond he meant. We thought we were getting James Bond: courageous, reliable, admirable. Instead, his economic management looks more like Alan Bond, leaving a trail of catastrophic debt for the next coalition government to clean up. Perhaps the Prime Minister meant a pair of old Bonds underwear, because his promises are full of holes and leave Australians completely exposed. Or maybe his word is just like cheap bonding glue from the bargain bin, completely falling apart the second you apply pressure. His word is not a bond at all. His word is entirely worthless.

This budget confirms that the Prime Minister now oversees the highest taxing government in our history. Labor cannot manage money. They also can't manage spending, racking up an astonishing debt of $1.25 trillion. The yearly interest alone on this debt will hit $42 billion, or $80,000 each and every minute. While this government burns money, everyday Australians and regional Australians cannot afford to live. This budget itself reveals the buying power of wages has declined by three per cent. Homegrown inflation is forecast to hit five per cent higher than in France, Japan, the US and the UK.

We also see Labor completely blowing their immigration targets. By the end of their first two terms, they'll have brought in more than two million migrants, including overshooting their own targets by 90,000 people over the next two years. That puts even more pressure on infrastructure. But, instead of offering relief, Labor introduces new taxes. It is pure intergenerational fraud. Labor are pulling the ladder up on younger Australians, who are trying to get ahead. With its new housing taxes, Labor's own budget confirms that 35,000 fewer homes will be built over the next decade. You cannot make this up! But it's not just families who are being attacked in this budget. It's farmers, it's fishers, it's family owned businesses and it's critical industries that keep towns alive, like in Port Pirie.

On Port Pirie, this budget contains no new funding package to ensure the long-term viability of the lead smelter. While an earlier transitional package of $57.5 million is included in the budget papers, that package expired on 1 May 2026, and negotiations for further support are still unresolved. This leaves the future of Port Pirie hanging in the balance, and that is not good enough.

Everyone is feeling the pinch in this budget. Take the wine industry. With one hand, the government grabs money via higher taxes on trust. With the other hand, it takes away the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant. It's a king hit.

When it comes to agriculture, Labor's raid on family trusts will hinder the ability of farms to manage income and transition ownership. Combined with changes to CGT, these policies will deplete finances and potentially force unintended asset sales, just to stay afloat. We also see Labor cutting $52 million from the Future Drought Fund, plus totally ill-timed cuts to Pest and Disease Preparedness and Response Programs grant funds. This is a cheap shot to all farmers, who are only ever one bad year away from disaster.

This government, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer gave their word to regional Australia. But Labor's word is now worthless, and this Prime Minister's bond with Australians is now officially broken.

It is just an honour to hear that insightful reflection from the Liberal Party about how important someone's word is! I thought I'd reflect on someone's word in this chamber when they said:

… 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.

Now, that wasn't anyone on this side of the House that said that. It wasn't anyone on the crossbench either. It was the young shadow treasurer, Pauline Hanson's best friend—she's found a gold mine in Goldstein over there! The shadow treasurer said those exact words, because, once upon a time, there were Liberal Party members who used to actually listen to the needs of the constituents that they represent. But those days are long since over, and the Liberal Party have shown that, no matter what electoral punishments they continuously get, they are happy to go back to the well and ignore the interests of Australians. And then they get surprised when Australians ignore them at the ballot box.

On this side of the House, since coming into government in 2022, we have completely changed and transformed the way in which our housing sector is operating, and it's all been around giving more Australians the opportunity either to purchase a safe and secure home or to be able to access a safe and secure home when they need it. We've made sure that renters have a better deal, with long-term tenancies, via working with the states, and better conditions on those tenancies as well.

But let me remind this place of the journey—which the Liberal Party has opposed, at each and every single opportunity—to improve access for Australians to the housing market. As to our five per cent deposit scheme, which over 200,000 Australians have accessed to be able to get into the housing market and purchase their own home, the Liberal Party and the shadow minister for housing—Senator Bragg, from the other place—said that that was subsidies for billionaires. I'm not sure what billionaire he was talking to, and why they were using five per cent deposits, but certainly the 200,000 Australians who have accessed this, I think, would have a very different opinion: that these Australians are hardworking Australians who struggled to get the deposit to get into the housing market. But, once they had the opportunity to get a mortgage of their own, they could pay down that loan.

There's also the Help to Buy Scheme, a shared equity scheme, that, at every opportunity, those opposite decided to come up with the most ludicrous ways of criticising—saying that we'd be in your kitchen and all sorts of other absurd things—when, actually, the vast majority of people who are using that scheme are people who are either low- or middle-income earners who are getting into the housing market for the first time, or people who have separated. A lot of women who are single have used that scheme and have done so in order to give themselves safety and security and stability in their lives. We couldn't be prouder to help every single Australian to be able to get into the housing market and to find that stability and security of paying down their own mortgage instead of paying down someone else's.

But, of course, that is not all. Since coming into government, we have made the largest investment in social housing in decades. Now, those opposite didn't even have a housing or homelessness minister for most of the time they were in government, which showed just how low a priority it was for those opposite. I remember the former housing minister, Mr Sukkar, the former member for Deakin—who has been replaced by an outstanding member for Deakin, may I say—who said that social housing was just a matter for the states, and refused to invest a single dollar in social housing.

Well, we are building 55,000 social and affordable homes that are going to Australians who really need them, whether they be key workers, whether they be people who are escaping family or domestic violence, or whether they are just people who, through no fault of their own, need a safe place to go for a period of time. We are investing in making sure that there are those homes available. I've been touring the country looking at all of those sites, and it is so exciting. The quality of that housing is something that we can all be very proud of.

Finally, I want to mention the youth housing incentive that we are funding in this budget, because what that will do is make sure that young people who are in those difficult circumstances will be on an equal playing field and will be able to access those incredible social housing homes that we're building, along with the others around Australia, instead of being locked out. We care about housing, we're delivering housing and we're helping Australians buy their own home as well.

The time for this discussion has now concluded.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I want to start by thanking the brave victims and survivors who have lent their voices to this campaign. After unspeakable trauma and unimaginable grief, you've shown courage, strength and determination, making sure that no other victim will continue to suffer at the hands of their perpetrator long after a judgement is handed down. We owe you a great deal.

I say this unequivocally: our government is absolutely committed to holding perpetrators of child sexual abuse to account. The crimes they have committed are abhorrent. They should not have the opportunity to further add to someone's trauma by denying them the compensation that is rightfully owed. They should not be able to hide or avoid accountability, and that's what this bill will fix. It will close an unjust, unfair, cruel loophole that has been exploited by convicted sex offenders to hide their assets in superannuation. Meanwhile, victims and survivors have been left without the compensation that the courts have decided that they are owed. It will make sure that a court ruling in a victim or survivor's favour translates into real outcomes.

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 that have been made by the perpetrator of the abuse. This includes additional personal and salary sacrifice contributions, which are often used as a way to shield assets from enforcement. This is practical, and it's targeted. It removes the ability for any perpetrator to wait out their obligations, protecting their financial position at the expense of a victim-survivor. Importantly, this bill ensures that compensation debts don't disappear through bankruptcy, not just for future bankruptcies but also for those currently in progress.

It is beyond imagining how absolutely, completely unprincipled the people who have taken advantage of these provisions in the past are. First of all, to sexually abuse a child, to have that proved, to have compensation awarded against you and then to deliberately shelter your assets from paying the compensation that has been justly awarded really does add the most incredible insult to a lifelong injury. We know that this is just one area where reform is badly needed. We are working across family, domestic and sexual violence to make sure that we are ending violence against women and children as a priority, and every single one of us in this place has a role to play. Child sexual abuse, of course, is a crime that doesn't just affect girls. It affects boys in too large numbers. It is important to understand that many grown women and men have a history of child sexual abuse that has followed them throughout their lives and impacted them throughout their lives.

So far, our government has worked with victims of child sexual abuse on measures like the memorial that will be opened in Canberra in coming years and the Orphanage Museum in Victoria as well. But, across sexual, family and domestic violence, we have invested more than any previous government, more than $4.4 billion in frontline services, in preventive programs and in behaviour-change programs right across government. We've made the leaving-violence payment permanent. We've launched Australia's first-ever standalone plan on family, domestic and sexual violence for First Nations women and children, backed by $218 million in the budget last night.

We've boosted funding for the 500 Workers program by more than 70 per cent. We've boosted funding for 1800RESPECT by 40 per cent. We've legislated to make sure that our social security system can't be weaponised by perpetrators of abuse. We've supported the recovery of children who've experienced violence, investing $81 million for services, including child-specific counselling. We've invested a record $3.9 billion in services, with an extra $800 million for family violence legal services. We've reformed the family law system so that it's safer, simpler and more accessible. And, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know that last night in the budget we announced significant reforms to the child support system as well, to better protect children. We are doing so much in this area because it is such an enormous need in our community.

I do want to finish by repeating my thanks to the brave victims-survivors who've come forward to demand this change, for sharing their stories, for seeking justice and for fighting to fix something that, at its heart, is absolutely, demonstratively cruel and deeply unfair. I say to you again: thank you. I want you to know that this bill is a significant and necessary foundation, but we won't stop here. This lays the groundwork for future reforms, and we will keep working with you to keep future generations of children safe.

Firstly, I would like to thank the many members from across this chamber who have contributed to this debate, and I acknowledge the conviction and the compassion with which this important policy has been advocated for within the parliament. The Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 represents the best of this place, and I hope that our demonstration of unity and solidarity sends a powerful message to victims-survivors that the parliament is listening and that we are acting.

In particular, I want to thank the member for Boothby and the member for Eden-Monaro, who have advocated for this measure over a very long period of time. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Sydney, the Minister for Social Services, who just spoke powerfully on this issue; the Assistant Minister for Social Services, the member for Cooper; and the Attorney-General. I'd also like to thank the shadow assistant treasurer, the member for Page, and the former shadow assistant treasurer, the member for Cowper, for their engagement on this issue, along with the member for Fisher. Members across this chamber and senators in the other place from all political parties have contributed to the strength of this measure. This is truly a bill which the parliament has united behind.

I note the amendment of the member for Wentworth and thank her for her positive engagement on this issue. As the member rightly indicated in her speech, the government has committed to reviewing the legislation following its implementation. While we cannot support the member's substantive amendment to the bill, we remain committed to reviewing this legislation and to affirming that commitment in a way that can ensure confidence for survivors. I look forward to continuing to engage with the member on this measure and looking for all possible opportunities to strengthen it in the future.

This bill establishes a framework for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and other similar offences to seek visibility and release of certain amounts from a perpetrator's superannuation to satisfy unpaid compensation orders. It is directed at preventing superannuation being used to shield a perpetrator's assets from compensation, which can delay or deny compensation and add further distress to victims and survivors. This bill closes that loophole and affirms that financial systems must not operate in a way that undermines justice, and its passage is a testament to the strength and hope of survivors of child sexual abuse and their families. At its core, this bill is guided by a simple but fundamental principle: perpetrators of child sexual abuse should not be able to hide behind financial structures to avoid accountability. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The Aussie idea of a 'fair go' may be one of those phrases that you hear all the time, but it really does capture something important about who we are as Australians. At its core, it's about making sure that everyone is treated fairly and gets a decent shot. It applies on an individual level and also on a societal level. You can see it in how we value fair access to health care and to education. And right now, when so many Aussies are doing it tough, we also need a fair go at the check-out. I don't just mean on price; I'm talking about the need for consumers to be treated fairly and the need for business to play by the same transparent rules. At a time when commerce is rapidly changing and at a time of global economic uncertainty, this is more important than ever.

A generation ago, shopping looked very different from what it looks like today. For a start, you had to physically go to the shops and drive into the carpark. You had to get your trolley, walk it down the aisles, pick out what you wanted, go to the check-out and pay in cash. Transactions were pretty simple. You checked out those goods, you paid the price once and you walked away with an item. These days, though, it is, of course, possible to never set foot in a store or a shop. Shopping online offers us convenience and accessibility; we can shop from anywhere at any time. The landscape and the technology have changed. That's just one difference with how we shop, though. Another is in the price. Often, the true cost of your purchase is only revealed at that last click, and the payment might never actually stop.

Drip pricing is the name given to additional fees, things like booking charges and service costs, which are added as the transaction progresses. Consumers lured by what might at first seem like a good deal can find that the product is significantly more expensive than originally advertised by the time the actual purchase is made. Drip pricing also makes it harder to compare prices. While once you'd go from shop to shop to find the best deal, it's now much harder to make an informed comparison on price when not all the costs are advertised upfront. You don't know all the costs when you choose to buy.

I spoke to a local, a young bloke named Tim in my local area. He just finished high school last year, and we met at the Lounge in the suburb of Runcorn on Brisbane's south side. Tim told me a story about a long-awaited holiday. It was a holiday he was going on with his friends, and it was his first real time buying something for a trip that he wouldn't be going on with his parents. The ticket seemed cheap, but, as he went to pay, those extra charges added up.

Another major change is the popularity of subscriptions. This is something that impacted Tim as well. Consumers are increasingly signing up to ongoing services, such as streaming platforms, apps and software, which automatically renew. For Tim's generation, these things should not be the norm. Tim needs to know, particularly at one of the most financially vulnerable points in his life, that, as a consumer, he is protected and he isn't taken advantage of. All you need to do is scroll through your phone—whether you've got Spotify, Netflix, Disney Plus, Stan or so many others—to know that this is a challenging problem, and it's getting bigger and bigger every day. It's easier for the number of subscriptions you have to accumulate over time, and, over time, you might not even notice the payments leaving your bank account. And when you do want to cancel, in many cases, it's a complicated process. It shouldn't be a complicated process.

Despite the entire subscription process being online, you might have to make a phone call to realise your cancellation. There can be multiple steps that can be deliberately confusing. What the assistant minister described as a labyrinth of cancellation paths is real, and it's affecting everyday Australians every day. That's why the Albanese Labor government has introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. It brings consumer law in line with how Australians now buy, compare and subscribe. As technology changes and as norms for payments change, we must change with them. We have to keep up to date lest everyday Australians cop the brunt of not having regulatory frameworks that address the real way in which Australians pay for things and in which they shop.

This bill squarely targets unfair trading practices and is part of the government's commitment to improve protections for consumers. It has three key areas of focus. Firstly, the bill introduces a ban on unfair trading practices by establishing a broad principles based rule that targets conduct which manipulates consumers. This includes mechanisms that distort the environment in which consumers make decisions leading to harm. This measure will capture a wide range of behaviours designed to influence choices in ways that are misleading and in ways that are exploitative to everyday consumers. It's intended to set a clear and consistent standard of fair conduct across all sectors, enhancing fair competition and indeed boosting consumer confidence in the system itself.

The bill sets out practical guidance by including a non-exhaustive list of illustrative examples of conduct that could breach these new laws. This includes preventing or hindering customers from exercising their legal rights or accessing remedies, failing to provide important information and presenting key details in ways that are confusing, unclear, overly complex, ambiguous, poorly timed or just plain overwhelming. It also covers situations where the overall environment, such as the design of digital interfaces, places undue pressure on consumers or makes it difficult for them to make or act on decisions. You know what this looks like. It's the countdown timer that increases the urgency to click the buy button. We watch it on our computers. Tick, tick, tick—better press buy right now. Or there's the pop-up that tells you that there's only one item left to purchase, and you'd better hurry up because your time is running out to click that button and pay. These aren't helpful. These are deliberately designed to swindle consumers. The bill's intention is not to limit genuine promotion or standard advertising. Instead, the focus is on addressing mechanisms that cross that line from persuasion into manipulation, harming consumers and negatively affecting fair competition. When you cross that line, you need to know that the law in this country is coming for you.

The second focus of the bill is on banning drip-pricing practices. Businesses will have to present the total cost upfront, including any unavoidable fees or charges. Now, Tim, in my local community, learnt that the hard way, and others shouldn't have to. By ensuring that any additional costs are clearly and transparently disclosed upfront, consumers will have a better understanding of the real price, allowing them to make more informed decisions from the outset, because, after all, transparent pricing is essential for markets to function effectively. When costs are hidden or revealed incrementally, genuine competition is weakened. We know how important competition is for markets and for our economy, because competition is a core driver of quality; competition is a core driver of getting prices down. These reforms help restore a level playing field, ensuring that businesses that are open and transparent are not placed at a disadvantage compared to those that conceal true price until that very final step.

Finally, the bill will add transparency to subscription purchases by requiring businesses to clearly provide essential information before customers sign up—not after; not in the tiny print; not locked away behind seven screens; before they make the purchase. Customers will also receive reminders and notifications at key points during that subscription. This means that you'll be notified when your free trial is ending, or when your renewal is coming up, giving you the time to decide if you want to continue or if you want to opt out. And, in the case of opting out, businesses will have to ensure that it's easier to cancel a subscription. That means it will be easier to find cancellation information on the website or the app, it will be simpler to complete and it will only require steps that are reasonably necessary for the consumer. These obligations will apply both to consumer subscriptions and to standard form subscription contracts used by small businesses.

At its core, the reform recognises one very basic principle: if a contract can be entered into quickly, it should be just as easy to exit it. That is what makes sense. That is what is fair. And that is the obligation that businesses should have to their customers and to consumers more broadly.

The amendments will come into effect from 1 July 2027, giving businesses sufficient time to understand their new responsibilities and to update their practices. To support this transition, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will provide detailed guidance on how the new laws will operate in practice. In addition, the first two years of the subscription provisions will be reviewed to ensure the reforms are protecting consumers in the intended way.

I mentioned small businesses just now. While this bill is focused on strengthening consumer safeguards, unfair trading practices are not limited to individuals. Small businesses and franchises often face similar challenges when dealing with their larger counterparts, and they deserve fairness as well. The government has started consultation on extending these unfair trading practice protections to small businesses, including those operating with franchising arrangements. The government will also work closely with the Assistant Treasurer and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to explore potential alignment within the financial services sector.

I'm lucky enough to have my office in the heart of the Brisbane seat of Moreton, in a place called Sunnybank. If you took a rock and you threw it as far as you could and you drew a circle around that, you'd find so many of these small businesses, vulnerable to big players. Some of them are in hospitality, some are in retail, some are in manufacturing—all sorts of different sectors. But, just like consumers, they deserve protections when it comes to the changing technological landscape.

This bill is part of the Albanese Labor government's drive to support consumers, to increase transparency in the marketplace and to boost competition. It's all part of this government's No. 1 priority area: supporting Australians with the cost of living. Stronger competition plays a critical role in this and helps to deliver better outcomes for households.

Labor has already seen some of the most significant overhaul of Australia's merger laws in 50 years, ensuring that major mergers are properly assessed and that anticompetitive acquisitions do not proceed without scrutiny. We've provided an additional $30 million in funding for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, strengthening its ability to take action on misleading pricing practices, particularly in sectors such as supermarkets.

Further reforms are improving fairness and accountability across the market. The government has outlawed unfair contract terms, with regulators now empowered to seek penalties for breaches. Work is also underway to strengthen the unit-pricing code. These amendments have a myriad of benefits for consumers, especially at a time when cost of living is at its toughest.

Small businesses are struggling under Labor's homegrown inflation crisis and their energy crisis where $275 in energy savings never materialised. Now add to that the fuel supply crisis, which isn't just hitting direct fuel purchases but also hitting small businesses and farmers who struggle with the knock-on effect on fuel as part of their business inputs.

We are also seeing eye-watering increases in the cost of trade goods, like PVC pipe, which is up 35 per cent in the last month alone. Copper is up seven per cent in the last month and up 37 per cent over the last year. We have record insolvencies in small business—40,000 on Labor's watch since taking office and 15,000 in the last 12 months alone. About 27 per cent of insolvencies are in the construction sector, the largest single sector for insolvencies. It's little wonder we are struggling to build more homes.

In this witches' brew of Labor's homegrown crises for small business, what is the Albanese government's solution? You guessed it—more red tape in more consumer laws. Let's be up front about what this will cost small business. Treasury estimates the bill will impose $123.2 million a year in regulatory costs. The general prohibition measure alone, which I will talk about in a moment, accounts for $93.82 million a year in extra compliance costs. More than 1.5 million small businesses are expected to be affected by the general prohibition alone.

This bill creates a broad new general prohibition, which I referred to earlier, with $93 million extra cost on small business, Treasury estimates, from this single provision on unfair trading. So what is it? Proposed section 28B provides that a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer that manipulates the consumer or unreasonably distorts the environment in which the consumer makes or is likely to make a decision and causes or is likely to cause detriment, whether financial or otherwise, to the consumer. On face value, this government's salesman-in-chief, Treasurer Jim Chalmers, and gaslighter-in-chief, the Prime Minister, would fail that test alone. Manipulating Australians? Tick. Unreasonably distorting the environment in which they make decisions? Tick. Causing detriment, financial or otherwise? Tick. But it gets worse.

Supposedly, according to the explanatory memorandum, 'detriment' could include wasted time, frustration or diminished consumer choice. Do Labor waste our time? Do they cause frustration? Have they diminished consumer choice?

This Labor government is imposing on small business thresholds on manipulation, distortion and adverse impacts that they themselves cannot uphold. This Labor government can go out into the marketplace 97 times saying, 'You'll get a $275 energy bill discount,' and not deliver—and that's okay, apparently. This is a prime minister who says 'nobody worse off, nobody held back', yet last night's budget picked winners. And some Australians will be worse off— particularly those in the regions, those with savings and older Australians. How would the 'nobody worse off, nobody held back' slogan stand up on the unfair trade practices test? This is a government that cannot practise what it preaches.

Courts have held that detriment can include feelings of distress or embarrassment. So a business acting in a way that causes distress in the eye of the beholder, the consumer, could breach these laws. Seriously? If your spicy McChicken burger is a little spicier than you expected, is that a detriment? Well—not for some. But—really? This will be a lawyers' picnic. It will play through the courts for decades to come and create great uncertainty for business and consumers alike.

A clear winner of the uncertainty this general provision creates will be the biggest businesses that can afford the biggest legal and compliance teams or advice from big law firms. I get that the Treasury would want a broadly drafted law. But forgive me for not accepting the Labor government position to just trust them to apply a broadly drafted law narrowly and responsibly.

A question a Senate inquiry might ask stakeholders is whether they specifically wanted a broad general prohibition, as this government has put forward. Consumer stakeholders may have wanted action taken, but did they want a government sledgehammer to smash small businesses with? Make no mistake, small business will suffer under this bill. At last check, 75 per cent of small-business owners were taking home less than the average wage. That's $1,000 a week or $52,000 a year. That was according to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman in 2023. At that time, incidentally, 43 per cent of small businesses were failing to make a profit. Now these same small-business owners will lose more sleep at night wondering if they will be taken to the ACCC or to court for causing an emotional detriment to their customers. More small businesses will fold, and big business will muscle in. Maybe that's Labor's agenda: collapse small business and the big boys will move in.

Well, that's how it plays out usually in the cities—franchises and the like. But in regional Australia what happens is the small business closes, landlords can't rent out the commercial premises, and the town becomes a ghost town. That's the real impact of adding yet another straw of regulation during terrible business conditions. Small-business owners will throw up their hands and simply give up.

We can't afford to lose more small businesses in regional Australia. Huge numbers—over half, in one recent survey—were already considering closing their doors. The big businesses that can afford to pay for the big law firms to advise them on this new law—will they wear it? No, I don't think so. Red-tape costs are passed down to customers. In an attempt to protect consumers, compliance costs will be fed down in increased prices for consumers during Labor's homegrown cost-of-living crisis. Will small businesses be able to use this general prohibition in their dealings with larger businesses, as the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman called for in the consultation phase back in December 2024? I am just trying to get a sense of how wide and hardhitting this general prohibition will actually be.

Another piece from the Labor playbook here is the very thin veneer of public consultation. The exposure draft of this bill went out for consultation for only two weeks. That's why this bill should go to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. A Senate inquiry should test whether the general prohibition is too broad, whether the definition of 'detriment' is too wide and whether small businesses should be exempted or given more time. It should give stakeholders more than two weeks to make their views on this law known. Nobody has a problem with protecting consumers, but the pathway there isn't a lawyers picnic—unless, like Labor, you have some business mates you want to look after by obliterating small business. Where are the exemptions or delayed phase-ins for small businesses?

This is a bill that needs a lot more work and a lot of scrutiny in the Senate. I commend the shadow minister, the member for Page, and the coalition ministry team for the important work they have done on holding this government accountable for a badly drafted law that imposes crippling costs on businesses, particularly small businesses, when they can least afford it.

I support this bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, because it's an important piece of legislation to make transacting out there in the real world better and fairer for consumers. We have a simple, unwritten rule here in Australia that underpins our entire society, and that's the fair go. It's a concept that says: if you work hard you get ahead, and if you spend your hard-earned money you get what you pay for. We know that's under pressure right now, and it's important for every government to make sure they take steps to enshrine the fair go into everything that we do. No matter what you're buying, whether it be a coffee, petrol at the bowser—I think we'll need to update that saying to 'electricity from an EV charger'—or a room in a hotel, you deserve to be treated with basic honesty. For too long there's been a great gaping hole in our laws, a gap that's allowed some businesses to exploit, manipulate and trap Australians when they transact in basic, everyday transactions. Today this legislation seeks to plug that hole.

Our laws right now are very good at catching a bold faced lie. If you buy a table online and the business ships you a photo of a table, that's misleading and deceptive conduct, and businesses will rightly be pulled up. But what this bill does is tackle two big problems that currently exist in our competition and consumer laws: subscription traps and drip pricing, and I'll go into those a little bit later. These things happen to exist because of the deliberate and manipulative practices of some of these online businesses in particular—the subtle user-interface and user-experience design that's meant to mislead customers into paying more for an item than its initially advertised for, the overly complicated menus when trying to unsubscribe from a subscription service, or even the discrepancy between how easy it is to sign up to a service and how hard it is to unsubscribe from that same service. This is unfair, and we believe it needs to be addressed with good, targeted regulation.

We need to move from a 'whack a mole' approach, where we're fixing things case by case, to preventing this from occurring in the first place, and that's what this bill does. It tells businesses in no uncertain terms: if your profit margins rely on trickery or your revenue relies on nuisance, then your business model will no longer stack up. The reform sets a clear and consistent standard of fair conduct across all sectors, improving consumer confidence and protections whilst also encouraging healthy competition.

We've all been there. We've subscribed to that seven-day free trial—which is meant to be free, but they still ask you for your credit card details even though it's meant to be free, so you've got to put them in. Then life happens. You forget. You're dealing with an emergency. Your kids need help with their schoolwork, or you have to drive around town to take them to sport. Then suddenly money's taken from your account. Then comes the real nightmare: going through that same process to try and cancel, which is a lot harder than you think. Signing up is easy—one click here, one click there. With Apple Pay, your credit card details go straight through, even though it's a free trial. But trying to cancel? That's an entirely different story. Sometimes you try calling, but it's an international number that's only open in the small hours. You try to cancel online, and then you have to navigate through a maze of menus and screens with different variations of, 'Are you sure?' Then they try and upsell you into staying for longer.

This bill says to everyone, including small businesses: 'Enough. We deserve to be treated fairly here and, if it takes seconds to enter a subscription, it shouldn't take a diary appointment and an hour to cancel.' Australians deserve transparency for cost, duration and renewal. They all must be upfront and prominent. We deserve reminders. We live in a very technologically advanced world. It's not hard for a company to send a 'free trial is ending' prompt or just not to grab credit card details in the first place. The good news is there are some businesses doing great work here. They're already doing this. What this bill seeks to do is bring everyone else up to that standard that Australians expect—that fair go that I mentioned at the start of my speech.

This bill also outlaws drip pricing. There's nothing more frustrating than booking a hotel room, a concert ticket or a movie ticket for an advertised price of $100, only to find that it's $130 by the time you reach the checkout. Where did these extra costs come from? Booking fees, admin fees, service fees—fees on fees. This is what drip pricing is, where mandatory transaction or service fees are excluded from the price Australians see and they only become evident right at the end of the purchase process, when you're already hooked in. When prices aren't upfront, competition fails. The businesses that are doing the right thing and showing the all-in price look more expensive than the ones hiding those fees and extra costs until later in the checkout process. This bill will mandate that all mandatory fees must be shown alongside the base price from the very beginning. What you see should be what you pay—no surprise hidden fees, no admin fees, no gotchas right at the final click. This bill is clear. This does not stop advertising for small business. It doesn't stop legitimate persuasion or upselling. It stops manipulation and deception.

For a long time, some big corporations viewed Australian Consumer Law fines as just the cost of doing business, a small tax on their path to more profits each and every year. Penalties matter, so we need to disincentivise these dodgy practices from engaging in this behaviour fully. We need them not to think it's just a cost of business. So, within this bill, maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act will increase as well, from $10 million to $100 million, so that they ensure that businesses of all sizes face meaningful consequences for unfair and deceptive conduct. This bill sends a message: if you choose to manipulate Australians, if you choose to trap them in subscriptions they don't want, you'll face tougher penalties that'll hit the business's bottom line.

Some of you may know that I used to run a small business, and from that I know that these unfair practices don't just hurt individuals; they hurt small-business owners, particularly franchisors, who are often hit with massive fees as part of their franchise. It's like David and Goliath. I'm pleased to say that the government will be consulting this month on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses as well. What we're after here is a level playing field that will help local mum-and-dad shops compete with global giants, because that's what they deserve—a fair go.

In Bennelong, as it is across the country, people are feeling the pinch of the cost of living. This bill is one piece of a much larger puzzle to protect consumers from unfair business practices and dodgy fees. It's part of a lot of reforms we've done since coming to government. We've done merger reform—the biggest overhaul in 50 years—to stop anticompetitive takeovers. We've had a supermarket price gouging crackdown, increasing ACCC funding by $30 million to target price gouging. We've attacked shrinkflation by strengthening the unit pricing code so that you know whether you're getting less for more. And we've made the food and grocery code mandatory to protect our farmers from the big squeeze by the big supermarket duopoly. Every dollar saved from a zombie subscription and every hidden fee made outlawed by this bill is a dollar that stays in a family's budget to save or spend on their loved ones or themselves or invest in their future.

These changes have been carefully considered. They're pragmatic and they're methodical. We want to get this right because progressive reform like this is hard to come by. The digital economy has fast outpaced our laws, and this bill is the government's signal to say, 'We're catching up.' If this bill is passed, these changes are due to commence on 1 July 2027, giving businesses time to adjust their systems and their coding and rewrite their websites.

This bill seeks to protect Australians at the checkout. It rewards honest businesses and puts power back in the hands of Australian people, restoring that fair go at the supermarket and at the checkout. It ensures that Australians don't fall into subscription traps and get charged random amounts just before they forget to cancel that subscription at the end of a seven-day trial. And it ensures that, when an Australian clicks buy, they don't get landed with an extra 10 or 20 bucks in additional fees. It's time to end these traps. It's time to end these tricks. I commend the bill to the House.

Last month, I joined the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, Andrew Leigh, in the Mural Hall where he announced that the Albanese Labor government would introduce new laws to ban unfair trading practices. I wanted to attend that media conference and to speak on this bill today because I know these practices can cause frustration and even harm to consumers across the country, including in my electorate of Whitlam.

Australians are fortunate to have many options when they decide to make purchases or subscribe to services. They can do this in person, in a shop or online through their laptop. Most businesses do the right thing; however, too many use practices that can pressure, trick, confuse or trap consumers. Australians increasingly make purchases or sign up for subscriptions online. While online transactions can make consumers' lives easier, there are also serious downsides. Consumers may be pressured into making a purchase because a countdown timer warns them that only a few of their chosen items are left in stock, when actually there are still plenty available. They find what looks like a bargain when they get to the checkout and discover a fee or a charge has been added to their purchase at the last minute, and it's no longer of such good value. Or they find that, although they were able to subscribe to a service online, they are unable to unsubscribe without making a phone call to a person who is then very difficult to connect with. Many aspects of an online purchase may seem benign, but this is not always the case. Smart businesses understand the significance of every button, prompt, colour, timer and default setting. Each of these is adjustable, and every click is measurable. The online world is optimised for engagement, retention and revenue.

More than half of reported consumer problems now occur in relation to online purchases. One in 10 people say that an online provider has manipulated their choices, while more than a quarter encountered unexpected charges added late in the transaction. That is why this bill is needed. It amends the Competition and Consumer Act to reflect the realities of how Australians buy, compare and subscribe in today's world. It responds to concerns that certain harmful business practices, particularly in digital and subscription based markets, may not be adequately addressed by Australia's existing consumer law prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms. And it explicitly targets conduct that manipulates consumers or distorts the conditions under which transactional decisions are made, including through what is known as dark patterns. 'Dark patterns' is a term used to describe design techniques that are crafted to influence behaviour in ways that benefit businesses at the expense of consumer understanding. These techniques exploit well known cognitive biases, including loss aversion, optimism bias, inattention and fatigue.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill delivers three important reforms. It introduces an economy-wide prohibition on unfair trading practices, it stops drip pricing, and it ends subscription traps. Its key features include ensuring that businesses disclose key terms up front, give reminders before free trials end, make cancellation simple and show all mandatory fees clearly before consumers buy.

The first major reform in this bill is the introduction of an economy-wide prohibition on unfair trading practices. Remarkably, this prohibition does not currently exist in Australia. The bill stipulates that businesses must not manipulate consumers or unreasonably distort the environment in which consumers make or are likely to make decisions in circumstances that cause or are likely to cause detriment. This principles based test captures conduct that does not neatly fall within the existing prohibitions on misleading conduct or unconscionability but which nevertheless exploits behavioural biases, overwhelms consumers with complexity or structures choices in a way that leads people towards decisions they would not otherwise make.

The bill helpfully includes a non-exhaustive list of examples of practices that may contravene this new prohibition. These include impeding a consumer's ability to engage legal rights or seek legal remedies; failing to disclose material information to the consumer; disclosing material information to the consumer in a way that is complex, ineffective, unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, untimely or overwhelming; and creating an environment, including by using design elements in digital interfaces, that places unreasonable pressure on a consumer or that obstructs the consumer from making or fulfilling their decision.

These examples are provided to help businesses understand where the line is drawn without restricting ordinary, legitimate commercial behaviour. It's important to note that this general prohibition is not about stopping businesses from promoting their products, nor is it about stopping advertising. It's about dealing with conduct that crosses the line from persuasion into manipulation—conduct that harms consumers and undermines fair competition.

Another major focus of this bill is drip pricing. This term describes the practice of displaying a low upfront price and then, after the consumer has progressed through several steps of the online process and often not until they've reached the final checkout stage, suddenly adding mandatory transaction or service charges. By that stage, many consumers have invested a significant amount of time comparing options, and they are mentally committed to the purchase. When the final price appears, they are reluctant to walk away from the transaction.

Drip pricing is intensely frustrating. The price originally seemed reasonable, even a great deal, but then new fees appear at the very last step. This technique is used by businesses because it taps into well understood behavioural tendencies. People anchor on the first price they see, and, once they've invested effort in reaching the final stage of the transaction, they are less inclined to abandon it, even when new information would have changed their initial decision. This bill requires businesses to disclose mandatory transaction based charges at the same time that they display the base price. There should be no artificially low headline prices and no last minute surprises. By ensuring any per-transaction fees and charges are clearly displayed, the new laws will make consumers aware of the real price of a product or service, enabling them to make purchasing decisions that are more informed. It's important to note that the bill does not prohibit transaction fees; it just prohibits hiding them. It will also ensure that businesses that do the right thing are not disadvantaged by competitors that conceal the true cost until the final step.

The third major area of reform in this bill addresses another great source of consumer frustration: subscription traps. Subscription services have become an increasingly common way for Australians to pay for products and services, and this model often works well for both businesses and consumers. However, problems arise when the subscription is structured so that joining is swift and effortless while leaving involves added frictions or becomes confusing or emotionally loaded. That imbalance is what turns an ordinary subscription into a subscription trap. Too often, subscriptions are designed to capitalise on the assumption that consumers will forget to cancel free trials, will not notice renewals, or will struggle to find the cancellation pathway.

The Consumer Policy Research Centre found that three in four Australians have had a negative experience when trying to cancel a subscription. One in three felt pressured to continue their subscription, and one in 10 gave up trying to cancel and kept paying for a service they no longer wanted or needed. Some even resorted to cancelling their credit card or a bank account just to get rid of the recurring subscriptions. The estimated detriment from spending on unwanted subscriptions by Australian consumers is an extraordinary $971 million per year. This bill directly addresses these problems with subscriptions. It stipulates that businesses must clearly disclose to a consumer that is entering a subscription what it costs, how long it runs, how it renews and how it can be ended. This information must be provided prominently and in a way that is easy to understand.

The bill also establishes a framework for reminder notices, ensuring that consumers receive timely, sensible prompts when a trial period is ending or a renewal is approaching. Cancellation must be straightforward. It must be easy to find, and it must require only the steps that are reasonably necessary.

I note the amendments in this bill will not commence until 1 July 2027, which is just over a year away. This will allow businesses time to understand the new obligations and adjust their practices accordingly. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will develop guidance materials on the operation of the new laws, and the government will undertake a review of the first two years of operation of the subscription provisions to ensure the protections are working as intended.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring strong protections for Australian consumers, and this bill is part of a wider agenda to strengthen competition, improve transparency and support consumers across the economy. Strong consumer laws ensure Australians are treated fairly and protected against misleading conduct, unsafe products and unfair practices. Stronger competition is also essential to easing cost-of-living pressures. The Albanese government has legislated the most significant overhaul of Australia's merger laws in 50 years, ensuring that large mergers are properly assessed before proceeding and that anticompetitive acquisitions do not escape scrutiny.

We've increased funding for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission by more than $30 million, enabling stronger action against misleading pricing tactics, particularly in supermarkets and other consumer-facing markets. We have outlawed unfair contract terms and, for the first time, have given the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission the power to seek penalties against companies that breach these laws.

We are strengthening the unit pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation. Australians will be able to see clearly when the contents of a product have been reduced, even if the sticker price remains the same. We've made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, backed by strong penalties that prevent supermarkets from using their market power to unfairly squeeze suppliers and farmers.

Penalties matter, and that is why we have increased the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $100 million. Stronger sanctions ensure that businesses of all sizes face meaningful consequences for conduct that undermines fairness and that breaches of consumer law cannot be dismissed as a mere cost of doing business.

Across the labour market, Labor's reforms to non-compete clauses and other restrictive practices will help improve job mobility and productivity, and the right to repair is being extended to agricultural machinery, ensuring that farmers have a genuine choice in how they service their equipment.

Through a revitalised National Competition Policy supported by the $900 million National Productivity Fund, the federal government is working with states and territories to remove planning and zoning barriers that make it difficult for new entrants to compete. Together, the Albanese government's range of reforms is strengthening competition, enhancing productivity and contributing to a fairer marketplace.

It's important to note that unfair trading practices don't only affect individuals. Small businesses and franchisees often face the same vulnerabilities when dealing with larger suppliers. That is why this government is consulting on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses, including those in franchising.

In conclusion, I support this bill because banning unfair trading practices, cracking down on drip pricing and cleaning up subscriptions will strengthen protections for Australian consumers and support better functioning markets. These reforms will help make Australia a market where good businesses thrive by doing the right thing. They will also restore confidence that online markets can work on straightforward terms where prices are what they seem and leaving a service is as simple as joining it. They will protect consumers not only from outright deception but also from the kinds of subtle, cumulative influences that can undermine genuine choice. For all these reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

I rise today to speak in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. This bill is designed to complement existing Australian consumer law legislation, increase consumer trust in the marketplace and encourage fairer trading amongst businesses. The bill operates to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, including the Australian Consumer Law, which is set out in schedule 2 to that act, with a lens on improving protections against current unfair trading practices and emerging unfair trading practices. It does so by introducing a general prohibition on unfair trading practices towards consumers, strengthening protections against drip pricing by requiring transparency of transaction based charges and introducing protections against subscription practices that are detrimental to consumers and small business.

What do unfair trading practices actually look like? They relate to how businesses promote, sell and deliver products and services, how contract terms operate and how businesses take payments from consumers. It's things like accepting payments for products and services that a business does not intend to supply; using coercion or undue harassment against consumers; or exploiting known facts, circumstances or statements made by a consumer to coerce them into buying something or signing up to something or to enforce a debt. It's also unfair contract terms. It's making false or misleading statements about a product or service. It's a pyramid scheme. It's a referral scheme which does not result in discounts or other benefits to consumers despite a promise to do so. And it's unconscionable conduct, which is hard to define but which may involve behaviour so harsh that it goes against good conscience.

Under consumer law, businesses are prohibited from acting unconscionably towards consumers or other businesses, and this is something that is more than just unfairness. It is something that makes the circumstances especially harsh. It is, for example, where a business knowingly targets consumers who are experiencing a vulnerability, such as people who are going through something difficult, like the death of a loved one, domestic or family violence, homelessness, or the impact of a natural disaster; who are sick and have disabilities; who are too young to make informed decisions; who have difficulties reading and writing; who live in remote areas; who do not speak English as their first language; who are uncomfortable with using what is now considered very basic technology, such as the internet or smartphones; and who clearly have difficulties understanding and using basic financial skills.

By and large, Australian businesses would never dream of engaging in unconscionable conduct or any of the other unfair trading practices I have described. Australian private enterprise is the engine room of our economy, providing investment capital, innovation, secure employment and opportunities for thousands of people and, most importantly, providing the products, goods and services that we all need. We can't afford to paralyse business. Private enterprise must be provided with the right settings to grow, to increase revenue and to make money. If they can't do that consistently, then they can't supply products and services. The private sector in this country is an indispensable force for sustainable development because it operates to spark the innovation we need, to improve productivity and to improve the economic efficiency we need. And, as I said—this is worth repeating—it creates the jobs and growth needed to end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity.

All of that being said, business must operate in a way that is fair to the consumer, and I'm confident there would be very few businesses that would argue against that proposition. I suggested earlier that most Australian businesses would never dream of participating in unfair trading practices like unconscionable conduct or misleading and deceptive conduct, but there is some conduct, which falls far short of these thresholds but that may take place, sometimes inadvertently, that is unfair to the consumer.

Just as we need private enterprise to prosper and to produce the products and services we need, we also need a fair marketplace that encourages consumer participation. If consumers are not getting a fair go or are being taken advantage of, then either they won't participate in certain marketplaces or they will make choices that they otherwise wouldn't if the trading and market conditions were fair.

This is particularly important given the rapid and significant shift to the online marketplace. We're now almost on autopilot. People enter their credit card details into online platforms to purchase goods or sign up to services because they are there and it is easy. The ease of access to the consumer marketplace that the online world provides and the online world's prolific reach mean that it's more important than ever to act to ensure fairness for the consumer.

This bill does three things to make the marketplace fairer to the average consumer. Firstly, it introduces a general prohibition on unfair trading practices. The bill does this by introducing the new part 2-4, with new section 28B(1) prohibiting a person from engaging in unfair trading practices—a defined term—in trade or commerce. In practical terms, this provides that a person engages in unfair trading practices if, and only if, in connection with the supply of goods or services to a consumer or an offer to supply goods or services to a consumer, the person engages in conduct that does or is likely to do either or both of the following: firstly, 'manipulate the consumer' or, secondly, 'unreasonably distort the environment in which the consumer makes, or is likely to make, a decision' and that 'causes, or is likely to cause, detriment, whether financial or otherwise, to the consumer'. In this context, a supply or offer to supply may occur in an online setting, such as on an app or a website, or an offline setting, which means your traditional in-store retail setting. The prohibition is intended to be flexible and capable of adapting with evolving commercial practices and rapid technological advances. Offers of supply are intended to include the promotion, advertising or marketing of a relevant good and service.

A non-exhaustive list of unfair trading practices in the context of this general prohibition is included in the bill. This includes frustrating a consumer's ability to exercise legal rights or seek legal remedies; failing to disclose material information to the consumer; disclosing material information to the consumer but in a way that is complex, ineffective, unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, untimely or overwhelming; and creating an environment, including by using design elements in online platforms, that places unreasonable pressure on a consumer or that obstructs the consumer from making or fulfilling their decision.

This list is designed to assist businesses to understand the parameters of what may qualify as a contravention. The list can't be absolutely exhaustive, because of the unique nature of businesses, the uniqueness of consumers and the incredible breadth of products and services available in the marketplace, particularly online. Each matter will necessarily need to be considered on its own facts, but the non-exhaustive examples in the bill are intended to help businesses understand where the line in the sand is, without impeding legitimate commercial action, like promotion and advertising, which every business is entitled to do.

Secondly, this bill addresses drip pricing. This is a practice where a consumer buys a service at what appears to be a fair and reasonable price and then experiences price creep, where new, previously unexpected fees start to come in. We've all bought a ticket to a concert, to a show, to live sport or to a movie and then experienced an inexplicable and proportionally large booking fee being tacked on at the very end of the transaction. You still want the ticket, so you pay the booking fee. The proposal in this bill is simply that businesses disclose these mandatory transaction-based charges, like a booking fee, at the same time as they display the base price. The consumer can then decide earlier in the process whether they wish to proceed with the transaction, knowing they will be paying a booking fee and what the amount of the booking fee is. This reform does not prohibit businesses from charging a booking fee, recognising that there are legitimate reasons to do so. All it does is ask businesses to be upfront about these costs. This is entirely reasonable and allows consumers to make informed decisions early on in the transaction.

Thirdly, this bill addresses subscription traps. Subscriptions to streaming services, newspapers, gyms, style guides, blogs and software services are often designed on the assumption that the consumer will forget to cancel free trials, will simply shrug off renewals or will find it so difficult to cancel that they'll just roll on. I recently had an experience like this. I consider myself to be a reasonably unfashionable person. Having recently had a birthday, taking me firmly into mid-40s territory, I decided to sign up to a style app which promised to help me find the right colours and the right styles for my body shape—which is inverted triangle, for those playing along at home—and transform me into a modern, youthful style fashionista. Fantastic!

