I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026 is an important step in strengthening the integrity, transparency and sustainability of Medicare primary healthcare funding.

Medicare is the very best of Australia. It allows Australians to receive high-quality health care, regardless of their bank balance.

The Albanese government is strengthening Medicare, the heart of universal health care, to make it easier for Australians to see a GP for free.

Primary-care incentive programs are a central part of how the government is strengthening Medicare. They support better access, affordability and quality in Australia's primary-care system.

These programs are an integral part of Medicare and provide targeted support to healthcare providers to improve patient outcomes, to expand access to care, particularly in rural and regional communities, and to encourage innovation in service delivery.

These programs include those introduced by this government. That includes the Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program, which supports practices to provide bulk-billed Medicare services to their patients, and the general practice aged-care incentive, or GPACI, which supports the delivery of high-quality primary care to older Australians in residential aged-care settings.

These programs are working, with bulk-billing rates increasing in every state and territory since the Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program was introduced last November. Thanks to this program, now approximately 97 per cent of the population are within a 20-minute drive of a bulk-billing practice.

They also include longstanding programs such as the Practice Incentives Program, which supports quality improvement and better health outcomes through targeted payments to general practices, and the Workforce Incentive Program, which supports a stronger multidisciplinary primary-care workforce, particularly in rural and regional areas.

Together, all of these incentive programs represent over $1.4 billion of this government's annual investment in Australia's healthcare system.

However, these incentive payment programs currently operate without a clear and consistent legislative framework tailored to their administration, compliance and oversight.

This bill addresses that gap.

It establishes, for the first time, a clear and enduring legislative framework for Commonwealth health incentive payment programs.

The bill inserts a new part into the Health Insurance Act 1973 to provide a consistent statutory basis for the establishment and administration of these programs, while retaining flexibility for operational program detail to be set through rules.

This approach ensures that the framework is robust, while remaining adaptable to evolving health system needs.

The reforms in this bill will deliver several key improvements.

First, they provide greater certainty for healthcare providers and for government by placing these programs on a stable legislative footing.

Second, they establish clear and consistent processes for program participation, administration and decision-making, including strengthened approval pathways and procedural fairness safeguards.

Third, they enhance the integrity of government expenditure by ensuring that existing compliance, information use and debt recovery provisions apply appropriately to incentive payment programs.

Together, these changes support proper administration, protect public money, and maintain confidence in incentive payment programs under Medicare.

Importantly, the bill does not alter the underlying policy settings of existing incentive programs. There are no proposed changes to substantive eligibility criteria or payment amounts for providers.

Providers currently receiving payments will transition seamlessly into the new legislative framework without the need to reapply. This ensures continuity for providers and avoids unnecessary administrative burden.

Importantly, it provides stability, so patients can continue to benefit from the outcomes of these programs and strengthened access to primary care.

The bill also modernises the legislative architecture underpinning these programs.

It enables the use of automated administrative processes, supported, of course, by appropriate safeguards, transparency and oversight mechanisms. These provisions are designed to support efficient, high-volume administration while maintaining accountability and review rights.

Australians rightly expect care when technology is used in decision-making. That's why a cautious and deliberate approach is taken for the automation of administrative processes.

The bill establishes structured review mechanisms, including internal reconsideration processes and access to independent merits review by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This ensures that providers have clear avenues to challenge decisions that affect them.

The bill also strengthens information-sharing arrangements to support administration and program integrity, while maintaining appropriate protections for personal information.

A further important element of the bill is the amendment to the short title of the Health Insurance Act 1973 to the Medicare Act.

This change better reflects the scope and purpose of the legislation and improves public recognition and understanding of the act. The renaming will occur following a transition period to allow for consequential amendments across Commonwealth, state and territory frameworks.

This bill is a foundational reform that supports the government's broader delivery of its Strengthening Medicare reforms that will improve access to high-quality primary care.

By providing a stronger statutory basis for administering, monitoring and protecting the integrity of Medicare incentive payment programs, the bill helps ensure that government investment in primary care is delivered effectively and sustainably.

This government is committed to strengthening Medicare. Measures introduced in successive budgets since 2022 have stopped the freefall in bulk-billing rates. Instead, we are now seeing them rise in every state and every territory. This bill supports improved health outcomes, better access to care, and a stronger primary care system for all Australians.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026, or the bill, amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate the measures in two customs tariff proposals moved in the House of Representatives in May this year and another proposal that was moved in August 2025. The bill also makes certain minor technical amendments to the Customs Tariff Act.

The first set of amendments repeals the general rates of duty for almost 500 tariff classifications and replaces these rates with 'free'. These tariff classifications were selected because the majority of importers utilise relevant tariff concessions or free trade agreement preferential rates, which in practice reduce the five per cent duty rate to a 'free' rate of duty.

Eliminating customs duty for these classifications will reduce business compliance costs and make it easier to import a range of goods, including foodstuffs, homewares, items of clothing and personal hygiene goods. Cumulatively, these amendments, together with similar amendments made in 2024, have reduced the customs duty rates for almost 1,000 tariff classifications.

The Albanese government has reduced to 'free' the general rates of customs duty for more tariff classifications than any other government in the last two decades. Reducing the duty rates for these additional tariff classifications helps to cut red tape and reduces compliance costs for Australian businesses. In fact, across the two measures, the customs duty rates for almost 1,000 tariff headings and subheadings permanently set to 'free' will streamline around $23 billion worth of trade and save business $157 million annually in compliance costs.

Amendments will also be made to the corresponding free trade agreement preferential rates to ensure they are not higher than the general rate of duty. This ensures that importers utilising free trade agreements are not disadvantaged by the unilateral reduction of the general rate.

These amendments are consistent with the alterations made by Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2026, which I moved in the House of Representatives on 14 May 2026.

While other countries are putting up trade barriers, we are tearing trade barriers down. We're reducing them. This government is reducing more customs duty rates to 'free' because we recognise that it delivers benefits to Australian businesses and to the Australian consumer.

The second set of amendments extends the temporary additional customs duty on goods that are the produce or manufacture of Russia and Belarus for a further 24 months. The temporary 35 per cent duty applies in addition to the general rate of customs duty that would ordinarily apply.

In applying this measure, Australia has joined with like-minded countries in response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, supported by Belarus. As Russia continues to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and undermine the rules based international order, this measure is necessary for Australia's essential security interests. Australia is committed to upholding these principles, which are necessary for Australia's international, regional and domestic stability and security.

These amendments are also consistent with the alterations made by Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2025, moved in the House of Representatives on 28 August 2025.

The third set of amendments extend the temporary 'free' rate of customs duty applied to goods that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine for a further 24 months. The 'free' rate of duty applies to all Ukrainian goods, except for petroleum, fuel, tobacco and alcohol products.

The extension of the concessional treatment supports Ukraine's continued participation in international trade. The tariff concession is just one part of Australia's big package of defence, economic and humanitarian support and a sign of our ongoing and steadfast support for Ukraine and its people.

These amendments are consistent with the alterations made by Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2026, moved in the House of Representatives on 14 May 2026.

Finally, the bill also makes certain unglamorous but important technical amendments to schedule 6A of the act, which provide for preferential rates of customs duty for goods that are originating under the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The amendments remove spent phasing rates and as such do not alter the operation of the Customs Tariff Act.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I'm actually glad I've had a bit of a chance to reflect on my contribution last night, which was critical of the coalition. I had sat through the member for Parkes's contribution and was surprised to hear that the coalition's position seems to be hardening against this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. If debate is worth anything in this place, I make a direct appeal to those opposite to support this bill because it is so important that we get this right. I know that there is a lot of goodwill across both sides of the House to make this work. So, in a way, I regret my contribution because we shouldn't be politicising this issue. This is an issue which is of deep importance and deep concern in our communities.

I really implore the coalition to look inside themselves and see the importance of supporting this bill. If this bill doesn't get through, if we don't make the changes that need to be made to the NDIS, we know that the support in the community for it is going to collapse and then therefore the entire scheme will collapse. That's quite apart from the fact that the NDIS is, as it is, completely unworkable for the public, for the providers and also for the participants who rely on it. We all know that. As good local members, we all have a million stories.

I have, I think, an even deeper appreciation than a lot of people because of my son, who is an adult autistic human being. He's just recently been diagnosed as level 2 autistic, which means that he is now automatically eligible for inclusion on the NDIS. But I'll say what I've been saying for years, which is that the NDIS is not made for my son. The only reason he has even gone through the process, the very expensive and really quite awful process, of being diagnosed is that there are no supports that exist outside the NDIS anymore. That is what is underlying all of the changes to the NDIS. Nobody listening to my contribution should think that it is just about throwing people off the NDIS into nothing. That is absolutely not something that I would support. As part of this, I am going to be continuing to fight to see those supports established outside the NDIS for people that the scheme wasn't designed for.

These are figures which I saw some years ago, probably about 2022 or 2023, but, in Forde, we've got about 8,000 people on the NDIS, and there are other electorates in Queensland where there are about half that number. If there are 8,000 people actually on the NDIS, that means there are probably another 8,000 people who really need services that would otherwise be provided if the NDIS weren't there. The idea that the NDIS should be the only lifeboat in the ocean is the reason why it has crashed, effectively; everyone has tried to scramble on board because it is the only thing available.

On Friday, I got an email, and then I called Rebecca. She's the mum of a two-year-old, Phoenix, with spina bifida. By the way, if you ever met Phoenix, you would see what a perfect little child he is. He is just the happiest, most charismatic little kid that I've ever met. Despite the fact that he was born with spina bifida, they thought he would live a perfectly full and active life. But he had complications when he was a baby, and it got to the point where the illness in his brain was so severe that the doctors basically decided they couldn't operate. In fact, the advice to the mother was, effectively, to just let him die.

No mother is going to put up with that news, and so she fought. In Queensland you're able to invoke something called Ryan's Rule, where you get a second opinion, and she did that. She got a second opinion and she found a doctor who would operate. It saved his life, but unfortunately it left little Phoenix unable to walk, unable to talk and unable to even roll over. But you wouldn't know any of this if you met Phoenix. I got to meet him on Saturday. For just the smile on his face, it was such a privilege for me to have met him.

But, at the moment, Rebecca can't get an electric wheelchair through the NDIS. She has been fighting for months to get this wheelchair. She's got a second-hand wheelchair, and, when Phoenix sits in it, his arms are literally scraping against the wheels, and he's got blisters on the inside of his elbows. He's got blisters on his little arms because the only wheelchair she can find for him to get about in is totally inappropriate for him. If the scheme was designed for anybody, it was designed for Phoenix. Rebecca having to fight through this system to get what Phoenix needs is exhibit A for why we need fundamental change in the NDIS.

But, of course, it's not just little Phoenix. We've all got a million stories, and there are a couple more that I'd like to talk about. One is about a mum called Alex and her young child, Hunter, who I think is four years old. When she first met me, before Christmas last year, she was desperate to get funding so that she could put him into a specialist childcare centre that would take a special-needs kid. When she sat there meeting me, he was climbing over her, biting her and hitting her. It was difficult enough for her to have the meeting with me, but I can't imagine what it must be like for her as a single mum trying to do all this on her own—trying to fight the NDIS at the same time as trying to get the supports she needs.

Her concern before Christmas was that if she didn't get the funding to be able to put him in this specialist childcare centre then she wouldn't be able to work. She'd have to leave her job. Because she would have to leave her job, she wouldn't be able to pay her rent. She was concerned that she was going to be sleeping in the car with her severely disabled child—and you know what? That's exactly what happened over Christmas. She didn't get the funding, she lost her job and she spent time sleeping in her car with her severely disabled child. The question is whether the NDIS should be funding that or if there is a failure in the wider system that means that she is trying to jump onto the NDIS because it's the only thing available.

The dysfunction of the NDIS—I think I'll finish with this story. I remember this from a couple of years ago. There was somebody who had come to us for help. She was trying to get an assistance dog for her child. The agency approved $5,000 in specialist reports. They approved another $2,000 on top of that for support coordination to get those reports together to see whether or not the child would benefit from having a dog. The report said, yes, the child would benefit from having a dog. She gave those reports to the NDIA, and what do you reckon happened? The NDIA refused the dog. So there she was—stuck in a system, going through the reviews, going through the ART.

I remember when it was, because it was during COVID. After a year of fighting for this dog, she was about to go into the hearing. The night before the hearing—this is why I remember when it was—she'd had a COVID test in order to show that she was able to go to the hearing the next day. The NDIA caved and gave her the dog. So many times, we see that the reports and the diagnosis that people get and then provide to the NDIS bear absolutely no relationship to the plan that they get at the end of it. I have heard from serious sources within the NDIA as well that that is true. There is no correlation between somebody's diagnosis and somebody's reports and the plan that they end up getting at the end of it.

There is a lot of work to do, and there is a lot of concern in the community at the moment that this is about throwing people off the NDIS into nothing. As far as I'm concerned, nothing could be further from the truth. This is about stabilising the NDIS for people who it is meant to be for, but it is also about expanding the supports that exist outside the NDIS. Thriving Kids, for example, which the government has made a significant commitment to—and I do also hope that the Queensland government gets its act together and puts something in place—is going to tackle the problem that exists in the electorate I represent. Take the suburb of Eagleby. One in seven kids between the ages of nine and 14 is on the NDIS. One in seven kids is totally unsustainable. It's absolutely unworkable if it's going to be maintained at those sorts of numbers.

I call on the opposition. I really believe that you are going to end up supporting this. I know that, quite rightly, you want to make sure that this legislation is properly examined—absolutely. But outright opposition to this legislation will, I think, mean the collapse of the NDIS. The public have had enough. We all know that the status quo is just not on. Let's make this work for the people that it was intended for. Let's make the whole system work for the people who won't be on the NDIS. To that, I commend the bill to this House.

For hundreds of thousands of Australians, the NDIS has been transformative. It has not just provided services. It has also provided dignity, autonomy and participation in this country. I do support a sustainable NDIS, and the scheme has grown excessively. It will cost more than $56 billion next financial year, while covering only 760,000 Australians. It's clear that its unchecked growth has already begun to undermine the social licence of the scheme and that reform is necessary. The question before the House is whether this reform is necessary, and it's my position that it is not. It is not fair and it is not reasonable. The people who will bear the cost of this unfair reform are not the government; they're the vulnerable Australians who rely on this scheme to live.

It's my view that the cost trajectory of the NDIS has been driven, overall, by the structural design flaws that were visible from the outset and which have been ignored by successive governments. They are design flaws that are real and that were foreseeable. The scheme has always been uncapped. It's been left to a quasi-market in which the consumer has no incentive to economise. Without transparent information and sufficient competition, the self-correcting forces of market theory have never materialised. The budget-setting processes have compounded this. Plans have inflated year on year through a system that is subjective, that is inconsistent and that is poorly connected to individual need. The government is now resorting to the most blunt cost-containment instrument available. It is constraining eligibility and participant budgets to force the economies that the market failed to generate and that governments have failed to legislate.

This scheme should never have absorbed early childhood intervention. It was never designed to deliver that well. About 170,000 children received early intervention supports from the NDIS in 2025. Those supports are often delivered poorly, at costs that are higher than they need to be and in a way that has driven an avalanche of diagnoses without improving outcomes for children. The number of adults on the NDIS is only marginally higher than was expected when the scheme was planned. The number of children is more than double, and this is the central driver of the scheme's growth.

