I present the 10th report of the Petitions Committee for the 48th Parliament.
The report read as follows—
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PETITIONS COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 10
Petitions and Ministerial Responses
25 May 2026
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Chair Ms Jodie Belyea MP
Deputy Chair Mr Leon Rebello MP
Mr Cameron Caldwell MP
Ms Emma Comer MP
Ms Trish Cook MP
Mr Rowan Holzberger MP
Mr Llew O'Brien MP
Ms Tracey Roberts MP
This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives
Report summarising the petitions and ministerial responses being presented.
The committee met in private session in the 48th Parliament on 3 March, 24 March, 31 March and 30 April 2026.
1. The committee resolved to present the following 186 petitions in accordance with standing order 207:
Petitions certified on 3 March 2026
From 3 petitioners—requesting the establishment of fusion energy research and development activities (EN7592)
From 3 petitioners—requesting the establishment of fusion energy research and development activities (EN7593)
From 9 petitioners—requesting the establishment of fusion energy research and development activities (EN7594)
From 3 petitioners—requesting the establishment of fusion energy research and development activities (EN7595)
From 3 petitioners—requesting the establishment of fusion energy research and development activities (EN7596)
From 6 petitioners—requesting action relating to religious belief in public institutions (EN9068)
From 16 petitioners—requesting changes to migration and visa screening (EN9069)
From 10 petitioners—requesting changes to ministerial travel and entitlements (EN9071)
From 15 petitioners—requesting changes to eligibility requirements for public office (EN9072)
From 10 petitioners—requesting changes to national freight rail and road transport arrangements (EN9140)
From 4 petitioners—requesting changes to defence capability and procurement arrangements (EN9141)
From 5 petitioners—requesting the establishment of domestic critical minerals processing (EN9145)
From 8 petitioners—requesting the establishment of domestic processing and manufacturing of industrial metals (EN9146)
From 16 petitioners—requesting changes to standards for political advertising (EN9148)
From 94 petitioners—requesting the establishment of payment arrangements for emergency service volunteers (EN9368)
From 37 petitioners—requesting a motion of no confidence (EN9369)
From 828 petitioners—requesting action relating to Iranian leadership (EN9374)
From 81 petitioners—requesting action to support the self-determination of the Iranian people (EN9375)
From 17 petitioners—requesting transparency and consultation regarding international data-sharing (EN9376)
From 3 petitioners—requesting the retention of the fuel tax credit scheme (EN9378)
From 12 petitioners—requesting the retention of historic military sites (EN9379)
From 22 petitioners—requesting laws relating to the treatment of the Australian National Flag (EN9380)
From 7 petitioners—regarding media involvement in matters relating to military personnel (EN9381)
From 279 petitioners—requesting safeguards relating to Commonwealth planning controls in residential areas (EN9382)
From 39 petitioners—requesting changes to taxation of mining companies (EN9384)
From 25 petitioners—requesting the establishment of a public monument (EN9386)
From 2 petitioners—requesting changes to legislative assessment requirements prior to industry assistance (EN9387)
From 39 petitioners—requesting changes to entitlements for parliamentarians (EN9392)
From 11 petitioners—requesting action relating to Iranian government representatives (EN9394)
From 3 petitioners—requesting a referendum to establish a new state (EN9396)
From 130 petitioners—requesting the establishment of a royal commission into coronavirus vaccines (EN9397)
From 30 petitioners—requesting changes to laws relating to offences against children (EN9398)
From 3 petitioners—requesting changes to residency requirements for children born in Australia (EN9400)
From 15 petitioners—requesting changes to environmental approvals for renewable energy projects (EN9403)
From 75 petitioners—requesting the protection of a historic defence site (EN9405)
From 3177 petitioners—requesting the establishment of a royal commission into foreign interference (EN9406)
From 64 petitioners—requesting changes to defence, trade and data arrangements with the United States (EN9407)
From 1099 petitioners—requesting the retention of a defence site (EN9408)
From 7472 petitioners—requesting the establishment of an inquiry into arts education and training (EN9412)
From 31 petitioners—requesting changes to funding arrangements for private schools (EN9413)
From 68 petitioners—requesting the retention of current capital gains tax settings (EN9414)
From 205 petitioners—requesting changes to early childhood education and care policy for children with complex needs (EN9415)
From 482 petitioners—requesting changes to eligibility timeframes for regional skilled migration visas (EN9416)
From 13 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into the construction sector (EN9417)
From 8 petitioners—requesting requirements for the display of beverage prices in licensed premises (EN9429)
From 2 petitioners—requesting the establishment of reciprocal healthcare arrangements with specified countries (EN9430)
From 7 petitioners—requesting the establishment of youth activity facilities (EN9432)
From 1236 petitioners—requesting changes to processing times and eligibility for regional migration visas (EN9433)
From 3 petitioners—requesting changes to identification requirements for trailer registration (EN9436)
From 7 petitioners—requesting the establishment of a national registry for narcolepsy (EN9437)
From 37 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into the allocation of Commonwealth funds (EN9517)
From 85 petitioners—requesting the establishment of a minimum child support payment (EN9518)
From 21 petitioners—requesting the establishment of free aged care (EN9519)
From 13 petitioners—requesting investigation of constitutional eligibility of parliamentarians (EN9521)
From 97 petitioners—requesting changes to penalties for child abuse offences (EN9522)
From 8 petitioners—requesting investigation of retail pricing practices (EN9523)
From 4 petitioners—requesting recognition of Kurdish regions (EN9524)
From 105 petitioners—requesting changes to child support administration (EN9527)
From 32 petitioners—regarding pensions for former parliamentarians (EN9528)
From 31 petitioners—requesting tax deductibility for fitness and sporting expenses (EN9529)
From 107 petitioners—regarding agreements involving international biometric data sharing (EN9530)
From 80 petitioners—requesting cancellation of passports (EN9534)
From 122 petitioners—requesting action to improve mobile telecommunications coverage in South Australia (EN9535)
From 24 petitioners—requesting domestic production of automotive parts (EN9536)
From 271 petitioners—requesting diplomatic action relating to the detention of former the Prime Minister of Pakistan (EN9537)
From 9 petitioners—requesting action relating to human rights in Iran (EN9538)
From 34 petitioners—requesting changes to taxation relating to automated technologies (EN9539)
From 5 petitioners—requesting the availability of non-wireless telecommunications services (EN9544)
From 5 petitioners—requesting changes to laws regulating vaping products (EN9545)
From 44 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into national security and counter-terrorism (EN9547)
From 300 petitioners—requesting changes to laws addressing online child exploitation (EN9548)
Petitions certified on 24 March 2026
From 2 petitioners—requesting funding for fusion energy research and development (EN7597)
From 2 petitioners—requesting a review of energy policy advice relating to fusion energy (EN7598)
From 7 petitioners—requesting a national fusion energy research program (EN7599)
From 2 petitioners—requesting a national survey on public views about fusion energy (EN7600)
From 3 petitioners—requesting changes to laws relating to fusion energy research and development (EN7935)
From 2 petitioners—requesting dress and conduct standards for government officials (EN9073)
From 4 petitioners—regarding the interpretation of terms used in discrimination law (EN9076)
From 9 petitioners—requesting restrictions on face coverings at public demonstrations (EN9077)
From 2 petitioners—requesting changes to appointment criteria for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner (EN9078)
From 3 petitioners—requesting laws to prohibit destruction of the Australian National Flag (EN9084)
From 8 petitioners—requesting changes to political donation disclosure requirements (EN9149)
From 3 petitioners—requesting the introduction of a national debt reduction levy (EN9150)
From 7 petitioners—requesting funding for rail standardisation (EN9163)
From 14 petitioners—requesting changes to standard working hours (EN9168)
From 5 petitioners—requesting a review of regulations related to real estate agents (EN9525)
From 4415 petitioners—requesting a Medicare-funded care plan for functional neurological disorder (EN9549)
From 110 petitioners—requesting the proclamation of an additional national flag (EN9551)
From 1 petitioner—requesting a process for the repatriation of Australian women and children detained in northeast Syria (EN9552)
From 12 petitioners—requesting restrictions on the sale of glyphosate-based herbicides (EN9553)
From 35 petitioners—requesting a motion of no confidence (EN9556)
From 11 petitioners—requesting the reinstatement of capital punishment for certain criminal offences (EN9558)
From 33 petitioners—requesting sanctions against Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officials (EN9559)
From 53 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into foreign influence and lobbying (EN9562)
From 543 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (EN9563)
From 1 petitioner—requesting age verification requirements for online adult material (EN9564)
From 5 petitioners—requesting drug and alcohol testing requirements for parliamentarians (EN9565)
From 7 petitioners—requesting subsidies for non-surgical treatments for cleft and craniofacial conditions (EN9566)
From 3 petitioners—requesting a referendum on the role of the monarch (EN9568)
From 17 petitioners—requesting legislation to establish a bill of rights (EN9569)
From 72 petitioners—requesting expanded eligibility for the Veterans Heart Health Program (EN9570)
From 4122 petitioners—requesting nationally consistent allergen management standards for food service venues (EN9575)
From 6 petitioners—requesting permanent residency for New Zealand Citizen Family Relationship (subclass 461) visa holders (EN9581)
From 21 petitioners—requesting a pathway to permanent residency for New Zealand Citizen Family Relationship (subclass 461) visa holders (EN9582)
From 7 petitioners—regarding funding for infectious disease research (EN9583)
From 2 petitioners—requesting daylight saving time arrangements for south-east Queensland (EN9584)
From 2 petitioners—requesting transitional arrangements for increased visa application charges (EN9585)
From 123 petitioners—requesting governance standards for digital mental health services (EN9586)
From 29 petitioners—requesting protection for freedom of speech (EN9588)
From 7 petitioners—requesting legislation to implement the High Seas Treaty (EN9589)
From 21 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into foreign involvement in opposition to the Resource Super Profit Tax (EN9590)
From 2324 petitioners—requesting consideration of listing a specified Iranian opposition group as a terrorist organisation (EN9592)
From 6 petitioners—requesting a review of religious practices in parliamentary proceedings (EN9594)
From 231 petitioners—requesting measures to reduce the cost of fuel (EN9595)
From 10 petitioners—requesting action to address human rights concerns in Iran (EN9597)
From 6 petitioners—requesting acceptance of state and territory photo cards for digital identity verification (EN9598)
From 73 petitioners—requesting changes to review timeframes under the
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (EN9600)
From 125 petitioners—requesting condemnation of the killing of schoolchildren in Iran (EN9601)
From 5 petitioners—requesting changes to the treatment of overtime income in child support assessments (EN9603)
From 51 petitioners—requesting review of suppression orders and related governance arrangements (EN9604)
From 30 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into Australia's role in conflicts in the Middle East (EN9606)
From 14 petitioners—requesting investigation of Australian involvement in a foreign military operation (EN9607)
From 56 petitioners—requesting changes to parliamentary allowances and entitlements (EN9608)
From 14 petitioners—requesting removal of digital identification requirements for online services (EN9609)
From 69 petitioners—regarding capital punishment for specific offences (EN9611)
From 5 petitioners—requesting the removal of social media age limit restrictions (EN9612)
From 21 petitioners—requesting a change to the date of Australia Day (EN9613)
From 9 petitioners—requesting the removal of social media age limit restrictions (EN9614)
From 19 petitioners—requesting repeal of online safety legislation (EN9615)
Petitions certified on 31 March 2026
From 1 petitioner—requesting legislative recognition of fusion energy within nuclear regulation (EN7936)
From 3 petitioners—requesting support for fusion energy development (EN7937)
From 1 petitioner—requesting investment in fusion energy programs for defence applications (EN7938)
From 2 petitioners—requesting inclusion of fusion energy in emissions policy (EN7939)
From 2 petitioners—requesting funding for education and workforce development in fusion energy (EN7940)
From 10 petitioners—requesting changes to migration policy (EN9086)
From 4 petitioners—requesting a review of ideological and religious material (EN9088)
From 4 petitioners—requesting consideration of matters relating to Australian law (EN9089)
From 36 petitioners—regarding counter-terrorism laws (EN9091)
From 18 petitioners—requesting the establishment of a universal basic income system (EN9169)
From 3 petitioners—requesting support measures for cooperatives and mutual enterprises (EN9170)
From 5 petitioners—requesting economic measures relating to artificial intelligence (EN9171)
From 3 petitioners—requesting a review of interstate rail access pricing (EN9266)
From 8 petitioners—requesting changes to national security and defence policy (EN9294)
From 5 petitioners—requesting protection for members of an Iranian sporting team (EN9616)
From 33 petitioners—requesting changes to parliamentary remuneration (EN9618)
From 20 petitioners—requesting changes to fuel reserve and refining arrangements (EN9619)
From 5 petitioners—requesting asylum for members of an Iranian sporting team (EN9620)
From 14209 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into employment arrangements in the aviation sector (EN9621)
From 6 petitioners—requesting changes to wages and employment conditions in the meat industry (EN9622)
From 7 petitioners—requesting changes to superannuation access (EN9625)
From 14 petitioners—requesting changes to fuel pricing regulation (EN9630)
From 6 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into development application processes (EN9631)
From 33 petitioners—regarding Australia's involvement in overseas conflicts (EN9632)
From 532 petitioners—requesting removal of Lancer Barracks from defence divestment site plans (EN9633)
From 229 petitioners—requesting environmental assessment of a proposed mining project (EN9634)
From 1675 petitioners—requesting changes to animal welfare requirements for live export (EN9635)
From 276 petitioners—requesting action on concerns relating to migration policy changes (EN9639)
From 147 petitioners—requesting action in relation to employment advertising practices (EN9642)
From 6 petitioners—requesting changes to taxation (EN9656)
From 36 petitioners—requesting changes to social media age limit restrictions (EN9658)
From 16 petitioners—requesting changes to the taxation of household income (EN9660)
From 6 petitioners—regarding vaccine approval processes (EN9661)
From 11 petitioners—regarding religious institutions (EN9663)
From 24 petitioners—requesting removal of debit card surcharges (EN9665)
From 6163 petitioners—requesting changes to visa eligibility for foreign military personnel (EN9667)
From 12 petitioners—requesting changes to allowable absence limits in early childhood education (EN9668)
From 16 petitioners—requesting consideration of the future of a defence site (EN9669)
From 8 petitioners—requesting promotion of the use of First Nations languages in public communications (EN9670)
From 3 petitioners—requesting visa extensions for temporary visa holders (EN9671)
From 13 petitioners—requesting changes to Carer Payment eligibility (EN9672)
From 97 petitioners—requesting a motion of no confidence (EN9673)
From 98 petitioners—requesting changes to domestic access to natural resources (EN9677)
From 28434 petitioners—requesting the introduction of menstrual leave entitlements (EN9679)
From 251 petitioners—requesting a framework to allow urgent interim decisions to ensure participant safety during review processes (EN9682)
From 45 petitioners—requesting changes to fuel pricing oversight and transparency (EN9683)
From 19 petitioners—requesting access to copies of the Australian Constitution and related educational resources (EN9684)
From 11 petitioners—regarding visa changes and processing (EN9688)
From 26 petitioners—requesting action in relation to resource taxation (EN9693)
From 332 petitioners—requesting prioritisation of certain humanitarian visa applications (EN9710)
From 87 petitioners—requesting changes to criminal history disclosure requirements for visa applicants (EN9711)
From 77 petitioners—requesting changes to financial transparency requirements for disability service providers (EN9712)
From 34 petitioners—requesting changes to resource taxation (EN9713)
From 93 petitioners—requesting changes to vehicle lighting standards (EN9715)
From 41 petitioners—requesting changes to the taxation of certain foods (EN9719)
From 7891 petitioners—requesting actions to support Falun Gong practitioners (PN0655)
Petitions certified on 30 April 2026
From 109 petitioners—requesting intervention for a family to remain in Australia (PN0657)
2. The following 9 ministerial responses to petitions were received.
Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 30 April 2026
From the Minister for Health and Aging to a petition regarding skill assessments for physiotherapists (EN7373)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting actions to address political and human rights concerns in Myanmar (EN8072)
From the Minister for Communications to a petition requesting changes to social media minimum age restrictions (EN8494)
From the Minister for Early Childhood Education to a petition regarding educator to child ratios (EN8543)
From the Minister for Communications to a petition requesting removal of social media age limit restrictions (EN8548)
From the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to a petition requesting paid leave entitlements for pregnancy loss before 20 weeks gestation (EN8549)
From the Minister for Health and Aging to a petition requesting subsidised access to approved weight-loss medications (EN8800)
From the Minister for Health and Aging to a petition requesting a national review of suicides (EN8812)
From the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister to a petition requesting criminalisation of damage to national and state flags (EN9333)
Ms Jodie Belyea MP
Chair—Petitions Committee
I present the following 186 petitions:
I present the following nine ministerial responses to petitions presented previously:
The petitions presented cover a range of topics, including menstrual leave entitlements, Iran, foreign interference, historic Defence sites, arts, education and training, and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. There are currently 79 petitions open for signatures on the House e-petitions website, with more certifications to follow at the committee's next meeting. The range of petition topics on the e-petitions website highlights the Australian public's desire to engage with parliament.
On 11 May 2026, the committee held a public hearing for its inquiry into the standing orders relating to petitions. The public hearing allowed the committee to hear a variety of perspectives from a range of stakeholders. On behalf of the committee, I thank those who took the time to provide important evidence to the inquiry. I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the Petitions Committee.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
My electorate of Indi in north-east Victoria is no stranger to disasters.
Floods are a fact of life for communities along rivers such as the Goulburn, the Broken, the Ovens, the King and the Murray, and recent floods in 2022 and 2023 show the devastation they can cause.
Already this century, we've experienced the Black Saturday bushfires, the Black Summer bushfires, and now the January 2026 bushfires.
Two fires in Indi this summer, known as the Longwood fire and the Walwa River Road fire, left more than 300 homes destroyed, and over 250,000 hectares of land burnt. These communities are now on a long road to recovery.
As I've travelled through affected towns in recent months, I've seen communities showing up for each other, town halls turned into relief centres, neighbours helping neighbours, people giving all that they can. Indeed, Minister McBain is here today, and she's accompanied me on these tours. In the worst of times, our resilience and strength is clear.
However, resilience isn't limitless.
For many communities, this is the second or third catastrophic disaster in just a few short years. What were once-in-a-century events are now happening once in a decade, or even more often.
Unfortunately, as climate change makes disasters more intense and more frequent, government investment in our communications network resilience has lagged, with serious consequences.
We must do better for our regional communities.
The SCiND bill
That's why today I'm introducing a bill to strengthen communications systems through natural disasters. This bill will do three things.
First, it will require the regulator to identify phone towers in high-risk areas and set out minimum power backup requirements for these sites.
Second, it will enable the government to implement temporary disaster roaming, which could save lives in an emergency.
Third, it will create a clear pathway for the government to invest in community wi-fi and satellite internet at community halls or other technologies that can be deployed during a natural disaster.
I'll now explain these reforms in detail.
Temporary disaster roaming
I continue to push for the implementation of temporary disaster roaming, or TDR.
TDR would allow a person in a disaster affected area to temporarily connect to another mobile network when their usual network is unavailable or severely degraded, so they can still make and receive calls and text messages during an emergency.
Some countries have had disaster roaming in place for years, and it's been recommended by inquiry after inquiry here in Australia, including the government's very own Regional Telecommunications Review in 2024.
However, despite saying it was looking into disaster roaming over two years ago, the government is still yet to act.
When I asked for an update last year, I was told that the government hopes to implement TDR soon, but it's an industry led initiative.
Frankly, this hands-off approach isn't good enough for my electorate, where bushfires this summer have destroyed hundreds of homes and left communities disconnected.
I welcome that the government is now saying that it hopes TDR will be implemented before this summer. But with the telcos dragging their feet, and the start of summer only six short months away, hoping simply isn't enough.
The government must show leadership—pull Telstra and the other telcos into line—and get it done.
Mandatory power backup
Another key issue exposed by fires in my electorate is the lack of power backup at towers.
We know that when a mobile phone tower has a battery or a generator onsite, sites stay up longer and enable people to receive life-saving information, or to communicate with their loved ones.
It's why I've recommended at least 24 hours of power backup—and why I had the Parliamentary Budget Office cost this policy at last year's election.
Mandatory power backup has the support of the Victorian government, who have called for 'long-duration battery energy storage solutions that deliver more reliable power supply to key telecommunications infrastructure that can support power loads for 24 hours'.
Similarly, the government's own Regional Telecommunications Review backed my recommendation, calling for 'minimum power backup periods for new critical telecommunications infrastructure, with existing assets to be captured over time'.
But the government hasn't acted—so I am.
This bill will require the Australian Communications and Media Authority to identify high-risk sites and determine the minimum power requirements of these sites.
Communications resilience grants
The final pillar of my bill is to put disaster resilience alongside payphones, the National Relay Service and the emergency call services as eligible public interest telecommunications spending.
It's an overdue amendment that would make it easier for the Commonwealth to invest in things like Cells on Wheels, which can be rapidly deployed to disaster affected areas. Similarly, it would allow the Commonwealth to continue a long-term investment in satellite internet, routers and battery backup for halls, community centres and schools right across regional Australia.
Conclusion
This bill, if implemented, would save lives when the next fire, flood or storm arrives.
In regional Australia, we face a future of more frequent, more intense disasters, and the government must do more to ensure communications systems are as resilient as they possibly could be.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I very much support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Communications in Natural Disasters) Bill 2026 and this motion, and I thank the member for Indi for championing regional telecommunications. My community understands the very real threat of bushfires. We've lived through the fear, uncertainty and heartbreak that come with fires—not just our homes but our entire townships. Telecommunications outages, due to the loss of power or destruction of infrastructure during such natural disasters, ultimately cost lives. Earlier this year, the fire at Deep Creek reminded us how quickly conditions can change. That one actually threatened the township of Cape Jervis and vital ferry infrastructure. We've had, during my time as a member, devastating fires on Kangaroo Island, in the Adelaide Hills and at Cherry Gardens, and, just before I was the member, there was one at Sampson Flat. But the disaster lives on for a long time.
I think one thing that common to all of those is that our telecommunications failed us when we needed them the most, and that's why this bill is so important. It will respond to address failures of mobile networks. It will require ACMA to set minimum-power and backup-power requirements, because that's so critical. The electricity gets cut to save us during bushfires, from a danger point of view, but then, with so many people on the network, the towers go down very, very quickly. So it is an excellent requirement to have 24-hour battery backup, which will, in many cases, allow the immediate danger to pass, and then we can get those mobile telephone tower batteries swapped over and hopefully continue without losing telecommunications, so it's incredibly important.
The temporary disaster roaming period, in which a person in a disaster affected area can temporarily connect to another network, will be a game changer in regional Australia. Many people in my electorate, ridiculously, need to carry both Optus and Telstra—two separate phones—because in some parts of the electorate Optus works best, but in other parts it's Telstra, so being able to swap across carriers will be incredibly important. And this bill will enable the minister to make rules requiring temporary disaster roaming in declared emergency situations.
I think one of the most innovative ideas in this bill is the requirement for low-level satellite telephone calls and connectivity in our community centres. The member for Mayo is completely correct—sorry, the member for Indi is completely correct. The member for Mayo might be too! But certainly the member for Indi is.
We're a unity ticket on this one!
We're a unity ticket on this one. When there is a disaster, people go to their community centre; roll out swags, if they've got them; and get some food. Often, people leave with their absolutely basic documents and photos, if they can pull them together in time. But when they go to their community centres they find that there's no way they can make a phone call to let people in their family and friendship circle know that they are safe. So having that connectivity in our community centres is important.
I'd like to spend my last 30 seconds recognising a wonderful lady, the late Jill Bottrill, who basically crossed the lines to get into the Lobethal community and on Kangaroo Island with NBN trucks just so that my community could have somewhere to charge their phones and be able to make a phone call. But that didn't happen for, I think, at least 48 hours after we had the Black Summer fires. This will be a game changer for regional Australia. I really do urge the government to put the shoulder to the wheel and make this happen for us.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Murray-Darling Basin is not one place. It is a system of rivers, floodplains and communities spanning four states and the ACT.
The basin produces around $30 billion in agricultural output each year. It supports more than one-third of the nation's food production and more than 8,000 irrigated agriculture businesses.
What happens in this basin matters to all Australians.
That is why I am bringing forward this bill and why I urge this parliament to support it.
This bill establishes a commission of inquiry into the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, or CEWH.
The commission will examine how Commonwealth environmental water is managed and whether it is delivering the environmental outcomes that are claimed. It will also look at the impacts on farming, regional economies and basin communities.
The CEWH is the single largest water holder in the Murray-Darling Basin, controlling more than 2,000 gigalitres of water.
Environmental water now accounts for around 72 per cent of river flows across the system on average.
The CEWH decides when and where to deliver that water, whether to carry it over and whether to trade. Those decisions affect river operations, environmental outcomes and water markets from Queensland to South Australia.
The CEWH must therefore be held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
Too many basin communities do not believe it currently meets that standard.
Since 2022, the Albanese government has pushed basin policy heavily towards water buybacks. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Act 2023removed the 1,500-gigalitre cap on Commonwealth water purchases.
Multiple buyback programs are now running at the same time.
This is happening even though the government has acknowledged that major complementary works, including constraints relaxation and floodplain restoration projects, will not be delivered in full or on time.
The original basin plan was built on the idea that recovered water and complementary works would go hand in hand. That is not what is happening.
The result is a growing imbalance across the basin. Productive water is being removed from communities before the works that were meant to justify that removal have been delivered.
The effects go beyond farms. Previous buyback rounds saw the population of communities severely decline. Towns like Wakool in New South Wales watched football clubs close and their RSLs fall into financial difficulty. Schools lost enrolments, and freight, retail and hospitality businesses contracted. These outcomes are the direct result of policy decisions that have never been subject to a proper socioeconomic test.
The coalition is fighting for five key principles for the basin. We want to reverse detrimental changes that the Labor government has made to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; to ban any further buybacks and further reductions to the amount of water available for productive use; to balance the socioeconomic neutrality test with environmental outcomes; to ensure there are no further reductions to the consumptive pool and seek to increase the consumptive pool by delivering efficient water infrastructure to secure the future of basin communities; and to reform the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH).
This bill targets the fifth principle.
People across the basin are not arguing against caring for our rivers. Communities understand that rivers need water. What they are asking is whether the basin plan is being implemented fairly and transparently, and whether it is delivering real environmental outcomes.
At a water forum in Narrandera earlier this year, irrigators, rice growers, cotton producers, local councils and industry groups spoke loudly and we listened. They are not opposed to environmental water. They want to know what it is achieving. They want to understand how decisions are made and what happens when things go wrong.
People want practical answers. What watering action is planned?
What does success look like? What are the risks? What impacts on third parties are expected? And how will communities be told what actually happened?
Too often, decisions are announced after the fact, in language that the people most affected cannot easily engage with.
This is not an argument against environmental water. It is an argument for better planning, consultation and accountability.
Basin communities are telling us that the CEWH has not demonstrated the performance needed to justify the trust being placed in it.
A commission of inquiry can test the evidence independently. It can compel documents and hear directly from communities and experts across all basin states, rather than relying on internal reviews or selective reporting.
The commission should examine:
Water users across the basin comply with complex rules, metreing requirements and reporting obligations.
That same standard must apply to the Commonwealth.
The coalition believes there should be no further reductions to the amount of water available for productive use.
The existing level of water recovery has already caused significant economic and social harm to basin communities. Any further reduction to the consumptive pool must be accompanied by a full socioeconomic assessment covering the whole basin, not just the farm gate.
The sustainable communities fund is competitive, and small towns cannot match larger regional centres for grants. The full cost of water policy decisions must be counted.
Rather than continuing to spend Commonwealth money on reducing the consumptive pool, the coalition will invest in infrastructure and bulk water supply to grow effective water availability.
Basin infrastructure is ageing. In some cases, it is approaching a century old. The Murray-Darling Basin's own Basin Plan discussion paper flags the risk of critical assessment failure, including at Lake Victoria in New South Wales and the Dartmouth Dam in Victoria.
The coalition also supports reforming the CEWH to return surplus water, water not needed to meet priority environmental outcomes, to the temporary consumptive pool.
Water that is sitting unused should be supporting basin communities, not sitting idle.
This is not about selling off environmental water. It is about managing a major public asset with the same discipline and accountability expected of any other public institution.
If the Labor government is confident that the Commonwealth environmental water is being managed well, it should welcome this inquiry. This parliament should not need to fight the executive for accountability on an issue that affects the livelihood of communities.
I recognise there is review fatigue across basin communities. Several reviews are already underway. But this bill is different. It is targeted specifically at the CEWH, and at the lack of trust that communities in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia have in how that body operates.
The commission must be credible to the communities it serves. That means commissioners with the right mix of legal and investigative expertise, alongside real knowledge of basin communities and river operations.
It means terms of reference that reflect the questions people are actually asking, and a process that gives stakeholders across all four states confidence that they will be heard.
The commission will report to parliament so that basin communities can see the findings and recommendations in full.
The Murray-Darling Basin is a shared resource of national importance.
Scrutiny is not a cost to government. It is a safeguard for the businesses and families whose futures depend on fair and transparent water management.
I commend the bill to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The time allocated for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In my first speech to this parliament, I said that I was just an ordinary woman with an extraordinary privilege of doing an extraordinary job.
Those words mean even more to me today, because I still stand here as an ordinary woman—but today I stand carrying the voices of millions of Australian women who no longer believe the law of this country protects them, women who increasingly feel that when they raise concerns about privacy, safety, dignity or fairness, the message from too many in politics, in the media and in public institutions is simple: 'Suck it up princess, we don't care.' Well I do care.
And millions of Australian women and men care too.
The Federal Court ruling in Giggle v Tickle that sex is changeable exposed what many Australians already knew was a serious and growing problem in our law—women's sex based protections are no longer clearly guaranteed.
When the law cannot clearly preserve women-only spaces, women lose confidence that their rights to privacy, dignity, safety and choice remain secure.
That is not a criticism of the court.
The court interpreted the law that this parliament wrote.
The fault lies here.
The parliament created ambiguity in 2013 when it amended the Sex Discrimination Act to insert gender identity protections without properly defining what should happen when they come into conflict with sex based rights.
And for years this parliament hoped the problem would somehow disappear, that institutions such as sporting codes would quietly 'manage' the issue, that women would simply adapt and accept—accept that they can no longer say no to men invading their space—that Australians would stop noticing. Well, we didn't.
Before speaking to the specifics of this bill, I want to acknowledge the Australians who refused to stay silent while this parliament looked away, women whose lives were turned upside down because they spoke publicly about women's sex based rights, women of immense courage such as Sall Grover, Dr Jessica Spencer, Louise Elliott, Jasmine Sussex and my own constituent Kirralie Smith.
These women did not seek fame.
Many paid a significant personal and professional price for speaking out.
Yet they persisted because they believed women and girls should not be forced to stay silent.
I acknowledge the parliamentarians who previously attempted to confront these issues, including Senator Chandler, Senator Hanson, Senator Antic and Senator Canavan.
I also acknowledge Michelle Pearse from the Australian Christian Lobby and John Steenhof from the Human Rights Law Alliance for working with me over the past couple of months to develop this legislation.
For years Australians from different political traditions have warned that the law was becoming detached from biological reality and increasingly incapable of balancing competing sex and gender identity rights created by the parliament.
The ruling in Giggle v Tickle has proved them right.
My bill seeks to restore clarity, certainty and common sense to the law.
It starts from a very simple proposition: the law must recognise and favour biological reality, because laws only function properly when they are grounded in objective facts that can be consistently understood and applied.
Biological sex is not a social construct created by parliament.
It is not a matter of personal opinion.
The role of the law is not to deny reality.
It is to responsibly govern within it.
Biological sex matters—particularly in sport, health, privacy, safety and women's services.
If the law loses the ability to distinguish biological sex where it is relevant, then sex based protections become impossible to apply consistently and fairly.
That does not mean transgender Australians should be treated without dignity or respect.
It does not mean they should face harassment or blanket discrimination.
The law must be capable of distinguishing between sex and gender when those distinctions carry practical consequences.
Australians are practical people, and they do not like being told the law says something that goes against plain common sense: that a man can become a woman for all legal purposes; that biological differences are irrelevant; that sex itself is fluid; and, as Sall Grover has so eloquently put it, 'That women should ignore their own boundaries, their own discomfort and their own safety in order to avoid offending men.'
These words alone should trouble every member of this parliament.
Australians know instinctively that men and women are equal in dignity and worth—but they also know that biological sex still matters in some circumstances.
And recognising that reality should not be controversial.
The Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sex-Based Rights) Bill 2026 restores commonsense legal language to the Sex Discrimination Act.
It reinstates definitions of 'man' and 'woman' removed in 2013.
It restores references to 'opposite sex' rather than 'different sex' and makes other definitional change to secure sex as binary.
And critically, it inserts explicit protections for women-only spaces, services and activities, including those online.
This bill provides the legal clarity that this parliament failed to provide 13 years ago.
And importantly, it does so while retaining protections for transgender Australians against unfair discrimination where there is no conflict with a person's sex.
That is important because there will inevitably be those who seek to falsely portray this bill as an attack on transgender Australians.
It is not.
This bill is about grounding the law in the reality and safety of biology, making discrimination protections practically workable and legally clear.
The current Sex Discrimination Act has imposed confusion and chaos on many Australians.
Women are prosecuted for denying biological men lessons in breastfeeding.
Girls are forced to play with and against biological boys despite the threats to their physical safety or forced to share changerooms and toilets, denying them their privacy.
Women's prisons and domestic violence shelters must harbour the very perpetrators they fear.
Our language is defeminised. We now must chest feed. We are a birth parent, a pregnant person or a lactating parent. We are now people who menstruate and cervix havers. We have a front hole instead of a vagina.
What are normally articulate politicians now stumble with word salads to describe what a woman is.
Our institutions are making decisions not because the law is clear but because they fear litigation and public backlash.
That is not good lawmaking.
A liberal democracy cannot function properly when ordinary people become afraid to speak plainly.
Nor can it function when parliament refuses to confront difficult issues honestly.
With this bill, we could fix the Sex Discrimination Act and return women's rights within weeks.
That decision is in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Like women under the Sex Discrimination Act, this bill is silenced at the end of my speech.
As a private member's bill, it is not treated with the same respect as government legislation.
That is not by law but by convention. But the Prime Minister and his government can choose to take a different path. He can support this bill. He can support women. He can support fixing the legislation he voted for in 2013.
The Prime Minister cannot run away from this in 2026.
If the PM won't support my bill, then I am gracious enough to give him another option.
He can support the establishment of a joint select committee into sex based rights by both houses of the parliament to examine the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act and review the provisions of this bill.
Let women and girls, sporting organisations, schools, hospitals, service providers, legal experts, faith communities, the LGBTQIA+ communities, employers, families and politicians from across the country have their say.
Let this parliament do what it was elected to do—listen, scrutinise, debate and fix legislation that has become unclear, unbalanced and harmful to the lives of ordinary Australians.
This will take more time, but it will provide a pathway to reconcile the law that is failing Australian men and women.
If he won't listen to me, perhaps he will listen to Sall Grover who kindly provided some of her own words for me to share:
In a free society, people can believe whatever they want. If you want to believe men can be women or you're a man who wants to call himself a woman, that is your business. What you cannot do in a free society is force anyone else to accept it. What is at stake here is the ability to lawfully acknowledge reality.
If you care so much about 'trans rights', you can work out a way to get them without destroying the category of women in law, female spaces, sport, services, the entire reality of lesbianism, and punishing citizens for acknowledging reality. The fact that you haven't even tried makes it appear that destroying the rights of women is the goal.
Any politician who will look an Australian in the eye and tell them that a man can be a woman is admitting that they will lie about anything and everything because the most obvious lie has already been told.
If no one in this room can acknowledge reality and fix an obvious problem, you are either malicious or incompetent. The days of dismissing this issue are over. This is not a culture war. It's reality.
With that, I commend the bill to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I'm very happy to second this motion and reserve my right to speak.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It's appalling that Australia is the only liberal democracy in the world without some sort of comprehensive national guarantee of human rights, whether this is through a human rights act or a constitutional charter of rights. This needs to be remedied, and that's what this bill would do.
I first tabled a bill of rights in this place in 2017, and the response from the community was overwhelmingly positive.
Some people couldn't believe we didn't already have a bill of rights. Others knew that it was about time to introduce one.
But the government, and the opposition, baulked at the bill back then, as they often do when a good idea comes from the crossbench. So I tried again in 2019 but received much of the same response. Well, it's now 2026 and I think most Australians would agree that it's way beyond time to get this done.
Heavens it's not like we don't know what's needed. In fact since I last stood in this place to introduce my bill of rights, we've had the Australian Human Rights Commission release their discussion paper, Free &equal: Revitalising Australia's commitment to human rights, which outlines a model and a way forward.
Australia's human rights framework was also considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which recommended in their 2024 report that the government 're-establish and significantly improve Australia's Human Rights Framework' which should include 'the establishment of a Human Rights Act'.
They even provided an example bill, based on the Human Rights Commission's framework, which I've relied heavily on in drafting this bill.
Sadly, this committee report is yet another which has sat in the government's too hard basket, yet to receive a formal response, let alone any legislative action. It's not like this is excusable because everything is chugging along fine in Australia.
For instance refugee and migrant rights are under constant attack in this country, with unlawful indefinite detention and offshore processing remaining in place for asylum seekers; this government introducing laws to strip asylum seekers of due process; the opposition wanting to strip benefits from temporary residents; and temporary workers such as those from the Pacific often facing exploitation and abuse.
Australians' freedom of expression and assembly have also been increasingly threatened by aggressive antiprotest laws and poorly designed hate speech laws. At the same time, racism and discrimination are on the rise.
Moreover, the rights of children are under threat from drives towards increasingly punitive state laws which seek to impose adult penalties on minors.
The federal government still hasn't properly implemented the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman recently found the mutual obligations system is being used to inflict 'high percentages' of incorrect decisions and 'potentially catastrophic penalties' on welfare recipients, with minimal oversight or consequences for those responsible.
And, of course, First Nations people face ongoing systemic racism, targeted violence and discrimination. Indeed, only four of 19 national Closing the Gap targets were on track most recently, while outcomes are worsening for adult incarceration, children in care, suicide and childhood development.
It seems clear that the international agreements and obligations Australia has committed to, which one would think would provide protection to Australians, are routinely ignored. That's why I urge all members in this place to support this bill, because it is the only way to protect the rights of Australians under a single, strong and reliable framework.
In other words, we need a consistent, national approach. Yes, the state-based models which exist in the ACT, in Victoria and in Queensland have helped to improve the situation in those jurisdictions, but it's beyond time we had a federal human rights act that will enshrine the rights and freedoms of all Australians, regardless of where they live—an act that protects and promotes inalienable human rights, such as the right to health care, the right to housing, the right to education, the right to a healthy environment, and the right to equal treatment within society for all.
The Human Rights Bill I've introduced today spells out, in plain terms, the rights and freedoms that every Australian is entitled to. It makes clear the high standards we, as a community, should expect of ourselves and of our institutions. It requires that core Australian values of fairness, respect, dignity and compassion must be put at the centre of every decision the parliament takes, and at the heart of the decisions and policies governments pursue.
This bill would give domestic effect to a number of international agreements to which Australia is a signatory, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
In essence the bill would render invalid any Commonwealth, state or territory law that is inconsistent with the human rights detailed in the act, to the extent of that inconsistency. It would also specify that Commonwealth, state and territory laws should be interpreted so as to be consistent with the federal human rights act. Moreover, the bill allows for the Australian Human Rights Commission to inquire into any act or practice done by the Commonwealth or a state or territory government that may infringe on a right or freedom in the federal human rights act. It also allows for people to make complaints to the commission if they believe that an act or practice infringes a right or freedom outlined in the act.
So there you have it. In closing, I call on the major parties to drop their stubborn opposition to a human rights act, and I urge all members to back this bill, because it's time we woke up, because we cannot keep accepting second-rate protections which lag behind the rest of the world, or protections that only apply from time to time like some hebdomadal ritual. Frankly, Australians deserve better, and this parliament should deliver it.
I invite the member for Indi, who is seconding my bill, to make a contribution in my remaining time.
Is the motion is seconded?
I second the motion. It's an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Human Rights Bill 2026, moved by the member for Clark, who has been a stalwart in this space for so long. I know this is a longstanding interest of his, and I absolutely applaud his commitment to bringing legislation before the parliament again, and I back him all the way.
This bill is based on the model developed by the Australian Human Rights Commission and considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report into Australia's Human Rights Framework in 2024. The committee acknowledged and I quote, the 'clear need for a rights-based legal framework' and recommended legislation be introduced to establish an Australian human rights act. This bill operates by codifying existing civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights under the United Nations human rights covenants. These include things like the right to education, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to free speech and the right to a fair trial.
The bill introduces a requirement for other legislation to be interpreted in a way that's compatible with human rights. It means public authorities must act and make decisions in a way that is consistent with those rights. Similar legislation is already in place in Queensland, the ACT and my own state of Victoria. In fact, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the introduction of the Victorian human rights charter—and to quote the parliamentary committee report, well, the floodgates have not opened. In those jurisdictions and across other parts of the world, the existence of human rights protections has not created a barrage of litigation or unduly limited the powers of parliaments or governments to carry out their functions. Instead, it has provided a vital safeguard for the basic principles Australians would expect from their democracy—dignity, equality, fairness.
There have been many times I've had concerns about legislation in this place, including some very recent examples when my concerns would have been lessened if statutory human rights protections were in place. Australia is the only liberal democracy without a comprehensive national mechanism to protect human rights. It's in our hands as parliamentarians to rectify that. As the member for Clark said so eloquently, everyday Australians are staggered that this does not exist. I commend the work of the member for Clark. I call on the parliament and on the government to get on and do this. It's fundamental. It assists us all in doing our job as representatives. It assists our democracy. Most importantly, it absolutely protects fundamental rights that every Australian should take for granted. I commend this bill to the House, and I thank the member for Clark for his work in bringing it to us yet again.
The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I 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.
It's been 13 days since the Labor government handed down their budget, and the one question that continues to resonate throughout Australia is, 'Can we trust this prime minister?' The answer is to be found in the track record of this government over the last four years. This Labor government is living on a boulevard of broken promises. Firstly, they promised they would ease the cost of living. Secondly, they promised to reduce power prices. Thirdly, before the last election it was made very clear that they were not going to make changes to the taxation on the capital gains tax and negative gearing. Four years of this Labor government, and we have a litany of broken promises that are ultimately making life much harder for Australians than it needs to be.
Since this Labor government has been elected, Australians have suffered the worst fall in living standards in the advanced economies around the world. Inflation is raging out of control, at 4.6 per cent, and the recent budget papers project it's going to rise to five per cent. The worst thing about inflation is it is compounding; it just goes up and up. That's five per cent on five per cent on 4.5 per cent on 4.5 per cent. That's why the cost of everything is going up under this Labor government.
The first and most memorable broken promise of this government was clearly the promise prior to the 2022 election, in relation to reducing power bills by $275—a promise which they have not only broken but smashed, because power prices have gone in the other direction by about 30 per cent over that time. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is more interested in globetrotting the world than he is about your power bill at home. He's measuring his success by the stamps he gets on his passport when we know the true measure of his failure is the power bills you receive at home. We've got small businesses and families that are suffering because their power bills are so big that you simply can't jump over them.
As I said, the latest budget from 13 days ago crystallised this government as the highest taxing government Australia has ever seen. There's one reason why taxes are necessary for this government. It's because they've run out of their own money. What does a Labor government do when it runs out of money? It comes after yours. That's right, ladies and gentlemen. Labor is chasing more tax so they can feed their spending habits. The budget from 13 days ago ultimately delivered broken promises, higher taxes, more debt and fewer homes. When we consider that last promise that was made—that solemn pledge prior to the last election that they would not change the taxation arrangements for negative gearing and capital gains tax—what did they do in that recent budget? They broke that promise too, and Australians are rightfully questioning whether they can trust this treasurer. They're rightfully asking whether they can trust this prime minister.
In fact, no sector has been left unharmed by this budget. It doesn't matter whether you're over 65 and you're now losing your private health insurance rebate, whether you're a young person wanting to create a startup or whether you're just hoping to get a home. Having now read that the changes in taxation are going to lead to—you guessed it—fewer homes being built, I get stories like this from Zoe in Pimpama in my electorate: she served our country in the Navy for 26 years; she's now caring for her autistic adult son, her autistic teenage daughter and her elderly parents; and quite frankly the numbers are not adding up for Zoe. She's like many Australians. She's sending her children to school with cereal in ziplock bags for lunch and she's living off food bank donations. This is what's happening under this Labor government. This is the human cost of this government's failures.
Is the motion seconded?
The motion is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.
What are living standards? Are they the level of wellbeing of households, which encompass various dimensions such as consumption, income, health, education, nutrition and housing? Are they a set of material conditions that people everywhere ought to have, no matter their intentions or conception of a good life or what other rights they may claim, or are they all of those factors that contribute to a person's wellbeing and happiness? It is probably right that they're a combination of all of those things and that what someone considers an adequate standard of living differs from the person down the street, in another community or in another state or territory. There's also quite rightly a debate in how to measure living standards: GDP, the Human Development Index or some other metric. Again, a combination of approaches depending on the context in and purpose for which standards are being measured is probably right.
What is not up for debate, however, is this government's focus on cost-of-living relief for Australian families. No matter which way you look at it, cost-of-living relief has been the government's No. 1 focus. The government, as we just heard, is frequently criticised for spending on cost-of-living relief, is frequently criticised for endeavouring to find savings and efficiencies to pay for that cost-of-living relief and is then criticised for not doing enough to relieve cost-of-living pressures. These arguments, which unhelpfully seek to criticise rather than constructively hold the government to account, are unproductive, but that is just the political climate we live in.
What is for certain, what's always being talked about, is what the government is doing on the cost of living. It's the No. 1 priority, which is why it is always the No. 1 topic in this place and in households across Australia. What the government is doing on the cost of living may not always please everyone, but the level at which it is reported on, examined, dissected and measured means there is always a cost-of-living initiative happening. You're talking about it because we're delivering it. This is the No. 1 item on the government's policy agenda: the economy—how to grow it, how to make it more productive, how to improve living standards, how to take pressure off working Australian families. Short-term initiatives, such as a few hundred dollars of relief here and there, are often the source of criticism, but they are not the backbone of the government's cost-of-living agenda. The backbone can be found in many areas of the lives of Australians, such as tax cuts, which are a feature, in three rounds, plus the instant $1,000 deduction plus the Working Australian Tax Offset, and cheaper medicines, at $25 or $7.70 frozen until the end of the decade for concession cardholders. This is not just a healthcare initiative; it is a cost-of-living initiative. More bulk-billed GP visits—I note that fully bulk-billed clinics have doubled in my electorate of Sturt since the beginning of 2026—are not just a healthcare policy. They are a cost-of-living policy.
The reduction in student debt of 20 per cent, welcomed by thousands of students across Australia, is not just an education policy; it is a cost-of-living policy. Equally, free TAFE has a dual design. Not only has it encouraged thousands of Australians to obtain a qualification in a critical industry or an industry with skill shortages; it is a cost-of-living measure. Paid prac, where students studying—for example, teaching nursing or social work—receive a $300-a-week payment when they are out on what are sometimes multiple week-long placements, is a cost-of-living measure. The multiple rounds of energy bill relief rolled out by the government were also a cost-of-living measure. More recently, the government cut the fuel excise in a deliberate, targeted and effective effort to provide cost-of-living relief to Australian families.
So, if we are talking about cost-of-living promises, then this is what the government promised to deliver: cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing, more urgent care clinics, more endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, more tax cuts, 20 per cent relief from student debt, and free TAFE, just to name a few initiatives. These have been delivered. This government is delivering, and it will continue to craft policies that have cost-of-living relief for the Australian people at the heart of the agenda for the rest of this term and beyond.
I have seen and heard it all now—a motion about living standards in the House, and the Treasurer has got Labor MPs in here today trying to redefine what living standards are. Aussies know what living standards are, and they know that they are lower today than the day that this Prime Minister took office. Indeed, real wages have fallen by three per cent, and they are still falling. But these aren't economic statistics that we debate at roundtables and productivity summits like those opposite. These are the experiences of Australians today who are poorer than the day that this government took office. Australians know that every time they leave a supermarket, they walk out of a cafe or they open their power bill. Australians are being hit by a trifecta from this mob. Their living standards are down, their taxes are up, and their interest rates are high and going higher. It makes it harder and harder for Aussies to make ends meet. That is why we are in here today talking about the living standards that Australians experience, not trying to redefine what Australians know to be true.
In recent days, in the wake of a budget of betrayal built on Labor lies, we've seen the government out there trying to defend the indefensible, along with their mates the teals, who are very close to coming out, I see, loud and proud as a party today. They are arguing that it's the tech sector alone that should be exempt from this government's wicked assault on capital gains in this country. I'd remind the teals and the government of where the wealth and prosperity in this nation comes from. It is from the mining sector in Western Australia. It is high time that they remember that the big holes today that are spitting out the cash that pays for Medicare, the NDIS and our defences started as small holes funded by mum-and-dad investors 20, 30 or even 40 years ago.
Western Australia's mining and resources sector contributes more to the national economy than any single other industry in this nation. Literally billions in GST, company tax and income tax comes from the incredibly well-paid workers in the Pilbara donned in fluoro. I know that because I was one not that long ago. They are the funds that prop up the Commonwealth budget that would be unrecognisable without it. WA's net contribution to the Commonwealth is more than $13,000 per person, which is 19 times higher than the next contributor, New South Wales, which is chipping in $700 per person. Every other state and territory in this nation has their hand out. They have their hand out at the same time as living standards are declining.
Here's the kicker: with the assault on capital gains tax making the investment of mums and dads in shares ever less attractive, is it really the case that we're going to see founders hooking up a caravan, driving into the desert and hiring a drill rig with perhaps the last of the money from that register of shareholders—those mums, dads and aspirational Australians who have backed them in, hoping that this tenement, this time, might well be the one? Companies like Fortescue, Northern Star, Mineral Resources, Pilbara Minerals and Liontown were all speculative miners funded by mum-and-dad investors who understood the risk and took it anyway. They are the companies that are building the prosperity that underwrites our standard of living—a standard of living that is declining under this government.
Why is it that this basic question of fairness seems to escape both the government and our new teal party here? A tech founder in Sydney or Melbourne might well risk everything to build a start-up, and the political left falls over itself to praise their entrepreneurial courage. But when an Australian does exactly the same thing, hitches up a caravan, drives a thousand kays into the desert and risks everything in the hope of discovering the next great ore body, suddenly they don't deserve the same recognition, the same discount, the same maths and the same basic fairness. At the end of the day, these are folks who should not be treated as second-class citizens just because their factory floor happens to be in the red dust of the Pilbara and not in the co-working spaces of Surrey Hills.
Western Australia built the prosperity of this nation on the back of risk-takers backed by ordinary Australians who wanted a higher standard of living for themselves and were prepared to put their money on the line for it. The Greens, the teals and the government should think very carefully before taxing that out of existence.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about the many ways the Albanese Labor government has delivered for our community when it comes to cost-of-living relief and improved living standards. Since coming to government, we have delivered five income tax cuts in five different ways; 50 per cent off the fuel excise to help at the bowser; the biggest boost to Medicare in its history; record rates of bulk-billing, with 25 GP clinics in my electorate now 100 per cent bulk-billing clinics; caps on the price of essential medicines; Medicare urgent care clinics that have seen 68,000 free visits in Corrimal and Dapto alone; 2,521 cheaper home batteries and 14 community batteries in my electorate, helping to slash power prices for thousands of people; nearly 23,000 students in my electorate with thousands wiped off their student debt; cheaper child care for local families; higher wages for nearly three million of Australia's lowest paid workers every year; increases to the Medicare low income levy for over one million Australians; a 50 per cent increase in rent assistance for more than 10,000 Cunningham renters; five per cent deposits, supporting 1,159 first home buyers in Cunningham; and thousands of homes built across the country. I could go on, because these are only some of the ways that we have brought the cost of living down. Needless to say, that is quite a list. But we know that Australians are doing it tough. Inflation, the war in the Middle East and a decade of underinvestment by those opposite, who are now trying to convince people that they would have been better off under a Liberal government—I don't think so. The cost of living has been our No. 1 priority since we came to government. It remains our No. 1 priority, and we have delivered yet another budget that puts the cost of living—and fairness—front and centre.
The reality is that the former government did not invest in health. It did not invest in housing, it did not invest in aged care and it did not give industry confidence in a renewable-energy future—just to name a few. We have had quite a mess to clean up, and we have wasted no time at all. Our focus has been on supporting Australians and those people who are really doing it tough. We want to ensure that Australia is a place that lifts people up and leaves no-one behind. We've worked hard to ensure that workers earn more and keep more of what they earn. Those on the minimum wage or reliant on awards make up about a quarter of Australia's workforce. That's people working in our cafes and supermarkets. They're our cleaners, hairdressers, aged-care workers, childcare workers, delivery drivers—thousands of people who've seen real increases in their wages, with an increase in the minimum wage by over $9,120 every year, thanks to the Albanese Labor government.
We have invested $8.5 billion into Medicare, because health and housing are two of the biggest drains on household budgets. We've capped PBS prescriptions at $25, down from more than $42 under the previous government, and we've added more and more medicines to the PBS, including new and amended medicines under this budget for conditions like cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease and cancers—and more, made cheaper. All up, in my electorate, we have seen more than three million cheaper prescriptions filled since we came to government, and that is a real saving in everyone's pocket.
The most effective way to reduce electricity prices is to get more renewables into the grid, and we have certainly done that. For the first time in Australia's history, we have more electricity in our grid supplied by renewables than by coal and gas. The wholesale electricity price has fallen by 14 per cent, and, in my electorate, more than 2,500 homes and businesses now have a solar battery, thanks to our Cheaper Home Batteries Program. I've spoken previously about the difference that this has made to electricity bills in my electorate and what that has meant for local people.
The fact is that, if we had continued along the path the Liberals and Nationals had us on, Australians would be worse off. In the 10 years that they were in power, they built 373 homes. That's it. And they wonder how we are now in a housing crisis. They never had a plan to tackle the cost of living and the big challenges that are facing Australians. The Albanese Labor government is committed to delivering real cost-of-living relief for all Australians.
It is no wonder that we have a trust deficit in Australian politics. I've been sitting in this chamber and listening to the contributions of those opposite, and there are a few points that I would like to make. The member for Cunningham said that she doesn't think Australians would have been better off under a coalition government. Well, what I'd say is: Australians aren't stupid. Australians, I say to you—I say to every single person that's listening—ask yourself this question: am I better off now than I was four-and-a-half years ago? The people in my electorate, on the southern Gold Coast, are not coming up to me and talking about how great things are. They're coming up to me and talking about their issues.
I go back to that trust deficit. The member for Cunningham said that she would leave no-one behind—that it's Labor's philosophy to not leave anybody behind. Tell that to the small-business owners. Tell that to the 50- to 65-year-olds who are being affected in terms of their private health insurance rebate. Tell that to people who have done the right thing by this country, who have worked hard, who have secured their future—or so they thought—and who are now seeing the rules shifting below them. Because I can tell you now those are the people who this government is leaving behind.
The pain and the pressure is real. This cost-of-living crisis that Labor has created is absolutely devastating. It's devastating households, business owners, individuals and pensioners. This is at a time where we've come out of an election where the Prime Minister and the government promised relief. Instead, we've seen that they've delivered pain. They promised $275 off your power bill, but electricity prices have gone up by around 40 per cent. They said mortgages would go down, but we've seen 15 interest rate rises since this government was elected. They promised to implement the stage 3 tax cuts, but that backflipped. And they promised that the cost of living would fall, but we've seen prices rise and pressure build.
We've now seen this disgraceful budget put forward by the Treasurer. It's a budget of broken promises. We're seeing higher taxes, more debt, lower living standards and fewer homes. So it is no wonder that there is a trust deficit in Australian politics. I'll just say, on this recent budget, we've seen the changes that have been announced in relation to the capital gains tax and negative gearing and also in relation to trusts. These are the biggest and most indefensible, broken promises that we've seen by the government, because, before the election, the Prime Minister categorically, without any sense of doubt, ruled out any changes to negative gearing, to trusts and to capital gains tax. He told us that his word is his bond. He said one thing before the election, but he's doing something afterwards. The sad reality is that it's not actually making Australians' lives easier. It's not making housing more affordable for young Australians. It's not making retirement any easier for older Australians, and it's not making it any easier for those who are wanting to put their aspiration to the test and make sure they start a business or invest to secure their future.
But there is another way. I say to Australians and to people in my electorate that it's one thing for us in the opposition to hold this government to account, but it's another thing for us to put forward an alternative vision for the country. That's a vision that will have a fairer, freer and better Australia. We've spoken about generational tax reform, which is something that the Leader of the Opposition outlined in his budget reply speech, a tax back guarantee to once and for all end Labor's inflation tax by indexing income thresholds to inflation. We've spoken about actually addressing the housing crisis and, in part, looking at migration so that we can make sure that migration numbers are linked to how many homes Australia builds, because we all know that this government is not building enough homes. We're looking to put Australians first and make sure that when it comes to social welfare, including the NDIS, it is preserved for Australian citizens, because we all know that we do need to make some tough decisions when it comes to reining in this government's reckless spending. We've also spoken about a future-generations fund so we can actually bank some of the resource windfalls to pay down the debt and build national infrastructure. There is another way. This government has broken its promise to Australians, and it's contributed to this massive trust deficit.
I rise to oppose this motion today, and, in doing so, I reflect on the situation that the mover of this motion, the member for Fadden, finds himself at the moment. I just wonder why he's spending so much energy attacking the government, when actually is the Labor Party really the threat in Fadden at the moment? I also reflect on whether there's much point in pointing out the inaccuracies of the Liberal-National coalition, because is anyone in the community really worried about what the Liberal-National coalition are doing at the moment?
I think that where we are now is really a chance to look at how we've got here. We know it's tough. Any local member that's out there in the community—which I'm sure is all 150 of us—knows that people are really doing it tough at the moment, that it is like being out in the trenches there, whether it is finding somewhere to live, whether it's paying an electricity bill. The question, though, is how did we get there? Remember that, federally, over the last 30 years or so, the Liberal-National coalition has been in government for 20 of them. So it's really incredible to think that, after barely four years, this government would have been able to fix the problems that we were left with.
But it is not just the Liberal-National coalition that I'd criticise for this. It is, I guess, a certain mind virus, which took over governments over the last 30 or 40 years, of economic rationalism, this idea that the government should completely absent itself from the field. The one thing that I would try and say to your colleagues in the Liberal-National coalition, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, is to have a look at what made the Liberal-National coalition and the Liberal Party successful in postwar Australia.
In many ways, one of my economic role models was the Liberal premier of South Australia, who was the Premier from 1940 to 1970. He was probably the greatest proponent of building public housing in Australia. We saw that, after 30 years or so of his being in government, of his making sure that within the actual charter of the South Australian Housing Trust was that it would aid in the economic development of the state, of his following an economic policy which essentially provided cheap, affordable housing to workers—you had car workers, railway workers, teachers living in public housing—it was able to keep the pressure off wages, and that was, in turn, able to help business. But what we saw, really, under the Howard governments and under the Morrison government—the Morrison government built something like 370 public houses in the whole 10 years it was in there. What we saw there was a complete abrogation of its responsibilities to intervene in that marketplace and step in where the private sector was clearly failing.
That's why I'm slightly surprised that the Liberal-National coalition keeps wanting to attack the government for the situation that people find themselves in at the moment. This government really is taking, I think, for the first time in decades, a much more interventionist role in the economy—trying to fill that gap that was left by previous governments absenting the space—whether that is in housing, in undertaking the biggest public housing building program in a generation; whether that is in energy, in supercharging the investment in renewable energy to the point where we now have more electricity in the grid than at any other time; whether that be intervening in Medicare, in the biggest single investment of recent times in Medicare, which has restored bulk-billing to, for example, double the number of bulk-billing clinics in Forde alone; whether that's intervening in our critical industries, such as the billion-dollar investment in the smelter in Gladstone, the billions of dollars being invested in Whyalla to maintain our steelworks and the hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in Mount Isa to maintain the smelters there; whether it's intervening again to make sure that TAFE is back up and running again by providing free TAFE to give our tradies and our economy the skills that are needed to build the housing that is so desperately needed. This government is fixing up the problems, and it is going to take a lot of time, but I would encourage the Liberal-National coalition, rather than trying to chase One Nation votes, to go back to their grassroots.
The time allocated for the debate has now expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.
I 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 its time in Government.
I'm quite proud to be standing here today to speak about a very important motion, and that is the motion to tell the government that what we're doing is in the right direction, delivering a further $2 billion of investment in infrastructure to enable new housing. I do so because, when we think of a person's life, one of the most stable things in anyone's life is having a roof over your head. First, there's the need to be able to sustain yourself through food and, secondly, is shelter. That gives you stability. If you don't have that shelter and that roof over your head, then getting a job, having a stable family et cetera can be very difficult. Therefore, I'm very proud of Labor's position and Labor's policy on housing.
Earlier last week, the Prime Minister visited my electorate to see first-hand the progress that's being made in the construction area of housing in the suburb of Prospect. It's called Prospect Corner. This is an $80 million, 208 home, urban renewal project which is in Prospect. These are the type of projects that are making real differences to people's lives, real differences that are turning their lives around at that. At that site we saw a young couple, Erin and Harry, who had just purchased their first home using the affordable rental program to save up for that deposit and to get affordable housing in this area, which is close to transport and close to all the services. It was just incredible to see this young couple have the ability, through the Housing Australia Future Fund, to purchase at this price and to hear them talk about the joy and the stability that they had in their life.
The government has provided, through HAFF, funding billions of dollars, five per cent deposit schemes, shared equity and a massive build that's taking place right now all around Australia to ensure that we have housing stock so people can access that important thing that I said: shelter and a roof over their head, which is the No. 1 issue when it comes to stability. Just in my electorate of Adelaide, for example, there are currently 918 new homes that are being built or have already been built. I'm very proud of it. Week by week, I visit many of these construction sites, and it is so important.
As I said, this is an $80 million project in my electorate for 208 homes, and importantly it stands as one of the first developments in the country. In fact, we visited with the Prime Minister back in May last year, before the election, when the foundations were being built for this project. It's important that we back these projects through the Housing Australia Future Fund as part of the government's $47 billion homes for Australians plan. What I saw on that visit was not just the construction site. We saw the progress from over a year ago to its final fruition, where we saw this young couple, Erin and Harry, getting their dream home and having a roof over their head and having the stability that every Australian deserves.
What we saw is what is possible when governments work together to deliver housing where Australians need it most, and that's why today I'm very proud to speak on this motion and to move this motion that the government is delivering a further $2 billion in investment in infrastructure to enable new housing, bringing total investment in housing to $6.3 billion. This investment is more than 50 times what was previously invested in in nearly over a decade. I recall clearly being in this very place on that side of the House and seeing people from the front bench asking the then coalition government about housing policy, and I recall clearly the answer coming back—look at Hansard if you want to—saying that it was not the job of the federal government, that it was something that the state Labor governments at the time were responsible for. In other words, they were wiping their hands completely. That's why we're in the mess that we're in today.
I was very proud also on the weekend to see young couples, for the very first time, being able to bid at auctions to purchase a home that was completely out of their reach a few weeks ago because massive investors were coming in and outbidding them.
Wonderful stories there from Adelaide—200 homes being built. That's great. I wonder if the Prime Minister and the member for Adelaide, when they were explaining to Erin and Harry the success in buying that home, explained to them that they have let 1.4 million new people into this country by way of net overseas migration, that we're all having to compete for homes with all of those people and that they're building less houses now than the coalition built when we were in government. How do Erin and Harry actually understand and make that add up sufficiently? Good for Erin and Harry, but what about the rest of the Australians who can't get a house? Labor wants the House to note how much money they're spending, but what Australians want to know is how many houses are actually getting built.
It's classic Labor: big numbers, big press releases, zero accountability for delivery. The member for Adelaide and all of his friends over on that side think that a $47 billion figure is the outcome. It's not the outcome. The outcome is roofs over people's heads. This government says that it's investing more. But the truth of the track record we've seen under this Labor government over four years is that rents are up, mortgages are up, approvals are slow, construction costs are blown out and Australians who are trying to get into the market simply can't. For those of us who've got a mortgage, there've been 15 interest rate rises under this Labor government. You're now paying approximately $30,000 more in interest under this Labor government than you were when the coalition left office.
You see, Labor can't be trusted. They've shown in their latest budget that they are prepared to break promises. They just can't be trusted to sit on that side and govern this country. The problem that Labor has is not in announcing policy. They're very good at that. The problem is that Labor can't actually deliver housing. They had a wild hope that they could build 1.2 million homes over five years. Guess what? In the first year, they ran 80,000 short of their target. Instead of 240,000, they delivered about 170,000—less than what was being built during the coalition years.
Home ownership is quintessentially Australian. It gives families security and financial independence. It gives us a stake in this great nation. But, under Labor, the great Australian dream is fast turning into a nightmare. I spoke about home ownership during my maiden speech. That's how important it is to me. I was given an opportunity under the Howard government to buy my first home, and I want to see that home ownership is restored as the centrepiece of the Australian dream. Only a coalition government can actually do that. The Liberal and National parties have always fought for home ownership. This budget has made it crystal clear: Labor promised more homes, but all they've delivered is more taxes.
The budget papers themselves confirm that the changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing will lead to 35,000 fewer homes being built—that's on Treasury's estimates—never mind the increases in rent or all the other blockages in the system. This Labor government, quite frankly, has created a housing crisis that it's got no idea how to get itself out of. We know that Minister O'Neil was hapless in Home Affairs, and now she's hopeless with homes. This is so far off the rails that this Labor government clearly has no solutions as to how to fix it. They have taglines that will fit on a corflute, but there is no substance to their policy. They are failing each and every Australian who deserves to have a roof over their head and to have the genuine hope of homeownership here in Australia.
To the member for Fadden: a couple of fun facts. Immigration is currently down 47 per cent. During a decade in government, the Liberal National party built 373 homes. You had 10 years in government, and you only built 373 homes.
This housing budget extends on the incredible work the Minister for Housing has done these past few years. For communities like Dunkley, this investment is not a side issue or a future issue; it is the issue right here and now. Across every community within Dunkley, for people who want some basic security, the chance to rent affordably or the chance to buy and build a future close to family, work and schools, this is increasingly possible. This is why this budget matters to Dunkley residents. The Albanese Labor government is delivering a further $2 billion in housing enabling infrastructure, bringing the government's total investment in that infrastructure to $6.3 billion.
To build homes, we need strong foundations: roads, sewerage, water and community infrastructure that allows those homes to be built. This investment is more than 50 times more than the opposition invested in housing after almost a decade in office. This new funding lifts the government's total housing investment to $47 billion. That is a very serious investment because the housing challenge demands a serious response. Through the investment, the government is delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes, which is nearly 150 times what the opposition built during its time in government—more homes for families, workers and people doing it tough. In my electorate of Dunkley, we've currently got 19 social homes being redeveloped. In Dunkley, we need to build 33,000 homes by 2051. That is a big task, and it will only happen if government is prepared to invest, plan and partner with local communities.
Over the past year, I've met regularly with Home Time and listened firsthand to the experiences of young people facing homelessness and housing stress. These conversations brought into sharp focus the reality that too many young Australians are struggling to find safe, stable housing at a critical stage in their lives. That is why I was proud to see $60 million allocated to a youth housing incentive in the budget. This measure will unlock thousands of additional tenancies, helping young people avoid homelessness and providing the stability they need to build a stronger future. This investment is a direct reflection of years of sustained advocacy from the Home Time campaign, which has worked tirelessly to elevate the voices of young people with lived experience of homelessness and ensure they are heard in the policy process. There is always more to do, particularly on this issue, but this is an important step forward in addressing youth homelessness and building a much fairer housing system.
This budget also builds on real help for first home buyers. In Dunkley, 1,837 residents have already taken up the five per cent deposit scheme. Nationally, 75,000 additional Australians are expected to access first homeownership, who would not have done so without the measures introduced by this government in this budget. For those buyers, this is the difference between waiting and entering the market, between hoping and owning, between being locked out and getting a foot in the door. So when I look at this budget, I see a government that understands the scale of the housing challenge and is acting on it now. It is investing in the infrastructure that unlocks supply, backing the delivery of social and affordable homes and helping more Australians into homeownership. For Dunkley residents, that means a stronger foundation for the future, more homes, more opportunity and more security.
I want to touch on something that's been said throughout this debate by members opposite. We hear all of these different stats about the government building homes or the government not building homes. Governments don't build homes. It's businesses that are building the homes. Let's just be very, very clear about that. Businesses will only build the homes, and they'll only build the homes effectively, if they can operate under economic conditions that encourage them to be productive. That is part of the issue that we're seeing under this Labor government. The economy is tanking, there is an absolute lack of business confidence and we're seeing an environment in which businesses are not encouraged to build homes quickly. We're also seeing a shortage of people who are actually able to build homes. We're seeing a lack of adequate investment in the next generation of Australians who can build homes. Let's be very clear about that.
The other thing that I want to speak about is this. The motion says:
this total investment—
which Labor is very proud of—
is more than 50 times what the Opposition invested in housing-enabling infrastructure after over almost a decade in office
The prime minister over the last 15 years to build the most houses per day was a Liberal prime minister. The one in second place was also a coalition prime minister. In fact, despite being in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and a housing crisis, this prime minister doesn't even come in the top three.
They're speaking about having committed $80 billion to date. Who knows what more is going to be broadcast in announcements and fancy openings. They've committed $80 billion to date to build 30,000 fewer houses per year than the coalition delivered when we were in office. Let's actually be honest about these figures and honest about these facts. If that's what those opposite are actually celebrating—that they're spending more to deliver less—then there is something seriously wrong here. I wanted to make those two points.
What we're seeing is a government who, quite frankly, maybe through no fault of their own, don't understand how to manage this economy. I don't think they understand how to drive up supply and actually deliver more houses. At the end of the day, this is a supply issue. What we're seeing is a government that is not prepared to make the tough decisions. They're not prepared to divorce themselves from the CFMEU and the unions, who are pushing up the costs of building new properties. They're not prepared to actually invest, as we've announced in the opposition budget reply, in the enabling infrastructure. When we speak to developers and when we speak to the businesses, which, again, are the ones that are delivering houses in this country, their biggest issue is that they are not able to deal with the upfront costs in new areas. This is something that we've addressed through our $5 billion fund, which Angus Taylor, the Leader of the Opposition, announced in his budget reply speech.
Young Australians, in particular, but also older Australians are frustrated by the changes that this government has made because not only are we not building houses effectively under this government but the government is also making it even harder for young Australians to build. I just had passed to me earlier that we've had, post the announcement of the budget, the CGT changes and the negative gearing changes, nine per cent lower clearance rates across the country over the last weekend. Are we actually supporting Australians to get into their first homes? Are we actually encouraging them to do so? No. What we're seeing is a government that is absolutely invested in one thing, and that is crushing aspiration.
They're doing it across the business sector, they're doing it across the economy and we're seeing it here in the housing space as well. Young people in my electorate and across the country are not experiencing what those on the government side of this chamber are saying is the reality. They are not experiencing an environment where young Australians, or even older Australians, are able to actually purchase their first home. They're seeing rents that are skyrocketing. We're seeing that all over the Gold Coast. We're seeing not enough houses being built. Under this government's policy, when you're building a new house, they're now going to be pitting investors against first home buyers, who are going to be bidding against each other because of this government's changes to negative gearing. This is a shocking budget that we have seen. It does absolutely nothing to encourage investment in new houses or to help people get into the housing market.
It is my pleasure to support the member for Adelaide's motion and to join colleagues on this side of the House in reaffirming our support for increasing housing supply through investment in crucial enabling infrastructure.
Securing housing is a life-defining challenge for young people in this country. A generation ago, an average family in Australia would have been able to save up and buy their first home. That's not to say it was easy; they worked hard and it took plenty of time, effort and careful saving. When I speak with young people in my electorate of Banks about housing, they feel that, despite going out and getting a good education and qualifications, and working hard and saving like their parents and grandparents did, owning their first home in the community where they grew up is always a bit of a challenge to do.