Predictably, the app was not a revelation, presenting me with suggestions like jeans and white T-shirts. It turns out I was already stylish and there was no further room for improvement. So I rolled my eyes, chastised myself for actually signing up to this thing and then proceeded to try and cancel, before I got trapped in the endless renewal cycle. Cancelling was quite the exercise. I just wanted out, but I kept being presented with offers, promises and alternatives on a webpage that was clearly designed to make it hard for me to find and activate the cancel button. I had to trawl through the app. I had to go to the settings on my phone. I had to get a couple of codes, and then I had to click on a link in an email that was eventually sent to me. I'm all for businesses promoting their products, but why couldn't I just press a button and cancel? It took me longer to cancel than it did to be told that I look good in white t-shirts.

This bill addresses these issues by requiring businesses to clearly disclose that a customer is entering a subscription, what it costs, how long it runs, how it renews and how it can be cancelled, with cancellations required to be straightforward, easy to find and comprised of only reasonably necessary steps. Reminder notices reminding consumers that a renewal is approaching or that a payment is coming up will also be required.

This bill is a principled, proportionate and timely response to real harms and frustrations being experienced by the Australian consumer. It does not paralyse business. On the contrary, it recognises the right of a business to grow, to innovate, to make money and to increase productivity but within a marketplace that is fair to the Australian consumer in the rapidly changing way we do business. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise today in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. This legislation is an important milestone in our nation's journey towards a fairer and more transparent market. At its core, this is a bill about the basic integrity of the daily interactions between Australians and the businesses they rely on. It is about the fundamental principle of fairness in the everyday decisions Australians make when they buy a ticket online, compare prices, start a free trial, sign up to a service or try to cancel something they no longer use. In all of those moments, Australians should be able to rely on a basic standard of honesty and clarity. They should not have to navigate a maze of fine print. They should not need to reach the final step of a digital checkout, only to be hit with extra compulsory fees that were never disclosed at the start. And they should not have to battle a deliberately confusing website just to stop paying for a service they no longer want.

These experiences are familiar to too many Australians. A person sees one price advertised, but, by the time they reach the checkout, the final amount is higher. Someone signs up to a free trial and later realises they have been rolled into an ongoing payment. Someone tries to cancel a subscription, but, instead of a clear and simple process, they are sent through page after page of hurdles, offers and endless questions. For many people, this is not just frustrating; it costs money, it wastes precious time, and it fundamentally damages trust.

In my electorate of Holt, families are already watching every single dollar. They are comparing grocery prices, managing rent or mortgage payments, checking bills and doing everything possible to make the household budget stretch until the next payday. When budgets are tight, a few dollars in a hidden fee, another monthly charge for a service they try to cancel or an automatic renewal they were not properly reminded of isn't just an annoyance; it's a financial hit. Those costs add up for students, for families, for pensioners and for our small businesses.

This is why this bill is so necessary. The Albanese Labor government is amending Australian Consumer Law to introduce an economy-wide prohibition of unfair trading practices. In simple terms, businesses will not be allowed to manipulate customers or unreasonably distort the environment in which they make decisions. We are not saying businesses shouldn't be successful. On the contrary, we want Australian businesses to thrive. We want them to advertise freely, promote their products and compete fiercely, but that competition must be based on the things that actually matter—price, quality, service and value—not on who's the best at tricking a customer, who can hide their fees the longest or who can make their cancellation button the hardest to find. This bill draws a firm line between clever marketing and predatory manipulation. Australian Consumer Law has served us well, but the world has changed. The way we shop, compare and subscribe today is vastly different from 20 years ago. This bill modernises our legal framework so it can respond to the harmful conduct of today and remain flexible enough to deal with the emerging tactics of tomorrow.

Let's look specifically at the subscription economy. Subscriptions are now a staple of modern life. We subscribe to news, music, fitness apps, meal kits and software. When these models are clear and fair, they provide great convenience. Many businesses already do the right thing. They send reminders, they make the price obvious, and they make it easy to leave. Those businesses have nothing to fear from this bill. In fact, they will benefit from a marketplace where their honest practices aren't being undercut by dishonest competitors. However, the Consumer Policy Research Centre has provided us with some sobering statistics. Three in four Australians with subscriptions have had a negative cancellation experience. One in 10 has literally given up on trying to cancel a service because it was too difficult, continuing to pay for something they don't want. This is not the market working; this is a subscription trap. This bill breaks those traps. It mandates that businesses clearly disclose the total cost, the renewal frequency and the cancellation process right at the start. It also introduces a click-to-cancel expectation. If you can sign up with one click, you should be able to leave with equal ease.

The bill also addresses the deceptive practice of drip pricing. This occurs when a consumer sees an attractive price at the start of the transaction, but mandatory charges appear later in the process. It might be a service fee, a booking fee, a processing fee or a transaction fee. The problem is not that a business charges a fee; the problem is when that fee is compulsory but not shown clearly upfront. By the time the consumer sees the real total, they may have already spent time choosing a product, entering details, selecting a seat or organising the booking. Many people then go ahead because they feel they have already invested the time. This is not a fair way to compare prices. This bill requires mandatory transaction based charges to be displayed alongside the base price from the very beginning. This ensures that the price you see in the search results is the price you actually pay. It allows for genuine price comparison, which is the engine of a competitive economy.

I want to address those who might claim this is an interventionist or antibusiness measure. In reality, this bill is pro good business. In my community of Holt, I see local cafe owners, family run trades and small retailers who work incredibly hard to build a reputation. They know that trust is their most valuable asset. They are upfront with their prices, they stand by their service and they work hard for every single customer. Those businesses should not be undercut by companies that rely on tricks, pressure or confusion. A strong marketplace should reward honesty, value and service. This is why consumer protection and competition policy go together. When people trust the market, they are more confident to compare, switch and try new providers. When people feel trapped or misled, they become cautious. They become less likely to switch and less likely to engage, and good businesses miss out.

This bill does not stand alone. It is a critical piece of the Albanese Labor government's broader agenda to ease cost-of-living pressures and make the Australian economy work for people, not the other way around. We have already strengthened penalties for anticompetitive conduct, ensuring that breaking the law is no longer just a cost of doing business; we have acted on unfair contract terms, protecting small businesses and consumers from 'take it or leave it' contracts that are already heavily weighted against them; we have tackled shrinkflation and unit pricing, ensuring that, when the packet gets smaller, the consumer knows exactly what they are paying for; and we have made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, ensuring our farmers and suppliers get a fair deal from the major supermarkets. This bill is the next logical step in that journey.

The bill also takes a practical approach to implementation. The reforms will commence from 1 July 2027, giving businesses time to understand their obligations and to adjust their practices. The ACCC will provide guidance on how the new laws will operate. The government will review the subscription provisions after the first two years to make sure the protections are working as intended. That is the right approach. It gives consumers stronger protection and gives businesses time and certainty.

We are also looking into the future. We know that small businesses and franchisees often find themselves on the receiving end of unfair trading practices from larger entities. That is why the government will consult on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses, including those in franchising. We will also consider possible alignment in the financial services sector carefully and properly so consumers do not fall through the regulatory gaps.

This bill reflects a very Australian expectation: be upfront, be fair and do not make life harder than it needs to be. Australians are not asking for special treatment; they're asking for the basics. They want prices they can trust, they want subscription terms they can understand, they want the freedom to leave a service when it no longer serves them and they want to know that, when a business makes a promise, it will keep it. This bill gives that expectation the force of law. It gives the people of Holt and people right across our country back their time, more clarity and better protection for their hard-earned money. It is fair, it is practical and it is absolutely needed.

I acknowledge the work of the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, Dr Andrew Leigh, in bringing this bill before the House. This is practical, considered reform shaped by the evidence and the real experiences of Australian consumers. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. In doing so, I too commend the work of the assistant minister in the lead-up to and preparation of this bill and also for the way that he has handled this bill through the parliament and through the Labor Party processes as well. I don't think the community could ask for a better assistant minister at this time than the assistant minister we have. He's somebody who lives and breathes this sort of work. It's a privilege to be able to serve in this parliament alongside him. I also pay due credit to the leader of our economic team and my neighbour, the Treasurer, who is leading an economic policy focused on the cost of living. The competition policy sits very much within that general approach to tackling the cost of living.

The measures in this bill are about improving competition for our economy, which sits not only within this government's mission but also within the Labor Party's historic mission. We're now 52 years on from the introduction of the Trade Practices Act, which was introduced by another great reforming government, the Whitlam Labor government, and by another great reforming Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy.

The Trade Practices Act 1974, on which this work is built, sat squarely then in the government's approach to tackling inflation and the cost of living, just as ours does today. In fact, it gave me an opportunity while preparing for this speech to look at what Lionel Murphy said at the time. It's interesting that history rhymes, as the saying goes. He said:

The Bill … is especially important because of its relevance to inflation. The purpose of many restrictive practices is to maintain prices at levels higher than would otherwise prevail. This contributes to the inflationary trend.

He went on to say:

Consumer protection also assists in the fight against inflation. It is the consumer who has to bear the burden of higher prices and of unfair methods of dealing.

I half quoted Mark Twain's quote that history may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes—and just as it was with the Trade Practices Bill in 1974, so it is with the mutterings we hear from the opposition. Are they supporting this bill? Are they not supporting this bill? I'm not 100 per cent clear on what their position is, and that's because I don't think they're 100 per cent clear on what their position is. There is a rhyme from history here as well. In introducing this bill back in 1973, Lionel Murphy said:

Regrettably Opposition senators refused to debate that Bill—

because—

… there had been insufficient time to consider its provisions.

Some things are just hard to get out of your DNA when you're a political party. It ultimately tries to parade itself these days as looking after the battler, but it has always been the party for the big corporations and big businesses. It is only the Labor Party that has stood up for small businesses, stood up for consumers and stood up for farmers. When you look at the results the opposition got in Farrer, I'm not sure they're drawing the right lessons. They would certainly do well to do a little bit of private introspection rather than trying to litigate that in public. This is in the DNA of those opposite. They were defending an act in 1974—just as they're equivocating about supporting this one—that Lionel Murphy described as having been proved to be one of the most ineffectual pieces of legislation ever passed by that parliament. Even in 1974, that would have had some stiff competition. He said:

In consumer transactions unfair practices are widespread. The existing law is still founded on the principle known as caveat emptor—meaning 'let the buyer beware'. That principle may have been appropriate for transactions conducted in village markets. It has ceased to be appropriate as a general rule. Now the marketing of goods and services is conducted on an organised basis and by trained business executives.

As insightful as and prescient as Lionel Murphy was, I don't think even he could have been quite as—

Are you talking about the same bloke that was convicted for perverting the course of justice?

Deputy Speaker, I think the member is casting aspersions on former members that are outrageous, and I would ask that they be withdrawn.

You refuse to withdraw? Will you withdraw?

No, I will not withdraw. It is a fact,

Deputy Speaker, I'll continue. I understand there's no standing order to deal with that sort of outrageous personal attack—on somebody who is deceased, mind you.

Just because he's dead doesn't mean it's not true.

Sorry, member for Forde—will you just pause there for a moment? I would like to request that when I call the House to order that is respected by members in this chamber. Thank you very much. You may proceed.

I think that, as insightful and prescient as Lionel Murphy was, and as somebody that really had at heart such a passion for defending the individual rights that Australians are entitled to, when he talked about marketing of goods and services being conducted on an organised basis by trained business executives, even he couldn't have thought about what those trained business executives would be like today. They manipulate not only vulnerable consumers; the best of us have all struggled to find that greyed-out unsubscribe button; we've all been attracted by the light and the colour. We've all had our hesitation measured. There are an infinite number of permutations and combinations that the latest market shysters are able to use to manipulate our behaviour. In 1974, they could not have conceived of quite what it would be like. We are no longer in a village market. We are no longer even in just a sophisticated street market. We are well and truly in a new world, and this bill goes some of the way to addressing the inequity that exists between consumers and those that are effectively wielding that power and have that responsibility.

Of course, though, it sits within that general approach that this government has taken to fixing many of the problems that we were left with by the inaction of the previous government. We kicked in an extra $30 million for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to enable stronger action against misleading and pricing tactics in the supermarket and other retail sectors. Again, the ACCC cops a fair bit of criticism. Perhaps some of it is justified, but a lot of it is because it was completely underfunded by the previous government. I think the ACCC has done some amazing things when it comes to protecting consumers. One of them has to be hitting Optus for six. Optus copped a $100 million fine for selling expensive and, really, unwanted plans to vulnerable people, and Optus didn't even bother to check whether it was actually covering them in the areas that they lived. Optus copped a $100 million fine for selling these plans to people with learning disabilities—people that were obviously disabled. One person, an obviously disabled and vulnerable person, had been talked into it by the shop staff and was too embarrassed to say no at the time. But, even when his representative—and he was lucky to have a representative, mind you—went into the store to try and get a refund, that guy was refused. The ACCC did some fantastic work getting that $100 million fine. This government is the only party which really takes the enforcement actions of the ACCC seriously by funding it.

We've also outlawed unfair contract terms. For the first time, we've given the ACCC and ASIC the power not only to help people have those terms voided in contracts but to take action and have serious penalties imposed for inflicting those sorts of unfair terms. Going back to 1974, it was actually a practice of some people in contracts to have, as a term, that this contract will not operate under Australian law. That actually needed to be outlawed. But there are plenty of unfair contract terms in there today, such as the supplier can adjust the terms whenever it likes. How can that possibly be fair?

I'm reminded of one young woman who had a gym membership. She moved 90 minutes away from the gym. It was easy for her to sign up online, but, when she tried to unsign online, she was told she couldn't. She rang up. She was told she would need to come in. And so she needed to make a three-hour round trip in order to have the contract terminated. It was only because she was persistent and knowledgeable to the extent that she was able to actually show them the law that the gym backed down.

We're strengthening the unit-pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation. Even now, while the supermarkets know that this is on the government's agenda, they're asking for it, really, with their outrageous behaviour. There was an example in February where they're selling a packet of five bananas as a unit. It costs twice as much as the bananas that are next to it, which are bought by weight. Woolworths say it's for the convenience of the consumer because they can just grab it. For the privilege of being able to take it off, Woolies think they can just charge them twice and get away with it, without displaying clearly that they're paying twice as much as they would be if they picked up five bananas by themselves.

We've made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, backed by strong penalties. Again, the other side talk about representing farmers. I used to be a station hand—I worked for these people. I know the heart and soul that these people put into their farms. They're not Gordon Gekko dealing with international companies or huge companies like Woolworths. These people have no bargaining power. Through this code, which used to be voluntary—it took this government to make it mandatory—we've allowed for people to be anonymous when making their complaints to encourage whistleblowers to come forward, to restore some balance back into what is an otherwise thoroughly unequal situation.

Across the labour market, this government has introduced reforms to non-compete clauses. Believe it or not, there are employment contracts out there now where a laundromat worker is not able to work in another laundromat in the town. In order to get a job, a young engineer, straight out of university, has to sign a non-compete clause to say that he can't work as an engineer in another firm. These are not only things which are unfair on the individual. Courts generally, from what I understand, strike out those ridiculous terms. But sometimes you have to go to court, and sometimes it's possible for the employer to actually put an injunction on you going to somewhere else that you then have to fight. Even though these terms are basically completely unfair, it puts the onus on the worker to do it.

This sits within the history of the Labor Party. From 1974 to now, it has taken Labor governments to try and level the field for consumers, try and level the field for small businesses and try to level the field for farmers. That's why the history of the Labor Party, I think, is going to continue into the future, while the history of the Liberal and National parties is somewhat in doubt.

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. At its core, this particular bill is about making our payment systems and our marketplaces fairer for everyday Australians. It's about making sure people can buy what they need without being misled, trapped, pressured or ripped off.

In Barton, when I think about trust in the marketplace, I think about our grandparents. We all have stereotypes of our grandparents—maybe it's Nonna and her insistence on stuffing you full of plates of pasta and homemade salami, or Papou, who's insisting you go check the lamb on the spit that's been there since six in the morning; or maybe it's Nainai, who's using Tiger Balm to treat everything; or maybe it's your Ammappa, who might actually warn you about eating too much durian, because it's a heaty food.

One thing that unites these grandparents, even if they live in different suburbs, speak different languages or adhere to different religions or cultures, is that they all insist on paying in cash. Cash is king. Cash is something people understand. It's simple. It's physical. You hand it over in person. You look someone in the eye before you part with your money, and, if someone is ripping you off, Nonna knows. More than that, our grandparents often knew the person they were buying from. They shopped on their local high street, where stores were owned and run by the person you sat next to at church, the person who coached your kid's soccer team or the person who lived across the road. If someone was going to rip you off, chances were you knew about it already. The gossip mill had already armed you well to take on the local grifter.

Now, I know this might sound like a little bit of a nostalgic trip here, but the local marketplace, built on closeness and trust, is becoming less common. Modern families are not always engaging with their high streets in the same way. Life is busy. Shopping online is often quicker, easier and more efficient. When we move from the local high street to the virtual high street, we lose some of those old protections. We lose the closeness. We lose the personal relationship. We lose the ability to judge a business by the way it treats people in our community.

These new, virtual high streets are often not grounded in trust or community. Sometimes they are faceless, shady storefronts that just happen to be selling the exact product or service you need. Sometimes they're a huge multinational company whose only face is a logo. Either way, it's much harder for an everyday consumer to know who they are dealing with when the whole interaction happens behind a screen. When you are trying to buy something quickly—when you're rushing between work, school pick-up, dinner and everything else—how are you meant to actually know whether the site is trustworthy? Many of these virtual storefronts build their business models around the absence of trust. They use traps. They use algorithms. They design systems to extract as much money from a buyer as possible. They do not care about the quality of service. They do not care about the product. They do not care about the person on the other end of the transaction. It is a profit model.

But that's not the whole story, because there are so many small businesses on our local high streets that have built an online presence. There are so many of them in my electorate of Barton. I think of Self Raised in Carlton and Bexley North, Greek Cargo in Earlwood and LA Donuts—Frida, you're a genius!—operating in Beverly Hills. I can say that these businesses are not engaging in traps used by nameless, faceless online businesses. They're using online tools to reach more customers, support their staff and keep their bricks-and-mortar stores alive. They're still trying to provide the best quality local service they can. They are still part of our neighbourhoods. They still know their customers. They still care about their reputation, because their reputation is built right here in our community. Without them, our local jobs and our local character will suffer. It would not be the Barton our grandparents grew up in and would not be the Barton we want to pass on.

So, yes, this bill is about stronger consumer protections, but it's also something much bigger. It's about rewarding the good local businesses that do the right thing. It's about standing up to the unfair practices that punish consumers and undercut honest businesses. And it's about keeping alive the neighbourhoods our grandparents built and the neighbourhoods we still want to live in today.

One of the central features of this legislation is the creation of a new economy-wide safeguard against unfair business conduct. At its heart, this reform recognises a very simple principle: Australians should be able to make purchasing decisions freely, transparently and without being manipulated through unfair tactics. This bill introduces a flexible, overarching standard that prevents businesses from engaging in conduct that unfairly influences or pressures consumers in ways that are likely to result in harm. It acknowledges that, while businesses are entitled to market their products and compete strongly, there must be clear limits on practices that intentionally exploit confusion, vulnerability or imbalance in information.

This legislation is not designed to stop ordinary advertising or legitimate sales strategies. Businesses will continue to innovate, compete and promote their services. Healthy competition remains a critical part of a strong economy. However, there's a clear distinction between persuasive marketing and conduct that deliberately steers consumers into decisions they might not otherwise make through pressure, obstruction or deception. Increasingly, consumers interact with businesses through digital platforms and online interfaces that are carefully designed to shape behaviour. While many businesses use these tools responsibly, some practices are specifically engineered to frustrate the cancellation process, overwhelm consumers with excessive information, conceal important details or create urgency that pressures individuals into rushed decisions. This bill seeks to address those harmful behaviours.

This bill also addresses the growing use of digital design features that create unreasonable pressure or deliberately obstruct consumers from making informed choices. These tactics can include complicated cancellation pathways, repeated prompts designed to completely wear consumers down or interfaces structured to discourage people from changing their minds. Importantly, this reform has been designed with the future in mind. Markets, technology and consumer behaviour continue to evolve rapidly, particularly in the digital economy.

A principles based framework allows the law to remain relevant as new forms of unfair conduct emerge, rather than relying on parliament to constantly and continuously amend legislation in response to every new tactic or technology. This approach creates a stronger and more adaptable consumer protection system while also giving businesses greater clarity about the standards expected of them. Ultimately, these changes are about strengthening confidence in the marketplace, supporting fair competition, and ensuring Australians can engage in the economy, knowing that they're being treated honestly and fairly.

Australians are increasingly relying on subscription based services in their daily lives, from streaming platforms and fitness apps to software services and delivery memberships. Subscription models have become deeply embedded in the modern economy, and many of these services provide genuine convenience and value to customers. However, there is growing concern about the way some businesses structure their arrangements to make cancellation very difficult and ongoing charges easy to overlook. Too often, consumers are drawn into arrangements through free trials or heavily promoted introductory offers, only to later discover that ending the subscription is unnecessarily complicated. In some cases, businesses rely on consumers forgetting renewal dates, missing important notices or becoming frustrated by confusing cancellation processes. And while signing up may take only moments, cancelling can involve navigating multiple web pages, repeated prompts, hidden settings or lengthy customer service interactions. That imbalance is precisely what this legislation seeks to address.

This bill introduces stronger safeguards to ensure subscription agreements are fair, transparent and easy for consumers to understand from the outset. Businesses will be required to provide clear and accessible information before a consumer enters a subscription arrangement, including details about pricing, billing frequency, renewal terms, the duration of any trial period and the steps required to cancel the service. The reforms also place significant emphasis on the cancellation process itself, and consumers should not face unreasonable barriers when trying to end a service they no longer wish to use. Businesses will need to ensure cancellation pathways are visible, practical and proportionate. If a person can subscribe online quickly and easily, there should be a similarly straightforward process to discontinue the arrangement.

In addition to these measures, further regulations approaching on 1 July 2027 will introduce a reminder requirement for businesses. Consumers will receive a clearer notification before free trials expire or before automatic renewals occur, and these reminders are intended to give individuals fair opportunity to reassess whether they still wish to continue with the service before getting the additional charge. These protections will extend beyond individual consumers to also cover small businesses who are entering into standard-form subscription contracts. This is an important inclusion because small businesses can face many of the same challenges as ordinary consumers, particularly when dealing with larger corporations and complex contractual systems. They too deserve transparency and fair treatment. Importantly, these reforms also support businesses that are already doing the right thing. Many companies already communicate clearly with customers, provide fair notice of renewals and make cancellations simple and accessible. Those businesses should not be placed at a disadvantage against competitors using confusing or restrictive practices to retain customers unfairly.

This legislation also takes important steps to address the issue of hidden fees and misleading pricing practices that have become increasingly common in today's marketplace, particularly on online transactions. Australians deserve to know the true cost of a product or service before they commit to making a purchase, yet too often consumers are presented with an advertised price that appears attractive at first instance only to discover additional compulsory charges later at the check-out process. By the time these extra costs are revealed, consumers may have already invested a considerable amount of time entering personal details, comparing options or progressing through multiple stages of transactions. This practice is commonly referred to as drip pricing, which undermines transparency and weakens confidence in the market. It creates a situation where the initial advertised price does not accurately reflect what a consumer would actually pay. Instead, mandatory booking fees, processing charges, service costs or other unavoidable additions are gradually introduced throughout the purchasing process, making that final, substantial amount much higher than originally expected.

Clear and accurate pricing is fundamental to a fair and competitive economy. Consumers can only make informed decisions when they have access to genuine and complete information. If important costs are concealed or delayed, it becomes far more difficult for individuals to properly compare products and services across the market. The reforms in this bill will require businesses to present all mandatory transactions related to charges at the same time the advertised price is displayed. In other words, consumers will see the true price upfront rather than being confronted with unexpected additions at the end of the process. This does not prevent businesses from charging legitimate fees, nor does it interfere with their ability to structure prices appropriately. What it does is require honesty and transparency about the total unavoidable cost a consumer can expect to pay.

Like I said earlier, it is about keeping alive the neighbourhoods our grandparents built and the neighbourhoods we still want to live in today. Australians should not need to navigate hidden traps, confusing interfaces or concealed fees simply to participate in everyday economy and commerce. Consumers deserve transparency. They deserve fairness. Businesses that do the right thing deserve a marketplace where integrity is rewarded rather than undermined. That is why this bill is about restoring and reinforcing trust in fair competition and trust that Australians will be treated honestly when they spend their hard-earned money. That is good for consumers, good for businesses and good for the Australian economy.

Most Australians know what it feels like to keep a close eye on the household budget and make careful choices about where every dollar goes. We know that today in Griffith there is a parent comparing the cost of school shoes, groceries and sports fees before payday; a student looking for a cheaper phone plan between shifts; an older Australian checking direct debits on a fixed income; and a small-business owner reviewing every subscription service charge and renewal notice. People in my community and across Australia are doing the sensible thing—comparing prices, reading the details, considering their choices and trying to make good decisions for themselves, their families and their companies.

But all too often the companies and systems they're dealing with aren't equally as fair. A price that seems okay at first becomes more expensive at the final stage of the payment, a free trial unexpectedly turns into a paid subscription and cancelling something that should be easy becomes complicated, with run-around tactics, repeated prompts and pointless difficulties. These aren't just annoying; they are costing people money, time, effort and faith. When people are already dealing with work, family, bills, appointments and everything else, they shouldn't have to spend their free time battling systems that are deliberately designed to try and exhaust them.

That is why this bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, is important. It restores fairness to everyday purchases by ensuring people know the true price before committing, understand the conditions of something before they agree to it and can leave a service without being endlessly redirected. It also supports the many businesses that already are honest and respectful to customers. Australians shouldn't have to be experts in the small print to be able to be treated well.

By amending the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, this bill strengthens our Australian consumer law by banning unfair trading practices generally, with specific changes for unfair subscriptions and improved protections against drip pricing and similar charges that appear during a transaction. Fundamentally, this bill is about stopping unfair things that manipulate people's choices, distort what they decide and really harm them. This harm isn't only financial; it also includes wasted time, frustration and lost confidence from being forced through systems that aren't meant to be fair for consumers.

This is an overdue and necessary update to our consumer protection laws. For a long time, the Australian consumer law has correctly protected us from misleading information and unfair contracts. Those protections are important, but in today's digital age consumers face a different environment. Sometimes it's about what isn't said upfront on a website, sometimes it's a fee that only shows up at the very end of a purchasing process, sometimes it's a website's design that subtly pushes, pressures or prevents people in ways they don't even realise and sometimes it's where a cancellation option technically exists but is so difficult to find that people often find they just give up trying. I've actually had constituents mention to me in passing that they have found it easier to cancel their credit card and get a new one issued than to actually work out how to unsubscribe from some services.

This bill acknowledges that a consumer's choice can be undermined even without a direct lie. It acknowledges that people can be pushed into decisions that aren't in their favour by difficulties, confusion, being overloaded with information, pressure and, let's be frank, tiredness. These changes will stop business methods that depend on confusion, tricks in the design, unnecessary difficulties or people just being exhausted. They establish a standard that is both clear and fair and one that good businesses should be able to meet.

One of the clearest examples of why this reform is needed is subscription traps. Subscriptions are now a huge part of life for both families and small businesses—streaming, music, meal boxes, fitness, kids' learning software, cloud storage, news and so much more. Small businesses use them daily for accounting, wages, booking, point of sale, website hosting, email, rosters and delivery. They're useful and flexible and can be good value. But all too often these subscriptions depend on people forgetting, missing a renewal date or finding it hard to cancel. Someone might start a free trial intending to cancel if it's not suitable. But then they forget the reminder, the trial finishes and the money is taken. For some households, this might be a small annoying charge. For others, it could be the difference between being okay financially and going over budget. For a small business it could mean paying for software, booking, delivery, wages or marketing they're not using at a time when every expense is important.

Then comes the second frustration—trying to cancel. I know every single member in this chamber here this evening has had this frustration. Something that may have taken seconds to sign up for shouldn't take half an afternoon to stop. People shouldn't have to search through many account pages, be shown lots of warnings and offers to stay, or have to phone during work hours when they signed up quite simply online. If you can join with a few clicks, you should be able to leave with a few clicks too. You should be told exactly when a free trial ends, when you'll be charged, how your subscription will automatically renew and, crucially, how to cancel it without being endlessly passed around different departments.

The Consumer Policy Research Centre, the CPRC, has been looking closely at the problems caused by these subscription traps, and their research shows that three in four Australians who have subscriptions have had a bad experience trying to get rid of one. Half of those people spent longer than they intended simply cancelling, one in three felt pressured to keep it and one in 10 just gave up and continued paying for something they didn't even want.

The latest estimates are that these traps are costing Australians around $46 million each year, which is a national price tag for the little, sneaky, irritating and unexpected charges many of us see on our bills. These numbers, of course, represent real people. Think of the parent, up late after the kids are in bed, hunting for the cancel button or the student who signed up for a trial during an exam period and missed the renewal date. Consider the older Australian unsure if a pop-up is actually telling them something or attempting to frighten them into remaining a subscriber. People who are busy, careful with their money and tired are being made to deal with deliberately confusing systems.

The CPRC's research also shows us that 90 per cent of Australians would use the same company again if cancelling were fast and simple. That's a key point in this discussion, as treating people decently isn't against what businesses should do; it's simply good for business. People remember how they're treated when they finish with a company—whether their time was valued, the details were clear and the processes were honest. This bill makes companies reveal all the important details of a subscription at the time of signing up, send reminders at specific points during the subscription and make sure there's a really easy, obvious way to cancel.

This bill also tackles drip pricing, which is a familiar frustration for many Australians. You find a price online, it looks okay, you begin to buy and you fill in your details. You choose your date, seat, room, delivery method or ticket. Then, right at the end of the payment process, hidden additional costs are added to the cart: transaction fees, booking fees, service fees and processing fees. The final cost is now significantly different to the price you were initially shown. At this stage, you might feel you've come too far to stop. You've spent time comparing and filling in your details. You may be buying something with a deadline—tickets for your children, travel for a family event—or making plans around work and child care. The true price should have been stated at the very beginning. Transparent pricing is vital for proper competition.

If prices aren't clear to begin with, people can't compare them properly, and, if people can't compare them properly, the market doesn't function as it should. This bill makes it harder to use drip pricing and other charges added at the transaction stage by requiring all transaction based charges to be shown with the original price if they can be calculated at that point or an explanation of how the charge will be worked out if it can't be worked out in advance. Because of this, Australians will be in a better position to see the full cost earlier on, make a proper comparison, decide if they want to go ahead and make a choice with more confidence and all of the information.

This change is also about helping good businesses. Small businesses in our communities work hard for every customer. They understand that how people see them matters and that trust is built up over time through being fair with prices, communicating clearly and offering respectful service. They don't want to be forced into using underhanded tactics simply because others are. Being upfront shouldn't mean they lose out to competitors who use hidden fees, confusing websites or extra steps to make things difficult.

This bill creates a more equal playing field. It says that businesses should win customers by offering better products, better service and better value, not by making it harder for people to work out what they're actually buying. This is good for customers, good for businesses, good for competition and good for how much we achieve as a country. When people are confident in the marketplace, they're more willing to be involved; when they can compare easily, the best businesses can get customers on their own merits; and when unfair practices are discouraged, businesses have a greater reason to come up with new ideas to improve and to compete fairly.

This bill is not about stopping businesses from advertising, promoting their products or competing strongly. Businesses should absolutely be able to explain why their product is good value, why their service is useful and why a customer might choose them, but there is a difference between persuasion and manipulation. There is a difference between encouraging a customer and trapping a customer. There is a difference between making a sale and designing a process that makes it harder for someone to make a free and informed choice. This bill deals with conduct that crosses that line. These new rules are backed by real consequences, because a right is only meaningful if it can be enforced.

This bill aligns penalties for contraventions of these new unfair trading subscription and drip-pricing provisions with the existing civil penalty settings under the Australian Consumer Law. That sends a clear message: consumer harm cannot be treated as a cost of doing business, and fairness cannot be optional. We have also taken a sensible approach to implementation, with these changes coming into effect on 1 July next year, giving businesses the appropriate time to understand their obligations and to adjust their practices. This bill also provides for a review of the new measures within two years of commencement, which will help ensure the protections are operating as intended. That is a balanced approach and gives businesses time to prepare while making the direction clear.

While this bill focuses mainly on consumer protections, unfair trading practices can affect small businesses and franchisees too. Many small businesses deal with larger suppliers, platforms, landlords and franchisors. They can face information imbalances, bargaining pressures and systems that are difficult to challenge. That is why consultation on extending protections to small businesses is important. We have already commenced targeted consultations on extending protection from unfair trading practices to small businesses and franchisees and are considering whether further steps are appropriate in the financial services sector. Small businesses are integral to my community of Griffith. They sponsor our local sports teams, they support our school raffles, they employ locals, and they know their customers by name. They deserve fair treatment too, and the principle should remain at the centre of these ongoing consultations.

Seventeen leading consumer groups welcomed the introduction of this bill. The Consumer Policy Research Centre has described a ban on unfair business practices as the missing part of Australian consumer law. CHOICE has put the competition point clearly: businesses should compete on price and quality, not by manipulating or distorting the choices that people make. The Consumer Action Law Centre has said these reforms have the potential to transform the consumer experience away from harm and towards real fairness. That support is important because these organisations see the real-world consequences of unfair practices. They hear from people who are dealing with financial stress, confusing contracts, hidden fees, high-pressure sales tactics and systems that make it harder to act in their own interests.

These reforms are about treating people fairly in the ordinary decisions they make every day. They recognise the time people spend comparing prices, checking terms and managing household budgets, especially when the cost of living is already stretching families and small businesses. When someone compares prices, they should be able to trust that the first price they see is not hiding mandatory fees. When they sign up for a trial, they should be clearly told when it ends, what it will cost and how they can cancel, and, when they decide a service is no longer right for them, they should be able to leave without being sent in circles. That standard is good for customers, but it is also good for the many businesses that are already doing the right thing.

A business that's upfront about its practices and its prices and that's clear about its terms and respectful of its customers should not be disadvantaged by competitors who rely on confusion and on hidden costs. Most people are simply trying to make good decisions for themselves and for their families. They are trying to manage their money, support their children, keep their small businesses running and get through the week with a little less stress and a little more certainty. Our consumer laws should support them in that.

This bill introduces an economy-wide prohibition on unfair trading practices. It tackles those subscription traps. It tackles drip pricing, and it strengthens consumer protections for the way Australians buy, compare and subscribe today. People in our community are working hard. They are budgeting carefully, and they're making thoughtful choices every day. Our consumer laws should meet them with the same honesty and the same fairness.

At its core, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 is about something simple: honesty. It's about the honest treatment of consumers, honest prices presented up front and honest processes that allow Australians to organise their lives and their buying decisions easily and without tearing their hair out. In today's digital economy, the issue is not just about what things cost; it's about whether people are being dealt with honestly during the process. In communities like mine in Hasluck, that matters deeply. Hasluck people are not making abstract economic decisions. They're making real decisions under real time and money pressures.

When I'm out in my community—in Midland, in Ellenbrook, in Bassendean—people consistently raise the same issues: the cost of living, housing affordability, health, education and jobs. The reality is that many households are doing it tough. The great majority of residents in Hasluck are managing mortgages or rent, and those pressures continue to rise.

What does this mean in practice? It means families are sitting at the kitchen table going through every expense. It means people are carefully checking their bank statements. It means people are making deliberate choices about what they can and what they can't afford. In that environment, every dollar matters and every decision matters.

People in Ellenbrook, Midland and Bassendean want to know honestly and upfront what something will cost, and they don't want to be led up the digital garden path for an hour to find out what something will really cost or to cancel a subscription. This legislation deals with hidden costs and drip pricing. Australians expect something very simple: the price they see should be the price they pay. But too often that's not what is happening. The ACCC has warned that customers can be lured into purchases they would not otherwise have made when businesses display only part of the price up front and reveal the total cost only towards the end of the purchasing process. We've all been annoyed by this. It is the opposite of honesty and transparency. It is confusion.

People in the Swan Valley, in Guildford, in Noranda, right now, booking flights or event tickets online or making purchases will often be finding that additional fees only appear at the very final stage, after they've already invested considerable time and effort into the process. We often feel locked up, having invested so much energy and time into the process already. There are only so many minutes in the day. As Minister Leigh said, it's often at the very last click. Consumer advocate CHOICE notes that 'having new charges thrown in right before you're prompted to pay has become an everyday annoyance in the consumer marketplace'.

Of course, it is online, so it's not just happening here. In the United Kingdom and the United States regulators are already taking action against these practices, requiring businesses to show the full price up front and penalising those who hide their fees until the final step. This bill ensures that Australian consumers are given that same clarity.

The same problem exists with subscription services, and here the issue is not just pricing; it is control. It's about whether consumers can leave and leave easily when they choose to. When people in Ellenbrook, Dayton or Hazelmere sign up to services online, they expect the process to be simple, and it often is. But cancelling is too often a completely different story, with multiple steps and unclear pathways and sometimes no obvious exit at all. Sometimes payments continue after cancellation should have been acknowledged and processed, and it can be hard to chase up those small amounts of money, so a lot of the time people just don't bother. A contract that can be entered into in seconds should not take hours of effort to exit.

Again, we are seeing action internationally. In the United Kingdom, new laws will require clear information, reminder notices and simple cancellation processes. The UK consumer group Which stated that 'subscription traps can be costly and wreak havoc on finances that are already under strain'. In the European Union, consumers already have rights to clear subscription terms and cooling-off periods. In the United States, regulators are taking enforcement action against systems that are designed to make cancelling difficult. And, in Singapore, authorities have taken court action against businesses that enrolled consumers into subscriptions without proper consent. The principle is clear: joining should be easy, and leaving should be just as easy.

This bill isn't just about fairness for consumers; it also creates a fairer playing field for businesses. Why should honest businesses in Morley and Midland—businesses who do the right thing—have to compete against online businesses that use nefarious means to trick consumers, when competitors appear cheaper simply because they don't disclose the full cost upfront? This bill says to the honest people running businesses in my electorate and all around the country: we have your back, we will take action and we will make it fairer for everyone.

A modern economy requires modern protections. Our marketplace has changed, and it continues to change. Commerce is increasingly digital. Decisions are made quickly, and businesses design systems that shape how consumers behave. People in my electorate are being rushed into decisions online through countdowns, prompts and pressures to act quickly. They are often faced with confusing choices and add-ons during transactions that make it difficult to understand what they are agreeing to. For those of my generation and older who didn't grow up as digital natives, it's harder still.

Around the world, governments and regulators are recognising this shift and the need to take action. In the United States, there is action against these so-called dark patterns. The Federal Trade Commission in the US concluded that companies are using digital design to trick or manipulate consumers into buying products or giving up their privacy. In Europe, a directive aims to achieve a high level of consumer protection by curbing unfair business practices. In the United Kingdom, too, new laws reflect that same principle. This bill brings those protections into Australian law.

These reforms set a clear standard: businesses must not mislead through omission, manipulate through design or trap consumers through complexity. That standard is not radical; it is what Australians expect, and it is what other advanced economies are increasingly requiring. When markets are fair, people can trust them; when prices are clear, competition works; and, when consumers are respected, the economy works better for everyone.

In Hasluck, people are doing the hard work—balancing budgets, making decisions and managing rising costs—and they deserve a system that is honest with them. This bill helps to deliver that. It reflects a growing international recognition that fairness must extend to the way choices are designed, not just the words on the page. It addresses real harm, it supports honest businesses and it restores fairness to the marketplace.

In closing, I will echo CHOICE, which stated:

The days of being mistreated by businesses nearly every time we transact online may finally be coming to an end.

I thank the minister for his efforts, and I commend the bill to the House.

This Labor government is serious about protecting Australians so they can keep more of what they earn, and we know Australian households are feeling the pinch when it comes to cost of living. Many families across my electorate in Brisbane are watching what they spend. They might not buy that extra coffee one week. But, importantly, they're comparing prices before they put their money down. That's why I was proud to join the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury to announce that the Labor government is cracking down on unfair trading practices. Australians should be able to trust that their markets are fair, transparent and not stacked against them. We know that many businesses are doing the right thing. However, some businesses are not. They're playing tricky games and trying to deceive their customers, all to drive up their own profits. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 will crack down on this sort of dodgy behaviour by banning unfair trading practices, cracking down on drip pricing and putting an end to subscription traps. We're putting a stop to business tactics that rely on confusion, design tricks, needless friction or sheer consumer exhaustion.

The way Australians buy and subscribe really has changed significantly, particularly in the past 15 years or so, and today people make decisions about goods and services through a variety of pathways: browsing the aisles of a local store, searching online for the best deal, or entering subscription arrangements—many of which renew automatically. Increasingly, the experience of choosing, purchasing and managing services spans multiple channels, reflecting a more complex but interconnected marketplace. Now, these changes are positive; they've given Australians more choice and convenience. But they've also created conditions in which certain business practices can pressure, confuse or trap consumers.

Australians are hardworking and fair-minded, and we expect businesses to be fair-minded too. We encourage businesses to compete and to innovate, and that's a good thing. But, when innovation is designed to deceive or trick consumers, governments must draw the line.

In the lead-up to the bill, evidence was presented to the government that suggested that deception and trickery are not isolated incidents. In fact, more than half of reported consumer problems now occur from online purchases. One in 10 people say that online providers have manipulated their choices, while more than a quarter encountered unexpected charges added late in a transaction. Online, nothing is accidental: where the button sits, what the screen suggests and how hard it is to cancel—they can all nudge people into making decisions that they might not otherwise have made. This is all by design. As I said, nothing is accidental.

This bill is designed to address these issues—issues that consumers have told the government that they are frustrated by. They're issues and challenges that people in my community come and see me about.

The bill modernises the Australian Consumer Law to reflect how Australians buy today, how they compare prices and how they subscribe. It protects consumers not only from outright deception but also from subtle, cumulative influences that erode informed decision-making and, therefore, genuine choice.

The bill does three things. The first is a general prohibition on unfair trading practices. The bill introduces a principles based test to address unfair trading practices. Practices that don't fall neatly within existing prohibitions on misleading conduct and which are unethical and unreasonable could fall within this principle.

The bill sets out something fairly straightforward. It says that businesses must not manipulate consumers or unreasonably distort the environment in which consumers make, or are likely to make, decisions, in circumstances that cause or are likely to cause detriment. The test captures exploitative behaviour and biases that aim to overwhelm consumers with complexity or structures of choices in a way that leads people to decisions that they would not otherwise make. Think how many times you've been online and you've seen: 'Sale ends in five minutes,' or, 'Only three items left. Buy now!'

To provide practical guidance, the bill includes a non-exhaustive, indicative list of examples of practices that may contravene the new prohibition. These include impeding a consumer's ability to exercise legal rights or seek legal remedies; failing to disclose material information to a consumer, or maybe even just disclosing material information to a consumer in a way that is complex, ineffective, unclear or unintelligible—maybe it's ambiguous, but ultimately it may be overwhelming. This could be something as simple as a car dealer forgetting to tell a buyer that a car had been involved in a flood, or, in other examples, creating an environment—including by using design elements in digital interfaces, where these sorts of designs place unreasonable pressures on a consumer or obstruct the consumer from making or fulfilling their decision. A great example would be a travel website with a timer that says: 'Only five minutes to go. Book now to get this price.' The examples will help businesses understand where the line is drawn, without restricting ordinary, legitimate, commercial practices.

The second main element of the bill is addressing drip pricing. We've heard a bit today in this chamber about what this means, but I think everyone can relate to what I'm about to say. Have you ever tried to book a hotel, a flight or a concert ticket and the price you thought you were paying suddenly changes when you go to the checkout and click that final button? You take a closer look and you see that the company has added a booking fee here and there or a service charge on top of that. That's called drip pricing, and we're cracking down on it. Australians should be able to see the real price upfront in order to make a properly informed purchase. In one example from my electorate, a concert ticket promoted for $109.90 rose to $117 once a compulsory charge of $7, plus a service fee, was added to the last stage of the process. By then the consumer had already invested the time and attention and felt locked in to completing the purchase.

This bill requires businesses to disclose mandatory transaction-based charges at the same time as they display the base price. That means no last-minute surprises, no artificially low headline prices, increasing only after the consumer has invested the time and attention, and no business models that rely on consumers being reluctant to abandon a purchase late in the process. Just to be clear, this bill doesn't prohibit transaction fees; it prohibits hiding them. It ensures that businesses doing the right thing are not disadvantaged by competitors who conceal the true cost until the final step.

The third element of this reform is ending subscription traps. Everyone across this country, I'm sure, can relate to this. You sign up to a subscription. You decide you don't need it any more. You jump on the website looking for the subscription cancellation button. Sometimes you can't find it; sometimes you can. You click the button and it takes you to another screen. Maybe it asks you if you want to keep your subscription at a cheaper rate. You might click no. It takes you to another screen and asks you to explain why you're leaving the subscription et cetera. You click on the button and then it asks you to email the company to cancel the subscription, and on it goes. This tactic is called shutdown subscription trap, and we are putting a stop to it too. Businesses use confusion, dark patterns and consumer fatigue to keep people paying, and they won't be able to keep doing that.

Subscriptions are now a regular part of household budgeting. I'm sure we've all got them. Subscriptions provide access to news, fitness, entertainment software and many other services. According to research from the Consumer Policy Research Centre, three in four Australians have had a negative experience when trying to cancel a subscription. Nearly half have spent more time than they intended trying to exit a service. One in three have felt pressured to stay. One in 10 Australians have given up trying to cancel and just kept paying for a service they no longer wanted. Some people have been so frustrated by unwanted subscriptions that they've chosen to cancel the credit card or the bank account, just to get rid of the recurring subscription.