The solution is clear: the NDIS should be reserved, as was always intended, for children with permanent and significant disability. We should carve early childhood interventions out of the NDIS. We should deliver them as properly funded, separately commissioned programs. The government's Thriving Kids program will move in that direction, but it doesn't cover school aged children aged nine and above and not all states have even come on board with it. A safety net, which some states will decline to deliver, is a gap through which vulnerable children and families will fall.

The centrepiece of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is a shift from diagnosis based eligibility to functional capacity assessment. The scheme was always meant to be limited to those with substantially reduced functional capacity, but, over time, eligibility shifted to a diagnosis gateway because defining permanence and capacity is hard in the absence of a specific diagnosis. A move to mandatory independent assessments of a person's functional capacity was trialled and failed horribly in 2021. The government is now proposing to revisit that horrible failure. It's asking parliament to legislate a fundamental change to eligibility in one of our most important social schemes and to authorise the removal of 160,000 people from the scheme before it has decided what the threshold for functional capacity will be, how it will be measured and who will be affected, on the basis of undetermined criteria and a non-existent assessment tool. It is an extraordinary thing to ask of this House, and it violates the recommendations of the independent review in 2023.

Among the most concerning provisions in this bill is the new definition of permanent disability, for eligibility purposes. Under this bill, an impairment will only be considered permanent if 'all appropriate treatment' options have been exhausted, no further treatment is likely to 'materially improve, reverse or alleviate' the impairment and the impairment is likely to be lifelong. So applicants have to have tried all treatments commonly available, regardless of whether or not they can afford them or whether they're accessible where they live. A person in rural or regional Australia might be unable to access the specialist treatment that is, theoretically, available in a capital city. A person with limited income might be unable to afford treatments that aren't funded by Medicare. Treatments available elsewhere in the world may not yet be affordable in Australia. There is a profound and unresolved circularity here. The bill proposes to deny access to support until treatment has been exhausted without acknowledging that the capacity to access treatment may itself depend on having NDIS support.

The permanence threshold also uses the word 'alleviate', which sets a very low bar. Even a modest improvement in function—a small gain in mobility or a slight reduction in pain—could be used to argue that an impairment is not permanent, which could render an individual ineligible for supports. Many conditions, including many forms of psychosocial disability, are permanent but fluctuating or episodic. Demanding permanence as a condition of support sets a threshold which might, at times, be difficult to meet.

The bill also limits support to those whose impairments independently meet the eligibility threshold. The combined or overlapping impact of concurrent conditions, or comorbidities, on daily functioning will no longer be considered. That's not how disability works. It's not how human beings work. It is, however, how a cost containment approach to disability works.

The bill grants the minister a significant new power to set percentage reductions in funding for entire categories of support, across all participants in those categories, without appropriate parliamentary oversight. The law requires that participant safety be considered, but it's hard to see how broad cuts across entire support categories could be implemented without serious risk to individuals. The original NDIS guaranteed funding for supports which are assessed as reasonable and necessary for that person, but this bill replaces individual rights with ministerial discretion across entire support categories. It is a profound shift in the philosophy of the scheme.

The bill also significantly tightens the conditions under which participants can request unscheduled plan assessments—reviews outside the normal cycle. Currently, one in five NDIS plans undergoes an unscheduled reassessment every year. The government has argued that this has driven plan inflation, noting that plans grow by an average of 20 per cent following those reassessments—which suggests that the plans were inadequate in the first instance. Restricting access to reassessment where a person's needs have actually changed, genuinely changed—where they've had a medical deterioration or a breakdown in their current supports—won't reduce their need. It will just reduce the opportunity to have that need recognised and supported. The consequences of that will, again, be borne by the participants.

While the eligibility assessment tool that the government is planning to develop does not yet exist, the support needs assessment tool, the I-CAN, is scheduled to roll out from April 2027. It's planned that the I-CAN will generate plan budgets automatically. Appeal rights are curtailed. The Administrative Review Tribunal will no longer be able to directly alter plan funds. It's worth noting that, currently, 73 per cent of the sorts of appeals that we see at the ART are successful. Assessment using the I-CAN involves a one- to three-hour structured interview, which will be conducted by public servants for whom an allied health background is not mandatory. Independent medical evidence no longer has to be considered. The model assumes that participants can reliably describe their own needs in a formal, structured setting—that they won't be masking, that they won't be exhausted, that they won't be overwhelmed. That assumption will fail for many people with a disability, especially those with autism and complex psychosocial needs. We have a cautionary precedent in the aged-care sector. In that system, we've already seen algorithms that override experienced clinicians, fail to capture genuine need and leave people without access to essential care. If algorithms are going to determine who receives support and who goes without, their apparatus must be completely open to public scrutiny. The government has not made credible commitments to that sort of transparency.

The minister has leaned heavily on narratives about rorting and fraud, in building a political case for these reforms, but that framing is incomplete. The Australian National Audit Office has confirmed that the quality and safeguards commission is only 'partly effective in exercising its regulatory functions' and that it does not have full visibility of the market that it purports to regulate. And it's been claimed in Crikey that the auditing system itself is corrupted by structural conflicts of interest. Fraud in Medicare amounts to $3 billion every year, which is as much as three per cent of Commonwealth health expenditure. But it is the NDIS which is being demonised as a national embarrassment, the blame for which falls disproportionately on participants, not the providers who are actually profiting from system failure. The government has chosen to tighten the screws on people with a disability while leaving the pathways to system abuse almost entirely intact.

One of the most immediately harmful elements of this package is the scaling back of social and community participation budgets, with allocations to be cut by 50 per cent and capacity building daily activity budgets to be cut by 10 per cent from October of this year. Let's remember that we're talking about the supports that help people with disability leave their homes to work, to manage their relationships, to participate in community life and to avoid social isolation. The $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund announced as a substitute is welcome in principle, but it is not equivalent, it is not adequate and it does not yet exist. We are removing supports before the likely inadequate replacement infrastructure is in place.

The government proposes to expand mandatory registration to cover providers delivering personal care, daily living supports and support in closed settings, and I don't oppose that in principle. But the government has not included the self-directed registration category explicitly recommended by the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce. This was a recommendation designed to protect the choice and control of participants who rely on flexible, individualised arrangements with unregistered providers. It's yet another decision that is at odds with the founding principles of the NDIS.

We could take an alternative pathway with the NDIS, a path that would moderate growth to five to six per cent while improving outcomes for participants, but that would require the government to confront the structural drivers of cost blowouts rather than resorting to swingeing and ill-directed cuts. It would mean generally carving out early childhood intervention services. It would mean properly funding Thriving Kids for all school-age kids. It would mean establishing functional foundational supports that would enable skills development, self-advocacy, employment training, social and community participation, and carer programs.

It would mean reforming the planning system not by layering more rules onto a failing framework but by replacing subjective decision-making with consistent, needs based budgets paired with genuine flexibility in how they're going to be used. It would mean addressing the fact that nearly a third of NDIS funding goes to just five per cent of participants but many of their group home arrangements are expensive, are poorly overseen and deliver poor outcomes for those individuals. Individualised living arrangements can deliver much better quality of life at lower cost.

We would also need to fix the auditing and compliance system that currently profits from the scheme rather than safeguarding it, which is not the primary aim of the changes made in this legislation. The government's margin for error in implementing these reforms is vanishingly small—cutting supports before alternatives exist, changing eligibility before the assessment tool is even designed, granting the minister sweeping powers over support categories without adequate safeguards, restricting plan reviews within a week of royal assent. This is not reform done well. This is reform done fast and badly.

People with disability in Kooyong and across this country deserve a scheme that is sustainable but gives them dignity. They deserve to have their voices heard in this place in the fundamental design of the system on which their lives depend. The scheme's founding slogan was 'nothing about us without us'. It was a principle that many disabled Australians fought for. This bill does not honour that principle. In recognition of the negligible consultation timeframe that the government has afforded participants for this legislation, a timeframe that is inherently inaccessible for disabled people, I move:

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

"is being examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, with a submission closing date of   .29 May 2026, giving just two weeks for contributions;

(b) action 25.2 of the NDIS Independent Review called on the Department to undertake 'deep public consultation on proposed legislative reforms' including with people with disability, families, carers, Disability Representative Organisations, providers and workers;

(c) the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found that 'people with disability are not sufficiently involved in government decision-making processes and developing laws and policies that may impact their human rights';

(d) Article 4(3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities require the Government to 'closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, through their representative organisations' when developing legislation that affects them;

(e) guidance from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet states that consultation on legislation 'should not generally be less than a month', and that where substantial feedback is expected, consultation should be even longer; and

(f) short timeframes are inherently inaccessible and people with disability may require additional time to participate meaningfully in consultation processes; and

(2) calls on the Government to extend the submission deadline for the Senate inquiry so that participants, families, carers, and disability representative organisations have at least four weeks to respond".

( ):  Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. I love the NDIS, I love that Labor created it, and we are not about to let it crumble. The NDIS is dignity, opportunity and independence for people with significant disability. It has been life-changing for participants and families, and that is not going to change. It is the gateway to fulfilled, happy, productive lives. But it must deliver. It must be safe. It must be equitable. It must be sustainable. The public must have confidence in the scheme, and people with a significant disability must be at the centre of the scheme.

I know many participants and families are feeling anxious and distressed by the idea of change, by the changes in this bill. Years and years of constant talk of change and cuts would be incredibly distressing for the disability community. But we've all known for some time that the NDIS is not working as it should. Thank you to the member for Forde for the examples he described in his speech. It's not running as it originally intended, and, as a community, we must be really honest about that. Having unregistered providers is not safe for participants and has led to fraud and rorts. Every time I see a story about a provider or an individual scamming the system, it makes me physically sick. The NDIS has become a rorter's paradise and a postcode lottery where many people with significant disability are missing out due to market failure. I know this, providers know this, and the general public knows this. We are livid that the scheme we love, over nine years under those opposite, was allowed to disintegrate, riddled by fraud, inequity and a complete lack of safeguards for participants. I know the majority of providers are good and the needs of people with disability are at the very heart of everything that they do. I know that they want the rorters out too.

As soon as we came to government in 2022, we ordered a review, and what I heard was worse than I ever anticipated. There were no basic fraud or compliance controls in the nine long years that the NDIS had been operating. And that's not my assessment; that comes from the National Audit Office—zero. The fact that the states and territories were given the green light to step away, to stop being the provider of last resort, to stop delivering support when no other provider was willing to set up in a country town, to stop providing support to those who need support but don't qualify for the NDIS—that left a deep hole in our mainstream systems of support. During our Thriving Kids inquiry, we heard a lot of evidence of families having to either travel or go without support because there was none available in their town. I spoke with the mum of a participant a few years ago who was absolutely thrilled that her adult son was able to move into purpose built independent living designed for his needs. For the first time as a man in his 30s, he'd lived away from his parents. But, when he moved in, he was unable to get the nursing support, despite having the funding for it. He lived a two-hour drive from Brisbane in a large regional town where there were many participants but zero providers of 24-hour nursing care. He tried desperately to get the state back involved in his care. The alternative was to go back to his parents or a nursing home. Sadly, we know that this case is not isolated. We need to change this because the impact on people with a disability in rural and remote communities is horrendous.

A diagnosis based system has also meant that many kids are missing out on early intervention supports. There are years-long waiting lists for both adults and children for diagnosis, and many can't afford to get a diagnosis, which can often cost thousands of dollars. We are losing big providers, like Centacare in Queensland, that primarily provide support for people with very complex and significant disabilities, because the current funding model for providers does not account for the level of compliance training and staff management that these organisations must undertake. Some of the very people this scheme was designed for are very gradually being left without care, either because there is no provider of last resort in remote communities or because the big not-for-profits are shutting down because they simply can't afford to exist.

Since coming to government four years ago, we've done extensive reviews. We've taken steps to curb fraud and rorts and have halved the growth rate of the scheme. However, it's clear that, in order to be able to deliver for people with permanent and significant disability, we need deep structural change. We need support outside the NDIS. The states must step back in, and I'm really, really worried about that. I can see that they are reluctant. I can see the 'it's too hard' vibes from some state premiers. It can't be too hard, because this is simply too important. We need our state leaders to step up. Changing the NDIS is going to be really hard for participants, for our community and for providers, but we must all take a very deep breath and get it done, not for participants like me, now, but for our disability community into the future.

This bill is part of our plan to secure the NDIS and return the scheme to its original intent, providing lifetime support for Australians with permanent and significant disability, and, as the member for Kooyong acknowledged, it addresses well-recognised design flaws. The changes in this bill respond directly to the disability royal commission and the Independent Review of the NDIS. It also takes up the advice of the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce and the findings of the Audit Office's work on fraud and control in the scheme. This reform is built on the evidence, the feedback from disability peak bodies and the stories of those who have graciously given evidence to many inquiries.

The bill is made up of five schedules which collectively address issues on how people access the scheme, how their plans are managed and how we can properly regulate, monitor and investigate how money is spent. The bill also increases the decision-making powers of the minister and makes way for transitional arrangements. Key changes in the bill include a definition in the act of 'substantially reduced functional capacity' and how that will be assessed in a consistent, evidence-based way. This means access to the scheme will be based on a transparent assessment of a person's functional capacity rather than on a specific diagnosis.

Getting this part of the bill right matters, and it matters a lot to the disability community. That is why I am pleased that a technical advisory group will be established to advise on the right threshold and the right assessments, informed by consultation with the disability community and with the states and territories. The bill also clarifies what it means for a support to be 'reasonable and necessary' and what 'permanent' means for people applying to access the scheme.

We will also reduce the number of unscheduled plan reassessments. Some of those requests are being made by intermediaries—middle men and women—sometimes without the participant even knowing. Under this bill, only a participant, or their nominee or guardian, will be able to request an unscheduled reassessment, and only when there has been a genuine, significant and ongoing change in their circumstances. It introduces a legislated end date for every plan so that plans are properly renewed rather than rolled over indefinitely. Unspent funds will no longer be carried forward in a way that inflates plans over time.

This bill finally gives the NDIA the powers it needs to properly regulate, monitor and investigate the payment of more than $50 billion every year. It clarifies the definition of 'NDIS provider', which has been so broad that mainstream retailers are now defined as NDIS providers, and it introduces a range of new civil penalties so that there are real consequences for fraud and noncompliance that has gone unchecked for far too long. Right now, only one in 16 providers is registered. I completely understand that for some of the smaller providers the system that has been set up to date is not built for them. This bill builds the framework to change that.

This bill also reforms the plan management market, enabling the government to commission a panel of plan managers that are held to real standards on governance, integrity and conflicts of interest, and to commission a new, higher-quality support coordination and connection service. The bill gives the minister the power to be the decision-maker on pricing, acting on the advice of the NDIA's annual pricing review, and it gives the agency the ability to recover money from a provider when a participant has been overcharged.

If we want the NDIS to be the system it was intended to be—to truly provide security and dignity for people with disability—the NDIS needs the structural change proposed in this bill. I know these changes are going to be hard, I know these changes are fuelling anxiety and I know constantly advocating for your needs is so exhausting. For many this reform is a hard pill to swallow. But for others it is hope that help is on the way to their local town, to their community. We can no longer have a two-tier NDIS where, if you live in the cities and you have a package and you can access services and you have the health literacy to make applications for those services, you have a completely different experience than if you don't have health literacy or if you live in a regional or rural town and there are very limited providers where the market has failed. We can no longer have a system where some people with disability and significant disability are in and some people with significant disability are out.