Building more housing is a big part of the solution to this issue. That is why, in the budget handed down a fortnight ago, we are investing a further $2 billion to build the infrastructure needed to support new housing, which is too often one of the key barriers to getting more supply in the marketplace. The Local Infrastructure Fund will deliver crucial pipes, pavements and powerlines needed for the last mile of services, for turning empty blocks into new homes. This funding alone will enable the delivery of 65,000 new homes.
This investment isn't our first and certainly won't be our last. The $47 billion Homes for Australia Plan is making it easier to buy and better to rent and to build more homes. We are taking action on all parts of the housing challenge that stands before us. The plan is making it easier to buy with our five per cent deposit scheme, alongside the Help to Buy scheme, providing assistance to another 10,000 low- and-middle income earners into housing every single year. We're making it better to rent by working with the states to introduce minimum rental standards and bear-no-fault evictions, and getting more homes on the long-term rental market through incentives in the build-to-rent program.
Our work on housing supply is helping, with figures showing that commencements on new homes are up 26 per cent from this time last year. Since Labor came into office, we have seen more than 660,000 homes built across our country. The contrast with this government and those opposite could not be clearer. We have made $47 billion of investment to build more homes. That investment is almost 10 times what the coalition invested in almost a decade, in less than half the time.
While those opposite shout loudly about the issue, when push came to shove the coalition voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. They voted against Help to Buy, build-to-rent and the five per cent deposit scheme. And who could forget that, for almost a decade in government, the Liberals didn't even appoint a housing minister. Thankfully, this government has both an incredible minister for housing and a terrific special envoy in this portfolio. While this government is taking action that is necessary, the coalition are retreating to scare campaigns about the rental market and the number of homes being built that they know aren't true. Once again, they are talking down Australia rather than being focused on solutions.
There is more work to do, but this government has a plan and is making real progress, with more direct investment in infrastructure and housing supply. This Labor government is focused on addressing our country's housing affordability challenge and doing all the necessary work across the sector and with communities to make sure we're addressing every step of that challenge.
This government made a lot of promises during the budget announcement in relation to housing and, specifically, in relation to housing infrastructure. As usual, there was a lot of spin and a lot of one-liners designed to create media headlines. But, when you actually drill down into the details, once again you just see the smoke and mirrors at play.
Firstly, the seemingly impressive $2 billion figure is, in fact, spread over four years, which means that these numbers can be easily reduced with each forthcoming budget as they realise their targets aren't being met as per the modelling and as they attempt to divert our collective attention elsewhere. It wouldn't be the first time that we've heard, 'Priorities have changed,' or, 'We've changed our position.' In reality, what it means is that this government has committed just $262 million over the next financial year. That effectively makes them accountable for just 13 per cent of the promise before the next election. And, after saying for the 50th time, Prime Minister, that there would be no negative-gearing changes or capital-gains taxes—we all know how good your word is, Prime Minister, and we all know how good the word of this government is.
Speaking of broken promises, this government knows that removing negative gearing and changing capital gains will reduce the number of houses actually being built in this country. In a rare showing of apparent honesty—or maybe they just couldn't bury it deep enough in the budget papers—they've admitted that they will be building 35,000 fewer homes. Let's put that in perspective. In my electorate, I have Coffs Harbour—the city of Coffs Harbour. If you wipe out 35,000 homes in Coffs Harbour, you wipe out Coffs Harbour. That's how many fewer they are building. It's the same with Port Macquarie. Thirty-five thousand is a significant number.
At the same time, they are pouring record numbers of immigrants into the country. Over the past four years, it has been to the tune of two million people. I want to put that in perspective. From the bottom of Port Macquarie up to Coffs Harbour, then out the back to beautiful Dorrigo, down to Kempsey, Willawarrin, Bellbrook, Rollands Plains and Telegraph Point and back down to Port Macquarie—two million people is 12 times the population of Cowper. Where are those people going to go when you're building 35,000 fewer houses?
But there could be a silver lining of sorts to this homemade problem. That silver lining lies in the regions, particularly on the Mid North Coast, in Cowper. In coastal electorates right across the country, we're already beginning to shoulder the burden of rampant immigration and runaway housing prices, and we're seeing an influx of metro movers at levels we've never seen before—young families who want to escape the city, which is understandable, and older people who are selling up in Sydney or Brisbane to have a better life in areas like Port Macquarie, Raleigh, Repton and Coffs Harbour. We've got impressive schools and good hospitals, so it's understandable. But, without infrastructure investment, of which there is none for the regions and has been none for the regions over the past four years, we cannot grow.
I'll give you one example, and that is in Port Macquarie, where the basic services of sewerage and water are now at capacity, which means we cannot grow any further. The council needs to develop it. They have the plan to develop it, but it will cost a regional council $300 million, and they're asking for a measly $80 million from the federal government, which has been ignored, and I expect will continue to be ignored. We need to invest in our regions and invest now.
This government knows and understands that Australia is facing one of the most severe housing crises in its history. We do have skyrocketing costs of homes, increasing rent prices and an undersupply of housing. It's placing immense pressure on Australians. This crisis was decades and decades in the making; it didn't pop up overnight. It's not only affecting prospective homeowners but also having a profound impact on renters, low-income households and now even middle-class Australians, who are struggling to afford housing in major cities.
In metropolitan Adelaide, where I live, the median price of housing is close to a million dollars. It's a figure that was basically unheard of in the pre-COVID era. There are many causes. They are generational, inextricably linked and complex. They are difficult to solve. They include housing supply, high demand and investor dominance in the housing market, which makes it nigh on impossible for first home buyers to enter the market, plus rising construction costs and supply chain disruptions, which began during COVID, have kept going and are now being exacerbated by the conflict in the Middle East. There's also a shortage of the skilled labour required to build the houses we need.
But within this challenging environment—which is being led by a very activist, driven and consultative Minister for Housing, who is encouraging Commonwealth, state and territory and local governments to work together to pull in the same direction—the Albanese Labor government is acting. One of the key announcements in the recent federal budget was the $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund. It will be dedicated to enabling works, which are one of the key barriers that complicate the delivery of housing supply. Enabling works are the initial steps taken on a worksite before construction can begin, like the water, roads, pipes, powerlines, pavements and utilities. It's the practical work that means a house can be built. Enabling works unlock supply, and that's what the Local Infrastructure Fund is all about.
Then, in my community of Sturt, just under 500 people have taken advantage of the five per cent deposit scheme that's available to first home buyers, which has helped them into their first home. Some people will argue that 500 people is not many and that this scheme is not doing much in Sturt, but that view is wrong—share that view with the 500 people who now have secure housing, a roof over their head that belongs to them and their own place on the earth that they wouldn't have had without this scheme. Five hundred first home owners is 500 first home owners while 75,000 of them over the decade is 75,000 new first home owners.
In Sturt, we also don't have the same level of social and affordable housing as some other electorates do. Again, some have said, 'Well, what's the point?' But in Sturt the housing accelerator project has helped low-income households get into secure, quality housing that's in a good location which is close to transport links, supermarkets, schools, parks and the city. It's a small number in my electorate, but so what? Any progress when it comes to first home buyers or social and affordable housing is good progress. Sometimes it takes baby steps. Like the interminable renewable energy debate we have in this country, increasing housing supply also takes time and effort.
We need to act promptly, and we are, but we also need to be patient. A target of 1.2 million homes is ambitious, but we need to be ambitious when it comes to housing. A target of 55,000 social and affordable homes is ambitious, but why would we strive for anything less? To be clear, these targets, which this government is striving to meet, are in place for the betterment of the Australian people. We are determined to meet these targets to provide the quality housing that people deserve. What would help is bipartisanship, encouragement and a shared commitment that meeting these targets is good for the Australian people, not gleeful proclamation that targets won't be met nor feverish speculation about how many homes won't be built. We need to say yes to schemes that help people to buy, to schemes that help people to rent and to doing whatever we can reasonably to increase housing supply for the Australian people.
I support the spirit of this motion. The government's housing investments are meaningful and represent a genuine shift. But, as welcome as these commitments are, they are not yet at the scale the crisis demands. A defining liveability challenge of our time is the collapse of social and affordable housing in Australia and what that means for Australians on the lowest incomes. Last month, Anglicare Australia released its 20th Rental affordability snapshot. Across nearly 49,000 rental listings surveyed nationwide, a single person on JobSeeker could afford just one property in the entire country. That's not 'one in a hundred'—one. There were zero affordable listings for someone on Youth Allowance and zero for most people with a disability. In Western Australia, where median rents have risen 74 per cent since 2021 and now sit at $747 a week, there was not a single affordable property for a person on JobSeeker, not even a room in a share house.
These numbers are not a market anomaly. They reflect a declining policy trajectory spanning decades. In the decades after the war, the government built around 14 of every 100 new homes in Australia. Today, that figure is a seventh of that. It's closer to two in every 100. Governments have spent the last 40 years systematically stepping back from building homes that people on low incomes can actually afford to live in. The private market cannot fix this on its own. Private developers respond to market prices and returns. They do not build homes to lease for rents that working-age payment recipients can afford.
In my home state of Western Australia, Shelter WA estimates a shortfall of nearly 54,000 social and affordable homes. The social housing waitlist now exceeds 151 weeks, which is nearly three years. Think about that. You find yourself in a situation where you need to apply for social housing, and you're told that, yes, you do qualify, but you have to wait nearly three years. How can that be the best we can do? In my Curtin housing policy, boosting government investment in social and affordable housing was identified by my community as the single, most important, policy priority, supported by 85 per cent of community survey respondents. People in my electorate, one of Australia's most advantaged, understand that the social cost of exclusion falls on all of us. They understand that key workers, young people and older Australians on the pension cannot afford to live near the people and services that they support, and they want governments to act. The data on youth homelessness particularly troubles me. On one night in March this year, 73 young people were sleeping rough across Perth, with only three crisis beds available. In 2025, Youth Futures, alone, received 2,575 accommodation requests from young people it simply could not assist.
I want to acknowledge what the 2026 budget got right. The $60 million national youth housing supplement, which fixes what advocates rightly call the youth housing penalty, is a genuine breakthrough. Because young people receive lower income support payments, it means housing providers have faced a financial disincentive to accommodate them. Only two per cent of social housing tenants are under 25, despite young people making up almost 15 per cent of those experiencing homelessness. This reform, which I and many others in this place advocated for, will unlock community housing for more than 4,000 young people, and that matters enormously.
I also welcome the continued delivery of the $9.3 billion National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness and the additional $100 million released from the Housing Australia Future Fund to improve housing for First Nations Australians in remote communities. But I will not pretend that this is enough. Even with all three rounds, the Housing Australia Future Fund is projected to deliver a total of 40,000 homes nationally, a fraction of the estimated shortfall of 640,000 social and affordable dwellings. The annual pipeline needs to be measured in tens of thousands, not thousands, through a long-term legislated commitment.
The path forward is not complicated. It requires sustained long-term federal investment in social and affordable housing, not as a safety net for when the market fails but as a permanent structural component of our housing system, as it was for decades after the war. Fourteen in 100 new builds were social housing after the war. That's where we were. It's less than two in 100 now. That's where we are. We know what we need to do, and I intend to keep pushing until we get there.
Debate interrupted.
I present the revised explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Since the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran began on 28 February, our government has been responding to the biggest oil shock in history with a comprehensive plan to secure more fuel, strengthen supply chains, build resilience and take the sting out of prices. The government's Strengthening Australia's Fuel Resilience package will deliver more fuel for drivers and industry, more fertiliser for farmers and more fuel security for the economy, with its centrepiece being immediate fuel supplies and a permanent Australian fuel security reserve to ensure we have the fuels and fertiliser we need.
Our government is helping businesses and manufacturers bolster supply chains through interest-free loans via the National Reconstruction Fund, along with incentives to shift more freight onto trains and ships. Targeted support for electric vehicles, more charging stations and heavy vehicle reform will strengthen our long-term fuel resilience, while the Cleaner Fuels Program and reforms to the low-carbon liquid fuels market will help Australia produce more fuel at home and support future demand.
We are reserving 20 per cent of gas exports for Australian users to increase domestic supply and lower prices, and we are advancing the Future Made in Australia agenda through the Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve and investments in domestic smelting and manufacturing. We understand this crisis is adding to cost-of-living pressures, which is why we're more than halving the fuel excise, reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero, putting petrol companies on notice by doubling the consumer watchdog's maximum penalties and ramping up enforcement and monitoring, giving businesses more leeway at tax time if they face fuel supply problems, and continuing to make it easier and quicker for small businesses to access credit when they need. It.
This bill supports that action by creating new powers for the Treasurer and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to permit coordinated action during a crisis by increasing the maximum penalties that can be imposed for breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct.
Under schedule 1 of this bill, the minister can make an extraordinary circumstances declaration in circumstances that pose a risk to the Australian economy, businesses and consumers, but which may fall short of a declared national emergency under the National Emergency Declaration Act. Once extraordinary circumstances have been declared, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be able to exercise new, streamlined powers to enable coordinated responses to the crisis by businesses to complement the work of the government in protecting the Australian public and economy from the impact of the crisis.
These new powers are pre-emptive. They allow the minister to make a declaration enlivening the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's powers when there is a foreseeable harm and allow decisive cooperative action with the business community to prevent or mitigate that harm early. In the current situation, this could include businesses working together to minimise fuel usage to keep supply chain costs low for them and their consumers. Instead of reacting to fuel shortages, we can allow businesses to find innovative and collaborative solutions to prevent shortages.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission already can grant authorisations, and has done during the current situation and past crises. But this process is burdensome and slow, making it too inflexible to respond to the changing situations Australia may face during exceptional global or domestic circumstances. This new power will make it easier and faster for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and businesses to assist these vital efforts to respond to these circumstances, and future exceptional challenges the Australian economy faces.
Schedule 2 to the bill increases the maximum penalties that can be imposed for breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct. Under this bill, the regulations will be able to impose penalties on corporations in the oil industry up to the greater of $10 million, three times the value they derive from breaching the code, or 10 per cent of their last year of turnover. For persons other than corporations breaching the code, penalties of up to $500,000 will be available for contraventions. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will also be able to issue penalty notices of 600 penalty units to corporations for suspected breaches and 12 penalty units for other persons. For context, the value of a penalty unit is currently $330.
These changes mirror those introduced by the government in 2024 into the Competition and Consumer Act for breaches of the food and grocery code. They also complement recent action taken by the government to increase other penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act, and other action taken to address the supply and price of fuel in Australia. The bill will further discourage fuel companies seeking to flaunt their obligations under the Oil Code of Conduct, including those taking advantage of the conflict in the Middle East.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.
I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 and move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the bill be referred to the House Standing Committee on Economics for inquiry and report by 22 June 2026, with particular reference to whether:
(1) the existing ACCC powers are genuinely inadequate;
(2) the Treasurer's declaration power is too broad;
(3) in addition to class exemptions, ACCC authorisations should also be disallowable;
(4) transparency requirements are strong enough;
(5) the retrospective start date is justified;
(6) the powers are properly limited in time and scope; and
(7) there should be stronger sunset and review mechanisms".
This bill has been considered in the Senate, and our House amendment aligns with the amendments we moved in the Senate.
Sometimes in this chamber the road to ruin is paved with good intention, and I actually understand the good intention of this bill and what it is seeking to potentially deal with. We obviously have a fuel supply issue in this country, and we are looking to make sure that fuel and other things like food and essential services get to where they need to get—and get there as quickly as possible. We will work to support measures that help manage this and protect households and small business. But we have some genuine concerns that this bill gives the ACCC significant new powers, and they're powers that I note weren't needed during COVID. Some of the supply issues that we have with fuel and many other products were certainly evident through COVID.
Given that the proposed government powers would be immune from Senate disallowance, have retrospective application and impact matters as serious as suspensions of competition law, these changes should not be done lightly. I make the general observation that, if there's something we need in this country more than anything else, it's better competition in most sectors. I think we could have better competition across just about every sector of our economy. That's what some of our concerns are about, and we want to—quite reasonably, we think—refer this to a committee to have a look at some of these issues and to make sure that they don't lessen competition in our community and our society, which would obviously not be good for the consumer. An inquiry by the parliament is the bare minimum, we think, when the government is asking for these powers. This bill also calls for the powers to be retrospectively backdated to 1 April 2026. But, on this side, we're not clear on why it needs to be retrospective. We think the government is limiting parliamentary scrutiny on this. This amendment would give parliament the courtesy of having scrutiny of the bill, a bill that will itself limit scrutiny in the real world.
This bill creates a new framework for exceptional circumstances. The Treasurer will be able to declare that exceptional circumstances exist, and this decision will be disallowable. Once that declaration is made, the ACCC can rapidly exempt conduct that may otherwise breach competition law, and their authorisations will be exempt from disallowance. We have some concerns around that, and we would like extra parliamentary scrutiny around this. This goes beyond the current fuel crisis as well. The Treasurer having this would not be limited to the current fuel crisis. We want to work constructively, but we want a proper inquiry.
The concern is that competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers, it protects small businesses and it stops large players from coordinating in ways that damage competition, so any exemption from competition law needs to be treated seriously. Yes, temporary coordination in a crisis may be necessary, but anticompetitive conduct must not become normal. This is the balance and why we want this inquiry to make sure parliament gets it right.
The government argue that the current authorisation framework is too slow and too restrictive, and they say that the disallowance and public consultation requirements can get in the way of a rapid crisis response. But I reiterate the point I made earlier: this current framework worked through COVID. It also appears to be working so far during the current fuel supply issue. It's appropriate that we take the time to test whether this framework has been drafted properly.
The Treasurer's power to declare exceptional circumstances is extremely broad. It's not confined to the fuel crisis. It can be used at any time the Treasurer so declares it. Once this is made, it opens the door to the ACCC exemptions from competition law. We are very cautious about any attempts to take away parliamentary scrutiny. Our inquiry should test whether the threshold is tight enough. It should also test whether the safeguards are strong enough.
The Treasurer's declaration can be disallowed by parliament, but the individual ACCC authorisations made after that declaration cannot be disallowed. A Senate amendment allowed class exemptions to be disallowable, but individual authorisations will not be. This is a significant issue. It means that parliament can reject the broad declaration, but it cannot directly disallow the specific exemptions that may affect competition in particular markets. We believe this weakens parliamentary oversight.
The ACCC exemptions only need to be made public within seven days. In some circumstances, that may be understandable, but these exemptions can authorise conduct that would otherwise breach competition law. The public parliament and affected businesses should know what has been authorised as soon as possible. This parliament should test whether faster publication, notification and reporting is possible, and transparency should be built into the framework from the start.
As I said earlier, the bill is backdated to 1 April 2026. I'm not clear about the reason for that date. Retrospective lawmaking, as we know, should always be very rare. Retrospective competition law exemptions should require a clear and specific justification.
Why is an inquiry needed? I get the bill is well intentioned, but it is giving significant new powers to the Treasurer and the ACCC. An inquiry by the House Standing Committee on Economics should test whether the ACCC's powers are generally inadequate, whether the Treasury's declaration for power is too broad, whether the ACCC authorisations should be disallowable, whether transparency requirements are strong enough, whether the retrospective start date is justified, whether the powers are properly limited in time and scope, and whether there should be strong sunset and review mechanisms.
I reiterate that we want to work constructively on measures that help manage this current fuel crisis. We support practical steps to protect households, small business and essential supply chains. But suspending competition law and giving the government powers that are immune from Senate disallowance should not be taken lightly. The government wants to limit parliamentary scrutiny. They don't want to give us the courtesy of scrutinising their bill, and we think they should.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Australians understand that we are living through uncertain times. We are seeing instability overseas, disruptions to global markets and events far beyond our shores affecting prices right here at home. Families feel it when they pull up at the bowser, small businesses feel it when their transport and supply costs rise, industries that rely on fuel and freight feel it across their operations, and communities feel it when rising costs place even more pressure on already stretched household budgets. That is because fuel touches almost every part of our economy. When fuel costs rise, transport becomes more expensive, freight becomes more expensive and businesses face higher operating costs. Those pressures do not stop there. They flow through supply chains, onto supermarket shelves and into the weekly budgets of everyday Australian families. Australians are rightly frustrated when events unfolding so far away overseas end up making life more expensive here at home.
The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has contributed to volatility in global energy markets and placed pressure on fuel prices internationally. While Australia remains well positioned and our fuel supply continues to operate effectively, responsible governments do not cross their fingers and hope for the best. Responsible governments prepare, and that is what this Albanese Labor government is doing with this legislation. Resilience is not built in the middle of a crisis; it is built long beforehand. That's why this government is taking practical action to ensure Australia is better equipped to respond when global uncertainty places that pressure on our families, businesses and the broader community. We are strengthening our preparedness, we're improving coordination when extraordinary circumstances arise and we're ensuring that the systems are in place to respond quickly when disruption threatens supply chains, prices or indeed economic stability. That is what this bill is designed to do.
The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 is a practical and measured response to global uncertainty. It gives government and it gives regulators the tools that they need to respond more quickly during extraordinary circumstances that threaten those supply chains, that increase costs or that place additional pressure on Australian consumers and on Australian businesses. It streamlines coordination when swift action is needed and strengthens penalties for serious breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct to reinforce accountability in the fuel market and to reinforce not just accountability but fairness in the fuel market to make sure that the actions that large businesses take are not negatively affecting the Australian people when it matters the most and when hip pockets are tight. Most importantly, this bill is about prevention. It's about making sure that we are not waiting until supply disruptions deepen, prices spike further or businesses face avoidable disruption before acting. Instead, in quite the contrast, it ensures that Australia has sensible tools available to respond early, to coordinate effectively and to keep our economy moving.
The first major reform in this bill creates new powers to allow faster and more effective coordination during extraordinary circumstances—extraordinary circumstances that we have seen of late. It is important to be clear about exactly what this means. The bill allows the Treasurer to declare extraordinary circumstances where there is a serious risk to the Australian economy, businesses or consumers but where those circumstances may fall short of a formal national emergency. It's when things are tough, it's when matters are extraordinary, and it's when we know that someone needs to step in to protect our businesses and our people. That distinction matters. Not every significant disruption reaches the threshold of a national emergency declaration, but there are moments when swift and coordinated action is still necessary to minimise economic harm.
Under existing arrangements, businesses can already seek authorisation from the ACCC to coordinate in certain circumstances. The problem is that the current system can be too slow. The current system can be too cumbersome when time matters and when time is of the utmost importance. In ordinary times, that process is absolutely appropriate—we need to make sure that we are working through a systematic process. But extraordinary circumstances require flexibility. They require pace. They require the quick coordination that only this legislation can deliver. We know from past crises that events can move quickly. Supply chains can shift overnight, consumer demand can change rapidly, and global disruptions can escalate without much warning at all. During moments such as the pandemic, businesses and regulators learned the importance of responding quickly to changing conditions to ensure that Australians could still access essential goods and services, to make sure that the Australian people could get what they needed in a tough time. Waiting months for processes to unfold simply does not make sense when circumstances are moving so very quickly.
This bill enables the ACCC to grant faster, streamlined approvals so that business can coordinate in practical ways that support Australians and complement the work of government. I want to emphasise that point specifically—'complement the work of government'. This is not replacing government action. It is about government, regulators and industry working together in harmony to minimise the harm. In the current context, this could mean businesses working together to reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. It could mean businesses working together to improve logistics, to manage transport efficiency or, indeed, to avoid avoidable disruptions to those supply chains. It could mean better coordination to reduce costs. It could mean improving efficiency and maintaining reliability for consumers instead of waiting for shortages or disruptions to emerge. Businesses can work collaboratively to prevent them. We know that, when times are tough in this country, our communities are very good at coming together. Our communities are very good at looking at what needs to be done and working with each other to solve problems. This bill helps make that possible, and this bill helps bolster the Australian spirit to drive together to find those solutions with government. Prevention is always better than reaction. If we can avoid unnecessary price pressures before they hit households, that matters. If we can keep supply chains functioning smoothly, that matters. And, if we can reduce disruption for businesses and consumers, that matters.
Now, whenever governments introduce extraordinary powers, Australians rightly expect safeguards, and this bill has them. These are not open ended powers. They are limited, they are targeted and they are temporary. They are built for exactly what this bill intends to address: extraordinary circumstances. Declarations must relate to genuine extraordinary circumstances that present risks to the economy, to businesses or to consumers. The powers are subject to clear legal requirements, and they're subject to public accountability. The ACCC must continue to consider the public interest, and coordinated conduct must remain proportionate and appropriate.
These arrangements are designed for exceptional situations, rather than being permanent changes to how businesses operate. We have seen what happens when exceptional circumstances come into play. We were all there for the pandemic, when people were unsure as to what would happen next. We have all been there more recently, as fuel has been incredibly challenging for people at the bowser, as people have watched the numbers tick over and worried about where their groceries might come from. We were there, and what we remember, in this country, is that coordination, stability, a clear plan—a plan rolled out by this government—is what has helped people get through those tough times and navigate those extraordinary circumstances. This is about making sure that we have a framework for that happening again and again and again.
Australians have an expectation, and it's an expectation that they deserve to get an answer to. Australians expect governments to act decisively when circumstances demand it, but they also expect us to act responsibly. This bill strikes that balance—a responsible government, a decisive government when exceptions are extraordinary.
Labor is focused on keeping Australia moving, because, when supply chains fail, Australians can feel it. When transport slows, Australians can feel it. When fuel costs ripple through the economy, it is Australians on the front line, and they can feel that too. We see it in rising prices, delivery delays, higher business costs and the additional strain on family budgets. For communities like mine in Moreton on Brisbane's southside, these pressures are very real. People rely on affordable transport to get to work. Small businesses rely on efficient freight and logistics. Families, already having stretched their budgets, do not have room for unnecessary price increases caused by avoidable disruptions. This bill recognises that reality. It is practical reform, it's real reform, and it's preventive reform. And it is designed to reduce the likelihood that Australians pay more because governments or regulators failed to act early enough.
The second major reform in this bill concerns accountability, because, in times of instability, Australians rightly expect businesses to do the right thing, to not take advantage of a crisis. The bill strengthens penalties for breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct. Significantly stronger penalties will apply to corporations that breach their obligations, including penalties tied to turnover or financial benefit where appropriate, ensuring that misconduct is not simply treated as the cost of doing business. This sends an important message: periods of global disruption are not an opportunity for bad actors to ignore obligations or to exploit instability. Australians expect fairness, they expect transparency, and they expect confidence that the rules will be enforced, particularly when the chips are down. The stronger penalties in this bill support those expectations. They reinforce accountability and they strengthen confidence in Australia's fuel market at a time when trust and stability matter more than ever.
This bill does not exist in isolation. It forms a part of a broader commitment by this Albanese Labor government to help Australians manage cost-of-living pressures and strengthen our economic resilience. We know that global shocks affect household budgets. We have seen inflationary pressures flow through international supply chains. We have seen energy and transport costs affect prices across our economy. That is why this government is focused on delivering practical measures to help everyday Australians with the cost of living. It's why we're strengthening Medicare with more bulk-billing. It's why we're getting more young people into homes. It's why we've introduced stronger consumer protections. It's why we've introduced productivity reforms. And it's why we're delivering more tax cuts to help Australians to keep more of what they earn. Whether it is strengthening supply chains or improving fuel security—reducing unnecessary disruption at times of deep uncertainty—Australians deserve confidence here at home, and that's what this bill delivers.
I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026. This legislation was introduced by the government in response to the serious global fuel security issues rising from the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran. This conflict has disrupted—in fact, halted—the passage of fuel, fertiliser and other goods through the Strait of Hormuz.
The consequence of this conflict cannot be understated. It's put our industrial, agricultural and transport industries under significant strain, and everyday Australians, who are already under pressure to make ends meet, saw their fuel costs skyrocket. In regional areas, this impact has been particularly acute. There are limited and often non-existent alternatives for transport. Farmers are forced to make tough decisions about planting crops in an environment of deep uncertainty, and people have little buffer in their budget or flexibility in their options if the fuel pumps are dry.
When this crisis began, I asked the Minister for Climate Change and Energy for assurance that the government would work closely with industry and intervene where necessary to prioritise fuel supplies to regional communities, such as the people of Indi. I acknowledge the steps the government has taken to shore up supply where possible, and to develop and release to the public a structured response to what is, indeed, not a short-term shock.
In considering this legislation, I'm not just giving heed to the global environment we face today but also considering what this legislation means for the long term. Our competition laws exist to ensure consumers are protected, markets are fair and operators are accountable. This includes powers already in place for the ACCC to authorise particular conduct that would usually be in breach of competition laws when in the public interest to do so, including in response to a national disaster as declared under the National Emergency Declaration Act. Indeed, we saw the flexibility of these powers in action earlier this year, when the ACCC granted urgent interim authorisation to allow the coordination of fuel supply by distributors to address shortages.
This bill goes further in providing a new power for the minister to make 'exceptional circumstances' declarations. It also allows the ACCC to authorise or declare a class exemption for conduct that would otherwise breach our competition laws. The government says this is necessary where circumstances might arise that do not meet the existing criteria under the National Emergency Declaration Act. Under this law, the declarations and authorisations can be retrospective to 1 April 2026, and the bill includes civil penalties for breaches of the oil code of conduct. I speak often—actually, more than to my liking—about the erosion of scrutiny and safeguards in the name of broader powers. Too often, we see governments step beyond the fair, the necessary and the proportionate in the name of urgency. Because there is an existing framework and because the ACCC has powers, I am not yet convinced that this bill is proportionate to the needs or has undergone the scrutiny that should be given to changing our competition laws. The government itself has confirmed that the ACCC can already grant authorisations. As I said before, it already has done so during the current crisis.
But the government says the existing process is burdensome and slow for what Australians might face, yet the ACCC was able to grant an authorisation quite expeditiously in March, and I've not heard nor seen evidence that the ACCC experienced any exceptional problem in doing so. There are some guardrails in this legislation, including that the ministerial declarations be disallowable—I'm happy about that—and this bill was improved in the Senate by an amendment to make class exemptions disallowable. But these instruments might come into effect before the parliament has an opportunity to meaningfully scrutinise them. There are six-month limits to declarations, but that can be extended in rolling three-month increments, with no cap, and the new powers themselves don't sunset. The ACCC keeps a register of authorisations, but publication of the register does not have to occur while the declaration is in place. The consequence of retrospective provisions should always concern us as legislators. They alter legal consequence after the fact, and the government has simply not made the case for declarations, class exemptions and authorisations to be retrospective to 1 April.
Committees exist in this parliament to interrogate legislation, to give opportunity for questions to be asked and answered and for stakeholders and impacted persons to share their views with parliament. It's how we make good policy. Yet time and again we see this important process sidelined in the name of expediency. 'Never let a crisis go to waste' might be a well-worn phrase, but it should not be applied to legislative practice. It should not curtail scrutiny, transparency and oversight.
As I've been clear, I support measures that limit the impact of the current fuel crisis being faced by Australia and the world as a result of the conflict in the Middle East, but these powers are more enduring than the crisis of today. Where a framework already exists, powers are there and have been used and the case is not clear that reasonable or urgent action is being obstructed, I'm simply not convinced of this bill. I cannot support it until we have further scrutiny or indeed that we see sensible amendments.
I want to start not with a discussion on the legal framework but with a memory that I think many Australians can relate to. It's early 2020. A virus that most of us had never heard of a few weeks earlier is spreading across the world. Australians are watching the news. They're worried about their families; they're worried about their jobs. Then they go to the supermarket and the shelves are empty. Toilet paper, pasta, hand sanitiser—gone. It wasn't because there wasn't enough to go around; it was because our systems weren't built to move fast enough to respond. The supply chains were there. The products existed. What we lacked was the ability to coordinate quickly and decisively.
That experience—that image of bare supermarket shelves—is part of what this bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026, is about. It's about making sure that when we're next confronted by global events we are better prepared. It's about making sure that when the next crisis hits, and there will be another crisis, we are better prepared; the businesses and the federal government can work together at speed; and the legal frameworks that govern competition don't become the very thing that slows our response to an emergency. This bill makes two practical changes to our competition laws, but I want to first focus on how our existing laws work.
Australia has world-class competition laws. The Competition and Consumer Act is a framework that, for the most part, serves us well. It protects consumers from price fixing and prevents some businesses from colluding against the public interest. These are important protections, and nothing in this bill weakens them. But here's the problem. The same laws that prevent bad businesses from ripping off consumers can, in certain circumstances, prevent good businesses from coordinating to help them. In an emergency—whether it's a pandemic, a fuel crisis or a supply chain shock caused by conflict on the other side of the world—there are moments when we need competing businesses to talk to each other, to work together, to share information and to make sure the essential goods get to the people who need them.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, ACCC, already has the power to authorise this kind of coordination. The mechanism exists; however, in its current form, that process is simply too slow for a fast-moving crisis. How slow is it? Well, in 2020, when COVID was sweeping through our communities and supermarket shelves were bare, it took the ACCC six months to deliver a final authorisation which allowed supermarkets to coordinate their grocery supply—by which point the worst of the initial crisis had already passed. The mechanism worked, technically speaking, but it just didn't work in time. This bill seeks to amend that. It will give us the tools to act with the speed that a crisis actually demands.
The first schedule of this bill creates a new mechanism—the exceptional circumstances declaration. Under this framework, the Treasurer, subject to clear public interest tests, can declare that exceptional circumstances exist. But let's be clear: it isn't a blank cheque. The bar indeed is high. The Treasurer must be satisfied that the circumstances are causing or are likely to cause significant harm to the Australian economy. The declaration is disallowable by the parliament and sunsets at six months. An extension is capped at three months and is also disallowable by the parliament. These are real checks and balances, which are also a necessary step in crisis management. Once a declaration is made, the ACCC gains streamlined powers to authorise specific targeted coordination between businesses.
Given the substantial change this bill is making, we should be very clear about what that means but also about what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean businesses get a free pass and it doesn't mean they can use a crisis as a cover to price fix or exploit consumers. The authorisation will be narrow and specific. If we're facing a fertiliser shortage affecting farmers in regional Victoria, for example, the ACCC might allow fertiliser companies to coordinate supply to address that shortage. That's it. They can't use the authorisation to then coordinate on pricing or to engage in any other conduct that harms competition. Those guardrails remain firmly in place.
The bill also provides for streamlined class exemptions, which are a mechanism that allows multiple businesses to self-assess whether their proposed conduct is covered, rather than each having to individually apply for authorisation. Again, this comes down to speed. In a crisis, every hour matters and reducing red tape is a necessity.
There's one other aspect of this schedule that I want to address because it deserves a clear explanation. The bill allows for temporary confidentiality around authorisation, applications and decisions during an exceptional circumstances event. Now, transparency is a core principle of good governance, and rightly so. But think about what full transparency in real time could mean in a crisis: news breaks that the government is urgently facilitating talks between fuel suppliers about a potential shortage; what happens next? Well, the behaviour we saw from those opposite earlier this year is a prime example. Bad-faith actors will use that sort of information to trigger the very panic we're seeking to prevent. We saw people rush to the petrol stations, forcing some to run out of fuel despite there being enough supply. So the cure becomes a part of the problem.
This is not about hiding things from the public. Within seven days of an exceptional circumstance event ending, all applications and authorisations must be published in full. Australians will be able to view this information, and the relevant accountability is applied. But, in the heat of a crisis, a short window of operational confidentiality is a sensible and proportionate measure.
The world right now is not a stable place. The conflict in the Middle East is creating real pressure on global supply chains. Fuel supply chains, in particular, are subject to disruptions that can flow through quickly to prices at the bowser and costs for businesses across the economy. We are already seeing this. Australia's fuel supply is currently operating normally. There is no immediate crisis. But the Treasurer intends to make an exceptional circumstances declaration following the passage of this bill to facilitate protective coordination with industry in responding to the challenges from the current conflict. We're not waiting for things to go wrong. We are preparing now while there is still time to get ahead. Quite frankly, this is what Australians should expect and do expect of everyone in this place.
The second schedule of this bill is more straightforward in its mechanics. At the moment there are no penalties in the Oil Code of Conduct, and any penalty added to the code is limited to a maximum of $198,000. It feels inadequate. For a large fuel company turning over hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars a year, that is not a deterrent. It is barely a slap on the wrist. For many, it's just a cost of doing business. Think about that for a moment from the perspective of a trucking operator transporting supplies from manufacturing hubs in Tullamarine, in my electorate, or a farmer who depends on diesel to run their machinery. If the fuel company breaches the code, engages in unfair conduct, withholds supply, exploits a shortage, the consequences for that farmer or that truckie can be severe. Their livelihood can be at risk, and yet the company responsible faces a fine their lawyers would describe as negligible. This bill changes that.
Under the new framework, penalties for bodies corporate can reach $10 million or the court can determine the financial benefit the company gained from the breach three times that benefit. If the benefit can't be precisely determined, 10 per cent of the company's annual turnover will be applied for the relevant period. This is a substantial shift in how we hold companies accountable. These are the kinds of penalties that actually change board-level conversations about risk and compliance. They seek to align the oil code with the penalties framework that already applies to the food and grocery code and the franchising code. Now, we have consistency across our major industry codes. Infringement notice penalties issued by the ACCC are also being lifted, from $19,800 to $198,000 for corporations. Again, this is about making sure the consequences of breaching the code are felt, not just noted in a report.
Most Australians hear about competition law, but, let's be honest, it's not something they think about from one year to the next. But the effects of competition law impact every Australian. They are felt at the petrol station and the supermarket checkout. They are felt by the family who can't find formula on the shelf. They are felt by the small businesses that depend on those supply chains to survive. When those systems come under pressure, like they did during the pandemic or when the war in Ukraine sent shockwaves through global supply, Australians need to have confidence that our frameworks can respond fast, because, if they don't, it has real consequences on the lives of all Australians. This bill is about making sure that, when the next major crisis arrives—and we as parliamentarians cannot bow our heads and say that it won't, because it will—Australians can have faith that our laws can move at the speed that helps us as much as possible to stay ahead of that crisis, that businesses can work with government quickly and within a clear legal framework, that the protections of consumers remain intact and that those who would seek to exploit a crisis for profit face penalties that actually mean something. It is practical in its aims and it is proportionate in its penalties. It's the kind of legislation that doesn't necessarily grab headlines but quietly makes Australia better prepared and better protected for when the next headline-making crisis comes. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026. In doing so, I commend the ministers who have led this legislation, the ministers who have led the government's response to the problems arising out of a conflict well and truly out of our control, the Treasurer leading the economic team, the minister for energy and the minister for productivity, as well as the work that goes on within the government through our caucus processes. I think history will show this was just an excellent response to something that really came out of nowhere. I think that the rest of the economy and the rest of the public now feel some security, because we're not talking about it anymore, and that's always a good sign that things are under control. But we didn't get here by accident, and the government, through extremely innovative measures, like the export finance corporation bill, I think achieved things that you wouldn't have thought possible if you were just gaming this strategy out in an office somewhere. It was really a lesson for us to be able to set processes in place to make it easier in the future, and that is what this legislation does. I think that the realisation, which is not always apparent in the community, is how important the role energy plays in our economy is.
I'd like to quote somebody else. I can't remember who it was that said, and it isn't my original thought, but they described the 19th century essentially as being about coal and steam, the 20th century as being about oil and the internal combustion engine and in the 21st century as going to be about electricity and renewable energy. At each points of those new energy ideas coming into the economy, living standards have gone up exponentially. You can see how quickly something like the price of fuel can flow through to living standards and can flow to through to costs not just in the price that we pay at the bowser as consumers but also for businesses as well.
The government having mechanisms in place to be able to deal with things like fuel shortages is critical. This is another part I think of the government's wider strategy to see the Australian economy be more resilient. It is also part of the government's wider strategy to attack cost-of-living pressures through increasing consumer protection. One of the mechanisms that the government is now able to employ, if this bill passes, is something which falls short of declaring a national emergency and falls short of using the emergency powers under the Fuel Act. It allows for a sensible and measured approach by government and business working together to coordinate a response which at any other time might fall foul of competition laws. For example, the response through COVID took approximately six months for the ACCC to authorise the sort of cooperation amongst companies that would have otherwise fallen foul of corporation laws in order for them to coordinate supply of food during the COVID crisis. Six months is just not acceptable. We now know that we need to be able to be more flexible when it comes to fuel, in this case, or to any other sort of any other sort of pressure which is otherwise unforeseen.
The fact is that this also sits well and truly within the Albanese Labor government's commitment to intervening in the economy where the private sector fails. That's why the government, in the recent budget, has a $14-something billion strategy to guarantee fuel supplies coming in the future. But that also fits within a wider government strategy of not letting the important industries to our country just walk out the door and walk overseas, like has happened under previous governments. That's why I think the government really does need to be commended, and the community needs to be assured that this government is responding to those sorts of sovereign risks that exist when our essential industries are under pressure.
As a Queenslander, the investment that the government made, something like $1 billion co-investing with the Queensland government I would credit, to support the Boyne Island smelters is going to secure aluminium production in Gladstone for the future. It is going to secure billions of dollars' worth of investment and hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. As a Broken Hill boy, I always felt that Whyalla and Port Pirie in South Australia were our sister towns. We were all in the same television network. And so I grew up with an affinity for people in Whyalla and Port Pirie. That's why the federal government and the South Australian government investing billions of dollars to secure our steel supply is something that they should be commended for—and also securing the smelter in Port Pirie. Up in Queensland, you've got hundreds of millions of dollars at this stage going to protecting the smelters in Mount Isa, and there are hundreds of millions of dollars going to the investment, in Western Australia, in urea, which is essential to farming but also to the transport industry.
This government is doing what governments haven't done over the last few decades. We have realised that you cannot just leave it to the market to secure those sorts of important industries and to secure those sorts of important pieces of infrastructure. You just can't leave it to the market. Otherwise, you end up with the car industry walking out the door because you're not prepared to support it. If it weren't for this government taking this approach, you would have seen the steelworks in Whyalla and the smelters in Port Pirie, Gladstone and Mount Isa close. You would have seen Tomago under a lot more pressure than it is now. If government were to turn its back, those industries would walk out the door. Not only would that have a massively negative impact on employment in those regions and across the country, but it would place at risk our sovereign capacity to defend ourselves and to produce for ourselves.
Of course, the investments are not just in critical minerals and critical industries, though the list of those investments is really long and extensive, whether it's the 20 per cent gas reservation or the investment in the Critical Minerals Strategy and in a stockpile. It is not just about those literally elemental industries that Australia relies on; the government's investment and intervention in the housing sector and in the energy sector also need to be highly commended. Over the 10 years of the former government, I think they built something like 370 public housing dwellings. In Forde alone, at a site in Logan Reserve, we're building over 200 social housing dwellings, and I've been there.
The philosophy around public housing that I've always held on to is that public housing isn't there because it's provided out of the goodness of our hearts; public housing is there because you want to provide affordable housing to workers, to help keep the cost of living down and to help keep rents down. When you can do that, you actually take the pressure off wages, which helps business as well. It was written into the charter of the South Australian Housing Trust that it would have a focus on the economic development of the state. I think there is no single bigger productivity measure that a government can do than to provide affordable housing for workers.
And so it is the case with energy as well. Through the batteries program, among many other programs that exist through the government, the amount of electricity being created is higher than at any other point in the past. There's one piece of evidence that I don't think gets the credit it deserves: over the last summer we had more energy use than ever, and there wasn't a blackout nor a single day lost due to a shortage of electricity in the market.
I think that there is an interventionist edge to this government which the public yearn for. I think that there is a lot of dissatisfaction in the community. People absolutely feel like they've been left behind. One of the reasons for that is governments haven't taken control of those essential services, those critical industries, and they've let them wither on the vine to the point where, in the biggest oil shock since the 1970s, we had two oil refineries operating. This legislation fits well and truly within that general strategy. The changes to the penalties for the oil code also sit within the government's wider strategy for consumer protection.
Again, there's a long list there. The government has, for instance, outlawed things like unfair contract terms. I know one case where a young woman moved away from the gym she was going to, and she had a 90-minute one-way trip to get to the gym in order to use it, so she rang up to cancel. The gym said, 'No, you can't cancel over the phone; you need to come in, in person.' It was alright for her to sign up online but not to cancel online. So she was expected to make a three-hour round trip just to cancel. After her persistence and after she showed them the law, she was able to get the gym to cancel her membership. But what if she wasn't so savvy? What about all of those other people who might have just given up and let whatever it is, $20 a week, get wasted?
Whether it's strengthening the unit pricing code—I actually saw it in Woolies myself. I'd heard that they were doing this, and, because I knew they were doing it, I looked out for it the last time I went shopping. There is a practice where they bunch up five bananas together, and they sell that as a unit. It was something like five bucks or six bucks for a bunch of bananas. There was no unit price. You didn't know how much it weighed. When I actually took those bananas and placed them on the scales, they cost twice as much by weight as exactly the same type of bananas sitting next to them. I've heard Woolies excuse this before in the past in the media, saying that they're making it convenient for people. It is convenient for Woolworths that it also happens to cost twice as much. We're going to be cracking down on that.
We've made it easier for people to unsubscribe from online services. We've made it easier for people to be more mobile in the marketplace by outlawing unfair non-compete clauses. Again, these things aren't done just because they're the just and right thing to do, which they are, but they're going to have a practical economic impact on the cost of living for people. They're going to have a practical economic impact when it comes to buying your bananas at Woolies. It's going to have a practical economic impact on workers who are going to feel safer to go looking for a new job without the worry of being penalised by an employer trying to keep them.
I commend this bill to the House. I ask the opposition—I'm not exactly sure what their position is, but I'm not sure they know what their position is either—to support this bill, because this is really a very sensible measure. In the scheme of things, I think it is one part of a very significant change in direction for this country, where you've got a government actually intervening in the economy to make sure that we've got not only the levers to control things when things go badly but also the stockpile of minerals or fuels which are practically needed. So I commend this bill to the House.
I'll start by thanking the member for Forde for his contribution and especially for his shout-out to my home state, the great state of South Australia, particularly with respect to energy. In South Australia, we are leading the way in the transition to renewable energy, with 80 per cent of our energy needs being met on any given day by renewables. So South Australia is the state you want to be in.
Today we talk about the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 , which I speak on in support. In this country, we've got a range of legislation that exists to cover what are termed national emergencies. The National Emergency Declaration Act is a case in point. It sets out the conditions for making a national emergency declaration, which include:
(a) an emergency has recently occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur (whether in or outside Australia); and
(b) the emergency has caused, is causing or is likely to cause nationally significant harm in Australia or in an Australian offshore area.
It's also a requirement that either each state and territory government experiencing or likely to experience the harm has requested the national emergency declaration in writing; or that the emergency has affected, is affecting or is likely to affect Commonwealth interests; or the making of the declaration is appropriate, considering the nature of the emergency and the nature and severity of the harm; and the declaration is desirable for emergency management to allow national emergency laws to be utilised. If these conditions are satisfied, then, under that act, the Governor-General may make a declaration that there exists a national emergency. This must be declared for not longer than three months but can be extended, and the legislation includes a requirement that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, or an equivalent committee, must review each national emergency declaration on the first anniversary of the day that declaration was made.
What is nationally significant harm? It's broadly but carefully defined. It includes harm that has a significant national impact because of its scale or consequences, and includes harm to the life or health, including mental health, of an individual or group of individuals; harm to the life or health of animals or plants; damage to property, including infrastructure; harm to the environment; or disruption to an essential service.
If a national emergency declaration is issued by the Governor-General, several things can happen, including the mobilisation and deployment of Commonwealth resources to assist states and territories to deal with the matter. The minister may also be granted powers to modify, bypass or suspend certain administrative laws like requiring physical signatures on documents or undertaking routine reporting so that there are no delays to the issuing of emergency assistance. It also allows the federal government to take action in a state or territory, even if no assistance has been requested.
Businesses large and small face significant challenges when there is a national emergency declaration. We last saw this during the COVID-19 pandemic, where businesses were put under significant and protracted hardship. Challenges may also be faced by businesses in circumstances which do not meet the threshold for a declaration of a national emergency, as I've just outlined. It is challenges that fall outside of these thresholds that this bill seeks to address, such as the ongoing and unpredictable effects of the conflict in the Middle East. The conflict began on 28 February 2026, and, on some assessments provided by the US government, was estimated to be over in several weeks. But, three months on, it's still going and still having an impact on global and regional energy security, on global and regional supply chains and, therefore, on our domestic businesses.
The Albanese Labor government, particularly the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, have devoted significant efforts to drawing on established regional relationships—which the government had the foresight to build when it came to power in 2022—in order to secure the fuel and fertiliser supplies Australia needs for both critical industries and general domestic consumption. But the conflict continues, meaning the government has determined that also looking for domestic opportunities to meet the challenges being faced by businesses is essential. This is not only seeking to meet current global circumstances but also planning for the future. We know with almost 100 per cent certainty that conflict, disruption and global instability is only going to increase, meaning domestic powers need to be in place now so that businesses can more easily meet the challenge this instability will inevitably bring to their operations in Australia.
Schedule 1 to the bill includes a power for the minister to make what is called an exceptional circumstance declaration. The term 'exceptional circumstance' is taken to have its natural and ordinary meaning and has not been defined with any more specifics, in order to not limit the circumstances in which such a declaration can be made. This level of flexibility is appropriate because it reflects the unpredictability and range of exceptional circumstances that may materialise. An exceptional circumstance may not include circumstances that meet the threshold for a national emergency declaration, although a national emergency would always be an exceptional circumstance. These things work together. The effect of the minister issuing an exceptional circumstance declaration is that it triggers the operation of exceptional circumstances class exemptions and authorisation provisions, which would otherwise not operate.
So what does this mean? Part IV of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 prohibits a wide range of anticompetitive conduct, which, at a very high level, operates to distort, restrict or prevent healthy competition in the market. Anticompetitive behaviour compromises the consumer by limiting choice and also prevents smaller market operators from competing for business fairly. It can include things like collusion on prices or collusion on the supply of goods or bid processes. It can include a larger company using its market dominance to eliminate smaller competitors, or it can include businesses banding together to refuse to deal with particular classes of individuals or consumers and suppliers. It can also include resale price maintenance, which is where retailers have minimum prices dictated to them. Conduct of this nature distorts the market, which ultimately disenfranchises the consumer, which is why it is prohibited.
The bill proposes that the ACCC be able to authorise an exempt conduct, which may ordinarily breach competition laws, where it is in the public interest, in that it provides assistance in responding to exceptional circumstances. Businesses coordinating with each other to take certain relevant actions in response to an exceptional circumstance is the most obvious example which would likely qualify for a class exemption, and this will operate in the form of a new section 95AC that will allow the ACCC to create class exemptions for particular kinds of conduct to ensure that the ACCC has the power to quickly, flexibly and broadly grant exemptions to specified provisions of competition laws in exceptional circumstances. It also has the effect of supporting businesses to work together to respond efficiently and effectively to any exceptional circumstances event. Businesses will need to consider whether their conduct falls within a class exemption once that class exemption is in force, in the usual self-assessment way.
A class exemption of this nature will also enable businesses to coordinate to manage the circumstances themselves, so long as they are reasonably restricted to conduct that would assist, or would be likely to assist, in the response or recovery from the harm posed by the exceptional circumstances. So this is not a green light for businesses to participate in anticompetitive conduct outside of the class exemption framework applicable to the exceptional circumstance declaration. Businesses will have the ability to respond rapidly, which they should have, but will still need to take care to ensure the rapid response does not result in scope creep beyond the rapid response directly and genuinely needed.
Importantly, the ACCC may only determine a class exemption if an exceptional circumstances declaration or national emergency declaration within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act is in force. Further, the ACCC must not determine a class exemption unless it's satisfied in all the circumstances that the kind of conduct specified in the exemption class would actually assist or be likely to assist in the response to or recovery from the matter at hand. In conducting this analysis, the ACCC must have regard to the likely benefit to the public which would result from the assistance or likely assistance in response to the issue. The ACCC must also have regard to any other public benefit that would result, or be likely to result, from the conduct, and must also consider the detriment to the public that would result, or be likely to result, from the conduct.
The factors that must be considered in determining class exemptions seek to strike a balance between ensuring that class exemptions are determined in a structured decision-making process that has proper regard to public benefit and public detriment and ensuring that the ACCC can respond rapidly to allow businesses to address whatever the exceptional circumstance at hand is. Any class determination must precisely specify the exceptional circumstances or emergency to which it relates.
Although the ACCC already has class exemption powers to enable businesses to engage in conduct otherwise prohibited by the Competition and Consumer Act, the cost and the time involved in the existing administrative processes for establishing these exemptions can delay efforts by businesses to respond rapidly to exceptional circumstances, which then has the potential to cause further public detriment. The ability to respond quickly and early may even prevent or substantially mitigate the extent of significant harm to the economy, which is exactly what this bill seeks to prevent.
Given what is happening in the world at the moment in our region and beyond and given general global unpredictability and instability, the intention of the bill—that the ACCC will be able to work with industry to complement the actions of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in working to minimise public detriment—is entirely appropriate. The first cab off the rank will be the ACCC, industry, the Commonwealth, the states and the territories working together to minimise future disruptions to fuel supply. We see constant updates regarding the prospects of finalising negotiations to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but these updates constantly change, and, even if a negotiation were concluded successfully today, returning things close to where they were prior to 28 February 2026 would likely take months to be achieved, so there's further disruption ahead of us.
This bill, which promotes early coordination so that businesses avoid risks to them and to the Australian people, who are the most important consumers in the marketplace, is entirely appropriate in these circumstances and completely on point. I commend the bill to the House.
I'd like to thank those members who contributed to the debate on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026—the members for Page, Indi, Moreton, Maribyrnong, Forde and Sturt.
Schedule 1 of the bill creates new powers for the Treasurer and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to permit coordinated action during a crisis. Where exceptional circumstances exist which are likely to cause harm to Australia's economy, business or consumers, similar to the current fuel crisis, the Treasurer will be empowered to make a declaration. After an exceptional circumstances declaration is made, the competition watchdog will be able to exercise new streamlined powers to either grant an authorisation to specific businesses or a class exemption to a broader cohort of businesses. These businesses may then take coordinated action to complement the work of government in protecting the Australian public and economy from the impacts of the crisis. These new powers will ensure the Treasurer and the competition watchdog can respond promptly to challenging situations Australia may face during exceptional global or domestic circumstances. They will make it easier and faster for businesses to assist these vital efforts to respond to such circumstances.
Schedule 2 to the bill provides further protections against unfair and unlawful conduct by fuel companies. It will allow the government to introduce severe penalties for breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct that reflect the gravity of these contraventions and provide a real disincentive to fuel companies disregarding their obligations and benefiting from the current conflict in the Middle East. These changes will allow penalties on corporations up to the greater of $10 million, three times the benefit they derive from breaching the code or 10 per cent of their adjusted turnover from the 12 months up to when the contravention occurred. Penalties of this size are needed to ensure fair and lawful conduct through the fuel supply chain to ultimately protect Australian consumers, who are already feeling the impacts of this conflict at the petrol pump. I commend the bill to the House.
The question is that the amendment as moved by the honourable member for Page be agreed to.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Last week was Volunteer Week. In Mackellar, we gathered to recognise and thank our community's wonderful volunteers, and 44 outstanding volunteers received special recognition awards, having been nominated by their community organisations. Those recognised included people from local sporting clubs, disability support groups, domestic violence services, youth organisations, environmental groups and cultural organisations such as Aboriginal Support Group Manly Warringah Pittwater, the Austral-Armenian Association and the Tibetan Learning Centre. We also acknowledge volunteers from Mackellar's surf lifesaving club—including Bob Head, recognised for 70 years of service to Avalon Beach Surf Life Saving Club; and Chloe Harris, a high-school student recognised for her incredible commitment to Mona Vale Surf Life Saving Club. With rising cost-of-living pressures and the ongoing crisis of domestic violence, volunteers from the Northern Beaches Women's Shelter, Meals on Wheels and the Community Pantry continue to step up. Many go above and beyond, like William Harding. He was nominated by three organisations for his work with Bushlink, Salvos Stores Mona Vale and the Manly Warringah District Cricket Club. A special mention goes to Paul Robertson, the executive producer and force behind the wonderful Northern Beaches Music Festival. We often talk about the natural beauty of the Northern Beaches, but Volunteer Week reminds us that it is the people who make our community an incredible place to live.
Over the last few days, I've had many conversations with hardworking small businesses on the planned changes to capital gains tax. I want to thank all those businesses I've spoken with, especially for the confidential information they've entrusted me with. I built a small business and ran it for 25 years. I know what it is to build a business from scratch with only your brain and a computer, so I appreciate why businesses with low capital startup costs are asking questions. I want to ensure that, as we refine these important reforms, the circumstances of all small businesses—not just tech startups—are recognised and considered. It takes a huge leap of faith to decide to work for yourself and then create a business that employs people. You take a risk, and you take on the responsibility for not just your own family but many others. A lot of new owners don't go into it thinking they'll build fast and sell. They go into it wanting to establish a long-term business that they hope to grow over time. I grew up in small business by my dad's side. I grew my own small business. I don't think I can do anything other than put myself in the shoes of small-business owners, including those across the Blue Mountains, the Hawkesbury and Nepean. That's what I'll be doing as we make these reforms that will ultimately put all Australians on a fairer footing.
I'm speaking to hundreds of people right across my electorate who feel let down, hurt and betrayed by broken promises and new taxes. I've been inundated with hundreds of emails in the space of just a few days since I asked for feedback on the federal government's broken promise on the private healthcare rebate for Australians aged 65 and older. There are 1.4 million Australians in this bracket, and it's going to cost them up to $640 more every year.
Australians right across this nation are sick and tired of broken promises. Rosemary from Inverloch, in my electorate, emailed me about a number of inconsistencies this government has presented on HECS and higher education. I've heard from Chris, who has had to cancel his private healthcare insurance already. He said:
I have always had private health insurance until Labor took away the rebate.
Robyn, an age pensioner, has held private health insurance for more than 50 years. She is worried that, as she gets older, there will be an increasing burden on the health system for people like her, who try and do the right thing and pay their own cover.
I've had many other emails as well, particularly on the Victorian Labor government's broken promise about the West Gippsland Hospital. Wayne Farnham and I will continue to stand up for West Gippsland, as it's been terribly let down by this broken promise.
The hockey season is underway, and it was great to get to Doncaster Hockey Club for their seniors game against Waverley and the opening of their new minipitch. I even got to witness the brilliance of some former Kookaburras. Thanks to Callum, Nick and Andrea for your hospitality and the time and energy you pour into this thriving club.
The run club at Donvale Primary School has just reached an incredible milestone: running all the way from Melbourne to Canberra—not literally, but already this year students at DPS have logged 684 kilometres. To all the students who have taken part in this massive effort: congratulations, and welcome to Canberra. I look forward to hearing about the next destination you reach.
It was a real pleasure to join the Men's Shed at the Veneto Club for a special evening with AFL legend Brent 'Boomer' Harvey. I should declare my bias upfront: as a shinboner myself, getting to spend an evening with the man who played more games for North Melbourne than anyone in history was pretty special. Up until last week, Boomer held the record for the most games ever played in the AFL. Tough and relentless, he's one of the greatest to pull on the boots. But the night was not just about footy; it was about something the Men's Shed understand better than most. Their motto says it all: 'We turn minds, not wood'. Behind the records and accolades, Boomer spoke honestly about the resilience and life lessons that he learned along the way. I want to thank Guido Bonanni and the team at the Men's Shed for bringing the community together.
More than 200 people attended a Defence community information session about the Woodside Barracks, and I'm very pleased to see the assistant minister is here in the chamber. That's how important this site is to us as a community. The message from my community was very, very clear: we want to know what is happening and be involved in the future of the site. Many people, including me, are disappointed in the sale, particularly as the barracks are approaching their 100th anniversary next year, but now it's about what we do with this important piece of land into the future.
There's been strong community feedback. A survey that I ran found that 94 per cent of residents did not support housing on the site, so I'm very pleased that we've had assurances from the state housing and planning minister, Nick Champion, that there are no plans for residential and employment lands on that site. What do we want to see as a community? Now, we're going to create a working group and really articulate and form together what that vision looks like, whether that be recreation users, environment, wildlife value. We need to come together, because we want to ensure that our children's grandchildren are proud of what becomes of the Woodside Barracks a century from now. I thank the state minister, the Hon. Nick Champion, and I thank the departments, both Finance and Defence, for coming to our community.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Every One Cafe in my electorate of Holt and spending time with the amazing team there. This is a truly special place. Every One Cafe provides hands-on hospitality training for people living with a disability in my community. It's a place where team members take their first steps into the world of hospitality, learning new skills in an inclusive, supportive environment. By offering fully paid employment and building the skills needed to pursue future opportunities in the hospitality sector, this program changes lives. This is what inclusivity is all about: ensuring everyone gets a fair go.
And it gets even better. Every coffee and every meal sold gives back to the community. Proceeds from Every One Cafe support the SES Cranbourne Unit and the vital work they do in keeping our community safe. This year they have already raised more than $3,400. And what's the best part? The coffee is absolutely delicious and costs only $1. I thank Jo, Daniel and the entire team for inviting me. I cannot wait to visit you guys once again.
Treasurer, you're running this great country into the ground. You're punishing hard work, penalising aspiration and attacking enterprise—attributes that have made this country great. The Treasurer is coming after small business; ambushing young people at the precipice of getting their foot on the homeownership ladder; raiding the income of hardworking, taxpaying Australians; and backstabbing seniors, through the reduction of the private health insurance rebate.
And for what? What do you get to show for it? For most constituents in Lyne, you'll have to pay to see a GP. You still won't have an urgent care clinic. It will be just as difficult, if not more so, to access aged care. Telecommunications will be worse, with $21.4 million pulled from addressing regional mobile and internet blackspots. Food, fuel, electricity, insurance, rents and mortgages will be higher than ever because he still hasn't got a handle on inflation. Congratulations, Treasurer! You've somehow managed to make life drastically harder for just about every single Australian and still not even touch the sides of the deficit, which is set to breach $1 trillion.
Constituents in Lyne have made it clear, as has Australia: axe these toxic taxes, or risk breaking the back of this country for good.
Last week was National Volunteer Week, when we recognise and celebrate the incredible volunteers that are the lifeblood of our communities. The region I'm humbled to represent has more than 300 volunteer organisations, groups that are made up of everyday champions doing their bit to make our community a better place, whether it's the crew at the coast guard keeping our waterways safe; the teams at Breakfast Club or Meals on Wheels, who are looking after our most vulnerable; the team at Bridge FM keeping us entertained and informed; the folks at U3A sharing their knowledge and experience through informative courses, helping to fight off isolation; the commitment of the Redcliffe Hospital Auxiliary, who have raised so much money for our hospital, to make it a more welcoming and more healing space; the dedicated crew of SES volunteers lending a helping hand when we need it most; or the volunteers within scout groups teaching our kids invaluable life skills.
Our community is a better place because of our incredible volunteers, who donate their time to support others. As a government, we know how vital volunteers are, and, as a reflection of that, since the Albanese Labor government were elected, we've provided more than $250,000 to these volunteer groups through grants. Through the community consultation panel that I formed recently, we've got more than $66,000 on the way to some very well-deserving volunteer groups.
I want to take this moment to thank each and every volunteer in our community. We're all better because of you.
We're four years into the Albanese government, and all we've had is a litany of broken promises. We've had higher taxes, more debt, a higher cost of living and a whole range of antibusiness policies. Before the 2022 election, this prime minister promised to restore faith in politics and deliver on every one of his promises. Instead, his promise to keep his promises has even been broken many times. Where is the $275 reduction in electricity prices we were promised? Where are the cheaper mortgages? Where is the real wage growth? What happened to the promise of no new taxes, no changes to super and no tampering with the coalition's legislated tax cuts? What happened to not changing capital gains or negative gearing? So much for no-one being held back and no-one being left behind—this government penalises working Aussies and stokes class and intergenerational warfare.
Labor said it wouldn't introduce a death tax, yet this new 30 per cent tax on discretionary trusts is exactly that. This prime minister said that his word was his bond, and it's just turned out that his word is not worth a pinch of shit.
Withdraw that final comment.
I withdraw.
I remind the House of the standing orders, which are very clear about the way in which debate is conducted in this House. I'll have no more of it.
In my first 90-second statement to this House, I want to address some of the pain that our communities feel at the moment. We all know it. Every single member of this House who goes out into the community sees people struggling. It's confronting.
There are two things that the Prime Minister said recently that I think really define how this government is tackling that. One is that his philosophy is that nobody is left behind and nobody is held back. The second thing is about when you're confronted with an unfair system. He said you can't just throw your hands up in the air and say, 'There's nothing I can do about it; I'm only the Prime Minister.' I think that those two statements really underlie the government's strategy, which is to place government back at the central point of the economy to make sure that we run an economy that is for the people and that works for the people.
There are two things. Look at the government intervening directly to save our critical industries and our critical manufacturing industries, like our smelters in Port Pirie and in Gladstone and our steelworks in Whyalla. I think it really sums up the government's commitment to getting itself back in that central role of government. But also look at the approach to public housing. Undertaking the biggest public housing build in a generation, I think, underlies the fact that there is a role for government and that people feel disconnected because the government has been disconnected from them.
This is the most socialist budget since Whitlam. Labor's budget fails South Australia. It brings more debt, higher taxes and no real cost-of-living relief to our country towns. It cuts infrastructure spending—come and drive on a regional road or find a jetty which isn't closed. We are facing a decade of deficits and over $1 trillion in debt. Where is intergenerational fairness there? Families from Marion Bay to Marla and everywhere in between will pay the price.
Inflation is currently at 4.6 per cent and will soon go up to five per cent. We are the laughing stock of the developed world. It's higher than in Canada, Germany, the United States, France and the United Kingdom. The average family is $32,000 worse off. This is not the country we know and love, and the people in regional South Australia are feeling the pinch more than most.
Labor's new socialist taxes hit the very people that keep our towns going—small-business owners. They even hid a 30 per cent death tax in the budget as a nice little bit of salt in the wound. This budget hurts our regions and makes life outside the city limits even harder. We need a government that backs our regions, not one that taxes them into oblivion. We need a government that starts putting Australians first. We need to axe the tax and cut the lies.
I want to join my colleague the member for Petrie in recognising National Volunteer Week last week and celebrating some of the most inspiring people across Maribyrnong. We're very fortunate in the community we have. I had the privilege of visiting the VICSES at URBNSURF, where I got to jump in the boat and witness firsthand the rigorous training that our SES volunteers undertake, practising water rescue techniques to prepare for emergencies that can strike without warning. It's no surprise that the VICSES Essendon Unit is one of the 13 outstanding recipients of this year's Moonee Valley Neighbourhood Spirit Awards. And they are in magnificent company.
Karol Barac, Karen Shuster and Robyn Bardas built Connecting Mothers in Grief from the ground up, now supporting bereaved parents across Australia. Arissa Berryman is a powerhouse youth advocate changing the conversation on mental health. Glenys Barnes has given 12 incredible years to the Northern Obedience Dog Club. Stephanie Failla is an emerging leader already making waves with St Vincent de Paul and beyond. Brian Gillespie is defying his Parkinson's diagnosis and driving the Moonee Valley Bowls Club forward. Samuel Glenn is creating inclusive, joyful spaces through Avenue Productions. Leading Senior Constable Bradley Keogh is revolutionising how police connect with our community. Anthony Monteleone has breathed new life into Union Road in Ascot Vale. Trang Nguyen is a fierce and passionate voice for young people and— (Time expired)
Labor's budget not only smashed savings, hard work, risk and endeavour; it crushed aspiration for future generations—addressing intergenerational equality, my foot! Their cynical disregard for entrepreneurialism is nowhere more to be seen than in their changes to the capital gains tax—the tax Aussies pay when they sell an asset like a business, an investment property, crypto or shares for more than what they started with.
Right now, Australians who hold an asset for more than 12 months will get a 50 per cent discount on their capital gain, and it's been like that for 25 years. But Labor's going to scrap it. Instead, the discount will now be tied to inflation alongside a new 30 per cent minimum tax rate on capital gains. Translation: in most cases people will pay significantly more tax when they sell an asset, unless, as the Cabinet Secretary is so keen to tell us, the government totally stuffs inflation for yet another decade, in which case you might be better off—and, let's face it, they're doing a pretty good job of that. But to base your taxation system on your inability to curb inflation and to tell people that they're better off for it? Have they lost their senses on the government benches?
Flinders will be harder hit than most electorates in Australia because our median age is 48—a full decade older than the Victorian average of 38. More locals are approaching retirement, selling businesses that they've built up over a decade or decades. We've got more tradies and owner-operators than the state average—nearly 18 per cent of workers in Flinders. For many of those who own small businesses, their business is their retirement plan.
Today we celebrate International Wine Day, which for many Australians sounds less like an international occasion and more like a perfectly responsible Monday evening plan. For thousands of years, wine has brought people together. Civilisations have changed and governments—and even some premiers—have come and gone, but 'I'll just have one glass' remains one of history's great works of fiction.
Nowhere understands wine better than the Hunter Valley, Australia's oldest and most celebrated wine region. For nearly two centuries, the Hunter has produced world-class wines, welcomed visitors from across the country and the world and quietly convinced countless Sydneysiders that they're now wine people after a single weekend away. But behind every great bottle is a great deal of hard work. Today we recognise the vineyard workers, winemakers, cellar door staff, hospitality workers and small businesses who keep the industry thriving. Because of them, the Hunter continues to be a powerhouse for regional jobs, tourism and divine Australian wine. Wine is more than just a drink; it's a conversation, a celebration and occasionally the reason somebody will confidently explain the notes of blackberry and oak while holding a $20 bottle of shiraz.
On this International Wine Day, let's raise a glass, responsibly, to the people behind Australian wine—especially Hunter wine, which I maintain is the finest in the world. Cheers to International Wine Day and cheers to the Hunter Valley. Thank you for what you do.
People in Western Sydney are not living in some Canberra fantasy. They are tired of being treated like the districts in The Hunger Games, expected to do the hard labour, carry the economy on their backs and stay quiet. The people in the Capitol—that is, the Albanese Labor government—beat them down tax after tax, and nowhere is this more true than in my electorate of Lindsay. The people of Lindsay are worried about the changes to the capital gains tax and what it will mean for the workshop they built, the business they sacrificed for or the investment property they bought after hard years of labour—decades of overtime and work on weekends.
As I said, these people are extremely concerned. 'The more I have, the more I get punished,' says Aaron, from Penrith. He started plumbing at 17, worked three jobs to get ahead and sacrificed holidays, family time and weekends. His honeymoon was the only break he had. It broke my heart to hear him say about Labor's taxes, 'It makes you not want to get up in the morning and go to work.' When hardworking Australians start asking whether effort is still worth it, we have a serious problem.
This government has made it crystal clear: work harder, take the risk, build the business and, the moment you finally get ahead, the Capitol—that is, the Albanese Labor government—swoops in for its cut, and that is how aspiration dies. One extra tax, one extra penalty and more reminders that, in Labor's Hunger Games economy, the harder you work the harder it becomes just to survive the arena.
The Albanese government's focus on strengthening Medicare has delivered on a range of commitments to benefit all Australians. For Territorians, I'm proud to say that today the Darwin urgent care clinic is open, following on from the runaway success of the Palmerston urgent care clinic, which has recorded over 37,000 visits since its opening. I visited the Darwin urgent care clinic last Thursday with the Deputy Prime Minister and saw firsthand the great work of Bernie Cummins and her team, and also the Aspire team, who were getting the clinic up and ready to open today. It'll take the pressure off the Royal Darwin Hospital—and it already is—by providing walk-in care for urgent, non-emergency medical needs. And, of course, it's bulk-billed. No appointments are required to get the care that you and your family need, and it's running extended hours, seven days a week.
This is on top of our support for bulk-billing, meaning that more Territorians can see a doctor for free. There are now 23 Medicare bulk-billing GP practices across Darwin and Palmerston, which is an increase of 15 clinics since we brought these changes in. Now, over 70 per cent of all local GP practices in Darwin and Palmerston are registered as Medicare bulk-billing practices.