These unwanted subscriptions cost Australian consumers an estimated $971 million a year, and this bill addresses these problems directly. When a customer is entering a subscription, businesses must clearly disclose what it costs, how long it runs, how it renews and how it can be ended. The bill also establishes reminder notices. It's hard enough to keep track of what's going on in our lives generally, let alone a subscription that we might have signed up to five years ago, so consumers will get timely prompts when a trial ends or when a renewal is approaching. Cancellation must be easy to find and require only steps that are reasonably necessary. If you can sign up in seconds, you should be able to cancel just as easily. Many reputable businesses already meet this standard, but this bill makes it universal.

The bill is part of a broader agenda to strengthen competition, boost transparency and support consumers and businesses across the economy. We've legislated the biggest overhaul of Australia's merger laws in 50 years, ensuring major mergers are properly assessed and anticompetitive acquisitions can't slip through. We've boosted funding to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission by more than $30 million to strengthen action on misleading pricing, particularly in supermarkets and other consumer-facing markets. We've outlawed unfair contract terms and, for the first time, empowered the regulators—the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission—to seek penalties for breaches. We're strengthening the Unit Pricing Code and cracking down on shrinkflation so consumers can see when products get smaller without getting cheaper.

Under the former government, the supermarket food and grocery code was merely voluntary, without penalties for wrongdoing. Under Labor, the food and grocery code is mandatory, backed by strong penalties that prevent supermarkets from using their market power to unfairly squeeze farmers and other suppliers. We know penalties make a big difference to behaviour; that's why the government has increased maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $50 million in 2022, and last month up to $100 million. Stronger sanctions ensure that breaches of consumer law can't be dismissed as a mere cost of doing business. They change behaviour, and they ensure that businesses of all sizes face meaningful consequences for conduct that undermines fairness.

Additionally, through a reformed National Competition Policy supported by a $900 million National Productivity Fund, the government is working with the states and territories to remove commercial and industrial planning and zoning barriers that make it harder for new entrants to compete. We're progressing reforms to create a single national market for goods, streamlining standards, improving heavy vehicle productivity and improving occupational licensing so that workers can move more freely across jurisdictions. We're also supporting health and care professionals to work their full scope of practice. Together, these reforms really strengthen competition and dynamism in our markets. They boost productivity and contribute to a fairer marketplace.

This bill focuses on consumer protections, but unfair trading practices don't only affect individuals. Small businesses and franchises often face the same vulnerabilities when dealing with larger suppliers. The government will consult on extending unfairness protections to small businesses, including those in franchising. That work is underway. In presenting this bill, we reaffirm a basic principle: markets work best when they're fair, when consumers are treated with respect rather than worn down, when innovation in business is used for the right purpose and when transparency is rewarded and hidden fees are not.

The reforms in this bill—banning unfair trading practices, cracking down on drip pricing and cleaning up subscriptions—will help Australians make properly informed purchase decisions. It'll help them manage their household budgets, not to mention saving them time and frustration. They will also help businesses across our economies. This bill is about fairness, and it's about doing the right thing. I commend the bill to the House.

I thank members who have contributed to this debate: the members for Page, Melbourne, Kooyong, Fisher, Maribyrnong, Mallee, Holt, Moreton, Griffith, Whitlam, Sturt, Forde, Barton, Bennelong, Hasluck and Brisbane. The breadth of the contributions really reflects the passion that so many members feel about cracking down on unfair trading practices, subscription traps and drip pricing. It reflects that energy, particularly on this side of the House, directed towards making the Australian economy more productive, more competitive and more dynamic.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 strengthens the Australian Consumer Law in three important ways: by banning unfair trading practices, by addressing subscription traps and by strengthening drip pricing protections. Together, the bill ensures that consumers are treated fairly and that honest businesses, including small businesses, aren't disadvantaged by competitors who rely on tricks and complexity rather than value and service.

Some in this debate have questioned whether these reforms are necessary, but the evidence before us is clear and consistent. Years of research, consultation and enforcement experience show that there are gaps in the current law. Certain practices may not be clearly misleading and may fall short of the high bar of unconscionability, yet they still distort decision-making and cause real detriment to consumers. These are practices that quietly pressure, confuse or obstruct consumers, often through design, ensuring deception.

For Australians, that harm is experienced in very practical ways: time wasted navigating complex processes, fees revealed late in a transaction, subscriptions that are easy to sign up to but difficult to exit and a growing sense that markets are structured to wear them down. Over time, that erodes trust, and, when trust falls, competition and productivity fall as well.

That assessment is not contested among those who see these markets up close. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission supports this bill, informed by its enforcement expertise and its work across consumer-facing markets. On the day the bill was introduced, 17 consumer organisations welcomed it, including national consumer advocates, financial counsellors, legal services and community organisations. They were the Consumer Policy Research Centre, the Consumer Action Law Centre, CHOICE, the Financial Rights Legal Centre, Mob Strong Debt Help, the Consumer Credit Legal Service, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, the Consumers' Federation of Australia, Energy Consumers Australia, Financial Counselling Australia, Financial Counselling Victoria, the Justice and Equity Centre, National Seniors Australia, Way Forward, West Justice, AMES Australia and the Western Australia Consumer Advocacy Network. The sheer breadth of support reflects a shared conclusion: these reforms respond to persistent, well-documented problems in everyday transactions.

The bill responds in a careful, proportionate, balanced way. These prohibitions don't ban advertising. They don't ban fees, subscriptions or innovation. They do not tell businesses how to market their products. They simply ensure that key information isn't obscured, that cancellation isn't obstructed and that competition takes place on its merits.

As set out in the decision impact statement, this package of reforms covering the general prohibition on unfair trading practices, subscription protections and strengthened drip pricing rules is expected to deliver net benefits to consumers and the economy by targeting conduct that causes the greatest harm while keeping compliance costs proportionate and manageable for business.

This bill is about drawing a clear line between fair competition and unfair manipulation. Most Australian businesses, especially many small businesses, already operate this way. For them, the changes will be modest. Good businesses shouldn't pay a price for doing the right thing.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will play an important role in implementation. It'll provide practical guidance so businesses understand their obligations clearly and early. The intention isn't to catch businesses out; it's to set clear expectations supported by clear guidance so firms can comply with confidence. That certainty benefits everyone, firms and consumers alike.

These reforms sit within a broader competition and consumer agenda. Our government has delivered the most significant overhaul of Australia's merger laws in half a century. We're strengthening the unit pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation so Australians can clearly see when product sizes fall and prices don't. We've increased funding for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to tackle misleading pricing and unfair practices. We've raised the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million—when we reached office—to $100 million or three times the benefit gained by the breach or 30 per cent of turnover. This ensures breaches can no longer be dismissed by businesses as a mere cost of doing business.

Our government is scrapping non-compete clauses for workers earning under $183,000 to make it easier for people to move to a better job. We're revitalising national competition policy, backed by the $900 million National Productivity Fund to break down commercial and industrial planning and zoning barriers, to deliver more houses by removing barriers to the uptake of modern methods of construction and to build a more seamless national market for workers and goods.

I thank stakeholders, including business, industry groups, consumer advocates and legal academics, for their engagement.

Lastly, I want to thank again all those involved in the development of this bill, including officials from the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The expertise and care shown by officials across the Australian Public Service have ensured these reforms are robust and balanced.

Australians shouldn't need a magnifying glass, a law degree and the patience of a saint to buy an everyday product or cancel a subscription. Markets work best when business success comes from offering a better deal, not designing a better trap. This bill helps ensure that, in Australia, firms prosper by serving consumers, not by outsmarting them.

I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Page be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until the first opportunity of the next sitting day.

Debate adjourned.

I rise in support of the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025, and, in doing so, I very much acknowledge the work of the Minister for Communications, who is doing an incredible job in what is a very difficult and essential portfolio in an industry which is wracked with problems and which, really, I think has been allowed to get away with some unconscionable conduct. It is a credit to the minister that this bill forms a part of that general approach to fixing that essential service, and I very much think that she's really doing a fantastic job. In fact, she's far more diplomatic than I would be when talking about some of these telcos. I'll use her words, just in case I get a bit intemperate myself. She said:

The Triple Zero failures last year shook public confidence.

Frankly, they exposed elements of a system that relied on a best efforts approach, and sadly, in some instances, those efforts were far from the best.

At a deeper level, it exposed a discordance between how the industry is regulated, and perhaps how it sees itself, versus how the public expects it to operate.

I am sure we all have constituents for whom and suburbs in our electorates in which the telcos are not operating as the public would expect them to operate. I think that this bill sits well within the Albanese government's approach to making sure that all Australians are connected, wherever they live.

Allow me to reflect on the bill that sat alongside this one, which was the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025, which is dealing with telecommunications in regional and outback Australia, an area that I'm familiar with. It is an area where communications for me, in the year 2000, involved strapping a yellow rubber Garmin GPS to my motorbike so I could know where I was. You can imagine that having grown up in town, in Broken Hill, and coming onto a property in my 20s, I was no bushman, and I very much relied on the technology, I think, to get me out of there alive. It was very simple. It was a little green screen with an arrow that would point to the homestead or the tank or wherever we were going. But it connected to a satellite. That communication device was familiar to people out in some of those places in the year 2000, while mobile phones were completely unfamiliar to people out there. It was things like that that really provided that economic benefit and opened up those economic opportunities.

By the way—without digressing too far—it's amazing to see how far telecommunications has come now, with the idea that stock can be mustered by essentially wearing a collar that gives a sort of gentle vibration to steer them in the right direction. The future of communications is really quite amazing when it comes to what the potential for agriculture is. So it was that people in the city had no idea what GPS was at the same time that we had no idea what a mobile phone was. But those methods of communication have come together and are vitally important now to our economy.

But, of course, it is not just an economic imperative or convenience that there are good communications. I'm reminded of my mother's experience in the flood of 2010 in Brisbane—the first big flood, something that, unfortunately, we've become all too familiar with. In 2010, she lived in the suburb of Oxley, and her very modest house was flooded. Apart from the dislocation that, of course, that caused, the communication systems went down, and there was this moment of fear with my family not being able to get in touch with her. It was a fear which had spread through the whole community, with people not being able to get in touch with family members. A friend of mine who had escaped the Yugoslav war of the mid-nineties said that being without those communications was exactly what it was like to be in a war zone. So it is not just that there is, as I say, that economic imperative and that convenience that we think it is. It is also to give that human connection, which is ever more important as families and communities become diffuse.

It is not only in the outback and not only in times of natural disaster. It is really inconceivable that today, in well-established suburbs in my electorate like Eagleby, where there's a retirement village whose residents are constantly talking to me about the lack of service that they have on their mobile phones, and Cornubia, which has been there for as long as I've been alive, they can't get decent mobile phone service, let alone some of those newer areas like Holmview and Boronia Heights. I was out in Upper Coomera the other day, trying to get connection on my phone to navigate through the maps. I had better GPS services literally out the back of Bourke than I had in Upper Coomera. In some ways, I'm not sure whether it's more inexcusable that they haven't got the services in a well-established suburb or that they haven't got the services in a new suburb, where it should have been obvious to them that these houses were going to move in and it should have been easier for them to get hold of the land and get the approvals that they needed to set up the towers and other infrastructure in order to provide their service. And so it is that we are going to run a campaign locally to try and get the telcos to come to the party and to work collaboratively with them.

Shortly, we're going to be launching a survey to try and find out exactly where the black spots are, because it is typical also of the way that the telcos operate that they have one set of data that shows that everything is fine but actually doesn't reflect the experience of people on the ground. We're going to do their job for them and find where these black spots are. We've got a pretty good idea as it is, but we want to see how widespread they are, and then we intend to work collaboratively with the telcos. We're going to have a public meeting to really try and get some momentum behind this campaign.

We're going to work collaboratively with them and with the authorities to try and get a solution, because ultimately that's what people want. They want a solution. They don't want blame to be thrown around, although there is plenty of blame which could be apportioned to these telcos. Someone said to me that perhaps they should only pay for the number of bars that they have of a service. If there's one out of five bars, then they should only pay one-fifth of their bill. Ultimately, though, it is not about the blame, but there is a good bit of blame to go around. The way that these telcos have really thumbed their noses at the Australian consumers is really, in some cases, unconscionable.

The very well respected Allan Fels pointed out that Optus—and I don't want to single out Optus, because it's a big list of telcos that have not lived up to their obligations—had three strikes there, with two notable and tragic outages of their triple zero network. But, also, it's about the way they behaved—something that I referred to earlier, and the member for Griffith has to sit through this again, but it's a story well worth telling—when the ACCC took Optus to court because they had been selling expensive phones and expensive plans to vulnerable people, obviously disabled people and people with severe learning difficulties. They sold, effectively, junk products because Optus hadn't even bothered to check whether they could actually cover them in the regions in which they lived. It was only when it was exposed that Optus ended up doing what it thought was the right thing, but it copped a $100 million penalty for that behaviour, which, incidentally, is only because this government has been properly resourcing ACCC and giving it those enforcement powers that had been so lacking under the previous government. It had managed to take Optus to court and get that $100 million penalty which, hopefully, deters the behaviour of not only Optus but also other providers as well.

Ultimately, as this debate sits within the government's broader economic objectives of keeping the cost of living down, if we can keep these services and level the playing field to improve competition and improve consumer safety—particularly with the telcos, which are an essential service—that's one approach to lowering the cost of living.

But it's not just Optus. I feel like I should spread a little bit of it around. Exetel, a company that purports to be one of the fastest internet providers in the country, has also dropped the ball. Effectively, it was identified that there were 63 cases where it had allowed SIM swapping, which is where the scammer gets hold of somebody's mobile phone and then is able to control their phone number, get all their passwords and get all the codes in order to access their account. Those people lost over $412,000 because of the incompetence of Exetel. They copped a $700,000 fine.

To share it around a little bit, there's another company, Circles Australia—which, incidentally, is a company I've heard of only because my son chooses to use it. It was fined $413,000 after failing to verify the identity of 26 customers whose mobile services were abused by scammers who stole at least $45,000. It was the telco's second such penalty. There is a long list of bad behaviours which have been allowed to flourish—

Debate interrupted.

Yesterday the Treasurer handed down this government's annual budget, and I want to talk today about what it means for the people of Curtin and for Australia. Let me start with what I welcome. After four years of pushing for genuine tax reform, four years of being told it was political suicide to even raise the subject, we finally have action on capital gains tax and negative gearing. And I want to acknowledge every single constituent who wrote to me, who attended one of the three community events where we discussed this and who refused to let this issue be buried.

The capital gains tax discount will move to an inflation adjusted indexation model so that only real gains are taxed. Negative gearing will be limited to new homes from July 2027, with grandfather provisions for existing investors. These are meaningful reforms that will help level the playing field for first home buyers, who've been competing with tax advantaged investors for too long. There are still some unintended consequences of this change that need to be addressed. We're facing a huge productivity challenge, and we need to ensure that changing the CGT discount doesn't reduce investment in new businesses and startups that are so vital to our productivity.

I also welcome the reform to trust distributions, which will now attract a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent. The number of discretionary trusts in this country has doubled in 20 years. This change won't affect primary production income, but it will reduce the incentive to create complicated structures to avoid tax. There's currently huge variability in how much tax our top earners pay, depending on how they structure their affairs. It isn't fair that trusts can pay significantly lower tax than working Australians.

On housing more broadly, the $2 billion investment in enabling infrastructure to support 75,000 new homes is a step forward. The $59 million for community housing providers to address youth homelessness is something I specifically raised in this chamber, and I'm glad to see action here.

On aged care, following my representations to the minister, the government will now fund a wider range of personal care services, including showering free of charge under the Support at Home program. That matters enormously to older Australians and their families in my electorate and across the country.

I welcome the increased funding to be distributed from the Medical Research Future Fund. The research institutes in Curtin are world class, and I look forward to them receiving some of this additional funding we fought for to continue their great work.

I cannot stand here and pretend that this budget is not without some failings. The most glaring missed opportunity is gas taxation. So many constituents have written to me about this. We export vast quantities of liquefied natural gas, and the Australian people receive a fraction of what they deserve for these publicly owned resources. Less than half a day of proper taxes on gas exports could have funded $10 million for food pantries desperate to keep Australians fed. That's the choice that this government has made, and it's the wrong one. There's also no meaningful action on diesel fuel tax credits. Some of the most profitable mining companies in Australia continue to receive billions in rebates that incentivise burning fossil fuels.

On climate and energy, I'm deeply concerned. Transitioning to renewables is not just good for the environment; it's our best long-term strategy for energy security. The sun and the wind do not travel through the Strait of Hormuz, yet this budget takes its foot off the accelerator at precisely the moment we need to speed up.

I also have concerns about the level of government spending, which is at its highest level in 40 years outside the pandemic, while our deficit remains high and growth slows. The budget's return to surplus relies on NDIS savings that I'll be scrutinising carefully. The NDIS changes are causing real anxiety for people who depend on the scheme, and I'll be pushing hard for certainty, transparency and genuine alternative supports.

The $250 annual tax offset will be welcome news for working Australians, but the government could have indexed tax brackets instead. That would have delivered structural relief for working Australians and ensured the government can't just keep relying on bracket creep to fund spending.

In summary, this is the most ambitious budget this government has delivered. That might be a low bar, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise, but there are genuine steps forward, particularly for younger generations, and many of these have been driven by the crossbench. But the missed opportunities are significant, and I will keep fighting for the longer-term reforms that we need, to have a tax system and an economy that are fit for the decades to come.

My year 6 and year 7 teacher, Mrs Wilson, in Kambalda, taught me the importance of making a positive difference. I recognise that people who run for federal parliament and are elected into this place do that because they believe in a better Australia—and that is exactly what our mighty Treasurer delivered last night, in last night's budget. This is a government that is not afraid of reform.

As we saw from the announcements yesterday, we are delivering the biggest commitment to housing this country has seen in a generation. For too long, the Australian dream of owning your own home had moved further out of reach, with global uncertainty, with conflict overseas, and, frankly, with housing tax arrangements to which the Albanese government has shown courage to create change during these uncertain times. Doing nothing was not an option. We are coming up with solutions to the housing challenge from every responsible angle. We are building more homes, we are making it better to rent and we are backing first home buyers. And, as announced last night, we are making the system fairer.

I'll start with housing supply. In my electorate of Swan alone, we are delivering 524 new social and affordable homes. Let me just put that in context. When the coalition was in government, they built, over their nine years, across the country, 373 homes. Federally, Labor has committed to 55,000 affordable and social homes. Of those that are being built in my electorate, 487 came from the Housing Australia Future Fund—a fund that the coalition voted against. Despite the coalition's best efforts to stop homes being built, this fund is now delivering for so many Australians. On Friday this week, I will get to turn sod on 50 new units in Victoria Park. Ten of those units will be reserved for older women over the age of 60 who are at risk of homelessness, and this is the fastest-growing group of homeless in Australia. This Housing Australia Future Fund is delivering, on the ground in my electorate, real homes for real people who need them most.

But we know we need more. That's why the Albanese Labor government is investing $2 billion in a new local infrastructure fund. That's $2 billion to build the water, the power, the sewerage and the roads; that will unlock 65,000 more homes across the country, with $500 million of that reserved for regional Australia, because, let's be honest, you can't build a home without connection to electricity and water. This government is making sure that our policy is backed by the funding needed to deliver the homes.

Today I've seen news outlets rage over our tax reform changes. Now, let me be clear. We are a government that listens. We're also a government that acts.

On the weekend, or maybe two weekends ago, there was a straw poll in my community in one of my local councils in the City of South Perth. They said that housing affordability was the No. 1 issue. This is also one of the most affluent parts of my electorate. They want to make sure that we fix housing for this generation and the next.

We are a government that wants to see Australians get into their first home. We're doing this by making the tax system fairer for the next generation of homebuyers. For too long, too many Australians have been locked out of the housing market. Too many young people are working hard and doing everything right, and they still cannot see a path to homeownership. Too many families want nothing more than to get their foot in the door of their own home.

Some will say that these changes don't go far enough. Some will say that they will go too far. But the test is not what the commentary says. Rather, it is whether the system was fairer than what it was. And, under this government, it is. More Australians deserve the chance to own their own homes, and this is what this government is determined to deliver. This is what a serious housing plan looks like. This is what intergenerational fairness looks like. This is what a Labor government looks like.

Without trucks, our great nation comes to a screeching halt. Truck Week 2026 is a national celebration of Australia's heavy vehicle industry. Truck Week is a national initiative that showcases the professionalism, contributions and everyday excellence of the Australian heavy vehicle industry. It returns this year with a truly national focus, bringing together businesses, drivers, workshops, manufacturers, suppliers, communities and schools. A particular highlight is the continued support and leadership of the industry through events like the HVIA TruckShowX, delivered by Todd Hacking and his team at Heavy Vehicle Industry Australia. TruckShowX will be held on 18 and 19 May at Rydges in the Hunter Valley. It's events like this that showcase the very best of the sector—innovations, engineering excellence, safety advancements and the strength of collaboration across the industry. From as far as Western Australia to the eastern seaboard, from Tassie to the Northern Territory, Truck Week is everywhere.

At the heart of it, Truck Week is about recognising the people and the innovations that keep Australia moving every single day. Across one week, this week, workplaces and communities are coming together to host local events that highlight three key themes: first, people—the teams who build, drive, repair and manage our national truck fleet; second, road safety—the commitment to safer roads, safer workplaces and shared responsibility across the entire industry; and, third, innovation—the technology, ideas and solutions shaping the future of the heavy transport industry.

It's fantastic to see more than 80 events already confirmed for Truck Week across the country. That level of participation is a strong signal of just how engaged and proud the heavy vehicle industry is, from drivers and workshops through to manufacturers, suppliers and the broader community. It shows it's not just a campaign but a genuine national movement and moment to recognise an industry that plays a vital role in keeping Australia moving every single day.

Mr Speaker, you will remember that this morning you joined me over on the Senate, where we met Kenny. Kenny is not a person. Kenny is a Kenworth T410 truck, and it was here to promote Truck Week 2026 from one of their sponsors, the Healthy Heads in Trucks & Sheds. From the outset, I acknowledge the great work that Naomi and Ben and all the team at Healthy Heads in Trucks & Sheds do every day to support the health of employees in the transport and logistics sector. They work to bring programs to life to make sure that the resources of Healthy Heads are accessible to organisations right around the country.

Looking ahead, Truck Week also provides a timely lead into National Road Safety Week next week. As we celebrate the people and the technology behind our heavy vehicle industry, it's also an opportunity to reflect on the shared responsibilities we have to all other road users on the road. Truck Week highlights pride and progress in the industry, and National Road Safety Week reminds us all of the importance of vigilance, care and safety for every road user. Together they tell a connected story of an industry that's not only essential to the Australian economy but deeply committed to safety and the community that it serves. Stay safe on the roads and make sure you keep on trucking.

A few days ago, on 9 May, we celebrated World Migratory Bird Day. The theme was 'Every Bird Counts', and it highlighted the important role of community science for the conservation of migratory birds. In Tangney, we are very lucky to have the Friends of Melville Bird Sanctuary, led by volunteers Tom and Jenny, who are strong advocates not only for the migratory birds but also for all 131 different species of birds who use Point Waylen. Work has now been started to rehabilitate and restore the foreshore at Point Waylen, with an $850,000 investment from the Albanese government. It was an election commitment I made a little more than a year ago, and I'm proud that we are already getting started on this important work to improve our environment. The investment will include replanting trees and native vegetation along the Swan River. I was at the foreshore two weeks ago and saw work being done. You could smell the healthy soil, with fresh compost and manure, and, of course, we had the opportunity to see some of the birds who use Point Waylen.

Cleaning up the river is a project that is being backed by $10 million from the federal government's Urban Rivers and Catchments Program to restore the Canning River system. Last month, I checked out progress at Adenia Reserve in Riverton, also in Tangney. This site forms part of the Canning River Tidal Flats Weed Control and Revegetation Project. This is a critical intervention to restore the threatened coastal saltmarshes ecological community. The work happening included the removal of invasive species and targeted revegetation. This important work will improve our ecosystem and support biodiversity. Saltmarshes are one of the superheroes in our effort for a healthy planet. Saltmarshes are part of our blue carbon ecosystem and can help store carbon. The saltmarshes at Adenia Reserve are one of the last remaining examples of this habitat along the Canning River, and restoring this is of great importance.

The federal government also recently awarded a $3.9 million grant to the Re.Group in Tangney to upgrade infrastructure at Canning Vale Material Recovery Facility. New equipment will reduce contamination in the paper and cardboard recycling stream to produce materials that meet Australian standards and comply with the waste export regulations. Recycling has an important impact on our environment, and our government recognises this. Through the Recycling Modernisation Fund, the Albanese Labor government is contributing $29.1 million to 15 different recycling projects in Western Australia.

Community volunteers are involved in many of the projects to safeguard our environment. I am proud to have supported Murdoch Community Garden with a Stronger Communities Program grant to establish a Miyawaki pocket forest at Murdoch University. The students, teachers and community volunteers that make up the community garden hosted a planting day last week. Like other pocket forests, this one is expected to offer greater potential for carbon sequestration and greater biodiversity than traditional methods. The community garden is a safe and inclusive space for students at Murdoch and for the wider community. It is another example of how in Tangney we are engaging with nature and caring for nature.

At this time last night, the Treasurer delivered one of the most uninspiring speeches I have heard in this place. I wondered why. I think maybe it was because the realisation was that he was delivering the crystallisation of a broken promise. Of course, the Prime Minister was sitting there smiling happily, and he would, because he was seeing his successor fail on the national stage. The person most satisfied with last night's speech, of course, was the Minister for Health and Ageing, who's now been outed as the Prime Minister's hand-picked successor.

The problem is this: before the last election, this Labor government ruled out changing capital gains tax and negative gearing, and we're supposed to believe that, in some fanciful way, things have changed so substantially in less than 12 months that they have now decided to break that promise. The Treasurer was on morning television again this morning, this time ruling out taxing the family home and ruling out inheritance taxes. Seriously, who would trust him now!

This budget has crystallised Labor lies, higher taxes, lower living standards and fewer homes. There was a level of delusion in that speech last night that knew no bounds. You see, the Treasurer thinks he is Paul Keating. There were repeated and self-indulgent comparisons to Labor of yesteryear, but the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are not a patch on the Labor greats that they seek to emulate. The true historical comparison of this Labor budget is that it cements this Labor government's place as the highest-taxing government Australia has ever had.

The big play in this budget was housing. Labor's budget papers confirm exactly what the coalition have been saying—that higher taxes will mean fewer homes. Page 158 of the budget papers reveals that Labor's new housing taxes will lead to 35,000 fewer homes. Labor promised more homes; instead, all we got was more taxes. The objective of all of this is to add 75,000 additional first home buyers. It's an admirable goal, although none of us can trust the forecasts that this government puts forward. That's 7,500 additional first home buyers per year, but let's give that some context. Under the current system, without any change, we would expect that there would be about 1.2 million first home buyers purchasing a home in a business-as-usual scenario. So what we're seeing is a very small upside with a very high risk. This government and this Treasurer are prepared to tip over a well-settled tax system on speculation of a six per cent return.

As much as anything in these budget speeches it's about what is not said, and the one thing that the Treasurer did not mention last night was migration—not once. Now, why wouldn't he mention migration? I'll tell you why. It's because migration has caused part of their housing crisis. You cannot fix this housing crisis while ignoring population pressure. The budget confirms that net overseas migration is still forecast at 295,000 in 2025-26 and 245,000 in 2026-27. This is adding to the already 1.4 million people that Labor has added over its time in office.

The other word that got a big run last night was 'war'—the conflict in the Middle East. Do you know what, Speaker? The budgetary difficulties that this government finds itself in are a result of four years of poor economic management, not four months of a conflict in the Middle East. This Treasurer should be ashamed of what he has done to the Australian people. It is only a coalition government that will protect Australians' way of life and restore their standard of living.

Over the last quarter of a century, beginning with the September 11 twin towers attacks in New York, the world has gone from one crisis to another. Major conflicts in so many parts of the world, the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2009, the 2013 to 2017 ISIS years, the COVID pandemic between 2020 and 2023, the war in Ukraine and now the attack on Iran have all caused disruption and uncertainty throughout the world. Living costs have risen everywhere, and there is a growing global humanitarian crisis that impacts every country, including Australia. Governments and political leaders are now frequently toppled, whilst political divisions grow wider. Meanwhile, the superwealthy accumulate even more of the world's money.

It is in that context that the Albanese government's 2026-27 budget was framed and why it is a responsible budget for the times. No government could have managed the Australian economy better than what the Albanese government has done over the past four years. Whilst the critics scramble to find flaws in the budget, they fail to articulate credible alternatives.

Importantly, the 2026-27 budget is not just a temporary fix to the economic stresses and financial pressures people face today but provides long-term enduring reforms for the Australian economy. All this has been achieved whilst the Albanese government delivers substantive long-term cost-of-living support and social justice reforms to communities throughout Australia, including but not limited to the $10.7 billion long-term fuel security investment, 137 bulk-billing Medicare Urgent care clinics to take the pressure off hospitals while saving out-of-pocket gap payments for patients and the 20 per cent cut to student HECS debts. It also includes making free TAFE permanent; introducing tax cuts for all working Australians; cutting the price of medicines; investing $47 billion into housing; securing Australian fuel supplies and increasing fuel reserves right now, whilst cutting fuel excise by over 50 per cent for three months; increasing defence spending; providing another $25 billion for public hospitals and $5.9 billion to list new medicines on the PBS.

In my home state of South Australia, public hospitals will receive a total of $15.2 billion over five years, which is an additional $2 billion in funding. There have now been over 15,000 visits to the Para Hills Medicare Urgent Care Clinic in Makin since its opening on 1 October 2024. There are also now 16 Medicare bulk-billing practices in the Makin electorate, an increase of 10 since Labor's bulk-billing changes. That all equates to people receiving better health care with fewer out-of-pocket costs.

Of course, some hard decisions had to be taken in the budget, and I accept that some people will be disappointed with some proposed changes. In particular, tightening the NDIS eligibility rules and benefits will impact NDIS recipients. However, the scheme is simply unsustainable under its current trajectory. Similarly, the reduction in the private health insurance rebate for those over 65 years of age to around 24 per cent, which brings it in line with the rebate for everyone else, will mean people over 65 years of age will pay on average $240 a year more for private health cover.

The other notable tax changes are negative gearing, capital gains tax and discretionary trusts. The proposal is that, from 1 July 2027, negative gearing for residential property investments will be limited to new builds and the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for individuals, trusts and partnerships will be replaced with cost indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax rate on capital gains. These changes are prospective. Properties held before the announcement will be exempt from the negative gearing changes. Additionally, investors who buy new builds will be able to choose either the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount or indexation and the minimum tax when they sell their property. These changes commence on 1 July 2027.

For discretionary trusts, which have enabled a lower tax rate through income splitting, the government is introducing a 30 per cent minimum tax from 1 July 2028.

These changes are fair, reasonable and consistent with the Albanese government's strive to deliver intergenerational equity. And I expect to say a lot more about the budget in speeches in the coming days.

House adjourned at 19:59

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 09:30.

I want to raise the issue of the Defence announcement around the partial divestment of HMAS Penguin. HMAS Penguin is far more than a line in the Defence property portfolio. First and foremost, it continues to deliver critical navy capabilities to Australia. It is also public land with significant environmental, military and cultural heritage, and it forms part of the living fabric of Warringah and the broader Sydney Harbour. On Friday 8 May, our community came together at Mosman Art Gallery to raise our views and get some further information from the department.

I thank them for coming and for this public consultation, but it felt very much like too little, too late, as what was made clear was that the decision to partially divest had already been made. The question around this government's decision to partially divest the site and its use raises many concerns. There is a huge lack of clarity around what assessment has genuinely been done and the cost-benefit assessment that has been undertaken in relation to HMAS Penguin's existing Defence capabilities. Some capabilities have been assessed as critical and are proposed to remain on the site. That includes Navy clearance diver training and an underwater medicine unit. Others that have always been co-located in this site for a very good reason have been determined as 'not being critical' and can be relocated. But there has been no transparency under the alleged actual cost-benefit assessment of that relocation. What is suspected is that there is very little cost-benefit; it's actually a convenience for Defence, and other costs will be incurred in other places.

I've submitted a freedom of information request to see greater transparency about the assessments underpinning this proposal. The community deserves to know how the real costs, the operational impact and the rationale behind breaking up capabilities that have been co-located at HMAS Penguin for a reason. These assets are also not held by Defence just as an asset to be sold off to the highest bidder. These are held in trust for the Australian people. That has occurred over a very long period of time, and any decision to partially divest or divest in full has to be really justified. Before any divestment proceeds, Defence and the government must clearly explain what capabilities are being retained, what capabilities will be impacted, what is being moved and what the cost-benefit will, in fact, be.

The site includes some bushland—an Angophora forest that has not been utilised and is not considered critical. But that doesn't mean it lacks public value. It's remnant bushland, part of the ecological character of Sydney Harbour, and must be protected and conserved. It cannot just be divested and sold to the highest bidder to ensure we have luxury accommodation. There is a strong view in the community that that Angophora forest should either be put into the care of New South Wales national parks or into the Sydney Harbour Trust for conservation. There are many, many questions in relation to this partial divestment, and I urge the government to provide transparency.

Tucked away in the quiet, leafy streets of Flemington, there's a small but mighty institution: the Farnham Street Neighbourhood Learning Centre. For 37 years, Farnham Street has operated under the stewardship of the incomparable Cathy Connop. Cathy is a force of nature and a true leader in our community. She has, for more than three decades, provided a safe and nurturing place for people seeking connection, dignity and support. Sadly for us, Cathy has decided to call time on her extraordinary career at Farnham Street. I had the pleasure of attending her farewell event, and it was packed. That turnout alone spoke volumes about the incredible woman we were there to farewell. The stories shared, the smiles filled with affection and the deep respect in the room said everything that words sometimes can't. Thank you, Cathy, for the sacrifices, the service and the unwavering commitment that you made to our small place in the world just to make it that a little bit better, especially for those most vulnerable.

From one end of the electorate to the other, I'm continually reminded that it's the small but mighty institutions that hold our communities together. Another such place is the Tullamarine Men's Shed, which I recently had the pleasure of visiting. There I was greeted by the sprightly contingent led by Peter Agnew and Alan Dyer, who proudly showed me around the shed and talked to me about the many projects they were working on. Over lunch they shared just how important the shed is in their lives not just as a place to work with their hands but as a place to connect. I have spoken in this place before about the importance of men's sheds. Every visit I make reinforces that message. These sheds play a vital role in supporting men's health, reducing isolation and strengthening the fabric of our local communities.

Speaking of community, there is no greater example of that community spirit than on Anzac Day. I'm privileged to represent an electorate that is home to three incredible RSLs: Essendon RSL, Flem/Ken RSL and Keilor East RSL. Each club does important work in keeping our community connected and providing a safe place for local veterans and their families to gather. On Anzac Day, it was an honour to join thousands of locals at the dawn service hosted by Keilor East RSL and, earlier that week, the Moonee Valley Anzac Day service, hosted in partnership with the Essendon RSL. It was a profound opportunity to pay my respects, on behalf of the people of Maribyrnong, to those men and women and their families for the sacrifices they have made for our nation, especially the many local heroes who have served in past conflicts. I want to also acknowledge the Anglican Parish of Christ Church Essendon's Anzac Day church service, an opportunity for members of faith within our community to pay their respects on our nation's most solemn day. My electorate has a deep connection with Australia's military history, and our local community has a deep sense of pride and respect for our service men and women. No more is that on display than on Anzac Day.

Last night, the Labor government chose the gas industry. More than three in five Australians support a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. They know we're being ripped off and they want gas corporations to pay their fair share. Only one in 20 Australians oppose it—two-thirds support it—and yet here we are, the morning after the budget, and there's no tax on gas exports. We live in a democracy, and yet it's clear that the will of the people can be superseded by large, powerful corporations and their billionaire owners. Their interests simply matter more to the government than the interests of the majority of Australians.

With the $17 billion that this tax would raise per year, we could make a real difference in people's lives. $17 billion is almost double the entire federal budget for housing. Imagine how many public and affordable homes we could build with that. Imagine fully funding our health services, like putting dental and mental cover into Medicare. Imagine using it to wipe student debt.

It's not like the alternative is any better. Not just Labor but both major parties have repeatedly chosen the gas industry over Australian people. What kind of democracy is this? I'm serious. What kind of democracy is it where two-thirds of Australians can support a policy and the government reject it, where massive gas corporations can legally shovel millions of dollars into the coffers of the major parties and buy influence, and where lobbyists for gas corporations can run their talking points with senior ministers and staffers to the point where the government starts parroting them like they're gospel?

What kind of democracy is it where these same lobbyists can literally buy access to these ministers—something a normal person could never do, could never afford—and where senior staff, ministers and even state premiers go on to work for the gas lobby as soon as they finish their political career? Some current representatives even worked in senior positions in these corporations right up until being elected. It is a revolving door.

What kind of democracy is it where our resources and our wealth are practically given away for free to these corporations? Ordinary people are paying more tax than these corporations. In fact, many of these corporations pay no tax at all. This is our government. This is our wealth. But both are being captured by these massive corporations. This Labor government was supposed to act with more integrity than the Morrison government. It's more of the same. Well, I think it's time for a change.

As a member of the federal Labor government, I understand the power that education can have to positively shape the future of Australians and the opportunities that open through furthering tertiary education. It was with tremendous honour that I had the privilege to officially open, alongside my local, state and federal counterparts, including the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, the new University of Newcastle Gosford campus.

This transformative new educational facility in the heart of the Gosford CBD will provide new learning and study opportunities to thousands of local students. It will also mean that more students living on the Central Coast will be able to study closer to home without having to travel to Newcastle to complete their degrees. The collaboration that occurred between the federal and state governments, along with the university, underscores what we can achieve when we work together. The project was funded through $18 million from both the Australian and New South Wales governments, with the University of Newcastle contributing $31.1 million towards the campus development.

The University of Newcastle Gosford campus will offer several degrees in critical sectors where there are skills shortages, including health care and education, and provide enabling courses for those looking to access tertiary education. Since officially opening its doors, there are currently 1,200 students undertaking their degrees at the campus, with further capacity to grow. It is truly exciting, and it's an exciting time for the University of Newcastle and its presence on the Central Coast, with the recent announcement that it has purchased the old council chambers in Gosford to convert them into student accommodation. Once fully refurbished and brought up to standard, the new student accommodation tower in Gosford will be home to 127 students, representing another phenomenal investment in education, infrastructure and services on the Central Coast.

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, for supporting the opening of this fantastic new learning space and for his exceptional remarks on the day recognising the power of education in changing people's lives. I also thank Professor Alex Zelinsky AO, vice-chancellor and president of the University of Newcastle, for all his contributions in supporting this project from its early days right up to the opening—Professor Zelinsky is a huge advocate for the Central Coast—and for improving access to education in the region. Lastly, I thank the Hon. Patricia Forsythe AM, chancellor of the University of Newcastle, for her commitment to the new Gosford campus and for her continuing support for increasing educational opportunities for the people of the Central Coast.

I rise today to call on the Albanese and Cook governments to better support regional business owners following natural disasters. In March, northern Western Australia was devastated by Severe Tropical Cyclone Narelle. The damage was particularly felt by small and family businesses in Exmouth and the surrounding areas. Small and family businesses rely heavily on tourism in this region as the gateway to the beautiful Ningaloo Reef, employing backpackers and locals to meet demand through the peak tourism season. Disappointingly, many of these businesses have been unable to access financial support from the state or federal governments.

On my recent visit to the area, following Tropical Cyclone Narelle, I heard firsthand the genuine concern from business owners regarding their survival over the coming period. While many tourism and accommodation providers have thankfully been given further support, other retail businesses have been left to pick themselves up and navigate this next difficult period, all the while facing an increase in the cost of doing business due to the damage caused by Cyclone Narelle. Every business in Exmouth is a tourism business. From the local cafe to the tackle shop or the local IGA, all of them are reliant upon tourism. Without visitors, they do not survive.

This is just another example of Labor turning their backs on regional Western Australians and those in the private sector. No government of either side of politics should discriminate against small businesses in natural disaster support. Now is not the time to pick and choose who gets support and who does not. Simply put, it is un-Australian and unjustified. Small businesses do more than just stimulate the economy. They provide jobs for locals, provide essential goods and services for the community and promote belonging and gathering. Quite simply, they deserve better from this government.

Now to the disastrous budget we heard last night—Labor has built taxes off broken promises, not necessarily targeting the wealthy, as they would have you believe, but targeting mum-and-dad investors in regional Western Australia. Shame on Labor. We've seen the Treasurer and the Prime Minister spouting that changes to negative gearing are to help young people to get into their own homes. Well, what a nonsense! Labor's own budget papers show 35,000 fewer houses, higher rents and sadly the end of aspiration in this country—what a ridiculous thing! Thirty-nine per cent of dwellings in Durack are rented. Those 25,000 renters are now, thanks to Labor, paying more in a cost-of-living crisis. As with everything Labor does, politics comes first. Better outcomes for regional Western Australians come very last.

Well, it's been just over a year since I was re-elected by my community in Gilmore as their representative here in the federal parliament. Over the past 12 months, I'm so proud of what the Albanese Labor government has delivered for my region, including a new Medicare urgent care clinic in Nowra, which has seen more than 2,000 people in the first two months of operation. We've also announced that a Seahawk helicopter, AKA Nowra's 'chopper on a stick', will be returning to the town's gateway after being selected as the preferred option by community vote. Next week, the impressive and long awaited Jervis Bay flyover will be open to traffic, marking a significant milestone in the upgrade of the Princes Highway on the New South Wales South Coast.

One of the most critical projects now under way in the Shoalhaven is the provision of transitional housing for women and children escaping family and domestic violence, delivered by SASSI and supported by the Albanese Labor government's Housing Australia Future Fund Crisis and Transitional Program. The project has received $10.2 million in federal funding to purchase 15 homes, which are currently being upgraded. The six two-bedroom and nine three-bedroom units are in an ideal location for women and children to restart their lives in a safe and connected environment, with health care and community services nearby and a bus stop outside the property. There are playgrounds and schools close by. This critical housing project will help at least 15 local families every single year. SASSI will also provide specialist domestic and family violence case management throughout their tenancy and beyond, coordinated from an on-site office, ensuring residents have ready access to support, referrals and practical assistance. Each independent, self-contained home has a fully fenced yard for safe play, and the dwellings are pet friendly, recognising the important role pets play in recovery from trauma.

These homes are some of the social and affordable homes the Albanese Labor government is delivering through its $45 billion housing plan. Already, more than 700 first home buyers across the South Coast have purchased their own home under the five per cent deposit scheme. We're working with states, territories and industry to remove barriers to building more homes, and we're training more tradies through free TAFE and the $10,000 apprenticeship incentives, including 390 across the South Coast. Today, I want to say thank you to SASSI for providing safe and secure homes for vulnerable women and children and also helping them stabilise their lives and prepare for sustainable, long-term independence in our community.

Labor's fifth budget is a budget of broken promises—broken promises on tax, broken promises on the cost of living and broken promises to the regional Australians who feed this nation, fuel this nation and build this nation. It betrays the bush. Labor have said they wouldn't raise your taxes. They have—$50 billion in higher taxes, including $15 billion ripped straight out of the pockets of working Australians through higher personal income tax. And who pays the price for this? It's families in Shepparton, farmers across the Goulburn Valley, small business owners on every main street from Kilmore to Cobram.

But it gets worse, because, while Labor are taking more from the regions, they are giving less back. Across this budget, regional Australia has been hit with at least $11 billion in cuts: $6.5 billion gone from the Inland Rail, a project that would have taken 200,000 trucks off our roads and saved $280 million of diesel every single year; $4.7 billion gone from infrastructure; $100 million from the National Water Grid; and nearly $200 million gone from biosecurity, drought support and regional trade for our farmers.

Australians wanted relief from the high cost of living. Instead, we have inflation heading to five per cent, and energy, food, insurance and rental costs are soaring. A typical family with a mortgage is $32,000 a year worse off, and that's only going to get worse. Real wages are going backwards, living standards are going backwards, and the government response is more taxes, including changes to capital gains tax that they repeatedly said, before the election, would not happen. The people of Nicholls did not vote for this, and they did not vote for higher taxes, broken promises, cuts to their communities and a government that thinks cities matter more than regional Australians.

Now, I don't carp for the sake of it, and, if there is something good in the budget, I will acknowledge it. There is money in this budget to accelerate supporting infrastructure to open up land for housing. That was a coalition policy taken to the last election. This is a lot less money than what we had promised, but it's a step in the right direction in terms of housing developments. There is finally some money in the Growing Regions and Stronger Communities grant funds, but, overwhelmingly, this is a bad budget. And the intergenerational equity argument is a fallacy, given that young Australians are going to be paying for this government's reckless and unproductive spending for most of their working lives.

Housing changes lives. It provides safety, security, a place you can put down roots and build a brighter future. But, for decades, too many Australians have been locked out of the housing market. A longstanding shortage has made homes unaffordable, and our tax settings have made it worse. Housing has become an investment rather than a place to live. The reforms in this budget build on our work to change that, lifting our total investment in housing to a record $47 billion.

Already, our five per cent deposit scheme for first home buyers has helped more than 300,000 Australians previously locked out of the housing market into a home of their own. In my electorate, that number was 583 at last count. I met Codie in Rosebery in September 2024, who told me she bought her $690,000 new home with a five per cent deposit. We're also backing tax reform to help another 75,000 Australians realise that dream.

Beyond levelling the playing field, we're doing crucial work to address housing supply. The member for Nicholls was talking about new investment in infrastructure as though the coalition invented that policy. They said they'd go to the last election with a policy to do that. Well, we had a policy to do that under the Rudd government—$502 million at that time for the Housing Affordability Fund. It helped with projects like Plantation Palms in Mackay, where 400 homebuyers saved $20,000 each, and Edmondson Park, where 88 homes got a $25,000 rebate—hundreds of thousands of people helped then. We're also working with states to cut red tape and planning delays, to build tens of thousands of new homes.