We are committed to ensuring the NDIS delivers essential supports to Australians with significant and permanent disability not just today but for generations to come. Our responsibility is to build a NDIS that is fair, consistent and empowering—one that places people with significant disability at its heart. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise today to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. I begin my contribution with something deeply personal that reflects what is at stake when it comes to these NDIS reforms. In my hometown of Geraldton, my friend Clara has a beautiful son, Sam, who is 27 years old. Sam comes into my office every week and helps with shredding documents and stacking the photocopiers. But what he really brings to the office goes far beyond that. The best thing Sam does in my office is share his smile—lots of fist bumps and lots of hugs. If you are lucky enough to receive one of those hugs, you'll know how genuinely special you are to Sam.

Sam is nonverbal and will never live independently. Clara and other carers provide a level of care for Sam that is continuous and unending. Yet, even with that incredible love and commitment, the announcement of changes in this bill has left Clara with a profound sense of fear and anxiety. She said:

I absolutely hate the fear that the never ending threats from/to the NDIS cause families.

The lack of clarity and certainty is chronically stressful. It's crucial to understand that Clara is already a burnt-out mum. She's spent years navigating a life filled with appointments, red tape, fighting for services and daily advocacy to make sure that Sam has access and opportunities.

This story of Sam and his family is not unique. In fact, we've heard many similar stories throughout the contributions to this legislation. In Durack, our electorate, there are more than 4,500 NDIS participants. Each of them has a story, a family and carers who are likely stretched to their absolute limits. These reforms are not abstract policy adjustments; they are decisions that will shape the daily reality of thousands of Australians, let's face it, many of whom are doing it really tough, particularly in regional and remote communities.

The coalition remains firmly committed to the NDIS. It is one of the most important social reforms in our nation's history. For many Australians, the NDIS has transformed lives by providing independence and support. But, for it to continue to achieve these outcomes, it must be sustainable, properly governed and delivered with clarity and certainty for participants and their families. We acknowledge that the scheme has grown significantly from an original estimate of 410,000 participants to more than 760,000 participants today. Costs have risen accordingly, from an estimated $13.6 billion to around $50 billion this year, and are projected to reach $70 billion by the end of the decade. That trajectory is clearly not sustainable, and it is entirely responsible for any government to address this. But addressing changes to NDIS does require proper consultation. Inexplicably, the Labor government has failed to consult. What is deeply concerning families like Sam's is not whether reform is needed but how it is being done and the fear and uncertainty it is creating. That is what happens when you fail to consult.

This bill introduces a fundamental shift in eligibility, moving from diagnosis based access to a functional capacity model. While the intent is to improve consistency and evidence based decision-making, the government has not yet provided the operational details. The thresholds, tools and assessment processes have not yet been released. That vacuum of detail is already creating widespread anxiety. Families are asking, quite understandably, whether they, their children or their loved ones will continue to qualify for support. At this stage, the government cannot provide a clear answer.

We are also facing a major administrative challenge. Existing participants will be progressively reassessed between 2028 and 2030. With over 760,000 Australians in the scheme, that represents an enormous workload and, more importantly, a very deeply personal and stressful process for individuals and families who may have—I'm sure they have—already undergone many, many assessments throughout their lives. For parents like Clara and Damian, the administrative burden of having to repeatedly provide the same information, navigate the red tape and endure bureaucratic delays, coupled with the high needs of an independent child or adult with a disability, I think we will all agree, could be incredibly overwhelming. It can lead to depression, relationship strain and significant financial pressure.

I'm sharing Clara's experience with her consent because she wants other parents who may be feeling similarly isolated or overwhelmed to know that they are not alone. Clara, at a very low point in her life, believed that putting them down or out of their misery was the most practical and rational option available to her. That meant murder-suicide was a very real possibility. Thankfully, Clara sought support, and life is very different now. This is not hyperbole. These are real people in real situations trying to do the best for their children with significant and permanent disabilities. In this place, we owe it to them to do better.

The bill also tightens unscheduled planned reassessments, restricts who can request them and narrows the circumstances under which they can occur. While there are legitimate concerns about misuse and system integrity, we must ensure that participants whose needs genuinely change are not left unsupported. Changes to planned structures, fixed end dates and restrictions on unspent funds also raise serious questions about responsiveness. The NDIS was designed to adapt to changing circumstances, and that flexibility must not be lost. Similarly, the new framework for reasonable and necessary supports, including the minister's expanded ability to set funding parameters, must be implemented incredibly carefully. While fiscal discipline is important, it cannot come at the expense of participants' independence, participation and general wellbeing.

The integrity measures in this bill deserve support. Stronger record keeping, tighter claims timeframes, improved provider regulation and enhanced fraud prevention powers—I think we'd all agree that they are necessary. The scheme has been subject to misuse, and, of course, that must be addressed. But integrity alone is not enough. Transparency, consultation and careful implementation are critical to give participants confidence, not confusion. In short, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We must also ensure that plan suspensions, eligibility reviews and compliance mechanisms do not inadvertently penalise vulnerable participants due to administrative or communication barriers.

At its core, the question before us is whether we are building a system that is financially sustainable but humanly sustainable. In regional areas like Durack, access to allied health services is already limited. Families travel long distances, wait months for appointments and pay significant out-of-pocket costs for essential care. Any increase in administrative burden or uncertainty compounds these challenges.

I'm reminded that I spoke in this place in only 2025 about Labor's snap NDIS decision to remove regional loading and reduce travel support, which, of course, impacts rural and regional therapy providers and recipients. At the time, I spoke with NDIS providers across the Kimberley, the mid-west and the Pilbara, and they told me of their issues with the travel reforms and the inevitable impact on essential service delivery. It's clear to me, and to all of us, that the NDIS has blown out of its original intent, but surely it was not the place to start with the remotest and our most vulnerable people in our country—people who have real health needs? Labor was urged to consult more broadly on those proposed changes, and I'm not convinced that they did.

We owe it to the participants and families to get this latest round of changes right. That means clear rules, genuine consultation with the disability community and a transition that does not leave people in limbo for years. The NDIS must remain true to its founding purpose to support Australians with permanent and significant disability to live with dignity, independence and opportunity. That purpose must not be overshadowed by fiscal targets alone.

The coalition is committed to working with the government to get the NDIS settings right—unlike Labor when it was in opposition. It took every opportunity to politicise the NDIS and resisted all attempts by the coalition to make NDIS more sustainable. I've listened to many speeches here today from Labor government representatives, all laying the blame for the way the NDIS was rolled out more recently at the foot of the coalition. But I've sat here during these years—I've been here since 2013—and I know that our ministers have worked very hard and worked very closely with Bill Shorten when he was the opposition spokesperson for NDIS, and I'm telling you that it was politicised beyond comprehension. So it really sticks in my gut to hear this rubbish coming from those opposite about what we have done to NDIS. It was politicised by them from day one. I think they should hang their heads in shame.

If we fail to provide clarity and certainty in how these reforms are implemented, we do risk undermining the very trust that the scheme depends on. Ultimately it is that trust between families like Clara's, participants like Sam and the system itself that must be protected above all else. Sam and his family remind us every day why this work in this place matters. Sam may never speak with his voice, but his presence, his smile and his hugs communicate what all of us in this House must understand: the NDIS is about real people, real lives and real dignity. In this parliament and within this bill and its implementation, we must never lose sight of that fact. I thank the House.

I rise today to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the most important social reforms in modern Australian history. It has changed Australia for the better. Before the NDIS, too many Australians with disability and their families were left to navigate a fragmented, crisis driven system that depended far too heavily on luck, postcode and personal circumstance. Families were forced to fight endlessly for support. Parents carried enormous burdens alone. Too many Australians with disability were excluded from opportunities that many of us take for granted.

The creation of the NDIS changed that. It represented a fundamental shift in how our nation understood disability, not through a lens of charity or limitation but through a belief in dignity, capability, inclusion and rights. For the first time, Australians with disability were placed at the centre of decisions about their own lives. Labor created the NDIS based on a simple but powerful principle: disability should never be a barrier to living a full and meaningful life. Over the past decade we've seen the extraordinary impact of that Labor vision.

The NDIS has helped Australians with disability access therapies, equipment, care and supports that have transformed lives. It has enabled children to participate more fully at school. It has helped young people build confidence and independence. It has supported pathways into employment, education, sport, the arts and community life. It has allowed people to live more independently and with greater choice and control over their futures. And it has provided reassurance and support to families and carers who for too long carried overwhelming responsibilities alone.

The NDIS has not only changed lives; it has changed our country. It's one of Australia's great human rights achievements. It has strengthened our understanding of inclusion, it has challenged outdated assumptions about disability and it has reaffirmed something fundamental about Australia: every person deserves the opportunity to participate fully in society. That's why the NDIS should be a point of enormous national pride. It reflects the very best of the Australian character: fairness, compassion and the belief that no-one should be left behind. In my community of Newcastle, we understand that better than most.

Newcastle was one of the original NDIS trial sites. Our region helped shape the national rollout of the scheme. More than 10,000 people were participating in our region. Long before the NDIS became a national institution, people in Newcastle were helping demonstrate what was possible when Australians with disability were given the support they deserved, and that is something our city is deeply proud of. Today, thousands of Novocastrians rely on the NDIS directly, whether it's participants, families, carers or advocates. Thousands more rely on the jobs and the economic opportunities created through the disability care sector.

In Newcastle this is not an abstract policy debate; this is personal. It's about real people, real families and real lives. I've met parents whose children are thriving because they finally have access to therapies and supports that allow them to participate at school and in the community. I've spoken with young people with disability who have gained confidence, independence and pathways into employment because the NDIS gave them opportunities that simply did not exist before. I've met carers who tell me that for the first time in years they no longer feel completely alone in carrying the burden of care. They love their kids, but it's hard work. I've heard stories of people being able to move into more independent living arrangements, to reconnect with communities and to participate in local sporting clubs, pursue creative passions and build friendships and social connections that many of us take for granted.

These stories matter because, when we talk about the NDIS, we are talking about human dignity. We are talking about people having the opportunity to live with greater independence, confidence and security. We are talking about inclusion. We are talking about fairness. That's why maintaining public confidence in, and the social licence of, the NDIS is important. Australians overwhelmingly support the NDIS because they understand its values. They understand that supporting Australians with disability is not only the right thing to do; it strengthens all of us as a nation. The NDIS represents a promise between Australians, a promise that we will look after one another, a promise that disability should never mean exclusion and a promise that every Australian deserves the chance to live a full and meaningful life. Maintaining that social licence also means ensuring the scheme remains strong, trusted and sustainable for generations to come. Supporting the NDIS means being honest about the challenges it faces. Protecting the NDIS means ensuring it remains sustainable, fair and focused on delivering the best outcomes for participants, and that's why reform matters.

I want to say very clearly that people with disability are not to blame for the pressures facing this scheme. The overwhelming majority of people who rely on the NDIS are simply seeking the supports they need to live their lives with dignity and independence. That should never be forgotten in this debate. We must reject any narrative that seeks to stigmatise Australians with disability or portray participants as responsible for broader challenges within the system, because that would fundamentally betray the values on which the NDIS was built. The challenges facing the scheme have far more to do with rapid growth, inconsistencies in administration, gaps in oversight, poor planning processes and, in some cases, exploitation and fraud by unscrupulous operators seeking to profit from vulnerable people. That's where our attention must be focused because every dollar lost to fraud or poor-quality providers is a dollar diverted away from Australians who genuinely need support. If public confidence in the integrity and sustainability of the scheme is undermined over time, that places the long-term future of the NDIS at risk, and none of us should want to see that.

The Albanese Labor government supports the NDIS unequivocally. We believe in it, we defend it and we are determined to ensure it survives and thrives for future generations. That means ensuring the scheme remains sustainable not only financially but also socially and politically. The long-term success of the NDIS depends on maintaining the trust and confidence of the Australian people. It's about ensuring we honour the contract and agreement between all our citizens. Australians want to know that the scheme is fair. They want to know that the supports are going to those who need them the most. They want to know that the safeguards are strong, and they want to know that the system is focused on delivering meaningful outcomes for participants.

Of course, the NDIS participants themselves want the scheme to be the very best it can be. They are literally depending on it. Responsible reform is not about walking away from the NDIS. It's about ensuring we protect it way into the future. It's about strengthening it. It's about preserving one of the greatest social reforms our nation has ever seen.

Importantly, these reforms build on the recommendations of the independent NDIS Review and the disability royal commission. Both processes made it clear that, if we want the NDIS to remain strong into the future, improvements are necessary. That includes strengthening governance, improving consistency, rebuilding trust and ensuring participants remain at the centre of decision-making.

In Newcastle, I know many people in the disability community are anxious about the proposed changes. I have met with participants, advocates and organisations, including the Community Disability Alliance Hunter, about their concerns. They've sat and spoken to me and the minister on these issues. People do want assurance, they want clarity, and they want confidence that reforms will not come at the expense of support—that these reforms will prioritise participant wellbeing, choice and uncompromised access to care.

These are not unreasonable asks, because, for many Australians, the NDIS is not just a government program; it's an essential part of everyday life. Families rely on it. Communities rely on it. Participants rely on it. That's why the consultation matters, that's why implementation matters, and that's why the voices of Australians with disability must remain central to every stage of reform. We cannot talk about people with disability without listening to people with disability, and learning to listen in respectful ways is important. I hope that is a lesson that all of us in the chamber learn as we debate these reforms going forward. Words matter, and respectful debate is always encouraged.

We cannot, we don't get to, preserve the social licence of the NDIS—and that's a collective task of everybody in this parliament—unless Australians continue to see the scheme as fair, compassionate and effective. Labor understands that because Labor has always believed in the NDIS. Labor created it, Labor built it, and Labor is taking responsibility to ensure it remains strong not just for today but for all those generations into the future. That's what responsible government looks like; it's the task before us, because the greatest threat to the NDIS right now is no reform. Despite the anxiety that some participants are feeling about change—understandably so, as I just said—there is no greater threat to the NDIS scheme that they're relying upon than a zero-reform agenda. That would be a diabolical outcome right now.

Participants know that, because they want this scheme to be the very best it can be, and they want to ensure that the services being delivered are absolutely focused on their leading full, meaningful, purposeful lives. So I say the greatest threat would be ignoring the problems that we know are in place for the NDIS. You don't get to ignore those problems until confidence is so badly eroded in the public arena that we don't have an opportunity to do meaningful reform work. The greatest threat, as I said, would be allowing waste, fraud or poor governance to undermine that public confidence and support. The public does support the NDIS. It is one of Australia's proudest social achievements, and the greatest betrayal would be failing to preserve the scheme for future generations of Australians with disability.

I know there are going to be temptations to make political comments across this chamber, but I really do urge people to be thoughtful and respectful in the contributions they make in this debate—both in this House and in the other place, when it happens there. The NDIS is bigger than politics. It must be bigger than politics. It represents our national values. It reflects the kind of country we want Australia to be—a country where people are included and not excluded, a country where dignity matters, a country where fairness matters, a country where every Australian has the opportunity to participate fully in community life. That's what is at stake—protecting inclusion, protecting dignity, protecting opportunity and protecting the future of the NDIS itself—and that is why we must work together to protect and strengthen it for today and for those generations to come.