Two weeks ago, the PM and his Treasurer delivered a budget that confirmed this Labor government is the highest taxing government in Australian history. After the backlash, they're desperately trying to soften the edges and find carve-outs and exemptions, but Australians know the truth. The truth is this: when Labor runs out of money, it always comes after theirs. Prior to the last election, the Prime Minister promised no fewer than 50 times that he wouldn't be changing property taxes in this country. What'd he then do? He delivered a budget built on the very same taxes that he promised the Australian people he would never levy.
He didn't stop at property taxes. Convinced that trusts are only used by billionaires, they planned wholesale changes that will cripple nearly 300,000 small businesses. These are battlers; they're not billionaires. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have attacked negative gearing and have gutted capital gains tax concessions—all while doing nothing about bracket creep.
This isn't intergenerational equity; this is intergenerational fraud. This is a Prime Minister who has used the very same mechanisms to build his private wealth, but he's now pulling up the ladder of opportunity. It's the ultimate 'up yours' to the next generation of young Australians, and he wonders why he gets booed at the footy—higher taxes, higher costs, less investment, less aspiration. You don't fix these toxic taxes with carve-outs; you axe them.
For over 20 years, the Yarra Riverkeeper Association have campaigned for protection and sustainability for the Yarra/Birrarung river. The heart of their work is about maintaining the waterways that have sustained communities for thousands of years and preserving the natural environment of our lands for generations to come. I recently had the pleasure of meeting with the passionate people doing this work. Janet, Carina and Bruce walked me through the challenges they face as community advocates, not just for the 15 kilometres of the Yarra/Birrarung in the electorate of Melbourne but for the over 240 kilometres that this waterway stretches, from the Great Dividing Range through to Port Phillip Bay, covering the electorates of many of the people in this room.
Their tireless approach to supporting and healing this catchment must be matched by a government that will help protect more of what's precious, repair more of what's damaged and manage nature better for the future, and I am proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is doing just that. We have created the first federal EPA and fixed the EPBC Act so it works for our environment, and we continue to bring down emissions year on year through our progressive politics. So thank you to Janet, Carina, Bruce and all the members of our community standing up for the environment.
The verdict is in. This is the worst budget Australia has seen since Paul Keating's in 1993. The Prime Minister gave a promise that there would be no changes to negative gearing and no changes to capital gains tax. He ruled out changes in his own words 50 times. Now no Australian can trust another word that comes out of his mouth. Labor's mask is off. This is a government that sees every Australian who gets ahead, or wants to get ahead, as someone to tax more—a nation of wealth redistribution, not wealth creation, where opportunity is obliterated, not created. Every Australian will be worse off because of this aspiration-killing budget. There will be higher taxes on housing, on saving, on investment and on small businesses, as well as a death tax by stealth. This government is now talking about carve-outs for tech startups but not for small businesses, not for plumbers, not for hairdressers, not for other tradies and not for any other small business. That's what this government does. It pits Australians against Australians, young Australians against older Australians. I'll tell you what: Australians don't want carve-outs; they want these taxes axed.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Over the past week, I've spoken to hundreds of hardworking Australians across every corner of our country that have had one question they want to ask of the Prime Minister: why did the Albanese Labor government lie to Australians about plans to tax them more?
Well, I've spoken to a lot of Australians over the last week as well. Ten days ago, I spoke with Mika, Matt and their dog Pikelet here at Kingston. They bought a home of their own in Canberra using just a five per cent deposit. They're some of the 250,000 first home buyers—
Honourable members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will pause. We're just going to have some silence. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. I made sure the House was—we're not starting off on this bad book.
Member for Cook, you are now warned. That kind of yelling out is not going to happen today. Prime Minister.
They are some of the 250,000 first home buyers who have done exactly the same and got into their first home. A few days later, I was at the Housing Australia Future Fund, the HAFF, site in Melbourne, in Rosanna, which I visited last year with the member for Jagajaga when it was a building site. This year, it is a site with 45 homes with people moving into them, right where the railway station is and right where the shops are there at Rosanna.
In Hobart with Premier Rockliff, we spoke about the more than 1,000 homes that will be built on the Defence land site on the edge of the Derwent. In central Perth, we saw the 219 apartments over 29 floors which are about to be fitted out, including 110 social and affordable homes. At Prospect Corner, I met Harry and Erin, who just four weeks ago moved into their own apartment built by the HAFF. That day, Erin summed it up simply and powerfully: 'It's really life changing.' We met another young woman as well who'd been a beneficiary of the Help to Buy scheme and had got into her own first home as a result.
Over our four years, we've thrown everything at housing supply, and it is making a difference, but there is more to do. That's why we're reforming negative gearing and capital gains and opening aspiration to a generation who are being locked out. Our changes are pro aspiration and they are pro supply. Perhaps he might like to speak to the next leader of the Liberal Party, who said:
I feel the anger regularly from young Australians who feel locked out of the housing market—red-hot anger, frustration—and also a sense of despair that they can't get a stake in the country, that they can't afford a home, and again we've got to listen to what they say …
It's good advice from the member for Canning. You might like to watch him. He's just behind you. (Time expired)
Before I call the member for Macquarie, the Leader of the Opposition used an unparliamentary term during that question, so I'm reminding everyone the same rules will apply that applied last week regarding using the word 'lie'.
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—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Macquarie will begin her question again. We're not going to have interjections. Just as I called them out when a member from the opposition was asking questions, we're not going to have interjections. We're going to reset. Everyone's going to hear their question in silence, including the Speaker, because, if I can't hear the question, I won't be able to take action down the line. So the member for Macquarie will begin her question again, and there will be no interjections.
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?
Thank you to the member for Macquarie not just for her question but for the very substantial small-business experience that she brings to this parliament. The tax reform package at the core of the government's fifth budget was about three main things: making it easier for people to buy their first home; cutting income taxes for 13 million Australian workers; and better aligning the tax treatment between people who work and people who earn their income in other legitimate ways. A really important part of that budget was that tax cut for 13.3 million Australians—the Working Australians Tax Offset. It's targeted to workers. It represents the most meaningful permanent increase to the effective tax-free threshold since Labor last increased it more than a decade ago.
But it's not the only way that we're cutting income taxes. We're cutting income taxes five different times in three different ways. We've got the tax cuts already legislated, including another round in July this year and another round after that in July next year. Those opposite voted against those tax cuts. We've got a $1,000 instant deduction next financial year, and now we've got the Working Australians Tax Offset announced in the budget. Altogether, our five different tax cuts will mean the average worker will benefit by up to $2,816 in 2028. We're also delivering over $3½ billion in new measures to lower taxes for businesses, and we're reducing compliance costs by more than $10 billion a year. This is what the budget was all about.
On Thursday, in this parliament, we'll be introducing legislation to give effect to these tax cuts: the standard deduction, the Working Australians Tax Offset and the core elements of the changes to negative gearing and capital gains. We will learn on Thursday whether they've learned the lesson from the last election. The last time this parliament cut taxes, those opposite voted against it and said that, if they won the election, they would repeal those tax cuts. We will learn on Thursday whether they've learned anything from the last election, whether they've changed a bit in recent times. What we already know is that there are two kinds of people in this parliament: people who see the issues in the housing market for young people and want to fix them, and people who see those issues and want to do absolutely nothing about it. There are people who see the social, economic and political division and dislocation around the world and want to avoid it versus those who want to copy it. There are people who see aspiration as the birthright of every single Australian and those who see aspiration as the exclusive preserve of people who are already doing very well. Thursday, when the legislation is introduced, will be another test for those opposite. This time they should vote for tax cuts. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Andrew from Parramatta founded a start-up. He started his business in 2015 and sold it in 2020 for $35.8 million. Andrew, like so many Australians, said that the new capital gains tax regime 'doesn't interact well with small businesses'. Andrew said, 'Start-ups and some small businesses are a real concern, and the point that many small businesses have been making is valid.' Did the Treasurer endorse the Cabinet Secretary's position?
Government members interjecting—
I'm reminded that the last time the shadow Treasurer tried to cite an example—this time, at the National Press Club—it turned out that the person whom he had based his entire speech around was more than likely exempt or able to access very considerable concessions and carve-outs. The last time he got up here, all puffed up with self-importance, but at the National Press Club, he used an example who was able to access one of these four concessions and carve-outs for small businesses that we are not changing. So you'll forgive me for taking with a grain of salt anything that the shadow Treasurer says when he tries to quote specific examples in the parliament.
Now, when it comes to the changes that the shadow Treasurer is asking me about, I remind him of somebody who said this, and I'm quoting:
There is no intergenerational justice in such preferential arrangements …
That was a quote from an author of a book, who also said in this parliament:
Today 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 … 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.
The same person said:
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.
The members on my right will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
It goes to relevance. It was an incredibly direct question: does the Treasurer endorse the cabinet secretary's position? You can't get more straightforward than that. He's been quoting from a book now, and we're one minute and 30 seconds in.
There's nothing against the standing orders in the Treasurer quoting from a book. I don't know who the author of this book is. I may have a suspicion, but the Treasurer needs to make sure the quote that he is referring to—because the manager is correct. He was asked a question, but there was a bit of a preamble in there about the scenario.
The member for Gippsland is not helping. The Treasurer has just got to make sure that, whatever this quote is, it is of direct relevance to the question that was asked.
Of course I endorse and support the great work of the member for Parramatta, and I also support the great work of the shadow Treasurer, who said:
When people can earn more and be taxed less because of the holding of assets over income, it rewards capital interests against labour, and that means that you entrench those interests and you break apart what I think of as one of the fundamental principles that has made this nation successful and strong, which is to turn to the next generation and say: 'You get your equal chance too.
So I support the member for Parramatta's great work as part of our team, and I support the comments that the shadow Treasurer has made—twice in this parliament and once in a book that I might be the only one who's read.
I raise this, in endorsing the member for Parramatta's work, because it says everything about the shadow Treasurer that he is now trying to weaponise a campaign against the very changes that he called for—and not by accident. He's come in here twice and he's written a book about how we have to deal with these issues in the housing market and in the tax system. And as I said, he'd want to be careful that the Daily Tele doesn't put him on the front of the paper with a little hammer and sickle next to him, because the problem that he's describing is exactly the problem that this government has the courage to try and fix.
My question is to the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities. How are the Albanese Labor government's housing reforms helping first homebuyers trying to buy a home? Is the minister aware of any risks to this work?
I thank the member for Aston for her question. She has just ticked over the thousandth young person in her community who is into their first home with our government's backing, and there are plenty more where that came from.
Too many Australians feel that the housing market is stacked against them, and what is so frustrating, especially for the young people of our country, is that they're doing all the right things. They're saving hard, they're working hard and they're studying hard, and yet, still, they turn up to auctions with the deck stacked against them. That is what our government is seeking to change. That is why we are levelling the playing field for first home buyers through our budget housing reforms.
For 25 years, the Sunday morning reports on Saturday's auctions have told us, pretty much universally, the same thing—that first home buyers are getting pipped by investors and that more and more homes are out of reach for young people. But, for the last two weekends, we have started to read something very, very different. Across the country, first home buyers are snapping up homes. We read of a single mum buying a home for her family in St Kilda East; a young couple buying their first home in Yarraville, telling the paper that they'd given up on buying in that particular suburb; four first home buyers competing against each other at an auction in Ardeer, all on a level playing field. One auctioneer told the paper that the first home buyers of this country were 'up and about'. That is exactly the point.
By the time of the next election, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of young people around our country will be in their own home, directly because of our government's first home ownership policies. I want every single one of them to know that it was a Labor government that saw their ambition, that saw their aspiration and that stepped in to help them realise it.
I'm asked about alternatives and risks, and, by God, there is one on the table, because those opposite want to scrap all of the arrangements that are making this possible. They want to get rid of the five per cent deposit program because, according to them, this is about supporting the children of billionaires. They want to get rid of Help to Buy, and now they want to scrap the level playing field that we are creating for first home buyers. What you are now continually seeing in this debate is that we're for change; these people are for the broken status quo. And they are the only ones defending it. Increasingly, they are the only people defending a broken system that locks people around this country out of homeownership.
I'm getting lots of backchat here, but I'd be pretty embarrassed too if I had been raised in the party of homeownership that has turned on the young people of this country with the force that those opposite have. We're creating a fairer situation for the young people of this country, but I want Australians to know that every piece of this will be unwound by those opposite.
I am pleased to welcome to the House as guests of the member for Monash a delegation from Fallen Diggers, a not-for-profit organisation dedicating their time to finding the remains of missing Australians who served in World War I and World War II as part of our military personnel and affording them honourable burials. Welcome to question time.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. Many young Australians are angry at the government for extending CGT changes beyond investment properties. After paying for high rents or while just managing with a mortgage and paying taxes on their incomes, many are starting new businesses on the side or investing in shares to build a buffer, and they now feel blindsided. What modelling has the government done on extending CGT changes beyond investment properties, and will you release it?
I thank the honourable member for her question. First of all, when it comes to young people, this is a budget for young people. It's a budget that recognises that, for too long in this country, young people have been locked out of the housing market, as the housing minister just explained to the House, and we're taking some difficult decisions to address that. For too long now, too many young people have seen this aspiration of homeownership as something that belongs to somebody else, and we want to fix that. We're here to make a difference in that regard.
We're also helping to make sure that the tax system is fairer for workers—predominantly, overwhelmingly for young people. Young people, overwhelmingly, earn income from working. Eighty-four per cent of young people earn 90 per cent or more of their taxable income from work. Here are a couple of new numbers—the honourable member asked me about modelling. Young people will be the biggest beneficiaries of the working Australians tax offset, and two-thirds of the recipients of our new tax cuts will be millennials and Gen Z, in 2027-28. Another new number comes from our thousand-dollar instant deduction: 2.3 million people under 35 will benefit, which is about 40 per cent of beneficiaries, as well as the 75,000 extra households that we will turn from rental households into homeowner households. So this is genuinely a budget for young people.
I'm asked about making sure that, by replacing one sense of unfairness in the system, one distortion in the system, we don't replace it with another. In dealing with this mistake that was made in 1999, which turbocharged house prices and decoupled incomes from house prices, we wanted to make sure that we didn't replace that mistake with another one. So this is about reducing distortions in the market.
Our changes mean that some people will pay less tax. The current discount undercompensates some investors for inflation and overcompensates others. On average, over the past 20 years, the indexation approach would have been broadly neutral or even a bit more generous for shareholders. The proportion of Australians who own shares has declined by almost 20 per cent since Howard and Costello made that mistake in 1999. This is why UBS said:
From a 'big picture' point of view, equities would become a relatively more competitive investment proposition …
NAB said:
By the principles of optimal tax policy, this change should deliver an efficient, fair and robust regime once fully implemented.
Westpac said, 'The tax system did overly encourage leveraged investment in property over investing in other things, whether that was the stock market or a business or something else that produced income.' That's why we're making these difficult changes. We know that they are contentious, but they are to benefit young people in the housing market and when it comes to income tax cuts, and that's the purpose of what we are trying to do.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How does the Albanese Labor government's budget strengthen Australia's fuel security? How does this compare with previous policies on fuel security?
I thank my honourable friend for the question. In the face of the largest energy crisis in the history of the world and in the face of one of our major refineries catching on fire at a very untimely development, I can report to the House that Australia has substantially more fuel today than we did on the day Iran was bombed. In fact, in relation to diesel, which the agriculture sector and regional Australia relies on so much, I'm pleased to tell the House that, at 38 days' worth of holdings, it is the highest holding Australia has had since the minimum stock obligation came into force in 2023. We have 43 days' worth of diesel and 31 days' worth of jet fuel. In fact, over the last seven weeks, we—the government and industry working together—have added a billion litres of extra stockholding, which, by way of comparison, is as much as the opposition has promised to add between now and 2030. That's what we've added over the last seven weeks, working with industry and working with refiners to ensure that we are fuel secure in the most difficult circumstances possible. In relation to Export Finance Australia, we've underwritten 800 million litres of extra supply to Australia to provide us with a buffer.
This is the approach the Albanese government has taken. In the face of all the world has thrown at us, Australians working to ensure that they use only the fuel they need and the government working with industry to ensure that we have extra supplies have seen Australia better placed than most countries. But we know that there's more to do. That's why the budget delivered by the Treasurer just a couple of weeks ago invested substantially in fuel security, because we believe that, if you're going to improve our strategic reserves, if you're going to improve our sovereignty, then it makes sense to have a sovereign strategic reserve held by the people for the people—a government owned reserve to ensure that we are better placed in the future. Most members of the International Energy Agency have a government owned reserve. Australia has been the exception.
This is a point of difference. This is a policy of the government opposed by those who do not think we should have a strategic government owned reserve. The honourable member asked me how our approach compares with previous approaches. We believe in a reserve held in our country for our country, not a reserve held for Australia in Texas, which was the situation we inherited. We believe in a government owned reserve to ensure that we are well placed, which is a position opposed by those opposite. These are the approaches that the Albanese government—
I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that.
I withdraw.
This is the approach of the government. It is to work with industry for Australians and to ensure that we are better placed, as these international fuel crises, frankly, are likely to get more frequent and worse, not better and less frequent, and to ensure our strategic sovereign capability is at the heart of this government's budget and will always be so.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Janet from Queensland has a child living with Down syndrome.
Government members interjecting—
Order! Members on my right. We're just going to reset. The same rules apply to both sides. The member for Goldstein will begin his question again and get to the question.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Janet from Queensland has a child living with Down syndrome. When she drew up her will many years ago, it included plans for a testamentary discretionary trust to protect her daughter. Now trusts like hers are set to be slugged with a new 30 per cent tax. Prime Minister, how much more will families caring for people with disabilities have to pay in tax because of your budget of broken promises and higher taxes?
We've made it very clear that there are exemptions for vulnerable people. That was there in the budget announcement on the Tuesday night. What the constituent from Brisbane shouldn't have to put up with is people promoting something in order to try to secure political advantage by scaring vulnerable people.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government working to reduce family, domestic and sexual violence?
Thank you so much to the member for Tangney. I know how passionately he cares about reducing family, domestic and sexual violence. A lot has changed in the last 50 years in the way that we regard issues around family, domestic and sexual violence. Back in the day when we were first discussing whether we should fund refuges, there were people in this place who actually said we wouldn't because that would break up families. We've seen so many advances because of the hard work of people on the frontline, because of the advocates and, of course, because of the actions of successive governments.
Last week we launched the next phase of this work with the consultation on the next action plan to reduce family, domestic and sexual violence because, just as we've had many successes, we've also seen a changing environment. Tech facilitated abuse is a new challenge for us. We're seeing rates of violence where both the perpetrator and the victim are under the age of 18 increasing quite dramatically. As our challenges evolve, we need to make sure that we are keeping up to date with the very best evidence and applying it to this problem so that we can truly end family, domestic and sexual violence.
No government has done more. We've invested an extra $4.4 billion under this Prime Minister in tackling this problem. That includes very substantial investments like making the leaving violence payment permanent; the $1.2 billion we're putting into thousands of new homes in crisis and transitional housing; the $183 million we put into the recent budget to make our child support system safer; the first standalone plan to tackle family, domestic and sexual violence in First Nations communities, with $218 million in this budget; boosting funding for our 500 Workers program by 70 per cent; boosting funding for 1800RESPECT by 40 per cent; providing really practical work and investment directly into programs that assist men and programs that assist adolescents; and dedicated funding for counselling for children who've been impacted by family and domestic violence, with more than $80 million going into that. We've introduced 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave. We've already passed legislation that makes sure that our social security system can't be weaponised by the perpetrators of family and domestic violence.
This is a challenge for every one of us. It's a challenge for both the Commonwealth government and states and territories to show leadership because, of course, governments have to lead here. Every Australian has the opportunity to make a difference when it comes to family, domestic and sexual violence, and every one of us has a responsibility to do so.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Forty young Australian founders have written an open letter to the Prime Minister saying: 'Rather than back us, the Prime Minister has ambushed us with a massive tax increase, a tax that will hit us, the Australians we hire and the investors who believe in us the hardest. This aspiration ambush doesn't just impact tech startups either. It impacts every growing business in Australia.' Does the Prime Minister finally acknowledge that his budget of broken promises and higher taxes will hurt Australian small-business owners?
I thank the member for his question. Indeed, we have in the budget $3½ billion of support for small business in additional initiatives that we have taken. We've said very clearly that on Thursday we'll introduce legislation. It will have the core elements of tax cuts that will particularly benefit young Australians, the standard deduction that will particularly benefit young Australians as well as the framework for the changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing. We've said that in addition to that we will have implementation legislation, and, as part of that process, we're consulting tech companies, startups as well as the groups that you'd expect us to consult that have already been involved. The council of Australian small business, the National Farmers' Federation and ACCI have all been involved in roundtables and have all been involved in the process, which is the normal way that you have tax reform.
This is a reform that is necessary—as it was called for by your shadow treasurer, for those very reasons. I want to point out that, indeed, the Treasurer isn't the only one who's read the book of the shadow treasurer. In fact, it's good reading. It's good reading because it puts the case for reform of capital gains tax and negative gearing very eloquently, and primarily it puts it in the context of intergenerational equity and the fact that young people are, to use the words of the shadow treasurer, 'getting screwed by the system'. That is what he has said.
Order! The shadow treasurer will pause so I can hear a point of order from the manager.
It's on relevance, Speaker. The question was about the letter written to the Prime Minister by the young entrepreneurs, not about the shadow minister's book.
On the point of order, the final sentence of the question started with the words, 'Does the Prime Minister finally acknowledge,' and then had a characterisation of the entire budget which opened the question wide.
And about hurting young Australians, so the Prime Minister is—
The whole budget is a broken promise.
Order! Leader of the Opposition, the manager was—
Alright. We'll just continue, then. I call the Prime Minister.
When it comes to young people, which is what the question went to, and the impact of the budget, as the shadow treasurer said, I confirm that I've looked at this book. It says: 'It's time to be honest. The tax system is screwing over young Australians.' That's what it says.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Members on my left.
It continues: 'Instead, it favours well-off established interests against those trying to get ahead.'
There is far too much noise. The member for Forrest can have some time out—
for three hours. If you're asked to leave by the Speaker, you definitely do not give commentary on the way out. It is a serious offence. If that occurs again, I'll be left with no other option but to name members.
The member for Forrest then left the chamber.
The fact is that over the years there have been fair dinkum people among those opposite, whether it be those who are still here or people like the former member for Menzies, who said: 'Current tax settings tilt incentives towards investors, particularly in existing stock. They reward bidding rather than building.' That is exactly right, former member for Menzies. (Time expired)
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government securing well-paid jobs in South Australia through historic investments in Defence? What indecision and uncertainty has this industry previously faced?
I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his advocacy on behalf of Australia's defence industry and his home state of South Australia.
Later this month, life-of-type extension work will begin on our Collins class submarines, which, in the journey of the most capable submarine that our nation has ever operated, is a very significant moment. But we get to this moment via a litany of Defence failures on the part of the Liberals when they were in government. Back in 2021, on the very day that the Morrison government announced a change of plans for our future submarine capability, the Liberals also announced a life-of-type extension of the Collins class, which would have seen it become interoperable with the Attack class submarines, which they had just cancelled. That is to say that the Collins class sustainment planning team literally did not get the AUKUS memo. This was breathtaking incompetence on the part of the former government.
When we came to government, we knew that this plan was in trouble. We commissioned Gloria Valdez to have a look at it. She found that it was horribly misguided. We also knew that it was chronically underfunded. The Liberals had set aside just $6 billion to do the entire job. By contrast, in the budget and the defence strategy that we announced a month ago, we have put aside $11 billion to do the life-of-type extension of Collins over just the next 10 years, and the work goes beyond that. The plan will make Collins a pathway to operating our future nuclear-powered submarine, and in the meantime it will see an increased availability of the Collins class in the here and now. The Collins LOTE will underpin around 1,400 jobs at the Osborne Naval Shipyard, in Adelaide. Along with the work to construct our future submarines and our future frigates, this will see 10,000 well-paid, secure jobs at Osborne, making it easily the largest industrial facility in the country.
This has been a difficult set of decisions because we have had to clean up a monumental Liberal mess, but the result is that the Collins class submarine will continue to be a potent capability and to serve all Australians for decades to come.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Aaron has written in about how Labor's tax changes will affect him. He says: 'I'm 39 and am supporting a young family with two children. I've been carefully investing in various high-growth assets over the last 10 years so that we may one day afford the Australian dream—our own home. These tax changes will be a disaster for families that have been building on a set of rules that are now being rug pulled.' Prime Minister, why is Labor's budget of broken promises and higher taxes punishing Aaron and his family, who are just trying to get ahead?
I thank the member for her question. We want Aaron and his family to have a roof over their head. Aaron is 39 years old, so the chances are Aaron's been in the workforce for 20 years but has been unable to secure his own roof over his head. It is precisely because of the circumstances of people like Aaron that we want them to aspire and get ahead—not aspiration for some but aspiration for all. That's what we on this side of the chamber stand for.
Let me say this: someone who knows something about housing, a fellow called Harry Triguboff, last weekend identified positive proposed changes to the capital gains tax and negative gearing for brand new properties:
Buyers are pivoting from the share market back into property and this is a direct result of the budget. Brand-new apartments are now top of the list for investors—
So what is happening? What is happening is precisely what these reforms are aimed at. If you want to get ahead, you can still invest in negative gearing. You can still get a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount. But, as well as building your own assets and your own wealth, you'll be building the assets and the wealth of the nation. That is precisely what it's about.
Meanwhile, Aaron, who's been in the workforce for 20 years—if Aaron goes to the auction next Saturday, he won't be standing there competing against someone who is, because they are an investor, going for their 10th house or their 12th house. If they have to go that extra 20 kay or $50,000 in order to win at the auction, you know why they can do that? Because all the taxpayers, including Aaron, are paying for the benefit to them. That's why they can do it. Instead of that, as a first home buyer, which Aaron will be, he has a real shot. We're about helping people like Aaron. You're about keeping them down.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Defence Industry will cease interjecting. I will just add a couple more people to the warnings list: that will be the member for Moncrieff, who had a good go, and the member for Casey. So the people on warnings are the member for Bowman, the minister for employment, the member for Petrie and the members for Moncrieff and Casey.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. How is the Albanese Labor government reforming our migration system? How does this compare to other approaches to migration?
I thank the member for Macarthur both for the incredible work he does in south-west Sydney and also the work he does for every one of his constituents, no matter where they come from.
In Australia we've seen net overseas migration fall to 45 per cent below where it peaked, and those opposite seem reluctant to acknowledge that, when the peak occurred, every single one of the settings were the settings they had left in place when the peak occurred. With the reduction of 45 per cent in net overseas migration, the largest part of the growth we had to deal with was in student visas. When we brought forward legislation not only to be able to cap the number of student visas but also to be able to link the number of student visas to student accommodation—link it directly to housing—what did those opposite do? They opposed the legislation. We also, in the budget, have flagged further changes we'll be making with respect to working holiday-makers. For those opposite, it was the National Party, before the election, that said they would be opposed to any changes to reducing the number of working holiday-makers.
In the budget reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition took a step that I haven't seen a political leader take in this place before. A lot's been made of what he said about permanent residents but there's one permanent resident he seems to like, in that Senator Pauline Hanson is a permanent resident inside his head, living rent free. He introduced a new argument that I've not seen before from any leader in this parliament, and that was to claim that, somehow, you will be more worthy as an Australian if you come from a liberal democracy. Somehow, you will be more worthy based on where you're from.
I'm going to invite the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that statement.
I withdraw.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition. We will continue with the Leader of the House.
A claim that you would be more worthy to be an Australian based on where you're from, not who you are. I remind the Leader of the Opposition of some of the people who've come to this nation who are not from liberal democracies. He wanted to refer to the Snowy River Scheme. I'd remind him that the number of people who came post World War II who had been living in fascist Europe, not in a liberal democracy. There are number of people who've come from the former USSR, including Australia's proud Ukrainian community, who had not come from a liberal democracy. There are members of Australia's Chinese communities who, ever since the days of the gold rush, have been coming and building this country—and not coming from a liberal democracy. The Vietnamese community are not from a liberal democracy. We love Australia for the nation that we are, not a warped idea turning people against each other.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister please inform the House if there were lobbyists or representatives of the gas industry at the Labor Party's budget night fundraiser?
That is technically not allowed. I only say that under standing orders and previous practice. Party affairs and matters, particularly of the nature raised, have always been ruled out of questions. Perhaps the member for Ryan would wish to rephrase her question, but she won't be able to ask that sort of question to any minister or the Prime Minister.
It goes to the Prime Minister's official duties on budget night and his attendance at meetings with organisations and people seeking to influence government policy. I'm asking on behalf of the Australian people.
I don't think we want to go down that road, member for Ryan. It is pretty clear that those questions aren't allowed, but, if the Prime Minister wishes to give some comments to the House regarding that topic—I don't want to open this up too wide, but the Prime Minister can address it.
I have two points on the topic. The largest ever corporate donation that I'm aware of was to the Greens political party from the operator of a website and an accommodation search, so I make that point. The second point I make is that before I became Prime Minister, under the former government, there were fundraisers in this building, in ministerial offices, in the Prime Minister's office and in the Speaker's office. I, together with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President, after I wrote to them, stopped that, and that is a good thing.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business. How is the Albanese Labor government continuing to deliver for Australian small businesses in the face of global uncertainty?
I want to thank the member for Moore for his question. On Thursday, the member for Moore and I visited Industrial Automation in Joondalup. Industrial Automation is the brainchild of Hank. For over a decade, Hank has been helping local communities to adopt technology that saves them both time and money. Businesses like Hank's are the very reason that we're focused on supporting Australia's 2.7 million small businesses. Since we came into office in 2022, we've worked diligently to deliver for small business. I want to go through the whole list, but it's quite significant, so I'm going to try and get through it all in under three minutes.
We've made the payment times reporting regime work for small businesses, with faster payment times, and we've issued our first ever fine. We're taking steps to streamline the National Construction Code. Our free TAFE has increased the pool of skilled workers for small business. We've incentivised more apprenticeships. We've halved the fuel excise and reduced the heavy vehicle road user charge to help buffer the impacts of global events. We've strengthened the enforcement of the Franchising Code of Conduct. We've increased penalties for unfair contract terms and extended protections for unfair trading practices. We've invested in digital solutions and cyber-resilience and the Small Business Debt Helpline. We've made changes to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules to ensure Australian small businesses get a bigger slice of government procurement opportunities—and that's not all.
Last week's budget goes even further to ensuring small businesses have the settings that they need not just to survive but also to thrive. It includes $3.5 billion in new measures that deliver business tax relief to support resilience, investment and growth. For small businesses, this includes making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent; making the two-year loss carryback permanent; introducing loss refundability to support startup businesses; expanding tax incentives for venture capital—
Increased taxes, increased taxes, increased taxes.
The member for Page is now warned.
reforming the research and development tax incentive, including allowing young businesses greater access to the refundable tax offset as they grow; reducing red tape across the economy with the 'tell us once' approach—and that's going to cut regulatory costs by $10.2 billion; removing another 497 nuisance tariffs, saving businesses around $127 million in compliance costs; tax cuts for sole traders, including the new $250 working Australians tax offset; further work with states on payroll tax and retail tenancy harmonisation; and programs to ensure small businesses benefit from the uptake of digital skills—all things we've done in just four years. We know there's more to do, and we'll continue to back small businesses because small businesses back Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's broken promise to ration allied health services for veterans at $5,000 per year. How many veterans will be out of pocket and forced to pay for another Labor broken promise because the Prime Minister has chosen to rip the guts out of allied health services for our veterans?
I'll make a couple of points before I hand over to the minister. One of the things I'm really conscious of is support for our veterans. Indeed, when we came to office, one of the reasons why the member for Calare is sitting up there and not over there—apart from having the good common sense to leave National Party—is what they did to veterans affairs when they were in government in terms of budget. When we came to government, we inherited a backlog of almost 42,000 veteran compensation claims that hadn't even been looked at by someone. This had real-life consequences for veterans and their families. We invested in DVA, and, as a result, now when a veteran makes a claim it's in front of someone within 14 days. DVA is processing claims at record levels. This is the most critical thing—as well as the hubs that we've created providing services for veterans. I'll ask the minister if he wants to add something.
Thank you, Prime Minister. The budget contained an additional $169.7 million to increase the fees going to allied health providers to support our veterans. This is the biggest increase in two decades and will kick in in July 2027. It's going to see physiotherapy services go from being paid $75.10 to $110 so veterans can access better services. The previous government had implemented their treatment cycle to constrain access to allied health services, so veterans had to keep going back to a GP after every 12 sessions. We're changing that to the $5,000 limit to make it easier for veterans, and, importantly, we're ensuring that veterans that have a genuine clinical need to go over it will continue to have access to the allied health services that they require.
Has the minister concluded his answer?
No.
Resume your seat so I can hear from the member for Herbert on his point of order.
I seek leave to table the recommendation from the royal commission. Veterans deserve better than these Albanese Labor lies. These are lies that you are peddling. It is ridiculous.
Before we go any further, we'll get the Leader of the House to pause a moment, and we're going to get the member for Herbert to withdraw that last comment.
I'm not withdrawing at all. People will die because of this legislation. It is disgusting.
Order! No. The Leader of the Opposition has followed my direction on two occasions. I'm going to ask the member for Herbert to withdraw to follow the forms of the House.
I'm not withdrawing.
I'll have to deal with this matter. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Speaker, to help with this matter, in your ruling last week you said:
I think it's in the best interest for both sides not to be referring to any individuals, people or parties using that term.
There is precedent where the now minister for health—I think he was the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business at the time—referred to 'government lies'. As I was listening to the member for Herbert, he referred to the 'Albanese Labor government's lies'. At the time, the now minister for home affairs, then the Manager of Opposition Business, said this in defence of what the now minister for health said: 'On that point—
Government members interjecting—
I'm just trying to do my best to help here. The then manager of opposition business said:
On that point, the phrase, with respect to Labor, has been used many times …
Speaker, I'm just trying to help. I think the member for Herbert was referring to the Albanese Labor government.
Yes, and Speaker Snedden in 1980 ruled that such a remark was out of order. We can dance around this all we want. The Leader of the Opposition did follow my direction and assisted the House, as every other member has done. I know the member for Herbert is taking a different position here, but we need to be consistent, as all speakers have done, regarding that word. There are countless examples that I can talk about of individuals or people, but we're not going down that path with me as Speaker. We're simply not going to travel that path. I'll give the member for Herbert one more chance to assist the House and withdraw. The Prime Minister.
Perhaps I can help. I have every respect for the member for Herbert as a former veteran, as we all do. But I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his member to withdraw in accordance with—
Honourable members interjecting—
We're going to deal with this one at a time. The Prime Minister.
I am trying to find a way through here in the interests of the decorum of the House. It is very important, and it is in the interests of the member for Herbert as well. I have visited his electorate with him, and I know that he's passionate about these issues. But it really is in the interests of the decorum of the House. You cannot reach a point where you have the Speaker's ruling be defied.
The member for Herbert is refusing to withdraw that comment. That leaves me with no other choice but to name the member for Herbert.
I move:
That the Member for Herbert be suspended from the service of the House.
The question is that the member for Herbert be suspended from the service of the House.
The member for Herbert shall remove himself from the service of the House for 24 hours.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How does the Albanese Labor government's budget build on the government's commitment to backing Australian workers? How does this compare to other approaches to supporting Australian workers?
I'd like to thank the member for Blair for not only that question but also his commitment to hard-working Australians in his electorate and right around the country. Now, this budget is all about supporting workers and levelling the playing field. Because of this Labor government, hard-working Australians will be receiving five tax cuts, meaning the average worker will benefit up to $2,800. From 1 July this year, every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut and will again on 1 July next year. The Albanese government is delivering a new $250 tax cut to the 13.3 million workers in this budget through introducing the new working Australians tax offset. We're also introducing a $1,000 instant deduction to provide tax relief for workers and make tax time easier.
These tax cuts build on our commitment to help working Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. Of course, it's this Labor government that has backed the lowest paid workers at the Fair Work Commission each and every year, and this year Labor has again made a submission advocating to the commission for an economically sustainable real wage increase for workers on minimum award wages. Under our government, the minimum award wage has increased by more than $9,000, directly helping 2.7 million award reliant workers.
We've also introduced significant reforms to reinvigorate enterprise bargaining, and enterprise bargaining continues to be a source of wages growth for Australian workers. Workers covered by enterprise agreements are enjoying the strongest wages growth in the nation, rising by 9.6 per cent on average in the latest ABS data.
Now, these are all part of our plan to ease cost-of-living pressures and help Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. But I am asked if there are any other approaches, and, of course, we do have a different approach from those opposite. When they had the chance to vote for tax cuts for working Australians, what did they do? They voted against working Australians. But they didn't stop there. They took that promise to an election to up the taxes on working Australians. Of course, they voted against every single measure we've taken to support working Australians. In fact, I just heard the Leader of the Opposition argue against our advocacy for a minimum wage increase. Well, they need to be honest. Do they support low-paid working Australians? Does he support the lowest paid workers in Australia, or will he just back vested interests?
I ask that further questions be placed on notice paper.
I present the Auditor-General's reports No. 32 of 2025-26 Administration of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 by Selected Entitiesand No.33 Defence's Collins Class Submarines Life of Type Extension — Planning and Implementation.
Documents made parliamentary papers.
This document is tabled in accordance with the lists circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Document made a parliamentary paper.
These documents are tabled in accordance with the lists circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating a member to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Education for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the factors driving educational attainment.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Repacholi be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Education for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the factors driving educational attainment.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report Report 3/2026—referrals made in November 2025.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Again, on behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's third report for 2026 and the fifth for the 48th parliament. This report considers the following four proposed works: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Great Barrier Reef Aquarium Redevelopment project, for an estimated budget of $161.1 million; Department of Defence—9 Molonglo Drive project, Brindabella Park, Australian Capital Territory, for an estimated budget of $103.9 million; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Refurbishment of Australian High Commission Staff Residential Compound, Konedobu, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, for an estimated budget of $37.3 million; and Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts—Proposed Fit-out of New Leased Premises at One City Hill, Canberra City, for an estimated budget of $46.4 million.
In considering these proposed works, the committee received submissions, held private briefings and conducted public and in camera hearings with relevant government officials and other interested parties. Additionally, the committee travelled to Townsville to visit the Great Barrier Reef Aquarium to see first-hand the condition of the site and also went to the Australian Institute of Marine Science to see some of the aquarium's marine life that are temporarily stored at the institute. After giving due consideration to the evidence that the committee received, the committee is recommending that it is expedient for all of the proposed works to proceed.
The committee sees merit in all of the proposals. Not only is the Great Barrier Reef Aquarium vital for the continuing economic prosperity of Townsville; it also plays an essential public education role in the unique marine ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef and allows people to experience the reef without getting wet. The proposed works will allow the marine park authority to continue to offer a world-class aquarium experience for domestic and international tourists and maintain a central place in reef education and research. The works proposed by the Department of Defence at Brindabella Park will allow Defence to consolidate its four existing leases in the area into one while reducing its total leased area and upgrading the fit-out to ensure compliance with modern standards and Defence security requirements. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's proposed refurbishment of the residential compound at the High Commission in Port Moresby will provide the first major upgrade to the facility since coming into service 30 years ago. The works will see 39 residences undergo internal refurbishment to address risks to staff wellbeing and rising costs associated with routine maintenance, thereby extending the life of the facility by at least 20 years. Finally, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts's proposed fit-out of newly leased office accommodation at One City Hill represents stage 2 of the department's precinct model. The committee recommended expediency for stage 1 of the move late last year. The department's precinct model will allow it to reduce its net lettable area of office space in Canberra by 40 per cent. The proposed works will enable the department to vacate its current lease at the Nishi Building and relocate to new premises at One City Hill.
I thank all the members of the committee who participated in the inquiry, and I particularly thank the secretariat for their background work, which certainly assisted the committee in coming to its recommendations. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (6) as circulated in my name together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".
(2) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:
4 Sunsetting of amendments
The amendments made by Schedules 1 and 2 are repealed on 2 July 2026.
(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 2), omit "may", substitute "must not".
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (lines 20 to 22), omit "which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026", substitute "which must not be before the commencement of this section".
(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 10 (lines 1 to 3), omit "which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026", substitute "which must not be before the commencement of this section".
(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 12 (lines 1 to 3), omit "which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026", substitute "which must not be before the commencement of this section".
The amendments would remove the retrospective application of the bill. The government has introduced this bill with a 1 April 2026 retrospective start date, but we don't have any detail or any explanation of why that date is needed. We're happy to work constructively with the government on these issues, but this is a matter of competition law, and we don't know if there's been a breach of the law that the government is aware of. This amendment would remove the retrospectivity of the law. The amendments would also introduce a sunset clause to the bill. The changes to the bill would sunset on 2 July 2026. This would allow for the bill to be passed, a proper inquiry to occur and then the legislation to remove the sunset clause if appropriate. We are trying to be constructive. We are willing to support this bill, even without an inquiry, if it is not retrospective and has a sensible sunset clause.
The government will not be supporting these amendments. The world is facing the largest shock to oil supply that we have seen in world history. In response to that, the government is putting in place unprecedented measures in order to ensure that fuel supply flows and to put downward pressure on fuel prices. This is part of the armoury of the government's response. It is important that it have the breadth as outlined in the bill and that it be able to take effect as outlined. These are important measures which will help consumers by ensuring that there can be coordinated action where it is to the benefit of motorists but not where it is to the detriment of motorists. I commend the unamended bill to the House.
The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Page be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2025-2026. There being no objection, the chair will allow that course to be followed.
It's wonderful to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2025-2026 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2025-2026 in the context of this current budget, because we know full well that this current budget was born of deceit, was built on a house of broken promises and continues to be perpetuated by a prime minister whose relationship with the truth has, let's say, a gulf—a divide much larger than the two sword lengths that divide this House.
Unfortunately, we have a situation now where you simply cannot trust anything the Prime Minister says in the lead-up to an election, let alone what he then goes on and does afterwards. Normally, you would expect, in this set of circumstances, some humility, but what we have seen instead is a doubling down of that deceit, untruth and misleading, deceptive conduct. If you think about it, Deputy Speaker Chesters, if this were the Competition and Consumer Act, the Prime Minister would be in direct violation. But, in the Parliament of Australia, he's just another member of the Labor Party—that's the problem. At the heart of this budget is a deceit for which every Australian is paying a significant price today, but the real damage is in the hollowness it gives to the walls that surround us, because Australians lose faith in their democracy and in the people who seek public office. That is a condemnation not just of the Prime Minister and his budget but also of the Labor Party, who continue to tolerate his deceit and the impact it has not just on them but also on the entirety of the institution of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.
Let's look at the specifics of this budget and what it is doing to the Australian community. It has proposed a series of new tax measures that were not supported by the government in the lead-up to last election, when the Prime Minister was red hot with his own rage—today, in question time, was another day the Prime Minister struggled to keep his cool—denying 50 times over, when asked by impertinent journalists, whether he was going to introduce new taxes in this budget. We now know the truth, which is, despite his denials, his obfuscation, his attempts to mislead and deceive, he has had to confront the Australian people, and the Treasurer does as well.
I'm very much enjoying the extent to which they're quoting from an excellent book in their answers in question time. There's a difference between somebody who has read Marx and someone who understands it—or between someone who's read or written the new social contract and the Treasurer, who simply does not understand it. At the centre of our political worldview is the idea that young Australians can get ahead—that they can back themselves and one day put themselves in a position not just to own a home but to continue on and of course go all the way through to be able to buy a home and set up a business.
Instead, the Treasurer seems to only half read content in excellent books because he somehow thinks it can be part of his political manifesto or a distraction. He doesn't understand that we Liberals believe in lower income taxes. We believe in lower income taxes because we believe that young Australians get ahead because, when they pay lower income taxes, they're actually able to keep more of what they earn. They're then able to use it as leverage to put themselves in a better position into the future. Of course, being in the strongest position, they can then go on and financially support themselves through every stage of life.
But what have we had from this government? Within six months of the last election and the so called income tax cuts it offered, they were obliterated by the Treasurer's active inflation agenda. In this budget, again, the government has said that it's going to introduce income tax cuts, but they will be obliterated by inflation within six months. So, when the Australian people are sitting around their Christmas tables later this year, everything they have got back in their income tax will have been obliterated; they will be paying more for what they buy, paying more for the cost of their Christmas dinner; and, of course, they'll be in a weaker position to be able to support themselves and their families at a critical time.
But the real tragedy of this situation is the extent to which the government is now seeking to punch down at the small-business owners of this nation. During question time, we saw the most bizarre question asked to the Minister for Small Business, and I almost thought to myself, 'I don't know that people should be taking hallucinogens in the chamber,' after hearing some of the answers. The reality of the situation now being faced by small businesses across this country could not be starker, could not be clearer.
Small businesses in Australia right now are living through the highest number of insolvencies in our nation's history. I hear one of the ministers, on the other side of the chamber, exhaling a deep sigh at the moment as though it's unfortunate that somebody dare make this subtle point. But the reality is Australians are living this reality. Australians are living in a small-business environment of carnage because of the decisions of this government. They are facing a cost-of-small-business crisis, where their costs are rising faster than their revenue and where they are desperately gasping for air to get ahead.
On the weekend I was down in Black Rock, in the federal electorate of Goldstein, and—I can't say I was shocked—in one sense I was relieved that so many small businesses still felt like it was worth talking to elected officials about the scale of the problems rather than giving up, because there's nothing more disastrous than silence. Small businesses are coming to me and saying: 'We can't get ahead after the measures from COVID, particularly from the state government; after the taxes; after the GST; after the WorkCover premiums; after the costs; after inflation; and after the interest rates. We can't get ahead and we just need six months to breathe rather than spending our whole time feeling like we're completely under assault.'
All they've heard from this government since then has been: 'Why don't you pay more taxes? Why don't the small businesses of this nation continue to contribute just that little bit more? Why can't the small businesses of this country afford more costs? Why can't the small businesses of this nation afford more electricity bills? Why can't they afford more wages? Why can't they afford more rents? Why can't they afford to pay more tax? And, even if you voted Labor at the last election, we are going to break the promise we took to you at the last election.' That's why small business is angry. That's why small businesses are looking at this government and saying, 'Your job is supposed to be to back us.' That's why small businesses are looking at this government, the Albanese government, and saying, 'You said you'd be on our side, but now you're punching down at us instead.' And they're angry.
There have been so many stories. There was one from Warren from Hampton, who talked explicitly about how he struggled to keep his business going, particularly during the COVID years, which turned a company worth about a million dollars plus into one with income tax losses. Due to unprecedented circumstances outside of their control, they're now at the point where they're struggling on how they're going to get ahead. The company has run for 16 years and had 20 staff at its peak. For the first three years, of course, like many small-business founders they didn't draw a wage whatsoever and instead worked for what we call sweat equity, which is to get ahead to be in a position one day to cash in, and that might also be the foundation of their retirement planning. If they had just, by comparison, stayed in the workforce and not tried to build something, they could have been substantially financially better off, but instead they backed themselves to create pathways to get ahead for themselves and their family because they wanted to leave a legacy and they wanted to build something that their kids would be proud of.
Well, what's the Albanese government's response to that? They're just going to kick Warren to the kerb. They're just going to turn around and say, 'Your life's hard work and savings aren't worth the effort.' And they're turning around to the next generation of Australians and saying, 'Don't even try.' We heard that in question time today. The Treasurer was wishing failure for a 17-year-old who set up a small business in her bedroom. I can't believe how despicable the conduct of the Treasurer has become, but such is his defence of his own budget, an environment where—this is utterly indefensible—he hoped that a 17-year-old failed in their small business, to get him out of a political bind that he started with the Prime Minister, having stitched it up on the back of a house of broken promises before the last election, and betrayed in this budget. That's not something adults do and it's certainly not something they should be proud of, but that's the reality of this budget: deceit, broken promises and a willingness to punch down on teenagers.
Where is the aspiration? Where is the willingness for young Australians to get ahead? Where is the government turning around to the next generation of Australians and saying, 'Look to the horizon with confidence and hope, because we can build a better future together'? Instead what we have been told by this government in this budget is that young Australians shouldn't dare to dream; instead it's better to pay a higher tax rate, which makes it harder for everybody to get ahead, and not lift the nation to a better future together.
I've never seen a government that has so wallowed in the soft bigotry of low expectations as the Albanese government. I have never seen a government in this nation's history, certainly not in my lifetime, that seems to have enjoyed the failure of Australians through more burdensome taxes rather than empowering and lifting them up. For them to come into this chamber and to boast with excitement that somehow they have a vision for the future that's going to improve the living standards of Australians has simply not been borne out of their political agenda to date, where Australian households have gone backwards, but more importantly it has not been borne out by the political program they have taken for the future.
This government has a disgraceful record. I still remember when they came into this chamber after the 2022 election and carried on about getting real wages moving. The reality is real wages have gone backwards under this government. Australians are poorer. Real wages have gone back by three per cent over the life of the Albanese government because of their active inflation agenda, and where inflation goes interest rates go as well. They have seen 15 rate rises, and Australian households with an average mortgage and with an average wage are now receiving $32,000 a year less in purchasing power.
There's a reason Australians feel like they're falling behind under the Albanese government. It's because they are. And for this prime minister and this treasurer to get up, cock-a-hoop, in this chamber and say what a wonderful job they're doing and that they're backing Australians to get ahead is arguably even worse than the deceit that they took to the last election. When are you going to own the fact that you broke a promise and you betrayed the Australian people? The least you could do is say it was necessary because you were trying to build a better future. But they were in complete reverse—what they're doing is kicking Australians while they're down.
You heard this today again from the Treasurer, who kicked young Australians while they're down and while they're studying their HSC. His conclusion was to hope for their failure, because then it would get him out of his political problem. The Australian people see through the deception, the dishonesty and the fraud of this government, this prime minister, this treasurer and the legacy they're going to leave behind. When we see the members who sit immediately behind the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in question time, my new nickname for them is 'cannon fodder', because you can tell very clearly that they're the ones the Prime Minister has chosen to throw to the wolves at the next election and make sure they're discarded. That's a necessary price. So to all of those members there: I wish you well in your endeavours, because the Australian community will never forgive you for the deceit, the dishonesty and the betrayal that they have brought upon this House.
There are so many different stories, from capital gains tax to income taxes, where the communities have been betrayed. I hear this all the time from young Australians who are saving to get ahead. There is nothing more basic than young Australians saving to be able to buy their first home and secure a deposit. Well, there was—until the Albanese government. We know that the Labor government's only answer is to turn around to every single young Australian that now uses an online platform to buy shares, to buy crypto and to buy ETFs and double the tax rate that can apply to the growth they secure. So, if you're getting ahead, the answer from the Albanese government is, 'How do we take half the share?'
That's why you're seeing so many small-business owners and young Australians in open revolt at this government. They don't just feel betrayed; they know the Albanese government is coming after them and their capacity to get ahead. You're seeing this with what's been changed with rents and of course with saving a first home deposit. The Albanese government's own budget makes it clear that rents will increase under their new tax changes. I don't know about you, Deputy Speaker, but I generally think it's good to have lower rents. But we're now living in the parallel Chalmers universe. Then, of course, they've added new taxes to the investments that young Australians put into the market so they can save, whether it's crypto, whether it's ETFs or whether it's shares or some other type of investment vehicle.
What's happening? Young Australians are writing to us through, amongst other things, our 'Not the Tax' website—www.notthetax.com.au—and telling us stories. For example, Michael and Daisy are at uni and have jobs in hospitality to support themselves. Both invested some of their earnings in a small share portfolio to help grow a nest egg. Now, they will be liable for 30 per cent tax, when they don't even qualify for the lowest tax bracket on their earnings as waiters. We see this all the time. That was a story from somebody in Beaumaris, where young Australians are applying themselves and putting energy into getting ahead, and the response has been that those opposite turn around and chuck a higher tax on those who are actually saving to build a better future.
So, under the Albanese government, it's higher rents and higher taxes on your first home deposit—and then they're going to build fewer homes. I don't know whether we're all going cuckoo bananas, but I would have thought that, if you're going to run a budget that is focused explicitly on how to get young Australians into buying their first home, building fewer homes probably isn't the way to get there. But, in the parallel Albanese universe, that's where we are—where facts, reason, evidence, rational thought are now a bygone consideration of the focus of this government. We have a government that have proposed higher rents, higher taxes on first home deposits and fewer homes—and that, according to their narrative, is the way we're going to make sure that young Australians can get ahead and buy their first home.
It's like the betrayal that they took to the last election continues unabated. It's like the betrayal of the Australian community that the Albanese government took is something that they're proud of. It's like it's something that they continue to perpetuate because they just don't have the capacity to turn around to the Australian community and say: 'Perhaps we got it wrong. Perhaps we should have been more truthful. Perhaps we should have been straight with the Australian community.' But here we are, and the consequence will be the carnage that is going to be experienced by so many Australians—and it's devastating.
It's clear this government doesn't actually understand how the Australian economy runs. You see this consistently. The Treasurer keeps borrowing from the future to pay for today. The Treasurer keeps pouring debt petrol on the inflation fire, so inflation rages. Every time somebody says, 'Do you think we should put that out?' the Treasurer says: 'I've got a solution. We'll chuck more debt petrol on it and inflame it further.' And, as the living standards of Australia continue to corrode, everyone else on the Labor Party side encourages them to keep burning away the future aspirations and dreams of the Australian people. It's truly extraordinary. The Treasurer doesn't understand the economy, and he's lost control of the economy. Inflation is going in one direction; fiscal policy is going in the other. We have a situation where interest rates continue to go up in direct correlation with the challenges of inflation that the government is persisting with.
At some point, the government are going to have to accept that they are not the solution to this problem. The Albanese government is the cause of Australia's inflation problem. They're the reason that interest rates continue to rise. They're the reason that Australian households feel worse off. The Albanese government is the reason why Australians are falling behind. The Albanese government is the reason that we have record small-business insolvencies, and under this package that has come through the budget, more small businesses are going to be kicked to the kerb.
We have changes around trusts. During question time, in the most extraordinary act of hubris—actually, I'm not sure that I could say it was the most extraordinary act of hubris on the Prime Minister's part, but it's certainly a contender for his top 10—he openly dismissed concerns about trusts set up to protect the interests of people with a disability. He openly dismissed concerns about the impact of the Albanese government's new taxes on those in vulnerable situations. The Prime Minister openly showed contempt and laughed during a question about the challenges faced by Australians with Down syndrome. He openly laughed. The Assistant Treasurer, who sits there and dismisses that in the chamber right now, can go back and look at the record. He openly laughed at people with a disability and people living with Down syndrome and the impact their tax change might have on them.
Do you know what it reminds me of, Deputy Speaker? I remember this behaviour from 2018-19. I remember that, in 2018-19, so many members of the Labor caucus behaved like trained seals and simply applauded Bill Shorten, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, while we showed evidence after evidence of human stories. They were set to push 85-year-olds down the financial stairs, and they mocked and they laughed. They mocked and laughed at people with a disability who were going to be harmed then just like they did today.
They stand condemned because, when it comes down to it, they know that, in addition to the deceit and the broken promises that led to the government betraying the Australian people at this election, the human stories of the impact of their new taxes are the ones that deserve tears. But instead today we got mocking and laughing at people with a disability, when yesterday the Prime Minister shed a tear for his own new taxes—such was his joy.
This government isn't interested in the Australian people, their advancement or their aspiration. This government doesn't have the best interests of the Australian people at heart. This government is focused on how they empower themselves, control Australians and kick people to the kerb. This government was built on a pile of broken promises and is simply not empowering young Australians to get ahead, but they're quite happy to suffocate their spirit.
Whether it's the changes they're making to the number of houses that are being built, which they openly acknowledge will lead to higher rents; whether it is the changes they're making to capital gains tax, which will increase the taxes on first home deposits for those who save, sacrifice and invest to build a better future for themselves and their family; or whether it's the changes they're making so that families can secure their financial future, their freedom and their confidence, the only answer the government has is to kick them and to take away the hard work and effort that they've applied. They show disinterest towards the most vulnerable in the community, because, at the end of the day, they are just speed humps in the government's active agenda to corrode the very social fabric and economic fabric that makes the success of this country.
This is the challenge. Normally we have a government where, whether we love them or dislike them, they at least have a sense of empathy for people who are doing it tough and they have empathy for those who've sacrificed and worked hard to get ahead. They've worked hard, and there's a simple respect. This is no longer the Labor Party of years past; they would never seek to punish or kneecap the next generation of Australians to get ahead. But today that is the Labor Party that the Australian people live with, and that's embodied in the very attitude that this government now brings. From their voting for censorship of members of parliament for calling out deceit through to their kneecapping of young Australians who are saving for a better future and their undermining of people with a disability trying to be financially independent, no-one is safe from the Albanese government's agenda to increase taxes on Australians.
So the question now for all of us is: what do we do about this legislation? We have so many Australians looking to this parliament and asking, 'How do we rebuild a sense of trust in an environment built of so much deceit?' They're not looking to the Albanese government and concluding that they have our backs. Instead, they're looking at this parliament and questioning what has happened to our country and asking how we take it back.
There are so many Australians now who are looking to this parliament and saying, 'We cannot wait for this government to end.' They want a change in direction and they want a renewal of our country, and the start of a renewal of our country is the end of the Albanese government and its higher-taxing agenda that seeks to punish those who work hard to get ahead. Now is the time Australian people need to rise up and stand up against their government and overturn the record of dishonesty, deception and distrust that they have sown within our community. When Australians turn to each other and build a brighter future, we can build a better country. The only thing standing in the way of a better nation is the Albanese government, who are treating Australians like roadkill, but the Australian people should treat them in kind.
Now is the time for us, as Australians, to define our future. We can look to the horizon and build a better economic future where young Australians can get ahead, a future where they can aspire to own their own home, a future where they can aspire to build a small business and employ others—a future where they can be part of sewing themselves into the great story of this country because they believe in themselves and our trajectory as a people. That is what this government is seeking to suffocate. This government has no respect for the Australian people. It has no interest in advancing the Australian people and in enabling them to get ahead. It has no interest in finding the energy that sits at the heart of the Australian people and their entrepreneurial spirit, enabling them to be enterprising, to grow and to be part of a better future.
But that day will end. This government will end. There will be a time in this nation when the Albanese government will be kicked to the kerb, where as they belong, and we will see a pathway of growth and opportunity because we will have a government, led by Prime Minister Angus Taylor, that is focused on empowering the Australian people—a government that is led and focused through a Liberal-National coalition. In our hearts, we believe that the best interest of this country does not come from Canberra down. It comes from empowered citizens, families, communities and small businesses getting ahead. From that foundation, we fundamentally believe that we can build a better nation. We have hope for the future, we believe in Australians, and we know that the best days of this country are ahead of us.
The Albanese government want to permeate, to create and to feed an environment of despair. We will not let them snuff out the torch of liberty, hope and aspiration for the future of this country. We will not let them cackle and gesture and cheer from the sidelines on the government benches, because some of us still believe in this country and its promise. Some of us believe that this nation can reach its full potential. Some of us believe that this nation's best days are ahead of it.
The only thing that is getting in the way of the Australian people is the Albanese government and the members who get up here and repeat their talking points to justify the deceit, distrust and dishonesty that has been at the heart of this government, has been born of this government and sits in the Prime Minister's chair. He is a man who has no integrity or trust left with the Australian people. That, of course, has long part been of the Labor Party legacy. But there's a time in this nation's history when good people need to stand up and call it out. Whether it's the startups of this country, the small businesses, the investors, the workers or anybody else who can now see through the dishonesty and distrust of this prime minister, they now know that the only way we will achieve change as a country is if we see the back of the Albanese government.
Do not give up, people of Australia. Better days are ahead. This government will end their higher-taxing agenda that saps the energy of this nation. It will end, and that cannot come soon enough.
I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the 2025-26 supplementary additional estimates appropriation bills. I won't speak at length on this debate, but I do want to briefly correct the record when it comes to what is frankly a shameful and inaccurate characterisation of question time by the shadow Treasurer when it came to a question he asked the Prime Minister about the way trusts for vulnerable people will be treated moving forward. As the Prime Minister clearly said in his answer, arrangements were set out in the budget that vulnerable children, special discretionary trusts and other kinds of arrangements like that will be exempted from changes in the budget.
For the shadow Treasurer, who asked a question that was clearly based not in fact but in a misunderstanding of what was in the budget, to come in here and, out of his embarrassment, misrepresent what the Prime Minister said is, frankly, quite pathetic. Other than that, I would like to thank all members, and I commend these bills to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
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.
It is one of the greatest privileges of someone who represents this place to stand and speak on the appropriation bills. Unlike other bills that come before the House, which may have an effect on certain parts of your community, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2), which we're going to be debating, concurrently touch everyone in our community. They touch our businesses, they touch our first home owners, they touch our farmers and they touch those who are aspirant and who want to build careers, build businesses and employ people in our community. I feel compelled to come in here and share the frustrations that I'm hearing from those people who are feeling deceived and who are feeling that, at one stage, they had confidence that, when the government said something, it could be trusted. That is no longer the case.
These appropriation bills give me the opportunity to talk about the deceitful taxes—the taxes that the Australian public, and my electorate, were told were not going to be imposed on them. They were told not just once or twice that they weren't going to be imposed on them. When a journalist asked the Prime Minister, 'Are you going to introduce a capital gains tax?' the response was, 'For the 50th time, no.' That was unequivocal. Before the election, Australians knew that there was not going to be a tax, but then, immediately after, it appears in the budget. Unfortunately for us on this side, when claims like that are made by government members—leaders of the party, the Treasurer—it has an effect and a stench on all of us in this House. It is a pox on all of our houses. If you were to straw poll people in the Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne mall and ask them, 'Do politicians tell the truth?' nine out of 10 of them would say no. They all think we lie. It's unfortunate that these pieces of evidence—saying one thing before an election and doing another—are becoming too often a feature of the Australian Labor Party's modus operandi.
Winston Churchill, the former English prime minister, once said of taxes: 'Trying to tax a nation into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle. You can't do it.' Those on the other side take a different view. We don't. Our philosophy within the Liberal and National parties is lower taxes. Our philosophy is smaller government. I'm glad that there are members in the chamber to hear these contributions and to be reminded.
I was reminded by my dear partner, who is an English teacher. She prompted me, in this current political climate, to reread a book that I read in senior. It was written by a famous author by the name of George Orwell. The title of the book is Nineteen Eighty-Four. It was written in the 1970s. It's a great book. It's heavy reading for a 16- or17-year-old, but, when you revisit it, you really understand the nuances of how this government is using the duplicitous meanings of the Ministry of Truth and its core function of altering history. One of the main character's key tasks in the book was to work at the Ministry of Truth. His job was to go into a room and find newspaper clippings and rewrite them to the government's narrative. If they said one thing one day and then backflipped on it, they would go in and rewrite all the clippings so that, when history reviewed itself, those claims had no evidence. They were removed from history.
One of his other tasks was to falsify statistics, changing production figures to show the economy as always improving when it clearly was not. We only need to look at the Australian economy and see the heartache and how difficult it is for young people to get into a home. I have five children. My oldest has a home. The task of the other two following is becoming even more difficult under this government. Propaganda creation was another task this character had, producing all literature, news, music, drama and entertainment to the season. Propaganda is often used in warfare. We're using it currently in our conflicts. But never have I seen propaganda in the press and propaganda from those opposite to the extent that we are seeing at the moment.
Let me remind you what some of that propaganda looks like. Only a couple of years back, Australians were told that they were going to get $275 cash back on their electricity bills and that electricity rates were going to go down. This is newspeak. This is the core function of George Orwell's Ministry of Truth. We are told that, if they spend more money on renewables, electricity prices will go down. We are told that. It's like groupthink. 'We must invest more. We must invest more.' The reality is our power bills have two parts to them. One is the power price. The other one is the transition and the distribution costs—the cost of gold plating the transmission lines in the renewable sector. There's no country in the world, including Germany, who has the highest rates of renewable energy, with evidence to suggest that electricity prices are going to come down under the current trajectory we are following. It's the Ministry of Truth with George Orwellian overtones. There's the persistent thinking that, if we just keep on telling the Australian public it's going to get better, they'll believe us.
We were told before the election, 'My word is my bond.' At the previous election we were told, 'My word is my bond,' when it came to the stage 3 tax cuts. That may not mean a lot to people on the street, but, when you earn more money, you cannot escape tax bracket creep, where you go up through the tax brackets. In stage 3, we were going to freeze them and make those amounts smaller so that Australians got to keep more of their money. Those on the other side gave a commitment that they would not touch them. But, as soon as they got there, they took $26 billion worth of savings, which we were going to return back to Australians, and kept it for their own spending.
Remember the propaganda when we were told it was going to be easier under Labor: 'Vote for us; it's going to be easier.' I think we've seen 18 increases in interest rates. That's about $26,000 extra you're paying if you've got a mortgage. Can I mention these capital gains taxes while we're talking about houses. I'm going to ask the Australian public who are listening a really simple question. If we increase, through machinations in this place, the cost of doing business for those who wish to invest in the residential sector—let's call them landlords—one of two things is going to happen. They're going to put their prices up, which is the rent, or they're going to put their prices down. There's a group of 10- to 12-year-olds upstairs there. If you could hear what I just said, put your fingers up if you think prices are going to go up and put your fingers down if you think they're going to go down. They're going to go up—brilliant. The gallery knows that prices are going to go up. All Australians know that prices are going to go up. So why do it? Why shackle the next generation of people trying to buy a home with increased costs?
When you look at why the government are doing it, you understand it is because they are addicted to spending. You've heard us come in here and say time and time and time again that, when the Australian Labor Party runs out of its own money, it will come looking for yours. This budget is evidence that they're coming looking for your money. Not only are they taxing aspiration but they are looking for your money if you are trying to save for a house. It's my kids, who had a couple of dollars and were possibly getting three or four per cent return from a bank and said, 'Maybe I can get a couple of extra bucks if I invest in ETFs in the share market.' Do you know what these guys did? They didn't sit back and congratulate them and say: 'Keep going. You're getting closer to the next house.' They saw it as an opportunity to go: 'Thank you; we'll have a piece of that as well. We'll have a piece of crushing your aspiration, and then, through the ministry of truth, we'll tell you that it's going to be good for you. We're going to make it harder for you to get into the market, and we're going to tell you it's easier.' It's Orwellian.
I remember the tragedy that happened at the Bondi massacre and the royal commission that went into that, and somehow we couldn't face the truth as to where the perpetrator—the government of the day wanted to suggest that this was extremist activity from the far right. No-one in Australia believed that. My God!
Ladies and gentlemen—electricity grids. We've spoken about the two costs. We've spoken about interest rate rises, but at the core of this is Labor's spending. The core of it is that the Australian government spending is amongst some of the highest in the developed world as a percentage of the GDP. The evidence of this is when this capital gains tax was announced, we saw a 10 per cent decrease in the Commonwealth Bank share price. If you don't bank with the Commonwealth Bank, it doesn't affect you. But I'd ask you to pause. You may not bank with the Commonwealth Bank, but I can assure you that part of your superannuation is made up by your super fund investing in the Commonwealth Bank. So when you go to look for your returns and they are slightly diminished, when you go looking for your returns from the Commonwealth Bank and they're down, and you're scratching your head and saying, 'Why?' you will know that it was a result of poor government policy.
On the weekend, we saw property rates, clearance rates, down nine per cent. Those on the other side in question time today hailed that as a great success. Confidence is low. I repeat, if we take landlords out of the market, there is only one way costs for people renting are going to go, and that is up. Labor know this, and they'll keep young people out of getting into the market.
We ask our Australian public, the people in our electorates, to tighten their belts. We ask them to tighten their belts. Debate on Appropriation Bill (No.1) and Appropriation Bill (No.2) is exactly the time when the opposition speaks to the government and says to them, 'It is about time that government tightens its belt.' The government needs to live within its means. No longer can we keep going back to the trough of taxes. No longer can we go back to the trough of borrowing money from overseas countries where we are accruing an interest component that is beyond the comprehension. There was a point in history when we on this side left no debt for a Labor government. Today we are looking down the barrel of a trillion dollars. It is a shame, and I will finish where I started. I want to thank my Christine for encouraging me to re-read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, where I remember intently the workings of the Ministry of Truth. Shame!
Debate adjourned.
on indulgence—With the passing of Neale Daniher, we all grieve for a great Australian. On behalf of the government and the people of Australia, I offer our heartfelt condolences to the Daniher family—his wife, Jan; children, Bec, Ben, Lauren and Luke; many grandchildren; and wider family. They did so much to support the man that they loved so deeply.
In 2013, after an extraordinary and decorated VFL/AFL career as both player and then coach, Neale Daniher was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. At that point, the average life expectancy was just 27 months. Instead, through 13 years Neale fought what he called 'the beast' with the courage, optimism and passion that brought hope and inspiration into the lives of everyone affected by MND. The devastating impacts of motor neurone disease stole so much from Neale, but he held on to everything that people loved and admired about him—his selflessness, his bravery, his humour, his ability to look on the bright side and his fierce determination to make a difference for others.
It was a profound honour for me to present Neale Daniher the Australian of the Year Award in 2025. I think it is safe to say that there has never been an award so unanimously agreed to by every single Australian on that night. It was richly deserved recognition that Neale embraced not as an accolade but as a platform, a way to continue his advocacy for a cure.
Neale Daniher's remarkable legacy lives all around us. The difference he made can be measured in the national awareness and the tens of millions of dollars that he and FightMND have raised to research a cure. It can be counted in the tens of thousands of Big Freeze beanies that will fill the MCG on the King's Birthday weekend. Above all, it will be carried in the hearts of everyone who found new strength and, yes, new hope in their fight because of the extraordinary example that Neale set. May this wonderful Australian rest in peace.
on indulgence—I thank the Prime Minister for his heartfelt words. On behalf of the federal coalition, I express my condolences to the family and friends of Neale Daniher AO and the wider AFL community on his sad death.
Neale was a champion footballer, a mighty coach, a family man and an all-round outstanding Australian. As Victorian of the Year and Australian of the Year, his fundraising work was instrumental in helping Australians fight motor neurone disease. He fought 'the beast', as the Prime Minister rightly described his way of characterising it, to the last—never waving a white flag and carrying on with his customary wit and grace.
Neale was a fighter to the end. That MND fight will now carry on in so many who have been inspired by Neale. The sight of thousands of Melburnians with their Big Freeze beanies was a testament to Neale's advocacy and awareness-raising of this absolutely insidious disease. 'Walk the walk', the Big Freeze and FightMND are traditions thanks to Neale. He was a best and fairest on the footy field and in life. He was known as 'the Reverend', and 'the Rev' was revered for his passionate public speaking.
We are thinking of those dearest to him as well: his wife, Jan; and his children Lauren, Luke, Bec and Ben. May he rest in peace.
As mark of respect to the memory of Neale Daniher, I ask all present to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places
I thank the House.
I rise in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 because they're not simply legislative measures; these are commitments to fund new initiatives, to strengthen existing programs and to deliver real support for those who need it and where Australians need it the most. The measures in this budget are to help Australians in every way possible, especially the ones who have been missing out for a number of years.
At the moment, this year, unexpectedly, there's a war in the Middle East. It's a war that no-one was expecting, it's a war that has put a stop to a lot of the world's oil trade, and it's pushing up prices. We have no control over it, and there'd be no control if the others were in government either. They can say and do as they like whilst they're in opposition, but the reality is that this war is pushing up prices not just here in Australia but all around the world. If you read international papers—I like to see what's going on around the world—it's copy and paste pretty well everywhere in Europe, the United States and other nations around the world because of this war and because of the lack of control that we have over it. But there are things that have been put in place and measures that this Albanese Labor government has taken on board to make it easier.
We know that Australians are doing it tough at the moment. We know there are a lot of people out there who are working very hard to make ends meet, and we know that there are people out there that are doing their very best just to survive. That's why it is imperative that this budget, which was announced last week, goes through the House of Representatives and the Senate to ensure that it is focused on and targets those people that need it the most. In the budget, we heard that there's more housing—it's a fairer budget to try and bring to fruition for those who have missed out for a number of years the Australian dream of purchasing a home.