And, of course, there's our $1.2 billion investment into crisis and transitional housing, which the member for Gilmore was talking about earlier. We're supporting people, particularly groups like women and children fleeing domestic violence, to find stable and safe accommodation in times of need. In my electorate of Sydney, we are already seeing those homes change lives. In 2024, Bridge Housing in Glebe opened its doors—stable, affordable homes. Last year, I opened the Boronia Apartments, a social housing project in Waterloo, with the state housing minister, Rose Jackson, who's doing such a great job. Last month, alongside Minister Clare O'Neil, we opened the new accommodation for the Haymarket Centre, helping people who have been homeless, many of them with mental health conditions or drug and alcohol dependence—beautiful new homes to provide them with a safe place to rebuild their lives. Living there has been a life-changing experience for people like Georgia, who I met on that day.

The Inland Rail is a nation-building project designed to strengthen Australia's supply chains, reduce freight congestion, improve road safety and deliver long-term economic growth for regional communities. From the very beginning, I have consistently advocated for the extension of the Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone because regional Australia deserves infrastructure that serves an entire nation, not just the capital cities. Yet, in this year's budget, the Labor government confirmed what regional communities feared most and have effectively abandoned the Inland Rail project. Instead of completing this transformational freight corridor and delivering the benefits promised to regional Australians, the Labor government has chosen to cut funding and walk away halfway through this project. This decision is not just short-sighted; it's a direct blow to Central Queensland, to regional businesses, to road safety and to the future productivity of our country.

The Flynn electorate is the economic engine room of Australia—or at least one of the economic engine rooms of Australia. Our highways include the Bruce, Burnett, Capricorn, Dawson and Leichhardt highways, and these are among the nation's most critical freight routes. But they are also under immense strain. The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads' crash data shows that, across these five highways, just within the Flynn electorate, 2,125 crashes resulted in fatalities or hospitalisations. On the Bruce Highway alone, 96 crashes resulted in 112 fatalities, and a staggering 56 per cent of those fatal crashes involved 63 trucks. The Inland Rail was projected to remove about 200,000 truck movements from our roads every year, while saving approximately 280 million litres of diesel annually. And that is why I support the efforts to move more freight from road to rail.

Labor's own Transport Resilience and Capacity Kickstart program acknowledges the importance of shifting freight onto rail networks, yet somehow Labor can't see the value in completing the Inland Rail itself. So I ask: why don't the lives lost on our regional roads factor into Labor's calculations? Why are regional Australians expected to carry the burden while billions of dollars are redirected elsewhere?

While Labor make cuts to Inland Rail, they have handed Victorian Labor a $3.8 billion bailout for Melbourne's Suburban Rail Loop, a project expected to cost more than $200 billion. This government's infrastructure priorities are being driven by political deals in capital cities and not by the economic and safety needs of regional and rural Australia.

I recently had the pleasure of joining the Darley community to celebrate the upgrade of Federation Park—fantastic new facilities for local families, backed by $400,000 from the Albanese Labor government. The works have genuinely transformed the reserve. It's the kind of upgrade that makes a real difference to how families actually use and enjoy the space over the weekend. It is more accessible, safer and has nice dunnies—a much better day out overall. I was also thrilled to join the Victorian member for Eureka, Michaela Settle, at the Bacchus Marsh Racecourse and Recreation Reserve to kick off construction of the new Community and Multi-Sports Hub. Four million dollars from the federal government's Thriving Suburbs Program and $4½ million from the Victorian state government will deliver a facility that serves our whole community for years to come.

Anzac Day is always one of the most important days on our community calendar, and this year was no different. I attended the Ballan RSL dawn and afternoon services, the Melton RSL service and the Melton Christian College commemorative service. Wreaths were laid on my behalf in Bulla, in Bacchus Marsh and at Sunbury RSL. I also want to acknowledge the Blackwood and Myrniong communities for their own local services. The effort that goes into every single one of these ceremonies—the early starts, the volunteer hours, the dedication to getting it right—makes a huge difference. To every veteran and service organisation across Hawke: thank you for your enormous contribution and for the incredible work that you do to make sure that we remember those that serve our nation.

I give a big shout-out to Principal Andrew Harrison and the students at Pentland Primary School, who recently hosted the Speaker of the House of Representatives for a session on civics and democracy. Seeing young people asking great questions and thinking about what kind of country they want to grow up in was one of the highlights of my month.

Finally, I have a big shout out to Harley Elliott from Sunbury. Harley's 10 years old. In 2025 he organised a fundraising campaign, running 30 kays in 30 days, every single day in rain, hail or shine. He raised over $8,000 for family violence awareness. He and his mum, Ash, did their own marketing. They engaged schools, students and councils and spoke publicly to educate people all across our community. He also volunteers at a local aged-care home, visiting residents, delivering gifts and sharing his stories of the day. I've had the privilege of joining Harley for two runs. He's now on a mission to raise awareness and money for Dolly's Dream, a charity that provides prevention programs and response strategies to address bullying. He's an inspiring young man making a big difference in our community, and it's no surprise that Harley was named a finalist in the 7NEWS Young Achiever Awards. Harley, Hawke is very proud of you, mate. Keep it up.

Right across my electorate last night, people were eagerly watching the budget to see what was in it for them. The good news is that there's $250 in the budget for them, but the $250 doesn't come soon. It doesn't come this week, doesn't come next month and doesn't come before the end of the financial year or next year. It actually comes in the second half of 2028, where, if you count on your fingers whether or not that is going to be after or before the next federal election, you would comfortably say that it's going to be after.

The budget was riddled with more broken promises. Broken promise after broken promise is what this government has delivered with absolute consistency. Remember the $275 electricity relief we were going to get, espoused on over 200 occasions? Electricity prices are soaring 40 per cent across the nation. It's out of control. Labor also promised $43 billion to help housing construction, but, when you go and have a chat to the guys at Housing Industry Australia, when we were in office, we were building on average between 200,000 and 220,000 houses a year. Under this government, with their failed settings, it's 180,000.

They've set this forecast of 1.2 million homes to be built out into the future. It'll be yet another broken promise. For them to reach that target, mathematically, they'd have to have been doing around 220,000 now on average. With the falling in the numbers, they've got to be doing around 240,000 houses a year. That's higher than any year of housing growth ever in this country. You cannot trust Labor. Remember, 'My word is my bond' and, 'We won't be touching stage 3'? We got stage 2.5 tax cuts, where Labor banked $26 billion into the outward years. You just cannot trust Labor.

Labor are the highest-spending government in 40 years outside the pandemic. The reason that they are the highest-spending government is that one of the line items is the most bloated public service. No other country in the world has more public servants per capita than Australia. It's 15 public servants for every 100 people. It's more than any country in the OECD. They'll tell you that they've banked $221 billion in savings, but they've actually spent $324 billion. This is a deficit, and you can't trust Labor.

Last night the Albanese Labor government handed down its most ambitious budget yet—a budget of resilience and reform, one that helps Australians through a global oil shock, with real cost-of-living relief right now, while building a stronger, fairer economy for the longer term. I want to talk about what this budget means for Canberrans. Since coming to office, our government has committed more than $4 billion to the ACT, and this budget builds on that record. There will be 260,000 working Canberrans receiving a new tax cut of up to $250 through the working Australians tax offset. On top of that, 140,000 Canberrans will benefit from a new $1,000 instant tax deduction.

The budget also makes housing fairer. We're reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax arrangements to ensure that more young Australians will have the opportunity to buy their first home—this is something that many Canberrans have raised with me—and we're putting in $50 million for the ACT's share of the local infrastructure fund to unlock more housing supply, building the power, roads and drains needed for new housing developments.

We're also investing $30 million for a new RSPCA animal welfare campus at Pialligo. The RSPCA is a much-loved and very important organisation in our community. We're investing $50 million, matched by the ACT and New South Wales governments, to upgrade the Canberra to Sydney rail link—something that has been a long time coming. Our national institutions are receiving an additional $20.2 million so they can continue to do their vital work of telling our nation's story. In that, it includes $9.9 million for the National Film and Sound Archive and $3 million for the Museum of Australian Democracy as it prepares for its centenary. We're ensuring that the CSIRO's groundbreaking research continues with an additional $387.4 million of funding on top of the extra $278 million announced last year. And for small business, we've made the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent.

For people considering switching to an electric vehicle, we've locked in the FTB discounts until 2029 and beyond. We know that the stronger the uptake of EVs, the less exposed we are to shocks when oil prices spike. On that front, we're also building long-term fuel resilience by increasing our fuel reserves to 50 days and we're requiring gas companies to reserve 20 per cent of their supply to the Australian market.

The 2026 budget is a strong Labor budget, one that makes Australians more resilient and builds an economy that works for everyone. I'm also really proud of a measure in the budget that is helping more young Australians avoid homelessness. We know that too many young Australians are facing homelessness and that young people have no chance of building their futures if they don't have a stable home, and so I'm really proud that we are investing in helping social housing to make that fairer.

Since we were last in parliament we commemorated Anzac Day across Australia. I was very proud to attend some local services: the Northern Gold Coast RSL, who held their dawn service at Helensvale; the TriCare centre at Runaway Bay, who held a service; the Ormeau-Pimpama community service, which is held at the war memorial in the community there; and the Runaway Bay RSL mid-morning service. It was a wonderful time for Australians to reflect on the contribution that's been made by those brave men and women who have given so much in the service of our country.

I was very happy to attend the annual end-of-season presentation for the Runaway Bay Little Athletics club. The club's been around for more than 45 years and it's 100 per cent run by volunteers, which is no easy feat because there's about 450 athletes that are now participating. So, in true athletics fashion, I'm going to run against the clock here and run through the volunteer committee that are so amazing at what they do. Here we go: Rene Doel, Nikki Durre, David Synge, Rebecca Kreuger, Gavin Johnston, Shannon Morrison, Lisa Cebulski, Hayley Plymin, Sean Sandford, Menetta O'Reilly, Kathleen Norman and coming in last, but not least, Paul Molesworth. Thank you to all of the committee who do such a wonderful job in giving the young kids at Runaway Bay Little Athletics such a wonderful opportunity to participate in that great sport.

I recently visited the Jacobs Well Neighbourhood Police Beat. I spent some time there with Senior Constable Zoe and Senior Constable Danielle, who also invited along some members of the wonderful Jacob's Well community, the local publican Mal, some local real estate agents and members of the progress association. It was great to see the heart of our little community there in Jacobs Well paying credit to the wonderful and important work that's done by those two local police officers, Zoe and Danielle. One of the tributes to what they've done is the story of Bailey, who is a dog that was rescued from the waters off Jacobs Well by Zoe when she was out doing a water police patrol. And, in true fashion, that dog has now been adopted by Zoe and is part of the Jacobs Well police beat family. So to all of our wonderful community out in Jacobs Well, a big hello to you from Canberra.

Last week I visited the Assisi Catholic College in Coomera for an important presentation to Jamili, who has been selected as the first ever youth member for Fadden in the National Youth Parliament. It was great to recognise her achievement in having put forward such a compelling case in a competitive field to be selected as that youth member, and I wish her well for the year ahead.

I want to recognise the outstanding finalists from the Hunter electorate in the 2026 Hunter Region Business Excellence Awards. This year, the Hunter electorate absolutely dominated these awards. We have had by far the greatest number of nominations and the greatest number of finalists anywhere across the region. And that comes to no surprise for those of us that know Hunter best. We know that, when it comes to hard work, innovation, resilience and community spirit, nobody does it better than the people and the businesses of the Hunter.

I want to congratulate all the finalists: Anytime Fitness Kuri Kuri, Australian Wildlife Parks, Beyond Ballooning, Bridgestone Select Tyre and Auto Huntlee, Dragonfly Cakes, HarmonyHive HR, Hunter Health Insurance, Hunter Valley Flooring Xtra, Hunter Valley Stays Australia, Hunter Valley Taxico, Hunter Valley Tours, Ingenia Holidays Hunter Valley, Initial Response Group, KFIT and Body, Kissofire Hunter Valley Butterscotch, McCaffrey's Estate, Mountainside Counselling, SK Podiatry Plus, Newcastle Counselling Services, Peterson House, Reformed Bookkeeper, Just ROLL with it Huntlee, Ruthless Rituals, Sidecar Roasters, Vintage Connections, Huntlee Fitness, Wine Fairy Events, Adina Vineyard and Olive Grove, Morgan Engineering, Scott Porter Gardens, Springhill Beef Co. and Vines Restaurant at Hollydene Estate Wines.

These businesses are the backbones of our communities. They are the businesses sponsoring the local footy teams, employing the local workers, backing local events and keeping our regional economy strong. From small family run enterprises through to major employers, these finalists reflect the very best of what the Hunter has to offer. The Hunter isn't just Australia's energy heartland. It's also home to some of the most innovative, customer focused and community minded businesses anywhere in this country. Whether it's tourism, manufacturing, hospitality, health, agriculture, trades or professional services, businesses in the Hunter continue to punch well above their weight. These awards recognise businesses that go the extra mile, businesses that back themselves, businesses that understand success comes from hard work and great community values.

While the winners will be announced on 29 May, every finalist has already done their community proud simply by earning recognition in such a competitive field. At a time when regional businesses continue to face rising costs and economic pressures, it's important to recognise the enormous contributions they all make. To every finalist I say thank you. Thank you for backing the Hunter, employing local people and continuing to prove that our region remains one of the greatest economic powerhouses this country has ever had. Thank you all.

I'm looking forward this Saturday to attending the Rural Fire Service medallion presentations at Murrumbateman, and there'll be a number of long-serving firefighters who will be acknowledged and recognised for the decades that they have volunteered to the RFS and to keeping their community safe. I will be catching up with Katie Anderson and others, the district administrator there.

No doubt I will be told when I'm at Murrumbateman that the duplication of the Barton highway is still very, very important. It's been completely neglected and rejected once again in last night's budget by Labor. I do well remember when the now member for Eden-Monaro at her by-election promised $140 million. The only bitumen that has been laid on the duplication of the Barton Highway was put there by me as the Deputy Prime Minister and infrastructure minister, and we haven't yet seen the money that Labor promised in that by-election materialise. We haven't seen it become bitumen. The duplication of the Barton Highway is necessary. So many people, so many public servants indeed from Canberra, are now choosing to have the lifestyle of living in the Yass Valley. It's a beautiful area, it's picturesque, but we have to get that final section of the Barton duplicated. Anything less is simply not good enough.

I spent more than a week on prepolls at Farrer, and you get plenty of free and frank and fair advice. Of course, the Murray-Darling Basin is something close to the hearts of all those people in Farrer. Seeing $103 million cut from the National Water Grid last night is something that they will find very difficult to stomach. I know the Nationals put on the table $30 million to improve the water quality at Narrandera. I don't think that money will now see the light of day, given last night's budget and what happened in that election on Saturday. But we will fight on, and we will always protect our country constituents, whether they are under a Nationals banner or not. Hopefully we'll be able to form government at the next election and make sure that Narrandera gets the water quality it needs for drinking, for bathing and for washing.

We saw also $10 billion cut from regional infrastructure—$6.15 billion from the Inland Rail and $4.7 billion from infrastructure spending as a whole. Our councils cannot sustain the road maintenance. Our regional roads are crumbling. This is leading to a higher road toll. It's simply not good enough, and shame on Labor for last night's budget, rejecting regional Australia once again.

The Albanese Labor government is firmly focused on delivering for Australians, and that includes young Australians. I have to say, whether it is making it easier to get into homeownership, whether it's the investment in TAFE or whether it is ensuring that young people are able to get job opportunities, particularly in my home of South Australia, it is the Labor government delivering. I did want to highlight a couple of things.

One thing in particular is the AUKUS project, which not only provides a huge defence capability for our country but so many job opportunities for South Australians not just today, not just tomorrow, but for decades to come. The investment in last night's budget really continues that work to ensure that it's delivering. There is investment in South Australia's critical infrastructure. Not only do we continue to see the North-South Corridor investment but I'm really pleased that this will have over 600 apprenticeships, ensuring that that investment not only improves South Australia's infrastructure remarkedly but invests in our young people. It builds on, for example, the recent opening of the duplication of Main South Road from Seaford to Sellicks, which is now open, which supported 30 apprenticeships. So we are using government money to build infrastructure and support apprentices as well.

In my local community, the Strong and Resilient Communities program is partnering with the City of Onkaparinga on Ignite Futures, designed to support young people aged 15 to 18, helping them build confidence, acquire the relevant skills and establish pathways to meaningful employment. An exciting part of the Ignite Futures initiative is the Future Makers 2.0 program, a 12-week startup program that is offering aspiring young entrepreneurs valuable mentorship with local businesses, along with seed funding to get them started. Renata, a young entrepreneur with an interest in fashion and design, is excited to participate in this program to gain knowledge about starting and growing her own business. Young people are making a difference every day. We as a government are investing in young people.

Finally, I wanted to give a shout-out to all those young people that came out at Anzac Day for our youth vigil. They stood guard at the memorial overnight to lead into the dawn service. I thank Callum Barrott-Walsh, an aspiring young leader, all the committee, along with all those volunteers and young people that made it possible.

It is with an extraordinarily heavy heart that I make my contribution here today because in this building there's quite often a lot of political point scoring and partisan political grandstanding. But, when it comes to the issue of the Support at Home program, the minister and the government need to understand there is a crisis in our communities right now. I'm not here today to try and score a political point. I'm here today to say to the minister: 'Please listen to us. Listen to the cries for help from Australian families and older Australians who are literally dying in their own homes waiting for support to arrive.'

Just over, I think, six weeks ago, in the last sitting period, I raised my concerns about a 99-year-old couple by the names of Frank and Valma living in Paynesville. Frank and Valma were assessed as being eligible for Support at Home packages. Remember, I said they were 99 years old. They were told they would have to wait between eight and 12 months to receive that support to stay in their own homes—eight to 12 months and they were 99 years old. We warned the government and warned the minister that there was a very real risk they might die waiting for help. That's what's happened. Frank has died. Before I got a response from the minister on 21 April, Frank died on 14 April. These are the real consequences. There have been 4,800 people who have died on the waiting list for Support at Home packages in the last 12 months. I never met Frank—I spoke to his son—but I do know he deserved better than this.

It took the minister 74 days to respond to my letter. When I say 'respond to my letter', I don't know if the minister read the letter, because this minister, the Minister for Health, Disability and Ageing, doesn't actually sign his letters. His chief of staff signs his letters. I've got no idea if the minister is actually reading my letters on behalf of people like Frank and Valma. Frank and Valma aren't the only ones. We have repeatedly written to the minister in relation to Support at Home packages, and I don't know if he reads the letters. If he doesn't read the letters, how does he know what's happening in our communities? I am sick of getting responses from a chief of staff. I've been a cabinet minister, and I signed every bloody letter that went out of my office. I find it outrageous that, in matters of life-and-death situations, I'm getting letters signed by a chief of staff, and I have no idea if my pleas on behalf of my constituents are even being seen or heard by the responsible minister.

I appeal to the minister. This is not party politics. We want to try and help him. We want it to work. We want aged people in our community to have the of dignity staying in their own homes for longer, because we know they do better in their own homes if they get a little bit of help. But right now they are not getting that help. They're being assessed and then they're being told to wait eight to 12 months for support. Too many people are dying waiting for that help. Minister, read the letters and come and talk to us about how we can get a better deal for older Australians.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I am once again advocating for an essential investment in the future of the northern corridor of Pearce—the establishment of a hospital in Yanchep. This is not a new call. It is one I have consistently made on behalf of my community because I have seen firsthand the extraordinary pace of growth in Yanchep and the surrounding suburbs. I have spoken with families, with seniors and with young couples moving into new estates, all of whom are building their lives in this region. With that growth comes a clear responsibility to ensure that our infrastructure keeps pace with the needs of our community.

Recently, we welcomed the opening of the Yanchep Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. This was a significant and much-needed step forward. It is already making a real difference for local families by providing timely care closer to home and easing pressure on our emergency departments. It means fewer long trips for basic urgent care, less strain on hospitals further south and better outcomes for patients. But we know this is not the final destination; it is only just the beginning. The urgent care clinic lays the groundwork for what must come next—a community hospital in Yanchep.

Yanchep, Two Rocks, Alkimos and Eglinton are among the fastest growing communities in Australia. Thousands of new residents are moving into the northern corridor each year, and that growth shows no signs of slowing. Schools are expanding, new businesses are opening, and transport links are improving, but healthcare infrastructure must keep up with this momentum. At present, many residents still face long travel times to reach a full-service hospital. In emergency situations, those extra minutes can make a critical difference.

For families with young children, for seniors with complex health needs and for those requiring ongoing treatment, access to care should not depend on distance or travel time. It should be reliable, local and accessible. A community hospital in Yanchep would build on the foundation we have already established. It could begin as a smaller, well-equipped facility delivering urgent care, overnight stays, outpatient services, maternity support and diagnostic services. Importantly, it should be designed with the capacity to expand over time, growing alongside the community it serves. This is a practical and staged approach. It is responsible planning, and it reflects the reality of a region that is no longer emerging but established, expanding and in need of infrastructure to match. It is about planning not just for today but for the decades ahead.

Importantly, a hospital in Yanchep would also relieve pressure on existing hospitals further south. Facilities such as Joondalup Health Campus are already experiencing high growing demand. By providing services closer to where people live, we can create a more balanced, efficient and sustainable health system across Perth's northern suburbs.

But, beyond planning and projections, this is ultimately about people. It is about ensuring that families in the northern corridor can access care close to home. It is about giving confidence to new residents that their community is supported by essential services. And it is about delivering the level of health care that every Australian community deserves. I will continue to advocate for this outcome because the case is clear, the need is real and the opportunity is now. I raise this issue again to emphasise that the next step is obvious—to build on the success of the Yanchep Urgent Care Clinic and commit to delivering a hospital for this large and fast-growing community.

In my electorate of Cowper on the Mid North Coast, I have the privilege of representing over 47,000 constituents over the age of 65. That's more than a third of Cowper voters that may be eligible for a home-care package either now or sometime down the track. But, since Labor's changes to aged care and more specifically home care came into effect last November, there's been a tsunami of increasingly desperate calls, emails and visits to my office from many of these constituents who have been negatively and directly affected. There have been stories of greatly reduced services despite unchanged or even deteriorating physical conditions, stories of waitlists for palliative care that failed to be delivered prior to the death of the package holder in need, stories of a complete lack of eligible providers of certain services or more remote and isolated areas with no access at all.

It's not just individuals crying out for help; it's actually the service providers who tell me they've never seen conditions like this before for their clients. Ben Kleeman, a passionate home care specialist at UPA Aged Care Solutions in Port Macquarie, said:

We want to help. We have capacity. We have been through reforms before. But right now, we are disempowered from providing care. We are being told clients are ineligible for the care they need, or they have to wait 6-9 months for an assessment, and then 9-12 months for the package to be assigned: a total of 21 months from care need to funding becoming available.

Or there's Nola Turnbull from Frederickton, who is a fiercely community minded advocate and who herself is in her 80s but is currently assisting over 200 locals in navigating the system. She said to me:

Pat, I've never seen it this bad. People are desperate. They are being told they need to continue to wait for help even though they cannot cope with the most basic day to day tasks. And for those lucky ones who do have care, the charges to their packages have gone through the roof, with things like cleaning and domestic care doubling … in just six months.

Labor promised Australians at the 2022 election that no-one would be left behind in Labor's blueprint for a better future. It was a tagline that was used repeatedly—much like 'saving $275 on your electricity bill'—yet since that time we have seen a continued erosion of supports for older Australians. And it's time to admit the efficiencies introduced last year were only for those in the Canberra bubble and have left vulnerable older Australians, who deserve our care and respect, out in the cold.

Last night, the Albanese government handed down our fifth budget—the most ambitious in decades. This is a responsible budget focused on resilience and reform. It's a budget welcomed by stakeholders and economists. Eminent economic editor Ross Gittins said:

… this is a good budget.

…   …   …

… it gets on with doing what needs to be done …

For years, parents in my community have shared with me their concerns about the ability for their children to buy a home in our local area. We want young Australians to aspire to and achieve homeownership. That's why this budget will give them a fair crack at buying their first home, by making the tax rules fairer and by building more homes, because, if you work hard and save, you should be able to buy a home and build a better future for yourself and your family.

The budget also delivers a new, permanent $250 tax cut for every worker because help with the cost of living is our No. 1 priority. Combined with our previous tax cuts, this will mean $2,800 back into the pockets of Australians on the average income, once fully rolled out. Importantly, the budget will also address pain at the bowser, with a $14.8 billion Strengthening Australia's Fuel Resilience package to secure more fuel, bolster our supply chains and build long-term resilience to protect Australians from future fuel shocks. The Albanese government's top priority is looking after Australians today and setting Australia up for a more secure future.

I'm pleased to update the House on the government's year of delivery for locals in my community of Greenway. Just over 12 months ago, I reaffirmed to the good people of Greenway that, if I were given the honour of continuing to represent them in the 48th Parliament, I would work tirelessly to deliver the very best outcomes for their community. At the election, I promise to deliver a free, bulk-billed, local Medicare urgent care clinic, and I was proud to open the Rouse Hill Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. Construction has also begun on the new Rouse Hill Hospital, with early works underway and major construction set to begin soon. Over the past year, construction has begun on upgrades to Richmond Road and Bandon Road, with more to come. We also opened the new M12 Motorway, connecting Western Sydney to our new international airport. We've delivered new parks and play spaces in the Ponds and Lalor Park, while construction has begun on a new park in Tallawong, with more set to get underway soon. Access to quality public education is vital for local families, and we opened a brand new public school in Tallawong and began construction on a new public primary school and preschool in the Gables, as well as a new public primary school, high school and preschool in Box Hill. But there's still more to do.

Budgets are about priorities, and the budget delivered last night reflects the priorities of this Labor government. Helping with the cost of living is our No. 1 priority, and that's what we delivered yesterday. We know people are doing it tough, and this budget has taken the next steps to ease pressure. It is responsible, it's ambitious and it is strong.

We're delivering more tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer from 1 July this year. This is on top of an extra $250 off working Australians' tax bills permanently, and a $1,000 instant tax deduction. The average worker will benefit by nearly $3,000. In hardworking communities like mine, this budget delivers cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing, cuts to student debt, permanent fee-free TAFE and cheaper child care. Those policies are designed to deliver healthy, long-term outcomes. On the international front, we're building a more resilient economy by securing more fuel for our nation. In this uncertain world, we're preparing Australia for what comes next. We're buying more fuel and refining more fuel at home so we're not as dependent on what happens overseas, and we're keeping more fuel here by requiring gas companies to reserve 20 per cent of their exports for Australia. Labor is focused on helping Australians at home, and I know this will make a significant difference in my community.

On the housing front, the Albanese Labor government's five per cent deposit scheme has already helped 5,764 locals in Lalor buy their first home. We know it's taken years off the time it takes to save, and provided them with stability and a roof over their heads. We've also already delivered rent relief to those doing it tough, with 12,450 people in Lalor accessing Commonwealth rent assistance. This budget builds on those policies to level the playing field for first home buyers. We're reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax so that young families, like those in my community, don't have to give up on their dream of owning their own home. These reforms make our tax system fairer for those looking to buy their first home now and into future generations. We know these decisions are ambitious, but they are absolutely the right thing to do.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

():

Every page of writing is a result of a thousand tiny decisions and desperate acts of will.

This is an except from Australian literary icon and local Maribyrnong resident Helen Gardner, one of Australia's greatest living writers. In her True Stories: Selected Non-Fiction, she wrote this about the craft of writing.

A thousand tiny decisions and desperate acts of will are what it takes to put words on a page. That is the invisible labour behind every book on every shelf in every library in this country. It is exactly this kind of labour that this bill is seeking to recognise and reward. Before I get into the details, let me ask you something. Think about the last book you really loved. Maybe it was something you stayed up late finishing. Maybe it was a picture book that you've read to your kids so many times that you can recite it from memory. Maybe it's an audiobook that kept you company on a long-haul flight. Whatever it was, someone wrote it. In many cases, they were an Australian author: someone who sat at a kitchen table after the kids were in bed, squeezed an hour in before work, or spent months—sometimes years—making those thousand tiny decisions until the words were exactly right.

Here's the thing that was arguably unfair. Every time that book was borrowed from a public library, the author got nothing. Zero. The library bought one copy, maybe two, and then it went out the door hundreds of times, and the person who wrote it never saw a cent from all of those borrowings. That changed in 1974, when the Whitlam Labor government established the public lending right. The idea was beautifully simple. If your book is being borrowed from libraries across this country, you should be compensated for it. It was a straightforward act of fairness to Australian creators, and it's one of the things Labor has always sought to get right when it comes to supporting Australian culture. More than 50 years on, the Albanese Labor government is proud to carry that legacy forward—and today, with these bills, it is doing so in a way that is more modern and more comprehensive than ever before.

The public lending right has quietly done extraordinary work for Australian literature since its inception. In 2024-25 alone, more than 17,000 payments totalling over $28 million were made to Australian creators and publishers. These are payments to more than 17,000 individuals, authors in suburban Melbourne and regional communities, illustrators in our cities and editors and translators whose skilled contributions make Australian publishing possible. The scheme distributes payments across two streams: the public lending right, which in 2024-25 delivered just under $15 million to over 7,000 individual creators and publishers for books held in public lending libraries; and the educational lending right, which provided just over $13 million to over 10,500 recipients for books in educational libraries. Together, these programs form the financial backbone that helps Australian literary culture survive and flourish.

But, if we're being honest, for all its achievements this scheme has grown over the decades in amendments layered upon amendments—administrative arrangements delegated by practice rather than formalised in law. The educational lending right, introduced in 2000, has never had a proper legislative basis of its own. It has operated effectively on goodwill and administrative convention. That is not good enough for a program that delivers tens of millions of dollars annually to Australian creators. They deserve security, not the fragility of convention. These bills seek to provide that security.

The bills before us today consolidate both schemes into a single modern legislative framework. For the first time, the educational lending right will have a formal statutory basis—a foundation in law that gives creators, publishers and administrators the certainty and stability they need. The bills modernise governance arrangements, establishing a new public and educational lending rights committee with contemporary appointment processes and appropriate disclosure requirements. They transfer decision-making and operational oversight for certain processes from the committee to the secretary, in line with how these functions have been carried out in practice for many years but now formalised properly in legislation. They also clarify that the committee has an advisory function on matters relating to the operation of the act, bringing transparency and accountability to the scheme's administration.

The Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026 ensures seamless continuity between existing and new arrangements. Creators and publishers currently receiving payments will not face any disruption. The transition will be smooth, clear and fair. These are important technical improvements, but the most significant reform contained in this legislation is the formal extension of the scheme to cover ebooks and audiobooks.

Australians have changed the way they read. You just have to walk onto any train or aeroplane today and you'll see people with their earphones in, oftentimes listening to an audiobook. You'll see people scrolling through their ereaders and you'll see families borrowing digital picture books for their children from the local library app without ever setting foot in a physical library. This should not be seen as a threat to Australian literature because it is an opportunity, and so many Australian creators know this. They know this shift to online reading means more Australians are engaging with more books than ever before. It means our libraries are reaching people in new ways in regional areas and outer suburbs, where a physical library may be an hour's drive away.

Until recently, when an Australian borrowed a digital book from a public library the author received nothing. The scheme that was designed to compensate creators for library borrowings simply did not cover the formats in which millions of Australians are now reading. In 2023 the Albanese Labor government took the first step to address this, expanding eligibility to ebooks and audiobooks through a modification instrument under Revive, our National Cultural Policy. These bills now cement that expansion firmly in legislation, ensuring it can't be unwound by a future government without an act of parliament. It is a lasting commitment to the new way Australians consume Aussie literature.

For Australian authors, this is a game changer. A novelist whose work is available as an ebook and as an audiobook, as well as in print, will now be compensated for library borrowings across all formats. That is a much fairer system, and we must also remember that this is a profession where median earnings remain stubbornly low. Every additional revenue stream is important.

I want to step back from the specifics of this bill for a moment and place it in its broader context, because legislation doesn't stand alone. It is part of a sustained, considered Labor commitment to supporting Australian creative workers and Australian storytelling. Our revived national cultural policy was the first national cultural policy in a decade. It recognised, with ambition, that Australian culture is worth investing in. It is how we understand ourselves, how we pass our values and our histories to the next generation and how we make sense of who we are as a nation.

At the heart of Revive is a commitment to the people who make culture—the writers, the illustrators, the musicians, the performers—people who work without income certainty and without the safety nets that workers in other industries take for granted. Revive committed to modernising lending rights, and this bill delivers on that commitment. It sits alongside our investment in Writing Australia, established within Creative Australia to become a genuine hub for the sector. It seeks to build expertise, foster partnerships, grow the industry and support writers and publishers to do what they do best.

If we do not support Australian writers, we will not have Australian stories—it's that simple. In reality, if we don't invest in local content we will have a market flooded with content from overseas. This content is fine—it's good; it's often fantastic—but it does not reflect our landscape, our history, our humour, our grief or our way of life. The Australian child who grows up without an Australian picture book is a child who grows up without seeing their world reflected back at them. The Australian teenager who never reads an Australian novel is a teenager who must enter a world through an American or European lens. We can't accept that.

This Labor government does not accept that. Australian stories deserve the same platform, and the Australians who tell them deserve a government that backs them and that invests in their work. This legislation modernises a scheme that has served Australian literature well for more than 50 years. It gives Educational Lending Right the legislative foundation it has long deserved. It covers ebooks and audiobooks for the first time in primary legislation. It improves governance and accountability, and it sends a clear signal that this Labor government will always stand with those who tell Australian stories.

Gough Whitlam understood in 1974 that a great nation is one that values its artists. My own community in Maribyrnong knows this better than most. It's home not only to Helen Garner but to Jenny Hocking, the acclaimed biographer who has devoted much of her career to documenting Whitlam's legacy and fighting to bring its hidden history into light. The work of writers like Jenny reminds us that Australian stories are not just novels and picture books; they are a record of who we are and how we got here.

In his memoir, Island Home, Tim Winton wrote about what it means to belong to this country. He said:

This country leans in on you. Like family. To my way of thinking, it is family.

This country is family, and the writers who give voice to it—who find the words for its landscape, its humour and its particular way of being—are doing something that no-one else can do. They are keeping that family story alive. In doing so, they deserve our support and they deserve to be paid for their work. This bill invests in that. It invests in those thousand tiny decisions, it invests in the courage of those willing to document our hidden history and, importantly, it invests in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

It's always a pleasure to follow my colleague the member for Maribyrnong. I too rise to speak on the bills before us today: the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 and the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026. The coalition will support these bills because, at their core, they are sensible and practical reforms that modernise the governance and administration of longstanding programs supporting Australian authors and publishers.

Books matter. Stories matter. History matters. As someone who is passionate about promoting civics education in our schools, telling our own history in our own voices is important. The ability of Australians to record our national history, preserve local history, educate future generations and entertain readers through literature is an essential part of who we are as a nation. Public libraries and school libraries play a central role in that mission. They provide free access to knowledge and opportunity, regardless of your postcode, background or income.

While Australians rightly value free access to books, we must also recognise the work of the people who create them. Authors dedicate years to research, writing, editing and publishing, often with no guarantee of financial success. That is why public lending rights and educational lending rights are important. These schemes recognise a simple principle. When books are made freely available through libraries and educational institutions, authors and publishers should receive fair recognition and compensation for that use. The Public Lending Right Scheme has existed in legislative form since 1985. The Educational Lending Right Scheme has operated administratively for decades, including after its establishment by a coalition government in the 2000-01 budget. These bills bring both schemes into one single legislative framework for the first time. They modernise administration, improve consistency and provide greater certainty for the future operation of both programs. They are worthwhile reforms, and the coalition will support them

We must also be honest about what these bills do not do. Despite the title 'better income for authors', these bills do not increase funding for authors or publishers. They do not expand the overall funding pool, change payment calculations or deliver significantly improved financial outcomes for Australian writers. Too often this Labor government announces reforms with impressive titles only for Australians to discover the substance does not match the spin. Payments under these schemes remain capped within an annual allocation of around $28 million. Last financial year, more than 17,000 payments were made, totalling just over $28 million. That framework remains substantially unchanged in this legislation. So yes, the bills modernise governance and provide legislative certainty, but no, they are not a transformative funding package for Australian authors.

Australian authors are facing real pressures. Publishing has changed dramatically. Most recently I travelled into Melbourne to speak at a function put together by a range of publishers and authors looking at how new technology can innovate and transform the way some of that material is communicated and made available to more people across the world. The fact is that costs have risen and that global competition is intense. For many authors, writing alone is no longer enough to provide a sustainable income. For some, lending rights payments are not simply a bonus; they're an important supplementary income source that helps to make continued writing possible.

This is particularly true for historians and regional writers. I'd like to give a shout-out to Jenny Hammett. She doesn't live in my electorate. She lives next door in my good friend and colleague the member for Gippsland's electorate. She's from Traralgon, and she has dedicated countless hours to writing the history of that town and other parts of Gippsland.

I want to acknowledge several other authors whose work has made an important contribution to preserving Australian stories and our regional history. Roland Perry's work documenting General Sir John Monash has helped generations of Australians better understand one of our most significant military and nation-building figures in the history of this nation. Through authors like Roland Perry, Australians are able to engage with that legacy in a meaningful and accessible way, and it was an honour to meet Roland Perry recently at the Victorian Association of Jewish Ex and Servicemen and Women's Anzac commemoration in Melbourne. I commend Roland Perry's book on General Sir John Monash, Monash:The Outsider Who Won a War, because Roland Perry so brilliantly speaks not only of how wars were won—and many thanks to Monash's legacy—but also how Monash taught us the importance of how lives were valued on the battlefield.

On the topic of the two best books—and that's one of them—that I believe to have been written on the life and legacy of John Monash, I have to acknowledge the late, great Hon. Tim Fischer, a former member of this place and former deputy prime minister. His book, Maestro John Monash, eulogising one of our greatest Australians, someone who I believe is our greatest Australian, John Monash, is a magnificent read. I've got a photo, which I really treasure, of a very much younger me and Mr Fischer and his book on Monash in my office.

I also want to acknowledge Reverend Canon Doctor Jim Connelly OAM of Warragul, a teacher, priest, historian and storyteller of Gippsland who was once described as the conscience of Warragul. Raised in Garfield and still proudly calling Warragul home, Dr Connelly has authored 14 books, spanning children's fiction, local history and regional storytelling, all deeply connected to Gippsland. After my election, Dr Connelly sent me a signed copy of his book, Round and About in Gippsland, and it's a privilege to have that displayed with great pride in my Parliament House office. Round and About in Gippsland paints a portrait of the many towns and communities that make up our region. Mountain Boy is a powerful fiction story following a young boy with a disability who is determined to climb Mount Cannibal against the odds. Calling Gippsland Home:Famous Men and Women of Gippsland shines a light on the remarkable achievements of Gippslanders from all walks of life. Growing up in GarfieldGarfield is now slightly outside of my electorate—helps preserve the history and character of one of our region's small but very proud communities. Dr Connelly's work reflects the importance of regional storytellers in preserving local identity, community memory and the unique character of places like Gippsland for future generations.

The same can be said for John Wells and his work, Gippsland: People, a Place and their Past. That work covers the history, character and development of Gippsland and helps preserve the stories of the people and community that have helped shape our great Gippsland region. It's a book I first read over a decade ago, and it's a poignant reference of our region's history.

I also want to acknowledge Alison Lester AM, the beloved children's author and illustrator from Fish Creek in my electorate of Monash. Fish Creek is a little town in South Gippsland. Alison Lester has written and illustrated over 50 books across her 35 year career. She's a prolific Australian children's author known for over 25 picture books, including classics like Magic Beach and Are We There Yet?, as well as two young adult novels, The Quicksand Pony and The Snow Pony. Alison Lester has shaped the childhoods of generations of Australian children through stories that capture the wonder, imagination and beauty of regional Australia. Her work has received national recognition, including the Children's Book Council of Australia Picture Book of the Year Award, and deservedly so.

What makes Alison Lester's work so special is the way she tells her stories that feel unmistakeably Australian and like home. In my electorate of Monash, we're blessed with many of the magnificent landscapes that Alison Lester's storytelling captures so brilliantly—the rolling green hills, the smell of salt in the air, horses standing quietly in paddocks, winding country roads and wild southern coastlines. It's a word picture, I'm sure, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, you can associate with your own electorate as well. Alison Lester has an extraordinary ability to paint those scenes with words and illustrations. She captures not only the landscape itself but the feeling of growing up in regional Australia—the freedom, the adventure and the connection to community and nature.

I also want to acknowledge Patrick Morgan, a wonderful Gippsland historian who I first met in my 20s as a participant in the Gippsland Community Leadership Program. Australian writing is not limited to traditional historical literature, though. Modern creators such as Mastro Mayhem are engaging younger audiences in new and evolving ways, reflecting the changing nature of storytelling in Australia.

Don Watson is perhaps best known as Paul Keating's speechwriter. Among his most acclaimed speeches is, of course, the speech for the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, which is brilliantly written. Don grew up on a dairy farm in my electorate, and many years ago he accepted my invitation to present the Gippsland Annual Leadership Address. He's a wonderful author, and I've enjoyed our conversations very much over the years.

The late, great Michael Gordon, who was an acclaimed journalist, author and member of the press gallery here, wasn't a Monash constituent, but he was a regular visitor, particularly to Phillip Island, where he tragically passed away a number of years ago. He and his father, Harry, were passionate Hawthorn supporters, like I am, and I've enjoyed very much their books on Hawthorn, including The Hard Way. I treasure a hand-signed book by Michael Gordon on Hawthorn that I have in my office. I know he was a great friend to many longer serving members in this place.

Whether documenting military history, preserving regional stories or connecting with younger generations through modern formats, Australian authors all contribute to our cultural life and deserve recognition for their work. A positive aspect of this legislation is the formal inclusion of the educational lending rights into legislation. As other speakers have referenced, this provides greater certainty, transparency and accountability. The bill will also modernise eligibility arrangements and streamline advisory committee processes. These are sensible and measured reforms.

But governance alone is not sufficient. If this parliament is serious about supporting Australian writing and Australian culture, we must also be willing to have a broader conversation around sustainability, funding and longer term support because culture cannot survive on announcements alone. It requires ongoing investment, practical support and governments willing to prioritise outcomes rather than headlines.

Libraries remain one of the great equalisers in Australian society, particularly in regional communities like mine. They are places of learning, literacy and connection. In many towns they are also vital community hubs. That is why lending rights schemes matter. We should encourage Australians to read, support strong libraries and ensure authors are appropriately recognised when their work is widely used through those systems. The coalition have consistently supported that principle—we supported those programs in government and we support them today—but we will also continue to ask whether enough is being done to genuinely support Australian authors in a rapidly changing environment. Governance reform is one part of the equation. If we truly want better income for authors, it requires more than administrative restructuring; it needs sustained commitment and practical support.

Australian authors help shape our national identity. They preserve our history, educate future generations and ensure Australian voices continue to be heard in an increasingly crowded global marketplace. That is worth supporting, that is worth valuing and that is why the coalition will support these bills. They modernise important programs and strengthen existing frameworks. But we should also be clear-eyed about their limitations. They do not significantly increase funding, they do not fundamentally change payment structures and they do not, by themselves, solve the financial pressures Australian writers are facing—and that is an important challenge to solve. It's an important challenge for young Australians; it's an important challenge for children; it's an important challenge for migrants and our multicultural communities right across Australia.

One of the greatest joys of my early 20s was volunteering to help a young migrant student with English literature as one of his VCE subjects. The way that textbooks and literature were able to capture his imagination and encourage him was a great joy for me to watch. It was just such a wonderful privilege to be able to encourage that young student, who was incredibly smart and I know had a very bright future ahead of him. So the challenge remains and we all must face up to that. I commend the bill.

I rise to support the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 and the companion Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill. This is a good bill. It is good for Australian authors. It is good for Australian publishers. It is good for libraries. And, ultimately, it is good for readers, because if we want Australian stories on Australian shelves then the people who write, illustrate, translate, edit and publish those stories need to be able to keep doing the work. That should not be controversial, although in the arts even the obvious sometimes has to be legislated.

This bill is about a simple proposition: when Australian books are made freely available through public and educational libraries, the people who created and published those books should receive fair recognition—not charity, not a pat on the head, but recognition and payment for work. That is the principle at the heart of the public and educational lending rights. It is also a principle I strongly support. I am a supporter of the arts, not because the arts are decorative but because they are part of the infrastructure of a good society. They are how we tell our stories. They are how we record who we are. They are how kids find a world bigger than the one immediately in front of them. They are how communities like mine in Moore see themselves reflected back with honesty, humour, beauty and occasionally an alarming degree of accuracy.

Libraries sit right in the centre of that. In Moore, the City of Joondalup libraries at Joondalup, Duncraig, Whitford and Woodvale are much more than buildings with shelves. They are community infrastructure. They are places where kids discover books they did not know they needed. They are places where parents can take their children without needing to spend money. They are places where older Australians stay connected, informed and curious. They are places where someone can borrow a novel, learn a language, watch a documentary, join a program or simply sit somewhere quiet without being expected to buy a coffee every 20 minutes. That is a fairly radical proposition in the modern economy, and it is one worth defending. Libraries make culture available to everyone, regardless of income. That is one of the great democratic achievements of public life.

But there is another side to that equation. Free access for readers should not mean unpaid work for writers, and that is what lending rights recognise. When a book is available in a public library or an educational library, that availability has value. The community benefits from it, the readers benefit from it, students benefit from it, schools benefit from it, and the author should benefit from it as well.