I think Australia is a compassionate society. I think they want to see this parliament come together in ways that ensure that the NDIS delivers on the promise it makes to the people—to Australians that live with disability each and every day, no matter where they live.

I'd like to start my response to the debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 by stating my support for the intention of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Like most people in this place, I speak to constituents every day in my electorate whose lives have been immeasurably and positively impacted by the support they receive as a result of the NDIS. I often say that, when the right support is delivered at the right time by the right provider, it does more than change lives; it sustains them. That impact extends not only to the person receiving the support but also to their families. To that extent, I'd like to acknowledge a good mate of mine, Connor Bryant from Toormina.

I first met Connor five or six years ago, when he came to one of my mobile offices in Sawtell. Connor is a participant in the NDIS and, at the time, he was experiencing difficulties with funding and access to the scheme. We worked together over a period of time to resolve those issues that were preventing Connor from having access to quality of life. To Connor's credit, he didn't just leave it at that. He didn't want others on the scheme to flounder and not have the care or services that they needed. So, since that time, Connor has been a strong advocate for participants on the Mid North Coast. He meets regularly with support coordinators and support workers to identify and advocate on the individual and unique challenges they face daily. He is now also the chairman of the Coffs Harbour city council Disability Inclusion and Access Advisory Committee, where he has made a huge impact for the disabled community. Connor, good work, mate, and thank you.

The potential for this scheme to do good cannot be overstated. But, unfortunately, in its current condition, the potential for the scheme to be overrun by negative forces is equally as great. It's no secret that the NDIS, as it stands, is not sustainable, a fact that this government finally has openly admitted, despite their, at times, bizarre protestations of the facts before taking the reins. One former Labor minister for the NDIS is famously quoted as saying: 'You can't move around the corridors of parliament in Canberra without tripping over a coalition minister whispering the scheme is unsustainable. I'm here to tell you today that is a lie. The scheme is only threatened in its survival by the incompetent management of the current government. The money is there. The problem is it's not being spent on the right priorities.'

It's interesting to see that those pigeons have now come home to roost as we see the worst budget blowouts in the scheme in its history under Labor. In 2023, the government announced a target growth rate for the NDIS of eight per cent and was unable to achieve it. In January 2026, the Prime Minister announced a new target growth rate for the NDIS of five to six per cent, which the government again failed to meet. In April 2026, the health minister announced yet another new annual target growth rate for the NDIS of two per cent over the next four years, despite the government's ongoing inability to meet any of their previously announced target growth rates. Originally estimated to cost $13.6 billion, the cost of this year's is closer to $50 billion, and it's projected to blow out to $70 billion by the end of the decade if we continue along the same track.

Everyone in this place acknowledges that we cannot let this occur. We cannot stand by and see this vital initiative hurtle even closer to the budgetary cliff. We, as government representatives, must redirect the train back onto the tracks to arrive at the destination it was originally intended to reach, with as few unintended casualties as physically possible—and with no unwelcome passengers.

With that in mind, I'll run through the areas of this bill that we agree with. We agree that the NDIS must be made sustainable immediately to safeguard it for generations to come. We agree that the system is currently rife with fraudulent claims and bad actors. We agree that a new eligibility framework is required to ensure that the right level of funding is provided to those who need it. We agree that the current process for unscheduled assessments needs to be refined to avoid rampant misuse by bad actors posing as providers. We agree that funding should be provided only for the impairment for which an individual is accessing the NDIS. We agree that a tighter plan renewal process will assist with the redistribution of unspent funds to those in need. We agree that records must be kept by both the provider and the participant for the services that are being claimed. This change is vital to assist in fraud identification. The 90-day claim period will also assist with this. And we agree that imposing mandatory registration requirements for providers delivering supports to participants who are most at risk of abuse or exploitation is a critical step in stamping out bad actors within the system and protecting vulnerable recipients and their families.

But we do hold concerns with many elements of this bill. Firstly, and most predominantly, we don't believe that this bill goes far enough to acknowledge and stamp out fraud and remove bad actors. It is concerning that both the government and the National Disability Insurance Agency have been unable to quantify the scale of fraud currently suspected in the system or, at least, unwilling to publicly disclose this information—though it's interesting that the NDIA Fraud Fusion Taskforce estimates that up to 10 per cent of all NDIS claims are inappropriate, mischievous or outright criminal. When you look at 10 per cent of $70 billion, that's a $7 billion hole of taxpayer money.

It's a depressing fact that, for every positive success story my office receives, we get two that are negative. These range from evidence of rampant overcharging for disability aid installations to stories of unregistered carers charging extraordinary fees to the system for social services—when they are, in fact, not providing any services at all. Then there are the reports of carers taking clients on extended cruise holidays. If I ever hear one more of those stories, it will be too soon.

In regional areas, there's another side of the story, the side that employers looking for staff are telling me every week—that the NDIS is currently the largest snatcher of care industry employees that the regions have ever seen. Nursing, childcare and aged-care employers are all scrambling to find staff as previously loyal employees leave the industry in droves. And why wouldn't they? They can earn twice as much while working half as much, and that's not right. It needs to be addressed immediately with fee caps on individual services. But this bill bizarrely avoids touching this at all. Riley Schafer-Wilson, a director and co-founder of a regional NDIS provider, eloquently put it this way in his submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee: 'This bill attempts to improve sustainability primarily through participant-level restriction while leaving major internal NDIA dysfunction insufficiently resolved. Working across provider operations, regional delivery, carer systems, psychosocial complexity, workforce realities and review pathways, I'm concerned the downstream implementation impacts of this bill are being underestimated. The current system already creates significant administrative burden, workforce strain, review escalation, participation confusion and provider instability.' His concerns are extremely valid.

Only recently we have seen these exact issues play out in the aged-care sector, after the disastrous implementation of untested and ill communicated changes last November. My office has been flooded with urgent requests for help due to these system failures. There are waitlists of over a year for assessments, algorithms that are inflexible and without recourse for amendment and clients in need literally dying before being able to access the necessary levels of care that they are entitled to. In reading portions of the bill, I could predict its future, based on these exact events playing out in real time across our current home-care packages.

In looking for solutions, I found Riley's submission contained many of them for communities like mine in the electorate of Cowper, and I hope that the government will listen to them. They are: (1) do not proceed with the tightened permanence or 'all appropriate treatment' requirements unless bodily autonomy, informed consent and the right to refuse unsafe or inappropriate treatment are clearly protected in the legislation; (2) require assessments to consider evidence from treating professionals, providers, support coordinators, carers and people with direct knowledge of the participants' functioning; (3) do not remove participant choice over support coordination or plan management without strong safeguards for continuity, independence, regional access and conflict management; (4) do not include planned suspension, revocation, automated debt creation, expanded compliance burdens or reduced claim windows without strong review rights, disability adjusted communication requirements and human oversight; (5) publicly report on the outcomes and savings already created by the October 2024 support definition changes and later fraud reforms before introducing further participant level restrictions—this should also include clearer reporting on NDIA delay, complaints, internal review burden, ART legal costs, payment delays, overturned or conceded decisions and downstream administration harm; (6) assess workforce impact, provider viability, thin markets, allied health shortages and participant access barriers in regional communities before implementation; (7) independently assess downstream impacts on hospitals, housing, mental health systems, unpaid carers, workforce participation and regional economies; (8) do not remove children from the NDIS unless alternative systems are already funded, operational, and accessible in practice; (9) require evidence based justification and consultation for price changes and assistive technology or home modification restrictions; and (10) consult directly with disabled people, carers, providers, workers, regional communities and frontline disability services before implementing reform of this scale.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the intentions held within this bill, I do not believe that the bill in its current form is the right way forward, and I hope that these concerns will be effectively addressed. As I said in my introduction, when the right support is delivered at the right time by the right provider, it does more than change lives; it sustains them. These recipients deserve a bill that protects that, and the Australian taxpayer deserves a bill that protects their investment.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a source of pride for Australians. It's the embodiment of the great Australian value of the fair go for all. It was put in place by a Labor government 13 years ago to ensure that people living with disabilities in Australia get access to the best quality care and services to ensure that they can participate freely and actively in society and, most importantly, realise their personal potential in their contribution to their families, their communities and Australia.

The original NDIS was based on a Productivity Commission report that recommended the establishment of an insurance scheme in Australia. That original report also recommended three tiers of support. What we've actually delivered is all three tiers, in some forms or respects, being delivered by the Commonwealth, whereas it was envisaged that the first two tiers would be delivered in a partnership with the states, and the Commonwealth would deliver the third tier. What ended up occurring is that the Commonwealth has been delivering all three tiers, and the scheme has become unsustainable.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 gives effect to elements of our plan to restore the NDIS to its original intent of supporting people with permanent and significant disability and to secure the NDIS for future generations. These aren't changes to its purpose but to protect it, to strengthen it and to secure it for future generations who will rely on it long after us. It's changed lives, it's opened doors and it's given people with permanent and significant disability the opportunity to participate fully in their communities. It's one of Australia's most important social programs. It's a national institution built on fairness, dignity and inclusion.

But we also know that the scheme is under real pressure. Costs are rising faster than any other comparable government run program. Too many participants aren't receiving the quality supports that they deserve, and the NDIS, unfortunately, has been a target for shonks and fraudsters who are seeking to exploit vulnerable people and siphon money away from those the scheme was designed to support. The National Disability Insurance Agency's actuary warned that, without change, NDIS spending would blow out by $13 billion over the next four years. Left unchecked, the scheme would not meet the interim eight per cent growth targets for years, let alone the new five to six per cent growth target agreed to by National Cabinet.

Quite simply, the scheme has become unsustainable, and that is why the government is acting now. As the architects of the NDIS, we're determined to act to secure its future, to ensure that it is restored to its original intent, as reflected in that Productivity Commission report. We've already brought growth down from 22 per cent under the previous government to around 10 per cent today. But, even at that level, the scheme is still growing too quickly to remain sustainable. In January 2026, National Cabinet agreed that growth must come down to five to six per cent or lower to protect the scheme for future generations.

Our plan to secure the NDIS rests on four pillars: fighting fraud, slowing rapid cost increases, clearer eligibility requirements and delivering quality services. These pillars guide the legislation that's now before the House. Under this plan, the NDIS will continue to grow every year. It will remain the largest social program in Australia outside the age pension and the centrepiece of the most comprehensive suite of disability supports anywhere in the world. But instead of costing more than $70 billion in 2030, spending is projected to be around $55 billion, a level that keeps the scheme strong and sustainable. The reforms before parliament build on the recommendations of the Independent Review into the NDIS, the disability royal commission and the original Productivity Commission report. All were informed by extensive consultation with people with disability, their families, advocates and service providers. They all point to the same conclusion: the NDIS must return to its original purpose of supporting people with permanent and significant disabilities while ensuring that systems provide other supports where they're designed to deliver those.

A key part of the work is improving access and eligibility. The NDIS review found that the current approach is inconsistent and unfair. Access lists created during the early transition phase have led to decisions based on diagnosis rather than functional capability, and this has allowed people with higher capacity to enter the scheme while others with greater needs have struggled to get consistent decisions. The government's recommending that access lists be removed and that stronger, evidence based assessment processes be introduced. A technical advisory group will advise on thresholds and how we assess a person's ability to do everyday tasks. No change to access will occur before January 2028, which is very important so that people have time to adjust to the changes. Before then, we'll work with the states and territories to ensure that people who are no longer eligible for the NDIS are properly supported outside it through programs run by the states and territories. This includes the development of Foundational Supports, the $6 billion commitment already agreed to by National Cabinet, so that more people can get the right support in the right system.

The reforms also address the rapid growth in participant plans. The bill proposes clearer rules for unscheduled reassessments, measures to reduce planned cost escalation and a reset of budgets for social and community participation. These changes reflect the original intent of the scheme to support genuine inclusion. To rebuild capability in the community, the government will establish a $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund, supporting organisations that create real opportunities for participation.

We're also strengthening the definition of reasonable and necessary supports. Over time, the scope of what the NDIS pays for has expanded beyond what was intended, creating confusion and inconsistency. The reforms will ensure that supports funded by the NDIS are solely related to the impairment for which a person gained access and that the scheme aligns more closely with other social service systems.

Another major focus is market integrity and participant safety. Since 2022, the government has invested more than $550 million to build integrity into the NDIS, including the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, ICT upgrades and the NDIA's payment integrity review workforce. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Act 2026 introduced tougher penalties and stronger powers for the NDIS commission to deter and to respond to non-compliance, abuse, neglect and harm. But more needs to be done.

The bill before parliament strengthens fraud prevention by improving the quality of plan managers and support coordinators. It expands mandatory provider registrations for high risk supports and requires all providers to enrol in a secure digital payment system. These measures will give the NDIS commission greater visibility of the market, allowing it to act early on high risk practices and remove providers that are doing the wrong thing.

Support coordination will also be reformed. Under the new model, the government will directly commission providers to deliver support coordination and connection services. This will improve quality, reduce conflicts of interest and ensure that participants no longer need to pay for support coordination from their plan budgets. A similar commissioning approach will be used to lift the quality of plan management services, reducing the number of providers from the current 1,400 and ensuring strict standards are met. We'll also undertake targeted consultation on supported independent living commissioning, hearing directly from participants, families, providers and industry representatives. The goal is a sustainable service model that supports innovation, market viability and better outcomes for participants.

Throughout all of this, one principle guides our work: participants with the greatest need will continue to receive critical supports that they require to live well with dignity. These reforms are not about cutting support; they're about ensuring the NDIS remains strong, fair and sustainable so it can keep supporting the people who need it for generations to come.

The NDIS really is a statement of our nation's values. It's a measure of our national character. It's a great embodiment of the great Australian notion of the fair go for all. It's more than a source of support; it's a source of pride for Australia. By acting now, we can safeguard and strengthen the scheme, ensuring it continues to serve Australians, as it was created to help them. This is a moment to reaffirm our shared commitment to protect the NDIS, to strengthen it and to ensure that it remains a foundation for dignity, fairness and opportunity for decades to come.

The NDIS is heralded as one of Australia's truly great reforms. Perhaps it's just my parochialism as a proud Western Australian, but, of the 4,400-odd folk in Forrest who depend on the NDIS for their independence and, indeed, their way of life, I am yet to meet anyone who contends that outcomes under the NDIS have been more successful than the scheme that existed in Western Australia prior to the introduction of the national scheme. I think this reflects, in no small way, the fact that, so often in government and in politics in this country, outcomes are better where decision-makers are closest to the people that they represent and impact with those decisions.

Notwithstanding that perhaps slightly parochial view, let's consider the NDIS as it stands. I'm not going to come into this chamber today and pretend it has been a glittering success under previous coalition governments and only turned to custard under the Albanese government because, when I was in the other place in this building, one particular example stood out to me. A person who suffered an accident and lost both lower legs was, after 18 months of wrangling, bureaucratic nonsense, red tape, form-filling and endless assessments, awarded under the NDIS funding for one prosthetic leg, which clearly, in the absence of two legs, did not help them live an independent life and enable them to make a contribution to society.