Last weekend, and the weekend before, in this country, for the very first time in many years—in fact, in decades—young people, young couples and single people, attended auctions and bid for houses that they were previously unable to bid for because big investors were quite happy to go the extra $50,000, $100,000 or even $150,000 because they knew that they could save that money in their tax returns because of the measures that we had in place. So, for the very first time in decades, last weekend, we saw young people being able to be part of that auction bid to purchase their own homes, and we saw reports in the media on Sunday and again today of young couples that actually purchased their homes. There are also tax cuts in the budget. There's a $250 tax offset for workers—and of course the $2,616 average across the nation, which works out to about $5,054 per week.
There's also $25 billion for public hospitals—on top of the Medicare urgent care clinics around the country. Everywhere you look, there's an urgent care clinic. Just in my area of Adelaide, we have the Norwood urgent care clinic, which is servicing many, many patients; we have the Albert Park care clinic on the western borders of the Adelaide electorate; and, on the northern borders of Gepps Cross, on Grand Junction Road, there is another urgent care clinic. They are all servicing people that need a doctor and that would normally end up in the emergency rooms waiting for hours and hours. Together, our housing reforms, our cheaper medicine and our bulk-billing rates that are going upwards—today there was a report of an increase of four per cent in bulk-billing—are measures to help battling Australians that are doing it tough.
There's been also much work in the electorate of Adelaide. In the budget, millions of dollars have been announced for infrastructure. Of course, without infrastructure—without money being spent on bridges, on roads, on crossings—we'd have a quagmire of traffic and a quagmire of people not being able to get from point A to point B. We'd have a quagmire of transport in people not being able to get quickly enough to railway yards, to ports et cetera. These are important investments. It's not just funding on paper. It's investment for our communities making our communities more productive and able to enjoy the benefits—to do it a little bit easier than what they have in the past. This is an investment into our communities, our infrastructure and our future.
At the heart of the budget is a recognition of one of the defining challenges of our time, and that is housing. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech how important it is. The budget delivers $2 billion for a new stream of housing support programs designed to help local governments and state utility providers deliver the infrastructure needed to support new housing. In other words, when new housing goes up, we need infrastructure and also other support structures for that new housing. We know that homes do not exist in isolation. They require a whole range of infrastructure around them for that particular community. They require roads, water, electricity and services to make them liveable. For South Australia, this means more than $130 million in funding that will unlock projects that would otherwise remain stalled. In my electorate, this investment is already making a real difference.
In the electorate of Adelaide, some of the works are taking place. Only last week I was at the North-South Corridor, which is going from the most northern suburbs to the southern suburbs. It cuts right through my electorate through South Road. We went down and saw the new cutter, which is digging the underground tunnels for motor vehicles that will be going underground from about Torrensville and West Hindmarsh in my electorate right through to Kurralta Park, where they'll be coming back up onto the surface. We saw the cutter being lowered into the ground. It's millions of dollars of work.
Also, by having the tunnels, we save a whole range of heritage listed buildings that are in my electorate, like the Queen of Angels Church, which is nearly 160 years old; the Thebarton Theatre, which is one of Australia's oldest theatres; and, of course, a whole range of schools, businesses et cetera. I'm very pleased that there was a decision made. The original decision wasn't to have tunnels, but, through an outcry from the residents and a campaign from all the residents in those suburbs of Mile End, Richmond, Torrensville, Hilton and West Hindmarsh, the previous government saw fit to work with the state government and ensure we have a tunnel, and that tunnel is taking place right now.
We've seen other works in my electorate on Sir Donald Bradman Drive and Marion Road in the West Torrens council area. We now see slipways. Sir Donald Bradman Drive is the main road that goes off into the airport that has thousands and thousands of motor vehicles, and with those slipways now it's become quicker and more convenient and there's more of a better traffic flow. Another bottleneck that was there for many, many years was on East Avenue, Grange Road and Holbrooks Road at Allenby Gardens, right on the border of Flinders Park. That's coming to fruition and nearly completed and, again, seeing the freeing up of transport. People are saving up to 10 minutes in the morning and 10 minutes in the afternoon. That's 20 minutes a day. Times that by five and that's a good hour and a half that could be spent with family instead of traffic.
One of the great things that I've campaigned on for a long, long time—since I was first elected in 2004—is for the overpass of the tram on Marion Road at Plympton. Once those shutters came down and the bells started ringing when a tram was going by, it would bank up for nearly a couple of kilometres at peak hour traffic. Now we've got an overpass over Marion Road allowing the traffic on Marion Road to free itself up.
There's also community infrastructure in my electorate, Karkungka reserve, where the National Servicemen’s RSL Sub-Branch is. They're getting brand new headquarters there for their activities and also for community use. The entire park is being rejuvenated with money from the federal government and the West Torrens local government. One of the great infrastructure community projects is the Western Youth Centre at Cowandilla, which I'm very proud of. Many sporting clubs affiliated with it use the grounds and the gymnasiums that are there.
The budget is important, as I said, especially for housing. I think housing is what we heard the other night is the government's focus—ensuring that people have a roof over their heads, that people can find premises and live the Australian dream as many have done. It was getting out of touch for a lot of people. You look back at the last 10 years, and there were no policies. There was nothing being instigated. In fact—I said it earlier today in this place—I was here when questions were being asked by the then Labor opposition about housing. I clearly recall the coalition government at the time saying: 'This really has nothing to do with us. It's a state issue.' In other words, they were wiping their hands of it. Therefore, there was inaction for well over 10 years and we're in the position that we're in today.
Those on the other side will try and say that it's migration and a whole range of things. The reality is that this country has always had migration, right through the turn of the century, back in the 1700s—right through. There's been constant migration, and we've managed to keep up. The reality is that we need more houses, and this government is acting to do so. When you think of migration—I think the intake last year was about 300,000. There were about 178,000 homes that were built. Do you think that each and every one of them requires one house? In fact, the majority of them are in student accommodation and don't get their visas unless they have accommodation before they get here. The furphy about immigration and housing—I just don't buy it.
Certainly, we need to keep an eye on it and ensure that we are keeping stock up with the growth of the population, and that's what hasn't been done for over 20 years. That's what hasn't been done and needs to be done. As I said, there was inaction for many, many years. I pointed out a few infrastructure projects and investments in my electorate that are already making a real difference. In fact, the HAFF and other programs that the Prime Minister has announced are making a huge difference. Just in my electorate, 918 new social and affordable homes are currently being built, are on the way to being built or have been completed. That's just my electorate. That's all through the Housing Australia Future Fund. Another 508 homes will be delivered very soon. These are homes that will provide security, dignity and stability for Australians who need it most.
When you speak to people who have secured one of these homes or have purchased their first home through the five per cent deposit scheme or through the equity program with the government, you can see the joy that they have that one of the steps in their lives has been completed. If you don't have a roof over your head, if you don't have shelter, it's very hard to concentrate on other things. Last week, when the Prime Minister was in my electorate and we visited the prospect project in the northern part of my electorate—where over 200 homes are being built and some have already been completed—we spoke to a young couple, Erin and Harry, who had purchased their very first home. You could see how it turned their entire lives around to have that security and stability that is required to go on and achieve bigger and better things. These policies are making a difference, and these homes will provide security, dignity and stability.
Through the Social Housing Accelerator program, another 133 social homes are being built just in my electorate of Adelaide. These are not just numbers; these are lives that are being turned around. These are lives that are changing because of the fact that they can now get a roof over their head. This could be a parent who can finally provide stability for their family. It could be an older Australian who will now be able to age with dignity or a young person given their first chance to build independence. A roof over someone's head is not a privilege. It is a basic human need. (Time expired)
I rise to make a contribution to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027. To begin my contribution, I would like to quote Oliver Cromwell's speech to the English parliament that he delivered on 20 April 1653 because it is entirely relevant and exactly the way I feel about the government we have today and the way it has delivered its budget and the effect it will have on the Australian people. Cromwell said:
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.
Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do; I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out!
Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!
I'm not suggesting that every member opposite is deserving of Cromwell's wrath, but I do say this: if there was ever a budget that embodied arrogance, hypocrisy, broken promises and contempt for ordinary people, this is the budget.
We'll fast forward 373 years, and Australians are once again watching a government that has lost touch with the people that it was elected to serve. This budget is not a budget of aspiration. It is not a budget for families. It is not a budget for workers, pensioners, veterans or small-business owners. It is a budget of excuses. It is a budget that punishes people for trying to get ahead, and this budget tells younger Australians that the dream their parents enjoyed is no longer available to them. Whether it is a tradie trying to grow a business or a young couple trying to buy their first home, a veteran seeking treatment or a pensioner struggling to pay the bills, this budget makes it harder for all.
Labor's toxic taxes amount to intergenerational fraud. For decades, Australians were told that, if they worked hard, saved carefully and invested wisely, they could build security for themselves and their families. That was the Australian promise and the Australian dream. Older generations had access to affordable housing. They benefited from sensible tax settings, and they had the opportunity to invest, build wealth and create stability. Now younger Australians are being told that opportunity is no longer for you. Housing is already out of reach for many Australians. So what are young people doing? They are trying to be responsible. They are saving. They are investing in shares, ETFs, crypto assets and managed funds. They are delaying gratification in the hope that one day they might be able to own a home or build financial security. And what does the Labor government do? They punish them for it. Labor's changes to capital gains tax are not reform; they are an assault on aspiration. This government wants to impose one of the highest effective capital gains tax regimes in the developed world. It is a tax on savings, a tax on investment and a tax on ambition.
The worst part is that this does not even appear to have been properly thought through. Experts, economists and former Treasury officials are now warning that, under Labor's model, Australians could end up paying tax greater than their actual real-world profit. I think that's just absurd. A hardworking Australian could invest prudently, diversify their portfolio—exactly as every financial adviser recommends—and still end up worse off, because Labor's tax regime design ignores how ordinary investment actually works. The Prime Minister dismisses criticism as scare campaigns. He refuses to answer the most basic questions. Why should Australians pay tax on gains inflated by inflation while receiving little or no practical recognition for the losses elsewhere in their portfolios? Treasury appears to have modelled a fantasy investor who buys one perfect asset that only ever rises in value, and this is not what happens in real life. Real Australians own diversified portfolios. Some shares rise; others fall. Some years are good; others are difficult. Under Labor's system, diversification could actually punish investors. One analysis showed that a diversified $10,000 investment across the major banks generated a real gain of around $1,250. Yet, under Labor's proposal, the tax payable could exceed $1,800. In plain English, the tax could be bigger than the profit, and that is not fair; that is daylight robbery.
Let us be very clear. This will not only hurt the wealthy investors. It will hurt startups. It will hurt innovation. It will hurt small businesses seeking capital. It will hurt Australians trying to build retirement savings outside the pension system. Labor claims to support future economy while simultaneously taxing the very investment it creates. You do not fix toxic taxes with carve-outs and exemptions; you axe them. Australians deserve a tax system that rewards hard work, rewards savings, rewards risk taking and rewards enterprise. Instead, Labor offers envy, punishment and class warfare.
Then we come to what many Australians are increasingly describing as Labor's hidden death tax. Before the election, the Prime Minister, and the Treasurer, repeatedly assured Australians there would be no new taxes that targeted family inheritance or generational wealth transfers. Yet buried within the budget are measures that amount to a punitive 30 per cent tax burden on inherited superannuation balances and assets in certain circumstances. Australians work their entire lives to build something for their children and their grandchildren. They pay income tax, they pay company tax, they pay GST, they pay stamp duty, they pay fuel excise, and now, after a lifetime of their paying taxes, Labor wants one more bite of the apple—and that's on the day you die. When Labor run out of money, they come after yours—no truer words said.
Perhaps the most disgraceful element of this budget is the treatment of our veterans. The Labor government has imposed a $5,000 annual cap on allied health services for veterans, and this is shameful. Veterans rely on physiotherapy, psychology, occupational therapy and other allied health supports not as luxuries but as essential treatments for injuries sustained while serving our nation. Many veterans live with chronic pain, mobility limitations and psychological trauma directly connected to their service. For veterans with complex needs, $5,000 will not even come close to addressing the necessary care that they need. So what happens then? The treatment gets delayed, conditions deteriorate, families carry greater burdens, mental health worsens, and ultimately the public health system pays a greater price anyway. Australia makes a sacred promise to those who wear this nation's uniform. We ask them to sacrifice on our behalf, and in return we guarantee that, when they come home, we'll look after them. This cap undermines that promise. It sends a terrible message not only to veterans but to every young Australian considering a career in the Australian Defence Force. A nation that spends billions on ideological vanity projects should never claim it cannot afford to properly care for its veterans.
Older Australians are also being punished under this budget. Labor has slashed the private health insurance rebate for many seniors, reducing the rate of rebate support from as high as 32 per cent down to 24 per cent. The consequences are obvious: higher premiums, higher household costs and potentially thousands of older Australians abandoning private health cover altogether because they simply cannot afford it. That will place even greater strain on public hospitals that are already struggling. At a time when pensioners and retirees are battling rising electricity prices, rising grocery bills, rising insurance costs and rising rent, this government has decided to make health care more expensive for them too. Seniors who have done the right thing all their lives should not be punished for maintaining private health cover.
Nowhere is the failure of the budget more obvious than in regional Australia, and the people in my electorate of Flynn, in Central Queensland, have been abandoned. Labor's budget obliterates the fair go for regional communities while doubling down on an economically reckless rush towards a renewables-only future that is driving up power prices and undermining the viability of industry. Regional Australians are becoming collateral damage in Labor's ideological obsession with net zero. The Prime Minister promised lower power prices. Instead, Australians are paying more. He promised lower inflation, yet Australians are facing higher grocery bills, higher rents and higher mortgages. He promised transparency, and instead Australians received hidden taxes, accounting tricks and broken promises. Even Labor's own figures show falling disposable income per capita and declining real wages. Australians are working harder just to go backwards.
Regional Australia has also been hit with billions of dollars of infrastructure cuts. This budget cuts $6.15 billion from the Inland Rail; $4.7 billion from broader infrastructure spending; $103 million from the national water grid; nearly $192 million from drought resilience, pest management and regional trade programs; and over $21 million from regional communications funding. At the same time, Labor somehow found $3.8 billion for the Victorian government's Suburban Rail Loop, a project increasingly viewed as a political favour rather than a national priority. What message does this send to regional Australia? 'If you live in the bush, your infrastructure gets cut.'
Labor continues to spend extraordinary sums pursuing its net zero agenda while refusing to level with Australians on the real cost. This budget allocates another $18.2 billion towards net zero measures, bringing the total spending commitments to at least $80 billion, and that figure does not even include the hidden costs of renewable subsidies through schemes like the Capacity Investment Scheme. If the government is so proud of its agenda, why does the Treasury barely mention it? Why was net zero virtually absent from the budget speech? This is because Labor knows Australians are increasingly seeing the consequences: higher electricity prices, reduced energy reliability, pressure on manufacturing, pressure on mining, pressure on agriculture and pressure on household budgets. Australia should pursue practical environmental outcomes while protecting jobs, industry and affordability. Instead, Labor has embraced ideology over pragmatism.
This budget also fails to confront the pressures created by Labor's immigration settings. Australians are already struggling to find housing, access health care and secure child care, yet Labor continues to preside over historically high immigration numbers without the infrastructure or housing supply needed to support them. That places enormous strain on communities. Australians are a compassionate people, but they also respect responsible planning. A government cannot simultaneously claim to care about housing affordability while dramatically increasing demand without increasing supply.
This budget reveals something deeper than bad economics. It reveals a government that fundamentally misunderstands aspiration. Labor sees aspiration as something suspicious: 'If you start a business, we tax you. If you invest, we tax you. If you save, we tax you. If you inherit something from your parents, we're going to tax you. And, if you drive a truck, work in the mining industry or rely on affordable energy, we're going to regulate you into oblivion.' This government does not believe that prosperity is created by individuals and communities. It believes that prosperity belongs first to the government. This budget is not about building Australia stronger; it is about managing its decline. It asks Australians to expect less, own less, save less and aspire less. But Australians are better than that. Regional Australians are better than that. The people of Flynn are better than that. Australians do not want a government that punishes success and subsidises failure. This is an appalling budget. Words fail me.
I think it's so interesting that the member for Flynn decided to open up his grandiose speech with quotes from Oliver Cromwell. Specifically, when we think about the 'Rump Parliament' speech of Oliver Cromwell, what was that all about? It was ostensibly about the frustration that Cromwell had at the time with the parliament's endless debate and talk and lack of action and progress at the other end. I think it is so ironic that the member for Flynn decides to bring this up, because the member for Flynn is part of a party that talks a lot about tax cuts but voted against a tax cut. The member for Flynn is part of a party that talks a lot about housing and getting housing for our young people, yet has absolutely no plan to get a house to a young person. On top of that, when they were in government, they didn't even have a housing minister for most of the time. The member for Flynn talks a lot about cost of living, but he's part of a political party that has voted against every single cost-of-living measure that the Albanese Labor government has put forward. I think what the member for Flynn needs, when we talk about that speech in particular, is to note that ye are in need of some great self-reflection.
Nearly two weeks ago we stood in this chamber and heard the Treasurer handing down the 2026-27 budget. It's a budget that delivers what Australia needs right now. It's responsible, it implements real reform and it's about making sure the economy works better for more Australians, not just a few. It doesn't matter where you go in my local electorate on Brisbane's south side, whether it's a barbecue in Tarragindi, whether it's on the doors in Annerley, whether it's an event in Sunnybank, whether it's on a street corner in Acacia Ridge, everyone raises the same challenges that they and their families are facing again and again and again. Those challenges are housing and cost of living.
Labor is providing more cost-of-living relief for households while also setting up for the future. We're focused on increasing productivity, improving the tax system, making the housing market fairer and strengthening the budget so that it's sustainable over the long term. That's what these times demand. The challenges facing Australians—issues such as the younger generation trying to access housing and being able to realise the dream that so many of us had before this moment, and the rising costs at the checkout and at the bowser—need to be addressed, and they need to be addressed now. That's why we're rolling out new tax cuts for workers. That's why we're helping more people get into their own homes, investing in Medicare and making it easier to build, run a business and, indeed, invest. All of this is about creating a stronger, fairer economy that gives more people a chance to get ahead. It addresses the key issues that the constituents of Moreton raise with me: health, housing, cost of living.
Which free-of-charge service in Moreton has been visited over 16,000 times in just the last 18 months? The answer is the Medicare urgent care clinic at Oxley. I know firsthand how incredibly useful this service is. Our toddler has been there numerous times, each time receiving timely, thorough and reassuring attention from the medical team there. Thanks to this budget, this crucial southside service is here to stay, and so are the other 134 Medicare urgent care clinics around this nation. An additional $1.8 billion will be invested over five years from 2025-26, and over $579 million a year ongoing from 2030-31, to keep Medicare urgent care clinics open and free for the Australian people. Why is this so important? Because Medicare urgent care clinics provide free walk-in care for urgent health issues, with no appointment needed. They're open seven days a week with extended hours, making it easier for people to get help when they need it most. The medical teams at these clinics can treat a wide range of non-life threatening conditions and industries that still need prompt attention such as cuts, infections or sprains.
And it's not just Oxley, on the south side of Brisbane; the member for Griffith and I held a barbecue in Annerley just a couple of weeks ago to bring people together to get a taste of the Cornwall Street urgent care clinic. That brought in families with their stories of how they had been helped by being able to access local urgent care at zero cost with just their Medicare card. They take the pressure off hospital emergency departments so hospitals can focus on treating the most serious and life-threatening cases. Another two urgent Medicare clinics are due to open by the end of next month. Of these clinics, 47 are in rural and regional Australia, meaning that when all clinics are open four out of five Australians will be able to access a clinic within just a 20-minute drive—and, remember, when you get there, all you need is that little green card.
Speaking of Medicare cards, there are now 26 fully bulk-billed general practices in my local seat of Moreton. This is an increase of 12 since Labor's historic investment to bolster Medicare. Whether you're going to the Beaudesert Road surgery in Moorooka or to the GP just across the road from Chardons Corner, in Annerley, there are clinics that were formerly mixed-billing that are now fully bulk-billing because of the investment the Albanese Labor government has made.
Quarterly data released today indicates that the national GP bulk-billing rate was 81.9 per cent for the January to March quarter—an increase of nearly five per cent from the same time last year. This is having an absolutely real impact in our local communities, and there are now over 3,800 Medicare bulk-billing practices around Australia.
Australians have also been able to access cheaper medicines. As at the end of April there have been over 2.7 million cheaper scripts in Moreton alone since Labor rolled out its cheaper-medicines initiative. Just the other day I got to visit one of the pharmacies where those $25 scripts are being handed out, the Urunga TerryWhite Chemmart. Not only do you get greeted by a smile; when you put your card across the pharmacy, if it's a PBS medicine all you'll ever pay is 25 bucks.
This budget invests an additional $5.9 billion to list new medicines on the PBS. This includes treatments for serious and ongoing conditions such as cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease and a range of cancers, helping ensure patients can access the medicines they need without facing overwhelming costs. I got to visit one of them in Corinda. The pharmacist in Corinda showed me Yaz, and she told me that, before Yaz was on the PBS, people used to pay 80 bucks for it—and now it's down to 25 bucks, an enormous saving and one of the first times in a long time that that kind of medication has gone onto the PBS. It also includes permanently reducing the cost of COVID-19 oral antiviral medicines, making it easier and more affordable for people to get timely treatment when they need it. Since 1 July 2022, the Albanese Labor government has funded 437 new or amended PBS medicines. Again, this is a real example of proper cost-of-living support.
When it comes to housing, this budget is squarely aimed at getting more homes built and making it easier for Australians, particularly for young Australians, to get into the housing market. We're investing $2 billion in a new local infrastructure fund to help councils and utilities deliver the basics that we need for new housing—for things like roads, water, power and sewerage, which will unlock up to 65,000 homes over the next decade. When you speak to people in my electorate, it's not just young people who are concerned about housing; it's families who are trying to get into their first home. It's older people who are worried that their kids will never realise the dream that they were able to have when they were growing up. It's people who have had to start over and now need to get back into the market. That's why we're making sure that more homes are available for Australians by extending the ban on foreign investors buying existing homes to mid-2029. For renters, we're continuing to work with states and territories to strengthen renters' rights, and, importantly, there's also targeted support for those doing it the toughest.
At the same time, Labor is making changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, which are expected to help about 75,000 more Australians to buy their own home over the next decade. Changing the way that negative gearing and the capital gains tax work will make the housing system fairer and will make it more balanced, because, frankly, the interaction between the housing market and the tax system is broken. Right now, it ain't working, and we need to do something about it. If the system isn't getting outcomes for people to be able to get into their own homes, we need to take action, and this is a government that takes that responsibility very seriously. Changing the way negative gearing and the capital gains tax work will make the housing system fairer and will make it more balanced. Changes to the CGT will see the current arrangements replaced with cost base indexation and a minimum 30 per cent tax rate on capital gains. This is something that is needed now, because, when you talk to people in our communities, they know that housing is an issue now. It comes in response to long-term trends in the housing market and the fact that we know that there are significant supply issues over decades and decades. This is about making sure that we are not only addressing the issues in our tax system but also backing it up with investment in long-term housing to fix this issue. What didn't fix it when the coalition were in government was not having a housing minister. What didn't fix it when the coalition were in government was failing to build homes when we had the opportunity. And what didn't fix it was voting against a tax cut for every taxpaying Australian. The reforms are designed to address these pressures and to improve access for young Australians.
If I had to summarise Labor's approach to fixing the housing crisis we received from those opposite, I would say that it's about building more homes, I would say that it's about building them more quickly, I would say that it's about making the system fairer, and I would say that it's about ensuring that more Australians have a safe and secure place to live.
Before I conclude my speech, there is one other very important local element of the budget which I'd like to highlight. Boundary Road in my electorate of Moreton is a key east-west artery. It links Archerfield, with its concentration of manufacturing, logistics and transport companies, with the residents and myriad of small businesses of Robertson and Sunnybank—and then on through to the M1 motorway. Smack-bang in-between those two suburbs lies Coopers Plains. Boundary Road takes drivers across a level crossing with three train tracks. Approximately 200 trains on the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines pass through that crossing daily. Each time the boom gates are lowered, drivers, cyclists and pedestrians endure lengthy delays, particularly during the morning and afternoon peak traffic times. In my community, we are absolutely sick of it. This crossing has regularly been identified as one of the most problematic in Queensland. Train drivers ranked it among the state's worst level crossings. As far back as 2012, it was identified as one of the top 6 priority crossings requiring attention, and then, in 2019, the Queensland Rail Australian Level Crossing Assessment Model ranked it within the three most dangerous crossings in the state. I, myself, remember going to that crossing, holding placards and campaigning for it to be fixed. This is borne out in the incident record. Twenty-eight boom strikes were recorded at the site between 2009 and 2016, and a total of 101 incidents were documented between 2004 and 2011.
So you can see that local residents and the thousands of drivers who go across that crossing daily have been waiting for a long time for this to be resolved. The federal government already committed $179.5 million in 2022 to build an overpass, and I'm very proud that in the 2026-27 budget, it includes an additional $99.7 million so that the Queensland state government can deliver this vital project. It's not about infrastructure in and of itself. It's about making everyday life easier and getting my community home to their families safer and faster.
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 calls on the Government to implement a 25 per cent gas export tax".
This budget fails the Australian people in many ways. I'm not saying there's no good in it. What I'm saying is it fails to meet the scale of people's needs, the needs of the moment and the boldness required to get Australia back on track. The biggest symbol of this failure is the government's decision to not include a tax on gas exports. This failure is not just significant economically; it's a failure because of what it represents. It's a failure because it shows a clear disdain from our political class towards people's clearly expressed wishes. Some people call this campaign for a gas tax populism. I prefer to call it democracy, but it seems our political class finds democracy a suspicious concept.
The failure goes deeper. The failure to listen to everyday people accelerates the decline in trust in government. This failure is a gift to One Nation. If Labor keeps failing like this, they will deliver One Nation into government. Do you think One Nation's rise will just go away? Even if they collapse tomorrow, something else will rise in its place because the conditions for One Nation's rise continue to be created by our out-of-touch political establishment.
The status quo currently defended by the Albanese Labor Party is not working for everyday people. People are starting to reject it. People are right to reject it. They are not being listened to. They are finding their lives getting tougher and tougher year on year. There needs to be a break with this unrepresentative, pro-corporate, out-of-touch status quo to turn the page really decisively on decades of deregulation, privatisation and corporate tax avoidance.
When people are feeling ignored by the political system, when they're feeling the squeeze, while they see the wealth of the top 1 per cent soar, you don't rush to defend that status quo. You don't just tinker around the edges. You say, 'Yes, it is time for real change. It's time to make the one per cent and the big corporations pay their fair share and build a society where everyone can get ahead.' That's the only way to bring people together on a different politics, other than nation's politics of division and of hate.
What's to be done? We could start right now. What better way to demonstrate a willingness to break with the status quo than to back this amendment to the budget, to implement a tax on gas corporations? What better way to show a willingness to not follow politics as usual than to break with party lines and support this eminently sensible and positive reform that people are demanding? So I'm imploring, cross the floor! Come on, just cross the floor and vote for a gas tax. I want to urge members of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nats and One Nation to all cross the floor. Their voters will reward them for it. I want members in this chamber to know that their voters actually want a gas tax. Their voters want to see them side with the people, not with vested interests.
I'm being completely serious. I'm imploring members of this House to not put their party's political line ahead of what their voters are clearly calling on them to do. Their party's political line has been set by the gas lobby, not even by their party's membership or even their caucus. There are Labor voters, Liberal voters, One Nation voters all out there wanting members of this House to step up and stop gas corporations from ripping us all off. Imagine being able to go to the Australian people and say, 'We're raising $17 billion extra a year; what would you like to spend it on?' There's nothing stopping members of this chamber, only the entrenched power of the corporate lobbying machine over your parties. So I'm calling on members in this chamber to cross the floor and show Australian people, their voters, that they're not just cogs in a political machine.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Earlier this month, the Treasurer delivered the most ambitious budget that we have seen in decades. It's a budget that balances responsible economic management with an eye to futureproofing our economy, an economy that works for everyday Australians, not the other way around. As a nation, we find ourselves, once again, in the midst of a global crisis. They, unfortunately, are becoming more frequent. For older Australians, global shocks and once-in-a-generation events were just that: once in a generation. They didn't occur every few years, and global economies were given the time to recover. The world we live in has changed. It is less stable, more divided and increasingly unpredictable.
When I speak to young people in my community, they show a readiness to meet the world as it is and carry it forward, but what they do not accept is the economic burden that has been placed on them at the expense of their future. They do not accept house prices that are eight times their annual income. They do not accept being locked out of the housing market while others own upwards of 10 properties. And they do not accept that the status quo is working.
For almost all of us in this chamber, the Australian dream of owning your own home did become a reality. We saved over a few years to buy our first home that was, on average, about three times our annual salary. For me and my husband, it was in 2009 when Ravi and I saved up a little and, with a little help from my in-laws, purchased our first home. It was a small unit that would provide us with a safety net and the stability that we needed and wanted to start a family. I look back fondly at that moment in time, that sense of hope mixed with dread but also the celebration of achieving such a huge life milestone—a milestone that so many young Australians jokingly now dismiss as just not being possible for them. But the reality is that it is no joke. Young people dismiss it not just because of house prices but because, for some in my community who have saved up enough for a deposit and jumped through all the hoops, they go to the auction and put an offer on, only to be outpriced by property investors who have tax breaks on their side.
This Labor government has refused to accept the status quo. That is why we are making the tough calls, setting out an ambitious plan to level the playing field for younger generations. Going forward, we are limiting negative gearing for residential property so it can be used only for new builds. Our negative gearing changes put homeowners first and will help more Australians get a foothold in the housing market. This is why this budget is a truly aspirational budget, because what is more aspirational than owning your own home? We aspire for the people in my community—the single parents who want stability, the young couples seeking to start a family, the students looking to the future—who stop me in the street and raise the issue of housing. This reform is about making it easier for them to buy their first home.
Despite the misinformation from those opposite, Australians who currently negatively gear or own an investment property will see no change in their arrangements. This Labor government is, and has always been, pro investment. That is why, going forward, new investors can still negatively gear their properties, just on new builds. If you're a younger person who can afford to invest in housing, you can still do it on new properties. If you look to the edges of our cities and our regional areas, the opportunities for investment are there. We are pro-investment because we not only want Australians to be able to invest and build their own wealth but also, at the same time, want to see them invest in the wealth of our nation.
Along with changes to negative gearing, we're also changing the tax treatment of capital gains so that it operates as originally intended, helping to ensure investment flows where it is most productive. Returning it to indexation will mean that, in the future, only real capital gains are subject to tax, supporting investment in assets like medium-density housing. An important thing to note is that these reforms will grandfather gains made before 1 July next year. The 30 per cent minimum tax rate on capital gain profits is about making sure everyone pays their fair share.
This budget aims to level the playing field and also continues to build on our housing agenda, which is ambitious, as it has to be, because our housing crisis is 40 years in the making. That is why this budget also seeks to increase our housing supply, with an additional $2 billion investment into the infrastructure needed to build 65,000 new homes. This is on top of the other housing supply measures that we have already delivered since coming into government, like those through the Housing Australia Future Fund. The HAFF has helped to deliver over 1,000 new social and affordable homes in my community alone, changing people's lives forever.
Australians were given a glimpse into the opposition's plans for this country. Australians were given more cheap rhetoric from those opposite. They were told that migrant communities are their enemy and that, under the coalition, the housing status quo will be entrenched. That is in stark contrast to Labor's plans for the future. Our plan is to build Australia's future, and, in order to do that, that plan must be centred around fairness. Medicare is a symbol of fairness and is integral to the prosperity of our nation, which is why this year's budget once again had strengthening Medicare front and centre. As cost-of-living pressures continue to put stress on local households, we are committed to providing real cost-of-living relief across the board. We promised to make health care more affordable, and we are delivering on that promise. The Treasurer outlined in his budget night address that the Albanese Labor government is making a record investment into health care, making free Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent fixture of our healthcare network while continuing to invest in cheaper medicines and more bulk-billing.
Australian families remember all too well what those opposite did to Medicare. They remember that bulk-billing was gutted. They remember cuts to our public hospitals. They remember the cost of medicines increasing while their wages stagnated. Those opposite put a price tag on every Australian's health. Their dream is not for a stronger Medicare but for a relaxation of it, something more akin to an American-style healthcare system, where the health care that you get is what you can afford, leaving many working people behind. When those opposite talk of decreased spending and budget savings, what they're actually saying is they'll cut Medicare. And it won't be just Medicare; it'll be Services Australia, fee-free TAFE, our three-day early learning guarantee—cutting the essential services and cost-of-living relief that working people rely on. How do we know this? Because they've voted against every single cost-of-living measure our government has brought forward to this place.
Thankfully, for many in my electorate, this Labor government takes a different view. Things are tough right now. We know this and we are determined to continue to ease cost-of-living pressures. That is why, from 1 July this year, every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut, and we're introducing an instant tax deduction of $1,000—no receipts needed. And there will be another tax cut next year too, together with taking an extra $250 off working people's tax bill permanently. Those opposite have dismissed these tax measures. They are more interested in saying no to genuinely trying to help Australian families, and, when they say no, they are saying it to families in my community who are saving thousands thanks to this government making PBS medicines cheaper; they are saying it to students, who now pay lower repayments on their student debt; and they are saying it to women, who are benefiting from the largest investment in women's health care in decades.
The conversations I'm having in my community about this budget are positive. They aren't focused on the misinformation or the scare tactics of those opposite. My community isn't buying this racist nonsense that immigrants are making their lives harder or causing costs to rise. What those opposite can't comprehend is that my community is the vibrant place it is because of immigration. It is the beneficiary of migration—Italian, Greek, Vietnamese, Somali and many more who have planted their roots in Maribyrnong, bringing with them the cultures and skills that have come to define our part of Melbourne. Our community benefits from those skills in health, early education, aged care and jobs that keep our communities quietly moving, like cleaning, delivery drivers and many more.
My community sees through the coalition's message of hatred and division because they know it's just more cheap politics from a party simply trying to fight to compete with One Nation. They also know that our economy is under a lot of pressure from global shocks, not because of grandparents, parents or friends who have migrated to Australia, seeking to build a better life and contribute to our nation's future. It is the same old tired playbook, and my community is fed up with it.
This budget is about creating opportunities. It is pro-aspiration for people seeking to enter the housing market and invest in their future, especially for young people. It is pro-worker for those families feeling the pinch and in need of tax relief. It is pro-investment for individuals and businesses looking to build their futures with shares and portfolios. This Albanese Labor government is not shying away from the difficult reforms that are necessary to build our nation's future. We are proud of what we have delivered, but we know there is more work to do. Good governments listen to their constituents, they do not alienate parts of their communities, and they do not pit them against each other.
Instead, they seek to unite. They seek to deliver the reforms and services that the moment demands. The status quo may be what those opposite wish to entrench, but, if they actually spoke to young, working-class Australians, they would know that their white-hot rage is directed squarely at the status quo. It's just not working. The status quo is stacked against them; that is why this government has changed course, why we are delivering generational tax reforms and why we are determined to level the playing field.
Levelling the playing field is just what we're going to do, on top of delivering real cost-of-living relief for Aussie families. When the Prime Minister says that he wants a country where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind, this budget is an example of those words in practice. It is pro-aspiration; it is pro-investment for all Australians, not just a select few.
I rise today to speak on the appropriation bills before the House and to put on record what people in Capricornia and across regional Australia are telling me plainly. They are doing it tough, and they've been asked to pay more while getting less in return. Appropriation bills are not just paperwork; they are a statement of a government's priorities—what it funds, what it cuts and who it chooses to back. On the evidence of this budget and what flows from it, the message to the regions is, once again, 'You are not a priority.'
In Capricornia, families are still dealing with power bills, groceries, fuel and insurance that keep climbing. Small businesses are juggling overheads that rise faster than turnover, and primary producers are facing higher input costs and uncertainty. For many small and family businesses, there is another layer of uncertainty in this budget: the proposed changes to discretionary family trusts. These are not abstract arrangements for accountants in the city, they are structures used by many family run businesses—farms and local operators—to manage risk, plan for succession and keep cash flowing through the business.
A proposed 30 per cent minimum tax on trust income from 1 July 2028 would reduce flexibility, hit those who legitimately use trusts to support family members in the business and force many small operators to spend time and money restructuring instead of employing staff, investing in equipment or growing their enterprise. For regional Australia, where so many businesses are family businesses, this is not just a tax change, it is another pressure on the people who are already carrying so much of the load.
The capital gains tax changes announced in this budget also raise real concerns for younger Australians trying to break into the housing market because they do not just affect property, they also affect shares and ETFs that many first home buyers use to build a deposit. At a time when saving for a first home is already hard enough, people who are doing the right thing by investing carefully and trying to get ahead should not be hit with another barrier on the path to homeownership. And that's the test we should apply to these appropriation bills: Do they provide real relief? Do they invest in the fundamentals that grow regional economies—roads, freight, water security, reliable energy and a fair go? The regions don't ask for special treatment; we ask for fair treatment. We ask for the government to recognise that regional Australia generates the wealth and exports that keep this country going.
Cost-of-living pressures are real, and they are hitting hard in Capricornia. Australians don't need to be told the economy is under strain; they feel it every day. When their fuel bills jump, when their weekly groceries cost more or when their insurance renewals are unaffordable, they don't need Labor to hold a press conference to explain it. Regional communities feel these pressures even more because we rely on transport and freight and because we have fewer alternatives, fewer services nearby, longer driving distances and industries that depend on fuel and logistics.
When budgets tighten, the pain is not theoretical. It shows up in delayed medical appointments, cancelled apprenticeships, postponed upgrades, reduced operating hours and small businesses deciding not to take on extra staff. That is why the budget and the appropriations that implement it must be judged on whether they help families keep more of what they earn and whether they strengthen the productive capacity of the economy, especially outside the capitals.
If there is one thing that consistently holds Capricornia back, it's not a lack of potential; it's a lack of infrastructure investment and the habit of treating regional projects as optional extras. Ahead of this budget, I said clearly that Capricornia's roads remain a top priority, including major freight and commuter routes that need ongoing federal support to improve safety, resilience and efficiency. We need more investment in the Bruce Highway, the beef roads, Peak Downs Highway and the local road links that our communities rely on every day. These roads are not luxuries; they are arteries of the regional economy, moving produce, supplies, workers, tourists and freight. When road funding is delayed, regional communities feel it immediately.
That is why decisions like pushing back major beef corridor upgrades are so damaging. In Capricornia, that means communities are left waiting longer for safer roads, better freight efficiency and stronger supply chains, even though these roads carry high-value commodities and support some of the nation's most productive industries. I've also said that the Rockhampton Ring Road will make a real difference, but it must be matched with proper investment in the surrounding connections so that the whole region benefits.
Yet regional Australia is again being told to accept cuts and delay, while multibillion-dollar city projects surge ahead. This imbalance is not just unfair; it's economically reckless, because regional infrastructure is what lifts national productivity. The Nationals leader, Queensland senator Matthew Canavan, has pointed to the scale of the impact on the regions, including by claimed cuts such as $6.15 billion from Inland Rail, $4.7 billion from infrastructure spending and $103 million from the National Water Grid alongside other reductions affecting regional communities. Whether you live in Rockhampton, Yeppoon, Sarina, the Pioneer Valley, Clermont or Moranbah, you can see the consequences—projects that take longer, corridors that remain dangerous, freight that costs more and communities that are expected to do with less.
Central Queensland is powered by industries that feed the nation and drive exports—agriculture, resources, manufacturing and tourism. Capricornia is one of Australia's powerhouse electorates, and the scale of its contribution should never be underestimated. From our mining communities to our agriculture sector, from our manufacturing base to our tourism operators, this region generates enormous economic value for Queensland and the nation. If we are serious about resilience, we must back the people and industries that provide it.
That's why it is so concerning to see that the agriculture budget has been reduced and the key programs for pest and disease preparedness and drought support have been cut back. The shadow minister for agriculture has claimed that the 2026-27 budget includes more than $190 million in cuts to agriculture programs, a $52 million cut to the Future Drought Fund and reductions affecting pest and disease preparedness and invasive species management. Now, whatever side of politics you are on, the principle should be straightforward: you don't strengthen food security by reducing preparedness and you don't build resilience by walking away from coordinated biosecurity and pest programs. In Capricornia and across regional Queensland, producers are already managing feral animals, weeds, seasonal pressures and global volatility. If government wants to talk about resilience, the appropriations should match that rhetoric.
One of the most frustrating patterns we see is the removal or winding back of programs that deliver outcomes locally. In Capricornia, we've seen exactly what these programs can achieve. Through regional funding, projects such as Multicap's Rockhampton service were able to move forward with specialist, affordable and accessible housing for people living with disability, something our region had been crying out for. We have seen investment help deliver the Fitzroy Community Hospice in Rockhampton, a vital end-of-life care service for Central Queensland families. We have also seen support for projects like the Rockhampton Museum of Art, upgrade to Collinsville's telecommunications and water security investment through Yeppoon's recycled water augmentation. These are not abstract line items in a budget. They are real projects that improve lives, strengthen communities and create local jobs. That is why I called for the budget to restore confidence in regional Australia by backing local councils and community organisations with strong, targeted funding programs.
Capricornia's future depends on investment that strengthens our capacity to build, move and export. That means backing projects that expand our industrial and logistics capability—not just announcing them and walking away. I specifically called for support for projects like the Rockhampton Airport bay 7 expansion and freight hub because it backs local jobs, strengthens exports and opens up opportunities for Central Queensland. With growth in domestic and military aircraft movements and the prospect of increased defence activity in the region, infrastructure at Rockhampton Airport needs to keep up with the pace.
The same is true for the broader opportunity in our region. Coalition investment in Rookwood Weir has opened the door to agriculture growth and future private investment, but that growth must be matched by the freight, storage and enabling infrastructure needed to turn potential into long-term economic opportunity. I make the broader point that Capricornia contributes so much to the national economy. We deserve to see that recognised with strong investment in the regions. Appropriation bills should reflect that. Funding should follow economic contribution and national interests, not postcode politics.
I want to be constructive about what should happen from here. First, if the government is serious about cost-of-living relief, it should prioritise measures that make a tangible difference for families and small businesses in the regions, because pressures are still rising; second, we need genuine, sustained investment in regional road safety and freight corridors, including the Bruce Highway and key regional connectors, not stop-start spending; third, we must treat water and agriculture resilience as core national priorities, because food security and biosecurity are not optional; fourth, energy and fuel security must be approached with practicality and realism, because regional industries rely on reliability, not slogans; and, fifth, we need to restore and strengthen programs that empower local councils and community groups to deliver the infrastructure and services that communities actually need. These are not radical requests. These are the basics of governing well for a country as large and diverse as Australia.
I will always back Capricornia—the workers, the small businesses, the farmers, the volunteers, the manufacturers, the tourism operators, the resource communities and the families who keep our regions moving. I will back the communities that have fought for better roads, stronger local services, community infrastructure, water security and the investment needed to keep regional economies growing, and I will continue to stand up for the principle that regions like Capricornia, which contribute so much to the national economy, deserve more than promises. They deserve practical support and their fair share of investment. Before the budget, I made it clear what Capricornia needed: real cost-of-living relief and targeted investment in the roads, infrastructure and industries that keep Central Queensland strong. My message to the government is simple: if you want the regions to keep powering the nation, then fund the regions like they deserve.
I've had many conversations in my community in Melbourne with young people, with their parents and with their grandparents who want to know that the promise that has been there for them and the promise that has been there for previous generations—that if you work hard you will get the opportunity to have a secure roof over your head—will be there for the generations to come. But the reality is that, right now, too many young Australians are being priced out of homeownership. House prices have risen 400 per cent over the past two decades or so. They've gone from four to eight times incomes over the past 20 years, and ownership is down seven percentage points for young people. Just 44 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 34 own a home of their own.
That obviously has serious consequences for these young people, but it also has consequences that don't just affect them but affect all of us. The reality is that when a community is filled with people who can't see that the promise of their hard work is a pathway to a secure roof over their head for them and their family, the result is that we have a community that is increasingly divided. We already see some of the effects of that inequality and lack of opportunity in the divisive politics which is playing out in countries overseas at the moment. Indeed, it seems to be a sort of politics that those opposite—the Liberals and Nationals under the watchful gaze and resurgent popularity of One Nation—seem very keen to bring to Australia.
This is not how our government sees the future of Australia. In contrast, our government is focused on levelling the playing field for first home buyers. We are investing in fairness, in opportunity for all and in ensuring that more working families have the opportunity to get ahead. These bills give effect to a budget focused on what matters most to Australians, helping with the pressures people are facing right now, while also building a stronger, fairer and more resilient future.
This budget recognises the reality Australians are living through. Families are still feeling pressure at the checkout. Mortgage holders have faced the impact of higher interest rates. Renters and first home buyers are under enormous strain. Global uncertainty, from the conflict overseas to instability in energy markets and supply chains, continues to place pressure on prices here at home. So these bills deliver practical cost-of-living relief. They strengthen Medicare, they support housing affordability and they invest in Australia's long-term economic resilience.
I know that many young people in my community are working hard and saving carefully, but they still find themselves unable to buy their own home. They're turning up to auctions only to find themselves outbid by investors. The reality is that they've been priced out because of a system that has given people who already have a foothold in the property ladder access to support that new homebuyers don't have. Labor believes young Australians deserve the opportunity to buy a home in the communities that they grew up in. I hear this often from people in the suburbs of north-east Melbourne that I represent; they want to know that their kids have the opportunity that they had, and that they will be able to live in the beautiful communities that we call home and provide for their families there.
We on this side of the parliament believe that governments have a responsibility to tackle the structural barriers that are locking a generation out of homeownership. I think the people in my community understand this, and they do see our reforms as an important step towards improving intergenerational equity in both the economy and the housing market. I do also understand that there are some people who have concerns about these changes, and I am concerned that at the moment there is a lot of misinformation about the budget that is being spread around. The reality is that our government has backed and will continue to back small business. We will continue to back innovation and aspiration. These are of course very important Australian things. We will back hardworking Australians as well as reform the tax system to make it easier for people to get into secure housing.
We are also continuing our efforts to build more housing. This budget also continues Labor's investments in social and affordable housing. Locally, we are already seeing the impact of these investments. In Rosanna, 45 new social and affordable homes have just been completed. It was great to join the Prime Minister and Minister O'Neil last week to see these new homes for local residents right on the railway line there, providing much-needed housing to people and families at risk of homelessness and key workers that we need in our community. They are a fantastic investment for us locally. More homes are being built in Ivanhoe, Heidelberg and Greensborough. In Heidelberg West you can see the cranes in the sky, as our government is currently working with the Victorian government to deliver 104 new homes as part of the Bell-Bardia estate development.
This is work our government is undertaking because we understand that this is crucial to Australians now and into the future. It is work that was neglected by those opposite during the decade they were in power. During my time as the member for Jagajaga when those opposite were in power, I certainly was not able to visit new social and affordable housing being built in our community. This is a challenge that Labor has taken up, understanding that we need to level the playing field for new homebuyers and that we need more housing supply and more social and affordable housing. This is what Labor is doing.
We're also getting on with the job because we understand that we have a responsibility to deliver now, helping Australians through difficult times while also building for the future. This is in very clear contrast to those opposite, whose policies are clearly now being driven by their fear of One Nation and what it means for their chances at the next election. The opposition leader's budget reply made it clear that he and his party are not interested in levelling the playing field for young Australians looking to buy their home. Instead, the opposition leader borrowed and leant into divisive politics, threatening hardworking migrants in Australia with removal of their access to government services and support.
These are people who have helped build, and continue to help build, our country. They are part of our communities, and they are being told by the Leader of the Opposition and those who sit with him—and, of course, his One Nation inspired policies—that they are not worthy of support. At the same time, the opposition leader and the Liberals are backing more dirty, expensive coal. They're opposing the clean energy transition, and they're standing against the very housing programs that are helping to deliver more homes for Australians. We know that those opposite's, the Liberals', policies would leave Australians paying more for energy while also missing out on the jobs, investment and industries of the future.
It is really concerning that, alongside One Nation, the Liberals have now become a part of a dysfunctional coalition that is built on grievance and division, not real solutions. This is not the party of Menzies. This is not their grand legacy. This is dog whistling, leaning into the lowest common denominator and pulling Australians away from the future that they should have. While Labor is focused on building more homes, strengthening Medicare and easing cost-of-living pressures, the Liberals and One Nation are offering more delay, more division and higher costs for local families.
This government very clearly supports hardworking Australians. From 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will receive more tax cuts. Working Australians will receive an additional, permanent tax cut worth $250. We're also introducing a new $1,000 instant tax deduction without receipts, making it easier for working people to claim the deductions they are entitled to. Alongside this, we've been cutting fuel taxes to help ease the pressure every time Australians fill up at the petrol bowser. These are practical measures designed to make a real difference in people's lives. But, as I said, these bills before us are not only about immediate relief; they are also about strengthening Australia's long-term resilience in an increasingly uncertain world.
To better protect Australia from global shocks, our government is investing in our energy future, including in reliable sovereign renewables. We will establish a $3.2 billion Australian fuel security reserve and strengthen our national fuel security by increasing Australia's diesel and jet fuel reserves. We're also supporting the implementation of a domestic gas reserve where LNG producers will be required to reserve 20 per cent of exports for the domestic market. These are important reforms that will help put downward pressure on domestic gas prices and better shield Australians from global price volatility. Australians should not continue paying the price for instability overseas.
Some of the most important investments in this budget are in Medicare. As ever, Labor is the party of Medicare because we believe health care should depend on your Medicare card and not your credit card. We are making Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent feature of our health system in this budget. That means locals can continue to access urgent but non-emergency care without waiting hours in a busy emergency department and without paying hundreds of dollars out of pocket. In Jagajaga, these Medicare urgent care clinics are already making a difference. The Heidelberg Medicare Urgent Care Clinic has now seen more than 45,000 patients since opening in 2023. It's actually one of the busiest clinics in the country.
The new Eltham Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, which opened in December last year, has already supported more than 5,000 visits from local families needing urgent health care close to home. I visited that clinic last Friday with the member for Eltham, my colleague Vicki Ward, and they were telling me there how the clinic has become such an important piece of the local healthcare infrastructure. It is very busy on the weekends at the moment, with football injuries and all that that brings in. But what a difference to local families to have that support, to have that access to urgent care when they need it close to home without having to wait at a hospital emergency department.
Our budget is also supporting our public hospitals, including our local Austin Hospital, and we continue our work to strengthen bulk-billing and to make medicines cheaper. More GP clinics in our community are now bulk-billing as a result of our increased support. We now have 15 clinics locally who are bulk-billing patients—eight more since our changes. We've capped PBS medicines at $25 and at just $7.70 for concession card holders, meaning more than 2.5 million cheaper scripts have been filled since our cheaper-medicines changes.
As I've said, these changes don't happen by accident; they happen because Labor fundamentally believes in Medicare and because Labor supports Medicare. When we are in government, this is what we do. We make sure that the benefits of Australia are available to all Australians, that the healthcare that people should be able to get depends on their Medicare card and not on their credit card.
These bills deliver cost-of-living relief. They strengthen Medicare, they support housing affordability and they invest in Australia's long-term resilience in an uncertain world. I know how important these investments are right now and will continue to be to my local community. I know what it means when a local family can access free, urgent health care close to home. I know what it means when a young person gets a fairer shot at buying their first home. And I know what it means when governments invest in the communities they represent. Ultimately, budgets are about people and about the types of communities we want to build and the type of country we want Australia to be.
We are very clearly setting out in this budget that we want Australia to be a country, and the communities that I represent to be communities, where people have a fair go and where that aspiration and ability to get ahead is there for everyone. Contrast that with those opposite, with the Liberal-National-possibly One Nation opposition—still fixated on higher power prices through an obsession with dirty, expensive coal, determined to drag Australia back to the fights of the past not to invest in the future and the opportunities that come with it but to play out culture wars they import from elsewhere, and hope that that'll reverse their electoral fortunes.
These appropriation bills say that our government wants an Australia where hard work is rewarded, where Medicare remains universal, where young people can aspire to own a home and where more Australians can get ahead. The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job of building Australia's future.
I rise to respond to the government's budget papers and the appropriation bills for 2026-27. The budget contains measures that respond to some immediate pressures, but it fails the bigger test on a number of fronts—and I want to deal with some of those tonight.
Firstly, Australia is not investing seriously in protecting households, communities and the economy from climate risks that are already arriving. The government has rightly spoken about resilience in relation to fuel security, supply chains and global volatility, but the same urgency is completely missing when it comes to climate resilience—the floods, the fires, the storms, the coastal erosion and the heatwaves that are already driving up household costs, insurance premiums and disaster recovery bills. The government was all but silent on that on budget night.
Earlier this year I wrote to the Treasurer, urging the government to put climate adaptation and resilience at the centre of national economic management because resilience needs to be done in advance. You don't just do it at the last minute, because sustainable economic management and community safety can't be achieved while we continue to spend far more cleaning up after disasters than preventing damage in the first place. The economics on this are clear. Over the last three federal budgets, the Commonwealth has allocated about $2.5 billion to climate adaptation, resilience and disaster preparedness, while natural disaster relief is expected to cost around $9.86 billion over the same period—significantly more, nearly five times more, on recovery than prevention.
I've called for Australia to scale up investment in climate risk reduction and adaptation to at least a quarter of a per cent of GDP, which would make it commensurate to the actual cost that occurs to the economy. It's a modest benchmark compared to the scale of the risk, and it would provide a clear, stable and accountable floor for national resilience investment. The government should not treat adaptation as a discretionary grant program. It should be treated as core national infrastructure, core national security and core cost-of-living policy.
The government conducted the first National Climate Risk Assessment, and the outcomes were dire; the findings were incredibly serious. Yet there was no response in the budget that was commensurate to the seriousness of those risks. In fact, there was so little allocated to adaptation and resilience. We have to be really clear that climate resilience is not separate from the cost of living. It is now one of the front lines, in fact, of the cost-of-living crisis. When homes flood, when bushfire risk rises, when coastal storms damage infrastructure and when insurance premiums rise, mortgages become harder to maintain, councils face higher costs and taxpayers are left footing the bill, and still there is no proper acknowledgement from the government in respect of this.
In Warringah, climate risk is not theoretical. Our community is coastal, urban, bushland adjacent and highly exposed to the natural hazards that are becoming far more frequent and more severe. Northern Beaches Council has identified the long-term climate risks facing our region, including sea-level rise and more frequent extreme weather events: bushfires, coastal floods, storms, floods and droughts. Council has also recognised that roads, stormwater systems, seawalls and buildings need to be able to withstand the impacts of the next 50 to 100 years, not just the conditions of the past. Yet local government is not being equipped to deal with those costs. The northern beaches has already experienced the real-life effects of bushfires, storms and flooding, with impacts on property, clean-up costs, repair bills, insurance costs and community wellbeing. We see it on our beaches too. Coastal erosion is already a live risk for communities across the northern beaches, with several beaches classified by the NSW government as coastal erosion hotspots. These risks are not abstract modelling exercises. They're planning, infrastructure, insurance and household budget issues.
For so many people, they work their entire life to invest in their home, and then they're unable to insure that home against the highly likely risk of disaster—and the government know this. Their own risk assessment shows that risks are escalating, compounding and cascading when it comes to people's homes, and so many are unable to insure their home. There is a complete vacuum from others in this place in even acknowledging those risks or having a plan for Australians. I've heard directly from a constituent whose insurance premiums have jumped sharply and from residents in flood affected pockets of Warringah who have been priced out of cover or denied cover altogether. This is the future we risk normalising if we don't invest in resilience: more households exposed, more businesses disrupted, more public infrastructure damaged and more Australians left wondering whether they can afford to insure the homes they've worked their whole lives to buy and support.
Warringah is not asking for special treatment. So many other communities are concerned about this, and it shouldn't be up to the communities and local people to have to deal with this alone. The government must step up to that resilience piece. We have to find ways to ensure that insurance is affordable and available for the vast majority of our communities and that there is support underpinning it. We need to make sure we can fix damaged infrastructure, and emergency appeals are there, but we have to build in that resilience.
Australia's first National Climate Risk Assessment confirms what communities are already living through: more frequent and severe floods, fires and cyclones; greater exposure to sea-level rise; higher costs; reduced productivity; and worsening inequality. Insurance is one of the clearest price signals of this risk. APRA found that, between 2010 and 2025, Australian home insurance premiums rose at an average rate of 7.2 per cent while wages grew by only 3.1 per cent. APRA also found that more frequent and severe weather events are driving premium increases as insurers reprice risk. If people cannot afford to insure their home, then they are exposed to a financial risk. If lenders become concerned about underinsurance, then mortgage risk rises. If businesses cannot afford cover, their investment is delayed. If councils can't afford to protect local infrastructure, then roads, stormwater facilities, beaches, parks and community facilities deteriorate.
Yet the Commonwealth's main resilience financing vehicle, the Disaster Ready Fund, remains far too small for the scale of the task. The government describes the fund as its flagship disaster resilience initiative, but it provides up to $1 billion over five years, which is $200 million a year. Let's just stop for a moment and think about that perspective. It's nowhere near enough. The budget itself confirms $200 million under round 3 of the Disaster Ready Fund while the risk facing communities continues to escalate. Frankly, it's backwards to spend billions after disasters, but only a fraction of that amount preventing that damage and helping communities build their resilience beforehand. Every household understands that basic principle.
The other big message that came out of the budget papers and these appropriation bills is the question of intergenerational fairness. The test of tax reform should also be in that respect. For too long we have known that the housing crisis has been worsening. Australia's housing tax settings have rewarded those who already own assets, while younger Australians are left trying to save a deposit in a market where prices have run far ahead of wages. When property investors are outbidding young first homebuyers, it is not a level playing field. I support the principles of winding back tax settings in relation to investment properties. The current tax settings that have encouraged investment into existing housing rather than new supply. Negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts have too often operated together to make established property a tax preferred investment vehicle rather than a place to live.
But good reform has to be well designed. I think there is a social licence around these changes when it comes to property investment, but the government has not made the case, and there certainly is no social licence and there is no clear productivity argument around applying the capital gains tax changes across business investment shares, employees equity startups, venture capital and small business succession. That's why I've written to the Treasurer again seeking the modelling and the rationale for the 30 per cent minimum tax rate around capital gains, seeking the evidence for these. What is the evidence to underpin extending the changes from property investment to that much broader application?
The strong feeling and the strong feedback is that people are incredibly blindsided. The government simply does not have a mandate to extend those changes beyond investment property. And, in fact, the strong concern is that it will weaken productivity and investment. Intergenerational equity is not achieved if we make housing fairer for young Australians but make it harder for them to build businesses, invest in innovation, access employee equity or grow any kind of buffer or nest egg outside of property. The objects should be clear: reduce the tax advantages that have encouraged passive speculation in existing housing while protecting the investment pathways that support entrepreneurship, that support productivity, that support clean energy, small business growth and long-term economic resilience. The Treasurer should release the modelling so parliament can assess genuinely whether these reforms are finding the right balance because overwhelmingly the feedback from the community, from that very generation that the government is claiming to be there to support, is strongly against it. They feel absolutely blindsided by these actions from the government.
I can only convey the stories that were put to me. Young professionals are working really hard. They've got good incomes, but, between high rents or high mortgage rates, they have barely anything left over every month. They are just going pay cheque to pay cheque. What little they are able to save or put aside, they are putting into start-ups, into shares or into ETFs in the hope of building a little bit of a buffer for their economic circumstances. Let's be really clear. These are not high wealth, high net worth—this is not a question of earning an income from investments instead of an income from working and being taxed on that wage. They are already paying tax through their wages. They are simply trying to save and create a buffer, and now the government's proposal is to come and yet again tear down that aspiration. I would urge the government to separate out their approach when it comes to property investment compared to innovation and productivity when it comes to small business, start-ups and, in particular, shares. This budget also really failed and left many people behind. The government talks a lot about not leaving anyone behind, but, in a cost-of-living crisis, there was nothing in this budget for the most vulnerable in our communities. At a time when rent, food, transport and energy costs remain high, the government has not delivered the serious increase to JobSeeker that community organisations, economists and its own advisory bodies have repeatedly called for. Organisations like ACOSS have warned that JobSeeker remains just $409 per week, around 42 per cent of the minimum wage, and says the payment must be lifted beyond this pitiful level.
It's not just a welfare issue. It's a dignity issue, a poverty issue and a participation issue because the level is so low people can't even get back into the workforce. It is simply unsustainable. ACOSS and UNSW research found that less than a quarter of people surveyed said they could live on JobSeeker. The government's own economic inclusion advisory committee has again recommended lifting JobSeeker, youth allowance and related working-age payments as a first priority. Yet there was nothing in this budget for all those people. ACOSS has also pointed out that the budget settings effectively freeze JobSeeker, in real terms, over the forward estimates, with no one-off increase and no change to indexation. That is not adequate cost-of-living relief. It means asking people with the least to absorb the most pressure.
Finally, in relation to the budget's investment in child support reform, this is welcome. It's long overdue, and something I've been advocating for for many years. The government has committed $182.6 million over four years, with $19.6 million ongoing, to make the child support scheme safer and more effective by addressing weaponisation, financial abuse and noncompliance. In the scourge of domestic violence, it is quite shocking that we still essentially have institutionalised facilitation of financial control. The child support system does not work because, too often, mothers are left with a child support debt from their ex-partners, and then the Commonwealth seeks to recover a debt against them from the family support payment.
The government knows this is a problem; it's recognised that women make up the majority of recipient parents and that the system has too often been used by perpetrators of family and domestic violence to continue control after separation. Parents should not be forced back into conflict, into unsafe contact or repeated administrative battles with an abusive former partner. The government must progress to a child support guarantee, and, when a parent fails to pay, children don't go without. When there is a family support debt owed to the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth should recoup it against the parent with a child support liability. Stop chasing women for those payments because all it does is give them credit rating issues, mean they cannot get into housing and mean they bear the brunt of it. There are many simple things that still need to be done in relation to this budget.
This suite of appropriation bills shows that the Albanese Labor government is prepared to make the decisions that count. It's an ambitious budget because it needs to be; the times demand it. The global context in which we find ourselves demands it. The bottom line of this budget is about providing financial relief for all Australians while undertaking the necessary reforms to create a more resilient economy for our future. It is about ensuring that Australians keep more of what they earn, and it is about ensuring that health access and affordability are a right, not a privilege. It's about ensuring that all Australians, younger and older, no matter their background, are able to get ahead and stake their share in the Australian dream.
It is now harder for younger Australians, because they find themselves in a historically unprecedented housing situation, to achieve the traditional milestones that Australia has prided itself on being part of being an Australian—owning a home, raising a family and saving for a more secure future. Our aged care system, on its current trajectory, will be unable to keep up with the rate of growth in population of older Australians, because they are one of the fastest growing populations. Younger Australians deserve access to secure housing and the opportunities to build their future—our future, Australia's future—and older Australians deserve the secure retirement and services that they have worked for.
The Albanese Labor government's vision is simple. It is one in which all Australians are able to contribute fully to our national economic life and reap the benefits of doing so. It's a vision in which no Australian is left behind, whereas what we've seen from those opposite can hardly be considered serious at all. They presented not an alternative financial proposition. It's been an unabashed demonstration of dog whistling.
The Albanese Labor government have proven time and again that we are the only serious and capable economic managers. We are the government of lower taxes and sound economic management. We are the government that delivered the first budget surplus in nearly two decades and then backed it up with a second. But the Albanese Labor government is also prepared to be upfront about our fiscal position in relation to global uncertainties. The economic repercussions of the conflict in the Middle East have been felt not only in Australia but in countries across the globe. Those repercussions have dragged on far longer than what we initially expected. Like other countries, we are confronted daily with the challenge of fuel security due to the unpredictability of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. This budget seeks to shore up our future fuel security to prepare us for unexpected global energy shocks and disruptions, which are, more often than not, out of our hands. To this end, we have committed to purchasing more fuel and more fertiliser and to growing our national reserves of jet fuel and diesel to 50 days. We will make gas companies reserve 20 per cent of their exports for domestic use, because it simply defies moral logic that Australians should be left in the lurch when it comes to the natural resources that we own.
At the moment the Middle East conflict erupted, the Albanese Labor government acted to relieve pressure at the pump for everyday Australians. The Prime Minister, Foreign minister and others negotiated with our South-East Asian neighbours to ensure that we had security of fuel supply. We halved the fuel excise, reduced the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero and empowered our consumer regulator to be able to impose larger financial penalties on petrol companies that take advantage of the conflict and of their customers and artificially inflate their prices, because everyday Australians should not have to pay prohibitive sums in order to drive to work.
Yes, it's an ambitious budget, and, yes, we are making the hard decisions now in order that future generations won't have to. With $63.8 billion in savings, this budget constitutes the largest savings package ever. What this means is that debt will be lower and our budget position will be stronger year on year in the medium term because it is a deliberate principle of this budget that we save so that we can pass on the benefits in tax cuts to everyday Australians. This budget will see Australians receive more tax cuts from 1 July this year, in addition to the previous three rounds of legislated tax cuts, to help relieve cost-of-living pressures. This includes a $250 tax offset and a $1,000 instant tax deduction for working Australians. The $250 tax offset will benefit 13.3 million workers, including 880,000 in my home state of South Australia, while the $1,000 instant write-off will benefit 6.2 million workers, including 450,000 in South Australia.
We will also ease cost-of-living pressures by making access to health care easier and more affordable. The government has in this budget committed $1.8 billion over five years to our urgent care clinics, making them a permanent part of Medicare. With 135 urgent care clinics across Australia and more being built, this will mean that four in five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of one. In South Australia alone, urgent care clinics have delivered over 172,000 bulk-billed visits since the network's inception in 2023. In the Marion Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, in my electorate of Boothby, there have been nearly 31,000 visits since November 2023, when it opened. The proliferation of urgent care clinics will mean reduced wait times for patients seeking urgent care, while also taking pressure off our emergency departments and services.
The budget also commits an extra $25 billion in addition to the $220 billion already invested in our public hospitals over the next five years. In South Australia, we expect to receive $2.7 billion in hospital funding in the next financial year and $3.3 billion by financial year 2029-30. And Australians have already saved more than $2.3 billion with cheaper PBS medicines, with a maximum price of $25 per script or $7.70 for pensioners and concession cardholders. In Boothby, that's over three million cheaper scripts, and across South Australia that's over 31 million.
We're investing in more bulk-billing GPs, with now almost 3,800 fully bulk-billing practices right across Australia, and a projected nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030. The reality is that Australia is experiencing a rapidly growing older population. We have more retirees and comparatively fewer working-age taxpayers. Our demographics are changing, so our service offerings need to change as well. We know that the demand for aged-care services, in-home and residential, is growing and will continue to grow. A new aged-care home needs to be built every three days for the next 20 years in order to be able to provide the services our cohort of older Australians will need. Currently, we're not meeting that demand, and the entire system risks collapsing under its own weight.
Older Australians will benefit from the Albanese Labor government's commitment to expanding and improving the aged-care system. This will mean more aged-care beds, more packages and better care. It will mean 5,000 more beds year on year. It will mean being able to build and maintain quality residential accommodation. It will mean a Support at Home program that is fairer and more affordable, with faster and improved assessments and shorter wait times. It will mean free personal-care services—like showering assistance, dressing and continence support—alongside free clinical care. It will mean an expansion of the end-of-life pathway to provide dignified care for older Australians in their final months. And it will mean 20 additional Specialist Dementia Care Program units and an expansion of the Hospital to Aged Care Dementia Support Program, which will provide crucial transitional support for older Australians going from hospital to residential aged care.
We have also made, unsurprisingly, housing a crucial plank of this budget. Homeownership is a key part of the Australian dream, but for the past four decades this country has not built enough houses to keep up with demand. The tax settings that benefited investors over owner-occupiers drove housing prices up and up. In 1990, an average Australian home cost approximately 2.6 to four times the average wage. Now it's anywhere between 10 to 16 times the average wage and utterly unaffordable. No wonder we hear from first home buyers and young people that they don't think they will ever own their own home. That isn't good enough. So, in addition to all we have done in housing in the past four years, we're doing more.
The government has announced in this budget a $2 billion investment in the enabling infrastructure that will unlock much needed housing development. The Local Infrastructure Fund will assist local and state governments and utility companies in closing that last mile that has often posed a barrier to housing completion. It will mean that practical work can begin right away on water, roads and utilities, which will enable an additional 65,000 new homes to be built over the next 10 years. In South Australia, local and state governments and utility providers will be eligible for more than $130 million in funding. We've already helped 250,000 first home buyers get into housing through the government's five per cent deposit scheme, but we recognise that they continue to be inherently disadvantaged by a tax system that works against them.
First home buyers, owner-occupiers, have been outcompeted in property purchases by investors who are subsidised by the taxpayer. The investor can pay more for a property, knowing that any loss they will make will be compensated by the taxpayer. That's not fair, and that's why we're making the tax system fairer by removing negative gearing on established builds and changing the way capital gains are taxed. Because Australians that want to buy their own homes should not be put in a position where they will be outcompeted by an investor who is able to exploit tax advantages. What this means is that, for new investments, negative gearing can only be applied to new builds, and capital gains will be adjusted for inflation before being taxed at a minimum rate of 30 per cent.
These reforms will mean that more Australians can get into homeownership and younger Australians can get into the housing market, and any new negative gearing investments will go to building new homes, which will increase the housing stock. The result will be a boost in housing supply by another 30,000 homes over the next decade, and we will see 75,000 more homeowners being supported into the market. The reforms are about levelling the playing field and giving every Australian the opportunity to get their foot in the door of owning a home—a fair go for all Australians.
This budget is perhaps one of the more important budgets in recent times, because we find ourselves at a juncture, at a crossroads. While the opposition continue to distract themselves with their search for political identity, culture wars and negativity, we are acutely conscious of the fact that we must act now on these critical issues, or it will be too late: we will let the housing crisis run away from us, which will mean that young Australians will certainly never be able to afford to buy their own home; we will let the cost of living run away from us, which will mean reduced standards of living and poorer health outcomes; we'll let the aged-care crisis run away from us, which will mean older Australians will no longer be able to receive the quality care that they need and deserve; or we'll let the global fuel crisis run away, which will have severe impacts on our national productivity. But we're not here for that; we are here to do the right thing.
This is a responsible budget, a reforming budget, a budget designed to promote economic resilience. It's a budget for all Australians, young and old, no matter your background. And it's a budget that recognises the urgency of the moment, a moment that the Albanese Labor government is determined to meet. I commend these bills to the House.
I also rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, the budget that was handed down recently. Budgets are important documents not just for the figures that a lot of people talk about—'We're funding this. We're paying for that. We're cutting this.' It really does set out some pointers and directions of where a government's true motivations lie, where their true philosophies lie and where they want to take the country.
In the history of political thought in recent times, there have been a lot of experiments around the world as to how to manage a society, how to manage an economy. There are those who argue that we should have a bigger government with more spending, more people employed by the government. The logical extension of this, of course, is socialism then leading to communism, where the government is all controlling and government spending is everything in the economy. On the other side of political philosophy, there is capitalism and the free market, where you sort of just let it rip.
Now, those philosophies at the pure ends of the scale are, of course, unworkable and unacceptable. I think the examples of eastern Europe in the 1970s and 1980s show what the ultimate impact of big government is. And the example in the United States—though it's a great country with great innovation—shows what a free market that goes too far without a safety net can be. So we need to decide, in Australia, where we are going to settle in these ideas of how big the government should be and what kind of a society we should be. What do we take from socialism, what do we take from capitalism, and how do we set the place up to be really vibrant and dynamic?
The history of Australia in recent times is really interesting. You had a Whitlam government that was quite a left-wing government and wanted a lot of government control in everything; a Fraser government that rejected those ideas but didn't make the reforms that it should have made; and a Hawke-Keating government that perhaps rejected the old Labor ideology—which has come back, by the way—of big government and tried to open Australia's economy up to something better, to the dynamism and the influence that a really strong and competitive global private enterprise can have. Hawke and Keating understood that, and they understood that was the way to get Australia going. Here we have a budget that is taking us in a very different direction from Hawke and Keating, expanding the size of government, making sure more people are involved in the government and employed by the government and really making it difficult for private enterprise to get ahead.