The Public Lending Right Scheme has been part of the Australian cultural landscape since the Whitlam government approved it in 1974. That matters. It reflects a very Labor idea—that access to culture should be broad but that the people who make the culture should not be expected to survive on applause. Applause is lovely, but it does not pay the rent, it does not cover groceries, and it is notoriously difficult to use at tax time. The reality is that many Australian authors do not earn large incomes from writing. The minister has noted that the average income for an Australian writer in 2021 to 2022 was reportedly $16,100. That is not a sustainable income. It is not even close. Yet these are the people whose books sit in our libraries, whose stories are read in classrooms, whose work helps shape our national imagination. We should want more Australian writers writing Australian stories. We should want children in Gwelup, Padbury, Craigie and Heathridge to pick up books that speak in Australian voices. We should want emerging writers to look at the industry and think: 'There is a pathway here. It is difficult, but it is possible.' This bill helps with that. It will not solve every challenge in the literary sector, and no-one is pretending it will. But it gives practical, concrete measures that improve the system and give creators certainty.

In the 2024-25 financial year, more than 17,000 payments were made to eligible creators and publishers through these schemes, totalling more than $28 million. For some people, the payment may be modest. For many creators, it matters. It can be the difference between taking the time to write the next book and having to put the manuscript away. It can be the difference between staying in the industry and leaving it. It can be the difference between an Australian story being written and that story never existing at all. That is why this bill matters.

The bill brings the public lending right and educational lending right schemes together in a single contemporary legislative framework that is sensible. The public lending right has had a statutory basis for decades. The educational lending right has operated administratively since 2000. This bill brings them together under one roof that gives authors, publishers, schools, libraries and government a clearer and more modern framework. It also recognises that educational libraries matter. The books that students encounter at school can stay with them for life. Sometimes, it is the book a teacher puts in your hands at exactly the right moment. Sometimes, it is the novel you were supposed to read but only appreciated later. I am looking at The Great Gatsby right now! Sometimes it is the book you pretend not to like, because you're 14 and are therefore required by law to be unimpressed by everything. Those books matter. The people who create them matter too.

The second important reform that this bill recognises is the digital formats. That is essential. People still borrow physical books, and I hope they always will, but they also borrow ebooks and audiobooks. They borrow through platforms like Libby and Hoopla. They listen in the car, on the train, on a walk, while cooking dinner or while pretending to clean the garage. That is how people read now, and the law should reflect that. A lending rights scheme that did not properly deal with ebooks and audiobooks would be a scheme looking backwards. This bill looks forward. The government expanded the schemes to include digital content through the Revive national cultural policy. This bill locks that recognition into legislation. It is important because creators deserve certainty. If digital borrowing is part of the modern library system, then digital borrowing should be part of the modern lending rights system. That is not radical; it is just keeping up.

The bill also establishes a unified public and educational lending rights committee, with representation from authors, publishers, libraries and the Public Service. That is good design. The people affected by the scheme should have a role in advising on how it operates. It means the framework is not just imposed from above; it is informed by the people who understand the sector and the practical realities of writing, publishing and library lending.

The companion bill then deals with the necessary transitional rights. That is the sort of thing that rarely makes headlines, and fair enough—transitional provisions are generally not where the nation goes looking for glamour. But they matter. They ensure continuity. They protect existing claimants. They make sure the system moves from the old framework to the new without unnecessary disruption. In plain terms, the machinery needs to work, and this bill makes sure it does.

I also want to speak more broadly on why this matters to communities like mine. Moore is not just a place of roads, schools, hospitals, shops and sporting clubs, although all of those matter deeply. It is also a place of creativity. We have local writers, we have musicians, we have visual artists, we have choirs, orchestras, community arts groups, school productions, festivals, exhibitions and people making extraordinary work, often with very limited resources.

Earlier this year, I hosted Susan Templeman, the Special Envoy for the Arts, in Joondalup, and we brought together local arts organisations and community representatives, including people from the Peter Cowan Writers Centre, the Joondalup Symphony Orchestra   , the Mirabilis Collective, Creative Edge Art Collective, the Joondalup Community Arts Association and the City of Joondalup. The message in that room was clear: there is enormous talent in our community. There is ambition and there is generosity, but there are also real challenges in sustaining creative work. That is why I keep saying, 'Culture is infrastructure.' It is not an optional extra. It is not something that should get considered after everything else is done. It is part of what makes a place liveable, connected and confident.

Joondalup is increasingly recognised as Western Australia's second CBD, and, if we are serious about that, we need to think about the cultural infrastructure as part of the city we are building. That means venues, it means festivals, it means public art, it means live music, it means libraries, it means writing centres, and it means supporting the people who make the work. Laneway Festival coming to the Joondalup arena showed what is possible when major cultural events are brought north of the river. The Joondalup Festival continues to show the depth of local appetite for art and culture, and our libraries show it every week in a quieter but no less important way.

This is why this bill fits within a broader view of cultural policy. It says that Australian creative work has value. It says that public access and fair payment can sit together. It says that authors and publishers should not be left behind as reading habits change. It says the Commonwealth has a role in supporting the growth and development of Australian writing and publishing. And that is the right approach.

I also welcome that this bill is framed around Australian creators and Australian publishers. Australian stories matter. We live in a world where global content is everywhere, instantly available, constantly refreshed and algorithmically served. There is nothing wrong with enjoying work from around the world, but we should never become casual about the importance of our own stories. Australian children should grow up reading Australian voices. Australian communities should see themselves in Australian books. Australian writers should be able to build careers telling Australian stories, and Australian publishers should be supported in bringing those works to readers. This is not about cultural protectionism. It is cultural confidence, and the arts help us understand ourselves. They help us argue with ourselves. They help us remember. They help us imagine something better, and sometimes, very importantly, they give us a much-needed laugh at our own expense. A country that cannot do that is in trouble.

This bill is practical, modern and fair. It consolidates the schemes. It strengthens certainty. It recognises digital lending. It supports authors, illustrators, translators, editors and publishers. It backs libraries as democratic cultural institutions. It helps ensure Australian stories continue to be written, published, borrowed and read because behind every book borrowed from a library is someone who did the work, someone who sat down and wrote the sentences, someone who revised the manuscript, someone who illustrated the pages, someone who translated the words, someone who edited, published and produced the book and then the librarian who placed it where the reader could find it. That chain matters. This bill respects that chain. It supports the people who make the Australian literary culture possible, and it does so in a way that keeps libraries open, accessible and central to community life. That is exactly the balance we should be striking. I commend the bill to the House.

I love books, I love libraries, and I love Australian stories. I am one of the chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Books and Reading, and I am so proud to be part of a Labor government that backs Australian stories, libraries and authors every step of the way. This bill, Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026, is an important step in recognising and supporting Australian creators and publishers who are committed to telling, preserving and amplifying important stories.

Australian stories really matter. They reflect who we are and they help shape who we become, and they've certainly shaped me. I wouldn't be who I am without Australian books and stories. I think of some of my favourites like Looking for Alibrandi, which is incredibly important to an Australian Italian person like myself. I think of The Getting of Wisdom, My Brilliant Career, Playing Beatie Bow and Robin Klein's Penny Pollard books. I think of Hazel Edwards, who lives in my electorate, and her book There's a Hippopotamus on Our Roof Eating Cake. I think of the Mary Poppins stories written by an Australian author, Pamela Lyndon Travers. I think of the work by friends of mine, including my dear friend Chloe Wilson who's just launched her first fiction work The Thornbacks. These Australian stories really matter. They amplify our experiences and preserve our voices, making sure that the world takes note of our voices and our stories.

Stories challenge us, educate us and inspire us. Literature has a great power to help us understand the world as seen through the eyes of another. When we talk about social cohesion, this is really, really important. Behind everyone of these stories is a creator, a person who has dedicated years of work, research, creativity and persistence to producing something of real value for the Australian public to enjoy. Australian authors pay a fundamental and often undervalued role in our society.

Before entering this place, I studied literature, including Australian literature, at university. I worked as an academic and as a researcher, and I know how important authors are. Without authors, without people willing to dedicate themselves to knowledge, evidence, storytelling and scholarship—this is not just about fiction work here; we're talking about Australian non-fiction too—our society would be profoundly different. Australian authors inform public debate, often provoke public debate. Australian authors inform government and inform policy. Whether it is in the area of health research, environmental science, economics, education, Indigenous history or social policy, as well as fiction of course, authors make an extraordinary contribution to our national landscape. Australian writers help define our culture by telling local stories in local voices. These are stories about our suburbs, our regions, our environment, our workplaces, our schools and our communities. They are stories that Australians can see themselves in and can understand the history of our nation through. These things really matter. If Australians don't tell Australian stories, the stories will disappear.

We all have, in this place, a responsibility to back Australian stories and creativity where we can. In my very first speech in this place I spoke about the importance of valuing culture and ensuring that this was something that the government saw as a priority, and I'm really pleased that our government does see this as a priority. For a long time public and educational lending rights have existed to ensure that Australian creators and publishers are fairly paid when their books are made available through public and educational libraries. They recognise something which is really important, which is that access to books should never come at the expense of the people who create them.

I think this is a good moment to reflect on how important libraries are as one of the great democratic institutions in this country. Sir Redmond Barry helped establish the State Library Victoria and in fact lived where my electorate now is, on the Syndal Estate. My office is just over the road from Syndal train station, which is of course named after his estate. But his legacy is not just about the names of places in our community. It's about the wonderful local institutions, like libraries, that we're all able to access. I can't think of many libraries in my electorate that I haven't spent time in as a school student or a university student, or since. I used the space to read, to study and to learn.

It is amazing what libraries offer to all of us. They're places where every Australian, regardless of income or background, can access literature, education and information and can connect with others through book clubs and other community groups. We should be very proud of our libraries here, in Australia. I think it is really fair and reasonable that when works are borrowed thousands of times through libraries the people responsible for creating those works do receive compensation for their contributions, and that's what this bill seeks to do.

This bill brings the public lending right and educational lending right schemes into a single contemporary legislative framework. It replaces the Public Lending Right Act 1985 and ensures that these important programs remain fit for purpose in a rapidly changing world, where we consume books and literature in different ways. The existing schemes have served Australia really well for decades, but we know that the way we access books has changed significantly since the 1980s. As we evolve, our laws need to follow suit.

We know that Australians increasingly borrow ebooks and audiobooks alongside traditionally printed works. Digital collections are now a normal part of our libraries and educational institutions, and they make it easier for a lot of people to access books and reading. Through Revive, our national cultural policy, the Albanese government has invested in modernising lending rights so that creators are recognised and compensated for the use of their works across these contemporary formats. This bill secures those reforms into legislation and provides a modern framework for the future. It ensures that lending rights schemes continue to adapt alongside technological change while continuing to support Australian creators and strengthen our cultural life.

There's another important principle that lies at the heart of this legislation, which is that creative work has incredible value. An author's creativity is their property, and when that work is used through a public library loan or within an educational setting it's entirely reasonable and right that the creator receives payment. We would not expect other workers to provide their labour for free simply because the public benefits from it. Creative workers deserve that same respect and deserve to be seen as workers, and their labour should be valued.

Not every person, of course, who writes a book seeks to become a full-time author. We know that. Many writers balance their creative work with other jobs and responsibilities. But it is telling that the average income for an Australian writer in 2021-22 was reportedly just $16,100. I think that figure really demonstrates the economic reality facing many creators in this country. Whilst writing is of course incredibly valuable work, both socially and culturally, it's not always valued in the same way financially. It's not always secure work, financially.

We know this legislation will not solve every challenge facing Australian authors, but it is one of the concrete things we can do as a government to provide meaningful support. We know that every bit of support matters. In the 2024-25 financial year alone, more than 17,000 payments were made to eligible Australian creators and publishers through these schemes and totalled $28 million. That is significant. For many authors, illustrators, translators, editors and publishers, these payments are not simply a bonus; they are a reliable and meaningful source of income which helps creators continue their work and helps keep books in publication, which is really important, so that we can continue to enjoy these stories and this knowledge. These payments help ensure Australian stories continue to be written, published and shared with future generations.

It's also really important, I think, to reflect on the origins of these schemes and the intent of these schemes. In 1974, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam approved the Public Lending Right Scheme with a clear and principled vision of fairness. He was, of course, a great champion of the arts. It was recognition that Australian culture does not simply happen by accident; it requires investment and support. It requires governments willing to value creative work as an essential part of national life. More than 50 years later, that remains the case, as it did then, because culture is not a luxury; it is an essential part of who we are as a nation. Through democratic institutions such as libraries, we are able to access culture in really meaningful ways right across communities in Australia.

There's something profoundly important about a young Australian picking up a book and seeing themselves reflected in its pages—seeing their community, seeing the way they live their lives, hearing languages and reading about experiences that feel familiar to them. It's also really important to understand your own country through the eyes of someone who has a different experience of Australia. Again, that is really important for social cohesion.

Every time I visit a school or early learning centre, the optimism and curiosity of our youngest Australians really excite me as a community representative, and I always try and take the time to read stories and share in finding out what books young people are interested in. Recently, I visited the Bambini Early Learning Centre in my electorate, and I got to read Wombat Stew, which is one of my old favourites from when I was a very young person. It really does teach us about creativity, resourcefulness and Australian life. It's wonderful when reading these books to see young people learn in real time. I think that Australian stories are really worth fighting for. For all of us, they're worth fighting for, but this is especially important for young people growing up in regional communities, multicultural communities and First Nations communities, for whom the connection, identity and understanding we build are so significant.

We know that public libraries and school libraries play an enormous role in making access to experiences, information and culture possible, so this legislation is fairly balanced in recognising the importance of public access to books and the importance of properly supporting the people who create them. Governments and parliaments have a responsibility not only to support economic growth and infrastructure but also to support the cultural institutions and creative industries that enrich our national life and make life worth living. A stronger Australia is not only measured in economic terms; it's measured by the strength of our ideas, our stories, our education and our cultural confidence. The core of this bill ensures that Australian creators are recognised, modernising our lending rights framework for the future and reinforcing the principle that creative work deserves real respect and fair compensation.

The Albanese Labor government understands the importance of backing Australian creators. We understand the importance of ensuring Australian stories continue to thrive in schools, libraries, homes and communities right across the country, and we understand that supporting authors and publishers is an absolute investment in Australia's cultural and economic future. This is thoughtful legislation. It is practical and it is necessary reform. It strengthens an important system that has supported Australian creators for decades, and it ensures the system remains effective, modern and sustainable for decades to come. I look forward to reading many more Australian stories and learning more about this wonderful country of ours through reading. I commend the bills to the House.

I rise in support of the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 and the associated bill. In doing so, I recognise the work the minister—the Leader of the House and the Minister for the Arts—has done. I appreciate talking to people within the arts community about how involved he is; it's part of his down-to-earth personality, and that means he really fits in with that work for that community. The work these bills do sits in the broader context of the work that the minister and the government are doing. I also pay credit to the caucus committee, which has pushed for this. It is a modest but meaningful part of the government's broader arts strategy—a strategy which is not only to the material benefit of our community but also to our cultural and spiritual benefit.

I think those that have listened to one of my speeches before know quite well that I like to claim many careers, having been a station hand, having worked in servos, having worked in Goat Works, having run a construction company. I claim to have done many things, but being an artist is not one of them; I think anyone in history who reads my speeches in this place will see that that statement is well and truly underlined! To me, a true artist is not somebody who is made but somebody who is discovered. I'm reminded of when I took my now-adult child to an art gallery in Tamborine Mountain, in the hills of the Gold Coast, when he was five years old, and the art gallery owner came up to him and said, 'Do you want to be an artist when you grow up?' He said, 'I am an artist.' I thought, 'Well, only a proper artist would say something like that.' We've got a responsibility as a community to create the space for people to create and be that person they are passionate to be, and art is one of those highest expressions.

While I might have considered myself a bit of a Philistine in my earlier life, funnily enough it was in construction that I discovered the true beauty of art, of architecture. Something was pointed out to me which I hadn't realised before: in this room around us, everything we see started off as a drawing. Something starts off as an idea in somebody's head, somehow gets converted to paper and somehow then gets passed on to somebody else, who is able to make it into form. Construction is quite an amazing thing, and it is very much where art meets science. For those that have been involved in construction and have looked at those modern drawings on CAD—computer assisted design—as much as they are an expression of human thinking, they have a certain sterility. They are sterile compared to those hand-drawn architectural sketches. When you look at some of those hand-drawn sketches, there's always a slight imperfection. It is within that imperfection that you can see the humanity of the person who has drawn it. That, I guess, did make me appreciate art a little bit more than I thought I had in the past.

But, of course, preparing for this speech today gave me a chance to reflect on my own past. Art comes in many forms. I remember being a young kid, a young teenager, in Broken Hill who was part of the Broken Hill Repertory Society, where I took part in greats such as Hello, Dolly! and Fiddler on the Roof. I also remember, as a 14-year-old, taking part in a one-act play festival. This is in a mining town in outback New South Wales. These kids had come from Mildura, Cobar and all around the countryside. That experience has really lasted with me. Those memories that I had were so incredibly fond that it's stuck with me forever.

It gave me an opportunity, now that I'm the representing the electorate of Forde, to have the honour of being the patron of the Beenleigh Theatre Group, a local repertory group which puts on fantastic performances. One I went to last year was The Lightning Thief, the Percy Jackson musical. It was my experience as a 14-year-old of the Broken Hill Repertory Society—I saw these kids coming together. They'd come from as far away as Tweed Heads, about an hour's drive from the far northern suburbs of Brisbane. These kids had come together over the school holidays, and they had welded themselves together as a team through rehearsals. I was privileged to be there on that last day that they performed. When they came out and took their final bow, the tears in their eyes were something that I could feel and I could place myself in. The relationships that they had formed and the lessons that they had learned are something that is unique to the arts. I think that really goes to show why cultivating that and giving people the space to do that is so important.

In fact, I said in my first speech that, in many ways, artistic expression is one of the most pure forms of humanity. Indeed it is what defines Homosapiens. If you go back to some of those earliest cave paintings, they are really the difference between us and the rest of the animal kingdom. It's this ability to express our thoughts in the physical world. It is what makes us human. So it is incumbent on us, as governments and societies, to give people that space.

I'm very much an optimist. While I said that in my first speech that in many ways I'm a huge believer that technology is going to create that material wealth to give us the time to really pursue our passions, I think that in many ways we're living in the Dark Ages and that people in the future will look back on us as we look back on the Romans and go, 'Jeez, they were really clever to get by with what they had, but I wouldn't like to live then.' I think that, when we've got that room to really follow our passions and follow our pursuits, that is really the highest form of being a human being.

In many ways it is us living in this world today where none of us have time. We're all flat out—not just in this place, of course, but trying to raise a kid, trying to look after a sick parent. It really means that you just don't have the time to follow your passion. That's why I think artists and authors have an income of around whatever it is—$16,000 or $17,000 a year; it's somewhere around there—because the money is actually not the important thing. It's being able to express yourself.

To bring it back to where we are and where this policy sits, it sits well and truly within the Labor Party's history of advancing Australia that the Whitlam government very much represented. It's a rejection of the cultural cringe, where we looked to the old country for our cultural leadership. The election of the Whitlam government very much marked that clear line. And so it was that the policy which we are effectively adapting today was first established as the Public Lending Right in 1974 by the Whitlam government. It's when the Whitlam government established the Australia Council. Indeed, Creative Nation was launched by prime minister Paul Keating and arts minister Michael Lee, followed by Creative Australia as the product of prime minister Gillard and arts minister Simon Crean. Here we are again, fixing, as Paul Keating called it, the 'Rip Van Winkle years' of coalition government, where nothing was done, where the forelock was tugged to the mother country. Here it is again: a reforming Labor government committed to the arts, committed to the expression of the Australian people, is taking steps to give people that space, that income, that ability to express themselves artistically.

But it is not just, of course, about the beauty of that sort of spiritual fulfilment. It is a strong economic imperative that the government has a commitment to arts policy. There's something like a $17 billion industry in Australia now which has grown up around the arts. It employs somewhere around 400,000 Australians. In Forde, there are many people working in the film industry which is burgeoning in the Gold Coast. There are not only people who are taking part in some of the technical things but also carpenters, painters and drivers, and it underlies more of our economy than many people might imagine. The fact is that, again, this sits well and truly within federal Labor's—by that, I mean the Labor Party's—commitment to Australia, their commitment to Australian culture. The idea that we can rely on other countries to give us our expression of what it means to be Australian—it just does not happen without government being involved.

And so it is that I commend this bill. This is an important bill. I just realised I was remiss when I was talking about the Beenleigh Theatre Group to not give a shout-out to Chris Art, who always makes me feel extremely welcome when I go to the performances there, and to Ros Johnson, who is, I think, in many ways the silent backbone of the organisation. It is a pleasure to be a patron of that organisation, and it is a great honour to be in this place to support this policy, which sits within that wider government policy of supporting the arts in this country.

I rise to make my contribution to the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026. The library is a home for many—for students studying after school; for babies and young children learning their first nursery rhymes; for members of the community accessing public information; for migrants like me who learn English from a free library community program. And, of course, the library is for everyone, anyone, in search of a book, whether that is a physical copy or digital copies, like ebooks and audiobooks. In Tangney, that could mean the public library at Riverton, Willetton, Bull Creek, Booragoon, Canning Bridge, Melville or Willagee or at any one of the more than 50 schools in my community. More than 50 years ago, public lending were established. Introduced by the Whitlam government in 1974, these rights ensure more money makes it way into the pockets of Australian authors, publishers and illustrators. What it means is that Australian book publishers, authors, illustrators, editors, translators and compilers are compensated for the loss of income when their work is used multiple times in Australia's public and educational learning libraries. Authors, publishers and illustrators want as many Australians as possible to read and connect with their work, and libraries help make that possible. This compensation is important so that we can support Australian culture, foster our Australian writers and support more homegrown storytellers so that they can continue to tell important stories to our community.

The Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 consolidates the public and educational lending rights scheme into a single legislative framework. In 2024-25, more than 17,000 payments totalling to $28.16 million were made to authors. This includes public lending rights payments of more than $14.7 million to 7,044 individual eligible Australian creators and publishers, as well as more than $13.3 million to 10,566 individual eligible Australian creators and publishers in educational lending rights payments.

I would like to speak about some of the authors in Tangney whose works were available at my community local libraries to show why this bill is so important. I met Cristy Burns a couple of years ago when I was out doorknocking. Cristy is so energetic and full of passion. She told me that reading is the doorway to information, creativity, passion and thinking in new ways. I could not agree more.

Cristy's books focus on science. She has written non-fiction books on Australian scientists and children's stories. Cristy also told me about how she integrates science into her books, trying to show that book kids can be science kids, and that science kids can be book kids as well. Writing a book, she told me, is not unlike the scientific process of innovating and experimenting again. In literature and in science, we have an opportunity to explore, discover and make a better tomorrow. I admire how she connects both science and literature and makes it fun for her young audiences.

Another Tangney author whose books are at my local library is Shirley Marr. Shirley is a first-generation Chinese Australian and a child of migrants. Her experiences inform her writing. Her novel, A Glasshouse of Stars, won the Children's Book Council of Australia—CBCA—book of the year for younger readers in 2022 and the WA premier's book award for writing for children in 2021. I think this book will touch many people who have or who can imagine what it is like to migrate to a new land and feel nervous, scared and embarrassed by not knowing the language or how to make new friends.

This is another point: it is important to share stories like Cristy's and Shirley's—and share them widely—in our community. It is important that we support our homegrown authors so that we can have a diversity of stories to move and inspire. Both Cristy and Shirley have spoken to me about the importance of representation so that people, especially our next generation, feel like they belong and can identify with the struggles, opportunities and achievements that diverse characters experience. I think this is an important point to consider as we debate this bill. We want our future generation to see themselves in the stories they read, and this bill supports authors, illustrators and publishers who help do this.

Finally, I would like to speak briefly about Cyrus Roussilhes. You can also find his writing at a Tangney public library. Cyrus's garden in Parkwood is packed with plants. He is a collector of rare and unusual fruit trees. He has shared some of his knowledge about plants in the books he has written, including 3 Easy Fixes to Grow Better in Perth: Shade, Soil & Nature's Principles. His experiences, can-do spirit and approach to gardening are valuable to share with the local community.

This bill formally establishes the educational lending right in legislation alongside the public lending right, as a single legislative framework—at present, there is no legislative basis for the Educational Lending Right Scheme. It also adopts many key definitions and eligibility criteria from the existing legislative framework, with some modifications or updates. This includes ebooks and audiobooks, which is very important given how many people access literature through ebooks and audiobooks.

The bill also modernises governance arrangements. A new public and educational lending rights committee will be established, with more modern appointment processes and disclosure requirements. The bill also clarifies the committee's role, including to include an advisory function.

Our government is serious about supporting Australian literature. In 2023, in line with a commitment under the national cultural policy, Revive, the Albanese Labor government also expanded the scheme to include ebooks and audiobooks, reflecting the changing ways Australians engage with literature. Last year we established Writing Australia within Creative Australia to become a hub for the sector to build expertise and partnerships and to support writers and publishers. Writing Australia supports the sector to grow both local and international audiences for Australian books. I want to add that both Cristy and Shirley have been recent recipients of Creative Australia grants, which makes me very proud. Supporting our literary sector helps ensure that Australian storytellers can continue to share their diverse voices and experiences and ensures that more Australian stories can continue to be told. I'm pleased to support this bill.

I rise today to speak in support of the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026, legislation that recognises the value of Australian storytelling and the people who bring those stories to life.

Libraries are one of the great public institutions in our country. They open doors to imagination, education and opportunities for Australians of every background and every generation. They are places where children discover a love of reading for the very first time. They are places where students access knowledge and learning resources regardless of their circumstances. They are places where older Australians stay connected to their communities and where people can access information, ideas and stories freely and openly.

But, while books may be borrowed freely through public and educational libraries, the work behind those books is not free. Behind every novel, textbook, audiobook or children's story is an Australian creator whose work, talent and time deserve to be recognised. This bill does exactly that. The public and educational lending right schemes ensure Australian book creators and publishers are compensated for the loss of income that can occur through the free multiple use of their work in Australian public and educational lending libraries. This includes authors, illustrators, editors, translators, compilers and publishers, all of whom contribute enormously to Australia's cultural and literary landscape.

The Public Lending Right Scheme was first established by the Whitlam Labor government in 1974 to ensure more support made its way into the pockets of Australian authors, publishers and illustrators. It reflected an important principle then, and it remains an important principle today—that creators deserve fair recognition and fair compensation for their work. This bill continues that proud Labor legacy of supporting Australian arts, culture and storytelling.

Australian literature matters, Australian stories matter, and Australian creators matter. Australia's literature sector is home to some of the country's greatest storytellers—people who help shape our national identity, reflect our communities and tell uniquely Australian stories. Whether it is fiction, poetry, educational resources, historical writing or children's literature, Australian writers help Australians see themselves and their communities reflected in literature. These works are not just entertainment; they help preserve culture. They build empathy and understanding. They strengthen literacy and education. They challenge ideas and encourage curiosity. And, of course, they connect our communities. Australian children deserve to grow up reading Australian stories written by Australian authors about Australian experiences. They deserve to see Australian suburbs, humour, landscapes and voices reflected in the books they read because, when young people see their own communities, landscapes and voices reflected on the page, it tells them that their stories matter too. When these stories are shared through our libraries and educational institutions, it is only fair that the creators behind those works are recognised and supported.

This bill consolidates the public lending right and educational lending right schemes into a single legislative framework, creating a more modern, streamlined and coherent system. Importantly, it also establishes the Educational Lending Right Scheme and legislation for the very first time. Currently, the Educational Lending Right Scheme operates administratively without a legislative basis. This bill changes that. The legislation also modernises governance arrangements. It establishes a new public and educational lending rights committee with a more modern appointment process and disclosure requirements. It clarifies the committee's advisory role and transfers some operational decision-making processes to the secretary, formalising arrangements that are already occurring administratively. These reforms are about ensuring the scheme remains effective, accountable and fit for purpose into the future.

Another important aspect of this legislation is that it reflects the changing ways Australians engage with literature. Australians are increasingly reading digitally, whether through ebooks or audiobooks borrowed through local libraries and educational institutions. Consistent with the Albanese Labor government's national cultural policy, Revive, the schemes were expanded in 2023 to include ebooks and audiobooks. This legislation supports and embeds that modernised framework, and this is important because Australians do not engage with literature in the same way they did decades ago. Technology has changed the way people read, learn and access information. Students increasingly access educational material digitally, families borrow audiobooks for long drives and school drop-offs—I aspire for mine to be one of those families!—and older Australians use ebooks with adjustable text and accessible technology. People are engaging with literature in more ways than ever before, and our legislative framework should reflect that reality. This bill helps ensure the lending rights framework keeps pace with this modern publishing and library environment.

Literacy and reading remain absolutely fundamental to opportunity in Australia. The ability to read, learn and engage with literature shapes educational outcomes, employment opportunities and lifelong wellbeing.

This legislation is also about recognising that creative work has economic value. Too often we speak about the arts purely in cultural terms without recognising that writers, illustrators and publishers are workers too. They deserve fair remuneration for the contribution they make to our economy, our education system and our national culture. Writing is absolutely work, publishing is work, illustration is work, editing is work, translation is work, and these creators deserve to be supported. Labor has always understood this. We know that strong arts and cultural sectors do not happen by accident; they require investment recognition and support for the people who create and share Australian stories. This government is committed to ensuring Australian writers, publishers and creators are supported not only to preserve our culture but also to continue telling the stories that shape our national identity. This bill is part of that commitment.

In 2024-25 alone, more than 17,000 payments totalling over $28 million were made to eligible creators and publishers through these schemes. That included more than $14.7 million in public lending right payments and more than $13.3 million in educational lending right payments. These are not abstract numbers. These payments help Australian creators continue doing the work that they love. They help support authors writing their next novel. They help educational publishers continue producing Australian educational content. They help illustrators, translators and editors continue contributing to Australia's literary sector. Importantly, they help ensure Australian voices continue to be heard.

This bill is also part of the Albanese Labor government's broader commitment to supporting Australian arts and culture. That commitment is reflected through Revive, the government's national cultural policy, which recognises the importance of supporting the Australian creative industries and Australian cultural identity. It is also reflected in the establishment of Writing Australia within Creative Australia to become a dedicated hub supporting writers, publishers and the broader literature sector. Labor understands that supporting Australian literature means supporting Australian voices, and we understand that if we want Australian stories to continue being told, we must support the people who create them.

In communities like mine in Bonner, in Queensland, libraries continue to play an incredibly important role. They are welcoming community spaces used by families, students, seniors and local residents each and every day. The Wynnum Library and Carindale Library are spaces that I and my family enjoy visiting regularly. They provide access to education, technology, information and literature regardless of a person's income or background. Local libraries host children's reading programs, community activities, study spaces and lifelong learning opportunities. They are places of inclusion and places of connection. Through this bill, we are ensuring that the creators whose work fills those shelves—Brisbane authors like Trent Dalton, Nick Earls and Rebecca Sparrow—are properly recognised and supported.

This bill strikes a vital balance. It preserves free public access to books and literature through our libraries while ensuring Australian creators and publishers receive fair compensation for their work. It modernises an important framework, it supports Australian storytelling and it reflects the way Australians engage with literature today. It continues Labor's proud legacy of supporting Australian arts and culture. I commend this bill.

I'm really glad to be able to make some remarks in support of the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 and the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026. It's a significant consolidation of the arrangements that have been in place since the Whitlam government, quite rightly, decided that that, as a matter of fairness, authors should get the benefit from the proliferation of their works through libraries and educational institutions.

I support what this government has done in extending that to cover digital formats, which, as the member for Bonner rightly said, is how many Australians now enjoy Australian stories and Australian literature. I also support, and am glad for this opportunity to highlight, the significance of the contribution that Australian authors, writers, storytellers and picture-book illustrators make to our broad wellbeing and the sustainment of our distinctively Australian identity.

Making sure that authors and writers get paid fairly for the work that they do is a matter of justice for those people as workers and, frankly, as Australian manufacturers. We talk about a future made in Australia. In this country, there are very few more important things that we make than cultural products. When we consider books and stories—when we consider films, music, works of theatre, dance and all of the many expressions of creativity and cultural production—they are something essential to life in Australia. If you think about things that are made in Australia and manufacturing in Australia, they really should be at the very top of the priority tree.

While we want to see more and more things made in Australia, as a matter of economic diversification, economic self-sufficiency, supply chain sovereignty and all of those things, the reality is that it probably doesn't matter a great deal in the lived experience of Australians, whether, say, a beverage was manufactured in Australia or came in from overseas. I like to drink Australian-made beverages, but, at the end of the day, if someone gives you a glass and it's got lemonade in it, the experiential difference between lemonade that may have been made here and lemonade that may have been imported is not all that great.

When it comes to cultural products, there is a vast difference. It is not the same to say that, if all the novels we read in this country were written somewhere else, there would be no difference to the quality of Australian life. It is not true to say that, if all the music we listen to, all the theatre we see and all the films we enjoy were made somewhere else, there would be no experiential difference, no difference to our identity and no difference to our capacity to understand ourselves, to consider our circumstances or to imagine our best future. It's not true to say that that wouldn't be massively affected for the worse if we weren't able—particularly as young Australians—to access the stories, songs, theatrical performances and dance that have origins here, in our experience and in our landscape. This is especially relevant, of course, for those works that that touch on, draw upon, engage with or seek to interrogate and resolve the most interesting and complex parts of our identity and our history, starting with our First Nations cultural heritage—our most precious heritage as the longest continuous civilisation on earth.

Those things are sustained by arts and creativity, cultural production and all the people who contribute to that in Australia. It is essential. It is vital. We know that the health of that broad creative ecosystem is at risk from all of the things that can impact on the people who are drawn vocationally to make that contribution. And some of them are those global market forces. There are times when it would be easier and cheaper if what we watched on our screens had been made somewhere else, but we cannot accept that. We cannot allow that to occur. One of the ways that we make sure Australian storytelling, Australian voices, Australian experiences and Australian language are kept at the core of our national experience is by making sure that the people who devote themselves, their skill and their expertise to that enterprise are properly supported. And this is just one small part of it. I'm not here to say today that public lending rights make the distinctive difference. There's a whole range of things, and we need to keep focusing on them. I know that Minister Burke and the Special Envoy for the Arts, the member for Macquarie, who's just entered the Federation Chamber, are at work on that all day, every day.

For me, writing and storytelling and books are special for a couple of reasons. When I was young, it was my ambition to make a life as a writer. When people say, 'Well, how did you ultimately come to be involved in representative work?' I say that it was by first being a failed novelist. I worked as a travel writer; I wrote and published short fiction. I did a range of things. I don't regret any of the many wonderful and sometimes difficult and frustrating hours that I spent on those novel manuscripts, even though, ultimately, they weren't good enough to enter the public realm or end up on the shelves of a library. From my own personal experience, I know that the contribution that writers and authors make is massive. I've had some experience in seeking to be a contributor to that—unsuccessfully.

I've obviously had much more extensive experience as a reader. I know that there are—well, I would say virtually every Australian will have, through reading, some Australian stories as part of the formation of themselves, as part of the way they have come to understand the things that are valuable to them and precious in their community, particularly stories that allow us to see ourselves and to understand ourselves better.

I really welcome what this bill is contributing. And I want to take the opportunity, while talking about the necessary support of Australian writing and Australian literature, to reflect on its significance in my community in Fremantle. Fremantle has been a place that has nurtured the creative arts in all its dimensions over a long period of time. That includes a number of significant writers and it includes a number of significant literary organisations. A couple of them have celebrated birthdays recently and I just want to touch upon them.

First and foremost, Fremantle Press just marked its 50th anniversary. It has been one of the most critical arts and culture organisations in Western Australia. And, as a matter of full disclosure, my wife, Georgia, works at Fremantle Press as the fiction and non-fiction publisher. I think the work she does is amazing. One of the things I love is when, in our house, I'm occasionally allowed into her study and I get to see the shelves of books that she's had a hand in seeing into print. That's an incredible legacy. I sometimes wonder about the impact I might be having on the world when I see all of the really amazing stories, fiction and non-fiction, that Georgia has supported authors to see become part of our experience in Australia. It reminds me that the work that cultural creators do in this country is seriously undervalued. What Fremantle Press has done—some of the hardest work in the publishing world is dedicated to identifying and seeing stories into print, particularly unpublished Western Australian voices. That is a challenge in a great continent like ours, because some jurisdictions that are outside the Melbourne-Sydney-Canberra triangle can face all of the barriers and the disadvantages that come from that smaller scale and that distance. Having a press like Fremantle Press in WA helps bring forward, for all our benefit, writers like Elizabeth Jolley, AB Facey, Sally Morgan, Kim Scott, Joan London, Dave Warner, David Whish-Wilson, Dianne Wolfer and many, many others.

I say happy birthday to Fremantle Press and recognise the incredible work that they've done over 50 years and that I know will continue for the next half-century and beyond. I'm glad that Creative Australia's Plus1 program was able to support Fremantle Press in finding their new headquarters in the old SEC Substation down in Fremantle—what will be their 'forever home'. As they reach the half-century, being able to occupy new headquarters, after having moved various times over the years, is a great step in securing a foundation for Western Australian writing for a considerable period of time.

I also want to acknowledge the 10th birthday of the Paper Bird bookshop. It's Perth's only specialist children's bookshop, and it also functions as a dedicated arts and culture centre for young people. It was created 10 years ago down in Fremantle, and it's a beautiful place. It's a place that, for lots and lots of young people and their parents—and for not-so-young people—is a kind of treasure island of children's and young adults' literature and of the work by illustrators that is often part of that. That includes a lot of books that Fremantle Press has been involved in that draw upon our incredibly rich First Nations history—both the subject matter of those stories and the language—like Noongar First Words and those kinds of publications, which I wish I had had the benefit of reading when I read books at primary school but which kids now do get to enjoy. That's something we should recognise.

I'll conclude by saying that we need to maintain our focus on the importance of cultural production—that kind of future made in Australia. We need to keep recognising that, however our system works, it doesn't properly reward or support those kinds of producers. That's just the way it is. The average income of an Australian writer is just a bit more than $18,000; it doesn't even get over the tax-free threshold. The public lending rights arrangements do send significant and rightful support to the producers of works. If you look at that $28 million across 17,000 payments, it's probably $1,700 per author, on average. It's an important contribution. They ought to have it as a matter of right.

But we should nevertheless recognise that, if you are a writer, a musician, a playwright, a painter, a visual artist or a person who's creating original choreography, you are struggling. You make a choice out of that vocational commitment. What goes with that choice, inevitably, is economic uncertainty. For many, many Australian artists, the reality is that, while they pursue their art and while they make an essential contribution to our wellbeing, they almost start from a position of having to ask, 'What's going to be the way that I earn a living so that I can also write these incredible novels and produce these amazing albums, these great films and so on?' We need to say to ourselves, 'That's not right.' We should continue to try to be creative in finding ways to make sure that those creators and those workers get a fair go. I say this cautiously, but it's good that you can be a run-of-the-mill anything—a run-of-the-mill bricklayer, a run-of-the-mill dentist, a run-of-the-mill politician—and be able to earn a fair living. You could be an absolutely first-rate author, first-rate musician or first-rate playwright, and you will struggle. There are so few Australian artists who can really go into their work as professionals and have the expectation of that security. That's something we should keep trying to fix.

There is a particular kind of silence that exists in a library. It's not an empty silence; it's a living one. It's the silence of curiosity, of imagination at work, of children discovering worlds larger than their own and of someone reaching for comfort, knowledge, escape or recognition between the covers of a book. In every city, town and suburb across Australia, libraries hold the accumulated voices of generations: histories, poems, field guides, children's stories, novels and memoirs, and behind each of those books is a writer who worked, often for years and years, to turn their thoughts into language. Everyone deserves access to those words. It's a cornerstone of a fair and democratic society like ours. We must also ensure that our writers are fairly remunerated for the contribution they make to our society and culture.

The public lending right and educational lending right schemes are an important way of reconciling these two objectives. These programs are founded on the simple principle that, while the public benefits from free access to books through libraries and educational institutions, the people who created those books should be compensated for the income they would otherwise have earned through direct sales. They're based on the belief that public access and fair payment can coexist, that libraries should be free and that writers should not be expected to survive on gratitude alone. The origins of these programs lie in the reforming ambition of the Whitlam government.

In 1974, the Whitlam government introduced the public lending right, which recognised that books on library shelves represented labour, not just culture. Whitlam said that the Public Lending Right Scheme marked Australia as a nation that 'recognises the value of creative writing' and that recognises 'the place of literature and the arts in a robust and civilised society'. He said that 'governments cannot create good writing or great art, but they can create the conditions in which art and literature are most likely to flourish'. The educational lending right followed, which acknowledged the irreplaceable role that books play in Australian classrooms. Today, these programs are a vital part of the cultural fabric of this country.

For many authors—children's writers, poets and literary fiction authors in particular—these payments are among the most reliable sources of income they receive from their creative practice. In 2024-25, the Australian government distributed $28 million in lending rights payments to more than 17,000 creators and publishers. Our national cultural policy, Revive, expanded the program to include digital lending rights for the first time, which increased payments by $3.38 million in the first year alone. As significant as these payments are, they pale in comparison to the economic impact of our literature sector.

In New South Wales alone, the sector contributes $1.3 billion a year to the economy and supports up to 22,000 jobs. Writers in Australia, though, are rarely wealthy. Even our most accomplished authors often sustain themselves through teaching, speaking engagements, grants, festivals and casual work. The Australian Society of Authors has noted that Australian authors earn on average only about $18,000 a year from their creative practice. About 76 per cent of authors reported earning less than $15,000 annually from their creative work. These figures should give us all pause.

We ask a great deal of our writers. We ask them to preserve memory; interrogate power; explain the complexity of life to children and adults; and illuminate grief, love, injustice and joy. We ask them to hold up mirrors to who we are and open windows into worlds that we have not yet explored. There are more than 5,000 professional authors living in Australia, and I'm proud that a disproportionate number of them live in my electorate of Macquarie. I'm going to make no effort to name them all, but the Blue Mountains has become one of the great literary landscapes of Australia and has drawn writers for generations—writers like David Brooks, whose poetry has woven together language, memory and the natural world with extraordinary sensitivity, and who recently received the Prime Minister's Literary Award for Poetry; and writers like Jennifer Rowe, known to generations of readers as Emily Rodda, whose stories have shaped the imaginations of countless children. These are just two writers whose work is shared widely through libraries across the country and enriches Australians' lives in ways that are impossible to measure.

The PLR and the ELR recognise that the circulation of literary work through our communities and the permeation of ideas throughout our culture is a public good. For the authors who benefit from the program, the payments matter enormously not because they create vast wealth but because they create possibility—a few more months to write, the freedom to reduce other work, the chance to begin another manuscript and, importantly, a tangible indication that their country values what they do.

The Albanese government understands the symbolic and material importance of this program. That's why we're ensuring it remains modern and responsive to the world as it changes. Publishing has changed dramatically in recent decades. Books now move not only through physical shelves but through digital platforms, audiobooks and online lending systems—so our policy settings must evolve too. This is where the previous Liberal government failed Australian writers. For years, the Australian Society of Authors and other sector advocates warned that the schemes were falling behind the realities of modern reading. Gone were the days—my days—of holding a torch under the blankets, reading a book. Now, ebooks and audiobooks are increasingly common in public libraries and educational settings, just as they are in the home. But the policy framework has not kept pace. At a time when many creators were already under financial strain, the previous government allowed that inequity to persist for far too long.

We should remember what the past decade has looked like for creative workers. The previous government enacted cuts that hit individual artists and writers particularly hard. Then the pandemic devastated arts incomes almost overnight. Income from school visits, festival appearances and speaking engagements simply disappeared during lockdowns, even as Australians turned to books in extraordinary numbers; that was the cruel irony of it.

People speak warmly about books. They talk about the importance of reading to children, literacy and Australian stories. That appreciation must also be reflected materially in the way we support the people who create those works. That's what the PLR and the ELR are about. A manuscript can take years of painstaking work, revision and persistence. Most books do not produce large incomes but a single book can stay alive in a community for decades, borrowed and reborrowed, passed between readers, shaping lives over time. The PLR and the ELR recognise that, long after the initial sale, the cultural impact of a book continues to reverberate. This matters especially in a country like Australia, where local voices can be easily overwhelmed by the scale and market power of global media.

The Albanese government understands that creativity requires more than recognition; it requires systemic support that allows artists to keep working. Australian literature will thrive because people believe in it, fight for it and invest in it. Australian culture cannot thrive with set-and-forget policymaking any more than our literature sector can be sustained by admiration alone.

The modernisation of the PLR and the ELR is by no means the limit of our support for Australian literature. During the consultation for our National Cultural Policy, Revive, we heard from many that literature was the most chronically and structurally underfunded art form. Through that policy, we created Writing Australia within Creative Australia. Writing Australia is now providing direct support for the literature sector, growing local and international audiences for Australian books. In its first three years, Writing Australia will deliver more than $26 million. This is in addition to the $7.8 million that Creative Australia invests annually for literature projects.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the longstanding advocacy of the Australian Society of Authors, who argued that 'Australia's lending rights schemes have fallen out of date and urgently require an upgrade'. I'm very proud that the Albanese Labor government's landmark cultural policy, Revive, answered that call and brought lending rights into the 21st century. I'm proud that this legislation takes a further step in modernising this important program upon which so many writers rely. This legislation will make commonsense, practical changes to a system that's already delivering for Australian authors. The Whitlam government understood the value of creative labour half a century ago, and the Albanese government understands it today. That's why we're ensuring the program Whitlam introduced is fit for now and fit for the future. As we look ahead to digital lending, modernised education systems and emerging technologies, we have a responsibility to ensure these schemes remain strong, contemporary and fair because Australian writers deserve more than praise after the fact. They deserve the means to keep writing, and Australia deserves to keep hearing its own voice. I commend this bill to the House.