That was a very poor outcome under the previous government, and, unfortunately, through my time campaigning in the seat of Forrest, I've just heard story after story of folks caught up in the attempts to bring this scheme under control. I was doorknocking in the suburb of Treendale, and a police car pulled up next to me. The police officer wound down his window and inquired as to why I was loitering in the front yard of this house. Upon explaining who I was and what I was doing there, the police officer informed me that it was, in fact, his house. He was quite ready to arrest me had I had any sort of ill intent. We went on to discuss matters of the day, and his six-year-old daughter was severely autistic, non-verbal and going through a torrid time with her condition. He had sought, for more than a year, to get a communication device funded under the NDIS. In what in seems to me a very clear case of need, rather than assist that struggling Australian family, the NDIS instead lawyered up with some of the best lawyers in Perth, from a nationally prominent law firm, and put these guys through the wringer. They forced them to go through the ART, where, eventually, after great expense—I say expense not only in the sense of the tens of thousands of dollars they spent in legal fees but also in terms of the emotional and psychological impact on that family, a normal aspirational Australian family—the government and the NDIS were finally forced to give this poor six-year-old girl the communication device that enabled her to get on with life.

I say these things to the House today only to point out that there have been severe failures of this scheme to come good with the promise that it held out for Australians, and that's that it would be a true safety net for our most vulnerable Australians. I think everyone who comes to this place has a responsibility to approach a bill like this with that lens and that understanding. It's not a time to play politics, and unfortunately there has been a strong history of playing politics with this.

I want to go back to the then shadow minister for the NDIS, Bill Shorten. In the lead-up to the 2022 election, he said:

This Government has a problem with the NDIS but they'll never come out and declare it.

… You can't move around the corridors of Parliament in Canberra without tripping over a Coalition Minister whispering the Scheme is unsustainable.

I'm here to tell you today that is a lie.

The final part is a true Bill Shorten zinger. Here we are a couple of years down the track, and I'm listening to a minister in the Albanese government just now tell us that the scheme is unsustainable. It's appalling that it's taken this long to get to the realisation on both sides of the chamber that action is needed. Certainly action is needed to rein in the fraud, the corruption and the organised crime that's prevalent within this scheme, but I also think that action is needed to ensure that it's delivering the outcomes in our communities that it should. Like I said, I keep hearing these stories everywhere I go of the failures of this scheme, which is costing tens of billions of dollars a year and growing at an extraordinary rate, to actually deliver those outcomes in the community.

With that in mind, I think it is very pleasing that the coalition are approaching this with a lens of bipartisan support for important reforms but with some concern and trepidation that the savings from these measures have already been spent. In today's Australian we see that more than the savings from these NDIS changes has already been committed in this budget alone. This is the second in a series of legislative changes that the current government has made in the wake of the 2023 independent review into the NDIS, and it is of great concern to me that already the money's gone.

In April 2023, the Albanese government committed to reducing the annual growth rate of the scheme to eight per cent, and they failed to achieve that target. The minister for health and disability then went on to announce that the government would seek to reduce the annual growth rate of the scheme to between five and six per cent over the medium term. Again, that has not been achieved. Right now the growth rate in the NDIS expenditure is sitting at 10.3 per cent, which means that the proposed two per cent growth rate, which is banked in the budget coming before this House, is not only a serious and substantial reduction but also extremely unlikely to be achieved. That should be of concern to every Australian who's focused on intergenerational fairness. The national credit card is being swiped at an incredible rate, racking up some $256 billion when you include off-budget spending over the forward estimates, yet here we are today with a bill that's claiming to achieve a massive reduction in the expenditure of this program.

The reality within our communities is that those people who rely on these supports are concerned that they will be unfairly victimised by a cost-cutting initiative here in Canberra. We need comfort that those who rely on these support packages for their very way of life—those with substantial, significant and permanent disability—will remain supported and protected by this scheme. I think that, for every coalition speaker I listened to today, that has been front of mind.

When we hear important and reasonable propositions from the government when it comes to access to the scheme, things like ensuring that the scheme allows access for those who need access on the basis of functional assessment rather than simple diagnosis—that sounds to me like an important and sensible sort of reform and something that should be supported. But the problem is always in the detail. The bill is going to change that to reflect their reduced functional capacity, but there are a lot of people in my community right now who are exceptionally worried about whether they themselves—or perhaps a child, family member or a loved one—will still be eligible for support on an ongoing basis through the NDIS. The answer isn't clear, because the bill establishes a legislative mechanism to change the way that a person is assessed for the NDIS but provides no detail on what that assessment process will look like after the passage of this legislation.

It seems to me that the Albanese government has banked the savings. They've spent the savings, but they haven't yet got the detail developed and ready to show the Australian people what this looks like. That is causing a level of fear, anxiety and concern in the community because of the many hundreds of thousands of Australians who legitimately depend on this system. I think that many in the coalition have been calling for the fraud, the corruption and the organised crime elements of the NDIS to be addressed for a long time. The coalition will always seek to support measures that improve the integrity of the NDIS, measures that place safeguards to protect participants and the taxpayer.

At the end of the day, every dollar that is spent by this scheme is a dollar that the Australian public reasonably expects is going to supporting vulnerable Australians. But every day we see reports of fraud, misuse and other frivolous expenditure under the scheme. There are more than 10,000 public servants here in Canberra just within the NDIS, and yet it seems that they cannot use those resources to get on top of these very real expenditure issues. The confidence of the Australian people in the NDIS and indeed the very support for the scheme are dependent on an assurance that those taxpayer funds are actually being spent for legitimate purposes.

In the calendar year of 2025, some $48.8 billion was spent through the NDIS. If you take the Australian National Audit Office's estimate that six to 10 per cent of those claims were noncompliant, fraudulent or otherwise incorrect, we're frittering away some $4.8 billion a year on a scheme. We're taking those billions legitimately from Australians who expect that money is supporting people with disability, and instead it's going into outright fraud, deliberate overservicing, false invoicing or claims for services that were never delivered. It's subject to collusion between providers and participants. Law enforcement agencies have also warned that organised crimes are increasingly targeting the scheme, exploiting weak entry controls and fragmented oversight.

So you'd think that a focus of a bill like this that seeks to drastically curtail the growth in the expenditure of the NDIS would be ensuring that integrity systems are absolutely robust. Every dollar that is lost to fraud through this sort of leakage is a dollar taken away from Australians with a disability, those same Australians in my own community that are being denied the supports they deserve and being forced through the courts to get those supports. I just don't see that we've got far enough in this legislation towards addressing that.

The NDIS is drifting under this poor stewardship that, we have to accept, has been provided by both sides of the chamber over the 13-odd years since the NDIS was introduced. It's absolutely unacceptable, because to lose confidence in this scheme ultimately risks those people who depend on it for their independence and for making a contribution to our community—which was the whole point of it. That was the compact that the Australian people, through successive governments, entered into for a scheme that is spending some $50-odd billion a year now and growing at 10.3 per cent. That is the difference between what Australians thought they were signing up for—those Australians who have very happily accepted this through their taxes every year, as a significant impost on the Commonwealth—and the experience of the people that should be receiving the services.

In the absence of a truly great scheme, like we had in WA before the introduction of the NDIS, we should be focused on making this scheme the best possible scheme for those that depend on it. Some elements of this bill, as other speakers on both sides of the chamber have touched on, go some way to addressing it. Do they go far enough? No. Do they give those Australians who depend on the scheme comfort that they won't be victimised and targeted just for the sake of realising the aggressive cost savings the government proposes? No—and that's our concern.

Many people have spoken on this NDIS bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, so I don't want to go into the tiny details of the bill. This is a very personal speech I'm going to give today.

I pay credit to the families and the kids with disability that I've looked after over the last 50 years. It is very personal to me. I remember them all, including many who've passed away. I pay credit to my secretary and office manager, Cheryl Roberts, who worked for me for over 35 years, for the care she gave to her daughter Stacey, who had severe disability. Unfortunately, Stacey passed away in her 20s, not so long ago. I pay tribute to Cheryl and her husband, Dwayne, who looked after Stacey so well and helped her survive for so many years.

I pay credit to the families of kids like Rebecca, Trevor, Troy, Michael, Hamish, Sydney, Harry and Harrison, and the unpaid carers, for what they did to help their kids and to care for their kids—many of them now adults who are doing well thanks to the NDIS. I pay credit to Bill Shorten and, of course, Julia Gillard, who first developed the concept of the NDIS. I remember speaking to Julia Gillard, long before she was prime minister, at a fundraiser for my good friend Chris Hayes, where we spoke about the importance of supporting people with severe disability and their families.

I pay credit to my paediatric colleagues, particularly the people I worked with closely in south Western Sydney—Rick Dunstan, who, unfortunately, has passed away; Andrew McDonald; John Whitehall; Raymond Chin; Melvyn Polon; Mark Westphalen—all of whom gave care to people and their kids with disability over many, many years. You get bonded to those families and you want what's best for them. It's a great privilege to have worked with those people and to have contact with those families that have done so well and provided so much care for their kids and their families.

I pay credit to all the allied health people that provided support for those kids. I want to pay credit to the people who ran intervention services. In particular, I'd like to mention Lorraine Brown, who ran Starting Points Macarthur, which was an early intervention preschool for kids with moderate to severe disability.

I acknowledge that we have created some anxiety in what we are doing now as a federal government to try and make sure that the NDIS is sustainable for the future. I want to pay credit to all in this parliament who support the NDIS, and I include many people in the opposition and crossbench ranks. I know that what we want is to have a system that works well for people with disability. I'm a strong believer in the NDIS and its role as one of the most important social reforms we've ever had in modern Australia.

I'd like to take you through a bit of pre-NDIS history from my own experience as a very young medical student in 1972. I had an uncle who was a paediatrician. His name was John Davis, but everyone called him Tubby. Tubby Davis, a great man who is no longer with us, did a lot to help and to mentor me. I remember doing a ward round with him when I was a medical student, and we saw a little girl with Down syndrome, and her parents were very, very anxious. She'd been quite sick in hospital following complications from cardiac surgery, and she was recovering. I remember Tubby took me, a couple of other medical students, the resident, the registrar and a couple of the nursing staff into the side room of the department of paediatrics of the old North Shore Hospital, and he said to me in front of everyone, 'What do you think these parents are most worried about?' Obviously, at that stage, their worry was for her to get over this cardiac surgery and get over the complications, and when she could go home, and that's exactly what I said. Tubby said, 'Well, that might be the immediate worry, but what these parents are worried about is what's going to happen to their child when they pass away, when they're no longer there to help her.' That was a very, very important lesson to me.

Throughout my career in dealing with children with disability, that was the very thing that always worried the parents—what was going to happen to their child that they'd cared for and nurtured throughout their childhood years when they were no longer there to help them. It didn't matter what problem the child had, what physical disability, what intellectual disability or what illness. Those parents always worried about what would happen to their child when they could no longer look after them. Often that meant institutionalisation.

There were institutions around the country that cared for people with long-term disability. The old Callan Park, which was an institution for those with mental illness, and often became a de facto home for people with intellectual disability when their parents could no longer care for them. There was Grosvenor Hospital at Ashfield in Sydney. There was Peat Island near Gosford, which I remember going to as a paediatric registrar. People with severe disability were managed and housed there when their parents were no longer with them. Thankfully, we no longer have those institutions. We now have group homes. We have fantastic ways of keeping people in their own independent living spaces, which has allowed us to do away with many of these institutions. That's a great thing, and that's thanks to the NDIS.

It was a very important lesson for me, as I've said. It doesn't matter what the problem was, what physical or intellectual disability, the parents always worried about what would happen to their child when they could no longer look after them. I saw parents go through incredible difficulties, trying to put money aside so that their child could be looked after when they were either too infirm to look after them, or, in fact, had passed away.

I can remember many others. Troy, a little boy I saw with Down syndrome when he was born, developed something called Eisenmenger complex, which is an inoperable heart condition. I watched him grow and develop. I watched his family look after him so, so well. His father died, and his mother was left to bring Troy up and care for him in his 20s, 30s and now in his 40s. Unfortunately, his mother has passed away, and he's now cared for by his sister. The NDIS has made all that possible and has allowed that family to keep Troy at home all that time.

I remember Justin with cerebral palsy. He was not mobile. He couldn't speak. But, with the use of a computer and a voice activator, he was able to communicate. In fact, he was very bright, but he clearly needed care all his life. His mum really worried about what would happen to him when she passed on, and now we know, with the NDIS, he will get support.

These are the faces and the stories that give us the human perspective on the importance of the NDIS and this bill. This bill is about securing the future of the NDIS so that Australians with significant disability have a future with an institution they can trust and rely on for support for the rest of their lives. I had, as I said, a conversation about this with former prime minister Julia Gillard around 2008, at a meeting with the then member for Werriwa, Chris Hayes, and she understood well the importance of the NDIS being sustainable for the future. Whilst the NDIS is a Labor initiative—and it's thanks to Julia Gillard and, later, Bill Shorten—I know that many on the opposition benches have supported it and continue to support it, and it is very important that it is bipartisan.

However, there was a significant problem when the NDIS was first started, and the foundations have been a little shaky. We need to reinforce the foundations of the NDIS. It's important for people with severe disability, and it's important for the whole country. We need to make sure that people with disability are included, are supported and know with confidence that their future is assured.

As an MP now, and in working with the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I'm absolutely committed to securing the future of the NDIS. This bill consists of five schedules that will make this happen, including schedule 1, which sets out the changes to access and eligibility as well as plan management for participants. This follows findings from the NDIS review that the current approach to accessing the scheme is inconsistent and inequitable. It found that the scheme is missing people with disability who require the most support. In particular, I'd like to mention that children that have significant disability and live in rural and regional areas are missing out on supports; children with, for example, fetal alcohol syndrome are missing out on supports in some of our Indigenous communities; and people who have disability but don't have people who are able to advocate for them are often missing out on the levels of support that they need. We need to make sure the NDIS can retain its original intent of supporting people with permanent and significant disability, as was modelled by the Productivity Commission.

The bill seeks to address inequity of access by clarifying the meaning of 'functional capacity' and providing the assessment of thresholds of that functional capacity. It does worry me a little that we are looking at developing a single assessment tool. I am concerned about that. I'm not sure that that will be able to deal with the nuances of the psychosocial supports that are needed and of the community supports that are needed in thin markets in rural, regional and remote areas. So I do have concerns about that. I am confident that the scheme, over time, will be able to deal with these nuances as the new system is rolled out and the Thriving Kids initiative does progress.

Schedule 1 will also enable the minister to make determinations to reset funding for groups of supports like social, community and civic participation and capacity building. This is important because capacity building has been a really important part of the NDIS, and it must be continued and must have transparency and oversight. It's an area where I think there have been some mentions of fraudulent activity occurring, and it's very important that the minister is able to have oversight of that. It's resulted, of course, in the scheme growing too fast, and it means that billions of dollars have been spent on non-evidenced policy and in areas where providers have not provided the care that they should have. If left unchecked, this would skyrocket costs and would not be a benefit to the community and the individual participants.