This budget contains some very significant changes to treatment in relation to the capital gains tax and negative gearing in particular. There are also some changes to trusts. But, in relation to CGT and negative gearing, these are big changes. I won't deny that. When big changes normally are proposed by a government, the courageous and decent thing to do is to seek a mandate by taking those changes to an election, as John Howard did in 1998 and Bill Shorten, to his great credit, did with similar changes to these at the 2019 election. Shorten lost the 2019 election, but he had the decency and the courage to take those changes to an election. This government did not do that. Changes are important, but so is how you make the changes and how you try and bring the Australian people along with you. If you really believe that you can sell these changes and that they're a good thing for Australians, don't sneak them in in the middle of a term. Take something this big to an election, and let's have a debate about it. That did not happen.
In relation to the changes themselves—firstly, capital gains tax changes have gone over like a lead balloon because, even though this government's trying to stamp it out, there is still a spirit of entrepreneurialism in this country. It's incredibly well exhibited in my electorate of Nicholls, where people have turned up from all parts of the world, often with nothing, and have used the natural resources there. In our case, it's irrigation water, but there are also the fine soils, the ability to grow fruit, the ability to process that fruit, the dairy industry and all of the ancillary businesses that strike up. When someone has a successful industry, all these private enterprise businesses strike up to service it. The change to the capital gains tax is the government saying, 'If you take a risk and if you're successful, we are going to tax you more as a result of being successful.'
There are a couple of problems with that. Firstly, it cruels aspiration. People might not be as willing to take a risk. But worse is this: do you know what the people who have a great idea and the inclination to take a risk with that great idea and set up a business are going to do? They're going to go to another country. We've already got the New Zealand finance minister saying, 'Hey, Aussie entrepreneurs, come over here.' That's not a good thing for a neighbouring country to be saying after a budget. It's basically saying, 'Your government is going to tax you for your success and your risk and we are not, because we want your ideas, we want your creativity and we want your appetite for entrepreneurialism.'
The changes to negative gearing are intended to make it easier for young people to get into the housing market, and I think that's an intent that we all share. That intent is best served by making sure that we improve the supply of houses. That will solve that problem more than anything else. I agree with the measures in this budget to provide $2 billion for enabling infrastructure for new housing developments. Our policy is to provide $5 billion and have a proportion of it in regional Australia. But I do support that part of the budget. I think it could be more, and we would do more, but I support that.
Go out and actually talk to housing developers, builders and the people who go in there. Once a council zones a paddock, takes it away from being agricultural or industrial and says, 'We're zoning it residential,' look at the time and money that it takes to get to the point where someone can actually pour a slab and build a house. It is too long, too hard and too expensive. We need to try and free that up a bit, make it quicker and make it more possible to get more blocks and more houses out there.
Many of those opposite and a lot of the ministers are having trouble explaining how the treatment of trusts works. I too am having trouble explaining to some of my constituents how the treatment of testamentary discretionary trusts works and whether or not they will be taxed. I think the government needs to go back to the drawing board and have a look at that. There's a lot of talk in the wash-up of this budget about intergenerational equality. What sort of Australia, what sort of a budget bottom line and what sort of tax system we leave to our future Australians is the real test of intergenerational equality. I worry about the Australia that we're leaving them.
We are leaving them with a tax system that doesn't reward them in the way that it should. The government's very fond of saying they're going to give working Australians some sort of tax back, which is not much money in the scheme of things. That tax that they get back, that money that they get back, is going to be eaten up in this insidious problem that we have had in the Australian tax system for years called bracket creep. As inflation rises, you go to your employer—or hopefully your employer comes to you and says, 'As CPI is rising, your wages need to rise to deal with the cost of living.' That wage increase pushes you into a higher tax bracket, and the government, while saying, 'We're giving you a tax cut,' grabs it back with the other hand.
This has been a problem with the Australian taxation system for a long time. It has meant that, as people become more senior and they try to work a bit harder and earn more money, the money just gets grabbed back by the government. I hadn't seen anyone with the courage to seriously do something about it until the Leader of the Opposition got up and announced what the changes around indexing tax brackets to inflation will be. It's courageous. It's bold, and I think, once we get out there and explain to the Australian people that it's their money—and you don't want the government grabbing it back because you had the temerity to become more senior, work harder and get a higher wage—they'll respond very positively towards that.
There are some regional impacts to this budget too that make a big difference to what the productivity of Australia will be. The cuts to the Inland Rail project are incredibly regrettable. That is a nation-building project—it should be a nation-building project—that has a great environmental benefit and a great productivity benefit. It was going to spring businesses up all across the extent of it. To end it at Parkes and not take it through to Queensland is very disappointing. There are significant cuts to infrastructure spending and the National Water Grid—even smaller things like the $191 million cut from pests and diseases and regional trade and drought funding and the $21.4 million cut from regional communications funding. This is all very regrettable.
I do give credit where it's due. After more than a year of us trying to highlight the lack of funding in key regional grant programs, the new rounds of the Growing Regions Program and the Stronger Communities Program have been funded. I support the government in that. For too long, councils and community organisations have been starved of any opportunity to even apply for funding, so I welcome that.
There has never been a clearer outline of competing visions for Australia's future. On one hand, you've got a bigger government where more people are employed by the public service, where more people are reliant on the government for their funding and where the government is in people's lives more than it has ever been with all of the cruelling of economic opportunity and private enterprise that that causes. Or you've got a different vision—the one of the pioneers who got off boats at the Port of Melbourne in the late 1940s and said: 'Where do I want to go? I want to go to Shepparton, in the Nicholls electorate, because that's where opportunity exists. You can go up there and, if you work hard, you can get ahead. You can make something because it's private enterprise. There are no government jobs up there, but if you get out and work hard on a farm, in five years you'll own your own farm.' We've seen waves of people come and do that, and it's been inspiring to see.
We want to be the sort of government that encourages that entrepreneurism; doesn't punish people for their aspirations about wanting to get ahead; makes sure we increase housing supply, which will be the thing that gets more young people into housing; and builds an Australia that is not veering towards socialism, which is something that we have seen not work in lifting people's ideas. I'll give you an example. I'll give you a quote from former senator Mathias Cormann. The reason he became a Liberal and on that side of politics is because of what he saw in East Germany versus West Germany. When you see the capitalism and the business and all the development and how that lifts people, he was inspired, and that's why he wanted to be on the side of aspiration, of free trade, of free enterprise, but with that crucial safety net to make sure everyone's dignity is supported.
This budget is about relief, recovery and resilience, and I'm proud to speak on the appropriation bills associated with it. It delivers more tax cuts and a fair go at buying your own home, and it strengthens Medicare for all. It's about getting workers, families and businesses in my community through the current global fuel crisis while building a stronger economy that works for more people. At the outset, I want to say that the budget is a budget dedicated to tax relief for 13.3 million Australian workers, helping more people realise the great Australian dream of homeownership and creating a fairer and more sustainable tax system for all Australians.
I listened to the previous speaker—who, by the way, should be changing his party room, the National Party, the great agrarian socialists of Australian politics, into the Liberal Party. I look forward to the membership of the HR Nicholls Society as well. I grew up under the Bjelke-Petersen regime, and I can recognise someone that doesn't actually adhere to National Party values.
The highest taxing government in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia, by the way, was the Howard government. The highest spending government in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia was the Morrison government. That's a fact—not a belief, a fact. Those opposite think that, when we make some modest, reasonable and just changes to the tax system, somehow we're creating a sort of a Berlin Wall. It's quite an astonishing claim from those opposite in relation to the reality of what we're doing here.
It'd be even more sensible if they had voted at any stage for the income tax cuts that we took to the last election. Don't forget that at the last federal election, this mob, the Liberal and National parties, were going to increase people's taxes—that's what their platform was—and create a greater debt and deficit for the public. So they weren't exactly a prudent, pragmatic, sensible, economically responsible opposition when it came to the last budget, and the people marked them down accordingly. That's quite clear.
Eighty thousand taxpayers in my electorate of Blair will benefit from this cost-of-living relief, with the second of the three tax cuts to come into effect this year. From 1 July 2027, every working Australian taxpayer will receive the $250 working Australians tax offset, a permanent annual tax offset of up to $250 for income earned, increasing the effective tax-free threshold for workers by nearly $1,800 to $19,985, or $24,985 for workers eligible for the low-income tax offset. This is the largest permanent increase in the effective tax-free threshold since 2012-13 under the Gillard Labor government, and it's a big win for workers in my electorate. I'm going to be very interested in how the Liberal and National people opposite vote in relation to that particular bill when it comes into the chamber, having opposed income tax in the last parliament and having gone to an election opposing income tax cuts as well.
We've also introduced a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses, to offset employment income. This automatic deduction will make tax time simpler and deliver more cost-of-living relief from 2026-27. This will benefit 6.2 million workers, with an average tax saving of $205. We've already cut income taxes five times since coming to government, a record that those opposite cannot claim, despite having served nearly 10 years on the Treasury benches. The combined effect of all of this, on top of the government's existing tax cuts and instant deduction, is that the average worker in Blair could benefit by almost $3,000 by 2028, and they would not experience that if the coalition had won the last election.
The 2026 budget also includes important tax relief for small businesses, the backbone of my community across Ipswich, the Somerset region and the Karana Downs area. The government will make the per asset $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses permanent to support greater business investment and productivity.
The budget is focused on helping households, businesses and farmers in Blair get through the disruption caused by the conflict in the Middle East. We've already slashed the fuel excise, which is flowing through to local motorists at the bowser, saving them money when they fill up. That has been reported to me, and I discussed it with people at the Willowbank area group just last Monday night. We're investing to buy more fuel and fertiliser and keep more here, with a $10 billion Australian fuel security and resilience package, which will help Ipswich and the Somerset region keep moving. Again, I received positive feedback about that at the Ipswich Show last Saturday, and I was there for three days.
With an interest in electric vehicles up in Blair as a result of the global fuel crisis, we want to encourage the take-up of EVs. We've introduced some pretty sensible changes, I think, to the fringe benefit tax exemption for EVs to deliver fairer and more financially sustainable tax incentives.
On top of this, there's a 20 per cent domestic gas reservation scheme, which will secure more gas supply and put downward pressure on gas prices for local residents and businesses. When we talk about energy costs, who can ever forget those opposite voting against energy bill relief?
I want to commend Stacey Schinnerl and the Australian Workers' Union, particularly the Queensland branch but across the country, for their strong advocacy in relation to that gas reservation scheme. They took it to regional conferences, state conferences and national conferences of the Labor Party and pushed and pushed this, and I want to commend them for the work they've done in relation to this. This is a good outcome, I say, for people in my electorate. We've seen reforms to the petroleum resource rent tax, which, for the budget, will see and has seen an uptick in tax revenue from offshore gas projects. It's a pretty uncertain world, but we're preparing for future energy stocks.
In particular, we're focusing on helping people get an opportunity to get ahead. We want to make sure there's a level playing field for young people and first home buyers, with a fairer tax system. We're reforming how capital gains tax and negative gearing work, to help 75,000 extra homeowners into the market for the very first time. This is about putting householders first and helping more people in Blair buy their home, whether they live in Ripley Valley; South Ripley, where I was last week; Springfield; or Spring Mountain. Right now, first home buyers are being priced out of the market by property investors—I've received story after story in relation to that issue—backed by tax breaks like negative gearing. We want to level the playing field. From 1 July 2027, we'll limit negative gearing for residential property investments to new builds to ensure investors contribute to housing supply and give first home owners a fair go. We're replacing the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for individuals, trusts and partnerships with cost base indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax rate on capital gains.
As former prime minister Paul Keating—and I heard the previous speaker laud him—pointed out recently while backing in these changes, the simple fact is that, in our current system, income is taxed too heavily while capital is taxed too lightly. That was a point Paul Keating made very clearly. These changes will rebalance our tax system, make it fairer and allow government to take pressure off wage earners and first home buyers.
This will be warmly received in my electorate. We've got a younger population that even Brisbane does; our average age is 33, and, in suburbs I've referred to in this speech, it's even younger—below 20. Brisbane has an average age of about 36, which is still below the national average. We've got young people moving into the corridors in places like Ripley. I was there last week, at the Stockland Providence shopping centre's opening. This is really important in terms of housing affordability. There are houses going up everywhere in that area. It's people like these who we want to help get into the market. This budget is about helping these workers and first home buyers, as well as businesses, so that more people can earn more, keep more of what they earn and get ahead. That's aspiration—to get ahead.
When the Howard government introduced the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount in 1999, they saw too much—and we've seen too much—investment going into the property market, as opposed to more productive parts of the economy. Shareholdings actually reduced; house prices skyrocketed. That distortion made housing unaffordable for a whole generation. What we need to do is address this issue, and that's what this budget is about. We're fixing the tax treatment of capital gains to remove these distortions and help to ensure investment flows to where it's most productive. And, can I just say, that is good for the economy, that is good for private enterprise and that's good for aspiration.
I heard those opposite say on numerous occasions, 'It's socialism, leading to communism.' That's what they say. Realistically, that's just nonsense. It's about getting people to own private property, which is the heart of capitalism and the free enterprise system. People who own private property contribute to the economy. They look for jobs, they engage in jobs and they contribute to their local communities even more. They feel a sense of ownership. That's not about communism; that's about capitalism. That's about free enterprise. The party of Menzies and the party of 'Black Jack' McEwen opposite—honestly, where have the Liberal and National parties gone in relation to this issue?
It's early days, but, in recent days, we've seen some reports of the housing market moderating and normalising after the post-COVID highs, including in Brisbane and Ipswich, in anticipation of these tax changes. There are a range of factors at play, but I think these reforms will have a significant impact on housing affordability. When it comes to housing, I can tell you there are more than 5,100 people in my local community, first home buyers, who got their first home as a result of Labor's five per cent deposit scheme.
I hear those opposite make speeches about wanting to get more homes. It's a pity they voted against every housing bill in the last parliament, and I anticipate they're likely to vote against housing bills in this parliament. The Homes for Australia Plan is a commitment of 1.2 million households—more homes for Australia. Those opposite, who couldn't even find a housing minister for most of their term, are voting against that sort of legislation and then applauding, for example, in my home state of Queensland, when we do a deal with the Crisafulli government for 51,000 more homes across fast-growing areas like Yarrabilba and other places in South-East Queensland—and 20,000 being geared for first home buyers. Those opposite, the Liberal and National parties, who think this is a good idea—even the Crisafulli LNP government think it's a good idea—voted against the funding. These people in this chamber voted against it. So, when they lament, when they claim they've got some real concerns about housing and when they want to link migration to housing, look at how they vote. They vote against housing for young people and for other people every single time.
They talk about their $5 billion plan for local infrastructure. I want to tell the member for Nicholls, who spoke here in this chamber, that our $2 billion extra in the local infrastructure fund adds on and accumulates to $6.3 billion to get up to 65,000 new homes. They claim that's a good idea. It's a pity they didn't vote for our housing bills in the last parliament. Now, in opposition for a second time, they've had a sort of road-to-Damascus conversion and, somehow, think this is good.
I want to tell you we've doubled the Roads to Recovery funding from $500 million to a billion dollars. We've increased by 40 per cent the black spot funding. They claim we don't do it. These are the people that paused funding to local councils when they were last in government. They paused the funding; we doubled the funding, in terms of Roads to Recovery. We've increased black spot funding by 40 per cent and provided extra funding under financial assistance grants. The coalition, in government, paused it and didn't do anything about it, much to the chagrin of local government associations around the country.
We're doing things like building 24 social homes with the $14.2 million North Ipswich social housing project in conjunction with the state government. This is funding that we delivered but that the coalition opposed. They think it's a good idea to go to these projects and think it's a good idea for housing per se, but, when push comes to shove, they won't vote for it. They won't. They just will not vote for it. Despite what they say in this place, they're all bolshie. It's a good word, bolshie, because that's a word they really don't like. They're really bolshie about that. When they go back to their electorates, they think, 'Oh, this is a good idea. It's very, very nice to see this happening in my electorate.' But when they come here, they vote against it again and again.
For example, they don't think the $1 billion we put aside for the Building Early Education Fund is a good thing. We've worked with the Crisafulli government for five sites in Queensland. We've done that, including in my electorate of Blair, where the Rosewood State School will get funding to improve access for early childhood education, helping children transition to primary school. They think that's a waste of money. I can tell you that John-Paul Langbroek, the minister for education in Queensland, doesn't think it's a waste of money. He stood up and did a press conference with us, thinking it's a good idea. Here, of course, the Liberal and National parties think that sort of funding is a waste of time, but when they go back to Queensland they say something very, very different. And the Crisafulli government says something very, very different, I can assure you.
My electorate is one of the fastest growing in the country. In fact, I've got more electors in my electorate than has any federal seat in the country. One of the big things we've got in my electorate, which I'm so pleased to see, is the nearly 37,000 visits to the Ipswich Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, which those opposite would have closed down if they'd won the last election. In a huge investment, we've now got 30 bulk-billing medical practices in Ipswich and Somerset in my electorate and, of course, in the Karana Downs region. This is a massive increase. Those opposite thought that was a waste of time. They claim they don't believe in socialism or anything like that. Perhaps they should tear up those green cards they hold in their wallets. Medicare has made a huge difference. This bill—and this budget—provides a massive investment in health care, PBS and pharmaceuticals, and those opposite haven't supported it one little bit.
I know that on budget night the Labor members were patting each other on the back for a fantastic budget and doing such a great job, and I can kind of understand what the thinking was—that if you remove the negative gearing on existing properties, that's going to do something amazing. We'll have all these people go and invest in new land and build a house and negative gear that and get the capital gains tax. There is one thing the Labor members haven't thought of. In suburbs such as Gembrook, Cockatoo and Emerald in my electorate of La Trobe, there's only a five per cent rental market. Are the people who are holding onto those properties likely to sell those properties and try to reinvest down in, say, Clyde North or the new growth corridors in Pakenham? The simple answer is no. Either they're going to hold onto those properties or, if they do sell, obviously an investor is not going to be come in and assist the rental market up there. In those little areas that I mentioned, there are going to be a lot fewer rentals.
Then we can go down to the south of the electorate. People talk about property developers. We're talking about hundreds of acres of land—or it could be 30 acres of land. That's not mums and dads and first homebuyers getting in there; that's property investors and developers going in there. So you're going to have a property investor going up against new homeowner. I just can't see that what Labor is proposing is actually going to work.
The budget was just a budget of broken promises, higher taxes, more debt, lower living standards and fewer homes for Australians. There is a projected decade of deficits worth about $150 billion, with gross debt of around $1.25 trillion, annual interest costs of over $42 billion per year—that's roughly $80,000 per minute. Higher taxes of about $50 billion in total were announced, including $15 billion from personal income tax. Government spending is at its highest level in 40 years, outside of the pandemic. There are 35,000 fewer homes being built. This is in Labor's own budget papers.
As a member of parliament, it's always tough when you get to say you've broken a promise. The Prime Minister has just made every member of parliament look bad, but in particular himself and the Labor members. I'm going to go through the times when he was asked about changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax. On 9 April 2025, when asked if he would rule out changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax, he said: 'Yes. How hard is it? For the 50th time.' For the 50th time he's admitting that he's not going to make any changes. From 17 to 22 April 2025, he repeatedly said there were no plans to change negative gearing or the capital gains discount, saying, 'I rule it out,' and, 'No plans.' On 22 April 2025, on live TV, the PM said he would not cut the capital gains discount. In August 2025, the PM repeated that the government would stick to the tax policy it ran on, saying, 'The only tax policy we're implementing is the one we took to the election.' Now, in May 2026, the PM acknowledged the government had changed its stance and said, 'We've changed our position.' It's a bit like Darth Vader in Star Wars when he says, 'We're renegotiating the deal.'
So many people went to that election knowing that, if the PM's word was his bond, they would be voting for the same capital gains tax, the same negative gearing and the same rules for trusts. Discretionary trusts are going to be hit really hard. From 1 July 2028, the budget proposes a 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trusts. Trust income is usually distributed to beneficiaries, who pay tax at their own rates. Under Labor, the trust itself would pay 30 per cent tax on its income first. As it goes in before distribution, less money would be available to distribute to family members and heirs. Trustees and families may need to restructure ownership, incurring legal, accounting and stamp duty costs. The ones who are really winning on this at the moment are the accountants. But, even when I talk to the accountants, they're saying they're hating it because they've got all their businesses in trusts too, so it's going to impact them. People have gone and put trust in Labor—in particular, when it comes to discretionary trusts. They now have to go to an accountant and pay money to actually get legal advice and potentially change their trust arrangements. We're not talking about 100 or 200 people. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people.
In my previous role working with the multicultural community, I had a lot to do with our Indian community. I can say that there are a lot of Indian accountants out there. The main people they are serving are obviously from their own community because of language barriers et cetera, and they've advised them to use trusts. Tonight I messaged 10 or so multicultural people I know and business people, and all of them have trusts. We're not necessarily talking about people owning big companies. We're talking about the little guy or the family out there with a business. If the wife or the husband is not working for illness or whatever else, they just want to have the ability to put the money in the trust and actually disburse that money.
The other night I was at an event and was talking to electrical contractors. They're saying that the advice they've been giving their members for years is to set up trusts. I wonder how many tradies out there have set up trusts. So this is going to have a major impact. At the moment, if you look at Australia, you see we've got a situation where people are really struggling to make ends meet, and now small-business people have to fork out money to change their trust arrangements or, at the very least, get advice. This wasn't even mentioned prior to the election, so Labor can say, 'We didn't actually break our promise.' But I'll tell you what: no-one expected them to go after this.
When it comes to the capital gains tax, the old rule was a 50 per cent discount on capital gains for assets held for 12-plus months. The new rule is that the 50 per cent discount will be replaced by inflation indexation plus a 30 per cent minimum tax on gains, applying from July 2027. Again, the accountants are going to be trying to work out how much a property has grown in value after 2027 if it was purchased before that. You're going to have the ones doing well. Obviously the land value is coming out. Again, that's more money being paid from people who've gone into business and have gone into investments. Again, it's them who are paying the price. This policy raises taxes for ordinary Australians. As I said before, rental supply will be less and will obviously be much less in established areas because investors won't go there, and the new home buyer is going to be competing with an investor.
Sellers will often pay more tax under the new rule than under the old 50 per cent discount, which is obvious. Not just big investors but small landlords, retirees and long-term owners will face higher tax. These could be people who planned for their retirement 20 years ago, and now they're going to be hit. The higher tax reduces the take-home profit when the property is sold. Some investors may sell or stop buying established homes, which will, as I said, shrink the rental market. If you're a property investor, are you really going to go and buy an existing home when you can go and buy a new home with negative gearing and the capital gains benefit? That's where they're going to be going.
At the same time, they're going to be competing against the first home owner. Fewer rentals and fewer listings will push up rents. People that are on capital gains for retirement may get less income and less security. The new rules add complexity and require more accounting, valuations and of course paperwork. Replacing the 50 per cent discount with indexation plus a 30 per cent minimum means many sellers—especially lower-rate taxpayers and owners of long held assets—will pay more tax, get less after tax and face harder retirement and succession planning.
Remember: Paul Keating tried all this. It didn't work, and they had to bring it back after two years. That was when it comes to negative gearing. From July 2027, negative gearing will only apply to newly built homes. For properties bought after the cut-off, the rental losses can reduce your wages. They can only be used against further rental income or capital gains. Small landlords who buy existing homes are the ones most affected. Some landlords may sell up. It could mean fewer rentals and higher rents. New houses take years to build.
I've actually been out there in the past. I'm not negative gearing any properties at the moment, and I haven't for many years, but I have bought land, developed it and put three properties on it. I must admit it was during a bit of a crisis and I didn't make too much money out of it, but the builders actually went into liquidation. It wasn't an easy ride and it caused a lot of stress. That's probably why I never did it again. We're now expecting others to go and do the same thing, and when you're subdividing, you need town planners and everything else like that. So it's going to be really tough when it comes to this.
The budget is bad for young Australians. Labor's pitch to youth under the budget has not worked. Many believe they will be worse off under Labor. Youth are denied the pathways to buy a house and create wealth. As has been mentioned in parliament, the Prime Minister has benefited from negative gearing and from capital gains tax reductions. They're taking that away from generation X and millennials, and they're going to be the forgotten ones. A lot of them are hearing, too, that when they're investing in things like crypto they're going to get hit.
The budget's tax and housing changes risk making it harder and more expensive for young Australians to buy or rent homes. Homes won't appear overnight; building enough new homes takes years, so most young people won't see quick improvements. People who already own property keep the old tax rules, so the younger buyers will face competition. Small landlords will sell or stop buying because, as I said before, they won't want the stress of subdividing land, going through council and getting building permits et cetera.
Changes to capital gains tax make future profits harder to predict, which can scare off buyers. One thing, too, which we've seen in Victoria in particular, when it comes to the corruption of the CFMEU in the suburban rail project, money was diverted from the electorate of La Trobe, my electorate, which was for road sealing on Wellington Road and in the Dandenong Ranges. It was all put towards this Suburban Rail Loop, and the corruption there—I believe it's an amazing amount of billions of dollars.
We heard Premier Allan come out today and say there are no links to bikies et cetera. What a lot of rubbish. You've got the CFMEU and bikies—it's come out in the royal commission how they worked hand in glove, with paybacks, kickbacks and preferred building providers or suppliers and materials. It's corruption at its worst. When you're getting these huge wages for CFMEU members, when it comes to someone who wants a developer they're competing against builders and traders working on these major projects, and the CFMEU wages are forcing project costs—not only the rip-offs on these huge tunnels and the North East Link but also the local guy or family who have been trying to subdivide. They now have to compete with these massive wages. I just say to government members: you're going to lose seats over this because people on the ground are furious, especially small businesses and hairdressers who have their business connected to a trust—the tradies et cetera. They're all talking at the moment and they're letting their customers know, especially young people, that they'll be paying a lot more in the future when it comes to building, and they're not going to get the benefits, as the older generation have, when it comes to negative gearing and capital gains.
I come back to trusts and what Labor has done there. There are 800,000 trusts in Australia and people are now seeing their accountants—it's just a diabolical mess and it's going to make investment in Australia a lot tougher. When it comes to the IT sector, we've heard they want special dispensation for capital gains and investors. But you know what? It should be for any Aussie who's prepared to have a go at business and employ Australians. They must get the same advantages.
We live in challenging times where governments throughout the world struggle to meet the demands of the people they serve. Globally, people feel less secure and less confident in the future than ever before in my own lifetime. It's understandable, because for the last quarter of a century we've gone globally from one crisis to another—beginning with the Twin Towers bombing in the USA in 2001, then the subsequent wars in the Middle East, then the global financial crisis of 2007-08 through to about 2009, then the subsequent rise of ISIS, then being struck with the COVID pandemic across the world, followed by the war in Ukraine and, right now, events in Iran and the surrounding Middle Eastern region. All these are on top of the frequent and destructive natural disasters that we seem to now have on a fairly regular basis.
The rising tide of human displacement, the rapid change in technology and the frequent change of governments across the world also add to why it is absolutely clear that stability and confidence into the future has never been worse. Right now, throughout the world, the cost of living is the dominant issue facing most people. That's understandable because at the end of the day it's all about individual survival in the here and now. Whilst that is happening—and I understand that the focus is on the cost of living—issues such as climate change and environmental degradation, corporate greed and internal human conflicts in so many other countries are largely being neglected.
It is within this context that the Albanese government's 2026-27 budget was framed—that is, within a world of instability, uncertainty and insecurity. Trying to plan for the future when the issues around you are beyond your control, as we have seen with the bombing of Iran in the Middle East, is incredibly difficult. In fact, I can recall from the first day I walked into parliament. We had policies that the newly elected Rudd government was looking forward to implementing. Things have been derailed year after year—and I say that on behalf of the other side of politics as well, when they were in government. It's never easy when you can't plan with certainty. And yet that is exactly what is happening and why this budget, in my view, given all the conditions, the surrounding conditions around it, is indeed a very responsible budget. It factors in the uncertainty that we face and, at the same time, tries to correct some of the issues that need correcting whilst ensuring that we have a budget that is manageable and delivering for the people but also a budget that is responsible in terms of its fiscal responsibility.
There are a lot of things in this budget that I could talk about, but I want to begin with one that goes back, for me, from before I even came to this place. I was in local government for many, many years. As a South Australian, this issue is incredibly important. I'm referring to South Australian road funding. South Australian road funding, for decades now, has been a matter of contention between South Australia and the federal government. In the mid-nineties, it was cut, and ever since then South Australia has never received its fair share of local road funding. As a way of topping that up and ensuring that South Australia received its fair share, there was a fund called the Supplementary Local Road Fund for South Australia. That was established, and each year South Australia would get around $18 million to $20 million of additional funding to try and compensate for the underfunding it was getting. That underfunding was based on the fact that South Australia received about 5.5 per cent of the total funding for roads but in fact had 11.8 per cent of the national road network and about seven per cent of the population. So, whether you looked at funding on the basis of population per capita or population per road length, South Australia was getting less.
In this budget, finally, the Albanese government has locked in $230 million to continue the Supplementary Local Road Funding for South Australia for the next decade. In the past, it was only a year-by-year commitment, and I believe in one or two years we might not have even got it. I stand to be corrected on that. But it was a year-by-year commitment, which never allowed the South Australian local government authorities to plan with confidence in the future, because they didn't know until the very last minute whether that funding was going to be made available. The commitment to fund it for the next 10 years and to increase it by CPI is a godsend for South Australia, and I know it has been very, very warmly welcomed by the Local Government Association of South Australia. I say thank you to the minister for pushing that through, because it really will make a difference and it will be a welcome addition to funding that goes to South Australia.
The other issue that I want to talk about a little bit more at length is the issue of fuel security. Again, this is an issue that I can recall raising myself many times, both publicly and perhaps even in this place—that Australia needed to increase its fuel storage capacity. Again, successive governments, for whatever reason, were not able to do that. We were finally forced into a situation where we did it because of the war in Iran. I was pleased to hear the stats that were provided by the minister for energy today—and, I think, the Prime Minister earlier as well—which said we now have more fuel in Australia today than we did before the Iran conflict began. I am pleased indeed to know that we have some 43 days of petrol, 38 days of diesel and 31 days of jet fuel, when I can recall that those figures were nearly half a few years ago. That is something that I know makes me feel a lot more confident, and I also know that the people out there that we serve consider this an important issue for our long-term security. I commend all of the ministers that were involved, starting with the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the Minister for Trade and Tourism and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for their collective work to ensure that we now have the fuel supplies that we do.
More importantly, in this budget, we've committed over $10 billion to ensure long-term fuel security by increasing our fuel reserves in this country. Again, it is something that I believe needed to be done. It was done because of the situation we find ourselves in right now and the public demand to do so. But, to the Prime Minister's credit, $10 billion committed in this budget, I believe, is something that he should be recognised for. And, again, I think this will put Australia on a much more secure footing for well into the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the other matter I want to briefly speak about is something that I know is dear to your heart, and that is health. Apart from the cost-of-living, when I'm out there in the community, the issue that matters most to the people that I speak to is the health system of Australia. I recall going back to the Rudd days where transforming our health system was one of Kevin Rudd's main objectives. Again, it never happened. But that was 18 years ago where we recognised that the system was under stress and we recognised that something needed to be done. Each year, it's been a bit of a patch-up job. The Albanese government, with Minister Mark Butler as the Minister for Health and Ageing, has begun the road to transforming the health system in this country, and it is making a difference.
Beginning with increasing the bulk-billing payments for doctors, we are seeing a huge increase in the number of surgeries right across the country that are now bulk-billing. That not only saves people money but also ensures that people who cannot afford to go to a doctor will now do so rather than allowing themselves to become even more ill because they avoid going to a doctor because they couldn't afford it. Therefore, it's actually, in the long-term, a cost saving. When they become really ill, then they have to end up in a hospital, perhaps get surgery or whatever the case is. If you can treat the issue before you get to that stage, then it's better for the person and also better for the country as a whole.
In addition to that, we've seen the Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia. I believe we've now opened 136 with one more to go. That's 137 that will be out there, serving just about every part of Australia. Those urgent care clinics are taking pressure off the casualty departments of our hospitals. People are going to them, and I know that for a fact because I know people who have actually had the choice between going to the local hospital and to an urgent care clinic and chose the urgent care clinic for their medical needs. It is making a difference at a time when our hospitals also need a bit of relief and support in taking the pressure off them. Again, we're seeing that we are getting less people forced to go to hospital, more services out there and less cost to patients, and that's a good thing.
On top of that, we know that the Medicare urgent care clinics are going to be secure with $1.8 billion of funding that secures them well into the future. There will be an additional $25 billion of Commonwealth funding for our public hospitals. Again, this is all about making the health system much better into the future. I believe that we are seeing the changes right now, but we will be able to see an even better system as we move forward.
There are, of course, a number of other matters that, with the time I've got left, I will briefly touch on. The issue of taxation is one that has been debated both here within this place and throughout the community. Again, I say this: I accept that families are, indeed, struggling with cost-of-living pressures. But no government has done more to increase wages for the working people of this country than the Albanese government. We've committed to three tax cuts, we've committed to making the instant asset write-off permanent for small businesses, we've committed to the instant tax deduction of $1,000 for workers, and we've also now included the $250 working Australians tax offset. All of those measures together matter, and I understand that the total package and savings to workers at the end of the three tax cuts that we're providing could be as high as $2,800 for a worker.
Of course, people might still be struggling, but it's making a difference. This government recognises that people are, indeed, struggling with the cost of living and are taking whatever actions are necessary to try and assist, whether it's through the health system savings or whether it's through the taxation systems that we have in place. Yes, there has been some criticism of some of the tax changes that we are making, but, again, it's all about trying to make our system much fairer and much more equitable.
The last issue I will touch on in the two minutes I have left is the issue of housing. Again, for the last three or four years since the Albanese government was first elected in 2022, there's been this constant and ongoing debate about housing. The Albanese government has committed some $47 billion towards housing and building houses in this country. There's a whole range of different methods, whether it's shared equity, whether it's lower deposits, whether it's investing in new infrastructure, whether it's getting the councils and the states to work together to ensure that approvals are fast-tracked and signed. Every different strategy that will assist in building and increasing supply is on the table under this package, and it is working.
Of course, we cannot build houses overnight, but I can see the changes happening in my own state. I can see new developments rising everywhere. With the help of the state government and the federal government working together, I am seeing the changes, and we're now starting to see it in the market itself. This is a government that does care about young people being able to own their first home, and it is taking the necessary steps to assist them in order that they can do so. The various different strategies and funding streams that the government has provided into the housing market, I believe, will make a long-term difference for this country and certainly will make a difference to the lives of those young people that are looking to get into their own house.
This is a responsible budget for the times. Budgets are never easy. I can never recall walking into this chamber at budget time and listening to a government saying how easy it is to balance their budget. It's never easy. But under all the circumstances that Australia faces right now, this is the right budget for the times.
I rise today to speak to the brutal reality of what this Labor government's budget has delivered. This budget is a formal declaration of economic surrender. What we're seeing is an administration that has completely run out of ideas and run out of money. As we all know, when Labor run out of money, they come after yours. Just over a week ago, the Treasurer delivered a budget that completely abandons everyday Australians at a time when they're facing the most acute financial pressure in a generation. These appropriation bills represent a written testament to the fiscal recklessness of this Labor government.
Every single week I hear from families, small business owners, farmers and manufacturers across my electorate of Dawson. They tell me the same thing: they are financially drowning. They're looking at the bills in absolute despair, trying to balance household budgets. They have been completely shattered by this Labor government, by the decisions that are made in this very building. When a family in Dawson sees their costs go up, they have to make immediate, painful choices. They cut back on meat at the butcher. They cancel the family camping weekend away. They turn the lights off early and go to bed just so they can afford to pay their electricity bill. They operate under the brutal laws of financial reality. If they do not have money, they do not spend it.
Yet, while the people of my electorate are making these gut-wrenching sacrifices, this out-of-touch Albanese Labor government refuses to display a single shred of restraint. This budget proves that Labor treats the hard-earned money of Australian taxpayers like a bottomless credit card. Labor is pumping billions of dollars of additional demand into an economy that is already running over the speed limit, fuelling the inflationary firestorm and ensuring that Australian families will suffer for years to come. This budget does not offer relief. It delivers a systematic, tax-heavy burden that snuffs out the great Australian dream of having a go and getting ahead. This is not a fair go for Australia. People are working harder for longer to go backwards.
What makes this appropriation bill so deeply offensive to the people of my electorate is that it comes at a time when the Albanese Labor government is enjoying historic, record-breaking revenue windfalls. Let us be entirely clear about where the money is coming from. It is not coming from the clever ideas of economists sitting in Canberra offices. It is being dragged out of the ground by the hardworking resources and agricultural sector in regional Queensland.
Debate interrupted.
It becomes more apparent every day that there are people this Labor government has forgotten. Across the country, people are more anxious, more stressed and more worried about how they're going to pay their bills. They are worried and they are tired of being consistently disincentivised to save, to invest, to start a small business and to buy a home. Among the people who feel forgotten are older people and regional people—and, if you're both older and living in a regional area, then you're in serious trouble. Anyone with an elderly friend or a relative in a regional area who needs care is fully aware of this.
At the Dubbo Show on the weekend, I asked people to list their main concerns. I've never seen more engagement at an event such as this one, with more than 550 people who just wanted to be heard. The No. 1 issue was the cost of living. I'm sure that's no surprise to anyone in this House if they've been talking to their communities. The second issue was the axing of the inland rail north of Parkes, and this is having devastating impacts on many regional communities. The third was aged care.
We've heard a lot of talk in this place about hospital beds and bed availability, but I'd like to talk this evening not about beds but about people. Our older generation are a generation who have done so much for this country and have helped to build it. They have worked hard, they've volunteered, they've raised their families and now they deserve a measure of care and of respect. Many of them have saved all their lives, never having any idea of just how expensive a loaf of bread or a tank of fuel would soon be.
Let me tell you a little bit more about what's happening to these people. A Warren community member with early-onset dementia who has dedicated more than 40 years of service to the Warren hospital has been waiting in Dubbo base hospital for an aged-care bed since the middle of September last year. Her family have asked that she be transferred back to Warren, the community which is her home. That's more than five months waiting in a hospital for the appropriate care. Also in Dubbo, a grandson has written to tell me of his grandmother who has had several falls in the last month and will have to wait another six to nine months for an assessment for care. In the meantime, she's been denied a mobility scooter and charged $900 for the assessment.
In Gunnedah, a 90-year-old woman who has volunteered at an aged-care facility for many years was herself last year approved for care services after undergoing major surgery. This woman lives alone and cannot walk. Her daughter was given a list of six providers. All six have said that they can't provide services due to the limited funding available. To date, this 90-year-old woman has been unable to receive any services other than meals on wheels. She has now been advised to be assessed for a Support at Home package shell will have to wait several months for this to even happen.
A 98-year-old community member from the small community of Neilrex who is almost blind has not been approved for her necessary medical trips to Coonabarabran once a fortnight or to Dubbo once a month.
Back in Gunnedah, an 88-year-old man has been approved for aged care. His wife has contacted nine aged-care providers without success. His wife, who can no longer care for him, tried providers from as far away as Newcastle. This shows not only a lack of care but a severe lack of respect for the generation who has given so much to our nation. It is frightening. These are people who the government agree need care, and yet here they are waiting for further assessments, stuck in a hospital bed for months at a time, struggling at home by themselves or with loved ones who might themselves, indeed, need care. There are people in every community who are dealing with this issue.
It is time the federal government took a long, hard look at what's happening to older people who need daily care. In some cases, this is beyond neglecting to provide the basics of life; it is a matter of survival. It is a matter of eating, of showering, of seeing loved ones and getting to a medical appointment. We can, and we must, do better. Our older generation deserve dignity, they deserve respect, and they deserve the best quality of life that we can give them.
Through the RPPP funding, the Albanese Labor government will deliver $9.6 million for the Artisan Precinct Initiative, a social enterprise hub in Braddon. In Wynyard on Tasmania's north-west coast, the Artisan precinct will deliver social enterprises and workplace training programs for the local community, particularly disengaged youth. It will provide a critical link between education providers, disability services and local employers to shift intergenerational unemployment by backing local innovation. Designed in collaboration with the community, the project will include the building and fit-out of infrastructure, including six workshops, a First Nations workshop, a commercial greenhouse, an artisan hub, a precinct caretaker residence and sustainability infrastructure. When I met with the proponents to tell them their application was successful, they were overwhelmed. Tears were nearly shed. That's how much this project means to them and to the Braddon community more broadly.
The proponent, Big hART, was born on the north-west coast of Tassie and is now a leading, nationwide arts and social change organisation. They've been working with the Braddon community for 35 years, including close involvement with local high schools. Big hART was motivated to find new ways of dealing with disadvantage following the closure of the Burnie pulp mill. Those job losses had a huge effect on the local community at the time. Big hART are focused on designing and delivering transformative projects which address complex social issues. They aim to drive generational change.
Braddon has long been a hub for creatives, and this project continues our strong industrial heritage. There are already multiple enterprises operating on the site. The Artisan precinct will have the capacity to house up to 10 businesses, where they will be supported until they can operate viably and independently. Once these businesses are self-sustaining, they will move on, creating space for new ones. In exchange, the enterprises will work with Big hART to provide innovative pathways for disengaged locals and young people.
The new development will enable Big hART to increase their capacity in the community. They've already seen huge growth in the number of participants that they support, just over the last 12 months. They are currently at capacity, meaning the new precinct will enable growth into the future and cement their status as a trusted social change organisation in Braddon.
For a regional community such as Wynyard, this investment will be invaluable for local disengaged youth and those who may struggle in traditional education and employment pathways. For disengaged people, the space will offer increased work and learning opportunities and will provide avenues into trades and connections with local employers. I've heard from local high-school kids who tell me they would rather go to Big hART and work with their hands than go to school any day.
For business owners, the creative hub will value our lost trades, such as carpentry, stonemasonry, stained glass and ceramics. One participant in Big hART's program is Logan, who lost his sight when he was midway through his apprenticeship as a carpenter. He used to have to travel to Hobart and Launceston to continue his woodworking through programs for the blind and visually impaired. However, now he can use Big hART's facilities just five minutes down the road from his home. He's excited about the new hub, saying it will be 'worth its weight in gold'.
First Nations culture will be at the centre of this precinct, with a First Nations cultural centre and workshop designed for First Nations knowledge, cultural practice and enterprise incubation.
Through the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program, the Albanese Labor government is investing in transformative projects in regional, rural and remote Australia based on the principles of unifying regional places, growing economies and serving communities.
During the announcement, when I was there the other day, we had quite a large group, including the mayor and other participants from around the community. They were blown away by the concept of what this organisation is going to be able to provide, particularly to young people and also to those who have now become disengaged not only from their school but also from life. It was really great to catch up with many of those who came along to listen to the great news, and they're really excited about what the future brings. I'm so proud of this long-term project, its focus on creative industries and what it will mean for the future generations in Braddon, keeping them engaged in our communities, away from the judicial system, and giving them a focus in life that they wouldn't have had without this project.
I have the privilege to represent a region that is home to over 9,000 veterans and their families. That is the largest cohort in New South Wales. These are selfless men and women who have served our country, and these are the families and friends who support them upon their return to home life. I've had countless conversations with the advocates and representatives of the wider veteran community as part of my role and heard firsthand of the challenges that returning service men and women face every single day. These are the lack of access to appropriate care, the need for centralised services in locations closer to home, the physical and psychological barriers that deter those in need from asking for help and the eventual toll that the lack of appropriate government services can have, not just on the veterans but on their loved ones too. I don't discriminate between parties; we have failed for many, many years. But I've heard time and time again that, to give our veteran community the best chance of recovery and health rehabilitation into civilian life, we need to remove as many barriers as we possibly can.
Sadly and unsurprisingly, my inbox is filling up with pleas for help to stop this government from imposing yet another barrier on a community that deserves more from its government. Labor has proposed a $5,000 cap—I'm going to use the word 'ration'—on veterans' allied health services from 1 July 2027. It is a ration that will apply to physiotherapy, psychology, exercise physiology and occupational therapy—the most basic levels of care for our veteran community to manage pain, recover from injury, deal with trauma and be able to function day to day while rebuilding their lives.
This single flick of a pen has left thousands of my constituents in limbo, wondering if they or their loved ones will be able to continue to access and afford the care they desperately need. They include veterans like Dick Braithwaite and his son Nick. Dick wrote this to me in the aftermath of the ration announcement:
My concern is for our twin sons who have recently been medically retired from their Special Forces roles in the Army. Our son Nick is a particular concern to us in terms of his long term physical health. He has 14 titanium plates holding his face together after being involved in a near fatal incident while training at Shoalwater Bay in 2011. Nick also has identified back, leg and shoulder problems as a result of the accident. Despite this, he went on the serve his country in both Afghanistan and Iraq after his initial 7-month physical recovery.
The Albanese government needs to be made aware of the risk to the long-term health of veterans like my sons. Did we not learn anything from the Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide that recommended we look after our veteran community so much better than we have in the past.
I appreciate that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs stated in recent days that DVA will fund allied health services above the $5,000 cap where there is a 'valid clinical need'. While that sounds positive, I have to ask: How will that process work? What is the definition of 'valid clinical need'? How can veterans apply for their claims to be reconsidered once they've hit their ration? How will DVA assess their claims? How long will the process take? While veterans are waiting for a determination, will they be unable to access care if they cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs?
Every Australian knows that taxpayer dollars should be allocated to the area and projects that best enhance our nation's chance at a prosperous future. Our veteran community have personally fought on our behalf, and we need to return that favour.
One of the consequences of the war in the Middle East and the international fuel crisis has been that it has demonstrated to us the importance of having secure power sources here at home. Fortunately for Australia, we have sun, wind and hydro power opportunities in abundance. We are able to build more reliable sovereign renewable energy—homegrown Aussie solar, wind and hydro. These are opportunities our government is leaning into.
Just this weekend, we announced the largest renewables boost in the history of the national electricity market—19 new wind, solar and battery projects across New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and in my home state of Victoria. That's enough to power four million homes with cheaper, cleaner and more reliable energy. Of course, this investment comes on top of our incredibly successful Cheaper Home Batteries Program. There are now more than 400,000 of these batteries in homes in suburbs and regions right across Australia, helping households to get their power, and to get it in a more reliable and cheaper way.
I have had the pleasure of visiting a number of homeowners who have recently installed cheaper home batteries, including Andrew in Diamond Creek, Liz in Cranbourne and many more. They tell me that they are so pleased to now be able to control their power bills and have this sense that they know that they will have this secure power source and that their power bills are coming down as a result of this investment they've been able to make with our Cheaper Home Batteries Program. I've had pensioners and others on fixed incomes say to me that it means they're not worried about bill shock in the way that they were before. They can see the future. These people can see the energy transition that is underway in Australia, the energy transition that the Albanese Labor government is supporting households, communities and businesses to make in Australia. They see this benefit from cheaper bills and more reliable power.
Of course, this is the future that our government is building in our communities, in our households and across our country. Unfortunately, those opposite are focused on the past—in particular, in this case, it seems, in bringing back dirty coal. The Leader of the Opposition, who, as the energy minister under previous Liberal governments, failed to secure our energy future, is now doubling down on dirty, expensive energy. After wasting nearly a decade in government arguing against climate change and failing to invest in the transition to reliable sovereign renewables, the opposition leader was then part of an opposition that was pushing an expensive nuclear fantasy before it finally abandoned net zero. They have now moved on to say that they want to keep dirty, expensive coal running for as long as possible.
Make no mistake, when the Leader of the Opposition says that he will work with coal-fired power station owners to keep plants running harder and longer, what he is really saying is that he wants to drive up household energy bills and drag Australia into the climate wars of the future, because coal is dirty and coal breaks down. Our ageing coal-fired power stations break down, and that means they are more expensive. It means that household electricity prices are more expensive. So, after failing to do anything when he was the energy minister—after failing to secure Australia's energy supplies, after being part of a then opposition that doubled down on nuclear as a solution and being roundly told by the Australian people that it wasn't—the Leader of the Opposition is now offering up dirty, ageing coal as the expensive solution to Australia's power needs. We then have One Nation pushing conspiracy theories instead of real solutions and flying around in planes bankrolled by billionaires and mining magnates.
At a time when communities across Australia are already experiencing more frequent and severe natural disasters due to climate change, this approach is reckless and irresponsible. It is not the approach of a credible or a viable alternative government. It is wrecking. Those opposite continue to divide and seek to double down on dirty power. On our side, our government, the Labor government, is getting on with the job of providing Australians with clean, reliable, sovereign, renewable energy. This is a fantastic opportunity before us. It is one our government will continue to support Australians with so that we have the opportunity to power our future.
I rise to highlight an injustice which is occurring among Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory, which the minister is refusing to address. The Northern Territory stolen wages class action was brought against the Commonwealth government on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who worked in the Northern Territory between 1933 and 1971 and were paid little or no wages. The Commonwealth agreed to pay up to $202 million, including costs, to settle the class action, with up to $18,000 for each eligible claimant who registered by August 2025. The problem is that many of the people who were possibly eligible were not informed of the opportunity to claim.
I accept this is a long way from Gippsland, but one of my constituents volunteers as a lawyer who works in the East Arnhem area, and he became aware of hundreds of community members who had not been informed of the opportunity provided by the court ruling. On 12 December 2025, I wrote to the minister and pointed out that many community members living remotely may not have had the opportunity to register at all and injustice was being done. I received no response. On 19 February of this year, I again wrote to the minister and explained that there was a steady flow of inquiries about stolen wages to the local Aboriginal corporation. Again, these people had not been informed.
My constituent told me of one Yolngu elder who had just left his office. He wrote:
He is a local elder and revered traditional owner.
… … …
He is more importantly a fine man and friend.
He attended my office to complain about the lack of any notification regarding the stolen wages.
… … …
It is only now that a few people are getting money that the cat is out of the bag. He states many Yolngu know nothing of the scheme.
As an aside the two he wished to claim for personally are his father who rescued a USA pilot shot down on a remote Island. His father Jacky rescued the pilot and canoed him to civilisation. He then worked for the airforce at Gove airport for no pay and latter in jobs detrimental to indigenous workers.
His mother was a nurse delivering babies in remote areas. She received an AOM for her services but again compromised pay.
And he goes on to say,
Old Geoff this is not closing the gap but opening a gap of more sorrow.
I'm sure those who conducted this fiasco will say they did a terrific job of notifying applicants but let me reassure you they didn't.
Again, there was no response from the minister to that letter. So I wrote again on 1 April of this year and provided more details on this flawed process and failure to notify people who may have been eligible to receive funding under the stolen wages claim. My letter of 1 April received no response again.
Despite several attempts to then seek a meeting with the minister or her adviser, my request was bounced around between the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Attorney-General, with no-one seeming to know who was responsible for looking into this serious situation. On 28 April, I wrote again to the minister. Finally, on 29 April, I received a response from the Minister of Indigenous Australians, except it wasn't from the minister herself. It was an email from her chief of staff. The email says:
The Class Action and the Settlement Distribution Scheme are administered independently of the Government. The Federal Court of Australia appointed independent Administrators to administer the Settlement.
Given the independence of the Settlement, the Commonwealth is unable to influence the way the Administrators administer the settlement, including to extend the registration date. The settlement of the Class Action was reached by agreement of several parties and this agreement cannot be altered without the approval of the Federal Court.
It is simply saying, 'Not my problem.' It's a fancy way of saying, 'Not my problem.'
The minister herself couldn't be bothered to respond to multiple letters on behalf of hundreds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who were never told that they may be eligible to receive a payment under this scheme. The government has simply given up on this injustice. It took the minister five months to respond to my multiple letters—and even then, the minister herself couldn't be bothered writing a letter; we got an email from the chief of staff. I urge the minister: please listen to the people on the ground and help them find a way to fix this injustice. If you can't fix it, at least try. At least speak to the Aboriginal corporation on the ground, and understand that there are now hundreds of people who were never informed of their capacity to seek a payment under this scheme.
What frustrates me the most is this media release from the minister on 6 September 2024, where she wrote:
It is my hope that … the settlement will bring closure to many First Nations people impacted by these Commonwealth laws.
The minister was happy to bask in the glory with a media release welcoming the court ruling but was not prepared to do the hard work and address this injustice, which has been presented to her multiple times.
I want to speak about one of the most effective tools we have to improve learning outcomes, student behaviour, wellbeing and engagement. I'm talking about music education in our primary schools. This isn't music education as an optional extra squeezed in after the real subjects are done.
More than 30 years of neuroscience research shows that music education strengthens the same neural networks involved in language, reading and mathematics. Think about it: what makes music learning unique is that it engages auditory processing, memory, motor coordination, attention, emotional regulation and social cooperation all at the same time. Research shared with me by Dr Anita Collins found that students involved in structured music learning demonstrated a 19 per cent improvement in self-regulation, a 50 per cent increase in cooperation and a 55 per cent increase in the student's sense of connectedness. An environment where students are self-regulating, cooperating and connected is an ideal learning space.
The literacy and numeracy outcomes are just as striking. Students engaged in music learning demonstrated a 60 per cent improvement in being able to distinguish different sounds and showed 70 per cent greater persistence with reading tasks. Research also demonstrated a 24 per cent improvement in mathematical understanding and a 30 per cent reduction in maths anxiety, with particularly strong improvements among students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. These figures tell us that music education isn't a nice-to-have; it's deeply connected to students' capacity to learn in the first place. I think of it as fertiliser for the brain.
I also listened to the feedback from educators on the front line like Homebush West Public principal Estelle Southall, who told me stories of the change she saw in students who accessed music education for the first time ever, and how it profoundly changed their experience of school. Music education helps students become more confident learners, more connected classmates and more resilient young people. It teaches children to listen, to cooperate, to persist and to belong. I think of these benefits every time I see a school musical and watch kids find their tribe either on stage or in the crew. We need to use every tool at our disposal to support students learning, and music education is one of the most effective interventions available to us.
The Tony Foundation's Fading notes report found that the hours devoted to compulsory music education training in university degrees for primary school teachers have fallen by more than half over the last decade. This contributes to increasingly patchy and inconsistent access to quality music education, particularly in public schools across Australia.
I'm not alone in believing there's a bigger role for music education in our school system. I was delighted to bring together educators, researchers and advocates from across the sector for a roundtable discussion with education minister Jason Clare. Along with Dr Anita Collins, the Tony Foundation and Principal Southall, I was joined by representatives from the Song Room, the Australian Children's Music Foundation, Musica Viva, the Australian Youth Orchestra, the National Advocates for Arts Education, the Australian Society for Music Education, the Australian Secondary Principals' Association and the Australian National Academy of Music. I thank them for sharing their expertise and passion for what music education can do for students across Australia, and I thank Minister Clare for his thoughtful engagement with this important conversation. As Special Envoy for the Arts, I'll continue advocating for better access because quality music education for Australian students has benefits that are too valuable to pass up.
To all those music teachers: during school hours or before or after school, we know the cultural and economic contribution you make. Creative Australia's recent Bass line report found that the music education sector contributes about $1.5 billion in direct economic value each year. I thank you for how you help young brains operate even better.
It's already been a busy year for New South Wales SES Blue Mountains members, responding to more than 760 calls for assistance, including 18 search and rescue operations. I was delighted that we turned the sod on the new SES Blue Mountains West Unit headquarters, which I contributed $1.1 million to as part of my 2022 election campaign. I look forward to seeing it completed.
House adjourned at 20:00
There's been a lot of noise around this budget, and I'm worried we're going to lose sight of something important. This budget contains a genuine step forward to level the playing field on housing. I've been pushing for changes to the capital gains tax and negative gearing for housing since I was first elected in 2022 because its current structure overwhelmingly favours wealthy investors at the expense of younger, less well-off potential owner-occupiers. More than 80 per cent of the benefit of the CGT discount flows to the top 10 per cent of income earners, and last year more than 80 per cent of new investor loans were for existing properties, not new houses. Our tax system has supercharged demand for existing homes and tilted the playing field heavily against younger Australians trying to buy their first home. That needed to change.
For property investment, these are good reforms, but I hold real concerns about the extension of the CGT reforms beyond the housing sector. In particular, these CGT changes risk real harm to Australia's startup sector and to startup founders, employees and investors. These are not the people this reform was aimed at and they should not be its collateral damage. Extending CGT reforms beyond property to other asset classes will disincentivise risk-taking and investment in productive assets.
I acted on this immediately. The day after the budget, I wrote directly to the Treasurer. I raised it in question time and I raised it with the Assistant Treasurer in person. The government has committed publicly to getting the right arrangements in place for early-stage businesses, and I'll be holding them to that.
Since then, I've heard more from constituents about how this will affect them. Aaron, who's 39, told me he's been investing in high-growth assets and working for tech startups to gain equity at the risk of low job security so that he, his wife and two children may one day afford the Australian dream of their own home. Katrina pointed out that offering equity is one way to attract good people in the tech space. Reducing the benefit of longer term equity will be a problem for recruiting and maintaining talent in small, innovative businesses. I heard from WaveX, an innovative energy startup based in Curtin, about the fear that the good parts of the budget may be dwarfed by the potential implications of a CGT increase, which will reduce the number of investors and the capital available to fund startups like WaveX.
I urge the government to not rush these changes through but use the parliamentary processes to listen, address the unintended consequences and pass the best version of these laws so we can create a level playing field for property but also incentivise investment where the country needs it.
On 28 April, I had the pleasure of attending a Pacific community roundtable hosted by the Grange P-12 College in my electorate, alongside the Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs, Senator Nita Green, and Tonga's Minister for Internal Affairs, including the PALM scheme, the Hon. Fane Fotu Fituafe. Grange P-12 College was an important place for this conversation, with the school being home to one of the largest Pacific student cohorts in Victoria and an exemplar. The roundtable brought together community members from local churches, local rugby clubs and not-for-profit initiatives, families from across the electorate and community leaders to discuss the issues impacting Pacific diaspora communities, including experiences connected to the PALM scheme. We heard directly from Lalor's Pacific community about their experiences, challenges and perspectives, helping strengthen connections between diaspora communities and the Pacific region. I want to thank the school community, Principal David Smillie, Deputy Principal Meredith Clencie and all who attended for the important conversations about inclusion, representation and connection across the Pacific community in Lalor.
On Thursday 7 May, I welcomed the Speaker to Tarneit Rise Primary School in my electorate. He delivered the Parliament in Schools program, where students had the opportunity to learn more about democracy, the role of the Speaker in parliament and my role as their local member and Chief Government Whip. It was wonderful to see the students so engaged—over 100 grade 5s, all desperately seeking to ask thoughtful questions about how our parliament works and how this impacts their community. Following the session, staff and students gathered to unfurl a giant Australian flag which of course has flown above Parliament House, before proudly singing both verses of the Australian national anthem. I would like to thank Principal Nadia Bettio, the staff and the students at Tarneit Rise Primary School for their warm welcome and for hosting us at their beautiful school, and I give special thanks to Speaker Milton Dick for taking the road show down south to Victoria.
On Anzac Day I was honoured to join the Werribee RSL and thousands of locals at the Anzac dawn service at the Werribee cenotaph. Together we honoured the courage, sacrifice and service of ADF personnel across the generations. Their sacrifice continues to shape our national identity and is reflected thoughtfully in my community. It was a privilege to lay a wreath alongside the state member for Werribee, John Lister, and the state member for Tarneit, Dylan Wight. I thank the Werribee RSL and all those who attended for organising a moving and respectful service.
Right now, in the middle of a relentless cost-of-living crisis, community spirit has never been more important. Behind the economic statistics are real Australians skipping meals, turning off heaters and quietly lining up for food relief for the first time in their lives. In those moments, there is usually a volunteer nearby saying you don't have to do this alone. Across Australia, 9.5 million people volunteered in 2025 through formal or informal volunteering or both. That is almost 43 per cent of Australians over the age of 15. In my electorate of Lindsay, I'm proud to call more than 15,000 people my friends in deeds, because they really are the engines helping those struggling financially, emotionally and socially to keep going.
They are people like the volunteer firies of the Llandilo Rural Fire Brigade, who I had the great honour of joining this year to celebrate their 75th anniversary. That's 75 years of ordinary locals hearing the pager sound and walking out the door whilst the rest of the community shelters inside. That spirit still burns brightly in Llandilo today in people like the late Kevin Crameri, who dedicated an extraordinary 63 years of service to the brigade. I was incredibly proud to help replace the brigade's old, tattered flag and with a new flag that flew over Parliament House on National Flag Day 2025, a very small gesture for a brigade built on generations of sacrifice, courage and service, with a spirit so strong it was recognised across the oceans during the 2020-21 Black Summer bushfires. As flames tore through parts of Australia and volunteer firies worked around the clock, the spirit of Llandilo reached all the way across the world when the Welsh town of Llandeilo, in Carmarthenshire, held fundraisers to support our local brigade, a small town in Wales standing beside a small brigade in Western Sydney.
This year I was also deeply proud to stand with the Penrith nashos as they celebrated 75 years since that first national service intake in 1951 and held their final organised commemorative service. It was profoundly moving to read the prayer for our service men and women alongside men who have carried the values of duty, sacrifice and mateship through an entire lifetime of service.
I also want to acknowledge the more than 80 volunteers at Nepean Food Services. They deliver thousands of meals and hours and hours of support each year, but they deliver more than food. They deliver connection and they deliver that one person that comes to the door if somebody's lonely. They do so much for our community.
As Llandilo RFS marks 75 years and as the Penrith nashos close the chapter on their final commemorative service, we are not just marking dates; we are watching one generation of service hand the torch to another. Thank goodness we still have people like this in our communities—particularly mine—willing to step forward and support people when they're most in need.
I rise today to celebrate one of Newcastle's true environmental treasures, the Hunter Wetlands Centre, and its recent feature on the ABC's iconic television program Gardening Australia. For Novocastrians, the wetlands centre is much more than just a beautiful natural space; it's a place of remarkable regeneration, an important industrial and urban buffer and a vital place of education, conservation, community and connection. Built on formerly industrial land, it stands as a powerful example of environmental restoration done right, proof that nature can thrive when communities come together with vision and determination. The national spotlight from Gardening Australia showcased not only the incredible biodiversity of the wetlands but also the dedication of the staff, volunteers and environmental advocates who care for this remarkable place each and every day. Visitors from across the country now have the chance to see what locals have known for years—that the Hunter Wetlands Centre is one of Australia's great urban wetlands and a sanctuary for wildlife right in the heart of our region. To everyone involved with the centre, thank you for protecting this special place not just for today but also for future generations and for continuing to make Newcastle proud.
Today I want to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of Rosemarie Milsom, who, after 14 years of leading the Newcastle Writers Festival, has been appointed as the new director of Adelaide Writers' Week. For more than a decade, Rosemarie has shaped Newcastle into one of Australia's great literary cities through the founding and leadership of the Newcastle Writers Festival. What began as a bold local idea when Rosemarie was a full-time journalist at the Newcastle Herald has grown into one of the nation's most respected literary festivals, bringing world-class writers, thinkers and storytellers to our city while nurturing local voices and fostering a lifelong love of reading and ideas.
Rosemarie's appointment to the Adelaide Writers' Week is a richly deserved recognition of her talent, her integrity and her vision. It's also a testament to the strength of Newcastle's creative and cultural sectors that one of our own has been chosen to lead one of the world's most celebrated literary events. And while we will certainly miss Rosemarie's leadership at the Newcastle Writers Festival, we know that she will not only play an important role in the transition of that leadership but she will be bringing the same passion, intelligence and generosity that she showed to Newcastle down to Adelaide. On behalf of the people of Newcastle, I thank Rosemarie for being such an outstanding advocate for the writers and for her strong understanding of the cultural conversation shaping Australia today. I wish her every success in this exciting new chapter.
I rise on behalf of my electorates and indeed the south-west corner of Western Australia to express our profound disappointment at being ignored and left completely high and dry by the Labor budget, a budget of betrayal built on lies, higher taxes, higher debt, more migrants and less housing. We put forward very sensibly to government some economically and productive infrastructure investment proposals, which included the Busselton Margaret River Airport, which, from humble beginnings as a tin shed, now hosts more than 200,000 passenger movements a year. These are not only for the recreational and tourism sectors, with direct flights to Melbourne and Sydney, but importantly also for the some 5,000-plus FIFO workers in the south-west who leave their families and leave our community to travel to the far north of Western Australia to work for weeks at a time in the iron ore mines that generate billions of dollars for the Commonwealth and for the state of Western Australia.
After generating the billions of dollars of royalties for our country, those hardworking FIFO folks should be rewarded with the small and modest investment that is upgrading the Busselton Margaret River Airport. At the current state of play, there are people waiting to board a flight who can't even clear security because the cleared zone is so small that just two flights at once means that there's insufficient standing room for people to clear security. That's how parlous the situation has become, and it isn't exactly the sort of world-class experience that you'd hope for the people who travel to Margaret River for a premium tourism experience, who come and experience the very best of Western Australia's wine industry, not to mention the breathtaking scenery, the pristine beaches and the iconic karri forests of the south-west. That was just one humble ask in this budget that was completely ignored.
WA's share of infrastructure funding has fallen to a seemingly all-time low. I can't help but think this is smoke and mirrors from a government that says, on the one hand, it is committed to Western Australia's GST deal, but, on the other, is pulling funding from every program in the infrastructure portfolio that would otherwise be put into Western Australian projects. We'll continue to call it out and we'll continue to bang the drum for what is a small and sensible investment that would diversify the local economy in the south-west of Western Australia and ensure that this mining boom isn't wasted once again.
I recently visited the Working Women's Centre New South Wales, located in my electorate, with the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Amanda Rishworth. The centre is a free specialist service supporting women with workplace issues, including sexual harassment and discrimination, wage theft, bullying and workplace exploitation. The centre provides legal advice and representation alongside education, training and law reform work aimed at improving conditions for women at work.
We got to hear from the assistant principal solicitors at the centre, Sharmilla Bargon and Kellie McDonald. As I listened to them talk about their work, I was so inspired by their commitment to improving the lives of women. Many of their clients had nowhere to turn and no-one on their side. They had been battling unfair work practices on their own and had gotten nowhere. They are single mothers, young women, Indigenous women and women from culturally diverse backgrounds trying to navigate a difficult legal process and taking action against their employers—a huge mountain to climb. They had turned to the Working Women's Centre New South Wales for legal advice, but they got so much more than that. They also found people who believed in them and backed and supported them, and it made a difference. They make a real difference to the lives of their clients, and, through their advocacy and campaigns, they are making a difference to all working women.
Their latest campaign is called I'm Speaking. It's about a simple principle: women who experience workplace sexual harassment or gender based violence should not be silenced. For too long, too many women have been pressured to stay quiet through non-disclosure agreements or threats of defamation action. The campaign is calling for stronger regulation of non-disclosure agreements, better protections against legal threats and safeguards to ensure the law is not misused against women. The centre is also leading the Super Woman campaign, focused on women's long-term economic security, and it shines a light on how lower pay, insecure work, unpaid caring responsibilities and workplace discrimination compound over a lifetime, leaving too many women with less superannuation in retirement.
The Working Women's Centre New South Wales is another example of the Albanese Labor government delivering for Australian women. In 2020. The Respect@Work report recommended that we increase funding to these centres, and, then in 2023, that's exactly what this Labor government did.
If you're over 65 on the Mornington Peninsula, Labor's latest budget is likely to rip hundreds of dollars out of your pocket just to keep the private health insurance you've been relying on for years. Buried in this budget is a decision to axe the private health insurance rebate which has been offered for older Australians since 2004. What does that mean in practice? It means more than 1.4 million Australians aged over 65 will be forced to pay up to $640 more every single year just to keep the health cover they already use at a time when electricity bills are up 32 per cent, groceries are up by 17 per cent, insurance is up by 42 per cent already rents are up 23 per cent and just about everything else is up too.
Nowhere will this hit harder than on the Mornington Peninsula. Nearly one in three residents in my electorate of Flinders is aged over 65—the third highest of any electorate in Australia. We have more than 33,500 private health insurance holders aged over 65. Private health insurance supported more than 41,000 hospitalisations for older Australians in my electorate—once again, the third highest in the nation. Every one of these hospitalisations covered by the private system is one less cost for the public system to bear.
Let's be very clear about this: private health insurance is not a luxury item for retirees on the peninsula. It keeps pressure off our already overstretched public hospitals, like the Rosebud Hospital which the state Labor government refuses to rebuild, even when the state seat of Nepean was its most marginal seat. Private health insurance allows older Australians to get surgery when they need it, to see local specialists and to maintain their independence—costing the public system less, in both health and aged care.
Last week, I launched a survey asking local residents what these changes would mean for them—and the response was overwhelming. There were hundreds of replies within hours. Jana from Safety Beach told me that after her husband underwent two open-heart surgeries and after she herself underwent two knee replacements, rising insurance costs will force them to cut back on everyday activities just to stay insured. Deb from McCrae said she has faithfully paid for her private health insurance since 1977, but now feels she's being pushed and punished at exactly the age she is most likely to need it.
These are not wealthy elites asking for handouts. My residents have an average weekly income of $745 versus $805 for the rest of the country. These are Australians who worked hard, paid their taxes, raised families and did the responsible thing by taking out insurance. Now Labor wants to make them pay more for it. Older Australians deserve much better than this.
I wish to congratulate Women's Shed Canberra, based at Lake Tuggeranong, on receiving a Local Jobs, Local People grant. The women's shed will run a 15-month project to establish a hands-on construction and trade skills exposure program for migrant, refugee and humanitarian visa holder women in collaboration with Himayat and Master Builders ACT. This will ensure people from these backgrounds have reduced barriers when attempting to enter the workforce and will be connected to industry groups, contributing to their own financial independence. It will also ensure growth in the construction sector. I thank Women's Shed Canberra for the work they are doing in our community and for the support they offer to people across all backgrounds. I am proud to say that the Albanese Labor government is supporting this work.
Speaking of support for the local community, I was recently at the Mura Lanyon Youth and Community Centre to announce that the Albanese Labor government is investing over $190,000 to enable YWCA Canberra to provide emergency relief to more vulnerable households in the Lanyon Valley community, securing its operation until 2030. This funding will help individuals and families experiencing financial hardship who may be facing tough choices, such as buying new school shoes or doing a grocery shop, or keeping the lights on or paying their phone bills. Providers like YWCA Canberra deliver critical frontline support for those experiencing financial hardship and who would otherwise not have access to the resources they need to stay afloat. Someone experiencing homelessness and in need of food, bedding or toiletries will be able to receive help from YWCA Canberra at Mura Lanyon Youth and Community Centre.
A highlight of my visits to Mura Lanyon is always seeing what they're growing in their community gardens managed by Peter Gilligan, who I recognised as a community volunteer of the year at one of my annual volunteer recognition evenings. It is volunteer organisations and the people that keep them running that are the lifeblood of our community. I welcome any chance I have to recognise the work that they do. I greatly enjoyed being able to call a number of volunteer groups last week to let them know that they'll be invited to apply for the latest round of volunteer grants. These grants help ensure that volunteers can keep doing what they do best—working in and across our community. When the Albanese Labor government came in, we committed to investing back into our capital and right across Australia, and investing back into communities like mine. We are doing just that.
It is volunteers that hold our community together. Last week, I was delighted to host the 2026 Fairfax Volunteer Awards ceremony. I want to congratulate Sylvia Whiting, Myshell Hyde, Birte Spencer, Janine Smith, Tony Brown, Debbie Day, Karen Martin, Mitchell Lenord, Carolyn Neville, Leonie Wilcox, Saxon Cracknell, Peter Cooper, Kimberley Teillet-Meunier, Jenny McKay, Craig McMillan, Peter Lloyd, Nita Claire Lester, Graeme White, Diana Fuller, Ian McGrath, Val Morey, Graham Tamblyn, Jeremy Foster, Katija Wilkinson, Rob Sims, Amanda O'Donnell, Tony Northey, Chloe Lynn Rounds, Tania Stevenson and Anthony Waring. I also congratulate the Community Group Achievement Award winners: the Coolum Beach Meals on Wheels and Coastal Caring Clowns. Volunteers, I believe, are the happiest and most fulfilled people on the planet, and that's because they give of themselves to others. To all volunteers on the Sunshine Coast, to all volunteers in the seat of Fairfax, can I say thank you. Thank you for your generosity and for your service.