It is with both an even mix of pleasure and a daunting feeling that I follow the member for Macquarie. She applies a great deal of thought to this area because of a deep passion and a belief in the creativity of her fellow Australians. I want to commend her for the contribution that she just made to the House. There are a lot of elements of what the member for Macquarie touched on that I want to retrace the steps of, not the least of which is that we last year marked 50 years since the dismissal of Gough Whitlam's government. It is a point of major reflection for our side of politics because it goes to a perennial question within the party about how much or how little reform we undertake.

Prime Minister Whitlam's administration is seen as having created lessons to learn from in both a positive and negative way. I take a different view. The election of the Whitlam government was designed to usher in significant change after a period where not much change had occurred whatsoever. What was underpinning a lot of Prime Minister Whitlam's reforms was an inherent belief in something that we rarely reflect on, which is Australian exceptionalism. What Prime Minister Whitlam believed in was the power of the Australian voice. He believed in the power of Australian ideas and refused to take any suggestion that Australians, regardless of their background, should take their place in line or that we were not worthy of making contributions not only in the Australian context but also globally. I am not, by any stretch, suggesting that his administration was perfect. In fact, he later acknowledged, in his own way, some of the shortcomings of what he had done.

But the important thing is that a lot of what Prime Minister Whitlam undertook survived to this day. In this debate, around these reforms, his moves are important because it was under his administration that we first looked at being able to improve the way in which authors were remunerated for their work—not because we were reducing it to a simple matter of dollars and cents but rather because we put a value on the contribution, the thought and the fact that Australian writers considered the Australian experience, they interpreted it for Australian audiences in a way that resonated for them, and, if they undertook that work, that they were entitled through their labour to a better deal. That reform, as much as people may reflect on how much the Whitlam government did and if it did too much, too soon, endured over that period of 50 years. They made a mark, and they continue to make a mark today. Hence what has been brought forward to the parliament. I just want to commend the Minister for the Arts for championing this bill in terms of recognising and supporting Australian creators and publishers. It brings the entire scheme into a single contemporary legislative framework, it replaces the Public Lending Right Act 1985, and it also makes sure that it is fit for current purpose, which is incredibly important.

I also want to reflect on future challenges in this area. These public and educational lending rights are there for a very straightforward but important reason, and that's to ensure that creators and publishers get the money that they deserve when their books are made freely available, particularly through public and educational libraries. It is the transmission of that knowledge, that guidance, that know-how, that goes on from one generation to the next in an educational setting, in many instances, that should be recognised and remunerated. Whilst not everyone who writes a book, according to the minister, seeks to be a full-time author, he did point out—I thought this was important to restate for the record—that the average income for an Australian writer in 2021-22 was reportedly just over $16,000, which would surprise a lot of people given what is required to produce those works.

There is also an admission that the creativity captured within that work is their property. It should not be, quite frankly, stolen by those who wish to use it for other purposes or to profit from it in a way that is not right, fair or gives an opening to the author or the publisher. As I indicated earlier, it was in 1974 that Prime Minister Whitlam approved the Public Lending Right Scheme, and it was inherently underpinned by a notion of fairness, recognising the value of that work and the importance of supporting Australian voices. That endures 50 years on. The bill itself is a critical way of modernising something that took a foothold 50 years ago, has been amended from time to time and now needs to be updated.

There are, as people would be aware, threats to the ability of authors and publishers to earn what is owed to them and for their work to be respected. The principal threat comes in the form of artificial intelligence. Some of the biggest models on the planet require data—huge amounts of it—processed regularly to refine and improve the operation of those models. That means soaking up data from wherever it may sit. In some cases, it would involve taking up the works of creators and churning them through their systems. There is, rightly, an objection to the way in which that may occur. If that occurs without remuneration, that is fundamentally wrong. It is theft. There should be a mechanism for the remuneration of authors and creators for their work if it's used to train an AI model.

The view of those developing the models is that that is too much to ask for, and that is a ridiculous proposition. The reality is these models have had huge amounts of money—billions of dollars—poured into their development, and they will ultimately create a reward, a profit, for the developers of those models. From my point of view, and certainly from the point of view of many in the public, the work of authors, creators and publishers should be properly, fairly remunerated. This is a commercial transaction, and the hard work put together by creatives should be paid for. It's important to note some of the creators may not even be aware their works are being utilised to train AI models, which is something that we should be alert to.

The Copyright Act in this country, in its current form, does not yet contain provisions specifically addressing AI generated content. Understandably, artists and creatives want the government and the parliament to ensure that they are properly remunerated and protected from some of the changes that have been sought by US tech to dilute the Copyright Act in this country to allow them to access those works. That should not happen. It is not right. It is not fair that that should occur. Big Tech should also not be allowed to get away with the argument that allowing access to copyright material or, in particular, remunerating it will stifle economic growth in innovation. This is wrong. It is a red herring of an argument. The models that are being developed by those firms pay every step of the way. The people that run those companies are very well remunerated. The employees that help develop those models are remunerated as well, both in salary and in shares. They will become wealthy people. They have got their slice. They cannot say that they should do better by taking money off of authors, creatives and publishers and arguing that, by being forced to pay, innovation will be stifled. As I said, this is a completely false argument and should not be allowed to stand. They should pay their way and also recognise that, if compensation is good for them, it is good for authors as well.

The other thing is that AI generated content can be produced at a speed and a scale that are not comparable to the output of human creatives. Genuine creative work will often require significant human time investment, and that should be recognised in any future deal. This is but one argument—this is a pinprick—that is now being enlivened as a result of the rapid uptake of Generative AI. Parliaments, governments, the world over are being challenged by the ways in which AI is starting to impose itself on societies. We cannot afford to have a hands-off approach to a technology that will touch every part of our lives. There should be a unified, clear set of guardrails that governs the way AI is used in societies. Anyone who thinks that the general public is permissive of the widespread use of AI is woefully mistaken. Australians are genuinely concerned about the impact of artificial intelligence. They do not believe it is a free-for-all. They do believe there should be guardrails.

Also, no-one believes that there is a choice between regulation and innovation, that they cannot exist together. As I often remark, anyone who takes a medicine at a time when they are ill puts great trust and faith in that medicine. They have not tested it themselves; they have hoped that somewhere along the line that medicine will be safe to take and use. That is because there has been a very thorough, strong, complete regulatory framework that has guided the development of that medicine. And yet we continue to have remarkable breakthroughs in medical sciences in spite of the fact that a heavy regulatory framework exists.

People are seriously concerned about what AI will do to them. In Australia, nearly 75 per cent of people believe that, even when they use AI, it still poses a threat. In the American context, polling has shown 77 per cent of Americans think AI is not a force for good. It means we have a responsibility as a parliament to be across this issue, to prepare the country for this issue and the threats that are posed and, in doing so, to not be framed as Luddites but do what we're meant to do for the Australian public, which is identify risk, mitigate risk, build confidence and get the most out of new technology when it delivers for us and, importantly—I end on this point—where the technology works for us, not the other way round. That is critical.

Libraries are the beating hearts of our communities. They are a crucial education resource for children and families, particularly those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, who would otherwise not have access to such a wide range of reading. In this way, libraries are a vital component of our educational landscape. When children have free access to the shelves of a library, we know that they have improved rates of literacy, and who can really argue against free access to books? Who can really argue against children reading more? Something as simple as a library card can literally change a person's life. But behind the free access to knowledge, we are obligated to compensate those who produce this knowledge—writers, authors, publishers.

This debate seeks to replace the Public Lending Right Act 1985 and its associated scheme with the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 in order to provide for a unified and modern legislative framework. In 1974, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam introduced a public lending scheme. His goal was to encourage broader reading in the Australian community and elevate Australian voices and stories all while ensuring that authors, publishers and illustrators were paid fairly and equitably because Australia has some of the best writers in the world, from Alexis Wright, one of our leading Indigenous voices, to JM Coetzee, an Australian Nobel Prize winner in literature.

Because PM Whitlam was committed to education for all as a way of bettering our country and providing opportunity for all, the public lending scheme also meant that everyone in our Australian community would have access. Since 1974, incremental changes have been made in the way of updating the scheme to adapt to contemporary technological changes and innovations, and we now have ebooks, audiobooks and other such digital platforms.

A national survey of Australian book authors in 2022 found the average annual income of an Australian author was around $18,200, ranging from about $5,000 for poets up to about $28,000 for youth authors. This is well below minimum wage. This is not to mention the growing prominence of self-publishing, and even when an author chooses to go down this route, which is precarious to begin with, their success does not necessarily, and in fact often doesn't, translate into financial security or stability. This isn't good enough. Full-time writers often rely on their royalties as their only source of income, which, given the average income of $18,200, means that for every writer who is making a good living from their writing, there are many, many others making very little.

If we expect—and I think we all expect this—a thriving literary culture in Australia, we need to be able to financially support those who are at the very heart of it. The reality is that free books reduce direct sales, affecting all those in the chain of production, including publishers, booksellers, agents and translators. Lending rights ensure that authors are paid where their works are freely available in public and educational libraries. In 2024-25, more than 17,000 payments were made to creators and publishers because of the scheme, amounting to more than $28 million. In other words, it is this scheme that has allowed writers to thrive and good stories to be shared. It enables writers to be paid, as they should be, for their work, their ideas, their time and their IP.

This bill consolidates the Education Lending Rights and the Public Lending Rights into a single legislative framework. The Education Lending Rights Scheme is in fact not currently enshrined in legislation. It adopts many of the features and definitions of the existing legislation while taking into account changes to the way Australians today read. We will modernise and streamline lending rights governance and administration, including the creation of a new public and educational lending rights committee. An associated bill, the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026, will ensure that the old and new schemes are cohesive and consistent.

This bill is part of the Albanese Labor government's national cultural policy, Revive. Revive seeks to not only support Australian writers and literature but protect this invaluable part of our national culture and heritage. Under Revive, we aim to modernise lending rights that reflect the rapid changes in the way we all read, changes that align, for example, with the developments in new digital formats like ebooks and audiobooks. Writers deserve to be compensated for their hard work and for the hours they spend whittling away in the creation of their stories, stories which speak to the times and will stand the test of time.

That is why the Albanese Labor government has also invested in Creative Australia, providing grants and funding for authors who are in the midst of creating a new work. This funding is essential. It gives writers the breathing space to write, time to write and financial stability. It recognises the value of what they do and the value of their creativity, and it enables them to continue their work writing Australian stories, Australian nonfiction, Australian voices. In fact, in the 2026-27 budget, Creative Australia will receive an increase of $14.7 million in funding, from $311.8 million to 326.5 million.

At its core, this legislation is about recognising the value of Australian stories and the people who create them. One thing I've noticed from visiting schools across Boothby is that books still matter deeply to young people. You see it in the questions that they ask, you see it in the way they connect stories to their own lives and communities, and you see it when the conversations about books turn into bigger conversations about fairness, identity, belonging and the kind of country we want to be. When I visit schools to talk about democracy and civic participation, I'm always struck by how closely literacy and engagement are connected. Students who read widely are often the students asking thoughtful questions, challenging ideas and thinking critically about the world around them. That matters, particularly at a time when misinformation and division can spread so quickly online. Reading is not just about literacy; it's also about participation. It's about helping young people understand different perspectives, think critically and engage confidently in public life. These skills do not appear by accident; they are built through education, through conversation, through stories and, yes, through reading.

Many Australians would remember growing up with the work of Mem Fox, a resident of my electorate of Boothby. Her books have been part of childhoods across Australia for generations. They've been read at bedtime, in classrooms and in libraries right across the country. That is the extraordinary thing about books. A story written by one person can become part of millions of people's lives. It can shape childhood memories and a lifelong love of reading. I recently attended the launch of the book God is an Apricot by Boothby author Robert Moore, set around the Shepherds Hill Recreation Park in my electorate. What struck me was how familiar it was—the suburbs, the atmosphere, the small details of everyday life in communities like ours. Not every important story is set in New York or London, and not every important Australian story is set in Sydney or Melbourne—or Canberra. Some are set in suburbs like ours, around beaches, sporting clubs, parks, schools and shopping strips people in Boothby would recognise immediately, and these stories matter too.

Over the past few years, I've also had the opportunity to attend local book launches and literary events celebrating South Australian authors and storytellers, including Lainie Anderson, Mercedes Mercier, Jennifer Mackenzie Dunbar and Daniel O'Neill. I particularly want to acknowledge Becky Lucas and Mike Lucas from Shakespeare's Bookshop in Blackwood and Charmaine Power from Mostly Books in Mitcham, two independent booksellers in my electorate who have built a genuine community around books and reading and who support our local authors—because books are not just about publishing; they're also about community. Places like the Mitcham library, the Tiwu Kumangka library, the Marion library and the Holdfast Bay Community Centre library are not simply places to borrow books; they are places where children discover reading, where older Australians stay connected to their communities and where people can access stories, learning, information and ideas, regardless of their background or income. Libraries are one of the best things we have. They are welcoming places, equalising places, places of learning and connection.

In a past life, when I worked in local government, I had libraries in my portfolio, and they were always some of the most popular services that we provided to the local community. Libraries are places to come together, places to find out information, places to learn, places to find an amusing or entertaining book and places to just sit and relax. This legislation is not about choosing between libraries and authors. We need both. Public libraries are an essential part of community life and should remain free and accessible. But creators should not be invisible within that system. This bill streamlines and modernises Australia's public and educational lending rights framework to ensure authors are fairly recognised when their works are held in libraries and educational institutions. It's a practical legislation, but it reflects something much bigger about what we value as a country, because governments make choices about what matters. These bills say Australian stories matter, literacy matters, creative work matters, and art work—writing—is real work and should be paid.

People often see the finished product sitting on a shelf, but they do not see the years of work behind it—the research, the editing, the rewriting and the uncertainty. For many Australian writers, writing is done alongside other jobs, family responsibilities and everyday life. Very few authors become wealthy from publishing books, but their contribution to our cultural and educational life is enormous. If we want future generations of Australian writers to continue telling Australian stories, we need systems that make creative work more sustainable. Australian stories help preserve Australian identity. They reflect our humour, our landscapes, our history and the everyday experiences that shape our communities across the country. They help young people see themselves reflected in the stories they read, and they help all of us better understand one another.

Books do not appear by accident; they exist because someone decided a story was worth telling. Libraries enrich our communities and authors enrich our national life. This legislation recognises that both matter. If we value Australian stories, we must also value the Australians who write them. I commend the bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

It's a privilege to make my contribution to the debate on these two bills, the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026. Together, these bills represent a landmark moment in the reform of Australia's Commonwealth secrecy framework—one that has been needed for a long time and one that this Albanese Labor government is proud to deliver.

Let me begin by acknowledging what these bills are fundamentally about. They are about the enduring tension at the heart of any democracy, the tension between a government's legitimate need to protect sensitive information and the public's fundamental right to know what is being done in their name. These are not competing values that can simply be traded off against each other. They are twin pillars of democratic governance, and both demand our serious attention.

For too long, the Commonwealth's secrecy framework has been a sprawling, inconsistent patchwork; a statute book cluttered with hundreds of secrecy provisions, many of which were never designed to carry the weight of criminal liability. The result has been a framework that is neither fair nor fit for purpose. It has created legal uncertainty, chilled legitimate public interest journalism and imposed disproportionate consequences on individuals who may have done nothing more than perform their job. This government was elected with a commitment to fix that, and that's exactly what these bills do.

The Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill is the centrepiece of this reform. It delivers comprehensively on our commitment to implement the recommendations of the 2023 review of secrecy provisions conducted by the Attorney-General's Department, as well as the government's response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's 2024 review of secrecy offences under part 5.6 of the Criminal Code.

The scale of change is significant. The bill will remove criminal liability from more than 300 provisions, representing more than one-third of all Commonwealth secrecy provisions. The 2023 review identified 168 provisions that no longer required criminal liability. This bill goes further, almost doubling that number. No more tinkering around the edges; this is serious evidence based law reform.

What does this mean in practice? It means that the vast majority of non-disclosure duties across the Commonwealth statute book will no longer attract criminal sanctions. Instead, they will be subject to more proportionate civil and administrative consequences, consequences that are proportionate to the nature of the breach and appropriate to the context. It means that hundreds of Australians who work for or provide services to the Commonwealth will no longer face the spectre of criminal prosecution for conduct that does not genuinely threaten our national security or public safety.

Let me be clear about what this bill does not do. It does not leave Australia's most sensitive information unprotected. Where criminal liability is genuinely necessary—where the potential harm from unauthorised disclosure is serious and real—it remains. The bill preserves and strengthens the provisions that matter most. And it introduces a new targeted secrecy offence in the Criminal Code to address a specific gap identified when a former consulting firm partner allegedly shared confidential Commonwealth information for private gain. This new offence will capture improper use or communication of information by Commonwealth officers, persons engaged to perform work for a Commonwealth entity and persons providing paid or unpaid services to Commonwealth entities—capturing the full range of people who are entrusted with privileged access to sensitive government information. This is a proportionate and targeted response to a real problem, and it ensures our framework is comprehensive without being oppressive.

I want to turn now to what I believe is one of the most important elements of this bill—the protections it introduces for press freedom. The Albanese Labor government has been unequivocal in its commitment to a free press. A free press should never be considered an inconvenience to good government as it is a fundamental mechanism of our democratic accountability. Journalists who expose wrongdoing, who bring hidden information into the public domain, who hold power to account perform an essential public service, and our laws should reflect that.

Under this bill, the Attorney-General will be required to consent before a journalist or an administrative staff member of a news reporting organisation can be prosecuted for a secrecy offence. This is an important additional safeguard. It does not prevent legitimate prosecutions. It does not allow the Attorney-General to initiate prosecutions. What it does is ensure that, before any prosecution of a journalist proceeds, there is proper scrutiny at the highest level, scrutiny that complements the existing requirement that any prosecution must be in the public interest. This is exactly the kind of check that a mature democracy should have in place.

The bill also implements important recommendations of the INSLM's Secrecy Review. These amendments will repeal the proper-place-of-custody offences that are no longer required; ensure that the classification of information under the Protective Security Policy Framework does not form an element of any secrecy offences, a matter of significant legal clarity; ensure the harm threshold for certain offences is unambiguous and material; and strengthen protections for nonofficials by increasing the threshold for criminal liability, reducing penalties and repealing the offence for merely 'dealing' with information. These adjustments go to the heart of ensuring our secrecy laws are proportionate, consistent with the rule of law and respectful of individual rights.

I also want to acknowledge the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill, the companion piece before us today. Section 122.4 of the Criminal Code currently makes it an offence for a Commonwealth officer, or a person engaged to perform work for a Commonwealth entity, to communicate information in breach of a duty arising elsewhere in Commonwealth law. Without the sunsetting provision bill, that section will lapse before parliament has had the chance to fully consider the broader reforms in the repealing offences bill. This is sensible, responsible legislative management. The limited extension to 29 December 2026 ensures there is no gap in protections for sensitive Commonwealth information while parliament does its job properly. It would be neither prudent nor responsible to allow section 122.4 to sunset prematurely. This bill ensures that does not happen while making clear that the extension is interim. Parliament's task is to pass the repealing offences bill and complete the reform. I am confident we will be able to do exactly that.

I want to close by reflecting briefly on what these reforms say about how we think about law in this country. Laws should not simply exist because they have always existed; they should be justified by the harm they prevent, the rights they protect and the values they uphold. For too long, too many of our secrecy provisions have failed that test. They are relics of a different era, carrying criminal consequences that are disproportionate, inconsistent and, in many cases, simply unnecessary. This government has done the hard work of reviewing those provisions carefully, consulting broadly and bringing forward legislation that reflects both the seriousness of protecting genuinely sensitive information and the importance of transparency and accountability in a democracy. That is what good government looks like, that is what Australians deserve, and I commend both bills to the House.

The Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026 deal with an issue that sits right at the heart of responsible government and democratic accountability in this country. They are about how we protect sensitive information, uphold national security, preserve public trust and maintain confidence in our institutions. But they're also about ensuring governments remain accountable, transparent and respectful of democratic freedoms, including freedom of the press.

In the modern world, information is power. Governments hold enormous amounts of personal, commercial and national security information. Australians rightly expect that that information is to be protected—it is to be protected responsibly and securely. At the same time, Australians also rightly expect governments to be accountable and not hide behind secrecy unnecessarily. The challenge for this parliament is striking the right balance—especially under this Labor government—between those competing responsibilities.

Now, secrecy laws are not always the most headline-grabbing pieces of legislation debated in this chamber, but they are incredibly important to the functioning of good government and public confidence in our institutions, because, when governments fail to protect sensitive information, confidence in our institutions begins to erode. And, when confidence in institutions erodes, democracy itself is weakened. Equally, excessive secrecy can also damage democracy if governments overclassify information or overcriminalise disclosure. That's why these reforms matter and why they deserve the careful scrutiny of this place.

The government says these bills are intended to modernise and simplify the Commonwealth secrecy framework. To be fair, there is truth in that assessment. Over many decades, secrecy offences developed across the Commonwealth's statute book in an inconsistent and fragmented way. Different governments introduced different provisions at different times, often for very different purposes. The result has been a framework that became increasingly complex, patchwork, inconsistent and in some areas just simply outdated.

The government proposes removing criminal liability from more than 300 secrecy provisions across Commonwealth legislation. That is not a small administrative tidy up; it is a major restructuring of Commonwealth secrecy laws and how they operate across government. Because of that, this parliament has a responsibility to scrutinise these reforms carefully and responsibly. Let me say clearly that the coalition supports the principle that criminal sanctions should be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct involved. Not every administrative mistake should attract criminal liability. That seems pretty axiomatic. Not every disclosure should result in imprisonment. Where protections can appropriately be maintained through administrative sanctions, disciplinary action or civil remedies, that should be considered by government. It should be considered by this place.

The explanatory memorandum itself acknowledges that many secrecy provisions no longer require criminal liability because alternative protections already exist. Some offences related to information that is now decades old; some related to agencies or frameworks that don't even exist anymore. Others duplicated protections already available elsewhere in the law. So there is genuine merit in modernising and simplifying parts of the framework.

But, while the coalition supports sensible reform, we also believe secrecy laws exist for a very important reason. That reason is protecting Australia's national interest and maintaining public confidence in government institutions because some information, if improperly disclosed, can cause significant harm—harm to national security, harm to law enforcement operations, harm to Australians' privacy, harm to commercial-in-confidence matters and harm to public trust in government itself. Australians expect their governments to handle sensitive information responsibly. That expectation is entirely reasonable. Once public confidence in the handling of sensitive information is lost, it is incredibly hard to get it back.

One of the most significant aspects of this legislation is the creation of a new targeted secrecy offence relating to the improper use or communication of Commonwealth information for personal gain or to cause detriment. Frankly, most Australians would assume this type of offence already existed. Australians expect that, if someone entrusted with sensitive information abuses that information for personal advantage, there should be serious consequences. The proposed offence specifically targets intentional misuse of information where somebody improperly uses or communicates information to obtain a benefit or cause detriment to another person or Commonwealth entity. Importantly, this offence is narrower and more targeted than the existing broader framework. It focuses on deliberate wrongdoing and genuinely harmful conduct rather than technical administrative mistakes. I think most Australians would see that as a reasonable and proportionate approach.

Australians were rightly angered by the revelations involving confidential Treasury information being misused by consultants and private firms. That conduct damaged confidence in government processes and raised serious concerns about integrity and accountability. Australians expect integrity from those entrusted with sensitive information, whether they are public servants, consultants, contractors or advisers, and Australians rightly expect governments to act when that trust is breached. This legislation attempts to address some of the gaps exposed by those events. If privileged Commonwealth information is exploited for private gain, confidence in our entire system of government is undermined. Public trust in institutions is something we should never take for granted in this country.

Another significant aspect of these reforms is the expansion of secrecy obligations to persons providing services to the Commonwealth, including unpaid service providers in some circumstances. This reflects the reality of modern government, where governments increasingly rely on contractors, consultants, advisory panels and external expertise. Many people outside what we would consider the traditional public service now have access to highly sensitive government information. Where individuals are entrusted with that information, obligations should follow that access. Equally, these laws must be applied carefully, proportionately and fairly. Australians should not fear criminal liability for innocent mistakes or technical administrative issues where there is no harmful intent. The focus should always remain on genuinely harmful conduct that undermines public trust or national security.

These reforms also deal extensively with journalists and press freedom. We're honoured to have some of the Attorney-General's public servants in the chamber with us today, who, I might say, work very hard for the Commonwealth, and I thank them for their service. This bill introduces a requirement that the Attorney-General approve prosecutions against journalists or media staff before proceedings can continue for secrecy offences. The coalition supports a strong and independent media because a free press is absolutely fundamental to a healthy democracy. Yes, they can be a pain in the backside at times, but journalists play an important role in exposing wrongdoing, scrutinising governments and informing the public about matters of public interest. Freedom of the press must also exist alongside national security responsibilities. There is a very important difference between legitimate public-interest journalism and the reckless disclosure of highly classified information that could endanger lives or compromise security operations. This parliament must always maintain that distinction carefully and responsibly.

While many offences are being removed, the legislation still preserves criminal liability for particularly sensitive categories of information, including census data, healthcare information, commercial information and patent information. That is entirely understandable, because Australians expect highly sensitive personal and commercial in confidence information to remain protected. Australians expect their medical information to remain confidential—that shouldn't come as any surprise. Businesses expect commercially sensitive information provided to government to remain secure. Australians completing the census expect that the information they provide will remain protected and confidential. Without public trust, participation declines, and without participation, governments lose access to reliable information needed for policymaking and service delivery.

These reforms must also be viewed in the context of the modern strategic environment and the increasingly complex threats facing Australia today. Cyberthreats have increased dramatically over the past decade. Foreign interference operations are more sophisticated than ever. Hostile state actors actively seek to obtain sensitive government information and exploit weaknesses in systems and institutions. Critical infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable to cyberattack and malicious interference. That is why secrecy laws cannot simply be viewed as dry administrative legislation. They form part of Australia's broader national resilience and national security framework. They should be part of a national security strategy, if this government ever gets around to implementing one. As somebody who has spent considerable time working on intelligence and national security matters through the PJCIS, I understand how serious these issues are.

National security is not theoretical. The threats facing Australia today are real. They are growing more complex by the day. More than 103,000 Australians have died in service of this country, wearing our uniform with our flag on their left shoulder. We honour their sacrifice by ensuring this parliament takes Australia's national security responsibilities seriously. One thing the coalition will always stand for is proportionality and balance. We believe governments must have the powers necessary to protect Australia and protect Australians.

The companion legislation before the House, the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026, is much narrower in scope but still important. Its purpose is to extend the operation of certain secrecy offences for a further six months, until 29 December 2026, while broader reforms are being implemented. Effectively, it acts as a transitional measure designed to prevent legal gaps or unintended consequences during this transitionary phase. Transitional arrangements are sometimes necessary in complex legislative reform, but Australians are entitled to ask why temporary extensions continue to be required instead of finalising a permanent framework more quickly.

Good governance requires certainty, clarity and confidence in the law. Governments should always aim to finalise permanent frameworks wherever possible as reasonably quickly as possible. These bills raise important questions about secrecy, transparency, accountability and national security in modern Australia. They are not simple questions and there are no perfect answers.

I rise in support of the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and the associated bill. The main bill is not the sort of bill likely to dominate the evening news. It is, however, the sort of bill that matters if we want Commonwealth law to be clear, proportionate and capable of being understood by the people who have to comply with it. That is not always the most glamourous work in parliament, but it is important work.

The Commonwealth's secrecy framework has become too complex, too scattered and, in some places, too blunt. The Attorney-General's Department identified more than 860 secrecy related provisions across Commonwealth law—295 nondisclosure duties, 569 specific offences and 11 general offences in the Criminal Code. That is a lot of secrecy law. Some of it is necessary. Some of it protects national security, sensitive personal information, commercial information, health information and the integrity of Commonwealth decision-making. But some of it is outdated, some of it is duplicated, some of it has not been reviewed properly for years and some of it imposes criminal liability in circumstances where criminal law is not the right tool—and that is the problem the main bill seeks to address.

At the centre of the current framework is section 122.4 of the Criminal Code. Section 122.4 makes it an offence for a Commonwealth officer or a person engaged to perform work for a Commonwealth entity to communicate information in breach of a duty arising under another Commonwealth law. That provision was never intended to be permanent. It was intended to operate while those non-disclosure duties were reviewed and a more settled framework was developed. In plain terms it was a temporary fix, and, as any electrician will tell you, temporary fixes have a habit of becoming permanent if nobody comes back to do the job properly. That's not a criticism of temporary fixes—sometimes you need them—but it does come to a point when you should stop pretending that a cable tie is part of the design, and this bill is part of doing the job properly.

The Australian Law Reform Commission identified the issue in its 2010 report Secrecy laws and open government in Australia. The principle was straightforward. Criminal sanctions should be reserved for conduct that warrants criminal punishment. Where civil, administrative or contractual remedies are sufficient the criminal law should not be used just because it happens to be available. That is a sensible principle. It's not soft on wrongdoing and it's not antisecrecy. It simply recognises that criminal law is the sharpest instrument available to the state and should be used with some care. The first major change by this bill is to replace section 122.4 of the Criminal Code with a new targeted general secrecy offence.

Under the existing approach, criminal liability can be enlivened by a breach of a non-disclosure duty, even where there is no real consideration of intent or harm, or whether the conduct is the sort of thing that should be criminalised. The new offence is more focused. It captures people who are using or communicating Commonwealth information with the intention of obtaining benefit for themselves or for someone else, or causing detriment to a Commonwealth entity or another person where a reasonable person would conclude that the conduct was improper. That is a better test. It targets the person who misuses confidential government information for advantage. It captures the sort of conduct alleged in the PricewaterhouseCoopers tax scandal: confidential Commonwealth information being used to help private clients avoid their obligations.

That is the kind of conduct that should attract serious consequences, but it does not treat every mistake, every misjudgement or every technical breach as though it belongs in criminal courts. That distinction matters, because most people who deal with Commonwealth information are not trying to game the system. They are public servants, contractors, advisers and officials trying to navigate a complex set of rules, and they should be held to proper standards. They should be subject to discipline when they breach their duties and they should face consequences when they do the wrong thing, but the consequence should fit the conduct. This bill keeps non-disclosure duties in place. It keeps civil remedies. It keeps administrative consequences. It keeps the capacity to protect genuinely sensitive information. What changes is the criminal liability reserved for the conduct that properly warrants it. That is not radical; it is basic proportionality.

The second major change is that this bill repeals or removes criminal liability from more than 300 Commonwealth secrecy provisions. Some of these provisions are simply no longer needed. Some of them relate to schemes that have long since passed into history. Others deal with information where civil or administrative consequences are sufficient. There is a certain charm, I suppose, in preserving secrecy obligations for institutions that no longer exist, but charm is usually not the best basis for criminal law. The bill also recognises that not every secrecy obligation should be treated the same way. A small number of duties relating to genuinely sensitive personal, commercial and healthcare information will continue to attract criminal liability, and that is appropriate. The point is not to abolish secrecy law; the point is to make it more coherent.

The third important reform concerns journalists and news organisations. The bill legislates the requirement that the Attorney-General's consent be sought before prosecuting a journalist, an editor, a producer or an administrative staff member of a news organisation for a secrecy offence. At present, that protection exists as a ministerial direction. A ministerial direction is better than nothing, but it is not the same as legislation. It can be changed and it can be revoked. It depends on the government of the day. This bill moves that protection into statute, and that matters, because journalism often involves uncomfortable information.

Good journalism does not only report what institutions would prefer to announce. It also reports what institutions would sometimes prefer to avoid. That is particularly important at the local level. In communities like Moore local and community media do not have the resources of major mastheads. They are often small teams, sometimes very small teams—one journalist, one editor, sometimes the same person doing both jobs while probably also trying to get the website to work and chasing, for a comment, someone who has decided that 4.55 pm is the right time to become unavailable. These outlets cover local councils, agencies, community organisations and decisions that affect people directly. They are part of the accountability framework, whether or not we always describe them that way.

Secrecy prosecution does not need to have a chilling effect. The threat can be enough. For a small newsroom, the risk of prosecution—or even the risk of a serious legal fight—can be enough to stop a story from being pursued, and that is not good for public accountability. This bill does not give journalists a blank cheque. It does not place them above the law. It creates a safeguard before the prosecution of a journalist or relevant news media staff can proceed. That is a sensible protection.

There has been debate about whether requiring the Attorney-General's consent risks politicising prosecutorial decisions, and that concern should not be dismissed. The Law Council and the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom have raised legitimate points about the role of executive discretion in this space. But the contrary position also has force. The Human Rights Law Centre, Transparency International Australia and others have recognised that, in the current framework, a legislated consent requirement is a pragmatic safeguard. The Australian Press Council has also argued that legislative entrenchment is stronger than reliance on ministerial direction. On balance, this bill takes the better course. It does not solve every question about press freedom, whistleblower protection or secrecy law, but it improves that position.

The fourth area of reform concerns part 5.6 of the Criminal Code and the government's response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. These amendments are targeted. They remove reliance on security classification alone as the basis for certain offences. That is important because a classification label should not, by itself, do all the work required for criminal law. The bill reduces the maximum penalty for offences by nonofficials from five years to three years. It repeals aggravated offence provisions, except in narrow circumstances. It requires the Attorney-General's consent for prosecutions, regardless of whether proceedings are committal or summary. These are not headline-grabbing amendments. They are the kinds of amendments that make the law more precise, and, in criminal law, precision matters. People should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited. Prosecutors should have clear thresholds. Courts should not be left with provisions broader than they need to be.

The bill sits alongside the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026. That bill extends the sunset date for section 122.4 from 29 June 2026 to 29 December 2026. That is a short extension. It allows the parliament to consider the broader reforms before the existing provision sunsets. That is sensible. There is no point pulling down the temporary structure before the permanent one is ready, and anyone who has spent time on a worksite understands that sequencing matters. Parliament, occasionally, is no different.

I also note that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee is due to report on the repealing offences bill by 19 June 2026. That inquiry provides an opportunity for stakeholders to test the detail. That is appropriate. Secrecy laws sit at the intersection of public administration, national security, press freedom, privacy, accountability and criminal law. They should be scrutinised carefully.

This bill is not the final word on all of those questions. There is still work to do, particularly on whistleblower protections. Recent cases have shown these issues are not theoretical. They affect real people; they affect public servants, journalists, agencies and the public's confidence in the government. But this bill is a substantial step. It removes unnecessary criminal liability, it replaces a temporary and broad provision with a more targeted offence, it better protects public interest journalism, it implements important recommendations from recent reviews, and it makes the Commonwealth secrecy framework clearer than it is now. That is the point.

Government needs secrecy in some circumstances, and nobody seriously disputes that. There will always be information that must be protected—national security information, intelligence information, personal medical information, sensitive commercial information and material given to the government on a confidential basis. But secrecy laws should not be broader than necessary, they should not be scattered across the statute book in a way that makes compliance harder, and they should not use criminal liability where other remedies are sufficient.

The people of Moore expect government to protect sensitive information. They also expect the government to be accountable. Those expectations are not inconsistent. A mature legal framework should be able to do both. This bill moves us closer to that position. It is careful. It is practical. It is overdue. I commend the bill to the House.

Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:00

Before the debate is resumed on this bill, I remind the Federation Chamber that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026.

Minimising secrecy and maximising transparency are obviously building blocks of a healthy democracy and are to be applauded, so the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 is a worthwhile bill and is obviously supportable. It's supportable not just because of what it does but also because of the way it reminds us of what the government isn't doing, which is why I move the amendment circulated in my name. I move:

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

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

(1) notes that:

(a) Australia has been described as 'the most secretive democracy in the world' due to the proliferation of national security, counter-terrorism and secrecy laws, and the lack of whistleblower and public interest journalism protections; and

(b) despite the Labor party promising in its 2021 platform to overhaul and improve Australia's whistleblower protections, only small changes have been introduced to date, and protections remain patchwork and inadequate; and

(2) calls on the government to:

(a) introduce comprehensive reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the Corporations Act to better protect whistleblowers;

(b) introduce comprehensive reforms to the Crimes Act and Criminal Code Act and Evidence Act to better protect public interest journalism and media sources;

(c) establish a Whistleblower Protection Authority to oversee public and private sector whistleblowing; and

(d) establish a federal whistleblower rewards scheme encouraging whistleblowers to come forward and expose wrongdoing".

I pursue this matter at this time because, frankly, whistleblowers matter. They're one of the most fundamental building blocks of our democracy and one of the fundamental ways that we bring genuine transparency to the way this country is run. Where would we be? Where would we be without someone like Toni Hoffman, who you'd recall was the nurse at Bundaberg Hospital who blew the whistle on Dr Patel and the tragic deaths that occurred there over a period of years? Where would we be without Alan Kessing? He was the Sydney Airport customs officer who blew the whistle on the security lapses at Sydney Airport. Where would we be without Jeff Morris? He blew the whistle on misconduct at CommBank and the incompetence in ASIC and was one of the reasons we ended up having a royal commission into the financial services sector. Where would we be without Richard Boyle? He blew the whistle on the egregious conduct at the Australian Tax Office in Adelaide. David McBride blew the whistle and provided the evidence of war crimes in Afghanistan.

In my own work, there have been a number of whistleblowers that I've helped facilitate the disclosure of their information. You might remember the information that was revealed about Crown Casino, and I'm mindful of the whistleblower who provided me with the video footage of a group of young men in a private gaming room laundering literally an Aldi freezer bag full of cash, estimated to contain about $2 million—all because of a whistleblower. Troy Stolz, a former ClubsNSW compliance officer, provided the evidence of non-compliance with money laundering and counter-terrorism legislation at up to 95 per cent of registered clubs in New South Wales. What about the AFL whistleblower, the doctor from Melbourne, who revealed the evidence of secret drug testing within the AFL? Where would we be without the very brave Hillsong Church whistleblower? I think it was in this chamber on her behalf that I tabled something like 17 folders of hard evidence of shocking financial misconduct by the leadership of Hillsong Church.

These people should be celebrated, but instead they're ridiculed, persecuted, charged and jailed. Just look at those examples I've given you. Toni Hoffmann was undermined and ridiculed. Alan Kessing was charged and convicted. Jeff Morris, the bank whistleblower, was sacked by the bank. Richard Boyle from the ATO was charged, and mercifully there was no conviction recorded. David McBride, of course, is in jail only several kilometres from where we meet today. Troy Stolz was taken to court by ClubsNSW. The AFL whistleblower was ridiculed within the AFL and beyond. The Hillsong whistleblower is before the court as we speak. In fact, there's an AAP story circulating today about what's going on there. In other words, the protections just don't work for these people, whether they are in the public sector and are relying or leaning on the Public Interest Disclosure Act or whether they are with the private sector, perhaps relying on the relevant sections of the Corporations Act. They're just not working.

There was in fact—this is very timely—no better evidence of this than the report in the Australian Financial Review just three days ago on 10 May regarding Neometals executive Christian Reiche, who thought he was a whistleblower when he flagged governance and strategic risks at the battery technology company. In fact, I met with Christian Reiche about a year ago, and, from memory, one of the issues was an allegation of theft of intellectual property when it came to whatever Neometals was pursuing. I'll read this from the FinReview, so I'll get it right:

In a major judgment, the Full Federal Court has backed the company's decision to make Reiche redundant, finding that because the board and CEO subjectively believed his complaints were unfounded, or it was simply "part of his job to raise such matters", he was not protected by whistleblower laws.

For those who are listening to me and who are struggling to understand what I just said, I don't understand it myself. I think, in other words, this whistleblower was witness to serious misconduct, he spoke up, he thought he had the protection of the relevant part of the Corporations Act, but, because the management didn't regard him as a whistleblower, he was not protected by the whistleblower protections.

This is not a criticism of the court in any way, because the court entirely appropriately applied the law as it stands. The issue is that the law is a crock. In fact, isn't it interesting that there has not been one successful whistleblower in a compensation claim under both the federal public sector and the private sector whistleblower laws—not one successful claim for financial compensation under any of those laws since they've existed. Surely that is all the evidence we need that they need to be improved.

I'm delighted to see the Attorney-General in the Federation Chamber, and I do note that the government has been working on reform for some time. In fact, for at least the last four years, the Labor government has been talking about reform and have acknowledged the need for reform. Consultations have come and gone. I think consultations are forthcoming on the Corporations Act. But we measure success by outcomes, and the Public Interest Disclosure Act has not been amended in any substantive way, except for a few technical changes—dotted a few i's and crossed a few t's. There hasn't been the deep reform of the Public Interest Disclosure Act that is needed. I don't think the Corporations Act has been touched since Senator Rex Patrick did fabulous work in the Senate some years ago to get those provisions put in. So, Deputy Speaker Mascarenhas, through you, I say to the Attorney-General: we've really got to get cracking on this, not just the PID but the Corporations Act as well. I find it unfathomable that Christian Reiche was witness to misconduct. I've spoken to this man personally. I am satisfied that he was witness to misconduct. But because the management at Neometals didn't regard him as a whistleblower—they thought it was just part of his normal job to observe things like intellectual property theft—the relevant part of the Corporations Act didn't apply. That's a very timely example that I'm able to bring to the Attorney-General's attention through you, Deputy Speaker Mascarenhas.

Of course, it's not just amending those acts; there is also the pressing need for an independent whistleblower protection authority, as exists in a number of countries around the world. The fact is that whistleblowing in this country is diabolically difficult; it's incredibly difficult. For a start, you've got to be able to safely collect evidence of your complaint. We saw with Richard Boyle, the ATO whistleblower, that although, from memory, the court understood he was a whistleblower they found he wasn't protected by the relevant act because his collection of evidence was not covered by the act. Well, how can you blow the whistle if you can't collect evidence? The legislation is complex. Frankly, unless you're a lawyer in this area or unless you can go to something like an independent whistleblower authority to get advice, you're behind the game right from the start. There's such a high likelihood that you're going to stumble and fall foul of the law, just like Richard Boyle did. Fortunately, there was no conviction recorded against Richard Boyle in the end.

Apart from understanding the law, you need someone to mentor you through the process. Take the Public Interest Disclosures Act; there is a convoluted process with a series of hoops you have to jump through, and you need someone figuratively hold your hand and guide you through all those hoops, otherwise you will run afoul of the law. That's something we need to turn our minds to. It's come up from time to time in public utterances by the government, it exists in a number of other countries and it's something that would be very worthwhile.

I won't detain the House any longer. I will just say in closing that, yes, minimising secrecy and maximising transparency are building blocks of a healthy democracy and are to be applauded. I say, through you, Deputy Speaker Mascarenhas, to the Attorney-General: this is a worthwhile bill, and I hope it has the unanimous support of everyone in this House and in the other place, but it's almost a clarion call to get moving on all the other stuff—the big stuff, the more important stuff, the more helpful stuff, the stuff that will show whether or not this government has real integrity and is committed to minimising secrecy and maximising transparency and to celebrating the people who speak up and speak truth to power. I rattled off about 10 examples here of particular individuals. We should also be mindful of the thousands of Australians who speak up in all sorts of ways, whether it be about the organisation they're a member of, about the business they're an employee of or maybe about their local council. There are any number of things where people speak up, and for many of those whistleblowers it ends in tears. They will be bullied in the workplace, they'll be managed out or they'll be blatantly sacked. They will be ridiculed and marginalised. It leads to financial troubles. It leads to relationship troubles. No wonder the suicide rate for whistleblowers is markedly higher than the baseline rate in our community.

Whistleblowing in this country is almost impossibly difficult. I'm pleased people like Toni Hoffman, Allan Kessing, Jeff Morris, Richard Boyle, David McBride and Troy Stolz have enjoyed the publicity and the public support they have, but spare a thought for the thousands of other Australians who speak up and the local paper won't even give them the time of day—let alone having a story on the news that night, let alone capturing the attention of the media for a protracted period of time to make their case and to sandbag their position and be in a stronger position publicly.

In closing, while all of the hullabaloo caused by whistleblowers might well be a bugbear for organisations, it is nonetheless grist to the mill of Australia's democracy. Whistleblowers must be supported, and indeed celebrated, and not be the tall poppies that some people make them out to be.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

I rise today to speak in support of the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill and Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill. Before I do, I do acknowledge the contribution from the member for Clark. I share his view that the disclosable conduct regime in the Public Interest Disclosure Act, taxation assessments act and the Corporations Act are complex, but they are complex for very good reasons. I would put some of his concerns to rest that the legislation does, in fact, contain robust protections for whistleblowers and robust processes and procedures that organisations in receipt of disclosable conduct submissions must follow. Any reform to those powers and those processes must be done with significant degrees of care and consideration given the consequences and the magnitude of the making of disclosable conduct.

Turning to the bills currently before this chamber, what are secrecy provisions? These are provisions designed to prohibit the disclosure of sensitive information held by government, including some types of personal, commercial, national security and law enforcement information. Secrecy provisions exist not to hide, to obfuscate, to confuse or to concentrate power. They exist to prevent harm to essential public interests such as national security, and they provide assurance to people and entities who provide information to the Commonwealth that their information will be treated appropriately.

There is a need for secrecy laws, but of course these laws must be balanced against both the public interest and the fundamental democratic principle of open and accountable government. Secrecy provisions must be justified within that system of open and accountable government, and in a manner consistent with the right to freedom of expression. Now, this requires a balance between the desirability of open government and the legitimate public interest in protecting some information from disclosure for those important reasons, including national security, defence, international relations and privacy.

This balance must be clear and it must be appropriate. It's not easy. On one side of the coin, it is critical that Australia's law enforcement and security agencies have access to powers which may, in certain instances, have the effect of curtailing certain freedoms. This is in order to allow for the proper investigation of serious offending and the obtaining of intelligence regarding legitimate threats to essential public interests. The other side of the coin reflects Australia's democratic values, the rule of law and human rights considerations which dictate that official secrecy provisions must be tempered by a critical right, which is the public's right to accountable government.

Secrecy provisions need to be ring-fenced, and proportionately so, to the disclosure of information which would undermine national security or endanger citizens. It is simply a fact that some information held by the Commonwealth must have its integrity and security protected. This is not secrecy for secrecy's sake; this is a genuine purpose. Secrecy provisions must be frequently measured and performance tested to make sure that they reflect this genuine purpose and to make sure that the balance between the genuine purpose, the public interest and human rights is being appropriately and proportionately struck.