The National Disability Insurance Agency will have strengthened powers to effectively manage the integrity of the NDIS and to build on existing fraud measures we've introduced since coming into government. We must remember that the NDIS was always intended to be reviewed over time and that improvements can continue to be made. One of the important aspects that we haven't spoken a lot about but is very important is training assessors and making sure that people who are doing the initial assessments are well trained and able to deal with the many, many different presentations of disability and the nuances of that.

It's also important to me that the biggest threats are cost blow-outs, where the scheme could become unsustainable, and it is very important that we make sure that the policies we use are very evidence based and sustainable. Allied health is one issue where we know that, particularly for very young children, very transactional models of care are not necessarily the best practice. I go back to the starting points I spoke about. There are many examples around the country where group therapy and parents supporting other parents can be the most effective ways of getting input for kids with disability and developmental delays.

Currently, only one in 16 providers is registered. 'NDIS provider' can mean anything and is far too broad without proper oversight. It is important that groups are NDIS registered, so there's oversight. It's also important that we look at ways of registering providers such as single providers in a sustainable and affordable way. There needs to be different levels of registration and different costs associated with that.

Schedule 3, based on advice received by the NDIS review that NDIS pricing is not always transparent and we need to make sure that pricing is transparent and sustainable, will establish a clearer and more transparent pricing mechanism. The minister will then set maximum prices for NDIS supports. That's important. Schedule 5 deals with transitional matters relevant to the entirety of the bill. The minister said, 'Within 13 years, the scheme has gone from a dream of generations of activists to a deeply cherished institution,' and I want to make sure it's sustainable. Thank you.

No-one's loved one should feel like an inconvenient dollar figure on any government's budget bottom line. No-one should be worried about treatments being cut or stopped to their children and to their loved ones. Sadly, over the last few months, this is what has occurred. In the electorate of Townsville, there is a school called AEIOU. That school is a specialty school for children with autism. They provide therapeutic services. They provide supports. The children are there for the whole school period, the whole school day. During that day, these children would be able to rock up and get the food therapy that they may need, get the behavioural support, get the OT support, get all of these supports that were then covered by the NDIS. Sadly, AEIOU in Townsville and around the country—those places have now closed. What happens to the young people who need those supports? You regress if you don't get to see your specialists. Children need early intervention so they can get that support now and get the treatment and help that they need so that they can have a functioning life and have a normal life.

AEIOU's doors were open one day, and then, in the afternoon, they told the parents, 'Starting tomorrow, there is no more AEIOU.' So parents that were working, contributing to the economy, whether they were a nurse, an accountant or a soldier, now have to pause their employment and rush to find specialists for their children. We've heard people talk about how it's hard to get a specialist or hard to get treatment for children on the NDIS in the city. Times that by 100, and that's what it feels like in the regions. So there's no availability for occupational therapy, behavioural support or physiotherapy without waitlists going well into the 12-month mark. And still, to this day, many of those parents have had to resign from their employment and can't find a place to get treatment for their children, with many talking about leaving Townsville and moving to a capital city. Townsville is the largest city the furthest away from a capital city. It's the capital of northern Australia, and we don't have enough of these supports there. It breaks my heart. I do support the NDIS, but I support it in a way that provides the care, treatment and support for those that need it, not a way that props up the bank balance of criminals and not a way that allows people to run a business for accommodation, where people will live, and, when found to have done the wrong thing, phoenix that business—the owners of the company travel overseas, come back and start another company doing the same thing. That's who we need to be going after, not cutting services.

If people think that services aren't being cut, you're wrong. I know this firsthand because Emery, my daughter, has level 3 autism and needs support and love. Without early intervention, she would still be non-verbal; she wouldn't be able to talk. But, with early intervention at AEIOU with Autism Queensland, now she can say, 'I love you, Dad.' That's what early intervention can do. That's what the NDIS can do. But my daughter's plan has changed, has not been updated and has been cut. I'm very lucky to be in a fortunate position to be able to fund that extra support—what she's not getting through the NDIS.

But, if you put a review in, you'll wait 12 months. What happens in 12 months for a child that needs the early intervention now? They get worse; they regress. This is what's happening around the country. This is what's happening throughout all of our communities. I know how much and how important these supports are for our children; I really do. My daughter isn't the only one that needs the support, the help, the love, the care and that extra professional support that she gets from a specialist but, because she's had that, she's gone from being non-verbal to counting to 100, to go from January to December and to go up to her sister and say, 'Hug, please.' This is what early intervention does, and this is why we must be ultra-laser-focused when we talk about the NDIS.

My daughter and daughters and sons around the country are not inconvenient dollar figures. They're not. They're people, people that will grow, will laugh and will love, but they need the early interventions. It makes me nervous when we hear people who say, 'Well, there's going to be this thing called Thriving Kids.' We don't know what that is yet, we don't know where it's up to properly, and it's not been rolled out, but supports like AEIOU and like Autism Queensland are all being changed, having funding reduced or having had to close. There's no stopgap in between. There's no support for our children in between when these have stopped and now.

I'm doing my best to be as bipartisan as possible, but the minister said, 'They can just call up the NDIS, and we'll find somewhere.' That's not how it works. You can't just call up the NDIS and say, 'We need a provider.' You can't call the NDIS; you have to go through your case coordinators and your case managers, then they'll get back to you via email. Then, several months has gone past, therapies have slowed down, and children regress. Early intervention is how people live a normal life. I've seen it firsthand; I've seen it with my daughter. She is going to thrive, she is going to kick arse, and she is going to live a great life because she has a loving family and she gets the supports that she needs. I am terrified for those that may not be able to get the supports they need for their children. I'm terrified of what happens if they regress because early intervention will turn into a postvention, and this will be ongoing.

People talk about the cost. I can't put a dollar figure on my daughter saying, 'I love you, Dad.' I can't and I won't, and I refuse to allow the parliament or anywhere else to put a dollar figure on supports for our children. I know that reforms are always good, that change is fine and that we need to work together, but we must communicate it to the communities. We must let the people know what we're doing. We must make sure that when there are changes or different programs that are coming up there isn't a gap in service and there isn't an unknown, where people can't get the support or the help that they need. We must be ultraclear on what we're doing. Everything should be focused on the information that we've been given from the participants and the families, because no good ideas come from politicians—not one. I haven't seen one yet. Good ideas come from the community and the people on the ground, and our job is to work with them to make sure that we can put the framework up and that it can work. If you allow politicians to make up the idea and solution for you, you will be upset. Our job is to listen, work and deliver. That's what we do in this place.

I honestly believe that every politician, regardless of shirt colour, wants the same thing here. We want to get to a point where people on the NDIS get all the support that they need—as well as love, care and everything—whilst we rein in the rorts that are ripping off the taxpayer and robbing our children of treatment. We all want to get there. Some of us might have a different way to get there, but I know that that's where we all want to be. I do not want to be hearing, 'It's a bit hard to go after the criminals.' It's not hard. Let's work together and do it. If it costs money to go after criminals to make sure they're not ripping off the taxpayer and robbing the people that need the treatment, I'm all for it, because in the long-term these people will be out of the disability sector, and then we're not focused on trying to wind in, shorten or make any negative changes to those that need the treatment.

There is always going to be good and bad, and there are going to be mistakes. A friend of mine is missing his leg. Up until recently, every year, he had to send a report to the NDIS that said that his leg hadn't grown back. That is silly and a failure, but it happens. How much does it cost to get the reports done? First, you've got to go to your GP, then your GP has to refer you to your specialist. Your specialist then has to write the report, and then the report gets sent. We're talking thousands of dollars here. This is one person in Townsville. Let's say that there are four people in Townsville. Let's say that there's a person with a spinal injury who is in a chair, and they have to be in a chair full-time. Do they have to do it? I would say that maybe some would have to go down a similar route. They're not going to wake up in the morning and stand just like my friend's not going to wake up in the morning and see a foot has grown back. It doesn't happen. So these are places where we can streamline and make sure that those cost savings are on the red tape that we can cut. Let's get rid of it; we don't need that. You've got one leg; guess what? You're always going to have one leg. You've got no legs? Sorry, they're not growing back. We know that's a fact, so they don't need to prove that year on year.

When it comes to getting a wheelchair, accessories or anything you need to be able to live your life that also shouldn't be a paperwork burden or anything like that. If you have limb loss, you will probably need a wheelchair at some stage. You don't have to get a report to say that; we know that. This is a commonsense approach. I also think there should be some parliamentary scrutiny when we're talking about anything that's automated. If your plan gets put forward and it says what's happening in your life and what you need from the NDIS, then it somehow does an algorithm and says it's similar to someone else's, so the computer says you don't need it, and then you've got to go through the fight, there must be some sort of human oversight. I think that's probably a good part because you don't want things to take so long.

My daughter, when she was young, got diagnosed with autism. There's more that happens then. It's not just the diagnosis—she has autism—and getting treatment. She had a sequela illness called pica. Pica is low iron. She would eat dirt, and I'd never seen this before. I'd never heard of it before. We went around in circles to try and get—

It's Latin for magpie.

And it's Latin for magpie. We went around in circles trying to figure it out, and then one doctor said, 'Just do a blood test.' We did the blood test. It came back—nearly no iron. They called an ambulance and said: 'Your daughter has no iron. She's trying to find iron in a book, in paper, in dirt—anywhere she can.' I get nervous when we hear things like, 'When you get your diagnosis, it's going to be hard to do the review or get sequela illnesses added to it.' That makes me scared because, if we didn't know this, then the Pica wouldn't have been diagnosed and we wouldn't have been able to get the food therapy and all the other things that come with it. I use my daughter as an example because she's one person out of the more than 700,000 people that are on the NDIS right now.

We all have different stories, different thoughts, but we all just want the same thing: the treatment for our loved ones, the support for the people that need it, and to make sure that those that are ripping off the taxpayers that are here today and robbing the people with disabilities get the punishments that they deserve. I'll always stand in support of the NDIS, and I'll work with the government to make sure that we are looking after our most vulnerable—people like my daughter.

I thank the member for Herbert, and I call the member for Cunningham.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I would also like to thank you for all of the work that you have done over so many years for children with disabilities, including for my friend Vicki and her beautiful daughter, Melissa, who is now 37 years old. Can you believe it?

It makes me feel old!

It does indeed! I rise today in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. Labor created the NDIS. This was nation-building reform. It was essential for the community, and it had strong community support. We are incredibly proud of the NDIS and its intentions, and we are determined to secure its future and cement the community support that people with disability deserve. I have a long history of advocating hard for the rights of people with disability in our community for over three decades and ensuring that they have a voice at the very highest levels. I've seen what happens when that support is not adequate or is not properly targeted, and I know how important it is for this to be right.

The NDIS is an essential part of Australia's support system for people with permanent and significant disability, and it is another global example set by Labor governments. It exists to help participants live with dignity, with choice and with independence, and that commitment remains unchanged. However, we need to strengthen the scheme so it keeps working well into the future. If we do nothing, NDIS spending is expected to blow out by $13 billion over the next four years. What this will mean in the long term is that the NDIS will lose community support and confidence, and it just won't be there for future generations. This is not an outcome that we will accept. The NDIS is far too important and has far too profound an impact on the lives of those who need it.

This bill aims to return the NDIS to its original intent: supporting people with permanent and significant disability and securing it for future generations. In the Illawarra, we are so very fortunate to have a strong disability sector with many passionate advocates who I engage with regularly, particularly through the Illawarra Disability Alliance, through occupational therapists and physiotherapists, as well as a range of individual providers. I have listened when providers have raised concerns with me, and I have ensured that these local, experienced voices are heard by the relevant policymakers. I have facilitated a number of roundtable discussions between those experienced advocates, the Minister for the NDIS and the NDIA, and I thank all of the parties for their engagement in good faith during these discussions. I want to make sure that local, experienced and dedicated advocates can convey advice on our region's experiences as we work through these important reforms, and I will continue to do so. Like me, the Illawarra Disability Alliance member providers are passionate advocates for people with disability. They have hundreds of years of experience caring for people in our community between them and a strong reputation for providing quality care.

As the Minister for Disability and the NDIS said, the NDIS is a statement of our national values and a source of pride for so many in our community, including me. It is the most comprehensive support package for people with disability in the world. The vulnerabilities that we have seen in the system through shonky providers and the many stories I hear of people who can't get the support they need undermine the scheme as a whole. They call for urgent and comprehensive action. It is simply horrifying to think that bad actors and organised crime have targeted vulnerable people accessing the NDIS. Scammers are seeing opportunity in those who can least afford to lose out. Participants are doing absolutely everything right and being taken advantage of. It has to stop because not only is it leading to poor outcomes for the innocent individuals that are being targeted; it is also demonstrating a low level of care and it is undermining the community's support. When six in 10 people say that this crucial program is broken, something must be done.

The reforms in this bill are focused on four key areas: stopping fraud and rorts, slowing unsustainable cost growth, making eligibility decisions clearer and fairer, and improving the quality and safety of services for participants. The independent review into the NDIS, the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and the original Productivity Commission report were all informed by extensive consultation with the disability community and sector. Our reforms are building on the recommendations of these reports to create a stronger and more secure NDIS.

The 2023 NDIS review recommended 'a fairer and more consistent participant pathway', including the introduction of 'a more consistent and robust approach to determining eligibility for access to the NDIS based on transparent methods for assessing functional capacity'. That's what this bill aims to achieve. The review found that the eligibility process was inconsistent and unfair. Under the changes, we will establish a technical advisory group, agreed with the states and territories, to define 'functional capacity' and advise on the thresholds for how we assess a person's ability to do everyday tasks. It will clarify permanence and eligibility requirements where someone is or could be accessing supports from other service systems. People with the greatest need will keep getting the critical supports they need to live well and with dignity.

We will work with people with disability, families and experts to make NDIS decisions clearer and more consistent. This includes using evidence based approaches that look at a person's functional needs and not just a diagnosis, and providing clearer guidance about what supports are considered reasonable and necessary. What we expect is that, over time, people with a high capacity to undertake everyday tasks, people with treatable conditions or people who might be getting support from other systems will be supported to find other more suitable services. Essential supports for daily living, personal care and safety remain the priority.

It is important to understand that none of this will happen until January 2028, when we have had time to consult and to gather advice from the technical advisory group and the states and territories. This will give us the time to ensure that those who might no longer be eligible for the NDIS are properly supported. I do want to stress that, under this plan, funding for the NDIS will grow every year. It will still be the largest social program in Australia outside of the age pension and the centre of the most comprehensive suite of supports for people with disability in the world.

The fact is that rules around 'reasonable and necessary' supports have been unclear and have led to a steady expansion of what the NDIS pays for. The volume of NDIS funded supports doesn't align with other parts of the care economy and risks undermining public confidence in the scheme, as well as blowing out costs. The changes in this bill more clearly require supports to be directly related to eligible impairments and amends the definition of reasonable and necessary supports.

We want to help people with disability to genuinely participate in the community, but the community participation supports are simply not delivering in the way they should. The quality supports that were there before the NDIS was introduced have withered away, leaving the NDIS to fill the gaps. These programs are not delivering connection, and they don't show respect and dignity to participants and are creating safety risks to already vulnerable individuals. It is expensive, it is not working and it is eroding the public's confidence. The cost of this stream has tripled in the last five years to $12 billion, about the same in net terms as the PBS.