I also want to today say a very big thank you to the people of Nambour and the people of the Sunshine Coast because we now have enough money to keep the Sunny Coast Sleeper operating in the town of Nambour for at least another 18 months, through until the end of 2027. The sleeper bus, of course, is a bus with nine sleeping pods for those who would otherwise be homeless. How have we been able to make this happen? Well, the community came together. This has been a complete community effort. When I started a fundraising campaign only three months ago, I had no idea that we would have already raised nearly $27,000 today, enough to keep this bus operating. I want to say a very big thank you to the Maroochy Neighbourhood Centre, whose asset it is. I want to say thank you to the volunteers, ably led by Leonie, and also in particular to the Harry Cohney Charitable Foundation for their enormous contribution of $15,000. Let's keep working together, Nambour.
We welcome work experience kids into our office very regularly. One of the tasks that we set them is to write me a speech. They are not given any oversight. It is completely their words, because their voices matter. Today's speech is from Alicia. She came down for youth parliament. She attends Redlynch secondary college. These are Alicia's words:
The Social Media Ban receiving Royal Assent at the end of 2025 was not implemented without reason. Social media presents rising concerns about dangerous content, harming Australia's youths' mental health. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious, while the bill passing was the admirable and moral course of action, that it is not as effective as planned. If we are truly committed to protecting our youth, we must also be committed to ensuring that the ban achieves exactly what it has been put in place for.
According to Molly Rose Foundation, a suicide prevention program, as of 2026 three in five Australians aged twelve to fifteen still have access to social media, despite restrictions. Meanwhile, YouthInsight, a youth focused research agency, reported that over fifty percent of youth have found the ban ineffective in improving their safety, as many retained access. If under sixteens can still easily access social media, is the ban really working? The risk Australian youth are exposed to is far too great to ignore. According to Life in Mind, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, suicide is the leading cause of death for young Australians. One of the most serious causes of this is that eighty-three percent of young people are exposed to self-harm or suicide content on social media. Viewing such content has shown an increase of suicide risk. Youth must, just must, be protected from this.
From personal knowledge, it is also obvious that current age-verification systems are inaccurate. Underage users have managed to bypass these security measures, and many have continued usage of social media despite the ban. Some Social media platforms have implemented artificial intelligence scans for age verification. Completely unreliable, I've witnessed under sixteens passing the check. Just like that. Nowhere near sixteen and they've passed. When protection measures for age verification, which we rely on so heavily to protect Australia's youth, do not fulfil their sole function, then what type of protection measures are they?
Action to prevent this must be taken, and now. If this issue is to be addressed seriously, steps beyond easily bypassed measures must be taken to create more reliable solutions. More accurate protection systems must be put in place, systems which we can truly rely on to protect the youth of Australia.
So, I call on you, as the social media companies in charge of age verification, please act now and protect Australian youth. Protect them from the exposure of dangerous content plastered across social media. I urge you, the time to act is now.
I want to thank Alicia for her words and her passion. She cares very deeply about her community and the young people of Australia.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I 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.
This motion is about corporate control of politics, and there is no better illustration of that control than what happened on budget night. The Treasurer delivers the budget speech and then heads to a fundraising event. That event is not open to the public; it's exclusive. Tickets cost thousands of dollars. Big corporations and the ultra-wealthy get to cosy up to senior government MPs right after the budget is delivered. Not to be left out, the coalition has its own version of this fundraiser, with tickets also well into the four figures, after the budget reply speech, so it begs the question: Who really runs this country? Is it the gas corporations or the Australian people? The government has chosen the gas corporations.
Prior to the budget, the Prime Minister flew to Perth specifically to reassure gas companies that he would not implement the 25 per cent tax on gas exports that the Australian people are demanding. Who is he really governing for? The major gas companies each gave $1 million to an advertising campaign that wasn't for the Australian people; it was to remind politicians who they really work for. And it clearly worked on the PM—of course it would. The gas companies and the lobby groups of full of former Labor staff, and vice versa. Queensland Labor Senator Anthony Chisholm worked as a lobbyist for gas company Santos—and this is a fact—before he entered parliament. They are all actually mates, aren't they? And we wouldn't want to do anything to hurt the profits of our good mates in the gas industry. This is who we are up against, and that's why I'm so proud of every Australian who signed the petition, sent an email to their MP, shared this campaign online. It's only through people power that we can be louder than the gas industry.
But the gas industry isn't the only powerful corporate lobby influencing the government. The gambling industry, backed in by media moguls afraid of losing advertising revenue, has quietly exerted a huge amount of influence to counter community anger against gambling advertising and the terrible effects of gambling harm on the Australian people. And here's something the government don't want you to know. They are so embarrassed by it they released it on the afternoon of the budget, right when all the journalists couldn't access their phones in the budget lock-up. It was the government response to a key gambling report, which they had been sitting on literally for years, that recommended banning online gambling advertising. I'd be embarrassed too if I completely capitulated to the gambling lobby on an issue that costs Australians $32 billion a year and countless lives and livelihoods. I'd be embarrassed too if I completely capitulated on an issue that unites almost all Australians. We are sick of gambling ads, and we are sick of the effect that they are having on our society. The almost $3 million in donations to the major parties over the last decade from the gambling lobby, has really paid off for them, hasn't it? Including to Labor in government setting the very regulations the industry is subject to.
Who are they governing for again? For the Australian people or the gambling lobby? No; Labor have instead done a token set of reforms purely so they can say they've done something. It's pretty clear that's what they were going for. Some restrictions on specific time slots and types of broadcasts, which will just shift more ads into other unrestricted slots. The government's own modelling says these reforms will only reduce gambling by 0.8 per cent. I'm sure the gambling companies are okay with that.
It's shameful, isn't it, that this is the state of our democracy, but I do have hope because the government clearly do feel like they need to respond to pressure. That's why they are doing things that they think sound good, even if they don't actually fix anything. That means that if all of our voices are collectively louder than the gas lobby, than the gambling lobby, then we can get real change.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
It can be easy to fall into a cycle of despair when all progress is taken as a betrayal or failure, when you look at a binary between choosing perfection or inaction. If we continue to engage in this, we forget progress. We forget to recognise the fact that significant steps are being taken.
On the subject of gas, I think there is broad consensus—I agree with the member for Ryan—that Australians deserve a fair share from the natural resources they own. The policy prescription of a 25 per cent tax is one idea that has come up. It's something that deserves, like all tax policy, rigorous scrutiny, careful consideration and timing. We can't ignore the reality we find ourselves in: a global fuel crisis where the partners that are buying our gas are largely the ones from which we're seeking the liquid fuels that industries in electorates like mine desperately require—the diesel that tradies, truckies and bus drivers rely on and the petrol that support workers and others have to purchase in order to provide their services. The work being done to build reciprocal relationships with those partners is essential, and the sudden implementation of an export tariff of a plucked-out number is certainly not something that builds relationships at a time of crisis.
I'm not saying never ever with tax reform. We've already taken significant steps. We've already reformed the PRRT to ensure that gas companies are paying their tax sooner and aren't able to deduct full amounts every single year, and we're seeing increases in the amount of tax given the increase in commodity prices as well. Long term, there should be a mature policy discussion with facts on the table, but what we've seen lately is typical political grandstanding, positioning and submissions to inquiries that look more like social media filming episodes than actual considered policy debate. We need to look at the consequences, the economics, the industry effects. We don't want a position, for example, where imposing more taxes means that the viability of a project means that it has to be bigger and go for longer—which, the last time I checked, was not the Greens' policy either. We need to look at the full ramifications of every policy option, consider them in detail and also consider the appropriate timing of their implementation.
Obviously, that would prevent us from following the binary choice of doing 'exactly what I want, my exact number, or nothing at all'. All progress is nothing according to some, but I think we need to acknowledge progress. It is entirely legitimate for people who want to see more to call for more at the same time, but it is important to acknowledge when progress is being made. It's not insignificant, particularly when you combine it with the multinational tax avoidance legislation that this government has brought through closing typical loopholes like nonsense interest being claimed on loans to similar entities and things like that. Important work is being done by the Albanese government over a period of time. We cannot ever treat all compromises as betrayals and all progress as failure, because that will diminish our political discussion.
On the second topic of gambling reform, again, it is a similar principle. Obviously, there are those that are calling for more, but to ignore the significant progress being made in this area would also be untruthful and misleading. We've got significant reforms to advertising restrictions at the times when people are most engaged in gambling, like during sports events. We also see BetStop, credit card limits, tougher enforcement against illegal operators overseas, the criminalising of match fixing and new protections for children online. This isn't nothing. It may not be everything you want, but, again, progress is progressive. It happens over time. Rather than diminish every single reform, it's legitimate to say this is part of a process. Things are happening more than they have ever happened before, and we do need to acknowledge the good work being done. When we're asserting or implying corruption and conspiratorial nonsense, we're forgetting the fact that significant steps are being taken in the right direction. We deserve mature debate around these things.
It's worth bearing in mind that it is the Labor government that has been proposing electoral reform and donation caps to ensure that the influence of corporates in politics is limited. But, again, we are in the realm of inconvenient truths simply being ignored for the sake of political positioning. People can have a diversity of views, but to pretend that this government has been sitting on its hands on these issues is utter nonsense. We should celebrate the progress being made, talk about how we can better build on it and engage in mature policy discussion that gets the facts on the table, analyses all options and critiques assertions made by all sides of the debate.
I, for one, would not believe just everything handed to me by the gas lobby or everything handed to me by the Australian Institute. We should rigorously assess everything and then consider the options carefully and methodically to ensure that we have the best policy prescription for the interests of the Australian people. That is our job in this place. So, while I can understand and don't question the motivations of the member for Ryan—I acknowledge that there is widespread public support for taking a look at this in the future—most Australians understand we are in a fuel crisis.
I thank the member for Ryan for raising this important issue. When it comes to a full ban on gambling advertising and a fairer tax on gas exports, the government has simply failed to act in a meaningful way. Instead of delivering the reforms, Australians overwhelmingly support, it has chosen to bow to corporate pressure and lobbying. This failure is underpinned by a culture Australians are rightly fed up with: corporate control over our political system and the revolving door between political office and the private sector.
We saw it when the Prime Minister stood before the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the lobby group representing major mining and energy companies, and confirmed the government would not go ahead with a tax on gas exports. This decision was made despite overwhelming and broad public support for a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. Australia exports similar volumes of gas to countries like Qatar, yet Qatar collects around five times as much revenue. Norway taxes oil profits at rates of up to 78 per cent and has built a sovereign wealth fund now worth many times the size of our economy. Meanwhile, multinational gas export companies that extract gas offshore in Australia often pay no royalties—nothing—for the gas owned by Australians. The most recent budget papers show that the petroleum resource rent tax is expected to decline—not ramp up, as this government so often tells us—with forecast receipts in the 2029 financial year expected to be lower than receipts from the 1992 financial year.
Australians are left asking why we still haven't seen a fair tax on gas exports and why a resource-rich country like ours struggles to fund the services people rely on like the NDIS and aged care. A large part of the answer lies in the fact that the fossil fuel industry has poured significant donations into both major political parties, maintaining deep, ongoing access to ministers and decision-makers. Those financial contributions are backed by a powerful lobbying network, including former politicians and senior staffers, and a well-worn strategy of running high-pressure campaigns to warn governments off reform.
This pattern also holds true for gambling reform. The influence of the gambling lobby is pervasive. The Australian Electoral Commission's transparency report revealed there were more than $3 million in gambling related political donations for the 2024 financial year. Gambling industry sponsorship of parliamentary groups, particularly the parliamentary sports club, has sparked major integrity concerns, The lavish events and privileged access to decision-makers by the gambling industry have been well documented. According to Transparency International, the gambling sector has hired 13 third-party lobbying firms to influence parliament, with Responsible Wagering Australia accessing over 100 lobbyists across all jurisdictions. Betting companies have campaigned aggressively against gambling reforms, most recently against the long-overdue measures recommended in the 2023 Murphy report including a full ban on gambling advertising, not three ads an hour.
Meanwhile, the same companies profit from some of the most vulnerable people in our community, tearing families apart and sending people into financial ruin, mental health struggles and addiction. Meaningful reform continues to be delayed. We've seen this playbook time and time again—from the mining lobby's multimillion dollar campaign that killed off the Rudd government's super profits tax to the gambling industry's flood of donations and scare campaigns that watered down the Gillard-era pokies reform.
In 2022, Australians were promised something different. This government came to office on an election platform centred on restoring trust and accountability in federal politics. Yet, while there have been some steps forward, the reality is the system has not been fixed.
This government has done little to stamp out the sources of power these industries thrive on: the political donations, the gifts, the advertising, the paid lobbyists, the frequent access and closed political networks. The revolving door still turns, and the jobs-for-mates culture has not been stamped out. The Briggs review into public sector appointments was quietly released just before Christmas, with its recommendations left unimplemented. My bill, developed in consultation with the Centre for Public Integrity, to ensure transparent, merit based appointments, has not been taken up. (Time expired)
I rise to speak against this motion. I recognise that Australians want and deserve a fair return on our natural resources. I recognise that there is support in the community for a 25 per cent gas tax—and, indeed, many people in my local community in Menzies have spoken to me about it, when I've been out doorknocking and doing street stalls, and have also written to me about it. I appreciate them taking the time to engage with me and to make their views known, and I appreciate their advocacy.
The question of how Australia taxes its natural resources is a serious question; it deserves a serious answer. The harms caused by gambling are real; they deserve a serious response, too. But these issues deserve more than performative motions like these, that offer apparently simple responses to complex issues. Taxation of resources and gambling advertising deserve responsible, measured policy decisions, developed in consultation with experts and the workers and industries affected. And that's exactly what the Labor government is doing.
Let me start with gas. As I've said, I recognise that Australians want a better return on our natural resources that can go into social programs like Medicare and NDIS and the pension. Now, the mover of this motion, the member for Ryan, slings accusations about the gas lobby and corporate control, but she does this knowing full well that the government has already acted to increase taxes on the gas industry. In 2023, we reformed the petroleum resource rent tax. We tightened deductions. We ensured that more tax is paid sooner by offshore gas companies. Not only that, but, more recently, we've announced our domestic gas reservation scheme. Multinational gas companies will be required to reserve 20 per cent of their production for domestic use. This will directly secure supply for Australian households and businesses and put downward pressure on power bills.
The idea of an east coast gas-reservation scheme is something that there have also been public campaigns around—probably from some members of the Greens political party. We've listened to our communities on this, we've consulted with experts and stakeholders, and now we're taking responsible action to ensure energy security and put downward pressure on domestic gas prices. We're committed to the renewable energy transition. But we understand that it will be backed by storage, by hydro and by gas, and that there are industries that rely on gas that will only be able to use this as a fuel source to continue to operate. As usual with the Greens, instead of being constructive and collaborative, they've moved on to the next eye-catching campaign.
As I said, I've engaged with many members of my community who support a 25 per cent gas tax, and I understand the appeal of this. Just this month, Labor senators on the Senate Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources recommended that the government model and evaluate further reform options in the wake of the Middle East energy crisis. That recommendation came from members of this government, Labor members, just two weeks ago. So, when you, Member for Ryan, suggest that this government has simply rolled over to the gas lobby, you're not describing reality. You're describing a grievance that has already been decided upon and then working backwards from it. That's not policy; that's performance.
I understand why people want a bigger return on our natural resources. The question is how we get there responsibly, without compromising energy security, without jeopardising the supply agreements that keep petrol and diesel and fertiliser flowing to Australia, and without exposing this country to unnecessary risk in the middle of an international energy crisis.
There was a lot of support just before the budget for a 25 per cent gas tax, but good policy can take time to develop and understand the implications of. Of course we should consult with the workers and communities that would be affected by any changes. We should also consult with industry. It doesn't mean we have to accept everything that they have to say, but they should be listened to, and we need to understand their arguments. And we need to make sure that projects go ahead, to collect any gas tax at all. That means that it needs to be an environment that people can invest in.
We're operating in an environment of significant global instability. Conflict in the Middle East has tightened energy markets. Our regional partners depend on LNG supply agreements this country has committed to, and we can't expect our regional partners to go without the kind of energy resources that we also rely on. These commitments are not the gas industry's gift to us; they are part of a web of relationships that keep energy flowing in Australia. (Time expired)
I thank the member for Ryan for bringing this motion forward for debate. These are two really important issues facing our country and they deserve the chamber's full attention. Let me start with gas. Australia is one of the world's largest gas exporters. Gas is a resource that belongs to all Australians, and yet for years we've watched multinational corporations extract our gas, sell it at record prices and then send the profits offshore while ordinary Australians pay more for their own energy and receive little in return. The problem is structural. The petroleum resource rent tax was designed for oil projects and it fails to capture value from gas projects. Companies can accumulate decades of deductions, report near-zero taxable profit and pay nothing even while making billions. We need to fix this.
There are two distinct problems. First, Australians deserve a base return for the right to access and sell our resources. That's what royalties are for, and most gas-producing nations collect them. We don't for our offshore gas exports. Second, when war or crisis drives international gas prices through the roof, the windfall profits that flow to gas companies are not the reward for innovation or risk; they're a gift of circumstance. More of that benefit should flow to Australians.
I support a royalty on offshore gas and a genuine superprofits mechanism. Is 25 per cent the right rate? It could be, but my view is that for projects that are already operational, where big investment decisions were made based on an agreed tax regime, the rate should be set at a level that would not have changed the original investment decision. We will need foreign investment in the industries we need to decarbonise our economy, and we have to be careful about sovereign risk. There is room for discussion about the structure and the rate, but one thing is certain—the current PRRT framework is not delivering for Australians.
While the government points to the obligations we have to our Asian trading partners during a period of global fuel insecurity, once the international situation settles, fixing our broken gas taxes must be the first cab off the rank. This issue will not go away like the Prime Minister hopes it will. Australians are onto this and they want a fairer deal. Every time a gas company reports record profits while Australian households struggle with energy bills, it's a reminder that we must do better.
Now let me turn to gambling. After more than a thousand days of silence since the Murphy report, the government has finally moved on gambling reforms. It announced partial restrictions in line with what the gambling industry wants under cover of the budget lock-up so no media would write about it. I can't find a single person other than the Prime Minister who really thinks that this is enough. The evidence is crystal clear: partial ad bans don't work. The government has developed a model where people are required to opt out of gambling ads. Look at the opt-out model on SBS. Less than 0.1 per cent of SBS users have chosen to opt out of gambling advertising. That is not a sign that Australians are comfortable with gambling ads; it's a sign that opt-out systems do not work.
Australia has the highest per capita gambling losses on earth. This is a $32 billion industry that feeds on addiction and the targeting of vulnerable people. Six hundred thousand children are gambling. Coroners are naming gambling advertising in suicide findings. More than three in four Australians want gambling ads banned. The same proportion of AFL supporters want them banned. This is what the Murphy report recommended.
Prime Minister, if you're going to do this, do it properly. There is already growing anger in your party, because everyone knows that your reforms are a cop-out. Australians deserve a full ad ban, a national regulator and a ban on inducements. The political will exists across this chamber if the government is willing to use it. If the Prime Minister doesn't personally support a full ban, he should put this to a conscience vote so every member in the House has permission to articulate where their community and their conscience stands.
The member for Ryan is right that corporate influence shapes policy. The answer is not cynicism but accountability, and that is exactly what we are here to provide, on a gas tax and on gambling reform. I proposed a ban on political donations from social harm industries in my Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024, but neither major party supported that. We on the crossbench are here to continue to call this out, and that is what we will do.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I 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.
I'm moving this motion today because, for too long, women experiencing chronic pelvic pain and endometriosis have been dismissed, overlooked or told that what they are experiencing is somewhat normal. In my community one local woman, Alana, knows exactly what that feels like.
For years, Alana experienced debilitating pelvic pain—pain that affected her quality of life, pain that disrupted her daily routine, pain that should have been taken seriously. Instead of answers, support and a pathway to diagnosis, Alana was told something many women hear far too often: just take a Panadol. Imagine hearing that while living with chronic pain. Imagine being told to push through it, to wait, to accept it. Alana's story is deeply personal, but it is not unique. Imagine being told, when you just missed a week of work because of that pain, that this would happen regularly and often, that your capacity to earn for your family would be diminished and that your pain would be ignored. I want to thank Alana for sharing her story with me and the Prime Minister when he visited the Werribee Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Clinic in February.
Endometriosis affects at least one in seven Australian women. It can cause chronic pain and fertility challenges and have profound impacts on education, employment, relationships and everyday life. Women wait, on average, around seven years for a diagnosis. That's seven years of uncertainty, seven years of pain, seven years of feeling unheard. Chronic pelvic pain has devastating impacts not only on individuals and families but on our economy too, costing Australia an estimated $6 billion every year. For too long, women were denied the support they deserve, and that is why Labor's investment in women's health matters and why Labor delivering for women's health absolutely matters in communities across the country.
Labor's women's health package, worth nearly $800 million, is delivering more choice, lower costs and better health care for women and girls across Australia. Importantly, we're building something that did not previously exist: an Australia-wide support system for women experiencing endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain. We've delivered an additional 11 clinics, taking the national network to 33 across Australia, improving access in both metropolitan and regional communities. Every primary health network region now has access to these services. Importantly for women in Melbourne's west, one of those clinics is in Werribee. That matters. It matters because, for women like Alana, access matters, being listened to matters, having healthcare professionals who understand pelvic pain matters, and having multidisciplinary care and a pathway to diagnosis matters.
These clinics were established to improve access to timely care for people experiencing endometriosis and persistent pelvic pain, because women deserve better than being told to simply put up with pain, and we are already seeing the results. The initial network of clinics had already supported more than 10,000 women and girls and delivered more than 28,000 services for endometriosis and persistent pelvic pain conditions, but this work goes beyond clinics. We're supporting updated evidence-based clinical guidelines. We're developing an endometriosis management plan to better support patients and healthcare providers. We continue to fund EndoZone, a digital platform providing information, resources, symptom tracking and access to the latest research, and we are making health care more affordable. Since introducing the Labor women's healthcare package, more than 800,000 women have accessed over three million cheaper PBS prescriptions covering contraceptives, menopausal hormone therapies and endometriosis treatments. More than 8,000 women with endometriosis have already benefited from cheaper treatment options that previously placed major financial pressure on women and families. This matters in my electorate.
We're also making Medicare work better for women, with improved specialist access, longer consultations for complex issues and greater support for gynaecological care. This is a government that cares about women's health, that is delivering for women's health.
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I commend the member for Lalor for bringing this private member's motion to the Federation Chamber. Endometriosis and pelvic pain are something that many, many, many women suffer with and often in silence—certainly in my era, it was in silence. Under the coalition government, under the fabulous work of Nicolle Flint and Nola Marino from Western Australia, these clinics were put forward and agreed to under the former coalition government. It was great news at that point in time, and I commend the Albanese government for continuing with that work.
On the surface it sounds really fabulous to have an endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic near where you live. But where I live in Mildura, women have to travel 4½ hours by car, and we know what all that bumping and jolting actually does when you are in that state. There is no specialist GP clinic with multidisciplinary care, something I will continue to fight hard for in every regional town to manage this kind of condition. Women deserve better and regional women deserve better, and I will continue to call out the Labor government for not funding the health care in the regions that it should.
When these clinics are set up and have specialists providing care, of course it's important that the doctors and specialists concerned are actually worthy of their titles. Unfortunately, the example of Teila in my electorate in Merbein is a case that I have to tell you about because it's beyond sad. She had to travel to Melbourne to see a specialist gynaecologist on numerous occasions because she couldn't access care close to home, as I said. Teila has recently found out, as a result of investigations by the media, that the gynaecologist she had put her trust in, Dr Simon Gordon—now infamous—had treated hundreds of women like her, who have now come forward with strikingly similar experiences of harm, including unnecessary or inappropriate medical procedures, failures in informed consent, dismissal of symptoms and significant physical and psychological injury. Many of these women are now living with permanent health consequences—loss of fertility, chronic pain, trauma and profound disruption to their lives and families.
Teila has experienced psychological harm due to what she now understands was unwarranted and inappropriate surgical treatment. She lives with ongoing, debilitating pain. She is a nurse and feels let down by the very system she works in. Teila's experience, like those of other women who have bravely come forward, must be formally acknowledged. The alleged circumstances must be fully investigated in a timely fashion by the appropriate national bodies.
The Australian government must work with state governments to ensure systemic and institutional issues within the hospital system are investigated and dealt with. Patient safety, informed consent and transparency must be paramount. Women in rural and remote Australia deserve more than this government is offering them. They deserve a health system that meets them where they live and delivers the high-quality, best-practice multidisciplinary care that clinical guidelines recommend. They must be protected by a strong regulatory and transparency mechanism.
I urge the government to work constructively with regional MPs, health professionals and communities to design and fund truly accessible models. Only then will we turn clinic numbers on a map into real health outcomes for the women who need it most.
I'm very proud to rise in favour of a motion that speaks to a turning point when it comes to how we view women's health, and I acknowledge the significant milestone that it represents for women and girls across Australia. I want to thank the member for Lalor for bringing it to the parliament, and I acknowledge the previous member's contribution to shining a light particularly on the experience of regional women.
For far too long, women's health has not been taken seriously, and too many women and young girls have had their serious pain and suffering dismissed. Too many women have been left unsupported when they needed it most. Too many women have fallen through the gaps in our healthcare system, waiting years for diagnosis and care. I want to acknowledge all the women, some of them calling themselves 'endo warriors', who have shared their very personal stories and their battles within the healthcare system, because it is those stories and their standing up and sharing these experiences that have led to change, to a recognition of this disease, to bettering our understanding of what these women are going through and to recognition within the medical system.
From my electorate, there are a couple of names that come to mind. One is Caitlyn Tough MLA. Another is Ellie Angel-Mobbs, who's been a radio presenter in Canberra. There is also Ella Blackamore, whose horrific story we read about in the Canberra Times this weekend. But there are so many more. There are so many women who have experienced shocking years of their pain being dismissed, and I want to acknowledge that today as well as what it meant for them to share those stories and what that has meant in terms of policy and changes in medicine. I also want to acknowledge my predecessor, the former member for Canberra, Gai Brodtmann, who used her role in parliament to do a lot to shine a light on this and worked really tirelessly to highlight endometriosis.
The Labor government is recognising these gaps, and we're doing the work to actively address them. We've said we would open endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics across the country. We originally promised 22, but we've now delivered 33, including one here in the electorate of Canberra. With these clinics operating around the nation, we are seeing real, tangible change, because these clinics make an immense amount of difference for women and girls who have lived with debilitating pain without diagnosis or treatment, and we are working to expand what they can offer. All 33 clinics are now being expanded to deliver menopause and premenopause care as well, and we will ensure that women are supported at every stage of life.
In 2024 I had the opportunity to join the former assistant minister for health and aged care, Ged Kearney, at the announcement to establish the endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic right here in Canberra. I want to acknowledge as well Assistant Minister Kearney for her longstanding commitment to improving women's health and all the work she had done in that space first as a nurse, then as a union leader and then in her role in parliament. The clinic at Sexual Health and Family Planning ACT means that people in our community can now access the specialised care and support that they need closer to home—care and support that is built for them and built around their needs.
Importantly, this work is being reinforced locally, and I'd like to highlight the ACT government's inquiry into endometriosis and other pelvic pain conditions. This inquiry is helping to shine a light on the lived experiences of many women across the ACT who are managing chronic pain, often without the recognition and support that they deserve. It is an important step in ensuring these voices are heard and that the healthcare system continues to respond to them.
From a federal perspective, this only reinforces the importance of continued investment in women's health and the need to keep building a system that listens and delivers. Ultimately, this is what equity in health care looks like, because this work does not just stop at the clinics we've opened around the country. It is part of our government's broader, landmark—almost $800 million—investment through our women's health package. We know that, systemically, women's health has been ignored, and this investment is changing that. We've capped PBS scripts at $25, including new contraceptives and menopause therapies. I'll just say this again: it had been 30 years since new contraceptive pills had been added to the PBS. I just find that extraordinary, and this is changing that. We've also boosted Medicare rebates for IUDs and other long-acting contraceptives to save women up to $400 and introduced new Medicare items to make gynaecological and menopause care more affordable, because women's health needs to be taken seriously, and our government is taking it seriously.
I rise today to speak on this Labor government's women's health package. The government boasts opening 11 new endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. They brag that 33 clinics are now open nationwide. While those numbers look great here in Canberra, they mask a very clear divide. When it comes to real care, regional South Australia has been entirely left off the map. This government is happy to announce 11 new clinics, but do you know how many were allocated to South Australia—the minister's very own state? Zero, nada, nothing. There are only two endo clinics in South Australia: one in Adelaide and one in Kadina. The PHN for country SA has a population of nearly 500,000 people. That's 250,000 women, yet a single clinic is expected to service them all. Is a woman from Ceduna, Port Lincoln or Whyalla expected to drive up to seven hours to Kadina? Excluding regional South Australia from these new clinics shows that regional women are being forgotten.
I have a serious question to ask this Labor government: do we really have universal health care in this country? Tell that to a woman from Marree or a girl from Elliston. The reality is regional, rural and remote South Australians die younger than the metropolitan cousins. We have suicide rates higher than the rest of the state. The electorate of Grey has the highest rates of type 2 diabetes in the entire country. Councils are needing to cough up 50, 60 or 70 grands just to attract a GP to their communities. It is not good enough.
In this Labor government's very own statistics they show they only care about metropolitan Australians. For Medicare urgent care clinics, their task is to have four out of five Australians within a 20-minute drive. Again, that does not help regional South Australians. It services the metropolitan communities only. Driving hours to access basic services is wrong. The logistics are complex, especially from the Eyre Peninsula or up north.
When regional women face severe pain, infertility and chronic nausea, we tell them to drive hours to get help or we rely on transport schemes to send them to Adelaide instead of treating them locally. We used to be able to treat complex issues in regional hospitals but not any more. Per capita, SA Health spend more money in Adelaide than they do outside of Adelaide. Given the logistical difficulties of serving healthcare in the regions, this is unacceptable.
Endometriosis Australia points out that this disease affects one in seven women and that diagnosis can take up to seven years. Expanding access to outer regions is vital, or that wait time could get worse. Local medical staff feel the strain. Dr Anna Kearney from Kadina notes that receiving zero new clinics was 'a bad but not unexpected result'. She also highlights that local doctors can manage period pain but that the government gives them next to zero support to do so. This failure of support also extends to bulk-billing and urgent care clinics across our regions. My office is hearing that the online bulk-billing admin system is a total joke, with local fly-in doctors having to register multiple times only for the system to drop off without warning.
Allocated Medicare urgent clinics are also a key issue. Whyalla got one, and of course I welcome that, but Port Lincoln was somehow overlooked. The stats show that Port Lincoln was deserving of an urgent Medicare clinic. But, of course, the politics got in the way. Allocating one endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic per PHN is flawed when our network covers such an enormous part of the state. We must listen to patients. Deanna Flynn Wallis is an ambassador for Endometriosis Australia. She says the journey, medical gaslighting and the life impacts are exhausting. She says that South Australians need more clinics for our regional warriors. This lack of foresight extends across all regional health care, including vital maternal support.
The women of regional South Australia are tough, but they should not have to fight their own government just to get basic health care. They have carried the heavy burdens of distance and neglect. They work hard, they raise their families, and they build our communities. Regional women deserve the world. They deserve expert care right where they live. It is time this parliament stopped abandoning them. We must fund the clinics they need right now in the regions they proudly call home.
Women experiencing endometriosis and pelvic pain have, for too long, been overlooked, dismissed and left waiting years for answers—not weeks, not months, but years. This is not just bad period pain. This is a serious health issue. As we've heard today from every single speaker, I think everyone is in fierce agreement that it needs to be taken seriously and that we need to deliver the services.
I know that this is an issue that is deeply personal for many women. I was one of those women. From the age of about 15 years, I personally experienced very heavy periods, debilitating pain and ongoing pelvic health concerns that continued well into adulthood. Like too many women, it took years for my concerns to be taken seriously. I was eventually connected with the care I needed, through an understanding GP, after the births of my three children. I know that my experience is far from unique. Many women and girls in my community of Bonner have shared their stories—stories of pain being dismissed, symptoms being normalised and years spent waiting for answers. Too many still suffer in silence. That is why I am proud that the Albanese Labor government has delivered 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics right across our country. Women and girls now have access to specialised care in every primary-health-network region right across our country.
Endometriosis affects one in seven Australian women. It is a condition that can cause severe chronic pain, fatigue and fertility challenges, yet women still face an average seven-year delay in diagnosis. The lesser known adenomyosis is a condition in which tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows into the muscular wall of the uterus. It can also cause heavy periods, bloating, pelvic pain and fatigue, and it is most commonly diagnosed in women in their 30s and 40s. That was part of my diagnosis. Pelvic pain is also a complex, often debilitating, condition that carries enormous personal, social and economic impact, costing the Australian economy an estimated $6 billion each and every year. Behind all of these statistics are, of course, women whose lives have been disrupted—a young woman who might be missing school because the pain is unbearable, people struggling to remain in the workforce, women sitting in emergency departments desperate for answers or women who have spent years wondering if their feelings are normal or if this is somehow their fault. Women deserve better than that. That is exactly part of what these clinics deliver.
Each endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic provides expert multidisciplinary care for women and girls living with endometriosis and pelvic pain conditions. Importantly, they operate within existing general practices. Keeping care close to home and connected to community is so important. That means that women can access earlier diagnosis, improve pain management, have stronger referral pathways and get better support from professionals who understand the complexity of these conditions. Our local clinic that has opened in Oxley is helping women from my community in Bonner, and it is servicing the Brisbane south region. Across Australia, the clinics have already supported more than 10,000 women and girls and delivered more than 28,000 services for those living with endometriosis and persistent pelvic pain.
The other important thing that we need to do is raise awareness and support. Last week, I was so pleased to see the Albanese Labor government's $8.4 million commitment to Jean Hailes. Through trusted online health information, practical resources, webinars, research and national initiatives like Women's Health Week, Jean Hailes is helping millions of women and girls better understand health and access through evidence based information they can trust, including on issues like endometriosis and pelvic pain, both in our cities and of course in the regions.
Alongside endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, better information and awareness can help women access care sooner, feel more informed and know they are not navigating these experiences alone. Women deserve to be believed when it comes to their health, and the Albanese Labor government understands this and is delivering for all women.
I couldn't allow a discussion of endo to go on in this place without mentioning and paying tribute to the legacy of my predecessor in the seat of Forrest, Nola Marino, whose deeply personal and profoundly effective advocacy in this space was built on the experiences of her daughter Kylie, whose story Nola shared because it highlighted the failings of our healthcare system and its inability to respond to endo appropriately.
After seeing two gynaecologists, who simply dismissed Kylie and told her that she was overstating her symptoms, her condition progressed disastrously. Finally, a third gynaecologist diagnosed what he called the worst case of endometriosis he'd ever seen, so aggressive that it was attached to her bowel and was strangling it. The disease almost killed Kylie, who, in the course of very, very serious treatment, developed peritonitis, septicaemia, a lower bowel infection, a burst appendix and had an episode where her heart went into fibrillation while she was in surgery. She spent 11 days in ICU, had some 1,500 internal staples, 15 tubes inserted and three external colostomy bags. That is how serious endo can be for women in Australia. It of itself is a story that highlights how unacceptable it is that for a condition affecting some one in seven women in Australia, the average wait time for a diagnosis can be seven years. So Nola's advocacy was built on concrete achievements in this place.
I want to take just a few moments to step through those achievements because, alongside the then health minister, Greg Hunt; the then member for Boothby, Nicole Flint; and the then member for Canberra, Nola set up Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis Awareness, which ultimately led to the National Action Plan for Endometriosis being launched in 2018. It was the first ever national action plan focused on improving awareness of the disease and understanding of its impacts, speeding up diagnosis for Australian women and investing in medical research to develop better treatment options and ultimately pursue a cure. This is a foundational policy document. The entire program has followed on through successive governments.
Additionally, in 2020, Nola managed to get the PPEP Talk into WA, so that school-aged women and girls were receiving the information that would ultimately build the awareness of this insidious disease. Clinical guidelines have gone on to be updated and promulgated across the medical industry, and Nola has led direct constituent outreach across the south-west of WA to build the case for a pelvic pain clinic in the south-west of WA, which is sorely needed. Nola is still an Endometriosis Australia ambassador and remains committed to that work to this day.
I find it a little bit hard to reconcile the government's closer-to-home rhetoric when announcing these new clinics with the fact that for women outside of Perth, the south-west is home to the largest population of people—some 200,000 people—and the only regional clinic in WA is in Albany, which, for women in the south-west affected by endometriosis, is up to a 3½-hour drive from the Perth clinic or a four-hour drive from Albany. It affects one in seven women, who, as I said, have to wait up to seven years for a diagnosis, although hopefully don't experience what Kylie Marino did. I do have to ask why it was that the government chose to pass over the south-west of WA for an endo clinic. It is a priority for the region. It is something I will continue to advocate for, building on Nola Marino's proud legacy in this space. I think it would be fitting that, when one day a government listens to these pleas to build an endo clinic in the south-west of WA, we get Nola Marino there to cut the ribbon and to celebrate what would be a defining achievement for someone so personally committed to advocating in this space.
Labor's women's health package is driving more choice, lower costs and better care for women and girls right across our country. I'm particularly proud of our investment in endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. The Pelvic Pain and Endometriosis Clinic at Northside Health in Coconut Grove, Darwin, is led by Dr Danielle Stewart and opened in September 2023. The multidisciplinary team there at Northside Health provide Territory women with access to the care that they need close to home.
Endometriosis affects one in seven Australian women and has a devastating impact on the daily lives of sufferers. Women face an average seven-year delay in diagnosis, which can have a devastating effect on their daily lives. Pelvic pain is similarly complex and debilitating, with broader social and economic impacts. It is estimated to cost the Australian economy $6 billion annually.
I acknowledge the former member for Canberra Gai Brodtmann and former member for Forrest Nola Marino, both of whom fought for years to raise awareness of endometriosis and the debilitating impact it has on women across Australia. Listening to their contributions in this place inspired me, a few years ago now, to consider how we can better support women suffering from endometriosis in Darwin, in Palmerston and in the Northern Territory.
Through this journey I had the privilege of meeting Libby Schoch, an amazing Territorian and a sufferer of endo. Libby and I held several events in Darwin and Palmerston, including roundtables, to hear directly from Territory women about their experiences and the challenges that they faced living with endometriosis but also to let them know that we were listening, that we would act and that they weren't alone. At those events, Territory women described their debilitating pain, the lack of community awareness around endometriosis and the way it impacted their lives—how it impacted their ability to participate in family activities, to exercise, to take part in work; the crippling financial impact of living with endo; the difficulty of accessing pain relief; and how they had even been accused of being drug seekers and the impacts this had on their mental and emotional wellbeing. Clearly, something needed to be done, and that's why we delivered the Pelvic Pain and Endometriosis Clinic at Northside Health in 2023. That represented the end of a community engagement process in my electorate that I was proud to play a role in with Libby Schoch and with others in the Top End.
Our federal Labor government is building an Australia-wide support system that previously did not exist. We now have a national network of 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics across the country. These are improving access in regional and metropolitan communities. We are funding the development of Australia's first national clinical guidelines for perimenopause and menopause, ensuring consistent, national, evidence based care for women no matter where they live. We are delivering the reform that women were denied for far too long: practical, affordable, evidence based care that improves women's lives.
Since introducing the women's health package, more than 800,000 women have accessed over three million cheaper PBS prescriptions for contraceptives, for menopausal hormone therapies and for endometriosis treatments. This includes, but is not limited to, the first new contraceptive pill listed on the PBS in more than 30 years and the first new menopausal hormone therapies listed in over 20 years. As of January 2026, PBS scripts are just $25, and they are $7.70 for concession card holders, and these are the lowest medicine prices since 2004, over 20 years, giving Australian women more cost-of-living relief with the care that they need.
We're also making Medicare work better for women by delivering the services and specialist care which women have waited too long for. Medicare funded menopause health assessments began on 1 July last year and have already been accessed by more than 100,000 women, giving them the dedicated time and support they deserve at a critical stage in their lives. New Medicare items and higher rebates— (Time expired)
The coalition has a proud record of supporting women's health, and this remains a strong priority for us. Let me start with a quote: 'Caring for women is not charity. It's an investment in the future of families, communities and nations.' I dare say that every member of this place would agree with me. In the 2021-22 budget, the former coalition government invested more than $353 million to support women's health. That included $22 million to introduce additional gynaecological items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule, including items for assisted reproductive technology, ensuring affordable access to reproductive health services through Medicare. I'd say that there is a bipartisan commitment in this place to make sure that we can actually progress the way in which Australia deals with endometriosis and pelvic pain as well.
But one of the things that I'd say is that, when I speak to women from my electorate of McPherson, their experience is somewhat different to what we hear in this place. I've spoken to women who have heard the Prime Minister say time and time again that you only need a Medicare card, and that's not their experience. I've spoken to women who have, through their endometriosis journeys, had the experience of having to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars of their own hard-earned money just for basic testing and for treatment. That's something that is the true lived experience of women. It's something that we need to change and, as a country, we need to do better. I think it would serve this government well if it actually invested in looking at those outcomes and changing those outcomes, as opposed to just talking about these investments. At the end of the day, the people in my electorate and across the country don't see the investment; they see their experience. That's something that we need to put the focus on.
I'd also like to take this opportunity, while we have the member for Forrest in the chamber, to acknowledge the incredible work of his predecessor, the honourable Nola Marino, during her time in this place. She was an absolute champion for those who suffer from endometriosis, and I'd like to note our appreciation on the Hansard record.
One of the things that we as the coalition want to do is ensure that women across Australia, regardless of where they are, in the cities and in the regions, can access care that not only is affordable but also understands their unique experience and their needs. As part of the opposition, something that I will do is, while acknowledging the important progress that's been made, make sure that we as a coalition are able to actually hold this government to account on progressing what were and what are bipartisan commitments. They need to be progressed as soon as possible. These include measures to enhance menopause care for women through a new Medicare rebate; to expand health professional training, which is so critically important; to develop national clinical guidelines; and to also increase funding for endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics.
That package expands on the important work that we started on and my predecessors started on when we were in government previously. That included launching the National Women's Health Strategy and announcing what was an historic investment into Australia's first endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics under the former coalition. So, while we are committed to holding this government to account, we're also committed to working with this government on this really important matter for women across the country. But we are relatively concerned that, under this government, as I spoke to before, the experience of women is that it's never been harder or more expensive for them to access critical primary care. And that is something that needs to change.
I'll just finish with a personal note that was given to me, in relation to a constituent whose wife was going through menopause. He said:
Watching my wife go through menopause has shown me how deeply it affects her—and us as a family. She faced confusion, conflicting advice, and outdated information at every turn. Her persistence and courage helped her find what worked, but too many women are left navigating myths alone. It's time for better research, education, and support—for women and the loved ones who care for them.
The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I 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.
Today I rise because too many older Australians are facing a choice: the choice between private health insurance and the basic necessities. I stand here today to give voice to the more than 1,368—and counting—older Australians who have reached out to my office to express their concerns, their frustration and their fears.
This government is forcing more people to make the choice between private health insurance and the basic necessities of life. And let's call this for what it is. This is a government that is punishing those who do not vote for them. It's a government that is punishing the older Australians who have worked so hard for this country and who have secured their own future and structured their retirement in a way to make sure that they have a comfortable retirement, and who, now, are seeing the rules change.
Under Labor, health costs have risen by around 17 per cent. This pressure is not abstract, because, as I've said, we ran a survey of McPherson residents over 65 and found that a significant proportion have experienced repeated increases in the cost of private health insurance over the last four years under this government. This is a government that should be easing that pressure, not forcing these residents to pay more for the health care that they need.
Australians over the age of 65 on fixed incomes, or those who rely on the aged pension, often are the ones who have the greatest healthcare needs, and they have those needs increasingly as they age. And those are the Australians that depend on the private health insurance system.
The average age of a person covered by private health insurance in McPherson is 63, and 47.72 per cent of admitted patients who used private health insurance were aged 65 to 84. These are our most vulnerable Australians. Cutting that rebate is going to hurt around 3.2 million older Australians. But it's not just hurting them; it's hurting their families—it's hurting the young people that are looking after them. And, as for all those who are in that ageing bracket below the age of 65, it's going to hurt them as well.
My survey has had nearly 1,500 respondents. Let's have a look at what it shows. It shows that only 18.8 per cent of respondents said that they could afford any increase to their private health insurance cost, that 31.4 per cent intend to cancel their private health insurance altogether, and that an additional 40 per cent say they might have to cancel their private health insurance.
The same survey showed that older Australians rely on private health insurance for a range of often very serious conditions. Patricia from Merrimac has already had to cancel her home, contents and car insurance and says that this increase to her fees says that she won't be able to eat properly. Susan from Robina says that she's already living week to week and, at her age, needs private health insurance more than ever. She's having trouble sleeping, worrying about how much her bills are increasing under this Labor government. Margaret from Coolangatta says that she and her husband need to make a choice to cancel private health insurance for one of them and pray that the other one who no longer has cover doesn't experience any new health conditions as the cost could be fatal.
We can't allow people who've worked hard, paid their taxes and contributed to Australia to be forced into a position where they have to choose between cutting back on groceries, putting petrol in the car, paying the power bill and keeping their private health insurance that they rely on. Those opposite should be hanging their heads in shame, because these are our parents and grandparents and they do not deserve this. A government that has run out of money is going after them. That's not the way to do it. Older Australians are the ones who built this country and they are the ones who are most vulnerable right now. I've said it before. We'll call it out for what it is. It's a government that has lost control of the economic narrative. They've lost control of the economy and they're trying to recover money from older Australians, who are the most vulnerable. Just keep in mind as well that every older Australian who is forced to drop their private health insurance will actually put more pressure on an already stretched public system. Shame on this government. We are going to stand up for older Australians and make sure that we hold this government to account.
Is there a seconder for this motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The changes to the private health insurance rebate are about a fair go for all Australians. It's also about having a long-term vision for the provision of aged care in this country. The extra subsidy previously provided to older Australians over the age of 65 for private health cover was the legacy of an era when Australia was able to take full advantage of the mining boom 20 years ago, when we had more working-age taxpayers and fewer retirees. Over 20 years later, Australia finds itself in a dramatically changed position. We have more retirees and so the service mix that this government needs to provide includes a stronger emphasis on aged care—at home and residential. So, instead of applying subsidies according to age, subsidies will be applied according to income level, a much fairer outcome for all Australians. Older Australians will continue to receive a rebate between eight and 24 per cent based on their income level, settings which will apply to all Australians.
These changes are about providing older Australians with financial support to access private health care according to their income, while recognising another urgent reality that is affecting the provision of aged-care services in this country. We have an ageing population and so the demand for aged-care services is increasing. Those opposite ignored this reality, not even implementing the recommendations of the royal commission into aged care. A new aged-care home needs to be built every three days for the next 20 years in order to be able to service our cohort of older Australians at the rate at which it is now growing. Currently, we are not meeting that demand and the entire system risks collapsing under its own weight. So any savings from the change in rebate arrangements will be redirected to expanding and improving the provision of aged-care services in this country.
This will mean more aged-care beds, more packages and better care. It will mean 5,000 more beds year on year. It will mean being able to build and maintain quality residential accommodation. It will mean a Support at Home program that is fairer and more affordable, with faster and improved assessments and shorter wait times. It will mean free personal care services, such as showering assistance, dressing and continence support alongside free clinical care. It will mean an expansion of the end-of-life pathway to provide dignified care for older Australians in their final months. It will mean 20 additional Specialist Dementia Care Program units and an expansion of the Hospital to Aged Care Dementia Support Program, providing crucial transitional support for older Australians going from hospital into residential aged care.
These are in addition to the Albanese Labor government's ongoing commitment to provide more accessible and affordable health care for all Australians, including older Australians. This includes making urgent care clinics a permanent part of Medicare, with 135 urgent care clinics across Australia and more being built. This will mean four in five Australians will live within an only 20-minute drive from urgent health care. An extra $25 billion, on top of $220 billion already committed, is going to our public hospitals over the next five years. Cheaper PBS medicines with a maximum price of $25 per prescription and $7.70 for pensioners and concession card holders have already saved Australians more than $2.3 billion. And with almost 3,800 fully bulked-billed practices right across Australia, more bulk-billing clinics means a projected nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030.
The Albanese Labor government has a long-term vision for this country—a fairer Australia for all Australians, including the right service mix for our changing demographics to meet the demand now and into the future. While older Australians will continue to receive a concession on their private health insurance based on their income, aligning with the rebate received by all Australians, the additional funds will be invested back into the improvement of the aged-care system more broadly by creating an aged-care system that will be affordable, accessible, fit-for-purpose and provide the highest standard of care for generations to come. This government is committed to investing in the future of all Australians.
I rise to support this motion that has been moved by my fellow Gold Coast colleague the member for McPherson. I do so because, ultimately, what we are seeing from this Labor government is a cruel, short-sighted and really unnecessary attack on older Australians.
For many Australians who have reached the retirement age, the later years in life, this isn't just a line in a budget paper. This is this Labor government, this Treasurer and this Prime Minister reaching into retirees hip pockets to take more of their hard earned money. These are older Australians who have done the right thing for years and years and years. The Labor government rolls into town with this new slogan of 'intergenerational equity', but we know what it really is. It's another hit to the hip pocket. It's another tax grab from this Labor government, which, when it runs out of money, will come after yours. And it fits the pattern, because Labor says one thing, in this case about fairness, but what it's doing is actually something entirely different.
We heard the member for Boothby use the word 'fair'. There is nothing about this that is fair. This wasn't taken to the last election, not that that would stop them. You see, this government now has a track record of saying one thing and doing something completely different. People are genuinely starting to wonder whether this Prime Minister can be trusted. The impact of this particular decision will remove the higher private health insurance rebate for older Australians from 1 April 2027. This aligns older Australians with younger age groups, rather than recognising the reality that older people need health care more often. Labor's private health tax on pensioners will probably cost couples over the age of 65 an extra $1,600 from April 2027—a 21.3 per cent increase.
My friend over here, who is the doctor in the house and has bit of credibility in this area, says it might not be that much. Well, for some people it will be that much. In fact, I'll give the good doctor a working example from my electorate just to prove that some people are impacted to the max. Robert and Miranda, from my electorate, have contacted me. They are absolutely staggered at this proposal. They already pay about $1,000 a quarter after the discount. They estimate they'll pay another $680 each per year, or 17 per cent. A quick bit of maths takes that to about $1,300 or $1,400 per year for this couple. These people are genuinely concerned they're going to be forced out of the private health system and into the public system. They deserve better than that. They're very worried, and I'd be worried too if I was them, because the impact that no-one's talking about is that push into the public health system, which is what the private system was entirely designed to try and mitigate—the demand on the public health system.
We've seen reports that there could be around 44,000 people drop their private health cover. Now, none of this is good news, because we already know that our really wonderful and hardworking health sector employees are working harder than they've ever had to before to try and keep up with the service standards that they want to deliver. But older Australians are going to land in these hospitals and it's going to put more and more pressure on our doctors, on our nurses, on our allied health professionals.
So going into the last election, when the Prime Minister waved around his Medicare card and said, 'This is all you will need,' well, ultimately that's not going to be enough because sometimes you need to go to a hospital, and oftentimes private health insurance is the way that you can get there quicker. But now there'll be more pressure, and older Australians deserve a lot better than this
I'm very happy to rise and speak on this private member's motion. It's about leopards and spots, and the coalition is the leopard that doesn't change its spots. I've seen it through my entire medical career. The Fraser government tried to destroy Medibank, our first national comprehensive insurance scheme. The Howard government allowed de-mutualisation of the health funds and so introduced a profit motive into private health insurance. Then we saw Dutton, as health minister in the Abbott government, try to introduce a co-payment to destroy Medicare. It really shows the coalition, as far as health care is concerned, doesn't change its spots. They're not interested in equity. They're not interested in comprehensive care. All they want to do is bring it down. They haven't had a health policy in 10 years that's worked. They worked very hard during the Abbott, Morrison and Turnbull governments to bring down Medicare. Unfortunately, they're still showing with this bill that they don't understand health care.
All the Albanese government are doing is bringing the rebates down to show that it is equitable to make older Australians pay the same level of private health insurance as younger Australians. That's very, very fair. The number of people with private insurance is, in fact, increasing. We know that from the last data available from 2024. We know that private health insurance has to be value for money. And we've seen that the Albanese government, in its first term and now, is doing everything it can to reduce health costs for people, to make sure that our health system works appropriately. Our bulk-billing rates in general practice are now going up. We've recently also started an inquiry into specialist access, including the gap fees that people have to pay, making it more equitable for people to see specialists. We have announced and introduced legislation to make transparency about medical fees be available to all Australians. We are doing whatever we can to make sure our health system is the most effective and most equitable in the world.
In fact, in Australia we pay around 10 to 10.5 per cent of GDP every year for health care. This compares to around 12 to 14 per cent for other OECD countries and up to 17 per cent for the United States. So we are making our healthcare system efficient and keeping it efficient and still providing very high levels of equitable care to all Australians. We make hard decisions about health care. We make no apologies for that. This reduction of the health rebate for the over-65s, bringing them in line with under-65s, is part of that. Hard decisions have to be made. We are encouraging people into private health insurance. We know that we need to get younger people into health insurance. As a general rule, younger people tend to pay more in fees than they receive in health care, whereas the opposite is true for older people. They get more health care than the amount they pay in private insurance or in Medicare surcharges. We are doing what we can to make our healthcare system equitable, and this is part of the solution.
The Albanese government is doing a huge amount in health care, including in women's health and in our urgent care centres, so that all Australians can access the most equitable care that they can. Modern health care is expensive. We know that the medications for some of the new genetically caused diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, cost huge amounts of money—sometimes up to $300,000 a year per patient for every year they're alive. The costs are huge. But the Albanese government is making sure that our health costs are amongst the lowest in the developed world, and, as a percentage of GDP, they are much lower than many of our OECD or equivalent countries are paying and certainly much lower than what is occurring in America. The Albanese government is doing a marvellous job in health care.
Labor says it is helping with the cost of living, but this policy directly increased the cost of health care for older Australians. Labor says it supports Medicare, but this policy risks putting more pressure on crumbling public hospitals around the country. Labor says it cares more about older Australians whilst directly targeting those aged over 65. Labor says this is about fairness, but it is simply unfair to increase the cost of health care for pensioners and retirees on fixed incomes. Labor says this is about strengthening our health system, but this policy weakens one of the pressure valves that helps keep health care moving in Australia.
These aren't just arguments that we make here in a hypothetical sense. These are the experiences we are hearing from constituents in our own electorates. Take Margaret and Glenn from Bunbury. Glenn's a Vietnam vet, and Margaret, now at the age of 85, is a stalwart volunteer for the Bunbury Soup Van. Margaret has written to me, at her wit's end, unsure about how they are going to make ends meet with this massive hit to the cost of their private health insurance—a cost that they as Australians chose to wear because they wanted to do the right thing. They wanted to be in private health insurance so that, when they needed help, it was there for them, at their own cost. This is another cost-of-living hit from a government that, on one hand, tells Australians that it understands the pressure that they're under, but, on the other, does everything in its power to make life more expensive.
Many Australians over 65 aren't wealthy. They shouldn't be thrown on the scrap heap of victims from this budget of betrayal built on Labor lies, higher taxes, higher debt, more migrants and fewer homes. At a time when insurance premiums, groceries, power bills, council rates, medicines and out-of-pocket health costs are already going up, Labor's answer is to make private health insurance even more expensive for older Australians. We believe that those older Australians deserve dignity, certainty and access to the health care they need, not to be victimised in yet another budget raid dressed up as reform.
Labor want to frame this as intergenerational fairness, but there is nothing fair about forcing older Australians, many of whom are on fixed incomes, to pay more for their health care. They've worked hard, paid taxes, raised families, built communities and contributed to our country. This shouldn't just be another budget line item to be scratched out by Jim Chalmers' pen. This measure, in particular, is nasty. It pits younger Australians against older Australians in the divisive politics of this prime minister when the real issue is Labor's failure to manage its own spending and relieve pressure on households.
A fair health system in Australia should have both public and private health care. We must have a safety net for all Australians, but it shouldn't punish those Australians who can and do do the right thing by taking pressure off the public health care system. Every person who drops or downgrades their private health insurance in the wake of this budget raid, which of course was never ventilated in the election campaign—there was no public commitment that if Australians voted for the Albanese government this is what they would get. This is another Labor lie in the budget of betrayal. It means more pressure on public hospitals, longer elective-surgery waiting lists, more pressure on EDs and more stress on doctors, nurses and, of course, the ambulance paramedics parked outside hospitals because they simply can't get their patients in—in some cases for eight, 10 or 12 hours at a time.
Public hospitals across this country are already stretched. The last thing that they need is a policy from Canberra that pushes more Australians into the public queue. This is a classic Labor cost shift from a government that is addicted to spending. The Commonwealth books are saving, but patients, families, states and public hospitals are left to deal with the consequences and, inevitably, the cost blowouts that flow from that. The private system isn't separate from the public system. It helps to carry the load in Australia. Weakening private participation risks the sustainability of the entire health system in Australia. So let's see from this government— (Time expired)
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I 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.
This motion speaks to a changing world, where it's more important than ever to cement relationships with our traditional allies—to build, grow and nurture them through the lens of shared values, a desire for peace, stability and security, and an understanding of how the scales of global power are shifting. The Albanese Labor government entered into the defence and security partnership with the European Union in March this year with that framework firmly in mind.
The partnership is a demonstration of Australia's growing strategic partnership with the European Union. Building from already existing friendships, taking those friendships and deepening them, has become urgent. It is something the government will continue to do, because the government's first order of the day is keeping Australians safe and safeguarding our national interests.
As recognised in the preface to the partnership document, both Australia and the European Union recognise and respect democratic principles, human rights, gender equality, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. The partnership recognises the urgent need to protect and double down on these principles in the face of significant global pressure and disruption being put on them. The benefits of this defence and security partnership with the European Union are many. They can be categorised under three key themes: national security, economic opportunity and peace.
With regard to national security, the wide-ranging partnership will boost cooperation across defence industry, cyber, economic security, counterterrorism, combating all forms of hatred, which is growing in breadth and complexity, and countering hybrid threats. There is also a focus on emerging technologies, maritime security, economic security, through critical minerals, and defence industry cooperation. As an island continent, maritime security, which includes border protection and protection of seaborne supply, is critical. The partnership recognises the importance of a rules-based regional maritime security architecture, including secure and resilient sea lines of communication and freedom of navigation in accordance with international law—first and foremost, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The partnership will also allow Australia and the European Union to increase information sharing and capacity building in order to partner to combat the curse that is online radicalisation, to join forces to combat terrorist financing, to establish a new space security dialogue and to identify, manage and withstand the increasingly complex security risks in each other's respective regions. As rightly recognised by the partnership, the Indo-Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are interconnected and interdependent.
With regard to the second theme, economic security, the partnership will also create new defence procurement opportunities for Australian and European businesses. The partnership also specifically calls for Australia and the European Union to build secure and sustainable critical and strategic minerals value chains between them, with a specific goal being to support the defence industry plus other key industrial sectors.
Finally, the third theme of the partnership is stability and peace. The partnership quite rightly commits to the women, peace and security agenda and calls on Australia and the European Union to ensure that gender equality is integrated in all facets and all levels of cooperation with regard to defence and security. Gender equality must remain a political, economic and national security priority. We know that countries where gender equality is further progressed and reasonably well functioning are more peaceful and stable. There is less conflict. We know that, when women's peacemaking skills are harnessed and women have a seat at the peace agreement negotiating table, peace is more sustainable and longer lasting. We also know that women and girls are more deeply and catastrophically affected by conflict and instability. So the importance of the acknowledgement of gender equality in this partnership and the importance of the acknowledgement of the role gender equality plays when it comes to conflict avoidance and sustainable peace in this partnership cannot be underestimated.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I rise today to address the recently signed Australia-European Union Security and Defence Partnership. While the government boasts about our strategic alignment and international cooperation, this agreement raises some serious flags. It threatens to impose heavy European energy and compliance standards on local operations. Local industry should not carry the costs of global deals without guaranteed local benefits. This deal creates uncertainty for key industries during an already tense industrial transition. If we adopt European green targets, we risk lifting overhead costs for places like Whyalla steelworks and the Nyrstar smelter in Port Pirie. This directly risks local jobs and threatens our economic future—and why? Constituents in my electorate might also reasonably ask the government why the government is spending time on EU defence alignment instead of investing in regional roads, health and jobs. This lack of regional focus is a clear pattern for this government.
While we are on defence, I'd like to address the cuts to Invictus Australia. This government has cut all funding from this program. This is a program that provides vital support for injured and mentally ill veterans who gave everything for our nation. It is a shameful decision, and the government must reconsider its cruel funding cuts to Invictus Australia immediately.
But a lack of care for our people and our economy is nothing new for this Labor government. We have only to look at the total failure of their new EU free trade deal. I mean, who are we kidding? There is nothing free in this free trade deal. Our hardworking farmers, our wine growers, were completely sold out by negotiators who did not understand their needs. The trade minister gave up and stayed at the table when he should have walked away. No deal would have been better than this bad deal.
The numbers show how badly we were beaten. On beef, this agreement allows just over 30,000 tonnes of access over a decade. Our industry experts said 50,000 tonnes was the bare minimum to stay competitive. On sheepmeat, the result was insulting. We got 25,000 tonnes, while New Zealand sits on over 160,000 tonnes. Did our negotiators forget to get a calculator? Every major red meat group in this country is devastated by this subpar deal, and our primary producers will pay the price for decades.
This government also cut the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grants Program. It's a vital lifeline for regional wine businesses. Then they flooded our market with cheap European wine, directly harming our local premium producers. They seem more focused on pleasing their friends in Brussels and Bordeaux than supporting local regions like Clare and the Barossa Valley. Minister Gallagher publicly posted how this would allow her to get cheaper wine from France. Again, this Labor government is putting Australia second.
First, the regions got a terrible deal with the EU and this wonky defence deal. Then came the budget, and things get better: $4.7 billion cut from infrastructure spending—two per cent of that is for regional Australia; $21.4 million cut from regional communications; $103 million cut from the National Water Grid; and $191 million cut from the pest and diseases fund, regional trade and drought funding for farmers, with $52 million cut from the Future Drought Fund. The Prime Minister gave his word to regional Australia, but, as we know, his word is his bond, and that bond is pretty damn flimsy.
I want to finish by speaking directly for the workers of regional South Australia. The hardworking men and women in the smelter, in the steelworks, in the vines, in the fishing boats, in the fields and, of course, in our towns do not want deals with Europe or heavy green tape costs handed down from Canberra or, indeed, Brussels. They want a government that fights for their jobs, protects their local industries and backs their local communities completely. I will always stand up for regional South Australia, and I call on this government to do the same and stop abandoning our regions and start delivering the real support our industries need to survive.
I thank the member for Sturt for the chance to celebrate the Australia-European Union Security and Defence Partnership. This agreement is important because it reflects a simple reality—that, in today's world, our security is interconnected and our response must be coordinated. This is a partnership that is not symbolic; it is practical and it is deliberately structured so. It establishes a framework to increase information sharing to counter global threats, to build the capacity to manage complex risks, and to strengthen resilience across both the Indo-Pacific and European regions. It commits Australia and the European Union to working together to combat online radicalisation and terrorism financing, recognising that security threats increasingly emerge in the digital domain just as much as in the physical one. It creates a new space security dialogue, acknowledging that the technologies we rely on, from communications to navigation, are now fundamental to both economic and national security. And, importantly, it opens up new defence procurement opportunities, strengthening cooperation between Australian and European industries and creating the pathways for shared capability development.
This is what modern security looks like, not just defence capability in isolation but collaboration across industries, across technologies and across regions. That is reinforced by the broader Australia-EU relationship, including the recently concluded free trade agreement, because economic security and defence cooperation go hand in hand. Together, these agreements recognise that supply chains, technologies and industrial capacity are central to both our prosperity and our national security.
I also want to talk about what it means at a local level. In communities like mine in Hasluck, these international partnerships translate into real opportunity. In Hasluck and across Western Australia, we have a strong and growing base of advanced manufacturing, engineering and defence related capability. When I visit local businesses, I see the kind of precision engineering and innovation that this partnership is designed to support.
At Hofmann Engineering in Ashfield, the Minister for Defence and I have seen firsthand a multigenerational Western Australian company delivering world-class manufacturing capability, supporting defence, transport and industry sectors with highly specialised engineering skills. Firms such as Aerospace NDI in Bassendean specialise in highly technical inspection and testing services using non-destructive techniques to ensure the safety and reliability of critical aerospace and defence components. Together, these kinds of businesses represent exactly the capability that this partnership is designed to support: local expertise, connected to global collaboration.
We also see the broader ecosystem across Western Australia, where more than 200 defence industry businesses contribute to our national capability, supported by world-class infrastructure and innovation. Companies like Composite Components are designing and manufacturing advanced carbon fibre and composite structure for high performance applications; companies like VEEM are producing advanced maritime components that not only strengthening Australia's sovereign defence capability but export expertise into our global supply chains; and organisations like the Australian Industry and Defence Network are helping connect small and medium-sized businesses into those supply chains, ensuring that that local capability can scale and collaborate.
We have capacity in interesting places. There is a role for companies that operate outside of the defence industry to play in supporting local manufacturing. For example, in Bayswater, we see this capability in action with businesses like Cyclowest, a radiopharmaceutical manufacturing facility producing specialised medical isotopes for advanced diagnostic imaging and treatment. They are experts in handling radioactive materials safely and can assist with training and protocols for handling radioactive isotopes.
There are many kinds of organisations that stand to benefit from this deeper engagement with European partners. When we talk about defence procurement cooperation, we're also talking about building resilience to complex threats, we're talking about opening new markets and new partnerships and we're talking about strengthening our industries that underpin our national capabilities. This is exactly what this opportunity presents. I commend the bill to the House as well.
At a time when the world is becoming more unstable, more contested and more dangerous, strong partnerships between democratic nations matter. Australia and Europe may sit on opposite sides of the globe, but increasingly we face the same threats of the growing instability we're witnessing across the globe, in the Indo-Pacific, in Europe and in the Middle East. The old assumption that distance alone protects Australia no longer holds true. National security today extends far beyond traditional borders and battlefronts. Modern warfare is fought across cyber networks, communication systems, critical infrastructure, supply chains, satellites and digital platforms. That's why cooperation with trusted democratic partners is so important.
This agreement reflects a growing understanding that the security of Europe and the security of the Indo-Pacific are deeply interconnected. We've seen through the war in Ukraine, tensions in the Indo-Pacific, instability in the Middle East and the escalating cyberthreats that events on the other side of the world can directly impact Australians here. That impact can be felt through energy prices, supply chain disruptions, cyberattacks, trade instability or threats to critical infrastructure.
As someone who has spent significant time working in the defence, national security and intelligence space through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the defence subcommittee, now the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, I understand just how rapidly these threats are evolving—and Australia cannot afford complacency. The coalition has always understood the importance of strong alliances and strategic partnerships. From ANZUS to the Five Eyes partnership to AUKUS, coalition governments have consistently led on Australia's security, depending not only on capability but also on trusted relationships with like-minded nations. Importantly, this partnership also creates opportunities for Australian businesses operating at the cutting edge of defence, technology and innovation, and that matters greatly for regions like mine on the Sunshine Coast.
Many people would be surprised to learn that the Sunshine Coast is home to a growing and highly capable defence, aerospace and advanced manufacturing sector. We have innovative businesses contributing to sovereign capability, aviation technology, cyber-resilience and advanced manufacturing right here in our Sunshine Coast region. Australian businesses are innovative, they are agile, and they're ready to contribute more to Australia's national resilience and defence capability. But partnerships and announcements alone are not enough. Capability matters. Delivery matters. Preparedness matters. As I often say, Australians expect outcomes on defence and intelligence, not just announcements, because announcements are easy, but delivery is hard, and capability delayed is capability denied. The real test of agreements like this is whether they deliver meaningful capability, stronger industrial resilience and improved strategic preparedness.
We are already seeing how modern warfare is changing. Lessons from Ukraine and the Middle East demonstrate the growing importance of drones, autonomous systems, integrated strike capability and cyber-resilience. Australia must not fall behind again. That means backing sovereign capability, backing local defence industry, backing Australian manufacturing and ensuring our nation has resilient supply chains and industrial capacity in times of crises. National security and economic security are now inseparable.
More than 103,000 Australians have paid the ultimate sacrifice with the Australian flag on their left shoulder. We honour that sacrifice not simply with words but by ensuring Australia is prepared for the strategic challenges of the future. That requires seriousness, urgency, long-term thinking and a genuine whole-of-nation approach to national security. I, along with the coalition, support stronger cooperation between Australia and our democratic partners. We support building resilience against cyber threats, terrorism and foreign interference, and we support creating opportunities for Australian defence businesses and innovators to connect into the supply chain of like-minded democratic nations. But these partnerships must be backed by real capability and real investment.
While I support stronger cooperation between Australia and Europe, partnerships alone are no substitute for a comprehensive national security strategy. We must get our own house in order first by strengthening sovereign capability, rebuilding industrial resilience, securing our supply chains and ensuring Australia is appropriately prepared for the challenges ahead. (Time expired)
It is a pleasure to rise in support of my good friend the member for Sturt's motion. She is a great advocate for her constituents and also for South Australia's defence industry and understands deeply the importance of partnerships like this one with the European Union. As a former diplomat who worked on international agreements prior to coming to this place, I was pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House about the European Union free trade agreement and how the deepening of trade relationships between our country and Europe will create opportunities, jobs, economic growth and many, many other benefits for Australia.
In a similar fashion, the Australia-European Union security and defence partnership represents a significant step forward in supporting our defence industry and strengthening our national security in a time where these have never been more important. The security and defence partnership is a landmark deal. It is not just a deepening of our relationship with a trusted international partner. In the rapidly changing international geopolitical environment, partnerships like this one and the others we are building across our region and across the world are essential.
We live in a time where security is paramount and where uncertain and complex security threats continue to present challenges both in our regions and beyond. The rules and norms that have underpinned security and prosperity are coming under intense pressure, and many of the challenges that we face today require joint efforts to overcome them.
Our longstanding partnership with the European Union has always been built on the foundation of a shared commitment to peace, security and prosperity. Under this government, this relationship is only getting stronger. The security and defence partnership, along with the free trade agreement and the commencement of the negotiations for association to the Horizon Europe research fund, demonstrates strong momentum in our bilateral relations.
This agreement boosts cooperation across a whole range of issues including the space industry, cyber and economic security, counterterrorism and hatred. Through information sharing and new space security dialogue, working together to combat online radicalisation and terrorism financing, we are delivering tangible benefits for our regional defence and security. Further, this government is committed to strengthening our own defence industry capability. This partnership is a reflection of that commitment, enabling meaningful cooperation between Australia and the European Union across the defence and space industries.
Australia and the EU already have strong industrial ties, with many of Europe's major defence manufacturers operating in Australia, working with our own businesses and the Australian Defence Force to develop innovative technologies. Australian manufactured equipment, like the Bushmaster, is already providing critical support to Europe's own security. The partnership will allow us to build from the strong base and explore even more opportunities with like-minded partners.
Australia approaches the challenges we face with more resilience and more choices in how we respond as a result of this government doing the hard work and building meaningful and diversified relationships. We welcome the opportunity to step up our cooperation with the European Union. This partnership is a strong statement of our shared values, a signal of support for international rules and a commitment to peace and security.
This government recognises that we cannot approach these fundamental shifts in geopolitics passively. This government has acted with purpose and intent to pursue new alignments and deepen existing ones. We've announced investments in our defence force, fuel security and sovereign capability in this budget, and we're working closely with our friends and partners to ensure we are better prepared to face the future. (Time expired)
It's important to rise on this motion because the reality is that we have to meet the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be. At the moment there is conflict all through the world. The rules based order is not stacking up; it's not providing the roles that it has previously. Australia needs to step up, and we need to work with our partners all across the globe. Middle powers have a crucial role to play to make sure that they are at the table and looking after Australia's best interests first, democracy's best interests and fellow allies.