Drawing on the 2023 review of secrecy provisions conducted by the Attorney-General's Department and the government's response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's 2024 Secrecy offences: review of part 5.6 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, this bill comprehensively tests and reforms Australia's secrecy provisions. By way of background, on 21 November 2023, the Albanese Labor government announced it would introduce reforms to Commonwealth secrecy offences to significantly reduce the number of secrecy offences, ensuring remaining offences were fit for purpose and improving protections for press freedom. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's 2024 review, which looked at part 5.6 of the Criminal Code, helped to shape this. Part 5.6 of the Criminal Code includes offences that apply to Commonwealth officials, including contractors, who disclose or otherwise deal with what is defined as 'inherently harmful information' or information that falls into a category defined as 'causing harm to Australia's interests'. These definitions of 'inherently harmful information' and 'causing harm to Australia's interests' are central to how these very serious offences operate, so they must, therefore, be clear and certain.

Part 5.6 also contains a general offence pertaining to officials who breach a duty imposed by another law not to disclose information and an offence that applies to any person, not just officials who disclose specified types of information, including information with a security classification of 'secret' or 'top secret', applied in accordance with the Commonwealth policy framework. For prosecutions in this regard to be effective, certainty and clarity about what this all means in practice is required. Asking whether part 5.6 is working effectively required a consideration of what can only be described as really complex questions, such as how potential breaches of secrecy obligations are actually handled in practice, what national security or other harms the criminal offences aim to address, as well as the threshold questions of when a deemed-harm offence is appropriate, what they should cover and who they should apply to.

These are complex issues, and multiple reviews of Australian laws relating to secrecy found that the provisions—probably in response—have become complicated, outdated, too broad and, in some cases, no longer essential. The latter finding of 'essential' cuts across the principle of the genuine purpose of secrecy provisions, creating a risk that justifiable information sharing can be compromised, which only undermines trust and creates suspicion that the genuine purpose is not appropriately reflected in the law. Scope creep, or death by a thousand cuts—whatever you call it when new baselines are constantly set—cannot be the way to legislate. This bill quite rightly makes comprehensive reforms to Australia's secrecy framework in response to these findings.

Now to turn to the bill itself and its practical impact—firstly, criminal liability. The 2023 review of secrecy provisions that I referred to earlier found that there existed 168 provisions that no longer required criminal liability but which still attracted it. Following a period of extensive stakeholder consultations led by the Attorney-General and involving contributions from multiple departments and agencies, criminal liability will be removed from more than 300 secrecy provisions, which will take place by repealing and amending specific legislation. Significantly, section 122.4 of the Criminal Code will also be repealed. Courtesy of section 122.4A, the offences in this section apply to people who are not Commonwealth officers in relation to information they communicate or deal with, or which was made or obtained by another person by reason of that other person being or having been a Commonwealth officer or otherwise engaged to perform work for a Commonwealth entity.

What this means is that section 122.4A offences would arise if the non-Commonwealth officer communicates or otherwise deals with information and, among other things, the information is security classified or communication of it interferes with or prejudices enforcement of Commonwealth criminal law, or harms the health or safety of the Australian public. These offences are extremely broad, and the repeal means that the vast majority of these non-disclosure duties will now be subject to more proportionate civil and administrative sanctions. This means criminal liability will only arise where strictly necessary to protect sensitive information, which again better reflects the genuine purpose of secrecy laws. This is significant reform.

To be clear, this bill will introduce a much more targeted and refined secrecy offence into the Criminal Code. This is not a broad, general secrecy offence that criminalises disclosures that are detrimental to the working of government, which is what the 2023 review recommended. That would be too broad and would undermine trust in the criminalised aspects of the secrecy framework. The bill instead seeks to close gaps that were previously identified following the much reported, unacceptable conduct of a former PwC partner, who allegedly shared confidential Commonwealth information for personal and professional gain. The targeted secrecy offence will address this type of conduct, which will apply to Commonwealth officers and persons connected to the Commonwealth where these persons improperly communicate or use Commonwealth information to obtain a benefit or cause a detriment.

Finally, press freedoms are contemplated and enhanced by the repealing offences bill. Appropriate protections that promote freedom of the press are growing in importance. We know that if there is an erosion of press freedoms it is a signal of the erosion of an efficient, effective and functioning democracy. In 2025, the World Press Freedom Index, which was compiled by Reporters Without Borders, was at its lowest point in the index's 25-year history. Journalism is being increasingly criminalised, and political hostility to the press is creating a very uneasy climate where speaking out can compromise one's personal safety. We see it time and time again across the globe, including increasingly in countries which we would traditionally have regarded as fully functioning democracies that have historically embraced freedom of the press.

In 2025, Norway topped the index, and we must all strive to meet them where they are at, which is a media market that is vibrant and features a strong public service broadcaster and diversified private sector services with extensive editorial independence. Fair and genuine public-interest journalism must never be endangered. Journalists and the press play an important role in providing information to the public, in holding governments to account, in investigating matters of national significance and, ultimately, in some cases, shaping policy decision. This work, when it is done fairly, must never be encumbered.

The bill therefore contains a new requirement that the Attorney-General consent to the prosecution of a journalist for any secrecy offence, with the goal of this being that it must be absolutely clear that any proposed prosecution is in the public interest before it proceeds while noting two things: firstly that protected matters—like providing information to the public, holding governments to account and investigating matters of national significance—are firmly part of the public interest, and secondly that certain information relevant to national security and law enforcement or highly sensitive commercial and personal information must also be protected from disclosure. So significant amendments will be made to the secrecy offences that apply to non-Commonwealth officials, including journalists. The practical effect of this is that non-officials will be subject to a higher threshold for criminal culpability than Commonwealth officials by increasing the thresholds to trigger criminal liability.

Achieving the genuine purpose of secrecy laws is challenging because it involves a combination of secrecy, transparency and accountability. But that purpose must always be achieved, because if it is not then public confidence in the secrecy framework is eroded, and once this is damaged or gone the challenge to try to regain that trust is almost insurmountable. The Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill seeks to strike that balance between secrecy, transparency and accountability, and I stand with the Attorney-General in bringing this bill before the parliament and in the work that she has done revisiting Australia's secrecy laws. I commend the bill to the Chamber.

I rise to support the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026. Repealing more than 300 unnecessary secrecy offences is long overdue, and I commend the government for acting on years of careful review by the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Attorney-General's Department and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, INSLM.

For too long, Commonwealth law has imposed criminal liability across a vast sprawl of nondisclosure obligations—provisions that have accumulated without coherent review and that sit far beyond what any principled framework of criminal law would endorse. That accumulation was not the product of deliberate policy, but rather legislative drift, and it has entrenched a culture of secrecy that weakens rather than strengthens accountable government. Repealing more than 300 of these provisions is a meaningful reform. It will make our laws clearer and more worthy of trust from the people they govern. But I'm concerned about the new general secrecy offence it introduces, the replacement for section 122.4. It gets the balance wrong in ways that matter.

The government's own independent reviewer, the INSLM, has been clear: any new general offence should be harm based and directed to essential public interests, with criminal sanctions reserved for disclosures that cannot be adequately addressed through administrative or contractual means. The bill does not do this. Instead, the new offence turns on whether it would be reasonable to conclude that a use or communication of information was improper—a concept that's undefined and dangerously vague. 'Improper' is not a harm but a broad, uncertain standard of conduct that no independent reviewer recommended. The government agreed in principle with the INSLM's harm based approach, but this provision does not reflect that agreement.

The uncertainty this offence creates is a problem. Consider a public servant who mentions to a former colleague that their agency is tendering for a particular contract, where that information hasn't yet been published. Is that improper? It may well be. Consider a peak legal body that receives a confidential exposure draft of legislation precisely so it can consult its specialist committees and provide informed feedback. A lawyer who circulates that draft internally is doing exactly what the consultation process requires, but are they exposed? Arguably, yes, if sharing the draft confers a benefit and the confidentiality terms were explicit.

Now, the government might say that none of these people would actually be prosecuted, and that may be true, but 'trust us' is not a principle of criminal law. People are entitled to know in advance whether their conduct is lawful. 'Improper' does not tell them, and it risks having a chilling effect on consultations, civil society and public interest journalism.

The first amendment that I'm going to move in consideration in detail will address this. It replaces the 'improper' test with a harm based threshold. The offence would only be committed where the communication harms, or the person intends or is reckless as to harming, an essential public interest. The amendment defines essential public interests as national security and defence, criminal justice, integrity, public health and safety, financial system stability and the privacy of personal information held by the Commonwealth, while making clear that the courts may recognise others as well. Critically, it also makes clear that a communication does not harm an essential public interest merely because it exposes wrongdoing, maladministration or a failure of public accountability, protecting the space for whistleblowing and public interest journalism without creating an unlimited defence.

The second amendment that I will propose addresses the Attorney-General's consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions. I support this mechanism, but not without reservation. Politicians should not, as a matter of principle, be final arbiters in the functions of our criminal justice system. But, in the absence of stronger protections, including a general public interest defence or effective whistleblower laws, this mechanism is desirable in practice and may safeguard against prosecutions that would otherwise proceed contrary to the public interest. Well-balanced secrecy laws would negate any need for the Attorney-General to act as a final safeguard at all. My second amendment will therefore require a mandatory independent review every five years to assess whether this mechanism is working as intended and whether it remains necessary, with findings reported to the parliament and a government response to any recommendations required.

Open government is a condition of democratic accountability. Secrecy is sometimes necessary, but it must be the exception, and it must be justified by reference to real harm to real public interests. While the bill makes important progress, the amendments that I'll be proposing in consideration in detail would ensure it goes further, anchoring the new general offence in the harm based framework that independent reviewers recommended, protecting journalists and civil society, and building in the accountability mechanism this reform deserves.

I really want to support this bill. Repealing more than 300 secrecy provisions and simplifying this would be a step in the right direction, towards more open and accountable government. But replacing them with an offence that turns on whether the use of information was improper is dangerously vague. It's not consistent with the harm based approach or the focus on essential public interests, advocated by the INSLM and the Law Council, which the government agreed with in principle.

I urge the government to consider my amendments in good faith—making the new test harm based and directed to essential public interests and including a five-yearly review to make sure that the Attorney-General's consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions is actually working as it should. These are reasonable changes, and, if the government agrees to them, I will happily support the bill.

I rise in support of the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026. This is some of the most significant reform to Commonwealth secrecy law in decades. It draws on two major reviews: the Attorney-General's Department Review of Secrecy Provisions completed in 2023 and the subsequent independent statutory review by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. I commend the government for acting on these findings.

Secrecy provisions are necessary. They protect national security and intelligence and ensure that those trusted with sensitive information can be held to that trust. But, as the Human Rights Law Centre put in their submission, 'Secrecy laws which are disproportionate and not properly calibrated are bad for Australian democracy and the rule of law.' This bill moves meaningfully closer to that balance, though not all the way there. I understand the bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I hope the issues I raise today are considered carefully and that the government responds to the committee's recommendations before passage.

The 2023 AGD review had confronting findings. Commonwealth legislation had accumulated around 875 secrecy provisions, which was enough for the New York Times to describe Australia as 'possibly the most secretive democracy in the world'. Of these 875 provisions, 168 were identified as no longer warranting criminal liability at all. The review instead deemed that civil or administrative sanctions were more proportionate. The AGD review also recommended a new general secrecy offence to replace the sunsetting section 122.4 of the Criminal Code, which had long been the mechanism through which the non-disclosure duties across Commonwealth legislation attracted criminal liability.

In 2024, the INSLM reviewed the general secrecy offences in part 5.6. It found them uncertain, inconsistent with rule-of-law principles and, in some cases, disproportionate, particularly as they applied to nonofficials such as journalists, lawyers and human rights advocates.

This bill gives legislative effect to both reviews. It repeals more than 300 secrecy provisions. This is nearly double the number recommended for repeal by the AGD review and a reduction of more than a third of Commonwealth secrecy provisions. This is achieved primarily through the repeal of section 122.4 and targeted removal of criminal liability from non-disclosure duties across 13 portfolio areas. I am pleased to see this.

The bill also introduces a new targeted secrecy offence directed at those who improperly use or communicate Commonwealth information to obtain a benefit or cause detriment. This narrower formulation responds to the PwC tax confidentiality breach but does consciously reject the broader general offence proposed by the 2023 AGD review.

In response to the INSLM's recommendation, the bill repeals the security classification limbs of the deemed harm offences, removing reliance on administrative classification markings as a criminal offence element. It repeals the 'dealing with' offence for nonofficials under section 122.4A(2), ending the position where journalists face criminal liability merely for receiving sensitive information. It narrows deemed harm offences for officials, requiring a more direct connection to actual or likely harm. It nearly halves the maximum penalties for non-official disclosure offences. It legislates a requirement that the Attorney-General's written consent be obtained before any journalist can be prosecuted for a secrecy offence. And it clarifies that unsolicited receipt of information and other unwitting dealings with information do not constitute 'dealing with', for the purpose of part 5.6.

These are real reforms. They reduce criminal liability, raise thresholds and lower penalties. I do not want to diminish what this bill achieves. Reducing 875 secrecy provisions to fewer than 600 is a genuine accomplishment. Removing the absurdity of journalists facing prosecution for receiving unsolicited documents is a genuine improvement. But genuine improvement is not the same as adequate protection.

First, the new general secrecy offence does not adopt a harm based approach. The replacement offence under section 122.4 applies wherever a person improperly uses or communicates Commonwealth information with an intention to obtain a 'benefit' or cause a 'detriment', terms defined in the Criminal Code dictionary as any advantage or disadvantage whatsoever. But the Human Rights Law Centre and the Centre for Public Integrity note that this departs from what the AGD's own 2023 review recommended and from what the INSLM recommended. The concern is practical; much ordinary engagement with government could theoretically involve some advantage to one party or disadvantage to another. The HRLC gives the example of civil society organisations, including the very organisations who submitted to the inquiry for this legislation, being provided with confidential draft legislation and asked to provide feedback. This is ordinary democratic participation. Whether or not it could fall within the offence's reach is, on the current drafting, at least arguable. The word 'improper' provides some guard, but it is undefined. An undefined concept of impropriety is a thin protection in a provision that carries criminal liability. That is why I support the member for Curtin's amendment, which replaces the vague concept of 'improper' communication with a concrete, harm based threshold. It limits criminal liability to communications that harm—or where a person intends to harm or is reckless as to whether the communication harms—an essential public interest, such as national security, public health or financial stability. It also explicitly protects journalism and whistleblowing that expose wrongdoing.

Second, the journalist defence remains structured against journalists. The defence in section 122.5(6), which protects public-interest journalism, has not been amended. The Alliance for Journalists' Freedom puts the position plainly: the current provision requires journalists to bear an evidential burden to establish they reasonably believed their conduct was in the public interest. That is contrary to the presumption of innocence. It is the journalist, not the Crown, who must raise, substantiate and prove the public-interest claim, often in respect of conduct the journalist may not have known was covered by a secrecy offence at the time. The HRLC, the Centre for Public Integrity and the AJF all identify this as an unimplemented reform. The INSLM's recommendation 13, which I note was agreed to in principle by the government in November 2024, was that consideration be given to recasting the defence as an exception, shifting the burden to the prosecution. That recasting does not appear in this bill. That is deeply disappointing.

Third, the Attorney-General's consent mechanism has structural limitations. I acknowledge that this is an improvement on the current arrangement, but I hold concerns about its potential for politicisation. Journalists report on politicians. Whether a potential conflict of interest is real or simply perceived, the fact that a politician holds the power to authorise or block the prosecution of a journalist for a secrecy offence is significant and should raise concern. As the HRLC noted in their submission, this mechanism is unsatisfactory as a matter of principle but, given the absence of stronger protections, desirable in practice. It is disappointing that this must be our solution in the face of reforms which don't go quite far enough. Again, I support the member for Curtin's amendment, which requires an independent review of this provision every five years in consultation with media stakeholders.

Fourth, and following on from this point, the bill has not come alongside necessary reform of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. We are still without a whistleblower protection authority; we are still without a single, consolidated whistleblower act. A parliamentary committee first called for an independent protection body for whistleblowers in 1991. It was called for again in 1994 and, again, in 2017. We are still waiting. This reform is monumental, but it does not appear in a vacuum in our legislation. It comes as David McBride is still in jail and as whistleblower advocates still await certainty. Currently, under section 122.5(4) of the Criminal Code, compliance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act can operate as a defence to a secrecy offence, but the PID Act's requirements for a qualifying 'external' or 'emergency' disclosure are highly technical. This makes it harder for whistleblowers to have certainty about whether disclosures which are well within public interest will leave them criminally liable.

I will be moving a consideration in detail amendment to address this gap. My amendment would provide that, where a whistleblower does not satisfy every technical requirement but can demonstrate that the disclosure was both reasonable and genuinely in the public interest, they may have access to additional certainty. These disclosures will still not be permitted to be given to a foreign public official. It doesn't resolve all the problems with our whistleblower framework, but it is a meaningful first step towards protections that the public expects and whistleblowers deserve.

This bill's senate committee reports on 19 June. The government's response to those recommendations will be a test of whether its commitment to further reform is genuine. I commend the bill for inquiry, and I urge the government to address these issues I have raised before its passage. Reducing this body of law from 875 provisions to fewer than 600 matters. Ending the absurdity of journalists being prosecuted for receiving documents matters. But we should not mistake progress for completion. The people this framework most affects, whether they are journalists, those who represent whistleblowers or civil society organisations, are still telling us it falls short. We should listen.

The Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 delivers on the government's commitment to comprehensive secrecy reform. The objective of these reforms is clear: protect information that genuinely needs protecting while removing unnecessary barriers to transparency and public trust. The bill modernises Australia's secrecy laws by removing criminal liability from more than 300 secrecy provisions, ensuring criminal sanctions apply only where essential to protect genuinely sensitive information. It introduces a new targeted offence to address the improper use or communication of Commonwealth information to obtain benefit or causing detriment, closing gaps in the Commonwealth's secrecy framework and strengthening safeguards for press freedom.

I note the member for Clark's second reading amendment. The Albanese government is delivering on our commitment to implement comprehensive reforms to Australia's public sector whistleblowing framework. That's why we commenced a public consultation process last year on exposure draft legislation on a second stage of reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. I thank all stakeholders who provided submissions as part of this consultation process. The government has been considering those submissions and will introduce legislation on the second stage of reforms. These reforms will build on the government's significant improvements to whistleblower laws implemented in 2023 and provide a comprehensive response to the 2016 independent review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act by Mr Philip Moss AM.

This bill to reform secrecy laws and the government's considered and methodical approach to whistleblower reform are critical to supporting integrity and the rule of law. For these reasons, the government will be opposing the amendment. Australia's secrecy laws are essential. Without them, sensitive information could be exposed in ways that could damage public trust in government, cause real harm to our national security or put lives at risk. But equally, transparency and accountability are vital features of our democracy. These comprehensive and considered reforms are about getting that balance right. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

I start by recognising all who currently serve or have previously served in the Australian Defence Force—veterans and their families, those who support them, the people who provide their care and those grieving lost loved ones. Their bravery and courage helped bring the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide into being. Some talked about their own time in the military, others about the person they loved and lost. Some spoke of the systems they tried to use, the phone calls they made, the concerns they raised, and the times when help should have arrived earlier and the damage done when it didn't. To everyone who shared their story with the royal commission, I say: thank you. The evidence provided to the royal commission was deeply felt. It was painful and it was freely given with the hope that others will be safer, get better help and be treated with more respect.

This bill, the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, is part of how we show courage with concrete action. Service isn't just done by the person in uniform; it is also carried out by their families. Before coming into this place, I worked with the children of defence families, and it's work that has stayed with me. We naturally think of the person in uniform when we talk about service, but it's also carried out at the kitchen table, in classrooms, in the playground and in the normal everyday life of a family. For children in defence families, service can mean long goodbyes to a parent, changing schools and suburbs, leaving friends and having to get used to a new life—sometimes multiple times. It brings pride, yes, but also worry to a young person trying to understand a parent's stress, injury, trauma or absence at a time when they may not have the words for it. I saw the strength in those families and how important it is for the support around them to be consistent and respectful and to respond to their needs. When one person serves, the entire family is impacted.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge those in my electorate of Griffith who are doing very important work with the veterans who served our country. In Griffith we're fortunate to have Gallipoli Medical Research, whose work has been changing lives for two decades. Last year Gallipoli Medical Research celebrated its 20th anniversary, and it was a real joy to be there and join them for that milestone. It was a moment to recognise not only the research itself but the people behind it—the clinicians, researchers, veterans, families, partners and supporters who have built an organisation grounded in service, care and evidence.

There was a moment from the last time I had the privilege to visit Gallipoli Medical Research that will stay with me forever. As we walked through the building, we were quietly asked to pause and step aside. We didn't know why at first, and then we saw a flag-draped coffin being carried past—a veteran, a soldier who had served this nation with courage and conviction. The hallway fell silent and we stood united in our respect. In that moment I thought about the profound responsibility we all share to do everything in our power to safeguard the futures of those who safeguarded ours. I thank everybody at Gallipoli Medical Research for the work they do each day to improve the health and wellbeing of veterans, service personnel and their families.

I also acknowledge Legacy for the extraordinary care they provide to families connected to service. For generations, Legacy has stood beside partners, children and families carrying grief, loss and uncertainty after a loved one's service. Their work is practical, compassionate and deeply human, from social connection and advocacy to support for young people, helping families feel less alone when life has changed in ways they never expected.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was able to visit another service in my community, Mindful Mates Social Services, and its founder, Josh. He's passionate about building mental fitness for veterans, and there are so many other individuals in my community who are doing this really important work.

Through these experiences and through my past work in the mental health sector, I know that mental wellbeing isn't just about what happens inside a person; it's also shaped by what support systems are around them. A clear, understandable process can lessen someone's distress. A safe work environment can encourage people to get help sooner. A system that actually listens can help someone feel less on their own. But the reverse is also true. Delays, confusion, people being ashamed to ask for help, and silence can all make things worse. Someone already vulnerable can be pushed even further into crisis if they feel stuck in a system that doesn't hear them, defend them or treat them fairly. That is why the royal commission's conclusions about military justice are so vital.

The royal commission showed that people in the ADF who have been involved with the military justice system are more likely to attempt suicide, and it was very clear that a properly working military justice system is essential not only for the good order and running of the Defence Force but also for the mental health and wellbeing of those who serve. That's a significant point. It shows us that justice, discipline and looking after people's wellbeing can't be viewed as separate things. A victim of a crime needs to be protected, informed and supported. Someone accused of a crime needs to be treated fairly, have a clear understanding of the process and not have that drag on and on. If mental health is a factor, the system must have the skills and understanding to respond with care. This bill helps move the military justice system in that direction.

The Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 puts into action important recommendations from the royal commission relating to military justice, specifically recommendations 18, 20, 23, 34 and 63. In effect, the bill aims to bring the military discipline system up to date. It makes sure victims are better protected, especially victims of sexual and violent attacks. It creates better mental health support for people going through military discipline processes. It makes the process simpler, fairer and faster. It increases openness. It brings parts of the military justice system more in line with the standards Australians expect from other courts.

This bill prioritises protecting victims and making workplaces within the Defence Force safer, particularly when investigations into sexual misconduct or serious crimes are happening. The royal commission's entire sixth volume dealt with sexual violence in the military, unacceptable behaviour and military justice, and it's something we should all be deeply concerned about. No-one should ever feel unsafe at work or be made to continue working with someone being investigated if it puts their safety or wellbeing at risk.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge a particularly fierce advocate in my community for our veterans—in particular women veterans and women who serve in our defence forces—Julia Delaforce. I am incredibly appreciative of Julia for all of her ongoing work in this space, standing up for the rights of our female soldiers and veterans.

The bill makes it easier to suspend Defence Force members and now includes situations where someone is under criminal investigation by the police, not just the Defence Force itself, and where workplace safety could be jeopardised. This is a sensible and kind change. Safety doesn't have to wait for charges to be filed. Defence, like any employer, needs to act when there is a risk of harm.

Sentencing for serious violence and sexual offences will also be improved. Tribunals will have to think about the effect on victims, and the difference in rank between the person committing the offence and the victim will be recognised as important. This is especially vital in the military, where rank is a key part of daily life, and abusing that power can be incredibly damaging.

Accountability is also being improved. Some convictions within the Defence Force will now be included in a person's criminal record when they deal with the civilian police. Serious wrongdoing shouldn't just disappear within the Defence Force's internal procedures. Victims need to feel the system isn't downplaying what happened to them, and the public generally have a right to transparency.

The bill also introduces a disciplinary issue, a service offence for harassment and a related breach of rules and regulations. This gives commanders clearer ways to deal with unacceptable behaviour and reinforces the standards expected across the entire ADF.

Changing culture isn't just about new laws, but laws can set expectations, give leaders more responsibility and make it harder to excuse, ignore or cover up bad behaviour. A defence force where people are treated with respect isn't a bonus; it's absolutely essential for safety, trust and the Defence Force being able to do its job. People perform best when they feel valued, are more likely to get help early if they'll be treated well and have more faith in the system if they see harmful behaviour having consequences.

Important changes are also being made to how mental health is handled within the Defence Force's disciplinary system. A Defence mental health tribunal framework is being established, and courts martial, Defence Force magistrates, review bodies and appeal courts will have clearer ways to order mental health assessments. This is a significant step forward, acknowledging that mental health problems require specialist, structured and compassionate care. If someone is too mentally unwell to enter a plea or to be held responsible for their actions, the system should have a proper route to providing care, treatment, possible detention or release with appropriate protection for everyone. This isn't about letting people off the hook; it's about ensuring accountability is combined with fairness, a good understanding of the clinical issues and public safety.

The language in the Defence Force Discipline Act is also being updated, including the offence of 'malingering'. Language, we know, can make stigma worse or reduce it, and, in mental health, this is absolutely, vitally important. In the Defence Force, where people are already reluctant to seek help because of rank, the culture and fears about how it will affect their career, it's even more important. Recommendation 63 of the royal commission endorsed reducing stigma and getting rid of barriers to getting help, and this bill contributes to that. The bill also makes the military discipline system more efficient. This might seem like a technical detail, but it will have a real impact on people. When a case drags on, everybody suffers. Victims are kept waiting, those accused are in limbo, families are stressed, commanders are less clear about what's happening, and people lose faith in the system. This bill creates a new system for 'summary contraventions'—less serious offences—as a middle ground in the discipline system.

Finally, this bill puts right a shameful injustice. Defence personnel were punished for a long time for having consensual same-sex relations. Some were charged and convicted under Defence Force laws for something that should never have been a crime. These convictions did lasting damage to people's careers, records, reputations, relationships and families and caused unnecessary shame. This bill allows people to apply to have these convictions removed if the activity was consensual and wouldn't be a crime if it happened between a man and a woman. People with a close connection to the case, including the families of veterans who have died, can also apply. If a conviction is removed, it will be taken off all Defence Force records, and the person won't have to disclose it. Others will be prevented from disclosing it without permission. This won't erase the pain caused by this past discrimination, but it can reduce ongoing legal and personal problems. It can give back dignity to records that should never have been marked like that. It's telling those veterans and their families that their service is valued, their dignity is important and their record should never have been tainted by prejudice.

These reforms go to the real human consequences of a system that must be safer, fairer and more responsive. It gives victims stronger safety measures, makes it easier to get mental health help, speeds things up and simplifies them, encourages openness and responsibility and puts right something wrong from the past. It will help create a military justice system which is more in line with the principles we expect of our Defence Force personnel—dedication, consideration for others, bravery, honesty and looking out for one another. We need to continue this improvement for all who are serving, all those who have served and their families who share in the burdens of service. There is still so much more work for us to do in this space, but I am so proud of these changes and what they will address. I do absolutely acknowledge the hard work that is happening throughout Australia and, in particular, in my community. For all of those who have been advocating for these changes and changes beyond this—I absolutely acknowledge their passion, their persistence and their absolute, fierce advocacy on these matters. I thank them very sincerely.

As I rise to address the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, I just want to note the attendance in the Federation Chamber of departmental and Australian Defence Force personnel and want to thank them for talking me through aspects of this bill. The DVA is an organisation which provides so much assistance to our veterans and sometimes is criticised unfairly. I would urge and encourage veterans who need support to reach out to the DVA. It is always there. It is always absolutely wanting to provide the best care and support available to our wonderful veterans. I thank the members in the chamber today for their presence.

I also want to acknowledge the work being played locally in my Riverina electorate in my home town of Wagga Wagga, which is a triservice city. We have the Blamey Barracks, home of the soldier, 1st Recruit Training Battalion at Kapooka. Air power starts at Wagga Wagga at Forest Hill, RAAF Base Wagga. At that particular base we also have 80 or so Royal Australian Navy personnel. So we've got Army, Air Force and Navy in town. The Riverina Veteran and Family Hub RSL Lifecare at 240 Baylis Street plays a vital role for our veterans, as does Pro Patria at 19 Morshead Street, Ashmont. For veterans seeking assistance, or even seeking to get their head around the 122 recommendations of the royal commission, I urge and encourage them to avail themselves of those wellness centres, of those veterans hubs. I thank and commend the people who run those two facilities.

I also thank and commend anybody who has worn a uniform and anybody who is wearing a uniform now, and I encourage anyone who intends to wear a uniform in the future, because our military plays such an important part. We all would have observed that on 25 April, Anzac Day, our nation's most important day. Certainly the 103,000 names on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial bear testimony to the service and sacrifice of so many. The Australian way of life we enjoy today has been secured through the enduring service, the courage and the sacrifice of the men and women who have defended our nation in uniform. In times of natural disaster, peacekeeping service and armed conflict, members of the ADF have consistently served with professionalism and distinction. In doing so, they've provided essential support to communities in need, contributed to international security and upheld this nation's responsibilities abroad and, of course, at home.

Accordingly, in recognition of their service and sacrifice, it's incumbent upon us to ensure that defence members and veterans are treated with the dignity, the respect and the appropriate support as provided by the Riverina Veteran and Family Hub, as provided by Pro Patria and as provided also in Parker Street, Cootamundra. They've got a wellness centre there. I pay tribute to the late Jacquie Vincent, who has only just recently passed, for her almost 40 years of service providing care and love for veterans in and around Cootamundra and elsewhere.

This bill implements recommendations of the royal commission, a royal commission that was established by the former coalition government in 2021. It was necessary. The royal commission was established after the coalition listened to community calls for a national inquiry focused on the systemic issues faced by defence members and veterans that can result in suicide. The suicide statistics are awful reading. Between 1 January 1985 and the end of 2021, there were 2,007 confirmed suicide deaths of individuals who had served at least one day in the ADF. Those are terrible, damning statistics and so tragic. One death is one too many. One suicide is tragic for the community, for the family and for the defence family at large.

When the coalition established the royal commission, we said its aim was to shed a light on the critical steps needed so we could reduce the heartbreaking cases of suicide. The commission confirmed what veterans and their families and the ex-services community had been saying for so long, and they deserve truth, accountability and reform. We also have an obligation to our Defence Force and veteran community to ensure the issues identified by the royal commission are acknowledged and the necessary action is taken.

The men and women of the Defence Force serve our nation with honour and bravery. They deserve the very best treatment, care and support. The royal commission engaged with key advocacy groups to understand the impacts of service, including the families of veterans killed, Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans' Association and the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex Servicemen and Women. I know that there's a lot of incredible bipartisan support for anything to do with our veterans, and I acknowledge that. As the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, I appreciate the work that the government is doing to help and support our veterans. The coalition acknowledges that this bill provides the necessary framework to implement recommendations 18, 20, 23, 34 and 63 of the royal commission.

Our military justice system is the integral framework which underpins discipline in the military and command. The coalition appreciates that delays in resolving violations of military discipline adversely affects the morale, the welfare and the operational effectiveness of the ADF. Prolonged uncertainty undermines confidence. It places strain on serving personnel, and this can have an effect on unit cohesion, on unit trust and on command authority. Unresolved disciplinary matters may also have implications for the safety and wellbeing of defence personnel and the Defence community, as well as obviously their families. It's especially so when misconduct is serious in nature or has an impact on operational environments. A fair, effective and timely military system is essential in protecting personnel, in maintaining discipline and in ensuring that the Defence Force remains, as it always is, capable, professional and mission ready. Our service men and women deserve nothing less.

The coalition has a long history of actively reforming military discipline in Australia. The former coalition government introduced reforms to update and to modernise the Defence Force Discipline Act, streamlining the handling of minor disciplinary matters and strengthening Defence's response to cyberbullying. These are worrying, growing and disturbing incidents. This sends a clear message that bullying, harassment and unacceptable behaviour have no place within the Australian Defence Force. A strong, fair and effective military justice system is vital to maintaining fairness, discipline, operational effectiveness and confidence in our ADF.

If I go through the bill, it implements key recommendations from the royal commission. Schedule 1 directly implements the royal commission's recommendations 18, 20, 23 and 63. Part 1, schedule 1 introduces amendments to implement recommendation 18 of the royal commission's final report, which called for enhanced safeguards, ensuring alleged victims are not required to work alongside alleged perpetrators whilst investigations are under way.

The bill resolves this inconsistency by inserting a new subsection 98(2), introducing a new suspension power where a member is under investigation for a civil court offence by a Commonwealth state or territory or overseas authority. The power aligns with the existing suspension authority under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 for service offence investigations, ensuring a consistent and coherent framework across service, civilian and overseas contexts. These amendments seek to establish a clear and consistent mechanism to enable the suspension of Defence Force members whilst under investigation. Under current arrangements, a Defence member suspected of committing a service offence may be suspended whilst a disciplinary investigation is under way.

Where a member is suspected of a civilian criminal offence, including serious offences, suspension is not available until the formal charge has been laid. As civilian criminal offences are usually investigated by civilian authorities and not service police, this can create some inconsistencies and some unsuitable outcomes, where members may be suspended for minor service related matters yet for more serious criminal allegations such as rape or murder until after charging.

Recommendation 18 only focused on sexual misconduct, but this suspension power is not limited to only those offences. The new suspension power is to apply to investigations which begin on or after the commencement of this part, as well as investigations already under way at that time, and suspension decisions remain subject to existing review mechanisms.

Part 2 of schedule 1 implements recommendation 20 of the royal commission, calling for service tribunals to take into account victim impact in sexual offence cases and to regard an offender's higher rank as an aggravating factor during sentencing. Schedule 2 also gives effect to royal commission recommendation 34, which requires the priority review of provisions related to court martial panels not being required to give reasons for punishments imposed. The schedule introduces a requirement for any conviction and sentencing decision by superior tribunals or reviews to be accompanied by reasons.

We've got schedule 3 part 1 overhauling how the Defence Force Discipline Act deals with accused persons suffering from mental impairment by introducing new powers to allow the dismissal of a charge where the accused suffers from a mental impairment and prosecution would not meaningfully serve the maintenance of discipline. Schedule 4 introduces measures to streamline the military discipline system, reducing delays, broadening access to elections through a superior tribunal and ensuring that minor disciplinary matters are dealt with expeditiously.

Schedule 5 contains 16 parts dealing with a range of other amendments, including updating evidentiary rules, aligning the grounds for termination of judicial officers, strengthening review processes, modernising the powers of investigating officers and introducing removal orders for intimate images. They also enable the provision of evidence by video link, providing for victim impact statements and allowing for the extinguishment of historical homosexual service convictions that would not be offences today.

Schedule 6 establishes a transitional rule-making power to provide for the transition between the existing discipline system and the new legislative framework. This rule-making power is necessary. It deals with unintended outcomes or unforeseen issues arising from the transition from the old DFDA to the new DFDA. This schedule permits the minister, by legislative instrument, to make rules prescribing matters required or permitted by the DFDA or necessary or convenient for carrying out or giving effect to the act.

I do applaud that because I think, for far too long, we've seen some powers taken away from the minister. I do think that ministers always need to have the power to make these sorts of rulings, to make these sorts of provisions and to not necessarily always just go along with what the bureaucrats down the hill tell them to do. I've always been insistent on that because I think, at the end of the day, the buck stops with the minister. The minister's going to be the one who has her or his name on the ballot paper. It's not the not the public servant. It's not the bureaucrat. I appreciate that they do a fine job, but, at the end of the day, the minister has to be responsible because they'll be the one who is entering the parliament. They'll be the one answering questions related to these and other matters in question time.

I do worry about this part of the budget. In the Attorney-General's portfolio additional resourcing in Budget Paper No. 2, page 43 lists '$50.4 million in 2026-27 to continue the work of the Office of the Special Investigator to investigate and support the prosecution of war crimes alleged to have been committed by the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan.' I do think that some of these provisions are sometimes going to unnecessary witch-hunts. If they prove to be that, they are going to place unnecessary and undue stress upon our veterans. Our veterans served us well in Afghanistan. They did a lot of good work, particularly in giving women and girls opportunities that they would never have been able to avail themselves of under the old Taliban regime or, sadly, the new Taliban regime. I think we should acknowledge and recognise the efforts that they went to, the service and sacrifice that they gave, and the more than 40 soldiers who lost their lives.

We say 'lest we forget' and I think we should absolutely mean that. It's all well and good to go out and commemorate Anzac Day, but we also should remember the constant pressure that those veterans will always be under, for the rest of their lives, for the service that they gave in Afghanistan.

I'm very pleased to speak on this bill: the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. There are few areas of governance where the Morrison government did worse than in veterans affairs and defence personnel. I don't believe for a minute it was through inequity; I think it was plain incompetence due to outsourcing, underfunding of the department responsible and labour hiring. There were far too few people on the front line of claims processing. Waiting times, backlog of claims—these were words used all the time in the department and amongst the veterans community.

Imagine a minister for veterans affairs and defence personnel threatening to resign on the eve of the budget because of the incompetence and underfunding of his own department by his own government. That's what the member for Calare offered and threatened when he was not on the crossbench and when he was the minister responsible. We had to rebuild the department—500 frontline personnel processing claims—and promised, when we came to government, the funding of hundreds of millions of dollars towards this process. Why? Because all of this contributed to the tragedy of mental health problems, depression, suicidal ideation and indeed suicide. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has said that between 1997 and 2023 1,840 ADF, ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen died by suicide. That's 1,840 too many.

This bill implements and responds to the recommendations of the royal commission in part. This bill represents one of the most significant reforms to the Australian military justice system in decades, and it delivers on those recommendations. It comes on top of lots of work done by the current Labor government. The royal commission came about, and the Morrison government was dragged, kicking and screaming, by the grieving mothers and families of people who had died by suicide. Whether it was the findings of coronial inquests, anecdotal evidence or personal experience, it was obvious that we needed a royal commission, and Labor called for it and pushed hard while in the opposition. We certainly did when I was the shadow minister.

The reforms contained in this bill are comprehensive and collectively modernise our system. It's all about protecting people and aligning with Australia's community expectations and contemporary expectations in terms of social issues. The bill, as I said, has its genesis in the recommendations. It's worth remembering that the coalition did everything they possibly could to avoid a royal commission. They even announced a half baked national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide prevention and claimed it was bigger and better than a royal commission. It was simply a marketing exercise to placate the grieving families and block their demands for a proper and independent investigation into these tragic deaths.

A backbench revolt, the pressure of Labor and the extraordinary campaign by brave mothers—like Julie-Ann Finney, Karen Bird and Nikki Jamieson, who all tragically lost their sons to suicide—together with so many other people are what forced the Morrison government into this royal commission. We have a 100-year opportunity to fix our broken veteran support system. The royal commission did a mighty job, and I want to commend the commission for it. They delivered their final report in September 2024 and made 122 recommendations.

We've accepted, overwhelmingly, the majority of those recommendations. We've agreed or agreed in principle to 104 recommendations. We've been working to implement them as quickly as possible, and I want to commend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel for his strong response in implementing those recommendations. The royal commission dedicated a whole volume to sexual violence and unacceptable behaviour in military justice. The legislation before us today makes a significant step towards implementing those recommendations. It responds to concerns about fairness, transparency, mental health treatment, timeliness and complexity within the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982.

The reforms are, as I said, about modernising the system, and they are very important. The bill directly implements recommendations 18, 20, 23 and 63 and gives effect to recommendation 34. These recommendations are about strengthening workplace protections during sexual misconduct investigations, sentencing and recording convictions for perpetrators of military sexual violence and reforming court martial governance. The royal commission noted that involvement in the military justice system, whether as a victim or as an accused, can itself be a factor for suicide. It highlighted the pressing need for improving workplace protections, modernising sentencing practices, reporting and recording serious offences consistently with civilian jurisdictions, and more modern management of mental impairment in disciplinary proceedings.

Nearly 34 years ago, in November 1992, Prime Minister Paul Keating declared homosexual men and women would no longer be banned from serving in the Australian Defence Force. These changes will allow Defence personnel who are convicted of offences purely on the basis of consensual homosexual activity apply to have these convictions extinguished. The effect of this extinguishment will be to prevent disclosure of that conviction or information relating to it by other people. Families of Defence members, including those of deceased veterans, can apply under this scheme on behalf of their loved ones. These changes are an overdue, restorative legal change to help lessen the detriment associated with and the stigma imposed by former homophobic attitudes and practices reflected in such convictions. We should always be proud of those who serve our nation, regardless of their sexual identity and proclivities.

With these changes to enable expungement of convictions, this will no longer be a crime. Those who had previously had to hide and had pride—and I use that word deliberately—in their service will have that accurately reflected in their service record as well. Additionally, the bill amends the offence of malingering to remove stigmatised and pejorative language, and provide for the reporting of certain service offences for inclusion in civilian criminal history records.

At its heart, the bill amends the Defence Force Discipline Act by making amendments which implement these recommendations. They're about enhancing the treatment of members engaged in the discipline system by modernising mental health provisions. We have changed enormously in terms of our understanding of mental health in the last generation. The royal commission found that Defence Force members with underlying mental health issues may be more likely to be involved with the military justice system and that such involvement is a risk factor for suicide. How didn't we know that? We knew that in the civilian criminal justice systems in our country, and it took us till a royal commission for this to come to light. This was always the case. In criminal and civilian systems and in our courts, this was always the case.

The overall effect of these measures is to give effect to necessary reforms to improve health and wellbeing outcomes for both victims and accused Defence members and reduce the risk of suicide and suicidality. Before imposing any punishment, a member's rank and the seriousness of their disciplinary contravention or offence must be considered. Generally, the higher the rank, the more serious the consequence for contravention. The royal commission stated—and I think it's really worth quoting—'A well-functioning military justice system is essential for Defence to maintain good order and effective operational control.' It's a Defence matter. It really is a Defence capability and national security issue. The royal commission went on to say this: 'It is equally crucial to the mental health and wellbeing of Australian Defence Force members.' This bill also allows the Minister for Defence to issue guidelines to the Director of Military Prosecutions, and the approach aligns with section 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983—a similar power to the Attorney-General's to issue directions and guidelines to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. It seems extraordinary that we have to do this now. It should have always been there.

The bill implements a number of other reform recommendations, including stronger protections over disclosure of sensitive material during discipline investigations. It implements a whole range of recommendations in that space. I want to make it clear that, on this side, we condemn sexual abuse and harassment in the workplace wherever it occurs. When Labor called for a royal commission into Defence and veteran suicide in opposition, and when the former government finally announced one, we called for it to cover the issue of abuse of female Defence personnel. It was pleasing that the royal commission made a number of recommendations in this area, and we are grateful for it.

Make no mistake we are committed to addressing sexual misconduct and discrimination in the ADF and ensuring that members who have experienced mistreatment during their service receive all the support they need. It was the former Labor government, under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, that initiated the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce in response to sexual misconduct within the ADF. As a result of this report, the Defence Force Ombudsman's role was expanded to include an abuse-reporting function. It was that former Labor government that undertook a review by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, which led to the establishment of the ADF's Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Response Office. We have a proud record in this space, during the years of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, of taking action.

Finally, last night's budget highlighted a number of really important things that the Albanese Labor government is doing while making historic investments in defence personnel and veterans. We continue to deliver on the government's response. There's an allocation of $770 million in additional funding to deliver on the royal commission's recommendations. This includes $169.7 million in funding for five years, from 1 July 2027, to increase fees for allied health providers and the largest investment in allied health fees for veterans in more than 20 years. The budget provides $29.8 million to support the establishment of a National Veterans Data Asset and $16.6 million for the Defence and Veterans Service Commission to conduct an independent inquiry from the middle of 2026 into military sexual violence in the ADF. This all goes to show the Albanese government is committed to delivering for current and former ADF personnel and their families.

I know this from my own electorate. I was very proud to secure a $5.4 million commitment at the 2022 federal election for a new Ipswich veteran and family hub. This is part of the Albanese government's $46.7 million commitment to establish eight new veterans and families hubs across the country to ensure that more veterans and families can access support closer to home. Now that hub, which is nearly ready to be opened, will be operated by RSL Queensland and co-located with the Mates4Mates centre in West Ipswich. It was great to have the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister for Defence Personnel come to announce the final location in August last year. Importantly, the facility has been co-designed with veterans and families to ensure support and social connection that lines up with the needs of the local veterans community, and will liaise with local subbranches and wounded heroes who do mighty work in crisis support in our local area and nationally.

We have more than 10,000 veterans and families living in Ipswich and the surrounding area in addition to 5,000, and more, ADF personnel stationed at RAAF Base Amberley. The Ipswich veterans and family hub will provide tailored mental health and wellbeing services. And just like in this bill, it's all part of the Albanese government's urgent focus on responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

In conclusion, the reforms in this bill strengthen trust in the military justice system. They reduce harm. They improve transparency. They modernise mental health responses. And they ensure the Defence Force Discipline Act reflects the standard expected in contemporary Australia. I thank the minister for bringing forward these critical reforms. I want to thank the many stakeholders, experts, ADF personnel and the veterans community for their input into these reforms—and the royal commissioner and, in many cases, the brave victims-survivors of abuse in the ADF for courageously sharing their lived experiences to inform these changes. This is a careful, comprehensive and essential response to the findings of the royal commission. It supports the wellbeing of our defence personnel. It strengthens the integrity of the military disciplinary framework and upholds our expectations of fairness and accountability. I commend the bill to the House.