The first recommendation of the NDIS review was to 'invest in foundational supports to bring fairness, balance and sustainability to the ecosystem supporting people with disability'. So we will invest in community based options so people can access the right supports, including outside the NDIS where appropriate. We've made a $6 billion commitment through National Cabinet to get the right foundational supports outside the scheme, and we're delivering a $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund to help community organisations deliver meaningful participation opportunities. It will be open to mainstream and disability organisations with details to be settled in consultation with the disability community. These changes are on top of our $4 billion joint investment in Thriving Kids, which will begin rolling out in October. We'll keep working closely with state and territory governments to develop a threshold and process for determining who should fall under the Thriving Kids program to ensure impacted children get the support that they need.

Crucially, this bill will crack down on the absolutely unconscionable fraud that is rife throughout the scheme. It is absolutely appalling and horrifying to know that organised crime and people looking to rort the system have targeted a scheme like the NDIS. It's worse than appalling, and it must be stopped. There are legitimate reasons for some providers not to require registration. I understand there are some industries like physiotherapy and occupational therapy, for example, that are already very heavily regulated by their own bodies. But these circumstances are limited to those with established and respected bodies of oversight. If you're providing services to vulnerable people, particularly behind closed doors, you must be regulated to reduce risk to those participants.

Under this bill, all providers of high risk NDIS supports like personal care and daily living support will need to be registered. Participants deserve to have confidence that the organisations they have chosen can actually deliver the support that they need. It will also help the government to keep participants safe from harm and exploitation. We should not be seeing abuse, neglect, exploitation and violence from providers who are being paid to deliver dignity and care to vulnerable people. Greater oversight means the NDIS commission can act swiftly to remove providers doing the wrong thing and will lift the overall quality of the market. There will also be new evidence thresholds for all claims, and we will directly commission providers to deliver a new support coordination and connection service. This will mean participants won't have to pay for this out of their budgets. It will provide the government with oversight and control of service quality and deliver a more efficient service.

This bill will give the NDIA the necessary powers to provide stronger safeguards for participants and improve the integrity of the scheme overall. First of their kind protections will be established when regulatory action is taken, and the changes will ensure evidence provided by participants can be used as part of investigations. People with disability deserve to be protected against bad actors in the strongest terms.

One of the last parts of the changes of this bill that I want to touch on is the shift from the NDIA as decision-makers on pricing to the Minister for Disability and the NDIS. The outcry and upset that I have heard from my local providers on the unaccountable way the NDIA made the last round of pricing decisions was simply unacceptable. It wasn't transparent. Providers were not meaningfully consulted, and the NDIA has not been open enough about explaining these decisions. I strongly believe that the government should ultimately be responsible for decisions like this. That's what we are elected for, and the public will hold us accountable for these decisions, regardless of whether they were made by the minister, as they should.

Finally, I understand that when change is proposed it can be incredibly scary for NDIS participants and their families. We need to ensure that they are consulted, that they are understood and that they are brought on this journey with us. These are people who have had a tough enough time, and I don't want to see these changes bringing more hurt, confusion and anxiety into their lives unnecessarily. What I have seen over the past decade, though, has often been inhumane—people with profound disability having to fight the NDIA too hard to get a good outcome. We must make this easier for the people who depend on it. We must ensure that the NDIA acts with empathy and treats participants with respect, and that processes are clear, defined and efficient.

The agency must work with our good-quality providers to make the system the very best it can be. My office has represented hundreds of people fighting to get good outcomes. It has been frustrating and time-consuming, and it is quite often distressing—and not just for participants but for my staff and I as well. By the time participants come to my office, they have fought, sometimes, for months, and they are at their wit's end and they are distressed. My staff and I care deeply about our community, and having to fight so hard because processes are not clear, defined or efficient is just not right. It's my staff and I who are on the phone or face-to-face with these participants in distress while we work to get them support through a system that should be much more manageable and efficient for everyone.

As a government, we must make this better. We must make sure guidelines and processes are clear, defined and efficient. But this must be combined with empathy and respect. I give my absolute commitment that I will work to have our local voices heard and to ensure concerns from people in our community are conveyed at the highest level. I will fight hard to ensure we get this right, and I truly believe the only way we can, and will, do this is by working with quality providers and with our community, with the expertise and experience in and around this system.

I commend the member for Cunningham on her speech and intent. We all, no matter which side of the chamber we are on, want to see better outcomes for those who are living with disability and significant disability.

The coalition supports the NDIS. We support its original intent. We support Australians living with significant and permanent disability having dignity, independence and choice. But if the scheme is to survive it must be sustainable, be accountable and work for the people it was created to serve. Right now, it does not. There are 5,962 NDIS participants in Mallee—thousands of people across Mildura, Swan Hill, Kerang, Cohuna, Horsham and Stawell whose daily lives rely on this parliament getting it right.

As I have said publicly, the NDIS must support those who truly need it, but right now it is not working as it should. We know there is fraud. We know money is being wasted. We know some providers are gaming the system. Yet people living with severe disability are still missing out. Families are still battling the system and participants are still left anxious about whether the supports they rely on now will continue.

Let me be clear: the spending must be reined in. But fixing the NDIS cannot mean making genuine and vulnerable participants pay for the failures of the system and the government in charge. Broad, blunt measures must not hurt the innocent while the guilty continue to exploit the gaps.

In regional Australia, people are anxious because the workforce is already thin and they still do not know who loses and who stays, and whether regional Australians will once again be left behind. People come to my office in desperation because the system is hard, with delays, contradictory advice and decisions that lack transparency and/or are regularly overturned on appeal. For regional Australians there is an added reality. Even when an NDIS plan exists, there may be no provider available locally to deliver it. As shadow minister for regional health, I know that one of the most serious issues facing the NDIS today across all forms of health care in the regions is workforce. In regional Australia, workforce shortages are real. Recruitment is difficult. Retention is difficult. Distances are large. Workers in sometimes complex situations are doing work far beyond what the system properly recognises or funds. This is particularly true in supported independent living.

Tony Dunne, a local disability manager, has been clear that the NDIS is not yet mature enough to fully replace the funding previously provided by the Victorian government. He warned that, as that funding disappears, those clients with often severe disability who share a home are left homeless. Providers are left exposed, workers begin to leave, and the whole system drifts towards instability. Tony also says that, if staff cannot maintain their income, they will leave the sector and take skill and experience with them. In many SIL, supported independent living, settings, especially in regional areas, staff are delivering high-intensity support, medical support, behavioural support and complex daily care. If the funding model does not reflect that reality, the workforce will not hold, and if the workforce does not hold, participants will absolutely pay the price.

I have already raised in this House the case of Noreen, a constituent in her mid 80s whose adult son lives in supported independent living accommodation in my electorate. I've said publicly that Noreen's son Peter, who is in his late 50s, faces eviction because short-term Victorian funding the Andrews government hoped was transitional is now ending and the NDIS isn't picking up the bill for his care in a supported independent living home. This is a serious human consequence of politicking—ageing parents are wondering what happens when they are no longer there. I cannot even imagine the stress.

A Sunraysia mother recently approached me about her 18-year-old son with significant intellectual disability, hearing impairment, severe epilepsy, complex medical needs and behaviours of concern. He is non-verbal. He cannot advocate for himself. His mother is terrified after an NDIA decision which requires him to move into a supported independent living arrangement where, for much of the day, support would be delivered at a one-to-three ratio. But her son requires one-to-one support. He is an absconding risk, with unpredictable seizures and falls, and relies on people who know him well enough to detect subtle signs of distress or deterioration. This mother rightly fears that, in a shared arrangement of one to three, those signs will be missed. This same mother told me that the NDIA's approach feels like a step backwards towards the kind of institutional models the disability sector has worked so hard to leave behind. That should concern every member of this House, and I'm sure that it does. Choice and control must mean something real for people with the highest needs. It must be co-designed with them, not just those with the simplest plans or the strongest voices.

There is also another crossover problem that families in Western Victoria are confronting: the clash between disability support and aged care. Kerry wrote about her sister, who had been trying to transition into aged-care accommodation in Stawell. Due to delays in NDIS assessment, the transition window was missed. Kerry's sister's health deteriorated, and this included a hospitalisation following a stroke presentation. What followed was a cycle of hospital stays, assessments and meetings with no clear resolution. She said she felt she had exhausted every avenue.

There is also a second major issue we must face: rorting and lack of oversight. Ninety-four per cent of providers currently in the NDIS are not registered. That is not sustainable. Local workers tell me some providers inflate costs, some charge excessive travel and some deliver services that simply do not justify the price. An experienced local plan manager wrote to me saying her team manages around 820 participants, carefully scrutinises invoices, reports dodgy providers and often sees little visible action after those reports are made. She said clearly that all providers should be registered and audited regularly. Let me say this clearly. I believe every provider should be registered. If public money is being spent and if vulnerable Australians are involved, there must be proper oversight and proper accountability. This cannot be done in a way that disrupts the current and excellent care providers are delivering.

One Mildura constituent who I think is watching right now, Chris Riordan, who has lived with cerebral palsy all his life, told me he is feeling very stressed about Labor's NDIS plans. Chris understands that changes need to happen, but he's worried about losing his carers, his regular daily visits and personal care—the life he has established through the NDIS. Chris told me some of his current carers are not registered providers, and he's concerned that the system will take them away from him. Chris says the registration process needs to be simpler and more affordable so that good providers can stay in the system while the poor ones are pushed out. We need to eliminate low-value, inappropriate and exploitative services while keeping the people who are doing the right thing, because, for participants, continuity of care matters, trust matters and relationships matter. We cannot design a system that breaks those things in the name of reform. I want to give a shout-out to Chris because he is an extraordinary man bound to a wheelchair. He's in his 50s, he has worked all of his life and he even owns his own home. He is an amazing person who is very popular around Mildura. Hello, Chris.

We cannot design a system that breaks those things in the name of reform. We cannot answer fraud by punishing participants. One constituent from Cohuna warned that people with disability must not become 'collateral damage for the failures of the system'. That is exactly right. If support is taken away from those who genuinely need it, those needs do not disappear. They shift to hospitals, to emergency departments, to mental health services and to families already stretched to breaking point. Raymond's parents, from Swan Hill, wrote to me that many people with disability cannot speak up for themselves and rely on others to defend their dignity and quality of care. They asked whether we are returning to the days of people being out of sight and out of mind. I certainly trust not.

So why are we in this NDIS mess of skyrocketing demand? Research shows that introduction of the NDIS led to a 32 per cent increase in reported autism prevalence and accounted for 47 per cent of new diagnoses since the scheme began. Autism is now the fastest growing cohort in the scheme, and nearly four in five new entrants are on the autism spectrum.

We also cannot ignore the impact of the pandemic, particularly in Daniel Andrews's lockdown capital of the world, Victoria. The pandemic's period worsened developmental vulnerability, mental health and support needs in many children, and that added pressure to already stretched systems. The Australian Early Development Census said:

… the pandemic … had profoundly disruptive indirect effects on children's lives—

and the 2021 data showed higher developmental vulnerability on some domains in the previous years. Murdoch Children's Research Institute said the indirect impacts of the pandemic on children and adolescents were as substantial, if not more substantial, than the direct effects of COVID-19 infection and reported:

… mental health difficulties, and physical health problems … increased across the 2020-2021 lockdown period in Victoria.

The Royal Children's Hospital National Child Health Poll found:

Compared to before the pandemic, overall mental health was more of a problem for 41 per cent of children, anxiety more of a problem for 36 per cent, and connections and relationships more of a problem for 43 per cent of children.

It also found that 49 per cent of children had difficulty adjusting back to school onsite and 52 per cent needed extra help with learning.

I turn now to a practical reform suggestion from the Miracle Babies Foundation and their prebudget proposal to expand their programs NurtureGroup and NurtureLine, including into regional areas. Miracle Babies proposed establishing 20 new NurtureGroups nationally, taking the total to 40 groups across Australia, and said those groups would provide play based, postdischarge support; access to allied health professionals; stronger early intervention referral pathways; reduced wait times; and better access to timely supports. Miracle Babies say that the NurtureGroup program may alleviate future demand for the NDIS by providing early, preventative and family centred support to children with increased developmental risk—including children with a history of prematurity, neonatal illness or a long-term medical condition diagnosis in the first five years of life.

After all, the title of this bill is 'Securing the NDIS for Future Generations'. Doesn't that sound sensible? The Miracle Babies NurtureGroup program delivered more than 33,000 parent-support interactions in 2025 and is embedded in more than 65 neonatal units around the country. I'd like to see more of this program in regional Australia. The NDIS review itself called for more support for children with developmental delays both inside and outside the NDIS. If government is serious about securing the NDIS, it should not only stop the rorts and register providers; it should also strengthen the earlier, community based supports that stop families from reaching deeper crisis in the first place. If we identify developmental concerns earlier, support parents earlier and build stronger referral pathways earlier, we can improve outcomes for children and reduce pressure on the NDIS later.

I thank the member for Mallee. Miracle Babies is based in my electorate, by the way.

There you go! We need one in Mallee.

Indeed. Great organisation.

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, a very important bill for the future of our country and a very important bill amending a landmark piece of legislation that, yes, came out of the Gillard government. But I think it's fair to say that it has lost its way over the last 13 years. I want to acknowledge the speech that I heard just then from the member for Mallee and the speech that was given by the member for Herbert on his very personal position on this and his personal reflections. It's one thing to get up and read from your party's talking points. It's another thing to actually have a firsthand experience of what the NDIS means to one's own family.

Like the member for Herbert, I have a child who is on the NDIS—my youngest daughter, Sarah, who's now 23. We were told that she wouldn't survive my wife's pregnancy and, if she survived the pregnancy, she wouldn't survive the birth. Twenty-three years later, she's still with us. She just picked up her assistance dog yesterday, so she's a happy camper. But for the NDIS, I know Sarah's life would be very, very different. When Sarah was growing up, when she was a young kid, I was invited to go onto the board and become the President of the Sunshine Coast Children's Therapy Centre, which she used to attend as a young child. The member for Herbert, in his speech, picked up on the importance of early access and early intervention, and he's absolutely right. The earlier we can get on and help people, the better.

Sarah's physical disabilities were obviously picked up way before she was born, but they didn't actually pick up that Sarah had autism until she was 16, because—as you know as a famous paediatrician, Mr Deputy Speaker—girls are able to mask their autism so much better than boys. They do a lot a lot of things that are better than boys, but one of them is being able to mask those things. We do to be able to get in and pick up autism more quickly, particularly with young girls. Whilst, in my own case—in Sarah's case—we were able to get all of the physical supports around Sarah with her physical disabilities, we weren't really able to throw much support around her from an autism perspective until she was about 16. That creates problems in itself.

Having been in the parliament for 10 years, I can tell you that, certainly, since this government has been in power, the NDIS is the No. 1 issue of complaints that I receive from constituents. I receive them from mums and dads, I receive them from participants themselves, I receive them from the service providers, and I receive them from people who are alerting me to fraud. There are lots of problems with the NDIS, and it seems to me, not just having been the federal member but also having been a dad and someone who has worked in this sector as a volunteer, that a lot of the money that is paid out under the NDIS goes to people who are less deserving and not a lot of money goes to the people who really need it most. That is a cause of great concern to me.