Australia has had a long partnership with the European Union and with Europe; there's a strong connection. Many Australians, my family included, have a family connection. My family came from Italy in 1953 and established a farm in Silvan in my community of Casey. My family proudly became Australians and joined the Australian story but still kept a bit of their heart at home. Every migrant does that journey of loving their new country while always remembering their homeland, and the European Union partnership is so important when it comes to that.
While this is an important signing, action speaks louder than words. Unfortunately, like so many of the government's announcements, the words sound good but the actions don't deliver. Let's look at point 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.' While this motion talks about backing international opportunities, this government made a decision to no longer fund our partnership with the European Southern Observatory, an agreement signed in 2017 by the coalition. Australian astronomers use this observatory to make new technological discoveries. It's helping when it comes to defence. Defence applications include things like directed energy and laser weapons, antimissile warning systems, improved laser communication—so many technologies that are crucial in the modern world. So we have a government that moves a motion about how they're going to do something, but, at the same time, their actions take away one of the crucial pillars of our science, technology, research and innovation communities. The community lobbied the government, explained to them the importance of this funding but, like with so many things, this government didn't listen. Australian defence industry, Australian technology, and Australian research and development will be worse off because of this decision by the Albanese Labor government.
Again, the government talk a big word. They talk about AI and the importance of artificial intelligence yet there are no follow-up actions from this government to strengthen AI partnerships with the European Union, with any business at all. You get a press release, you get a statement with some warm fuzzy words, but you get no certainty for business to invest in AI, in cybersecurity, in quantum. In fact, when it comes to quantum, this government under the Future Made in Australia strategy spent $1 billion of taxpayer money to back a US Silicon Valley company—PsiQuantum—and that project is behind, delayed. It was supposed to be at the Brisbane Airport. But just last week quietly, conveniently at the same time as the budget and all those conversations, it was announced that the Brisbane site is no longer viable; they're now moving to another site. There is no accountability from this government about the billion dollars that goes to an American company.
Again, this government is big on talk. They like to put a lot of motions forward that have merit in the sense that we do need to work together with our partners. We do need to continue to back defence industry, and technology research and development. But their actions don't match their words, and that's before we even talk about the disgraceful broken promise on the capital gains tax, which will punish tech companies in defence industry and every tech company that wants to invest and get ahead in Australia. (Time expired)
I commend the member for Sturt for bringing this motion before the House, because right now, more than ever before, the world needs to act together if we are to address the challenges that we all face on this planet. We live in times when rising population and diminishing resources are leading to ever-increasing human conflict and all of its consequences to insecurity, food shortages, increased military spending and less confidence into the future.
Simultaneously, greed and power—human traits that have existed throughout history—add to global injustices and civilian unrest right across the world. These are now global problems, which no single nation acting alone can rectify. And we have seen that over the last two or three decades, where there have been plenty of efforts made by countries around the world to try and resolve some of these matters. But the truth is we have to work in unity with other countries. It is indeed only through the collective efforts of like-minded nations that we can deal with the global problems facing humanity, which is why the security and defence partnership between Australia and the European Union is so important.
The majority of early settlers who came to Australia from overseas were from Great Britain and Europe. Similarly, in the post-World-War-II years of mass migration to Australia, they came from Europe and Great Britain. Much of our laws and Australian characteristics arise from connections with those very homelands. When added to the strong people-to-people bonds Australia has with Europe and our commitment to the rule of law, democracy and peace, as other speakers have quite rightly alluded to, it makes for natural allies and trusted friends. That is what this partnership is all about—natural allies and trusted friends on opposite sides of the globe working together. It is for those very reasons that this partnership is not only important but one that we can have confidence in.
The Australia and EU security partnership covers several key areas, and time will not permit me to go into them in detail. But, broadly speaking, they are defence and industry cooperation, economic security, cyber and hybrid threats, maritime and space security, crisis management and capacity building. These are all things that we could spend hours talking about individually in terms of how we address those very matters, but this partnership embraces them all.
As a middle power. Australia would not only benefit from this partnership but be able to make a real contribution to addressing the global threats facing people around the world. We've already seen that with the work that has been done between not only Australia and some of the European countries but also Australia and countries such as Canada. It's starting to emerge that like-minded countries who have shared values can have an impact on global affairs. I believe that that is a very good thing because, for too long, global affairs have been run by what I would consider the more powerful countries of the world.
In my own electorate, in Mawson Lakes, we have a number of defence and security companies now operating. It's pleasing to see that so many of those companies are actually headquartered overseas yet have come to Australia to set up bases here. Again, that reinforces the ability of Australia to work constructively with the very countries that this partnership is looking to include. Working closely with EU countries and sharing our knowledge and resources not only makes us more secure but means that, together, we can better influence and respond to emerging risks, such as online radicalisation, terrorism, foreign interference, military development and procurement, supply chain resilience and critical mineral supply. All of these are things that we talk about in this place on a regular basis—but, again, we need to work together.
So I commend everyone—all the ministers involved but also everyone who in some way has contributed to the development of the partnership—because it is to the benefit of our country and the world.
I rise today to speak on this motion in relation to the signing of the Australia-European Union Security and Defence Partnership. The world is changing. Across the world, we are seeing some quite significant shifts. Australia finds itself facing the most consequential shift in our international circumstances since the First Fleet arrived in 1788. As such, we as a country need to be capable of finding our feet in a new and shifting world order, and that looks like a multi-polar world order. We need to accept that our relationships with various allies have shifted and changed and will evolve in the future. As such, our security response must shift, change and evolve as well. We will always benefit from having more trusted friends. That's why the coalition supports stronger cooperation between Australia and the European Union. We will support such cooperation with democratic partners because, as I've said, the strategic environment we're finding ourselves in is shifting and it's deteriorating rapidly. Like-minded democracies must work together.
The point I'd make is that partnerships are not enough. We need to make sure that we have the domestic preparedness to stand on our own two feet as well. Whilst we should be working towards partnerships, whether of an economic or of a political nature, we should also make sure that our investment in our local defence capabilities is second to none.
This motion speaks to 'the government's commitment to continue to provide new international opportunities for Australian businesses at the cutting edge of defence technology and innovation'. As has been pointed out by some of the previous speakers on this side of the chamber, we need to actually see what the government is saying here turned into action. The reality of what we've seen over the last couple of years and in particular over the last week or so since the budget is that the small businesses in Australia who are working and operating in the defence space—let alone those who may want to innovate and enter that space—are not getting the support that they need. In actual fact, they're being disadvantaged and deterred from continuing to do well in that space. We've seen that most notably with the recent changes to the CGT. That is driving businesses in my electorate and across the southern Gold Coast, many of which do operate in the defence space, away from further innovating and building on their capabilities—capabilities that we very much need in order to be comfortable in the new strategic and security environment that Australia is facing now.
I've said that the coalition supports alliances and partnerships with our democratic friends, and we have a strong history of that. We've seen it through ANZUS, through the Five Eyes, through AUKUS. Those trusted democratic relationships will be important for our own resilience. I hope that the government not only continues to talk about this but starts to act in relation to making sure that our businesses are given the best opportunity to excel in this space. But it's not just our businesses; it's also making sure we put our money where our mouth is when it comes to our veterans, when it comes to our Defence Force, when it comes to instilling a culture in this country that young Australians can be proud of and be prepared and proud to defend and to engage in the businesses that do so. Without that, partnerships will only mean so much.
I say to the government take this as an opportunity to seize on the partnership and what it means. Take it as an opportunity to get that next generation interested and engaged, but also take it as an opportunity to make sure we are not just in word but in action supporting those across the country who are building the next generation of defence capability for Australia. That, ultimately, is going to determine whether or not we fail or succeed in this new multipolar, complex strategic environment.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I 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.
Former Australian of the Year Neale Daniher is famous for saying 'when all is said and done, more is said than done'. He could easily have been talking about our failure to take action on the ground to counter one of the nation's most damaging invasive species, and that's the European carp. They are destroying our waterways and they're killing native fish, but all the bureaucrats want to do is write more reports. This is paralysis by analysis, and the bureaucrats keep finding reasons to delay the release of a biocontrol. It's time for a timid minister to show some courage and take up my offer to work in a bipartisan way and have a serious crack at controlling the carp population in this country. It's time for less talk and a hell of a lot more action to control this species, which is devastating Australian waterways.
Although they were first introduced into Australia in the mid-19th century, carp really only emerged as an environmental menace in the 1960s, when a genetic strain of carp called the Boolarra strain escaped from a fish farm in my electorate of Gippsland. The Boolarra strain's escape led to a huge expansion in the range and the population of carp, and, despite some netting, trapping and community based carp-catching programs, there's been no successful long-term carp control over large areas in our nation. Carp are destroying our waterways and impacting on biodiversity right across the country. They're outcompeting native fish. Their constant undermining of riverbanks is seeing trees which are hundreds of years old falling into our waterways. The turbidity created by their feeding habits is actually impacting water quality. Their presence in such huge numbers is undermining the recreational fishing industry and impacting the visitor economy in regional Australia. And all we do in this place is talk about it.
The costs run into hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and the missed opportunity is just enormous. Just imagine the benefits if we cleaned up our streams by reducing the carp population and allowed native fish to actually flourish in our waterways.
Now, the time for talking about carp is over. Carp can amount to about 90 per cent of the fish biomass in some of our waters. There have been literally thousands of pages of scientific research and investigation into how we manage carp, and there are detailed reports on different approaches that are available to us as a nation. The National Carp Control Plan from 2022 clearly states, as to the carp herpes virus:
The carp virus will not infect humans or any other mammal, and there is considerable evidence the carp virus will not infect other non-target species …
Modelling indicates that, if it's successfully deployed, it will result in a 50 to 60 per cent reduction in carp biomass. The plan also found that broadscale and long-term water quality impacts resulting from carp biocontrol operations are unlikely, and that carcass-management strategies can be delivered.
We have the independent CSIRO also backing the virus. CSIRO researchers have found that the herpes virus does kill Australian pest carp, and it kills them quickly. Current research has also shown that the virus does not develop in native Australian species of fish.
So what are we actually waiting for? There is no decision that would not have some element of risk. As FRDC Managing Director Patrick Hone wrote in the foreword to the national plan:
Uncertainties regarding the release of the virus remain, but this is to be expected given the complexity of the work undertaken. … a decision on whether or not to release the virus will always involve some uncertainty.
One thing is certain: what we're doing now just isn't working. European carp continue to devastate our waterways, and the current control methods will not deliver the results demanded by Australians.
Now, the community agrees with me. Just last month, 80 delegates from across five states and territories attended the Murray-Darling Carp Action Summit in Nagambie, in the seat of Nicholls, and my good friend Sam Birrell, here today, also attended. They represented 41 different community, farming, fishing, processing, research and natural resource management organisations, and they had a unanimous view in relation to the national carp plan:
… progress toward implementation has been slow and uncertain, with no clear national timeline or pathway forward.
They are demanding action, not more talkfests. They've formed the Carp Action Alliance and will advocate for more carp control measures. I urge the minister to engage with them and engage with the coalition and take action immediately.
I agree with the key stakeholders, like the Victorian Fisheries Authority, that we need to set clear timelines to complete the deliberations around the carp herpes virus, as a priority, and set clear timelines for releasing the virus by 2028 at the latest. In the interests of river health across the nation, we must move beyond more research to a coordinated rollout of the virus and a carp control plan which actually delivers for regional Australia.
I thank the member for Gippsland. Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I'm here to speak on the motion brought forward by the member for Gippsland about carp in our waterways and the proposal to release the carp herpes virus. I'll say this straightaway upfront: I don't think anybody in this place disputes the basic problem here. Carp are a destructive pest species. They tear up riverbeds, they muddy the water, they damage aquatic plants and they put pressure on native fish species that belong in our rivers. In some parts of the Murray-Darling Basin, they make up most of the fish biomass. Anyone who has spent time near these waterways knows the damage carp can do.
Communities right across regional Australia are frustrated by it. Fishers are frustrated by it. Farmers are frustrated by it. Local communities want healthy rivers and healthy waterways, and so does this government. So let's be clear about that from the start. This government absolutely acknowledges carp are a serious environmental problem, and we support strong action to deal with them. But when you're talking about releasing a biological control agent into Australian waterways, you've got to get it right, because once it's out there, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Once a virus is released into rivers across this country, it's irreversible. That's why the government is taking an evidence based approach instead of rushing to meet political deadlines.
Those opposite want to pretend the science is all wrapped up and settled. Well, it isn't. The National Carp Control Plan, published in 2022, found there is potential for the virus to help reduce carp populations. This is 100 per cent true. But the plan also identified important gaps that still need further work: questions around impact on non-target species, questions around water quality, questions around disease transmission through river systems, questions around broader environmental—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 13:20 to 16:00
It was incredibly moving to not just attend but to open one of South Australia's most successful Australia's Biggest Morning Tea fundraisers. And that was at Macclesfield in my community of Mayo in the Adelaide Hills. More than 200 people came together for the Macclesfield Young at Heart event. In fact, the population of Macclesfield is not much bigger than 200 people. So this was the whole town turning out. This was so much more than a morning tea. It was a gathering filled with generosity, resilience and love. We heard from Will McDonald, a South Australian newsreader who's had his own battle with cancer, and beautiful young Liana, who was diagnosed with stage IV. She is now three years clear in remission.
The club has hosted 19 of these events. It has raised more than $343,000 since its first event in 2008. The person who is responsible for pulling this all together is Cathy Megson-McAllister, and she has a remarkable story. She survived an aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2005. She lost both of her parents in 2006, and she lost her husband, Barry, in 2016 to leukaemia. But she has kept going. She is the driving force behind this extraordinary event. Congratulations, Cathy and all from Macclesfield Young at Heart.
Last week was National Volunteer Week, and I just want to take a second to acknowledge the incredibly important work of all the volunteers in our Canberra community, whether it's the people who keep junior sport running—the coaches, the umpires and the people running the canteen; the people who are maintaining the culture and language of our diverse community; the people who care for our local environment, from our catchment groups and Landcare Australia; the people who run the food pantries, feeding people when they need it the most and providing that support and comfort; the people at Karinya House who are working with women and their young families as they find a stable home and build their future; the people who are raising funds for all the amazing charities out there; the people who are bringing music and art into our aged-care facilities; the people who run our community radio stations and run the very important programs there; the carers and many, many other people that I have not mentioned. You really make our city and our country tick, and last week was all about thanking you.
I also want to acknowledge Jean Giese and the team at VolunteeringACT for the wonderful work they do in supporting our volunteers, celebrating their work and making sure that volunteers are treated as best as they can be in our organisations.
I want to speak today about an issue that is raised constantly by the people of Wentworth: child care—specifically cost, access and safety. Australia has some of the highest childcare costs in the world. Even with over $13 billion in subsidies each year, it remains prohibitively expensive right across the income distribution. I doorknocked a professional woman, on a really good income in Clovelly, who told me that they simply cannot have a third child, which they want, because of childcare costs.
What does this enormous public and private cost get us? Finding a childcare place, even in Wentworth, has been a challenge for years. And that's in the centre of Sydney. Just this year, multiple centres have closed right across the electorate due to lease pressures, rising costs and staffing difficulties. For families without nearby support networks, this means time off work for an arrangement locked in even before the child is born.
There will always be bad actors in child care, but, right now, parents are genuinely worried about the safety in our childcare centres. Australia's fragmented working with children programs are allowing perpetrators to reoffend or move across borders, while the subsidised model has attracted the very worst rentseekers to an industry unable to properly assess and monitor quality.
The system isn't working. The Prime Minister says he wants child care to be his legacy. I take him at his word, but this parliament needs to be far more ambitious and get to the heart of why child care just isn't working for Australians.
The incorporated speech read as follows—
It was a pleasure to attend the grand opening of the Drukpa Community Hall this month and to see this important project come to fruition after the community's consistent hard work and persistence. In August 2024, I met with Drukpa Australia and heard directly about their vision for a dedicated space for spiritual practice, cultural learning, youth development and community connection. I was pleased to be instrumental in helping them secure $642,473 through the Thriving Suburbs Program, supporting a total project value of $1.298 million.
This is a wonderful achievement for Drukpa Australia and for the wider Wanneroo community. The project will provide a safe, modern and functional space for teachings, retreats, workshops and community activities, and it will strengthen social cohesion and local engagement.
I also want to acknowledge the spirit of partnership that has brought this project to completion. The new hall will be a place of welcome, learning and belonging, and a lasting asset for the community. It is a privilege to have played a part in such a meaningful achievement.
I thank Drukpa Australia, Gyalwa Dokhampa, the volunteers, donors and everyone who contributed to this project. Their dedication, integrity and commitment have made this success possible, and I congratulate them on creating a place that will serve the community for many years to come.
The Joy of Giving Hub and Swap in the City show how community led action can make sustainability accessible, joyful and a community building exercise. I'm delighted to recognise these two outstanding local initiatives helping our community reduce waste and embrace the circular economy. The Joy of Giving Hub gives pre-loved toys new homes, keeping them out of landfill while bringing joy to children and families. Founded in 2019, it began with a simple but powerful idea: children learn the value of giving by sharing what they no longer need. Through the dedication of local volunteers, toys are reused, families are supported and children see sustainability as something positive, practical and generous. Swap in the City brings the same spirit to fashion. With too many clothes ending up in landfill, it offers a stylish and sustainable alternative, a place where quality pre-loved pieces can become someone else's new favourite item. Also based in the North Sydney Greenwood Plaza, it makes sustainable fashion social and accessible. Together, these initiatives reduce waste and strengthen community connection. I had the pleasure of attending them a few days ago, and I want to really congratulate all involved, in particular the volunteers, for their incredible initiatives. It makes me so proud of Warringah.
As I rise, I've just received a note from my staff to say that the AFL legend and motor neurone disease campaigner Neale Daniher has passed, so I wanted to pass on my and my family's condolences to Neil's family. May he rest in peace.
I proudly joined the Prime Minister and another AFL legend, Michael Long, at the Long Walk in Melbourne on Friday before the Essendon-Richmond Dreamtime game. In 2004, many years ago now, I walked from Melbourne towards Canberra with Longy to get First Nations issues back on the then federal government's agenda. Another Territorian legend, Michael 'Mago'—Magic—McLean, was recognised as this year's Sir Doug Nicholls Round honouree. This recognised Mago's 40-year impact on the game both on and off the field. After playing NTFL senior footy at just 15 years old for Nightcliff, he was only the second Territorian to make the move direct to Victoria to play footy. He had a glittering career in AFL teams.
Well done, Mago, and rest in peace, Neale Daniher.
CSIRO, our peak research body, with a large presence in Ryan, has just cut another 92 jobs. This is after cutting 800 jobs over the last two years. Many of these latest jobs were crucial roles in climate research, crucial jobs helping continue the development of our climate modelling system, the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator. Roughly a third of climate modelling jobs have been cut. This Labor government likes to talk as though it's a champion of climate action, but moments like this indicate that they just don't get it. Where is the funding for this crucial research? Why are Labor continuing to approve new coal and gas mines? Why did they cut $4 billion from the renewables transition in this latest budget? This goes beyond climate. Does the Australian government, Labor or LNP, have a vision for how our economy prospers into the future, or are we just an unproductive resource economy? Our R&D investment in Australia is miserably low—1.7 per cent of GDP. The OECD average is around 2.7 per cent. Here's a proposal: tax our gas while we can, use a bunch of that money to fund an explosion of R&D and drive an innovative economy that tackles climate change and generates wealth from other sectors, not just resources and property.
On Saturday 23rd May 2026, I attended the South Australian National Football League Women's clash between the mighty Norwood Redlegs and the North Adelaide Roosters. Despite putting on a solid fourth quarter, the Redlegs fell just short, going down to North by nine points. It was an honour to be invited to toss the coin before the start of the match but an even bigger honour to have been invited to the prematch event, which was a brunch to remember the legacy and contribution of Redlegs legend Ashleigh Young, who passed away too soon in December 2023 at the young age of 31.
Ashleigh, for whom the Ashleigh Young Scholarship is named, was an outstanding contributor to not only the Norwood women's footy program but to growing sport for women and girls. Ashleigh was one of those people for whom nothing was too much trouble when it came to the Redlegs and when it came to inspiring young women, building their confidence and teaching them that you can have resilience, determination and strength at the same time as empathy and compassion. To be able to harness all of these characteristics as Ashleigh Young did, and then to be determined to use those skills to empower other women and girls, is the calling card of a true leader, which Ashleigh was. Her legacy will live on through the scholarship, which continues her mission through the Marjorie Jackson Nelson Program to support professional learning opportunities for women in sport. Vale, Ashleigh Young.
Agricultural shows are among the oldest and most enduring community events in Australia, showcasing the best of what the regions have to offer. They raise awareness of our regional strengths and values, and celebrate local industry, produce, talent and art, bringing the community together.
The first Gympie agricultural show was staged in 1877, making it the oldest ongoing cultural event in the Gympie region, and, in early May, more than 81,000 people visited the 2026 show over three days. It took more than 670 volunteers and a range of community groups and exhibitors to make the event possible. I thank Deb Brown, Gympie Show Society president, and her team for their hard work.
The Fraser Coast Show has been running for more than 150 years. This week, thousands of visitors streamed through the gates to enjoy all the exhibits and entertainment on offer. At the show, I had the honour of presenting the Charlie Campbell Outstanding Individual Contribution Award to show worker Janeen Greaves for her contribution to the show. I also congratulate Joy Duke, president of the Fraser Coast Show Society, and her dedicated army of 386 volunteers on staging this successful event.
I rise today to recognise Bob Harrison OAM, who passed away in April at the age of 91. Bob was born in Goulburn and moved to Port Kembla in 1953 to work for Australian Iron & Steel, which later became part of BlueScope. He became a waterside worker two years later and was an active member of the Maritime Union of Australia.
In 1971, Bob was elected to Shellharbour Council and continued as a councillor until 1991, serving as mayor twice during those two decades. Bob became the state member for Kiama following a by-election in 1986. This meant that he was both the mayor of Shellharbour and the member for Kiama for five years. Bob was successfully re-elected as the member for Kiama in 1988, 1991 and 1995 before he decided to retire in 1999 to spend more time with his family and pursue his many hobbies, including breeding and exhibiting poultry and target pistol shooting.
Bob was a life member of the Maritime Union of Australia, a life member of the South Coast Labour Council and a life member of the Australian Labor Party. In 2005, he was awarded the Order of Australia for his service to local and state government. Bob Harrison is a local Labor Party legend who has left an extraordinary legacy. I am proud to have this opportunity to recognise his contribution to our community. Thank you.
Last Thursday, more than 100 locals joined me at Meridan Community Church for my 2026 federal budget and cost-of-living forum. The message from the community was loud and clear. People are hurting and they are sick of Labor's lies and broken promises—speaking real about pressures facing Sunshine Coast families and small businesses, rising grocery prices, power bills, health care, housing affordability and growing pressure on retirees living on fixed incomes.
One of the biggest concerns raised was Labor's attack on seniors through cuts to the private health insurance rebate, which could leave retirees thousands of dollars worse off. Locals also raised concerns about housing, migration, growing debt and reckless spending. I made it clear that the coalition will continue fighting to reverse Labor's new taxes, restore support for seniors, ease the cost-of-living pressures and deliver responsible economic management.
We also discussed practical coalition policies around housing supply, reducing inflation and backing the small businesses and workers carrying the burden of Labor's economic failures. Most importantly, it was an opportunity to listen directly to the people of Fisher and bring those conversations back to Canberra. Right now, too many Australians feel Labor promised one thing before the election and delivered something entirely different. The people of Fisher and Australia deserve better.
The Hunter Valley has done it again. We all know the Hunter produces the best wine in the country and, I would argue, the best wine anywhere in the world. Now we've got another award to prove it. I want to give a massive congratulations to my mate Aaron Mercer, from Mercer Wines, on being named Rising Star of the Year Australia at the Real Review's Top Wineries of Australia Awards 2026. This is a huge achievement. The Real Review is one of the most respected wine authorities in the country. For a local Hunter winemaker to take this title out tells us a lot about the quality that's coming out of our region. Anyone from the Hunter already knows that. We know how hard the work that goes into every vintage is. We know the passion our local winemakers and growers put into what they do, and we know the Hunter keeps producing wines that stand up against the very best in the world. The Hunter has the trophies and awards to back it in. This recognition is a credit to Aaron, Alison, their whole team and everybody that has supported Mercer Wines along the way, from growers to customers to trade partners, friends and the wider Hunter community. It's another proud moment for Mercer Wines and another proud moment for the Hunter Valley. The Hunter Valley has so much to offer. We have the world's best wines, as I've said thousands of times in this place. To every other winemaker, wine producer, cellar door and grower in the Hunter Valley: thank you for what you do, for what you do for our area and for what you do for the people of Australia every single day.
Regional Western Australians are hurting. Families and small businesses are all struggling to stay afloat, and workers are seeing their wages disappear with inflation. Labor's response is the same as it always is: more toxic taxes, more red tape and putting politics ahead of Australians. Australians are not stupid. The Prime Minister wants us to believe that their proposed changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax are all about supporting the next generation of homeowners, when the government's own budget papers admit the tax changes will lead to fewer homes available to buy—not more, but fewer.
Labor has failed over the past four years to increase the supply of homes and was forced to do something at this budget just to make it look like they were doing something. Hasn't that backfired? These changes have not been well received, and now the government says: 'Oh, sorry. We always intended to create exemptions and carve-outs, but maybe it won't apply to the startup community. They're not going to be captured by capital gains tax.' What a nonsense. The only way to fix Labor's toxic taxes is to axe them. That is exactly what the coalition government will do. The coalition will end Labor's inflation tax, indexing income tax thresholds to inflation, giving hardworking Australians real tax relief. Australians deserve a government that backs them, not burdens them, and that is exactly what the coalition—
I call the member for Bonner.
On National Sorry Day and at the beginning of National Reconciliation Week, we reflect on the truth of our shared history and the responsibility we all carry to walk forward together. Sorry Day is about acknowledging the pain, trauma and injustice experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, particularly the stolen generations, and recognising that the impacts are still felt today across families and, of course, communities. Reconciliation asks more of us than symbolism. It asks us to listen, to learn and to have the courage to tell the truth about our nation's history, even when the truth is uncomfortable. That is why the Walk for Truth that arrives at Parliament House this week, led by Travis Lovett, is so important. It is a powerful act of truth-telling, healing and connection.
Walking together across communities reminds us that reconciliation is not passive. It is something that we must actively choose and work towards every single day. Truth-telling is not about division; it is about respect. When we understand the full story of this country, the strength of the oldest continuing culture on this earth, the injustices endured and the resilience shown through generations, we create the foundation for a stronger and more united future. Meaningful reconciliation begins with the truth, and the truth must be heard.
Labor's budget sends a very clear message to Australians who work hard, save hard and take risks: if you dare to get ahead, this government is coming after you. This budget is an assault on aspiration.
Small business owners have sacrificed weekends, missed family dinners and poured years of hard work into building businesses, creating jobs and backing Australia—something those opposite have no clue about. They believed effort and risk would be rewarded, but instead they're now lining up to tell me that they're preparing to shut down, move investment offshore and leave the country that they once believed in.
Young savers are hearing the same message. One young worker from Currumbin Waters saved diligently and invested modestly in shares to build a future without government handouts. Now he fears that Labor's CGT changes will punish the very discipline that we should be encouraging.
Australia should reward aspiration, not tax it into exile. The coalition's position is clear: you do not fix Labor's toxic taxes with carve-outs; you axe them. Labor's budget means more debt, higher taxes, fewer homes and a government coming after the savings, investments and businesses of Australians who are trying to get ahead. And that is the difference between those on this side of the House and those opposite. Australians are sick and tired of this government treating ambition like a crime and productivity like an ATM.
Friday was a fantastic day in my electorate, with the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, joining me and local state MPs to cut the ribbon on the long-awaited Jervis Bay flyover. This is the busiest intersection on the Princes Highway from Nowra to the Victorian border, and drivers have experienced a major bottleneck there for decades. I'm proud to have lobbied alongside the bay and basin community to secure $100 million in federal funding for this important infrastructure project, and I'm excited to announce the first cars will drive over it next Monday.
It was so great to celebrate this milestone with the 110 workers, who've worked day and night, and with community members like Liz Tooley from Vincentia Matters, who never gave up on their fight for a flyover. Following Friday's celebration, Liz sent me an email which read:
What a great day Friday was for the Bay and Basin community!
Thank you for your acknowledgement of the community action in advocating for a flyover.
I think everyone feels a part of the achievement in gaining a safe entry and exit to Jervis Bay Road.
And thank you for your support of the project right from the start.
Well, Liz, I want to say a massive thankyou to you and the whole community, because this is a big win for all of us who live on the South Coast and those who visit our beautiful region.
Today I rise to speak on behalf of the seniors of O'Connor, who are being unfairly targeted by the Albanese government in the budget. These are the Australians who have worked hard their entire lives. They've paid their taxes, raised families, built businesses and contributed a lifetime to their communities. For those on fixed incomes or with modest retirement savings, even a small increase in everyday costs can be significant.
One of the most concerning budget measures is the reduction in the rebate for private health insurance for older Australians. This means many of O'Connor's 25,000 seniors will face premium increases of up to $1,600 per couple. Sadly, this may cause them to downgrade their insurance cover or to abandon it altogether, placing extra strain on our already-stretched public health system.
Labor should be supporting our older Australians, not making life harder for them. They should be ensuring that healthcare remains accessible and affordable and that retirees have certainty and dignity in their later years.
I'm standing up for the seniors of O'Connor, opposing this bad Labor policy that is pitting them against their grandchildren in the name of intergenerational fairness. This measure will result in seniors paying more to receive less. So I'm launching a campaign to fight this bad policy and support the 25,000 seniors in my electorate. Please look out for my questionnaire and petition coming to your mailbox soon.
Last Wednesday evening was a pretty special one in my community of Menzies. I was honoured to host the 2026 Menzies volunteer awards night, to acknowledge the incredible people in our community who generously give their time, skills and care to support others. We were able to recognise volunteers from an incredibly diverse group of local organisations, including MannaCare, the Chinese Senior Citizens Club of Manningham, Sri Guru Nanak Satsang Sabha Gurdwara Blackburn, the Doncaster Dolphins Masters Swimming Club, the Whitehorse Colts netball club, the Donvale Tennis Club, the Asian Business Association of Whitehorse, the Park Orchards Community Pantry and many others.
To the recipients—Greg Bonyhady, Wen Cheng, Sumeet Chhabra, Zoe Chung, Melissa Collard, Ada Fong, Morry Freedman, Rosanne Gay, Sue Harbottle, Kathryn Lagarrigue, David Lewis, Emi Luppino, Tammy Nguyen, George Petrou, Gurmeet Sethi, Richard Shi, Rose Tavenor, Sandrajane Vincent-Corry and Bihong Wang—thank you for your service to our community, for your selflessness and for the joy you bring to so many people. You are the driving force behind our connected, peaceful and vibrant community. Thank you also to the very talented students who performed with the Doncaster Secondary School Band and to my friend and colleague the Hon. Paul Hamer MP, the member for Box Hill, for your role in the ceremony also.
Last Friday, the Albanese Labor government and the Allan Labor government made an announcement. They said that the Western Highway duplication between Buangor and Ararat was going to be finished. Communities right along the Western Highway thought: 'Gee, this is wonderful. We're finally going to get this piece of highway built.' Sadly, people have died because this hasn't been built and multiple people have been injured as well. So everyone thought, 'This is great news.' But then, sadly, we started looking at the detail. It will be done after the November Victorian state election. So everyone went, 'What sort of a commitment is this?' Then, when you read the fine print, it says it's dependent on final approvals.
So, after year upon year of nothing, all of a sudden, as we're heading towards the November state election—and the seat of Ripon, as we know, is a marginal seat—Labor's out here saying, 'We're going to fix this.' But will they fix it now? No. Will they get a shovel in the ground? No. What are they doing now? They're promising it after the state election, and they haven't even got all the approvals finalised. You, sadly, cannot believe a word that the Albanese Labor government says, let alone the— (Time expired)
During the last sitting week, I had the opportunity to recognise the Speaker's Parliament in Schools program coming to a school in my electorate of Banks. This week, though, I have the opportunity to recognise the school from my electorate that came to parliament. On Thursday 14 May, it was my pleasure to meet a group of year 9 students from De La Salle College Revesby Heights, who were visiting Canberra as part of an excursion. It was great to speak with them about the work I do in this place and answer some of their questions, including about how we as members in this place work for them and my go-to restaurants in the electorate of Banks. The students I met were thoughtful, intelligent and a real credit to their school and our community. I hope they enjoyed the rest of their time in Canberra.
I want to give special thanks, though, to the teachers who sacrificed their time to come with their students to make sure they learnt about Canberra, parliament and their civic responsibilities. I hope they enjoyed their fantastic opportunity to visit Parliament House and visit the national monuments that we have right here in Canberra and took a great deal of lessons learnt about our cultural and political institutions back home with them to the electorate of Banks.
In the past week, my offices in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay have received dozens of emails and a mountain of calls. As I've travelled across Hinkler with my mobile office to Pialba, Woodgate, Childers, Urangan, Bundaberg and beyond, the No. 1 matter has been Labor's failure to support those who fought for our country. Today I pass on their direct and clear feedback for the Labor government: Don't put a cap on care for Hinkler veterans. Remove the uncertainty and reverse the decision to impose a $5,000 annual cap on allied health services for veterans.
When I met with locals at Hervey Bay, we took shelter from the rain at the Veterans Advice and Social Centre, located at Freedom Park. Denzil and Suzanne Potter both served for our freedom, and they wanted me to deliver this point—that veterans should not be asked to bear the cost of Labor's budget repair. The result will be veterans going without treatment, their conditions worsening and the burden falling back on their family and household budgets. As one constituent wrote in an email:
Veterans are not a line item. They are Australians who put their lives, bodies and futures on the line for this country.
As the national president of the RSL wrote to members, 'There's a difference between a budget headline and a budget reality.' Many Hinkler veterans rely on allied health services not as a luxury but as an essential part of managing their service related injuries and conditions. Don't cap care for our veterans.
Today, I would like to mark the passing of the Hon. Bill Grayden AM, who died on 28 April at the extraordinary age of 105. Bill Grayden held the federal seat of Swan for the Liberal Party from 1949 to 1954. Bill lived a full life of service to his local community, to Western Australia and to the nation. He enlisted as a young man and served through the Second World War in Syria, the Middle East and Papua New Guinea. He went on to a political career spanning both state and federal parliaments from 1946 to 1993. He has the remarkable record of the longest-serving parliamentarian in Western Australia's history. Of course, his service did not end when he left parliament. For more than 30 years, he was the President of the South Perth Senior Citizens Centre, and he played a key role in establishing a volunteer meals service that still delivers food to older residents today. Bill Grayden leaves a legacy of outstanding and selfless public service. On behalf of the people of Swan, I would like to express my gratitude. To his children, grandchildren and his great grandchildren: what an incredible man. I offer my sincere condolences. His state funeral will be on 2 June in St George's Cathedral in Perth. We'll be thinking of him from Canberra.
I'd like to acknowledge the passing of a great man today—Neale Daniher. He showed Australia what courage, dignity and purpose truly look like, even as he faced the cruelty of MND. He turned his battle into a movement of hope and resilience, raising awareness and millions of dollars for research so many others do not live the same way he did with this disease. To so many Aussies, Neale was more than a football legend; he was a symbol of resilience, selflessness and quiet strength. On behalf of the people of Grey, I extend my deepest condolences to his family, his friends and all Australians mourning his passing.
Tragically, nine out of 10 children are removed from unsafe situations and placed into care, arriving with absolutely nothing but the clothes on their backs. Removed from their families during deeply traumatic times, these young South Australians face sudden uncertainty without a single personal possession to comfort them. That is why I'm standing today to recognise the extraordinary work of Backpacks 4 SA Kids. What began in 2012, with two young families packing items in a carport, has blossomed into a vital lifeline. I'm immensely proud to announce that my three electorate offices in Kadina, Port Pirie and Whyalla are now formal drop-off points for this incredible organisation. I am asking our generous local community to help change a child's journey today. Please drop-off new clothing, toiletries, nappies and toys to our offices. Together, we can give a child in crisis hope, comfort and something to call their home.
There were many blue cupcakes arranged into the shape of the number 100 and surrounded by an absolutely huge crowd. It was this Sunday, and it was at Wellers Hill State School, and they celebrated their 100th anniversary, their centenary. I want to take the opportunity to thank their principal, Anja Janosevic; their president of the P&C, Natasha Hynes; and one of the stars of the show, the longest-serving teacher of 36 years, Marie McDonald. It was a wonderful day filled with choir performances and dance, with a band performance and strings, and it brought so many people from our whole community together to celebrate such an important milestone. I congratulate all the parents, students, teachers and staff.
I had the great pleasure of going to Female Football Week the other day at Yeronga Eagles. It's a fantastic club in my local area, led by their president, Julio Menendez, and the Honorary Consul of El Salvador and club sponsor, Eduardo Cruz. It's a great club because it has El Salvadorian roots back to the late 1980s. They celebrate not just Female Football Week, but they also host the annual Copa America community tournament and heritage round and have a strong community focus as the hosts of the Talim Legacy Youth event. They're an absolutely cracking football club in my local electorate.
Last Saturday, I had the pleasure of joining the 50th anniversary of the Lilydale Athenaeum Theatre. The milestone was celebrated with the unveiling of a new portrait honouring the Athenaeum founders, Geoffrey Page and Russell Johnson. The portrait was painted by local artist Lou Primavera and will hang proudly in the foyer for years to come.
The Lilydale Athenaeum building was established in 1888 as a Mechanics Institute, and throughout the years it survived a fire and was refurbished to continue standing today as an important pillar of the Yarra Ranges art scene. The founders, Geoff and Russell, together with many dedicated volunteers, took an almost derelict building and made the Lilydale Athenaeum Theatre the special place that it is today.
This milestone is a credit to everyone who has been involved in the Athenaeum over the past 50 years, the volunteers who give their time so generously and the vibrant arts community we have in the Yarra Ranges. Congratulations to the board of directors, the production committee, the volunteers and all involved. Here's to another 50 years of theatre, art, community and creativity.
I also need to pay tribute to Angela Glennie, a volunteer at the Athenaeum but also a recently retired primary schoolteacher at St Mary's. She has served our community in so many ways and educated so many young children, including my own. She has made a difference to people's lives and given a lot to the Lilydale Athenaeum Theatre. Thank you, Angela.
I welcome the New South Wales government's rollout of a $3.5 million support package for small businesses and councils across the Blue Mountains and Central West who were impacted by the closure of the Great Western Highway at Victoria Pass. Alongside Trish Doyle, the state member for the Blue Mountains, I've heard from Mount Victoria tourism and local businesses about the disruptions they've experienced since the closure of Mitchells Causeway, known as the Convict Bridge, due to serious cracking and safety concerns.
Those businesses know I'm in their corner, and so is the Albanese Labor government. The Prime Minister and Minister King have both said that they stand ready to respond as soon as New South Wales requests federal support. The New South Wales package, announced last week, includes $10,000 grants for eligible small businesses in Mount Victoria, Hartley, Little Hartley and Hartley Vale through the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority—similar to what we fought for during the post-fire period. Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury councils are also receiving $15,000 for promotional activities and another $5,000 for community events. Also on offer, dedicated one-on-one specialist business advice plus business workshops coming up in June, including in Blackheath, Mount Victoria and Hartley. I look forward to seeing this support help our local businesses and help draw visitors to the beautiful region at the top of the mountains.
I rise today to recognise and celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Victoria Point Sharks, a proud pillar of my community. I had the pleasure of attending the club's 60th anniversary dinner on Friday evening, and it was a fantastic opportunity to celebrate this milestone alongside many of those who have contributed so much to its success.
Founded in 1966 as the Victoria Point Australian Football Club, the Sharks have grown from humble beginnings to become a beloved part of the Redlands community. From the original clubhouse built in 1973, to the challenges faced when it was destroyed by a storm in 1984 and through to the modern clubhouse facility that stands today, the Sharks clubhouse is more than just a sporting venue. It is more than just a dining venue. It is a place where our Redlands community spirit thrives.
For six decades, the Victoria Point Sharks have brought the community together, supported grassroots sport and fostered a sense of belonging. The club has been shaped by the dedication, vision and commitment of those who have contributed along the way. I would like to acknowledge the many individuals who have shaped this organisation: the past and present board members, volunteers, players, life members and loyal supporters. It was great to catch up with so many of them on Friday evening. Their dedication and passion have built the club into what it is today and their contributions will continue to guide it in the future. The Sharks sporting club remains an outstanding example of the Redlands community spirit and I congratulate them on six decades of service.
I rise today to share the experience I had on the weekend when I met Rebecca and her little two-year-old son, Phoenix. Phoenix has spina bifida. He was born with spina bifida. He had a complication when he was a baby, which led to surgery. He can't walk, he can't talk and he can't even roll over. But you know what? This boy is perfect. You wouldn't change a thing. His smile just lights up the room. Everybody who meets him says what an amazing little boy he is. But he has had to fight along with his mother for the services through the NDIS that he deserves. He can't even get a wheelchair. It's the only way for him to wheel himself around. He's learnt how to wheel around, but the wheels are so big on the wheelchair he's got that he's got blisters on his little arms. It just shows how dysfunctional the NDIS has become when people like Phoenix, who the scheme is truly designed for, are not able to get the supports they need.
There's a lot of anxiety in the community. There's a lot of anxiety in my community, particularly on changes to the NDIS, but I genuinely believe these changes are going to be for the better. They're going to return the NDIS back to the scheme that it was intended to be in the first place. Kids like Phoenix are going to be able to get the support they need. Disabled kids like my adult child are going to be able to get the supports they need outside of the NDIS. I think that Rebecca and Phoenix are fantastic examples and a fantastic family.
I rise with some great news. On Thursday, I met with over 200 farmers down in St Arnaud at the town hall there. Matt Canavan, the Leader of the Nationals; Darren Chester, the Deputy Leader of the Nationals; and Danny O'Brien, the Leader of the Nationals in Victoria, were there to hear from farmers. The very exciting thing that occurred was that Matt Canavan announced that we would be scrapping net zero and stopping VNI West and WRL. The joy in the room from the farmers who are impacted by these projects and also the renewable energy zones was palpable. We made the formal announcement the next morning in Maryborough, and I've got to say that the farmers present, who have been fighting for years for this to take place, have felt so threatened. Even at the state conference on Saturday, those announcements were made. I want to give a very fast shout-out to some of the leaders of these farmers: Ben Duxson, Andrew Weiderman, Marcia McIntyre, Gerald Feeny, James and Emma Burke, Barry Batters, Bill Baldwin, Jason Barratt, Will and Rachel McIntyre, Spud Hepworth and Kelvin Clark. These people are heroes. (Time expired)
I rise today to congratulate Monica Njoroge-Eaton on receiving the New South Wales premier's Community Languages Teacher Medal this year—a thoroughly well deserved award—in recognition of her outstanding contribution to education, multiculturalism and community life in Newcastle. Monica is an extraordinary community leader whose passion and determination have helped create something truly special for local families. Through her leadership, Newcastle is now home to New South Wales's first-ever Kiswahili community language school, which is an incredible achievement that's helping young people stay connected to their language, culture and heritage while building a stronger sense of identity and belonging. But this initiative is far more than a language school alone. It's about creating community. It's about ensuring children can grow up proud of who they are and where they come from. And it's about strengthening the rich, multicultural fabric that makes our city such a vibrant and welcoming place.
Instead of waiting for change, Monica stepped forward and made it happen. She's even publishing bilingual booklets now, and that kind of leadership deserves recognition. People like Monica make Newcastle strong. Through her work, she's building connections, opening doors and creating opportunities for future generations. I know our entire community is incredibly proud of her achievements, and I am very pleased to place on record my sincere congratulations and thanks for the remarkable contributions she's making to our city.
There were lots of activities in the electorate of Fowler this weekend. I was really honoured to be invited by the Melkite Catholic community of Liverpool and the beautiful celebration of the feast of St Rita. I was deeply honoured to be welcomed by His Grace the Most Reverend Bishop Robert Rabbat and Father Antonios Ibrahim to join the wider Melkite Catholic community in Ashcroft and Liverpool. St Rita is known as the saint of the impossible, the patron of those who carry burdens that feel too heavy, and I see that spirit reflected in so many families across Liverpool and Fowler. People have carried so much resilience, built from little and held onto faith when the road was very hard. To the Melkite community: thank you so much for being part of the community and enriching our community.
I also had the honour to celebrate Vesak Day at the Minh Quang Buddhist Temple with the Buddhist community. We had a huge celebration there, and it was beautiful to be part of the meditation in the hall, paying respect to the birth of Buddha in the month of May.
Last, but not least, I joined my community in Cabramatta to celebrate Australia's Biggest Morning Tea with Sinilia. Sinilia is a great volunteer in our community who always holds Biggest Morning Tea events to raise funds, raising over $41,000 for the New South Wales Cancer Council.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
What's clear is that this budget contained many broken promises from a prime minister who said that his word was his bond and that the Australian people could trust him. Well, the Australian people now clearly know that, when it comes to tax, they cannot trust this prime minister. Everything, moving forward, that this prime minister says will be tainted by those broken promises and those solemn commitments he made—in his own words, over 50 times—to the Australian people before the last election. No investor, no business operator and no worker in this country can have any confidence in investing and wanting to get ahead, because this government can change the rules just like that, at the drop of a hat. They've done it twice, and they'll do it again.
There's even more pain in this budget for the Australian people. It didn't help in any way with the cost of living, and if you're over 65 and you're relying on private health insurance, that rebate has been ripped away from you, with no warning, no notice and no consultation. That's going to impact three million Australians across the country. It's going to increase the costs—about $800 per year for a single and $1,600 per year for a couple. So many older Australians are on fixed incomes. This is money, which they cannot afford and do not have, that they will lose because of the heartless and callous broken promise from this prime minister.
I've had many constituents contact me, upset, concerned and worried about these changes, and I want to share Graham from Belgrave South's concerns. He summed it up quite well: 'I would like to register my concern not only for my wife and I but for the hundreds of pensioners who will be affected by the proposed changes to the rebates announced by the government. This issue has barely had a mention in the media, but it is nothing but another tax grab by them. We have paid gold for many years. It's currently costing us $611 a month. An increase such as the one proposed is totally unfair for the senior citizens who have tried to resist adding to the public hospital numbers. It may be the last straw for many of us. I've been using my cover frequently in the last couple of years due to bouts of surgery.' Thank you, Graham, for sharing your story.
Graham's right—many older Australians rely on health services as they age, which makes this decision so galling, but, even if not directly impacted by these changes, everyone will be impacted. It will put additional pressure on the public health system, making it harder, and every Victorian knows that the public health system in Victoria is already under pressure because of the Allan Labor government's failure to fund it.
In this budget there was nothing to help Australians when it comes to the cost of living in 2026. When so many Australians are struggling to put food on the table, the best this treasurer and this prime minister could offer is a mirage, and that mirage is $250 in two years time. That is literally the only support they have offered for the Australian people. And the little secret of this mirage, which they will all claim when they say they're making a difference, is that it's not going to make a difference today for the Australian people.
Those opposite are also waiting until inflation catches your pay increase, because, if you're lucky enough to get a pay increase, which you deserve and work hard for, this government will collect more tax on it. It's called bracket creep. That's why the coalition said, 'We won't do that anymore; we're going to index bracket creep,' but this government has come out and said it will oppose it. So they want to pat on the back for saying that they'll give you back $250—about $5 a week in two years' time, once your wages have gone up and they've taxed you for it anyway—pretending they're making a difference today. This is at a time when Foodbank in Victoria are talking about how they were providing 69,000 meals a day and that has gone up to 76,000 meals a day, just in Victoria alone, just Foodbank—one organisation. Australians are struggling to put food on the table. There are stories shared by Foodbank about parents themselves not being able to eat. There's a heartbreaking story of a mother who drives her children to school, walks home and then walks back to pick them up because she can't afford the fuel and she doesn't want her children to know how tough it is. For that mum and for so many Australians, this budget provides them nothing—no support, just more spin from an out-of-touch Prime Minister, an out-of-touch Treasurer who break their word with the Australian people.
I wholeheartedly reject the motion that's been moved by the member for Fadden, and some of the comments just made by the member for Casey. We on this side of the House do know that Australians are doing it tough at the moment, and that's why the priority for our 2026 budget has been to continue to roll out responsible cost-of-living relief for people across Brisbane and Australia. The budget is about making our economy more resilient and about introducing some big reforms that start to address the intergenerational inequalities, especially when it comes to housing, particularly young people being locked out of the housing market by unfair tax incentives for others.
We're cutting taxes for 13 million workers, so the average working Australian will be about $2,800 better off every year. Conflict far from home is pushing up prices here, from the servo to the supermarket, so we're delivering more tax cuts from 1 July for every Australian taxpayer. More tax cuts are rolling out now, an extra $250 off working Australian's tax bills permanently. Some might say that that's not enough, but I say, when I speak to people from my electorate, 'every little bit helps'. A $1,000 instant tax deduction without receipts makes it easier for people. And on top of that, we're cutting fuel taxes to help save Australians money.
We're also making health care more accessible and more affordable. A sudden fever or an unexpected injury can turn into bills that people just aren't ready for. That's why we've delivered the urgent care clinics and are ensuring that they remain a permanent part of our Medicare system.
Young people are also at the centre of this budget. They're telling us that they feel the dream of homeownership is disappearing for their generation. When you work and you save hard, you should be able to buy a home of your own but the current system is skewed against that. We have delivered the five per cent deposit scheme for first homebuyers, and we're building 100,000 homes set aside just for them. But right now, first homebuyers are being priced out of the property market because of investors being backed by tax breaks like negative gearing. We're levelling that playing field. We had to do something. People were asking me and telling me about the difficulties they're facing across our electorate.
Mary-Cait is one. In fact, Mary-Cait, who I spoke to no more than three or four days ago, had moved from Brisbane to Ipswich to Toowoomba and wanted to settle in Brisbane. Eventually, under the five per cent deposit scheme, she has found a safe and permanent home in the Brisbane electorate. She said, 'It's not just a safe roof over my head and that of my family's. It makes me feel settled and it enables me to build my community.'
This budget is also putting an extra $2 billion into infrastructure needed to build more homes more quickly. It's part of what we need to do to build those 1.2 million homes over the next five years. But we are living in an uncertain world—there's no question about it—which is why we're investing to buy more fuel and fertiliser now. We'll grow our national reserves of jet fuel and diesel to 50 days by keeping more fuel here and by making gas companies reserve 20 per cent of their exports for Australia. We are making sure that we're better prepared for future energy shocks. But no matter what's happening in the world, these changes are all about remaining focused on helping Australians here at home.
Making sure hard work pays off and everyone has the opportunity to get ahead is what's important to this government.
This budget comes on top of a lot of reforms we've already delivered: a tax cut for every taxpayer; pay rises for all minimum and award wage workers, taking total increases under Labor to over $9,000 a year; an extension to paid parental leave to 24 weeks; superannuation paid on government paid parental leave; a $10,000 bonus for housing apprentices to top up their wages, to encourage more skilled workers in a sector that is greatly needed; 30 per cent off home batteries; paid pracs for nurses, teaching, social worker and midwifery students; a boost to Medicare, with $1.8 billion in extra hospital funding; more choice, lower cost and high-quality health care for Australian women; the expanded five per cent deposit scheme; pay rises for aged-care nurses; the expansion of bulk-billing; a freeze on the draft beer excise and 20 per cent cuts to student debt. We've opened more Medicare urgent care clinics—50, in fact—including one in my electorate. From 1 January, we have delivered the next stage in our plan to make the biggest cut to the cost of medicine in the history of the PBS: $25 or less is all that it will cost.
The government understands that people are doing it tough. Imagine how much harder it would have been for the people of Brisbane had these cost-of-living measures not been put in place. We're working hard. We're looking after the people of Queensland and Australia.
We've heard Albanese Labor government MP after Albanese Labor government MP after Albanese Labor government MP talk about the budget. But there are two things, sadly, that we've failed to hear any of them say. The first is quite easy to do, and I know people in my electorate would greatly appreciate it: just say sorry. You broke promise after promise after promise. Just say sorry, especially you, Prime Minister. You looked the Australian people in the eye and said 50 times 'I'm not going to do it'.
I remind the member that comments need to come through the chair, please.
Sorry, Deputy Speaker. I say this to the Prime Minister: Prime Minister, you told the Australian people 50 times that you would honour your word, and you didn't do it. So it's time that you said sorry, Prime Minister. It's time that you said sorry.
The second thing we haven't heard is any government MP admit that living standards have collapsed under this government. They've collapsed. That's a fact, and maybe we could get an apology for that. Guess how big the collapse has been. It's been the biggest collapse in living standards in the world. No other country has had a collapse in living standards like we've had here in Australia.
You'll hear these long lists of everything that the government has done, but the fact is none of it has addressed the two biggest failings of this government. And those are that it can't tell the truth to the Australian people and that living standards are falling beyond belief.
I've been out and about in my electorate talking to people about the budget. Well, I should rephrase that: I've been listening to what people have to say about the budget, whether it be small business, whether it be farmers, whether it be families, whether it be pensioners, whether it be people in aged-care residences. I've got to say the overwhelming response has been 'there is nothing in this budget to help me; there is nothing in this budget to address my cost-of-living concerns'. There is nothing in this budget to address what is happening to living standards in this nation.
It's worth asking why that is the fact. There are two reasons. The first reason is that spending is out of control, and what happens when spending is out of control? It pushes up interest rates. The government won't do the hard yards, so the Reserve Bank has to. That is one of the reasons why living standards continue to plummet—because the government can't get its own house in order; it can't get its spending under control. That is what is pushing up interest rates. And the sad fact is we're likely to see more interest rate rises, not less, over the coming months.
And the second reason is that the Albanese Labor government is addicted to taxing. It can't see an idea that it doesn't want to tax. Seriously—I never thought that I would be in this chamber pointing out the fact that we now have death duties coming in in this country.
A government member interjecting
No, it is, because you've had to rule it out. You've had to rule it out and say, 'Oh, well, maybe we're going to change our mind. Maybe we won't. Maybe we are,' but the fact of the matter is here we are talking about death duties.
A government member interjecting
You cannot believe it. And of course you get a reaction from those opposite. 'Oh, no, seriously—you can trust us. We're honest. You know you can believe what we say, because we go to the Australian people and we say 50 times we're not going to do this.' Seriously—you've got no credibility now when it comes to being honest. The fact of the matter is we've now got to the stage where you're trying to sneak in death duties. It's an absolute disgrace.
Living standards are plummeting, the cost of living in this country is going through the roof and you've got no ideas to fix it.
Across Griffith I hear the same message in different ways. At my mobile offices, commuter terminals, my coffees at local cafes, community events and in conversations with families, students, renters, first home buyers, workers, small-business owners and pensioners, people are working hard and doing their best. They are making careful decisions about household budgets and they want to know that their government understands those pressures and is acting responsibly to help. This year's federal budget is about helping people now while making responsible changes for the future. That is why we are delivering cost-of-living relief, strengthening fuel security and lifting productivity while reforming our tax system to address longstanding issues of housing. These national changes are felt locally across every suburb in my community.
In health, this budget strengthens Medicare and invests in care close to home. We're delivering $1.8 billion over five years to make Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of our health system. In South Brisbane, Coorparoo and Carina, the clinics have already supported more than 40,000 presentations in my community. Now they will provide permanent relief to our healthcare system so families can access walk-in bulk-billed care without sitting for hours in an emergency department. We're also delivering an additional $25 billion over five years for public hospitals, including for the Princess Alexandra Hospital, the Mater and Queensland Children's Hospital in my community. We are continuing to make medicines cheaper through the PBS, with an additional $5.9 billion to list more medicines, including treatments for cystic fibrosis and chronic kidney disease, so Australians can access life-saving and life-changing treatments without being priced out of care.
Across Griffith, I speak with young people who are working hard, saving for a deposit and doing everything they were told would put homeownership within reach, but the path to a first home has become steeper, narrower and less fair. People in Griffith are going to inspections, turning up at auctions and bidding for homes they want to live in—a place of security, stability and belonging. Too often I hear they are competing against investors who have the tax system on their side and they are watching prices move further away. Since 1999, house prices have risen by more than 400 per cent, more than twice as fast as incomes. We owe it to them to level the playing field and give them a fairer pathway into homeownership. That is why this budget rebalances the tax system in the housing market. From July 2027 negative gearing for residential property will be limited to new builds that add to our housing supply. People who want to invest in property, build wealth and use negative gearing still can, but that support will be directed towards building more homes. Under this approach, investment in property will also support the construction of more of the homes that we need. This is not easy reform, but it is the right reform. I am proud to be part of a government that backs aspiration for all, because the opportunity to build a secure future should not depend on whether you own property already. It should be within reach for the young worker trying to buy a first unit, the family saving for a modest home, the renter hoping for stability and the next generation working hard to build a life of their own. We are also investing a further $2 billion in enabling infrastructure to help build 65,000 more homes, extending the ban on foreign investors buying existing homes, continuing support for social and affordable housing through the Housing Australia Future Fund and providing $59.4 million to community housing providers to help secure housing for young people at risk or those experiencing homelessness.
Our approach is clear for working Australians: people who work hard should be able to keep more of what they earn. We're introducing a $250 working-Australians tax offset that will benefit more than 13 million workers, including around 1.5 million sole traders. We're also introducing a $1,000 instant tax deduction, making tax time easier and delivering cost-of-living relief for workers who claim work related expenses. Together with tax cuts already delivered and legislated, these measures mean an Australian worker on average earnings could be up to $2,816 better off each year. This is Labor's approach: helping households with the pressures they face today while strengthening Medicare, building more homes, backing workers, lifting productivity and making our tax system fairer.
Labor promised to be the party that left no-one behind, and they promised to be the party that governed for all Australians and the party of homeownership, and they even went so far as to say they would build a stronger, fairer and more resilient Australia. But, over the last four years, Labor have only proven that they are party of broken promises and broken dreams when it comes to the lives and livelihoods of Australian people.
You'll recall, in 2022, the Prime Minister said, on no less than 97 occasions, that your power bills would go down by $275 by 2025. Well, we're past that. Here we are with the average household bill increase of 35 per cent since the last time the Prime Minister made that extraordinary promise in front of the cameras. Let's be real here, when prices go up, everything goes up, because, the higher the input to businesses and producers—something that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have never done; they've never been in business and never produced anything—the higher the cost at the checkout for every Australian. Because of this government's ridiculous net-zero-only fantasy and rejection of our own natural resources, every family is paying more for basic needs.
Labor tried to hide these energy price increases for a while and artificially curb inflation by offering a $75-a-quarter rebate on your bill. We know what happens then. We know that you, as the taxpayer, are paying for your own rebate. While some say it was achieved in the short term, in reality the underlying inflation was still too high, and the artificial curbing couldn't last. We've seen, over the last 12 months, that inflation in Australia now is higher than any other advanced economy around the world. This is another promise broken spectacularly by the Prime Minister, leaving households forced between choosing heating and eating.
Labor also promised to build 1.2 million new homes by mid-2029, and, as of this month, projections suggest a shortfall of 350, 000 homes. Interestingly, the only promise where Labor has exceeded expectation is in the record projections of two million immigrants to come into this country by the end of their second term. This high-spending, high-taxing government is hoping that bringing in more bums on seats will fatten up their coffers, but the influx has only put more pressure on infrastructure, health care, aged care and housing and has continued to reduce our standard of living.
Now to the latest broken promise—one on which our Prime Minister glibly retorted to a journalist 'for the 50th time' that he would not be making changes either to the negative gearing or capital gains tax. And now we see sweeping changes to both of them. This prime minister has no credibility. I don't know how he stands at the dispatch box and talks to the Australian people about what is in the budget, because I believe that all Australians out there are thinking, and are saying to me: 'We don't know whether he's telling the truth or whether he will change his position.' A broken promise is a broken promise. He needs to stand up and apologise for being untruthful to the Australian people.
Australians deserve a government that acknowledges the pressures of today whilst building and safeguarding for the future; a government that rewards ingenuity and aspiration while remaining grounded in reality; a government that understands that Aussies need a hand up, not a hand out; and a government that recognises and taps into the wealth that we hold in our own resources here in Australia and that puts the real needs of Australians above all else.
This motion is as much of a joke as the modern Liberal Party, to be honest, because the modern Liberal Party is completely spooked. They are spooked by the fact that they had a 31 per cent primary vote reduction at the hands of One Nation. The National Party proudly declared that they were back, though they got a less than 10 per cent primary vote in that same by-election. All of the pivoting from the Liberal Party has been towards being in this position where they are unable to process what that means. Instead of taking some accountability and responsibility and listening to the Australian people about what might actually be happening here, the Liberal Party is just lurching further and further to the right—further and further towards the One Nation party that is taking up all of their votes and all of their supporters.
The Liberal Party has a lot of smart people in it—a lot of people who I genuinely respect, who are really smart people who care about this country. But, if you are going into an election and you're only talking about One Nation and preference deals with One Nation, and you're going into an election only spouting policies so that you can compete with One Nation, and your whole focus in everything you talk about is just One Nation, One Nation, One Nation—well, why on earth would the voters of Farrer do anything other than pick the real version, not the Diet Coke version? And that's exactly what has happened. The people of Farrer have said to the Liberal Party: 'If you're going to try and pretend to be someone else, we're not going to bother with you. We'll just go to the other person.'
The Liberal Party's demise right now is also evident in the fact that, when you actually look at the issues that are affecting Australians and the issues that people are raising that are leading them into the parties like One Nation, who have no practical solutions and are just seeking to divide our country on the basis of grievances, then you have to ask yourself: are they really listening to the needs of Australians?
And the truth is that Australians are hurting. They are hurting right now, because the cost-of-living pressures are real. When you add up all of the pressures to pay for your rent, pay for your mortgage, pay for the kids, pay for the groceries, pay for all of the things that add up, like fuel, things are really tough. And when inflation goes up, the people who get hurt the most are low- and middle-income Australians.
Then you come into this place and you ask: 'Alright, what are the things and what are the levers at our disposal to take the pressure off all of these hardworking Australians who really rely on the things that we can do in this place?' Then, when you look at each and every measure that we have put forward, the Liberal Party have come up with an excuse. Despite people like the shadow treasurer previously saying that they support it, and putting it in writing, and coming into the House of Representatives and saying they support these measures, they have turned around and said that this is somehow just a pox on Labor. I mean, the Australian people aren't listening to that sort of rubbish.
So let's go through housing as one example. The decoupling between housing prices and wage increases has happened over decades. Right now, young Australians are looking at houses and saying, 'It is just absolutely inconceivable that I could get into this market,' mainly because the amount of time it would take to save up a deposit is just too long when you've got all of these other expenses. Then, by the time they could get a mortgage, young Australians are also looking at the price of housing and saying, 'Well, that would just push me too far.'
What is the solution? The solution is that we need to build more homes. And we've set targets to work with the states and territories, who do have a lot of the levers. But, of course, at every opportunity, instead of saying, 'Well, at least the federal government is trying to push the states and territories to set housing targets,' they've criticised the fact that we've got them in the first place. When you look at the fact that we have put in so many different measures, like Help to Buy, to at least try and remove some of those barriers that I just described—the Liberal Party have said that that five per cent deposit scheme is support for billionaires. Over 2,000 people in my electorate and over 200,000 people across the country have used that five per cent deposit scheme, and they are not billionaires. When you look at the Help to Buy scheme—which is a shared equity scheme which allows the government to purchase a portion of the home so that someone can at least get into the housing market if they are an essential worker, a low-income or middle-income worker or a single parent—it's only 10,000 places, but, for every single one of those homeowners, it means that they are going to have stability and safety at home.
Then you have the fact that, right now, we're putting forward changes to negative gearing and capital gains. I understand that there is a whole range of commentary around it, and it's absolutely fair game around the actual policy discussion, if you want that. But there haven't been any discussions around the actual policy; it's only been around the politics. The policy is simple. The decoupling between house prices and wages has occurred over decades because we incentivised investors. While there are those who want to make sure that they are continuing to support investors, we want to support those hardworking Australians who want to buy their first home.
I rise today in support of the motion moved by the member for Fadden. The reality for families and small businesses across Capricornia is clear: this government has not delivered on what it promised. Before the election, Australians were told that life would be easier, with lower power bills, relief from rising costs and a plan to make housing more affordable. But, when I speak to people across Rockhampton, Yeppoon, Emu Park, Moranbah, Clermont and our rural communities, they tell me the opposite is true. They tell me they are falling behind.
In Rockhampton, families are telling me that their grocery bills have surged week after week. Fresh food, meat and basics that used to be manageable are now stretching household budgets to the limit. At the same time, fuel costs are biting hard. In Yeppoon and Emu Park, I've spoken with retirees on fixed incomes who simply cannot absorb rising electricity costs. These are people who have worked hard their whole lives, and now they're being forced to cut back on food, air conditioning and everyday essentials just to keep up with the bills that they were promised would go down. We were told power prices would fall by $275, but across Central Queensland people aren't seeing that. Instead, they are bracing for higher costs, despite living in one of the most energy-producing regions in the country. This is simply not good enough.
Small businesses are under enormous pressure as well. A cafe owner in Rockhampton recently told me that their electricity bill has jumped significantly over the past year, while the cost of ingredients from milk to flour has also risen. They are doing everything they can to keep prices reasonable for their customers, but margins are being squeezed. In Moranbah and across our mining communities, tradies are telling me that the costs of materials and transport have gone through the roof. Projects are becoming harder to deliver, and small operators are finding it tougher to stay competitive. Tourism operators on the Capricorn Coast are also feeling the pinch. Higher operating costs and reduced discretionary spending means fewer bookings and tighter margins in a region that should be thriving.
Then there is housing, which is one of the biggest challenges facing Capricornia. In Rockhampton, rents have risen sharply, and vacancy rates remain incredibly tight. I've had young families come into my office saying that they've applied for multiple rental properties and missed out every time. In places like Yeppoon, essential workers—nurses, hospitality staff, teachers—are struggling to secure accommodation close to where they work. This has real consequences not just for those individuals but for the services our community relies on. For those trying to buy their first home, the dream is slipping further away. Rising interest rates, higher construction costs and limited supply are making it harder than ever for young people in Central Queensland to get a foot on the property ladder.
We cannot forget our primary producers and regional families. Out west, I've spoken with farming families who are battling rising costs for fuel, fertiliser and freight. These are families who want to pass their farms on to the next generation, but they're worried about how they'll manage under increasing financial pressure. They don't want handouts; they want a fair go. But right now they feel that a fair go is getting harder to find.
This is what broken promises look like on the ground. It's not abstract; it's real. It's the pensioner in Emu Park turning off appliances to save power. It's a single mum in Rockhampton working extra hours but still struggling to make ends meet. It's the apprentice in Sarina putting their plans on hold because they can't afford the rent. It's farming families across Capricornia unsure about the future of their livelihood. These are the voices this government needs to hear because Australians were promised relief and they are not getting it.
The government cannot continue to shift blame or point to external factors. The expectations were set clearly and they have not been met. People in Capricornia know that, and they are feeling it every single day. What our region needs is practical, targeted relief. We need policies that genuinely lower energy costs, not increase them. We need investment that boosts housing supply in regional areas like ours. We need cost-of-living measures that actually make a difference at the kitchen table. Most importantly, we need a government that understands regional Australia not just in words but in action. In Capricornia we are proud, we are resilient and we work hard, but we should not have to work harder just to stand still. Families and businesses across Central Queensland cannot afford more broken promises. They deserve better and they deserve it now.
I rise today to speak against this motion. This motion is part of a pattern we see from those opposite. The Liberal Party and the National Party come in here, moving motion after motion, and they talk about the cost of living, hardships and struggling families—these are all legitimate things to raise; we absolutely recognise that people in our communities are doing it tough—but those opposite never have solutions. And when we bring forward practical measures to provide relief to hardworking households in our communities, they oppose them—every single time. They opposed our tax cuts at the last election. They opposed energy bill relief. They opposed free TAFE. They opposed minimum wage increases. They come in here and claim to speak for everyday Australians, and then they vote against every single thing we put forward to help everyday Australians. That is not genuine concern for living standards; that is political theatre.
Members opposite have been running a line that Australians have experienced the biggest decline in living standards in the OECD. But, as usual, they're relying on cherrypicked figures to gaslight Australians. During COVID, household incomes were artificially inflated by JobKeeper emergency payments and record low interest rates. When global inflation hit and interest rates rose, incomes fell back. That is the drop they are measuring. They are starting the clock at the top of the bounce. Australia was hit harder than most because we have more people on variable rate mortgages.
So let's talk about some real figures. The OECD's own 2026 report shows that real wages are recovering and consumer spending is picking up. Employment was at record highs, but the OECD says the economy is returning to pre-pandemic growth levels. Now, there's no denying that this picture will be complicated by the conflict in the Middle East and the resulting energy crisis. But just as we did with the previous international inflation challenges, we'll continue to manage the economy responsibly while we support people through the difficult times. And, as importantly, we'll do so ensuring we have an economy that works for people and not the other way around.
Let me set out what this government has delivered on cost of living. We have cut income taxes five times. There will be a further income tax coming at the end of this financial year, and another income tax coming at the end of the next financial year. Every taxpayer received relief in the last round of the stage 3 tax cuts, restructured to benefit low- and middle-income earners who were hit hardest by the cost-of-living crisis. The budget that we've just handed down delivers a permanent $250 working Australians tax offset for over 13 million workers. It delivers a $1,000 instant tax deduction that will save people time and save resources by making sure they don't have to collect lots of receipts in order to claim that instant tax deduction. We've halved the fuel tax, putting $2.9 billion of relief directly at the petrol bowser every time people fill up. That's immediate, practical relief for families and small businesses who are feeling pressure every time they visit the petrol station.
We've backed higher wages for nearly three million of Australia's lowest paid workers every single year at the Fair Work Commission. The national minimum wage has increased by over $9,000 per year since we came to office. That is money in workers pockets.
Members opposite love to tell Australians that renewables are wrecking the grid and will send prices through the roof. In the December quarter of 2025, renewables comprised more than half of energy supply, driving down wholesale electricity prices by nearly half. Coal-fired generation fell to an all-time quarterly low. Gas-fired generation plunged to its lowest level in 25 years. Under the coalition, more energy left the grid than came in—and the prices reflect that. What we are seeing now is the result of sustained investment and reliable policy in renewable generation and storage, backed by hydro and gas.
We also delivered direct relief. Over the last two financial years, this government provided $5 billion in energy bill relief, with up to $300 on household electricity accounts in the 2024-25 financial year and a further $150 in the first half of this financial year applied automatically to every bill. And we're investing in long-term relief. The Cheaper Home Batteries Program has been expanded from $2.3 billion to an estimated $7.2 billion over four years, expected to see more than two million Australians install a battery by 2030. A household with existing solar could save up to $1,100 a year.
In this place, I represent the good people of Dawson. In Dawson, we trade in three commodities: honesty, integrity and truth—and, let me tell you, under the Albanese Labor government, truth is in very, very short supply. So let's talk about the broken promises, and let's be honest, the Albanese Labor government breaks promises hell, west and crooked. The promise: no Australian is going to be worse off. But the truth of it is that every Australian is worse off. Grocery prices are up and are becoming nearly unaffordable. Mortgage rates are up and, by all reports, are going to go higher. Insurance prices are up. Electricity prices are through the roof, which is in stark contrast to the gentleman who was speaking just before, saying how fantastic it is that wholesale electricity prices are down. I don't know how you buy wholesale prices. We buy retail prices. But, anyway, that's another learning curve for a new member—fair enough! Rental prices are up. Gas prices are up. These are all broken promises.