A few weeks ago, like many members of this parliament, I attended Anzac Day services across my community. I felt deeply honoured to attend these events. Each gathering was a moving tribute, from the dawn service in West Pymble to the early morning in Turramurra, both hosted by our wonderful local Scouts groups, right through to the Willoughby family and community service that was led by the Chatswood RSL and Willoughby Legion, and the Lions Club service in St Ives. These ceremonies bring together our community in shared remembrance and are an opportunity to reflect on the bravery and sacrifice of service men and women, with their stories brought vividly to life by thoughtful speakers who honoured their spirit of mateship and everyday humanism set against the profound realities of war.

These community events remind us that Anzac Day is not only about history; it's about the concrete service and sacrifice of people in our communities and the families who support them. When the last census was taken, in 2021, there were over 2,000 veterans in my electorate, and many of these service men and women were at these ceremonies across the North Shore last month.

Anzac Day is a reminder that we have a responsibility not just to recognise our veterans at least once a year but to ensure that they are properly recognised in our laws, in our institutions and in our society, even after the last post fades. But, too often, we fail in that respect. The bill before us today reflects that failure insofar as it stems from the work of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, a commission that was initiated because of the hardship faced by veterans across the country. But, at the same time, the bill represents a step forward, however incremental, towards achieving better outcomes for those veterans.

It's for this reason that I welcome and commend the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. The bill makes progress by putting into legislation a number of recommendations of the royal commission. The royal commission was established in 2021 after years of advocacy by veterans and their families and delivered its final report in 2024. It was unprecedented in terms of scope and devastating in what it revealed about the human cost of systemic failure. It rigorously examined systemic issues in Defence, veterans services and military culture and heard evidence from thousands of serving members, veterans, families and experts. They gave testimony often at enormous personal and emotional cost, reliving trauma and loss, because they believed telling the truth would lead to lasting change.

A few months ago, I met with a veteran from my community who had participated in the royal commission process. Alongside his mother, he shared his painful story with me, describing how his career spiralled after he disclosed his PTSD to his commanding officer. Rather than support him, his command challenged and disrespected his medical diagnosis, isolated him from his colleagues and friends and failed to assist him in finding useful employment outside active service. It's experiences such as these that have created the widespread sense of mistrust among the veteran community of the institutions that are supposed to be supporting them.

My constituents explain how years of poor leadership, opaque processes and inconsistent decision-making has taken a toll on veterans and their families. These systemic issues have long-lasting effects on veterans, destabilising careers and damaging mental health well after a return to civilian life. But, too often, there is little accountability for those in positions of authority. Above all, my constituents emphasise that veterans are not seeking special recognition, just dignity—just respect and fair treatment. Their key message to me was to not let the momentum of the royal commission slip away but to ensure its recommendations progress into practical, transparent and accountable implementation.

The royal commission demonstrated that suicide and suicidality amongst Defence members and veterans is not a result of individual weaknesses but of systemic failure and that preventing future harm requires sustained, comprehensive reform. To guide that reform, the royal commission made 122 recommendations in its final report, of which the government has agreed to 104. This bill seeks to implement five of them, focusing primarily on the military justice system. This is necessary reform, with the justice system identified by the royal commission as frequently compounding distress and elevating suicide risk, rather than alleviating it. Among the reforms introduced here are strengthened workplace protections during sexual misconduct investigations, amended sentencing procedures for serious violent and sexual offences and disclosures of service offences, and enhanced options to address mental health conditions within the military discipline system. The bill also streamlines tribunal procedures by requiring reasons for punishments, to strengthen sentencing transparency. Importantly, it removes outdated and stigmatised language from legislation, aligning terminology more closely with modern usage and understanding.

All these reforms matter, and, taken together, they represent a meaningful step in the right direction. But we must be honest with ourselves and with the veteran community. This bill responds to just five recommendations of the royal commission. There remain many more yet to be implemented. The royal commission was clear: suicide prevention in defence and veteran communities requires comprehensive and sustained reform. Families, including ageing parents and children who have lost a parent, physically or mentally continue to live with those consequences every day. Its recommendations were not abstract policy suggestions; they were a national undertaking, a promise that Australia would do better by those who served our nation and, in some cases, paid the ultimate price for our freedoms. That means implementing all the recommendations—not only those that are administratively convenient or legislatively straightforward but those that require deeper cultural change, genuine independence of oversight and real accountability for leadership failure.

The ongoing work of the newly established Defence and Veterans' Services Commission is critical in that respect. Just last week, the acting commissioner launched its independent inquiry into the progress on implementing the royal commission's recommendations. I'm looking forward to reviewing that report in February next year, when it's delivered. This responsibility stretches beyond the commission; it stretches to all of us. We all have a responsibility to ensure that veterans who are already out of active service, given meaningful work inside the defence and veterans community or leaving the service altogether are not forgotten and can, instead, live with dignity and fairness.

This bill is a welcome step forward. I support it, and I urge the government to continue its important work in this area with dedication and focus. But the work will continue until the full intent of the royal commission is realised, trust is rebuilt and veterans and their families can be confident that our institutions serve them with the same loyalty and integrity they showed in service to Australia. If we genuinely honour our veterans, we must honour that promise.

The Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 speaks to national responsibility in the lived reality of those who serve, those who wear the uniform today and those who have worn the uniform, and the families who carry the burden of service alongside them. When Australians step forward to serve their country, there is an understanding not written down but deeply felt that the nation will stand behind them in return for their service and/or sacrifice. That obligation matters most in difficult moments when people are under pressure and relying on the systems around them to work as they should. It is reflected not simply in what we say about service but in the practical support—the protections and accountability we build into the institutions responsible for caring for those who serve.

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide asked this country to confront some very hard truths. It asked us to listen carefully to the experiences of serving personnel and veterans, and, importantly, their families. It showed that while service remains a great source of pride for many Australians, for too many it was accompanied by harm that should never have been allowed to occur.

The royal commission also made clear that systems intended to support personnel and veterans could at times contribute to their distress, particularly when processes became overly complex, delayed or disconnected from the human impact they were having. In too many cases, those pressures left individuals feeling isolated, unheard and unsupported at the very moment they needed confidence in the institution around them. That is why this government called for the royal commission while in opposition, that is why we supported its work while in government and that is why we are now focused on implementing its recommendations—not slowly, not reluctantly, but with purpose. On 2 December 2024, the government delivered its formal response. Of the 122 recommendations put forward, we agreed in principle to 104, and, further, 17 were noted for further work. By the end of 2025, 32 recommendations had already been implemented, and, by the end of this year, around two-thirds of all recommendations are expected to be in place. That is progress. But we are not finished, and we're not at the finish line yet.

This government is committed to delivering the royal commission response because those who have served our nation deserve more than words; they deserve action. In the budget announced last night, we committed to investing more than $770 million in additional funding to deliver on the recommendations of the royal commission and strengthen support for veterans and defence personnel across Australia. That includes a $169.7 million investment over five years to increase fees for allied health providers from 1 July 2027, representing the single largest investment in allied health fees for veterans in more than two decades. We're also investing $29.8 million to support the establishment of a national veterans data asset, helping ensure governments can better understand the experiences of veterans and deliver services that meet their needs. In addition, this budget provides $16.6 million for the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission to conduct an independent inquiry into military sexual violence in the Australian Defence Force from the middle of 2026. These investments are about accountability, reform and making sure that those who have served our country are treated with the respect, care and support they have earned.

The legislation before the House also goes to one of the most important parts of that reform task—the military justice system. For many Australians, 'military justice' might sound like a narrow or highly technical area of policy, but, for those serving within Defence, its impact is far more significant and deeply personal. It influences how misconduct is addressed, whether victims have confidence to come forward and whether personnel are treated fairly, shaping culture, standards and trust across Defence. The royal commission made a very clear finding that involvement in the military justice system is associated with an increased risk of suicide. That is a sobering conclusion because it makes clear that the structure and operation of the system itself can have a profound impact on the people moving through it. The length of time that processes take, the way individuals are treated during those processes, the support available to them and the broader culture surrounding the system all play a role in shaping outcomes and influencing trust in the institution. This bill recognises that reality. It recognises that military discipline and mental health cannot be treated as separate conversations. It recognises that workplace safety cannot be an afterthought. It recognises that fairness, efficiency and accountability must sit alongside one another, not in competition but in balance.

The royal commission dedicated significant attention to the issues of sexual violence, unacceptable behaviour and the operation of military justice. It reflected the fact that these issues go to the core of whether Defence is a safe and respectful workplace, because discipline on its own is not enough to build a strong and effective organisation. Trust between personnel matters, respect within the workplace matters, and creating an environment where people feel safe and supported matters just as much to the long-term strength and integrity of Defence as does a culture where misconduct is addressed properly, consistently and transparently, giving personnel confidence that standards have been upheld fairly across the organisation. This reform takes a significant step toward that goal. It modernises the Defence Force Discipline Act, which implements key recommendations of the royal commission. It brings military justice closer to the standards Australians expect from contemporary systems of fairness and accountability. But, more than that, it reflects a shift in approach, a shift away from seeing discipline as purely procedural and toward understanding it as part of a broader system that impacts wellbeing, culture and trust.

One of the most important aspects of these measures is the strengthening of workplace protections, particularly in cases involving serious misconduct. Too often, individuals who raise concerns have found themselves continuing to operate in environments that feel unsafe. Too often the burden has been placed on the person who reports harm rather than on the system to respond effectively. That cannot continue.

This bill expands the circumstances in which a person can be removed from the workplace. It allows action to be taken where a person is under civilian criminal investigation and where there is a risk to workplace safety. This is not about prejudging an outcome. It is about managing risk, and it is about protecting people. It's about ensuring that the workplace does not become another site of harm while processes unfold. The bill also deals with how serious offending is recorded and recognised. The royal commission identified the importance of ensuring that convictions for sexual and related offences are properly documented. Also established is a framework for mandatory disclosure of relevant convictions, and importantly it aligns Defence processes more closely with civilian expectations.

Where appropriate, convictions will be reflected in civilian criminal history records. That is meaningful change because accountability must be visible, must be consistent and must reflect the seriousness of the conduct, regardless of the system in which it is being dealt with. Also introduced is a specific disciplinary offence relating to harassment, and that is an important step forward. Harassment is not a minor workplace issue that can be brushed aside or dealt with informally. It goes directly to the culture of an organisation and the safety of those within it. It can erode confidence, isolate individuals from their peers and leaders and place sustained pressure on a person's mental health over time. Left unchecked, it does more than harm to the individual. It creates an environment where standards slip, where poor behaviour is normalised and where more serious misconduct can take root. By giving Defence clearer tools to address harassment early and consistently, this bill reinforces expectations of respect, accountability and professionalism across the force. It reinforces the expectation that all members of Defence, regardless of rank or role, are held to the same standard of behaviour. That matters, and it supports the broader cultural change that the royal commission called for.

Another important reform relates to the handling of sensitive material. People who come forward in cases involving sexual offending or other deeply personal matters must have confidence that their information will be treated with care. This reform strengthens protections around the disclosure of that material. It reduces the risk of unnecessary exposure, and it helps build trust in the system. Alongside that, the bill also allows the use of video evidence in sexual offence matters. That is consistent with modern practice in civilian courts. It recognises that the process of giving evidence can itself be traumatic, and it seeks to reduce that burden without compromising fairness.

A critical part of this legislation is its focus on mental health within the discipline system. For too long, the mechanisms available have not reflected contemporary understanding of trauma, stress and suicide risk. This bill introduces treatment pathways and diversionary options where appropriate. That does not mean misconduct is overlooked. It ensures the system is better equipped to respond to the individual circumstances of those before it, including recognising where mental health is a relevant factor and tailoring responses accordingly. Just as importantly, it helps guard against outcomes where the process itself compounds distress, ensuring the operation of the system reduces harm rather than inadvertently adding to it. By streamlining processes and reducing unnecessary complexity, the bill also helps shorten the time individuals spend within the system. That matters.

Prolonged uncertainty can be deeply damaging, particularly for those already under strain, and delays only serve to compound that stress over time. A system that operates efficiently is not just administratively better; it is more humane and ultimately more likely to earn the trust of those who depend on it. These reforms operate across all levels of military discipline. They are designed to create a more consistent, modern and effective system, one that supports good order and discipline while giving commanders the clarity and authority to act appropriately. At the same time, it helps ensure resources are directed where they are needed most, towards serious matters.

While aligning the operation of the system with the expectations the community rightly holds of fairness, accountability and professionalism, importantly, the bill also addresses an historical injustice. It provides a pathway for defence personnel who were convicted solely based on consensual homosexual activity to have those convictions extinguished. This is a significant measure because it acknowledges that past policies caused real harm. It acknowledges that people were punished not for wrongdoing but for who they were, and it provides a means to remove the ongoing impact of those convictions, including preventing their disclosure. It also allows families, including those of deceased veterans, to apply. That matters because the effects of those policies did not end with an individual; they extended to families, to reputations and to legacies. We know that this reform cannot undo the past, but it can help address its consequences.

These legislative changes sit within a broader program of reform. Work is underway to further examine military sexual violence, including research into military sexual trauma and stronger responses and support for victims. Legislative change on its own is not enough to deliver the reform that is required. It must be accompanied by cultural change within institutions, by stronger accountability at every level and by sustained attention to ensure those changes take hold over time. It strengthens protections for those at risk, improves accountability across the system, modernises processes that have not kept pace and recognises the clear connection between justice, culture and mental health outcomes.

This debate ultimately comes back to some simple questions: Are we prepared to learn from what the royal commission has told us? Are we prepared to make the changes required? And are we prepared to ensure that the future generations of defence personnel are better protected than those who came before them? These amendments answer those questions with a resounding 'yes'. It does not claim to do everything, but it does take an important step forward. It reflects a commitment to fairness, a commitment to safety and a commitment to ensuring that those who serve are supported by systems that are worthy of their service.

To the veterans and families who shared their experiences: your voices have been heard. To those currently serving: your wellbeing matters. To those we have lost: this parliament has a responsibility to act. That responsibility continues, and today we take a take a step towards meeting it.

The bill before us today, the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, represents one of the most significant reforms to Australia's military discipline framework in decades, delivering on key recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. The royal commission heard harrowing stories of sexual violence, unacceptable behaviour and military justice. The legislation before us today takes a significant step towards implementing recommendations in that space. The bill responds to concerns about fairness, transparency, mental health treatment, timeliness and complexity within the Defence Force Discipline Act.

During the debate, the shadow minister raised a concern about the military police equipment measures in the bill. To clarify, the bill creates a power for military policing equipment to be carried, handled and used for the purpose of a member's duty as a police member. This measure replaces the current requirement for individual state and territory agreements to be reached in respect of the suite of policing equipment that is used by military police, which mirrors the equipment that civilian police use to do their jobs. In particular, it will allow for the carriage and use of body-worn cameras while undertaking military police functions and streamline the authorities currently required to store, maintain and carry other equipment, such as tasers.

The basis for use of such weapons will not be changed by this measure. For example, the use of tasers will still only be lawful in circumstances of self-defence where other responses were not reasonably available. With this measure, if such circumstances arose, military police would have the benefit of a body-worn camera recording their use of the weapon. This is an efficiency and transparency measure, which enables the use of the same equipment by military police across all jurisdictions that they operate in with conditions and circumstances of carriage and use able to be limited through ministerial direction.

Collectively, the reforms in this bill will modernise the military justice system so it protects people and, simply, so it aligns with the expectations of the Australian community. Each measure in this bill brings the Defence Force Discipline Act in line with contemporary Australian law and practice, with things like providing for the extinguishment of historical homosexual service conviction records that would not be offences today. The extinguishment of historical homosexual service convictions is an important measure and step in righting a historical wrong. These changes will allow Defence personnel who are convicted of offences purely on the basis of consensual homosexual activity apply to have this conviction extinguished. These law reforms are a step towards healing, seeking to lessen the detriment associated and stigma imposed by former homophobic attitudes and practices. Additionally, the bill enables individuals who are suffering from mental impairment to be treated with respect and dignity whilst being dealt with appropriately under the discipline system.

Importantly, the bill will establish a Defence mental health tribunal framework, one of the most transformative parts of the bill. This tribunal will have the power to order treatment, care or detention when a person is unfit to plead or acquitted due to mental impairment. I thank members across the House for your contributions and for your support of the government's work so far to improve the lives of current and former serving personnel and in implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It's reforms like this that we've achieved together that will support the wellbeing of Defence personnel, strengthen the integrity of the discipline system and uphold community expectations of fairness and accountability. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

It's a great honour to rise in this chamber this evening to pay tribute to the life and legacy of the Hon. Peter Morris, a principled Labor man, a reformer of conviction and one of the most significant public figures our region has produced. Peter Morris dedicated more than 25 years of his life to public service, serving the people of the electorate of Shortland in this parliament from 1972 to 1998. Across those decades, he became known not only as a highly capable minister and parliamentarian but as a tireless advocate for the Hunter and for working people right across Australia.

His passing is deeply felt in Newcastle and throughout our region. Peter's story was shaped by the Hunter from the very beginning. He was the son of a Greek migrant who came to Australia seeking opportunity and a better future for his family, and, like so many migrant families who helped build our industrial regions like Newcastle, the Morris family understood hard work, resilience and community. Peter grew up with those values deeply ingrained in him.

He attended Newcastle Boys' High School and later built his career in local government before entering federal politics. Long before he came to this chamber, Peter had already developed the qualities that would define his public life: intelligence, determination, integrity and a fierce commitment to the people he represented. No matter how senior the office he held, Peter never lost sight of where he came from. He was always unmistakeably a Hunter local. He carried with him the instincts of someone who understood working communities—communities built around the steelworks, the mines, the railways and the waterfront. He understood the aspirations and anxieties of ordinary families because they were the communities that shaped him.

Peter entered the Australian parliament during a transformative period in Australian history, and he helped shape many of the reforms that modernised our nation. As a minister in the Hawke government, he played an important role in advancing major transport and infrastructure projects that would leave a lasting mark on both our region and Australia more broadly. Peter understood that transport and infrastructure are never just about roads, airports or transport corridors; for him, infrastructure opened up opportunities. It was about connecting communities, supporting jobs, driving investment and ensuring regions like ours were never left behind.

His work supporting the development and growth of Newcastle Airport helped lay foundations for what has become one of the Hunter's most important economic assets. Today Newcastle Airport stands as a critical gateway for tourism, defence, industry and trade, supporting thousands of jobs and helping connect our region to the world. I would just add that, true to his Labor values and principles, Peter ensured that Newcastle Airport was established with a model of ownership between the two local councils so that today it is the largest airport in Australia that remains in public ownership. The profits therefore get returned to the communities that bought into that airport in the first place. The City of Newcastle and the Port Stephens Council remain custodians and leasers of those lands, and those profits are returned. It is a remarkable model, and it was only somebody like Peter Morris who had the foresight to set it up in such a way that this airport would never be privatised and sold off, and that the communities that house the airport and that invest in the airport get to benefit from it as well.

A lot of Novocastrians for many, many generations will be giving thanks to Peter Morris for his foresight in that regard, but that was just one example. Peter also understood the importance of better road connectivity between Newcastle and Sydney. It remains a sport for Novocastrians to critique the transport corridors between these two cities. Peter's advocacy around the M1 motorway corridor reflected his staunch belief that improving transport links would strengthen economic growth, improve safety and better connect regional communities to major cities and opportunities. Through his involvement in aviation and transport policy, including work connected to the new second airport of Sydney at Badgerys Creek just opening, Peter helped shape national conversations about the future of Australian infrastructure and economic development.

These were nation-building reforms and projects, but Peter never approached them in abstract policy terms alone. He understood what these projects meant to working people. He understood what secure jobs meant to families trying to pay the mortgage, raise the children and build a future. He understood what investment meant to regional confidence. That practical understanding grounded his politics throughout his career.

Peter also held a deep appreciation for Newcastle's rich maritime history and the communities built around our harbour and busy waterfront. He played an important role in the opening of the Newcastle Maritime Museum, helping ensure that the stories of our port, our working harbour, our seafarers and our industrial heritage were preserved for future generations. That contribution reflected Peter's broader belief that Newcastle should always celebrate and honour the working people and industries that shape our city. I welcome the current discussions with the New South Wales government around getting the museum's collection back into public display so that the community can once again engage with this important part of our history. I know just how disappointed Peter was when that museum closed, and I know it was his wish that it would be a temporary closure. He was really heartened to know there were people still fighting for the Newcastle Maritime Museum. I take this moment to acknowledge the Newcastle branch of the Maritime Union of Australia for the very constructive role they have played in those discussions and for their continued advocacy in preserving Newcastle's maritime heritage.

One of the most pleasurable last memories I have of being with Peter, before he went into care, is of being out on a restored vessel called William the Fourth. That boat now commemorates him, and he was so thrilled to be out there on the water once again. He looked like the happiest man in Newcastle that day. It's a great joy for me to remember him in that context, in the place that he loved so much, on the William the Fourth boat touring the working harbour that he dedicated much of his life and advocacy to. It's a special memory that will stay with me, that's for sure.

But Peter's most enduring and nationally significant contribution perhaps came through his fearless advocacy not as a minister, not as someone holding high office in this place, but, at that time, as a humble backbencher heading up a committee. He wrote an extraordinary report that many of us continue to refer to today—I see former deputy prime minister the member for Riverina acknowledging that it was indeed a landmark report—called Ships of shame. For those of us that have been around the block enough, we know just how important that report was.

In 1992 Peter chaired the inquiry into shipping safety and standards that exposed shocking exploitation and dangerous practices occurring aboard foreign vessels operating in Australian waters. That report uncovered appalling conditions endured by seafarers—unsafe ships, inadequate living conditions, exploitation of crews and systemic neglect of safety standards. It was confronting, but Peter refused to look away. At the time there were powerful interests content to ignore those conditions. Peter insisted that Australia had a responsibility to uphold fairness, dignity and safety for all workers. People visiting our shores were not somehow carved out of that, in Peter's mind. The Ships of shame report became a catalyst for reform in maritime safety and regulation. It's a standard that is still used today. I recall that when I was speaking to the Newcastle branch secretary of the MUA very recently, he made it very clear to me that seafarers would still be working on rust buckets today if it wasn't for Peter Morris. I think that's a very true statement.

I remember when I became a candidate, standing in the 2013 election. The International Transport Workers' Federation was in Newcastle. Peter encouraged me to attend the seminars that were being run by the transport federation, and they allowed me to board a ship with them in the Newcastle Harbour. These are people who have international tickets to board ships to check on the safety and wellbeing of seafarers all around the world. We were delighted to have them in the Port of Newcastle. It was a real eye-opener for me, I have to say, and I'm really indebted to Peter and to the International Transport Workers' Federation for that very early education. Although Peter's report was way back in the 1990s, I was boarding a ship in 2013 that hadn't paid its workers for three months and didn't have enough food for them to get to the next port. But I'm really pleased to say that—now, with that infrastructure in place and those safety inspectors aboard ships—that ship left our harbour having paid that crew, having fed them and made sure they had water and food to get to the next port. But it does remind me that you just need to remain forever vigilant. In Australia, we do have good working conditions for people in our ports, and we want that extended to the people that work on ships that come to our ports. It was an important part of my early education as a—I was not even then the member for Newcastle, but it sticks with me. That is in no small part due to the extraordinary work that Peter Morris did—and made sure all of us in the region were familiar with the work that he had done. That was a good education for me as the young parliamentarian I was soon to be.

The Ships of Shame report really elevated public awareness. It strengthened the security of international shipping practices and helped drive improvements in safety standards and conditions for seafarers. It's something we should be really proud of here in Australia—that we ask international seafarers to abide by those conditions and regulations too. The report reflected Peter's broad philosophy that economic progress should never come at the expense of human dignity, that workers deserve to return home safely, that fairness matters and that governments have a responsibility to stand up for those whose voices are all too often ignored. That commitment to fairness and justice defined Peter Morris throughout his public life, and he was deeply respected across the labour movement because he combined intellectual rigour with a solid grounding in those principles of high regard for common humanity.

He was serious about policy, he was serious about reform and serious about public service, and he understood people. He understood relationships, he understood community and he understood the importance of humour. For many of us in Newcastle, Peter was far more than a former minister or respected elder statesman. He was a mentor, a confidant, a storyteller, a trusted source of wisdom and advice. He had a remarkable ability to make people feel welcome and valued, and conversations with Peter were always memorable. They could be long—and a long journey to get around to the story—but it meant that it was really tattooed into my memory bank forevermore.

He possessed a razor-sharp political mind and an extraordinary memory, and, after leaving parliament, Peter remained deeply engaged in Newcastle and the Hunter. I want to acknowledge the words from the now member for Shortland of just how involved he remained in the Shortland FEC. People, after giving 27 years of service, have got every right to sit back and retire, but that was never Peter's way. He remained very actively engaged and cared deeply about the rank-and-file members of the Australian Labor Party, and they loved him for that. We should all take a leaf out of his book, really. He took enormous pride in the region's achievements and the potential of our region.

Just recently, Peter's longstanding contribution to our maritime community was recognised through the ceremonial hoisting of the William the Fourth's new ship's tender, the Peter Morris. He will be very, very chuffed about having a vessel named in his honour. The tender was hand built by the Lake Macquarie Classic Boat Association in partnership with the William the Fourth organisation and stands as a fitting tribute to Peter's decades of support and patronage. While I was unfortunately unable to attend that ceremony, I want to sincerely thank everyone involved in bringing that project to life and in honouring Peter in such a meaningful way. It's a beautiful reflection on the respect and affection that our community held for him.

He believed passionately in Newcastle's future. He believed in our workers, our industries, our creativity and our resilience. And he believed that regional communities deserved ambition from government—not just attention during election campaigns but genuine long-term investment and opportunity. That belief continues to resonate today.

I know many across our community will feel Peter's loss profoundly. His passing represents the loss of a generation of leaders shaped by public service, community connection and deep ideological convictions—people who entered politics because they genuinely wanted to improve the lives of others, people who understood that politics at its best is about service. I will miss Peter deeply. I will miss his wisdom, his encouragement and his generosity with younger generations of Labor representatives. I will miss his stories, and I will miss his unwavering commitment to Newcastle and the Hunter. I will be attending a service called the Merchant Mariners Memorial service, coming up in a couple of weeks. It'll be the June long weekend. That, again, is a legacy of Peter Morris. He understood that we lost many merchant mariners during the war time and we had no way to honour them. We now have at the Newcastle harbour a magnificent memorial in honour of the merchant mariners. We have a service every year, which will happen, as I said, in the June long weekend, and we will all be remembering Peter, who will be very much in our hearts and minds at that service this year.

On behalf of the people of Newcastle, I do extend my deepest condolences to Peter's family. Peter and his wife, Florence, who sadly passed away in 2019—I know that really hurt Peter; he really missed Flo—were loving parents to four children, including the late Matthew Morris, their son, who was a former state member for Charlestown, from 2003 to 2011, so this is a family that knows service. Peter and Flo are survived by their children Michael, Paul and John Morris, along with Peter's remaining siblings, including one of my predecessors, the former federal member for Newcastle, Allan Morris. He was in this parliament from 1983 to 2001. In my part of the world, if you don't serve for more than 20 years, you're considered a bit of a wimp, I think! I am only the sixth federal member for Newcastle since 1901. That shows the kind of service that has been given, and, in no small part, more than half a century of that has been the Morris family. So I do not want to ever underestimate the significance of that service. And I do want to send my condolences to all the members of the Morris family and to Peter's many dear friends and loved ones, and, of course, the ALP rank and file, who I know will be mourning his passing. I hope that they take some comfort in knowing that Peter leaves behind an extraordinary legacy, a legacy built not only on the offices he held or the projects that he advanced but through the values he championed—fairness, dignity, opportunity and service to others. Newcastle and the Hunter are stronger because of Peter Morris, and Australia is better because of Peter Morris. Vale, Peter Morris.

We've just heard some fine and eloquent words from the member for Newcastle on behalf of the Labor Party for Peter Frederick Morris, somebody who was obviously ALP royalty. She spoke about his service to the federal electorate council after his parliamentary career, his extraordinary parliamentary service as the member for Shortland from 1972 through to 1998 and his Ships of shame report. We will be hearing later on from the member for Adelaide, who no doubt will extol the virtues of Peter Morris, the son of a Greek migrant and an inaugural member of the World Hellenic Inter-Parliamentary Association, an organisation of which both Mr Georganas and I are members. Obviously, good Greeks give good service to the parliament. Indeed, Steve and I are very good friends. I did not know Mr Morris personally or politically, but, having read his record, I pay a deep amount of tribute and honour to him for the fact that he was the minister for transport—a role I've also held—the minister for aviation; the minister for resources; the minister for housing and aged care; the minister assisting the prime minister; the minister assisting the treasurer; the minister for transport and communications support; a cabinet minister as the minister for industrial relations; and the minister assisting the prime minister for public service matters. It is a truly remarkable record of achievement, accomplishment and service.

The member for Newcastle spoke fondly about what he had done in and around Newcastle as the member for Shortland and as a cabinet minister. But I want to focus tonight, as a Nationals member, on the service that he did for Wagga Wagga and indeed the Riverina when it was served by a Liberal member of parliament: former member for Hume, the late great Wal Fife. I went through my bound volumes of the Daily Advertiser. In fact I got my wife, Catherine, to do that and then send me the material because I was in parliament when I learned of this condolence motion. I wanted to speak about it, because I remembered, having been a journalist at the Daily Advertiser at the time, that we ran a special four-page wraparound, which was unusual, but it was momentous because it was an important occasion when Mr Morris came to town.

It was the opening of the new terminal and control tower at the Wagga Wagga Airport on 26 March 1986, and the bold headline screamed 'Wagga enters the jet age!' A subsequent story was 'Airport upgrade 40 years after Wagga declared a city', and there was Mr Morris. He was opening the airport terminal, which has served the city well since then, but I would suggest that it's probably in need of an upgrade now. More's the pity. I've placed money on the table for the last two elections, but we will honour that promise eventually when we get back into government. But there was Mr Morris, with the then mayor of Wagga Wagga Alderman Ron Harris and Mr Fife, at the terminal entrance. The plaque is still proudly on the wall.

It's interesting when you read the article in my newspaper, the Wagga Daily Advertiser, as it states that he was 'embarrassingly late to officiate at the opening'. It wasn't his fault; the flight from Sydney touched down 20 minutes late. But he spoke very, very well at that event and showed a lot of grace and a lot of humility, which I'll get to in a moment. The Daily Advertiser reported:

Work on the airport, which includes a new traffic control tower, new passenger terminal and upgrading of the taxiway, took about 14 months to complete.

Before opening the airport, Mr Morris told the gathering it was obvious that the old terminal had its "shortcomings".

And I think, if he were there to look at the terminal in recent years, he would have repeated the same thing. The article goes on to say:

He said his Government was committed to the development of aviation.

I will say good on Labor at the time for that. The article then says:

"We want to make sure that air services are as safe as possible, as cheap as possible, and as efficient as possible," Mr Morris said.

As a good aviation minister, he would've recognised the importance of linking country people to capital cities and to other regional towns as well. Mr Morris then said:

"When there is progress in the air with new planes, with better performance, we match that performance on the ground."

On the same flight as Mr Morris were the former governor-general Sir Roden Cutler, who was the then chair of Air New South Wales, and officials from the Department of Aviation and the Department of Housing and Construction responsible for the works. This upgrade to the airport and the introduction of F-28 flights by Air New South Wales meant that the flight time from Wagga to Sydney was cut to just 50 minutes at the time, and that's the time now. As the headline screamed and reported, Wagga Wagga had entered the jet age. At the time, Mr Morris said that 'there were more than 26,000 air movements through Wagga Wagga last year'. He recognised that Wagga Wagga Airport was the gateway to the Riverina. Indeed it was then, and it still is now. Mr Morris wasn't a man of great height. Some might say he was vertically challenged—

Like many other parliamentarians!

I'll take that interjection from the member for Nicholls just to get it on the Hansard. But I'll tell you what. While he might not have been large in stature, he was large in life, and he had a presence. He had a big heart. He had a big heart for people, and I think that's important.

He was old country Labor. He was old Labor, but he understood the benefits of the regions. Being somebody from Shortland, being somebody from outside a capital city, he understood the importance of connectivity, what regional Australia meant to this nation and the fact that people in the regions keep the lights on and keep us fed. He extolled those virtues in what he did as not only the aviation minister, but also, as I said earlier, the minister for transport, both important portfolios and both portfolios that I've held, so I feel a certain connection to him.

He said:

Obviously, the old system has to be improved.

He was talking about how planes using Wagga Wagga had been operating on a see-and-be-seen basis since 1962 and the fact that the new control tower had put Wagga into the new age of radar, picking up the planes before they'd actually arrived. The article said:

"I feel the new airport is warranted and appropriate."

Mr Morris said the old terminal was to be handed back to the Defence Department for use as a terminal for RAAF personnel coming through Wagga.

RAAF Wagga officer commanding group captain John McNaughton attended the opening.

Mr Morris said it was now up to Wagga Wagga to "markets its attractions."

Indeed, I think that was part of the tourism boost for Wagga Wagga as well.

But what I want to do get on to is how he summed up his comments. I think this shows the measure of the man. This is a special politician because not all politicians would do this. A lot of politicians just want to take credit for everything. He wasn't a local, but he found out and attributed much of the work to those people who were getting in and doing the hard yards. He mentioned Martha and Nobby Lamprey and he said:

It's easy for a politician to stand here and deliver the words, but they helped to make it possible.

That couple helped to make it possible. Now, he didn't have to say that, but he did, and I think that shows the humility of the man and the stature of the man. When a person of such high office who'd held any number of portfolios is willing to thank two local people who'd done so much to make that to make that airport terminal opening and control tower possible and at the same time also acknowledge and respect the work that had been done by his political adversary of sorts in Wal Fife, I think that that goes to show—and I think we could learn a bit from that. I do. I don't think that grace is always forthcoming in this day and age of hurly burly. I mean, I always try to get on with the Labor Party members as best I can. I remember when I was a minister, I invited them, including the member for Newcastle, when we actually took Newcastle Airport and we got a link with Auckland with some international aviation. I certainly made sure that she and the member for Paterson were part and parcel of the ceremony because it is important. You know what? People respect bipartisanship. They do. I'll tell you what, when you're not in that six week madness of an election cycle, I think people give you more points when you actually acknowledge the work done by those on the other side, and I'm always happy to do that.

Peter Morris did that. He was an outstanding human being, a brilliant politician and obviously very credentialed, otherwise he wouldn't have had as many of those ministries as he was afforded. But he never forgot the little person. He never forgot the man and woman in the street, and the fact that he then served the Labor Party at the branch and FEC levels for so many years shows how much he loved the Australian Labor Party, how much he believed in old Labor, and how much he believed in party.

Vale, Peter Morris. He was a fine man, somebody who contributed mightily to this nation and certainly to regional Australia. We will miss him. I pass on my deepest respects to his family. They have given so much to the betterment and improvement of this nation. We need more of the ilk of Peter Morris in this world today.

I didn't know Peter Morris well personally, but I was a journalist in the Canberra press gallery in the 1980s and I got to do something with him that only a small group of journalists got to do, and that was to seal a road in Western Australia that was the missing link in having a bitumen road right around the country. We did this on 7 September 1986, and there were things that Peter Morris said in the speech that he gave then that resonate very strongly with me now, many decades later, when I have a much deeper understanding of the importance of that infrastructure work that he did.

Let me take you back to that time. There was a small contingent of us. I was a radio journalist. We travelled there and we were staying overnight, in Halls Creek from memory. We got on a very small plane, a couple of TV journalists, a couple of radio journos and some print reporters. Not everyone coped well with the little flight. I like bumpy flights; not everyone did—and I won't mention Annette's name because she was mortified at the experience. We landed in Western Australia, having had a little bit of a look at the Bungle Bungles from the air—a place that none of us had ever been.

Peter Morris was super excited about this trip. It was a Sunday, so we were all doing this on our weekend, which is probably why my radio station allowed me to go. I have a copy of the media release from the time. It's a shame people can't see this. It was typed on a typewriter. It's a real blast from the past to see it. Peter Morris described the day as 'an historic day for all Australians'. He said the only event with which this can be compared 'is the circumnavigation of Australia by Bass and Flinders in their tiny boat early last century'—so he was talking about two centuries ago.

This was the last section of gravel road to be sealed. It was between Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing. That last section was a couple of hundred kilometres, but Peter Morris got to sit in the machine and do the last spray of seal over the road. He wasn't a minister who just stood back and watched; he got involved. It's a bit hard to capture that on radio, but the cameras had some really good shots of it.

These are some of the words he shared with us in the speech that he made to the small group who were there to witness this. He talked about what was being done as 'appearing to be something small' and 'yet one which will change the face of Australia'. He also acknowledged the First Nations people of this region—again, this is not something I appreciated as a 23-year-old—when he said:

When people first passed through this area, they followed ancient trails which had existed since Dreamtime.

Then came white man with their herds of cattle—and the Canning Stock Route was born.

He then went on to talk about how, in subsequent years, roads were built and how people could drive 'from place to place'. Previous speakers referred to his turn of phrase. He had a lovely way of describing things. He said:

People could drive from place to place—even if it did mean fighting swollen rivers, ploughing through mud bogs, and choking against the dust.

One of the things he mourned was that, with the sealing of this road, we actually lose some of that pioneer spirit that he saw was part and parcel of how Aussies had lived. And he did comment:

Two hundred years from now—

we're still a little way off that—

a new generation of Australians will have reason to remember this Sunday—the day their country was finally linked north, south, east and west.

Now what was really key for Peter—there are some infrastructure ministers who love the infrastructure. There are some defence ministers who love the gear that goes with it. What Peter Morris made really clear was that he loved it for what it achieved and what it did for people. This national highway was actually the largest single civil engineering project that had ever been undertaken by Australians and at the time was one of the biggest civil engineering projects in the world. But he talked about what those roads mean for people. He said:

Roads are the arteries—the life line along which travels food, medical supplies, building materials—everything.

And in human terms roads mean even more.

They bring people together.

Certainly, as the member for Macquarie with a large peri-urban electorate of about 4,300 square kilometres, I think roads are absolutely vital. This has been something in the last 15 years that I've appreciated very deeply. In the Hawkesbury local government area, we have 5,300 kilometres of roads—that's the length of our roads—and 285 kilometres of those roads are still unsealed council roads. I know the impact they have on my community. In good weather, it might be fine; when they've just been graded, it might be fine. But so often these roads cause pain for people. They might be inaccessible. They might damage tyres and vehicles. They're a real challenge for people. We have been working—as, clearly, Peter Morris had a conviction—to seal those roads.

In the Blue Mountains and Emu Plains, the roads are not so long, but some of them are really old. When you've got 194-year-old roads like the Victoria Pass, you absolutely know that governments have to invest to maintain and, in the case of the Victoria Pass up at Mount Victoria, to repair and make resilient for the next couple of hundred years. In fact, I feel like the way Peter Morris described it is exactly what we're facing. He said:

In effect what the Federal Government is doing with its road building program is to shrink distances helping to bring more cities and communities closer together.

Better roads mean easier, quicker, safer and cheaper travelling—and so more people travel.

He goes on—it was a lovely speech in the middle of a fairly remote area in Western Australia. He had a beautiful five-page speech. Now, he of course thanked the contractors who made this road possible, and the construction workers got his extra thanks because he said 'who despite the difficult conditions, built this road in a true display of professionalism'.

When I saw that Peter Morris had died, I thought about the interactions I had had with him as a young journalist. This was the one that really stood out. In Old Parliament House, there were many press conferences and many times when he told me things, a lot of which I probably didn't really care a lot about as a 23-year-old. But, as someone much older than that now representing the community that I do, I want to pay respect to the passion and the insight and the understanding he had for the role that he did in his various ministries that touched on infrastructure. I'm ever grateful to him for suggesting that a bunch of journos might want to jump on a plane with him and head to Halls Creek to watch a machine seal the road. It was a terrific experience. It taught me a lot and, in reflection, has taught me even more.

To his family: I concur with the comments that have been made. He gave a lot of his life to service. His family gave much of their lives to serving what was, for his dad, their new home. That's the sort of contribution we know migrants and their children and their grandchildren make. I think it's a beautiful opportunity for the parliament to say thank you for that. May he rest in peace.

We've just heard some great words from the member for Macquarie, the member for Riverina and the member for Newcastle, and from the Prime Minister yesterday and the Leader of the Opposition, about the life of Peter Morris. I can't claim to have known him that well, but I met him on a number of occasions and spoken to him many times on the telephone. When he used to visit Adelaide, he would always drop into my former boss's electorate office—Senator Nick Bolkus's office. They were quite pally and friendly, and I got to meet him through working at Nick's office back then.

Peter was the son of a Greek migrant. His father, Agapitos Montiadis, migrated to Australia and to Newcastle from the island of Symi, which is north of the island of Rhodes on the eastern Aegean Sea, just off the Turkish coast. If you look at the history of the island of Symi, the majority of people, before migration to Australia, were actually seafarers. You can see where Peter Morris got this interest in seafaring and shipping; it was obviously in his blood from his father's side of the family. Even today, some of Greece's richest shipping tycoons come from that particular island. That's not to say that Peter was a tycoon, but obviously he had a keen interest, as many from that island do.

His mother was Ethel Thomas, who was a Novocastrian. His parents obviously met and set up a house in Newcastle, and Peter grew up in the confines of a fish-and-chip shop, as many Greek migrant kids of his era and my era did. His early life would have been around the small business of his father's in Newcastle, which had a very large Greek migrant population at the time. Peter stayed connected to his Greek roots and heritage. He had close ties with the Greek community in Newcastle but also all across Australia and internationally.

Peter was part of the World Hellenic Inter-Parliamentary Association, which I'm very privileged to be the vice-president internationally of at the moment, and Michael McCormack is a member. Peter was part of the inaugural group in 1996 that formed this association in Athens with fellow congressmen and senators from the US, Europe, South Africa and South America. At the time when they were forming the World Hellenic Inter-Parliamentary Association, the Australians, including Peter, were very, very keen and adamant that we have a constitution and by-laws. They were modelled on the CPA, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Some of our colleagues from other nations didn't quite understand the constitutional need for good by-laws of an organisation. I know that our Australian colleagues—Senator Bolkus; Peter Morris; Demetri Dollis, who was the deputy leader of the Labor Party in Victoria at the time; and Theo Theophanous—worked very hard to make sure that it was modelled very similar to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. In fact, this year we're celebrating 30 years with a conference in Athens. Michael McCormack and I will be attending. I've already spoken to my executive board over there to ensure that we have condolence motions for Peter Morris and, of course, for another comrade and colleague who passed away earlier, Nick Bolkus. So there will be an Australian presence there this year.

Peter, as I said, stayed close to his Hellenic roots. We were all very proud of him. I remember my parents talking about him continuously. Even though they were in Adelaide and had never met him, they knew about him. You can imagine migrant workers who had come here with no English, no language, no skills—to have one of their own as a cabinet minister was a huge thing. It was actually a huge message to the community that Australia accepts you and Australia will give you every opportunity, just like it did for Peter Morris. He was very good at ensuring that he understood that he was the member for Newcastle but also a role model for Greek migrants all around Australia.

He played a very active role within the Greek community in Newcastle but also nationally. He lobbied very hard for the Hellenic Memorial at the end of Anzac Parade on the left-hand side as you go up to the War Memorial. He lobbied the government at the time to assist and played an active role in the fundraising. There are a number of speeches that he made in Hansard promoting and pushing and lobbying for the memorial. In fact, they started the fundraising in 1987 and they completed it in 1988 during the commemoration of the Battle of Crete in May, which is coming up next week. Peter was at the opening, and spoke at that opening, of the Hellenic Memorial on Anzac Parade. He played an active role within the Greek community across the nation. He was someone we all looked up to.

When Peter came into the parliament, it would have been a very different parliament in those days. You can just imagine—a majority of men, all white and Anglo-Saxon. He would have been one of the rarities in this place, yet he prevailed and became a cabinet minister—the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Aviation, the Minister for Resources, the Minister for Housing and Aged Care and even the assistant Treasurer and the minister assisting the Prime Minister as well. But when you look at everything, one thing that stands out is his inquiry report Ships of shame. As I said earlier, shipping was in his blood. Some great work came out of that. Living in Newcastle, one of the largest ports in Australia, you would see ships that would come and go stranded, sailors that hadn't been paid, ships that weren't fit for humans to live on board et cetera. Yet, through his international connections, Peter was able to ensure there were measures in place when things took place. At a point of time, there was a Filipino crew that was in town, in Adelaide, who hadn't been paid and had no food on board. The ship was embargoed and had to stay in port until all these measures were in place. I remember that, during this particular campaign, the media was reporting it as 'a ship of shame'—so Peter's great work resonated in the community.

Peter also had some sadness in his life. He lost his son Matthew, who became a state MP. I went to a couple of conferences in Athens with Matthew over the years.

Peter will be remembered by everyone that worked with him and had dealings with him. He'll be remembered here in this place. As the Greek Australian media has reported this week, there have been articles on him pretty much every week since he passed away. He'll be remembered by the Greek community, and we'll be doing condolence motions at the World Hellenic Inter-Parliamentary Association. I had a couple of emails from a former congressman in the US who knew Peter and who found out about his death; he sent me an email saying how sad it was. There were people in Athens who heard about it, through his connections. It shows what sort of a person he was. He made connections with politicians from all around the world through this organisation. May he rest in peace. He will always be remembered.

I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the Federation Chamber.

by leave—I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:54