Let's unpack the promises a little bit further. The promise: no new taxes—and yet, let's have a look. The Treasurer has just brought down the highest taxing, highest spending budget in history. The new taxes: capital gains tax, negative gearing tax and a tax on trusts. When asked about capital gains tax and negative gearing tax, the Prime Minister said, 'How hard is it? For the 50th time'. Prime Minister, let me tell you, it's very hard. People are doing it tough—and, let's be honest, you haven't been. And what about the sneaky death duty hidden in the budget? Oh no, it's not called death duty; it's called inheritance tax.
Let's have a look at the cuts for veterans' welfare. Allied health is capped at $5,000. I ran into a veteran on my last trip to Townsville. He said: 'Andrew, when you have allied health for veterans capped at $5,000, that is only enough for 15 weeks! What am I supposed to do for the rest of the year? So, if the Prime Minister could answer that and look the veteran straight in the eye and tell him what he should be doing, when this veteran's been good enough to put his life and his body on the line for this country, what should the Prime Minister be telling him?
And what about the private health fund changes for the over-65s? After working their whole lives and at a time they probably need some more health care, there are changes to that. That will put more pressure on the ED. That is absolutely crazy. And there's housing, with 1.2 million homes promised by 2029. But recent reports are showing that they could be up to 250,000 to 300,000 short. And the Prime Minister said, 'My word is my bond.' Well, I certainly wouldn't like to take that bond to the bank. I give you that tip. And this is probably the biggest, most famous one of them all: 'Under Labor, if you vote for Labor, you will be $275 better off on your power bill.' That little story was reproduced 97 times. That wasn't a slip of the tongue. That was repeated, repeated, repeated.
Australia has just witnessed a trial of broken promises, and they've shattered families' budgets. This is in a Labor created cost-of-living crisis. A federal budget should be a road map and an opportunity, but this Labor government has turned it into an economic dead end. This budget doesn't reward effort. It punishes it. The foundational deal in this country used to be simple. If you worked hard, if you had a go, you could get ahead. But, under this prime minister, the great Australian promise is dead. I think the Prime Minister should come into this chamber and say, 'I apologise to the Australian people.'
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I 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.
I rise today to acknowledge Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month, a time when we come together as a nation to raise awareness, support victims-survivors, honour those we have lost and reaffirm our collective commitment to zero tolerance for violence against women and children. I also rise to speak about the Albanese Labor government's National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, our government's record investment in this work and the important consultation now underway to shape the next phase of reform, including the development of the second action plan and the continued implementation of the First Nations action plan.
As a former domestic violence lawyer and as someone who has sat across the table from countless women at the most terrifying moments of their lives, I've seen the courage it takes to leave. I've sat with women making impossible decisions, women trying to protect their children, women trying to find somewhere safe to sleep and women trying to navigate systems while living in fear. I've also seen their extraordinary resilience. I've seen women rebuild their lives after unimaginable trauma, and I've seen frontline workers go above and beyond to keep people safe, often with limited resources and under immense pressure. Those experiences are one of the reasons that I came to this place. Violence against women is not inevitable. It is preventable, and governments have a responsibility to act. That is why I am proud that this government has made the single largest investment of any Australian government in tackling violence against women and children—more than $4 billion across frontline services, prevention programs, early intervention, behaviour change initiatives, housing, and supports for children. These are not symbolic announcements. They are practical reforms that are changing lives.
This government made the leaving violence payment permanent because no woman should have to choose between violence and homelessness. We legislated 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave, recognising that safety should not cost someone their job or income. We invested $1.2 billion in emergency and transitional accommodation because escaping violence means little if there's nowhere safe to go. We've boosted funding for the 500 frontline workers program by more than 70 per cent. And, for the first time in Australia's history, we launched a standalone national plan for First Nations women and children, 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices', backed by a $218 million investment in this year's budget. In my electorate of Bonner, organisations like the Red Rose Foundation, home to Australia's only strangulation trauma centre, continue their life-saving work supporting victims-survivors because of sustained investment in frontline responses.
This is the kind of reform you see when women's safety is treated as a national priority, not as an afterthought, and it's what happens when lived experience informs policy, when frontline workers are listened to and when governments understand that violence against women is not just a justice issue; it's a housing issue, a health issue and a workplace issue. And, fundamentally, it is a national crisis. That is why the next phase of this work matters so deeply.
Consultation is now underway on the second National Action Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. At the same time, consultation is occurring across several related frameworks, including the next action plans under Our Ways - Strong Ways - Our Voices, Safe and Supported, and the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse. Importantly, these consultations are being coordinated so people are not forced to repeatedly relive their trauma across multiple processes. I encourage victims-survivors, frontline organisations, advocates, researchers and community members to have their say, because ending violence against women requires all of us.
I would be doing a disservice if I didn't acknowledge all of the women and children who we have seen murdered in this country, not just in the last few weeks but over the last 10 years in particular. I want to acknowledge the work, through Australian Femicide Watch, of journalist and researcher Sherele Moody, who has documented 3,000 deaths of women and children over the past decade. She herself has said that this count is incomplete because our systems still fail to capture every life lost. An estimated 2.3 million Australians have experienced some form of domestic and family violence in the last year alone. That is the size of the Greater Brisbane population.
I'm proud of what this Labor government has delivered, but there is much more work to do. The women who have been killed need us to continue this work. They need us to fully fund frontline services, to strengthen responses and to ensure that no-one is left without the support they need.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I commend the member for Bonner for raising this motion, and I agree wholeheartedly with all of her comments. I would firstly like to acknowledge the strength and courage of all the victims-survivors: no-one can understand what you've been through. It doesn't matter whether they're a police officer, a counsellor, an adviser—they haven't been through what you've been through. I'd also like to acknowledge and remember all those victims who did not survive.
As a former police officer, detective, prosecutor and then lawyer for 18 years, and having done a lot of pro bono work for women's refuges, I understand. I can never completely understand what victims-survivors have been through, but is so important and so incumbent upon government on both sides. We do work together on this because this is above politics. It has to be bipartisan, and I commend the government in its budget for continuing the good work that the coalition did over its last three terms, acknowledging that we have so much more to do—so much more.
I was privileged in the last term to be the shadow assistant minister for the prevention of family violence. I took that role extremely seriously, and I travelled the breadth of Australia. I went to every single state and territory on a number of occasions. I met with advocates, with survivors, with men's groups—across the board—and the message was the same: unless the funding model changed and unless certain things took place, they would always be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. What they meant by that was that we need to concentrate more on prevention and intervention, as opposed to response and recovery.
I'm not suggesting in any way that we defund response and recovery. That needs to be paramount as well. But during the last term the total of the funding for prevention and intervention amounted to 17 per cent. If we know what the root cause is, then we need to fund that. We develop policy that concentrated predominantly on prevention and intervention, because you see statistics like: as of December 2025, 3,565 people in New South Wales prisons had domestic and family violence offences recorded against them. That increased 39 per cent over five years. Despite 34,000 men receiving an apprehended domestic violence order each year, there are only 900 men's behavioural change program places funded each year across the state. That is a broken system.
What we need and what we should be working to is, firstly, increasing funding dollar for dollar for the delivery of prevention and intervention services versus response and recovery funding. We need to develop a nationally accredited men's behaviour change program. We know that men are the problem, but men are also the answer. Healthy men are good men and become active men in society, and women want men to be healthy both mentally and physically. We need to develop a national accreditation pathway for people facilitating men's behavioural change. It needs to be a profession. We need to establish a national workforce strategy to address family and domestic violence. Most importantly, we need to incorporate accredited respectful relationships education into the national curriculum from kindergarten to year 12. Hopefully, that will take the step in the right direction.
I rise to support this motion, and I want to begin by acknowledging the member for Bonner. Before entering this parliament, she founded Australia's first domestic violence law firm. She sat across the table from victim-survivors and has advocated every single day for victim-survivors. That experience matters, and this parliament is a better place for having her in it. I'd also like to thank the member for Cowper for his comments in support of this motion. His experience is in the justice system. I hope that all members of this parliament would agree that more needs to be done in addressing the scourge of family and domestic violence, regardless of which political party or which political persuasion we are.
Last week in Campbelltown, police entered a home and found three bodies: a woman and two young boys, aged four and 12, allegedly murdered in a domestic violence incident. This is a stark and devastating reminder of the consequences of domestic violence and the scourge that it remains across our society. A family is gone, and, sadly, it is not the only family that has been devastated by this absolute tragedy that is playing out across our country.
On average, a woman is killed every eight days by a man's violence—almost always a man that she knows. Domestic or family violence is a leading driver of homelessness for women, and burden-of-disease studies point to domestic violence as one of the leading causes of death, illness and injury in Australian women aged between 18 and 44. These are not statistics that we can gloss over. These are mothers and daughters, neighbours, friends, colleagues—people in our communities in the streets we walk every day. And the deaths, as horrific as they are, are only the tip of the iceberg, because, for every woman killed, there are thousands more that are carrying wounds both physical and mental. The trauma does not end when the violence stops. It follows people into their schools, their workplaces, their sleeping hours. It shapes educational outcomes. It affects economic participation. It costs people their health, their stability and their sense of self.
For some, it creates a cycle of trauma that passes to the next generation unless we do more to intervene. I've seen this firsthand when volunteering at community legal centres, and I've sat in a county court for intervention order appeals. I've met women navigating a system that can feel designed to exhaust them before it protects them. As the member for Cowper mentioned, the inadequacy—often—of intervention orders and the way that systems abuse can be perpetrated are what we must reckon with. I've seen what it costs someone to come forward, to relive what happened, and to fight for an order that should never have been necessary in the first place.
In my community of Menzies, the services working on this every single day are extraordinary: the team at the Box Hill Orange Door; the remarkable counsellors and workers at Doncare, with their unique locally based model of support that focuses on recovery, which has counsellors and mentors who are able to support victim-survivors on that journey; and Eastern Community Legal Centre, whose volunteer recognition night I recently attended and where I had a chance to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of people like Michael Smith and Belinda Lowe for providing support every single day to people who experience family and domestic violence, as well as the range of other services they provide to vulnerable people in Melbourne's east. They show up day in and day out for families in crisis. They deserve our respect and they deserve our continued support.
As the member for Cowper said, this is an issue that men must reckon with. The vast majority of this violence is committed by men. That's just the reality. Not all men, of course, but it is a problem that we must own and that we must step out. We must call out disrespect when we see it at the pub, on the footy field, in the workplace. We must call out unacceptable behaviours, show our children what respectable relationships look like, and refuse to stay silent when somebody that we're friends with crosses a line. That's why I was proud to attend with Assistant Minister Ged Kearney and Special Envoy for Men's Health, Dan Repacholi, at the launch of the Healthy Men Community Conversations project, because we need to have cultural change as well as the resources that the member for Bonner spoke to.
This is a topic which is near and dear to my heart. I thank the member for Bonner for moving this motion. The zero-tolerance language around this motion is correct. The sentiment is right, but sentiment without accountability is not policy; it's just another press release. I rise having chaired the bipartisan inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence, which reported to this parliament in March 2021. Eighty-eight recommendations were made. They were bipartisan and they were unanimous on the core findings. We said as a nation we can do better. We said we must do better.
Five years later, this government asks us to commend them. Let me put some numbers on the table. The ABS released data in March this year showing that the number of family and domestic violence offenders rose eight per cent in 2024-25 to approximately 97,800—the largest-single increase since national data collection began. More than three-quarters of this number are male. This government's own oversight body, the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission, found a 35 per cent increase in women killed by intimate partners in 2023-24—35 per cent in a single year under this national plan and under this government's watch.
The Australian Institute of Criminology's most recent homicide data records 46 intimate partner homicide victims, most of them women. In 2025, 28 women were killed by a current or former partner. This government declared gender based violence a 'national emergency'. Those were their words. For the community facing the most severe exposure—First Nations women in remote Australia—the Prime Minister stood in Alice Springs and announced $842.6 million, with women's safety explicitly cited. Documents produced in the Senate reveal that not one dollar of that $842.6 million has been paid. When pressed, the government said funding would be done retrospectively. Tell that to the women and children who've been waiting for help. This is the pattern: announcement, architecture, silence. In the meantime, another family is shattered.
DV is not simply physical or psychological harm; it is the slow erosion of one's identity. It's a woman or a man who stops trusting their own judgement because they have been told, day after day, that they are wrong, that they're worthless and that they're unwanted. It's permanent vigilance—reading a room, reading a mood and calculating the safest response to an unpredictable threat. Children who grow up witnessing this are more likely to experience mental health difficulties. They struggle at school and enter violent relationships themselves. The cycle does not break itself. The deeper cost is harder to measure. It's the child carrying a nervous system shaped by chaos into a classroom, into friendships and into their own relationships one day. The bruises may fade and the wounds may heal, but the research tells us that women who have lived inside violence carry it in their bodies and their minds for years, sometimes decades, after they leave. Rebuilding a shattered family is years of painstaking, expensive work, and we ask chronically underfunded services to carry that weight.
Finally, I want to send a shout-out to Ashton Wood of DV Safe Phone from my electorate, who has donated thousands of phones to victims of domestic violence, thousands of phones that get distributed around the country at no cost to people. He does a great job and he should be commended.
I rise to support this motion. I really want to add to the words of the member for Menzies and congratulate the member for Bonner for bringing this motion before the House today. May is Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month. Domestic violence is one of the most important issues confronting us as a nation. It has a huge impact on too many people and too many families. This is a national crisis. No-one would say otherwise. It demands exactly the kind of national, coordinated and long-term response that the Albanese Labor government has prioritised.
The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 is the national framework agreed by all governments to end violence against women and children in one generation. It recognises that this work must happen across the whole system—prevention, early intervention, response, recovery and healing—and this government is implementing that plan. We have invested more than any other Commonwealth government in Australia's history to address violence against women and children—more than $4 billion across frontline services, prevention, housing, legal assistance, behaviour change programs, support for children and financial assistance for women escaping violence. We've legislated 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave, and we've made the leaving violence payment permanent, providing up to $5,000 in financial support alongside safety planning for women leaving violence. We're investing in emergency and transitional accommodation because women and children cannot leave violence if they have nowhere safe to. We are also strengthening frontline services, including through the 500 Workers Initiative, and reforming systems that, all too often, have been weaponized by perpetrators, such as the child support allowance.
A critical part of this national work is Our Ways, Strong Ways, Our Voices, Australia's first dedicated national plan for ending family, domestic and sexual violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children. This plan has been driven by the lived experience, leadership and advocacy of First Nations women, children, families, communities and organisations. It is focused on what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have asked for: culturally safe, community led, trauma informed responses that support safety, healing and long-term change. It's backed by $218.3 million over four years, including support for Aboriginal community controlled organisations to deliver specialist family, domestic and sexual violence services.
In my own community of Newcastle we know how important these services are to meet women and children where they are. I was very pleased to support recent investments in innovative domestic, family and sexual violence health programs in my community, like the Supporting Outreach Healthcare pilot and the Hope in Healing project. The Supporting Outreach Healthcare pilot delivers multidisciplinary primary care clinics directly into refuge accommodation across Newcastle, Lake Macquarie and Maitland.
The Hope in Healing project, funded through the Medical Research Future Fund, will help identify and respond to one of the hidden impacts of domestic and family violence: traumatic brain injury. Local screening by a local service found that more than 80 per cent of women, young people and children who've experienced potential head injury do not seek medical help. This is deeply concerning, and it shows why this work is so important.
I also want to acknowledge another important local project: the digital trauma informed Technology Facilitated Abuse Playbook. This web app is designed to strengthen the capability of frontline workers supporting victims-survivors of domestic and family violence. Developed through a partnership with the Hunter Domestic and Family Violence Consortium, WorkVentures and the Newcastle Permanent Charitable Foundation, it was launched at the Newcastle Museum just last week. The Hunter Domestic and Family Violence Consortium is a unique collaboration of specialist domestic family violence and homeless non-government services in the Hunter, including Family Support Newcastle, Got Your Back Sista, Jenny's Place, Wariga Ngurra, and Nova for Women and Children.
This work before us is urgent. It needs to be long term. It requires governments to lead but all of us to change. All of us need to keep this at the front and centre of our lives. It is a national emergency that requires all of us to lean in urgently.
I rise to speak on this motion. I want to acknowledge the 21 women we have lost to intimate partner and family violence in just this year alone according to Destroy the Joint's Counting Dead Women project. I want to acknowledge the children who have been left behind, the families torn apart and the trauma which has touched far too many in our communities.
This month is Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month, an opportunity to be taking an honest look at whether we are doing enough to prevent future violence. The statistics tell us we are not. Our communities tell us we are not. I do not believe we are doing enough either. There is no question that this government has invested. There are plans, reviews, frameworks and funding. I acknowledge that. But rates of femicide and domestic and family violence have left Australians understandably questioning whether our investment is working and where it is actually going.
I understand why many are turning to the idea of a royal commission. But I want to be honest about what that means. As a national alliance of domestic and family violence specialists have said plainly, there is no time to wait for another report. Our national Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner, Micaela Cronin agrees. We have thousands of recommendations already. We have already experienced delays. Frontline workers have told us what they need.
The problem is not a lack of answers but that we are not joining the dots in action, in accountability or in funding. We know that, right now, we do not have a clear national picture of where our funding goes. We do not have consistent data frameworks that monitor deaths or near-deaths of women. We do not have strong enough perpetrator accountability or national high-risk intervention systems. These are not new recommendations. Some have been agreed to, some half implemented and some not responded to or actioned at all. This is not good enough.
The renewed federation funding agreements in this sector commit to publishing state and territory plans on the DSS website, but there is no definition of what those plans must contain—no standardised expenditure categories, independent oversights, outcomes, reporting requirements or consequences for noncompliance. They are plans about future spending, not a retrospective account of where the money goes, what it has achieved, what works and what doesn't.
MinterEllison and ANROWS, in the first national report examining the funding of the fight against domestic and family violence, found there is simply no source of information that monitors our funding, despite our ambitious national targets. This has to change. That is why I'm calling for four things.
The first thing is a legislated national DFSV funding mapping framework, embedded in all bilateral federal funding agreements. States and territories should be required to identify and report annually against standardised expenditure categories, publicly accessible and independently overseen, with outcomes reporting attached. If we want to know whether our investment is working, we need to know where the money goes and whether it makes the difference that it said it was going to do when it got the money in the first place.
The second thing is a dedicated DFSV implementation unit within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to drive whole-of-government accountability and to ensure commitments are actually delivered, not buried across portfolios. The third thing is to legislate the DFSV Commission as a full statutory authority, as I've called for previously, with powers to compel agencies to provide data and information.
The fourth thing is to create and maintain a publicly accessible national register of all DFSV recommendations from royal commissions, parliamentary inquiries, independent reports and coronial findings, and, every single year, to update it with the status. We've made all these reports, we've got all these recommendations, but we do not know if they're being implemented. We need to have one place to look to be able to hold governments of all levels to account against the implementation of reports that everybody says we need to act on.
Finally, technology-facilitated abuse is central to primary prevention across the field. The Fix Our Feeds campaign, which allows people to opt out of harmful algorithms, is a first step and one I support.
The evidence is in front of us. The recommendations are on the table. What victims-survivors and frontline workers need from this parliament is not more reviews; it is action—coordinated, funded and accountable. When it works, support it more; when it doesn't, pull it back. We owe those people nothing less.
When I was a police officer, I came across many victim-survivor families. Too often, we would get a call and rush to the family's home. Too often, we would arrest a perpetrator of domestic violence. And too often, the perpetrator would be someone who we police officers had seen before, many times.
During Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month, I wish to add my voice to the voices in Tangney and across Australia lending our support to victims-survivors. There is zero tolerance for violence in our country.
I wish to acknowledge the victims-survivors who come to my office in Tangney to seek assistance with federal services and to share their personal experiences. These women have spoken about coercive control—about their former partners being able to track their every move, hack into their phones and make them fear for their lives. Their stories are very moving and very scary. If, by some chance, they hear this speech, I want to let these women know that I am working hard to ensure that no-one needs to live with family, domestic and sexual violence.
One in four women and one in 14 men have experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 15. This is totally unacceptable.
I want to acknowledge the work that has been done in my electorate of Tangney by Zonta House, a specialist provider of family and domestic violence services. Zonta House offers important refuge and support and transitional accommodation, as well as services for employment pathways, justice reintegration, awareness and education. I really commend the work that Zonta House does in Tangney and in the whole of Australia.
Our government has invested more than any other government to improve the safety of women and children, with more than $4 billion across frontline services, preventive programs, behaviour change and programs for children, across governments. This investment includes measures such as making the leaving violence payment permanent. This payment is $5,000 in financial help as well as safety planning for women leaving violence. We have also launched Australia's first ever standalone plan to address family, domestic and sexual violence for First Nations women and children. This is backed by $218 million in funding in this budget. We are investing $1.2 billion for emergency and transitional accommodation to ensure that women can reach safety. We have increased funding for family violence legal services and legislated 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave. This work also includes funding for intervention programs and for programs to support recovery for children who have experienced violence. This work has supported 1,400 organisations, helping more than 440,000 people across Australia who have experienced family, domestic and sexual violence. New child support reform announced in the budget will help prevent the weaponisation of the child support system, protecting children and parents from financial abuse. There is more than $1.9 billion of unpaid child support in Australia. This government is investing $183 million in the budget to make our child support system safer and fairer, because child support should never be used as a tool for control or coercion. We need a system that is safer for parents and children.
We know there is more to do. Too many people continue to live with family, domestic and sexual violence every day.
I rise to speak on this important motion in support of victims-survivors of domestic violence. It's heartbreaking and it's unacceptable that Australians—men, women and children—continue to suffer from domestic and sexual violence. It's unacceptable that when women—it's happening predominantly to women and children—try to leave an abusive household, they struggle to find anywhere safe to go. It's unacceptable that people should feel like one of my constituents did. She wrote to me recently and explained how the financial stress and the housing insecurity that she faced after leaving a violent household made her feel like she should never have left in the first place.
The persistence of these problems burns through our communities and is a blight on our nation. Protecting the most vulnerable in our community must be a priority, yet for too long leaders have failed to treat this crisis with the urgency and the seriousness that it deserves. But where leadership has fallen short community organisations are filling the gap. Bradfield is home to a number of services supporting people experiencing domestic and intimate partner violence, and they do incredible work.
One of those is in St Leonards. It's called Taldumande—or, as we like to call it, Taldy. Taldy has been supporting young people for decades. This year marks 50 years of operations. Children and young people can go to Taldy for help while facing some of the most difficult challenges any person can face. They support young people at risk of homelessness with crisis accommodation and finding a long-term home. They help young people who are in police custody or who are out on bail to navigate the justice system and meet their bail conditions by arranging transport and legal support. They operate a youth hub where people can get informal and formal support in a comfortable and non-threatening environment, and they run group education programs, preparing young people for work and helping them learn practical skills to navigate their lives.
The young people and their families who turn to Taldy for help are in crisis for many reasons, but many of them are there because of family violence. One-third of Taldy's clients were victims of violence perpetrated by either a parent or a guardian. We know that family violence is a significant cause of children and young people's mental distress and is a major reason why children end up homeless. When children have nowhere to go, it's organisations like Taldy that step in to help them
We need more Taldies. As is always the case, Taldy is at full stretch. Their housing service is at capacity 24/7, and Taldy was forced to turn away over 400 young people last year. It just shouldn't be this way. Organisations doing such important work should not be so underresourced. They should be given everything that they need to continue their important work. But they're facing challenges because of siloed funding—the siloed funding approach that doesn't clearly account for the overlap between domestic violence and youth homelessness.
The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children focuses on four main areas: prevention, early intervention, response, and recovery and healing, and organisations like Taldy are essential to our ability to make progress towards two of these four areas—responding to support victims-survivors and helping people heal. We will not be able to meet the national plan's goals of ending violence against women and children in one generation without ensuring that frontline organisations are sufficiently resourced. As the government develops its second action plan towards ending violence against women and children, I urge it to provide greater support to community organisations like Taldy. They do the hardest work of all, and they should be supported to do so.
I thank the member for Bonner for her motion raising the awareness of this issue, and I echo her call to promote zero tolerance for violence in this country, and I commend this motion to the Chamber.
The time allotted for this debate has expired.
I 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.
For 10 years, families, businesses, organisations and councils have planned their lives and their futures around a project called the Inland Rail. I'll quote from the Inland Rail website. It says:
Inland Rail will enhance our national freight network and supply chain capabilities, connecting existing freight routes through rail, roads and ports, and supporting Australia's growth.
The project was first proposed in 1998 as a nation-building initiative to take trucks off our roads and to build our freight capacity and to help the progress of regional towns along the route.
About 10 years ago, the project became a certainty. Farms have been bought, businesses have been formed, and industrial parks have been planned and created. Dreams have been built around the Inland Rail. Instead, the 960-kilometre stretch from Parkes to Brisbane has now been axed, and thousands of people and businesses have been left in limbo. This, the Labor government tells us, is an economic decision. But, in the scramble to find money, this Labor government is not only further limiting the sovereignty of our nation; it is devastating livelihoods, slashing employment, destroying generational businesses and sticking the knife in the backs of regional communities. This is not economics; this is metro-centric selfishness.
Nick McClure, from a Narrabri based business called Specialised Civil Services, tells me the announcement came as a massive shock to his community of Narrabri. This business went from 85 full-time employees plus subcontractors to just 40 full-time staff after the announcement. Specialised Civil Services has invested more than $25 million in a quarry business, primarily to service the Inland Rail project. This is just one town. Jobs have been lost, millions of dollars have been lost, and there has been not a word of support from this federal Albanese Labor government. Nick McClure has a message for this government. He said:
I would like the Federal Government to explain why regional communities don't get any attention. We are the backbone of this country. This is where the money comes from—not the city—we are the exporters, we do the farming and we have the resources. It is frustrating.
No warning, no consultation and no consideration—the economic landscape has gone from one of promise and prosperity to uncertainty. I've spoken to mayors, business owners, families and farmers. They are bewildered and they are angry. The Mayor of Parkes, Neil Westcott, says the announcement was like having his arm cut off. Dubbo mayor Josh Black says the decision shows the raw deal regional Australians get. Narrabri mayor Daryl Tieman said, 'It is a wasted opportunity to create a nation-building project.' These councils and many more have worked with the federal government for decades to make this project a reality. Narromine Shire Council has supported the development of a materials distribution centre and a major industrial estate in Moree. The Moree special activation precinct, a major logistics and agribusiness hub specifically for the Inland Rail project, is now in doubt.
On 2 March this year, the Inland Rail announced that every New South Wales section of the Inland Rail had been approved. Now years of funding, years of planning, years of families and businesses going through the extended process of acquisitions, are wasted. People like the Roberts family in Narromine, who had been advised that their land would be acquired, now are left without the ability to make any plans for their future. Years of new precincts, new businesses, new jobs and years of hope—all wasted.
There is not only the economic cost but there is a human cost as well. With this announcement, 200,000 trucks will stay on the road annually, transit times will not be cut, freight costs will remain high, emissions will not be reduced, and—last and apparently least in the eyes of this government—jobs, investment and economic growth will suffer in regional Australia.
But what loss is this when a Labor government can rip money out of regions and give it to Melbourne, with another $3.8 billion for the Suburban Rail Loop. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and I will speak after the member for Blair. I look forward to his comments.
This motion gives me the opportunity to set the record straight on Inland Rail and explain the reasoning behind the Albanese government's decision to cease construction on the project north of Parkes. The reality is Inland Rail became a case study in waste and mismanagement. It was bungled by the former coalition government from start to finish. One of the chief proponents of Inland Rail and widely called the father of Inland Rail, Everald Compton, said recently this was 'probably the worst managed infrastructure project in the history of Australia'. He acknowledged it was 'grossly mismanaged from the start politically and financially' and described it as a 'disgraceful exhibition of waste of money'.
Now here's a quick history lesson for the member for Parkes. In 2013, the former Labor government provisioned $1 billion for the planning for the Inland Rail, but it was never done after we lost government in 2013. Then in 2017, the coalition government announced a $9.3 billion plan funded by debt to build the Inland Rail without any planning or any idea about how it was going to get into the Port of Melbourne or into the Port of Brisbane. It was going to go to Acacia Ridge, for heaven's sakes, many kilometres from the Port of Brisbane. They had no idea about noise abatement and no idea about the impact on local communities. Under the former coalition government, by 2020, the cost estimate had risen to $16.4 billion—again, funded from debt.
Of course, when Labor came to office in 2022, the Australian Rail Track Corporation, or ARTC, told the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government that the project would need substantially more funding to finish it, but couldn't say how much. So the Albanese government commissioned respected infrastructure expert Dr Kerry Schott to review the project and, based on the ARTC's own figures, she found it was going to cost an additional $31.4 billion but couldn't be sure because ARTC started construction without having done the proper planning and cost assurance for where it would start and finish, or where it would stop on the way, or what it would actually carry.
So then we got ARTC and Inland Rail, having accepted all of Dr Schott's recommendations, to have another look at it. They said very clearly that the cost had blown out by $45 billion. We have an independent actuarial assurance again, which confirmed the ARTC estimate of a $45 billion cost blow-out. Frankly, the former coalition government has a lot to answer for—especially the member for New England when he was the Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Prime Minister. Even that former National Party leader, the member for Maranoa, has admitted this. That's why we made the sensible decision to get Inland Rail to Parkes by the end of 2027 as well as preserve the corridor north and protect sites for future intermodal terminals in Queensland. I can assure you of this: it wasn't a decision the government took lightly. We're not opposed to the concept of Inland Rail, freight rail or, indeed, regional development in general. It is just the opposite of what the coalition claims. The reality is that Inland Rail in its current form was simply unsustainable. There are more efficient and effective ways to support national freight tasks across regional Australia.
I can tell you that this is a very good outcome for my local community. Many residents in Blair and surrounding areas had serious concerns about the impact of Inland Rail. I heard 'high impact, low value' numerous times. These residents don't want a 1.8-kilometre long double-stacked freight train going every hour through their properties or near their properties on embankments without noise abatement, and that's precisely what they would have got. I met landholders along the proposed routes, including the Ivorys Rock convention and events centre, which brings millions of dollars into Ipswich at Peak Crossing, who raised concerns about the impact of noise and vibration from freight trains. The route was to go 500 metres from the centre. There were also concerns about the impact on local environment and wildlife, particularly around the Purga-Peak Crossing area, where the government has funded koala conservation projects. The school at Grandchester in rural Ipswich was impacted, and the population of all the township in the rural community of Rosewood would have been impacted.
Based on feedback from industry, we've committed a further $1.75 billion to improve productivity, resilience and the reliability of Australia's freight rail network alongside a $55 million incentive to get more freight off our roads and onto rail and sea. It's very interesting to hear National Party members being concerned about emissions, by the way, for the first time I've heard in nearly 20 years.
This means we can now get Inland Rail to Parkes and finally get a return on our investment. We've committed $2.8 billion in our network investment program, and it's really critical that we do it.
I like the member for Blair. I do. I visited his electorate when I was the infrastructure minister, and we looked at the Cunningham Highway. In fact, I funded the Cunningham Highway. If there is a project in this country deserving of infrastructure spending, it doesn't matter the stripe or the colour or whatever political persuasion the government of the day is; it should be funded, and Labor needs to get on board with the Inland Rail Project. It is such a good proposal. It is such a good project that Prime Minister Albanese actually took credit for it himself, and, indeed, it has been on the drawing board since the 1890s. It took a coalition government to fund it. It took a coalition government to start it—that was back in 2018—and it's taken a Labor government, surprise of all surprises, to stop it, because that's what this Labor government does. It has no vision. It has no concept about the importance of productivity, the importance of logistics.
Moreover, given the importance of regional Australia and this project, which started when the first lot of steel was dropped off at Peak Hill on 15 January in 2018, it ought to be completed. Yet, no, this government will stop this project at Parkes. I appreciate that the Parkes-Narromine section, the first of 13 sections, has been completed. However, it's mainly Parkes where it will stop. That's where the logistics hub is. That's where the road bypass has been built by a coalition government. That's where such an important rail hub is going to be and already is. And yet you talk about the number of businesses affected in this space. There's Austrak at Wagga Wagga, which was going to build the concrete sleepers for use right up and down the line. There are so many businesses so reliant on this project going ahead that are now so disappointed in this federal Labor government. Less than two per cent of new infrastructure pipeline projects announced in the budget are for the regions. What does Labor have against the regions? This is such a good project. Yes, indeed, National Party people, as the member for Blair quite correctly pointed out, are talking about emissions reduction. It was going to take 200,000 trucks off our roads. Our crumbling regional roads that have been neglected by this Labor government. Our roads that have been neglected in this budget of broken promises. If you look at the infrastructure spend of this government, it's all metrocentric. This project was going to be such a game-changer, having double-stacked freight between Brisbane and Melbourne for the first time—a concept dreamt up in the 19th century—and it was already underway.
The member for Blair talked about cost rises. Yes, there were. When I took it over it was more or less a desktop analysis, but do you know what? I took it to three state ministers. Two out of the three were Labor state ministers—Mark Bailey in Queensland and Jacinta Allan, now the Premier of Victoria. They readily signed up to it, as did John Barilaro, who was the New South Wales deputy premier at the time. They could see the value for their states. It's such a shame that Canberra cannot see it now, although we've got a Labor government in office and so no surprises there as Labor is against the regions, against infrastructure.
I cannot understand why the member for Ballarat, the current infrastructure minister, isn't in there, around the cabinet table, thumping it and saying, 'I want more money for regional Australia.' She's not, but she should be. This is one project that needs to go ahead. I say to people, get out and sign the 'rescue our rail' petition. We need to get on board and tell this Labor government that this project is one that needs to go ahead for the businesses, for the Indigenous workers, for the Australian people who've absolutely got behind it. We have to leave inland Australian rail to be completed. And that concept, that acronym, shouldn't be lost on those Labor members opposite because it spells L-I-A-R.
Another fine contribution by the member for Riverina, if that's what you want to call it. For more than a decade Australians were promised a nation-building freight rail project that would transform the movement of goods across our country. What they got instead was delay, confusion, ballooning costs and a project that was fundamentally mismanaged from the very beginning. The fact of the matter is the Inland Rail project was bungled by the former coalition government from start to finish. Those opposite announced routes before proper planning had even been completed. They commenced construction without certainty around where the line would terminate, where freight would move or what the final cost to taxpayers would actually be. This was infrastructure by press release, not proper nation building.
When the coalition first announced Inland Rail in 2017, Australians were told the project would cost around $9.3 billion. By 2020 that figure had grown out to $16.4 billion. By the time we came to office in 2022, estimates had blown out beyond $31 billion—and even then there was no genuine certainty around the final cost or delivery pathway. What we inherited was a project plagued by uncertainty and poor decision-making. And perhaps the most remarkable part of this debate is that even senior figures of the former government now openly admit it.
Just 2½ weeks ago, on 2WEB Outback Radio, the former leader of the Nationals said this: 'The cost blow-out was because of a poor decision, and it was when we were in government. Barnaby Joyce was too weak to take on Malcolm Turnbull because of some local politics.' Those are not our words. Those are the words of their own side. It's an extraordinary admission that politics was placed ahead of sound infrastructure planning and, in turn, the Australian people.
That is why the Albanese government has taken the sensible and responsible approach to Inland Rail. When we came to office, we commissioned Dr Kerry Schott to undertake an independent review into the project. That review confirmed the extent of the problems we had inherited and highlighted the need for a more disciplined and sustainable approach. So we made the decision to reset the project and put it, like all sensible things related to rail, back on track. We have taken the practical decision to focus on delivering Inland Rail to Parkes by the end of 2027. We are preserving the corridor north of Parkes and protecting sites for future intermodal terminals in Queensland. Most importantly, we're ensuring future decisions are based on proper planning, proper consultation and proper value for taxpayers, because governments have a duty to ensure taxpayer money is spent responsibly, particularly at a time when Australians expect discipline, value and accountability from every dollar invested.
After years of neglect under the coalition, this government is investing $2.8 billion into the productivity, resilience and reliability of Australia's freight rail network. That includes a further $1.75 billion to improve freight rail infrastructure, alongside a $55 million incentive scheme to get more freight moved by rail and sea. This builds on the Albanese government's existing $1.04 billion commitment to upgrade the Australian Rail Track Corporation network. These are real investments that will strengthen supply chains, improve reliability and move more freight off our roads and onto rail.
Importantly, many within industry and regional Australia have welcomed this reset. Pacific National CEO, Brett Grehan, described the government's announcement as an important next step to program funding. Wes Judd, chair of the Millmerran Rail Group—
Millmerran.
Thank you, member for Riverina. He welcomed the decision by saying: 'Choosing not to proceed is the correct decision. An unaffordable project should not come at the expense of taxpayers or thriving regional communities.' They are absolutely right. The infrastructure must deliver value for taxpayers, it must be economically sustainable and it must be built on rigorous planning, not political expediency. The former government failed that test. They failed regional communities and they failed Australian taxpayers.
We also recognise that there are councils and landowners with concerns about corridor preservation and future uncertainty. Those concerns need to be addressed with proper respect and engagement. Regional Australians deserve transparency and honesty from government, not empty promises and shifting goalposts. This is exactly what this government is delivering. We are taking sensible decisions to realign the future of Inland Rail and build a safer, more efficient and more reliable freight network for the future.
It's always a pleasure to follow my friend, the member for Spence. I'm going to speak on this issue, firstly, as the member for Groom. Probably the city that is most impacted by this decision of this Labor government is Toowoomba. The benefit that we could have reaped from this project was huge.
I'm also going to make a few comments, as someone who's had the pleasure of delivering three major rail projects around the world and has seen the challenges involved in delivering those, and make some reflections on this. One of the reasons I want to do that is to acknowledge the work of the member for Riverina. Do you know what? It's really easy to walk away from a challenge. It's really easy to give up on a project. I have seen rail projects delivered around the world. I think about the Edinburgh light rail. If you want to see a project that had trouble, google Edinburgh light rail. It shut down Edinburgh for 18 months. No-one liked it. It was a dog's breakfast. It was a horrible thing. It blew out; the time blew out. It is now the most used light rail in Europe and beloved by the city. It does a great job. They pushed through. They had incredible challenges, but they pushed through. I want to thank the member for Riverina for his work stewarding the project. It's a difficult thing to do. Instead of running away, instead of giving up and instead of lying to the Australian people and saying they were going to deliver it and then walking out, he did the hard work of trying to get this thing to work, and I thank him for that.
This project started with a promise. It started with a promise of something that we've been looking forward to in Toowoomba for over 100 years. I've got a book on Littleton Groom's speeches in this place. In the 1930s—1932—he started talking about inland rail. Of course, the Second World War took it off the infrastructure priority list at the time, and it fell away. But we saw the opportunity to connect the Darling Downs up with the southern states. That was the driving force. The first idea behind it was from men like Littleton Groom, who saw that opportunity and pursued it. So we've been talking about this for a long time.
In, I think, about 2017—the member for Riverina may remember this better than me—we started looking at exactly how we'd bring this into Toowoomba, how we'd get the most benefit for Toowoomba and for the entire Darling Downs and for Queensland to be able to have that southern link feeding down into the Port of Melbourne. There was so much work that went into that. We can talk about the Wagners out at Wellcamp and the preparations they took there, but I'm going to focus on the people at InterLinkSQ. This is a business who established a block of land for an intermodal hub, and it's right on the western line, where the Queensland rail line runs east to west, from Brisbane all the way to the far border. There's a little nook in there where Inland Rail was going to come in, and they got that piece of land. When we left office in May 2022, we had a contract signed to begin works from the border to Gowrie, which was up to that little point at that node. We had that contract signed. Work was ready to go.
On the basis of that, InterLinkSQ have invested $50 million of their own money, private money, developing that land. You can go there today and you can see it's been levelled out. They've moved massive drainage pipes that were through there. They've established road networks into it. It is perfectly laid out to be the intermodal hub that would have really driven a large part of Toowoomba's future economy. In that time, I have written to the minister 31 times, asking, 'Is this going to be delivered, and when?' And, every time, the answer was, 'Yes, it will be delivered.' I wrote six separate letters to the Prime Minister and to the minister. 'Is this going to be delivered?' 'Yes.' Those letters gave confidence to my community, and that $50 million was invested. That's just one company I'm talking about who made these investments on the back of promises from this government that have turned out to be absolutely worthless.
I am furious. I've been here five years. I have sat at the door and on the kitchen table of everyone who's raised concerns about this project, right along the line. I have spoken to them. I've made sure that they've been dealt with properly by ARTC in some cases where they weren't. I have raised every issue that I could with the government of the day and with ARTC to make sure that we got everything lined up as best we could. Every step of the way, up until a couple of weeks ago, this government promised, like the member for Blair said earlier, that they would fix this project, and we made those investments. Mr Albanese lied to us. He lied to our community, and he's taken a huge chunk of our future away from us.
Order! I just warn the member to exercise caution in using the term 'liar'. Could you withdraw that statement, please.
I withdraw.
I'm delighted to be here this evening contributing to this really important discussion about rail in this country. I'm honoured to be the Labor co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Rail group here at Parliament House and, I admit, a true gunzel at heart, growing up with both my parents working in the railways. I'm truly delighted to be here following some of my Labor colleagues on this side of the House who are correcting some, pretty frankly, wild things that are being said about Inland Rail from the other side of the chamber.
Inland Rail is an important investment in our freight and rail industry. It's about getting more trucks off the road and keeping our economy moving as we develop our infrastructure to meet the needs of the Australian community. And, like any major infrastructure project, proper planning and responsible economic management are crucial to its success. But, unfortunately, proper planning and responsible economic management are not words that seem to be in the coalition's vocabulary. The Inland Rail project was bungled by the previous coalition government from the very start. It was costed on the back of a napkin—uncosted, underfunded and underplanned.
Let's start at the start, shall we? When we came to government, we inherited the Inland Rail mess. The Australian Rail Track Corporation, who was building Inland Rail at the time, came to our minister for transport and infrastructure and said that this was going to need a lot more money. When the minister asked them how much, the Libs had done so little planning that they couldn't even tell her. So we decided to do something the Libs and Nats never did. We rolled up our sleeves and we decided to get the job done, drawing up real costings and real planning. We commissioned an independent, wide-ranging review of the project, led by Kerry Schott. This weighed up the costs and the scope of the project.
The outcome of this review was plain and simple. Where the Libs had left things, it was probably going to cost more than $31 billion, and that wasn't even for the full scope of the project. Further actuarial work said it would be about $45 billion. That's more than three times the cost it was originally touted for. We've also confirmed that this project could not have been delivered until at least 2036. There was no way that money was set aside or planned for by the previous coalition government. I don't think they could have fit those calculations on that napkin they were working on. Their failure to do any actual detailed planning works and their immature preliminary designs didn't solve any problems, and it certainly didn't build Inland Rail.
Thanks to the work of our Labor government, the Inland Rail works north of Parkes will continue. We're focusing on the preservation of the rail corridor and protection of sites for future intermodal terminals in Queensland, and our decision not to proceed with the entirety of the project right now is the right decision. An unaffordable project, completely botched by those opposite, should not be coming at the expense of Aussie taxpayers or thriving regional communities. What we are committed to as the Albanese Labor government is investing heavily in passenger and freight rail across the country, like continuing to invest in resilience, reliability and productivity of the ARTC's existing rail freight network.
Being from Melbourne's west, I know a thing or two about the burden freight can have on local roads and on the locals who share those roads with heavy freight trucks on their daily commutes. In my electorate of Gorton, we've got the Western Freeway—a major freight route with over 86,000 people on the road every single day. It's why we're upgrading our Western Freeway between Melton and Caroline Springs with Labor's $1 billion investment. Our Inland Rail investments will mean that, in communities similar to mine with major freight routes, more freight will move on to rail, alleviating the burden on local roads. We're also prioritising the upgrades in the places it's most needed, because Inland Rail and proper planning for major infrastructure works need to go hand in hand. The Albanese Labor government gets that. We get that. I can't say the same for the Libs and the Nats over there. We're making the difficult but sensible decision for the progression of Inland Rail, with responsible economic planning without the cost blowouts. For the communities across Australia, we'll get the job done.
It was only about 10 or so weeks ago that I ascended to the dizzying heights of shadow assistant minister for infrastructure. So I am quite certain, listening to the contributions tonight, that the former infrastructure minister here, the member for Riverina, has forgotten more about infrastructure than I currently know. But, in my glittering 10 weeks in this portfolio, the failures of this government, as it sets about ripping the guts out of infrastructure funding for regional Australia, have become abundantly clear. We have a tale of two railways in Australia right now.
This $45 billion productivity boosting, nation-building project, spanning some three states and boosting our freight capacity for the future, is somehow unaffordable, but the $200 billion pipe dream that is the Suburban Rail Loop, servicing only suburban Melbourne, is somehow worthy of $6 billion of federal money and counting. Let's just go through the numbers piece by piece, because the $6.15 billion cut from the Inland Rail project is not an isolated decision, as I said, but just one indication of this government's determination to rip the guts out of regional infrastructure spending.
Not only have we seen $4.7 billion cut from infrastructure spending overall—and, indeed, in the other place right now, Senator Mckenzie is forensically examining the department on exactly where those cuts have been made—but we've seen significant reductions in regional communications, the National Water Grid, pest and disease programs and drought and trade support, meaning that regional Australia is carrying some $11 billion in cuts. Meanwhile, there's still $18.2 billion for net zero fantasies, including more than $1 billion for the green hydrogen dream that even prominent mining billionaires who've thrown a lot of money into that have walked away from, and there's $6 billion for the Suburban Rail Loop. One wonders, when there are estimates of between $15 billion and $30 billion of public money already siphoned off into organised crime in Victoria, whether that is a prudent use of Commonwealth taxpayer money. The juxtaposition against this project, which admittedly has had some challenges—as I say, spanning three states and dreamed of for a century now in Australia—is inexplicable.
Where we've got funding continuing to flow into the other states as costs spiral out of control but only in metropolitan areas, the failure of this government to stand up for regional Australia, as it claims to do, becomes clear. Victoria's North East Link was originally $15.6 billion. It's now blown out to $26 billion and counting, a 67 per cent increase. Despite that, the Commonwealth has increased its own contribution by $5 billion. If they wanted to reach around in the bottom drawer and find money the way that this mob spend it, I'm sure this project could have been completed. But, as I say, there's no focus on productive freight infrastructure. Instead, there are billions upon billions for high-risk metropolitan projects riddled with organised crime and CFMEU linked thuggery. Where are the economic returns and the productive assessments of these projects? It seems that the independent analysis of the Suburban Rail Loop suggests that there is a net return of less than 50c in the dollar.
This is a government that promised to link infrastructure spend to productivity and to take the politics out of it. Well, I think tonight we are seeing again that we shouldn't listen to what Labor say. Look at what Labor governments do. Their budget papers further show that they are ripping the guts out of Western Australia's Commonwealth infrastructure spend in some sort of underhanded way to offset the GST deal that they claim to stand behind. Western Australia's infrastructure spend has gone from $3.45 billion just in the 2025-26 budget papers to $1.5 billion. Where has the money gone, Minister and Treasurer? Again, it seems to me that regional Australia and the powerhouse state that is WA are being made to pay for these suburban follies.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I 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.
Right now, the world feels uncertain. Conflicts overseas, disruptions to global supply chains and rising energy costs are affecting everyday Australians. Fuel security, which often was not thought about in my lifetime, is now front of mind for many people right across regional Queensland, especially up my way with the vast distances of the Far North. That's why this government, the Albanese Labor government, is taking action to secure Australia's fuel for the long term.
For the record, here's what we're doing. We're buying more fuel. We're growing our national reserves of jet fuel and diesel to 50 days so Australia is better prepared for any future shocks. We're going to refine more fuel at home. We're investing in domestic refining capacity and storage so we're not as dependent on what can happen overseas. And we're keeping more fuel here. We're requiring gas companies to reserve 20 per cent of their exports for Australia so that our energy needs come first.
We provided relief for consumers and industry, secured fuel supplies, taken national leadership. We halved the fuel excise for three months, including foregoing extra GST on fuel, so that people wouldn't feel that pinch at the bowser, to give them the confidence to get to the places they needed to go. We passed new laws to double penalty for petrol companies for price gouging, and we tasked the ACCC to ramp up fuel price monitoring and issue on-the-spot fines. We also stepped in to support industry by pausing road user charges for truckies for up to three months, deferred the next increase of the heavy vehicle road user charge and gave the Fair Work Commission new powers to demand truckies are paid fairly when fuel prices spike. No matter what is happening in the world, the Labor government is focused on helping Australians here at home.
I'm sure shortly and throughout this debate members from the other side will stand up and talk about how this isn't a win and maybe tell us how they think they could do better. Of course, it's in the name—'opposition'. But, if you really want to get the facts in this debate, let's talk about what the Liberal and National parties and their partners in One Nation did while they were in government. Instead of storing fuel here in Australia, the Liberals and Nationals charged the taxpayer to store it in Texas. Everything is bigger in Texas, but it's not particularly useful when there's an ocean between it and where you need to be!
The Liberals and Nationals also love to say how they want more fuel refined here in Australia, but how did that go for them? In Sydney, the Kurnell refinery closed in October 2014. In Brisbane, the Bulwer Island refinery closed in 2015. In Melbourne, the Altona refinery stopped refining fuel in 2020. In Perth, the Kwinana oil refinery closed in 2021. That's four of the six refineries we had left in Australia that have closed since 2014 and all under the watch of the Liberal and National parties. Two of them actually closed when the now Leader of the Opposition was the energy minister and while One Nation's leader in waiting, the member for New England, was the Deputy Prime Minister. At the time, the member for Hume said:
Closure of the refinery will not negatively impact Australian fuel supplies.
That has unfortunately not turned out to be the case. At some point you've got to stop putting politics over policy. We saw before Easter, when everybody was talking up the fuel crisis, that that mattered. Those words mattered. That impacted the tourism industry in my part of the world. People didn't come. That hurt small businesses.
Fear and division over something as important as fuel is not appropriate. So what we need to do is get the facts on the table. Let's talk about the specifics of this gas reservation policy. The government is introducing a domestic gas reservation so that LNG exporters supply a portion of their total production to the domestic market equivalent to 20 per cent of their exports. The domestic reservation scheme is expected to commence on 1 July 2027. We need to understand that gas will continue to be needed as we transition to renewable energy—keeping the lights on and ensuring the security of our energy system. The gas reservation scheme will apply to exporters. We are requiring them to reserve their production for the domestic market. It means Australian gas will work for Australians. It will deliver more supply and the lowest possible gas prices for users. It will boost sovereign capacity and strengthen our supply chains. We want a future made in Australia.
Is there a seconder for this motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
This motion commends the government's plan to secure Australia's energy sovereignty. From 1 July 2027, LNG exporters will be required to supply 20 per cent of their export volumes to domestic customers. Western Australia has had a domestic reservation for decades. It's only time that we have the same on the east coast.
The member for Leichhardt has moved that Australia's gas reservation scheme 'will put strong downward pressure on domestic gas prices'. But the fact is that this gas reservation scheme won't come into effect for over 13 months and all export contracts signed before December 2025 are grandfathered, meaning that the reservation will only target spot and uncontracted volumes, which will limit how much gas can reasonably and realistically be captured under it. It's not clear that 20 per cent of a shrinking uncontracted pool will greatly move the needle on prices. The member also commended the government on its efforts to grow our fuel reserves. These are the same fuel reserves that, even after the additional measures taken by the government this year, will continue to fall well below the IEA's 90-day mandate.
While the government looks to pat itself on the back on its energy security measures, just weeks ago it handed down a budget that once again let the gas industry off the hook. In the most recent budget, revenue from the petroleum resource rent tax is forecast to fall—not rise but fall. Since MYEFO, receipts from the PRRT have been revised up $1.6 billion over five years. But, overall, the trajectory for the PRRT is down. In 2029-30, even with inflation, Australia will collect less PRRT than we do now. At a time when global energy markets are in turmoil, when Australian families are being squeezed by rising energy bills and another RBA rate rise, the tax take from our natural resources is declining. In 2029-30, students and graduates will pay more in HECS indexation than multinational corporations will pay in PRRT on oil and gas. On a total HECS decade, by the end of this decade, it will be $60 billion. This is a national scandal.
In the middle of a global energy crisis, Australian gas companies are pocketing extraordinary windfall profits, generated not by their ingenuity or their investment but because of geopolitical instability and war elsewhere. I support measures that protect Australian households from gas price volatility. The idea of a domestic reservation scheme has genuine merit. But I speak for most Australians when I say that we remain disappointed with the government that has done nothing to claw back windfall profits currently flowing to foreign multinationals and to overseas investors. We're not satisfied with a government that refuses to fix the fundamental architecture of how we tax our oil and gas exports. We're not satisfied with a government that has let tens of billions of dollars go to multinationals for our finite resources while failing to adequately support the students, the renters, the young couples, the unhoused, the unemployed and older Australians.
The ATO itself has labelled the oil and gas sector systemic non-payers of tax. Back in 2016, Treasury warned that companies could defer their PRRT liability indefinitely. But here we are a decade later with a budget that shows the PRRT revenue declining and a government that refuses to act. We could generate tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue if we took a fair share of our natural resources. A fair share levy could generate up to $13 billion a year; a 25 per cent tax on gas, $17 billion a year. Eighty-seven per cent of Australians believe that they deserve a better return from the sale of our gas exports. Only three per cent disagree.
A government which is serious about energy sovereignty would have used this budget to reform the tax settings on our national resources. It did not do that. Australians deserve better. They deserve a parliament with the courage to actually make our collective wealth work for all Australians, not just for Santos, for Shell and for INPEX.
I rise to support this motion because, for too long, Australians have watched as gas extracted from our very own soil, our own national asset, has been sold overseas, while households and businesses here at home struggle with the rising cost of energy. This private member's bill is supportive of the 20 per cent reserve for Australian use. Now you can argue, as we heard the member for Kooyong, that we perhaps could go a bit further. I tend to agree that a 25 per cent export tax would have been a good thing. I've written to the government and to the minister and will continue to talk to my side of politics, because for too long Australia has missed out.
Australians expect one simple thing: that the resources of this country work for the economy, and that's why we're setting aside this at least 20 per cent of Australian gas for domestic use. It's not just good policy; it's common sense. It protects households, it strengthens Australian industry and it builds resilience in the face of global instability. Because when international markets shift, when conflict disrupts supply chains and when prices spike beyond reason, Australians should not be left exposed. We are a resource-rich nation and we should take advantage of it. We should never be a nation struggling to access or afford our own energy. Domestic gas reservation is about fairness, it's about security and it's about taking control of our energy future in moments like this. It's leadership like this that matters. The priority must always be clear: keep fuel flowing, keep costs down, and keep Australians moving. Fuel excise was halved for a period, easing pressure on the bowser and giving households much needed breathing room. Measures were put in place to ensure Australians were not paying inflated taxes on already rising prices, and, importantly, strong action was taken to address unfair practices. Penalties for price gouging were increased, and the ACCC was tasked to ramp up fuel price monitoring and issue on-the-spot fines.
Australians understand price pressures, but they do not accept being taken advantage of, and, for far too long in this nation, the industries have enjoyed incredible profits, pocketing incredible windfalls and profits in this area, and rightly so for their shareholders, for the investments they make et cetera. But we also have to look after Australia. We also have to look after the families who are doing it tough. This particular measure goes a long way in securing our energy needs, and, in fact, I would have gone that step further. We've heard others say in this place, from the government side and from opposition members, that, even though we commend the steps taken, it would have been great to go that step further, and a 25 per cent tax on gas exports alongside that strong 20 per cent domestic gas reservation will place real downward pressure on domestic prices and ensure that Australian gas works for Australian households and businesses.
We've heard and we've seen foreign multinationals making extraordinary profits whilst we miss out, and that's not right. Tens of billions of dollars could be raised for Australia, paying for our hospitals, our roads, our infrastructure, home care for our elderly, education and a whole range of other things. For far too long, we've missed out. This is a great step. It's the first step—securing 20 per cent for domestic use—but I would have gone that step further to ensure that some of these companies are taxed a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. When prices spike and go through the roof, they're making extraordinary profits. That money could raise billions and billions of dollars for Australia.
A strong Australia is one that uses its own resources to protect its people and ensure that no-one is left behind when the world becomes uncertain, as we're seeing now with the Strait of Hormuz being blocked and oil shipments delayed and unable to come through. This is a good measure to put aside gas in reserve for domestic use for Australia.
This is yet another self-congratulating motion moved by the government in relation to domestic fuel and gas supply and, in particular, the gas reservation scheme that they've got for the east coast, which, might I say, we've asked for time and time again on this side of the House. I'm pleased that they've finally come to the table in part.
This is in relation to leadership, because we've seen at a time—I'm speaking in relation to the fuel reserves. Labor came into government soon after COVID. The coalition had to make the tough decisions during COVID, and then COVID was nearing the end, and Labor came into office. You'd think that any reasonable government would have, in the days post COVID, done a total reassessment to identify the areas of national vulnerability. But what instead occurred is that it's taken a crisis for this government to wake up, and it's taken the situation in the Middle East for them to come to a position in relation to our fuel reserves.
Over the last four years of this government, the Prime Minister and the defence minister have, time and time again, said that Australia finds itself in the most complex and threatening strategic circumstances since the end of the Second World War, but we haven't seen the appropriate action to match those words. We haven't seen that. Everybody on this side of the Chamber understands that petrol, diesel, coal and gas all power the Australian economy, and fuel security is national security.
The coalition announced our gas reservation plan many months ago, and Labor rejected it at the time. In traditional Labor fashion, they are always last to lead in a crisis, and we have seen that being the case now. But there are still some parts of this Labor government's policy that are half-baked or that we still don't have the details on. We're not sure whether the 20 per cent obligation applies to total LNG exports, to uncontracted gas, to prospective contracts or to some combination of each. The government hasn't explained how existing contracts will be protected while still enforcing a new domestic supply obligation from exporters. The detail hasn't been clearly articulated in relation to the implementation of the east coast market strategy, and there are further questions in relation to how the scheme will increase supply, support new investment and avoid pushing smaller Australian gas companies out of the market.
Critical to all of this is the fact that Labor doesn't truly back more Australian fuel and gas for Australians. If it did, it wouldn't stop with this policy. If the Labor Party genuinely backed in Australian gas and Australian fuel for Australians, they would actually be speeding up projects, not shutting them down and shutting them out of faster approvals under their new environmental protection regime. It's one thing for the Labor Party to congratulate themselves and pat themselves on the back for appropriating the coalition's policy for the east coast reservation scheme, but it's another when they're not prepared to match that with genuine support for the Australian gas industry. Serious fuel security means securing the whole supply chain, and that's from Australian resources in the ground to fuel reserves in storage. If this government is going to put its money where its mouth is in relation to securing decent energy supplies and decent fuel supplies for this country, it needs to start getting serious about supporting Australian gas extraction and fast-tracking approvals, and it also needs to provide the details of its still unclear gas policy.
The coalition has an end-to-end plan for more fuel, more storage and more security. We've spoken about doubling minimum reserves of petrol, diesel and jet fuel. We've spoken about investing $800 million to unlock more than one billion litres of new fuel storage capability. Those are just some of the long-term generational policies that we have put forward. But I say to this government: fuel security is national security, and you need to get serious.
The member for McPherson was talking about coalition policy when it came to energy security, and I recall that, from 2013, AEMO was warning us of a coming gas shortfall. What was done? Well, a whole lot of nothing. We have known this was coming for a long time, and the steps necessary to ensure the sovereignty of our supply were not taken.
We've got three distinct issues raised in this debate. The first is liquid fuels and the very urgent issue we confront in the face of the Middle East crisis, particularly with the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Related is electrification and the importance of making sure that we can minimise our dependency on an increasingly unstable supply of liquid fuels. Then, thirdly, there's the important work being done in relation to the gas reservation scheme. I'll try to deal with each of them in turn with as much order as I possibly can.
In relation to the liquid fuels, obviously we found ourselves confronted, as the world did, with a sudden shortage of liquid fuels. Over many years we'd become dependent on liquid fuels from overseas. Australia is a country very used to having an abundance of everything we need, but there is a notable exception when it comes to liquid fuels. We have some in the ground, but, even if we were to uneconomically dig up everything we have and sieve all the oil through every bit of sand, we would not have a forever supply of oil. We've been importing it for a long time, and, regrettably, our storage and refining of it has diminished over a period of decades.
We've found ourselves in a difficult situation, but we have seen the leadership of this government get to work quickly. We've managed to secure more supply in the here and now, during this crisis, than we had beforehand. We've leveraged our reciprocal relationships with partners overseas and ensured that we've had a continuity of supply. We've made legislative amendments to ensure that we can pull every lever available to us as a country to ensure that those who need the fuel have it. That's important for farmers, industry and tradies. It's important for mums and dads and everyone who depends on vehicles or machinery in their work. So that has been incredibly important work.
And then we have to think long term. We need to learn the lessons from this: storing more, refining more and ensuring that we don't continue making the same mistakes we've made in decades past. I really don't want to be too partisan about this, because this is too important. This is about our sovereignty in terms of our energy, and we all know that energy is going to be essential for our future prosperity. We know that there are shortcomings in this country's approach over a period of decades, and we need to get to work and do things about it. That is exactly what this government is doing, and I applaud that.
In relation to electrification, while this does seem to be a bit more of a contentious political issue, minimising our dependency on energy that we do not have an abundance of is good sense. Where we can electrify things in a practical way that is economically efficient, we should do so there is diesel there for the farmers and there for industry where it's needed. If households are happy to have an electric car and it works for them, that's wonderful. So it is ensuring that we are electrifying what we can practically do so that we have an energy supply with renewables backed with gas and storage to ensure that we can facilitate that in an effective and efficient way, and we've been working in that direction for a long time. Sometimes when we say the word 'renewables', people get a little bit crazy, but it is part of a bigger plan to ensure that we have that access to sovereign energy.
Gas reservation is an important step for the country. As I said, we've been talking about predictable shortfalls of gas on our east coast, which seems absolutely crazy. Given that we're one of the world's biggest exporters of gas, how can we in Australia be talking about gas shortages? It's absolutely ludicrous. And so it's important that we finally see real action being taken to ensure that Australians, as leading exporters of gas, don't have to worry about a shortage of gas. That is just good common sense. We haven't got the final details of the policy yet, because we actually do detailed policy work, engage with relevant stakeholders, design a policy, predict shortcomings, see if we can address them in the design of the policy and then implement something that will actually work in the long term. I have no shame in saying that that is the approach we're taking, and that is an approach I would recommend in all areas of public policy.
We are thinking ahead, thinking about the lessons we've taken from this period and ensuring that we're implementing those lessons and not forgetting them. Often when we see troubles, they say, 'Keep calm because there's another disaster around the corner,' and there no doubt will be and, we won't have predicted it yet. But we do know that these are the lessons we need to learn and we need to get onto this job fast. So I'm incredibly proud of the important steps being taken by the government. I think we should all be encouraging that. I also think we have to be forward looking in what our energy mix looks like in the future to make sure that we maximise our national resilience to ensure that we don't again fall into the troubles we've had. I've had people in tears in my office worried about the future of their businesses if this Strait of Hormuz crisis continues and fuel prices continue to go up. This is life or death for a lot of businesses and sectors around the country, and we owe it to Australians to do everything we can to ensure energy security for our country going forward.
Energy is the economy. The economy is energy. We as a nation should have the cheapest energy in the world because we sit on so many of the energy requirements that other countries would be just so envious of. And yet we have this propensity in this nation to spurn anybody who wants to drill, anybody who wants to explore, anybody who wants to—dare I say—mine our resources. For too long this government has done just that.
Now, I took great heart driving around last week when I saw just near the turn off from the Hume freeway a tanker going onto a farm near the Burrinjuck Dam and turn off. I thought: 'Good. There is a diesel tanker going to a farmer who is just about to sow their crop.' Two Saturdays ago I saw a tanker going into Batlow. At the start of the Strait of Hormuz war in Iran fuel crisis—which is worldwide, and I will admit that—Batlow ran out of fuel. In that apple-growing community he orchardists had no diesel. Indeed, the whole community ground to a halt. When you have a country town that has no fuel, you have people there who then can't access vehicles to go and attend to their health needs. It does create quite a crisis. It is a matter of life and death—literally.
We have in this motion the government patting itself on the back for its energy sovereignty and for growing fuel reserves. The biggest issue some weeks ago—and it's still an issue today in regional Australia—was the supply, the distribution, the logistics of getting diesel to our country towns and also the affordability. I appreciate that the government has done something in relation to the cost. I appreciate that the government has done something in relation to the distribution. But it was nowhere near enough when the crisis was at its peak, and the crisis has not been averted.
The appointment on 19 March of Anthea Harris as the Fuel Supply Taskforce Coordinator was welcomed by some, but it took Minister Bowen's job away from him. He should have been doing that job that Ms Harris was appointed to do. Not only that but she's also doing reviews of the Water Act. If that wasn't a busy enough task then it probably wasn't her right and responsibility to be doing Minister Bowen's job as well.
But we have a situation here where Labor's also applauding itself for its gas exports domestic reservation scheme. I note Senator Pocock on Insiders yesterday, when quizzed by David Speers from the ABC as to the detail around his policy, said that's still to be worked out. It's always the same with these Independents, with all due respect to the members sitting behind me. They are never around the cabinet table when the hard work has to happen. They are never there when the grunt really must be made to get policy to legislation and then through the House. We're seeing the rise at the moment of One Nation again, another party that thinks it has all the answers. But, when it really comes to the crunch, it's hard work. It's hard work being a minister. It truly is. It's hard work being a government.
This government has failed on the energy front. It has. You don't have to drive far from here to see signs all over the Upper Lachlan Shire saying, 'No more industrial wind factories.' In the Yass Valley, people are distraught about the fact that their beautiful, serene, picturesque arable farmland, prime agricultural land, is being taken up, or potentially will be, by more wind towers. What's this government doing? It's pushing ahead with another $18 billion on its net zero fantasy, its net zero policy folly, it's net zero pipedream that is only hurting regional Australians. I say again: energy is the economy, and the government is failing on that front because it's not providing the cheap energy that our manufacturers and farmers need, want, expect and deserve.
What are we talking about when we talk about energy sovereignty? It means the capacity of a territory to meet its energy needs in an autonomous and sustainable way to guarantee its independence and to have direct control over its energy resources, production and infrastructure. It could mean guaranteeing security of the energy supply in a particular territory. It could mean encouraging the development of renewable energy to reduce imports of fossil fuels. It could mean investing in the adaptation or construction of infrastructure to strengthen energy resilience. It could mean developing meaningful and long-lasting relationships with allies and partners in our region to achieve gains of trade. Or it could mean a combination of these things.
We have seen gains of trade in action recently through the Albanese Labor government's broad approach to improving energy sovereignty in this country. This approach includes drawing on our relationships with Singapore, Brunei and Malaysia to secure new agreements for the supply of fuel and fertiliser. Our mutually beneficial relationship with Indonesia was also recently illustrated through the securing of three shipments of additional fertiliser, or 90,000 tonnes, and 250,000 additional tonnes of urea. In securing these resources, the government was able to emphasise that energy security is a dual carriageway, with our gas playing a critical role in this gain-of-trade approach.
Achieving energy sovereignty, however, should not be automatically conflated with calls to drill and calls to explore. Sure, a call to explore is worth exploring in itself, and there are many factors that determine whether exploration should proceed, including environmental factors, economic factors and how prospective the area earmarked for exploration is. But there should be no confusion: gas exploration and drilling do not automatically mean the energy sovereignty problem is solved. Claims to this effect are oversimplified, ignore the complexities and level of investment involved in exploration and also risk detracting from other things that can be done, and are being done, to improve energy sovereignty—such as the government's recent release of 20 per cent of Australia's fuel reserves; the change to petrol and diesel standards to increase the flow of fuel, especially to regional Australia; and the simplification of the process for Australia's refineries to access government support.
A basket of measures to improve energy sovereignty was also a feature of the recent federal government budget, which committed $11.9 billion to the previously existing National Fuel Security Plan, with the aim of securing Australia's near-term fuel and fertiliser security. Within this was the establishment of a fuel and fertiliser security facility, a $7.5 billion investment, which is intended to increase the domestic supply and storage of fuel and fertiliser by providing financial support, including loans, equity guarantees, insurance and price support. Secondly, $3.2 billion was committed for the establishment of an Australian fuel security reserve. As part of this initiative, approximately one billion litres of fuel will be reserved to increase long-term diesel and aviation fuel supply and storage, and the minimum stockholding obligation will increase Australia's critical fuel reserves to 50 days. The focus of this is to address potential regional lack of stock and supply constraints for essential users in anticipation of future potential supply disruptions.
Separately, the budget also committed just over $35 million to be spent over four years from 2026-27 for the establishment of a domestic gas reservation mechanism, which aims to ensure a secure and affordable domestic gas supply through the wholesale market from 1 July 2027. These funds will be spent over four years to not only develop and implement the domestic gas reservation mechanism but to conduct gas market analysis and policy development to promote market reliability and energy security, to modernise offshore resources regulation, to support gas investment and to mitigate supply shortfalls. The Labor government's Domestic Gas Reservation Scheme is a landmark Labor reform designed to deliver more supply and the lowest possible prices for gas users.
Energy sovereignty is not 'one size fits all'. As this government has demonstrated, it requires a broad approach that is more considered than simple populist calls to drill at all costs.
I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to address this motion. I'm proud to represent a region that grows, makes and manufactures things the rest of Victoria and, indeed, Australia look to. Energy is an essential component of everything that we produce in the Monash electorate and the broader Gippsland region. Twenty-three per cent of our national milk output comes from the Gippsland region, as does 26 per cent of Victoria's beef production. The clean, green horticultural produce and the manufactured goods—the meats, the proteins—that come from our region all rely on sustainable, secure energy supply. Those answers lie above and below the ground in many regions across Australia. In my region, I don't have the power stations—my colleague the member for Gippsland, by a few kilometres, has the power stations and the infrastructure—but I'm very proud to represent the people that work in those power stations: the once four and now three Latrobe Valley power stations.
When we're addressing the issue of sovereign capability and when we're addressing the associated issues of being able to keep our lights on and our businesses running, those power stations have an important role to play. In just the next two years, by 2028, the Yallourn Power Station is scheduled for closure. That power station represents about 22 per cent of Victoria's baseload electricity, and I don't know where that replacement capacity is going to come from. The Victorian Labor government don't have a clear, coherent plan for where that electricity—that cheap, abundant electricity that's set Victoria up as a manufacturing state—is going to be replaced. There are hundreds of jobs and a broader ecosystem of small and family businesses that rely on that quantum of heavy industry, as they do in many regions. And with all due respect to everybody who comes to this place with, I think, good intentions, I wish that a number of the teal representatives in this place would apply the same vigour and zeal they show standing up on behalf of technology billionaires to standing up for regional communities and regional jobs, as I do for my area.
As well as electricity, gas is an essential part of feedstock in regions like mine, and I'll give a shout out to Radfords Meats. They've been operating in West Gippsland, in Warragul, for 80 years. Robbie Radford's the managing director. The family-run business was started by his father. They need gas for their refrigerators. They need gas for their boilers. If I go across to South Gippsland, where we have a number of dairy processors, they need gas as an essential part of what they do.
Energy is a very big part of what we're talking about when we address sovereign capability, but it also flows through to essential products like fertiliser. The Latrobe Valley has the largest single deposit of brown coal in the Southern Hemisphere. Not all of that will continue to generate electricity—there are some terrific prospects for coal to fertiliser and coal to diesel—but the reckless disregard of the Victorian state government, when it comes to jobs and economic security presented by some of those projects, has been reprehensible. There was a project a few years ago now where the proponent spent six years and millions of dollars and got nowhere, thanks to Lily D'Ambrosio, the Victorian energy minister. The proponent took that project across to New Zealand and got done in six months what they couldn't get done in Victoria in six years.
When you're talking about sovereign capability, fertiliser is essential for farmers. Fuel is essential for farmers. I've had too many conversations over the last few months with farmers at financial and emotional breaking points because these issues have not been dealt with satisfactorily. That is why I will stand up on behalf of local farming families. That is why I will stand up on behalf of manufacturing businesses in my electorate. And that is why I will stand up and pay my respect to the power station workers in the Latrobe Valley who have kept our lights on and kept our businesses running and far too often fail to get the respect, recognition and regard that their efforts deserve.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:28