We have some fundamental, systemic problems with the system that provide funding to people who don't need a lot of support. I was listening to the member for Herbert talking about a friend of his who has to demonstrate that he hasn't grown a leg back every 12 months. I mean, come on. This is not rocket science. How much does that cost the system? When the NDIS was first dreamt up, when it was first envisaged, we as a nation and we as a parliament thought, at maturity, there would be 400,000 people on the scheme. There are now 760,000 people on the scheme.

We spend as much money today on the NDIS as we do on the defence of this nation—$50 billion a year. That's on 760,000 people. We spend more money on the NDIS than we do on 27 million people for Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme combined. If anybody can tell me how that is a system that is working well, I'm all ears.

I'm loath to give a political speech on this issue because this is an issue that really transcends politics. I've been listening to some of the contributions made by those opposite, and, if you listen to them, all of the problems with the NDIS started in 2013, and all of the problems were on the path to being resolved in 2022.

It's like the Great Barrier Reef.

It's like the Great Barrier Reef! This is a scheme that was designed by the Labor Party, and we supported it because we understand the importance of looking after our vulnerable. That's the difference in Australia. I think, generally speaking, Australia does it pretty well. We're not the European model of ridiculously high taxes and superwelfare, although we're certainly headed in that direction. We're not the United States model, where if you get sick it's virtually a death sentence unless you're very wealthy. Generally speaking, Australia, over successive governments, has walked that path pretty well. We, on both sides of the House, believe in things like a universal healthcare system, Medicare. The coalition supports Medicare, despite what those opposite say. They roll out their 'Mediscare' campaigns at every election. They say that we don't support the NDIS. It's all rubbish, of course, and to my last breath I'll support Medicare and the NDIS because I don't want to see a country like Australia end up with a health system like that of the United States. I love the United States. It's the land of the free and home of the brave—just don't get sick there.

But we have walked a much more humanitarian pathway in this country. We acknowledge that, if you have a significant and permanent disability, you should get cared for through the NDIS, subject to some other restrictions. But we have moved beyond that. We've moved beyond 'a significant and permanent disability', and significant bracket creep has entered into the scheme. Even though it's not capped, I am certainly hearing complaint after complaint from my constituents who are saying: 'What I was getting I'm now not. My circumstances haven't changed. It's just that the government have decided that they are going to clamp down on everything and everybody.'

There is absolutely no case or tolerance for fraud. There is no tolerance for fraudsters. We know that the NDIS is being rorted by a lot of people—certainly not everybody. It's a small number of people who are rorting the system, but they are making it difficult for everybody else because what that means is that governments of either persuasion get political pressure and have to try and create a more bureaucratic system. That means service providers' costs blow out.

For all of the complaints that I'm receiving about the rorts, I've got a lot of service providers in my electorate of Fisher who are actually telling me: 'You know what? You can keep your NDIS, because I can't make money out of it anymore. It is being locked down with such bureaucracy that I'd just rather not deal with it, because it's costing too much money to be able to provide these services. So I'm out.' In a city like Melbourne or Sydney or Brisbane, that might be okay because there'll be other people that will pick up the slack. But, in rural and regional Australia, there are not the service providers that we need. If a service provider says, 'This is too hard. You're making it too difficult for me to be able to run a business, with all of the red tape and bureaucracy and everything I've got to do. I'm just going to go back and have a 100 per cent private practice,' then those people who live in rural and regional Australia will not get the supports that they need and deserve—the same supports, in the same way, as if they were a child or a person with a disability who lives in the city.

That's the fine line that we've got to walk. We've got to ensure that we crack down on the shonks but, at the same time, that we don't make it so damn difficult for the service providers that they just close up shop, go back to private practice and get rid of the NDIS. That would be a bad thing for people who need their services like physio, like speech pathology and like all the other many and varied services that people need.

Australians are doing it incredibly tough. We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. I know what it was like pre NDIS. We were constantly putting our hands in our pockets for the myriad of specialists that my daughter needed. Back then, I was a barrister; I could afford it. But many, many families are not in that situation. The vast majority of Australian families were not and are not in that situation. That's why we have to get this right.

On the current trajectory, the NDIS is expected to cost a hundred billion dollars a year within 10 years. If we don't get this right, then, at some point, some future government is going to say: 'That's it. We can't do this anymore. The NDIS is gone.' That would be a disaster for families like the member for Herbert's, mine and those of 760,000-odd Australians around the country. We've got to make this a better system, we've got to make it a fairer system and we've got to crack down on the shonks. Hopefully, this bill will do that, but we'll keep a close eye on it from the opposition.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a headline generator, a conversation starter and a source of continual work for my electorate office. It is both a vital support mechanism and a system that has regularly let people down. The coalition understands that the NDIS remains a significant social reform in our history. However, we must pose a hard question: if the NDIS is here to support people in need, who is going to support the NDIS?

When the scheme was first proposed, it received bipartisan support across this chamber. We agreed that the previous system was failing. The old system was fragmented and unfair. People with disabilities were falling through the cracks of a broken system. The vision of the NDIS was clear; it was meant to be an insurance scheme, not a welfare system to exploit. It was designed to invest in people early, to improve outcomes and to reduce the overall cost over their lifetimes. This was the correct goal. Every member supported that goal. We wanted a system that would give people choice and give people control. We wanted a system that would help people participate fully in our society. That is the scheme that we voted for. That is the scheme Australians thought that they were getting.

But, today, we're looking at a scheme that has drifted from its intent. The financial trajectory of the NDIS is unsustainable. When the scheme was established, we were given projections about its costs. Those projections have blown out of the water entirely. We are now looking at a scheme that is costing tens of billions of dollars more than anyone could have anticipated. If we do not intervene, the NDIS will soon cost more than Medicare. Under Labor, the NDIS costs more than defence—more than defence! This is not a sustainable pathway. We simply cannot ignore these numbers. We have a responsibility to manage the budget carefully. We have a responsibility to ensure that tax revenue is used effectively.

The Labor government has failed to take this responsibility seriously. They have allowed costs to spiral out of control. They've ignored the warning signs. They have focused on a short-term political gain rather than the long-term viability of the NDIS. We need a government that is willing to make the tough decisions. We need a government that is willing to support and secure the future of the NDIS. I do not say this to be partisan. I say this because the reality is stark. The government had years to address these cost pressures. They received report after report warning them about the financial trajectory of the scheme, yet their response has been slow. Indeed, when the coalition was in government, we put in legislation to make the NDIS sustainable. Labor voted against those measures—the hypocrisy.

Labor have introduced minor tweaks when we need structural reform. They have formed committees and ordered reviews instead of taking decisive action to fix the problems. The lack of leadership is putting the entire scheme at risk. When a government fails to manage the budget of a major program, it is the people who rely on that program who suffer. If the NDIS collapses under its own weight, it is the participants who will lose their support entirely. This is why we must act now. We cannot wait for another review. We cannot wait for another election. Commonsense reforms are needed to rein in the costs and ensure the scheme is there for those who truly need it in their lives. The legislation before us, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, is a step in the right direction. It aims to put guardrails around the scheme. It aims to ensure that the funding is targeted to those who need it most. It is about restoring the original intent of the NDIS as an insurance scheme.

One of the main reasons the costs have spiralled out of control is the lack of integrity in the system. The NDIS has become a soft target for those who wish to exploit it. We have all heard the stories. We have all seen the reports and the shock pieces on social media. There are providers charging exorbitant fees and claiming payments for basic assistance needs. They do this simply because the participant has an NDIS plan. These bad apples see the NDIS as a golden ticket, a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to get rich quick. This has to stop. There are businesses that have sprung up overnight to take advantage of funding, but this is not just a few bad apples; it's a whole damn orchard of NDIS scammers.

This is a systemic problem. The system was designed with a high level of trust. It was assumed that providers would act in the best interest of their participants. Unfortunately, that trust has been used and it has been abused. The focus has shifted from providing necessary support to gouging profits. This is a rampant and disgraceful betrayal of the taxpayers who fund the scheme and a betrayal of the vulnerable Australians who need our help. Thus, we find ourselves at a critical juncture. We must ask ourselves a very serious question about the future viability of the program. I ask again: if the NDIS is here to support the people in need, who is going to support the NDIS?

Let us look closely at how the system is being milked. We see providers charging double or triple the market rate for everyday services. A service that costs one price for a regular citizen suddenly costs vastly more on the NDIS. That is a rort. We see invoicing for services that were never delivered. We see unnecessary therapies that do not align with the treatment plans. We see aggressive marketing tactics aimed at vulnerable people. We see pressure. We see pain. We see filthy behaviours that target the most weak and helpless Australians. This is a completely unacceptable situation, and this Labor government has been far too slow to crack down on this horrific behaviour.

When people see this kind of waste and abuse, it undermines public confidence in the entire system. Australians are generous people. They really are. They are willing to pay taxes for this support, but they expect their money to be used wisely. They do not want their taxes lining the pockets of unscrupulous operators. The government has a duty to protect the integrity of the scheme. They have a duty to ensure that every dollar spent is a dollar that directly benefits the person with a disability. By failing to act decisively against these scammers, this government is failing in its duty. The real tragedy of this situation is the impact it has on the genuine participants of the scheme. Every dollar that is wasted on scams is a dollar lost. It is not available for someone who genuinely needs that support. In my electorate, 5,666 people are supported by the NDIS, many of them with profound disabilities living hundreds of kilometres from the nearest specialised medical facilities. We have families who are exhausted, fighting bureaucratic battles to get care for their children, their parents or their partners. Meanwhile, money is draining out of the system at the other end. This is deeply unfair.

The system has been incredibly complex and difficult to navigate. Genuine participants are forced to jump through endless hoops to prove their need. They face a constant burden of administration and paperwork just to survive day to day in this system. Yet the scammers seem to navigate the system with ease. They know how to game the rules. They know how to extract the maximum profits with the minimum amount of effort. This creates a two-tiered system. Those who are honest and play by the rules are penalised while those who are dishonest are rewarded. We've got to flip the script. We must make it easier for genuine participants to get the support that they need. We must make it harder for scammers to exploit the system. This requires a fundamental shift in how the scheme is administered. It requires a government that is vigilant, proactive and willing to enforce the rules.

The bill before us today seeks to address some of these critical issues. It introduces tighter controls on how funds can be spent. It provides greater powers to the regulatory body to investigate and prosecute fraud. It aims to clarify the definition of 'reasonable and necessary supports', ensuring that funding is directed towards evidence based therapies and interventions. These are necessary steps, and we support the intent of these measures. We believe that we must tighten the rules to protect the very purpose of the scheme. But legislation alone is simply not enough. The government must be committed to implementing these changes effectively. They must provide the resources necessary to ensure that these new rules are enforced. They must work closely with the states and the territories to ensure a consistent approach across the entire country.

We also need to look beyond the immediate term. We need a long-term strategy for the NDIS. We need to integrate the scheme more effectively with our mainstream services. The NDIS was never meant to be an oasis in a desert; it was meant to work alongside other services to provide holistic support. The government has neglected this aspect of the design. They have allowed the NDIS to become the only option for many people, leading to a massive increase in its demand. We need to build the capacity of mainstream services so that people with disabilities can get the support they need in places like Kadina, Port Augusta, Port Lincoln and Whyalla without having to rely solely on the NDIS.

If we want to secure the NDIS for future generations, we must act with urgency and purpose. We must acknowledge that the current path is completely unsustainable. The financial pressures are real and growing rapidly every single passing day. We cannot simply wish them away or ignore them for political convenience. We owe it to the current participants to fix the system and clean up the mess. We owe it to the young children who will need this scheme in the decades to come. We owe it to the taxpayers, who are funding this vital national endeavour.

The government must step up and show real leadership right now. They must stop playing at the edges and start delivering the structural reform that is so desperately needed. They must clear out the scammers and the rorters, who are treating this scheme like an easy target to fatten their bank accounts. They must restore integrity in the system so that public confidence can be rebuilt.

We wanted to build a society where people with disabilities were valued, respected and supported to live their best lives. We wanted a system that provided certainty and security. That vision is still entirely valid. It is still worth fighting for. But a vision without a sustainable foundation is just a dream. We can make this dream a reality, but we must answer this question: if the NDIS is here to support people in need, who is going to support the NDIS? To this I say the coalition is ready to answer the call.

I rise to speak on an issue that matters deeply to Australians with disability, to their families, to the carers and to the many service providers who support them every single day. The coalition have always supported the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and we will continue to support it. The NDIS is one of the most important reforms in this country. It has changed lives by giving Australians with significant and permanent disability more dignity, more independence and more choice. But, if the scheme is going to keep doing what it was set up to do, it has to be sustainable, fair and properly run. Right now, Labor is not getting that right.

Let me be clear. The coalition supports the NDIS. We back it because we know how important it is to Australians with disability and their families. But supporting the NDIS does not mean giving Labor a free pass for poor management. A scheme this important cannot be left to drift, and it cannot be changed in a rush, without proper consultation, proper safeguards and clear answers for the people who rely on it.

Labor keeps changing its story on the NDIS. In April 2023, it said it would bring annual growth down to eight per cent. Then it shifted again and said growth would be brought down to five and six per cent over the medium term. But growth is still sitting at 10.3 per cent. That tells you that Labor has not been managing this well. It's been playing catch-up the whole way through.

The NDIS was originally expected to support about 410,000 Australians. Today, it supports more than 760,000 people. It was once expected to cost around $13.6 billion. This year, it's around $50 billion, and it is projected to rise to around $70 billion by the end of the decade. That sort of growth cannot continue without proper planning, proper safeguards and proper consultation with the people who rely on the scheme.

What worries people is that Labor is once again chasing savings without clearly telling Australians what these changes will mean in real life. Families, participants and providers are worried, and they have every right to be. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 sets up a new framework for eligibility and access, but it still leaves too many unanswered questions about how these new assessments will actually work and whether people will keep the support they depend on. For families already under pressure, the uncertainty is not some policy detail in Canberra; it is deeply personal.

The bill sets up the legal mechanism for a new approach to eligibility based on functional capacity rather than diagnosis alone, but it does not yet give families the detail they need to understand how that assessment will operate in real life. That is the source of so much anxiety. Parents want to know whether their child will still qualify. Carers want to know whether the support their loved ones depend on will be reduced. Existing participants want to know whether they will be forced to repeatedly prove what is already well understood about their disability and their daily needs. Under this proposal, existing participants will be reassessed over several years from 2028. With more than 760,000 people in the scheme, this is a huge task.

If people lose access to the NDIS or have support cut back, where are they supposed to go? Our health system is already under enormous pressure. GPS are stretched, specialists' waiting times are too long, and families are still paying too much out of pocket. If the Commonwealth shifts the burden without building up other services, families will pay the price. That is why the government should not be pushing through major changes without a clear plan and proper consultation with the disability community.

At the same time, the scheme does need stronger safeguards. Fraud and exploitation are real problems, and every dollar lost is a dollar taken away from an Australian with a disability who genuinely needs support. We also support measures that make sure participants or their trusted nominees stay in control of reassessment decisions, instead of leaving room for misuse by others in the system.

But protecting the integrity of the NDIS must never come at the expense of the people it was created to support. In Capricornia alone, there are 5,442 NDIS participants. These are not just figures in a briefing note; these are local families who rely on this support every single day. I have spoken with Susan McHugh, CEO and co-founder of Compass House in Rockhampton. Compass House is an NDIS-registered psychosocial disability provider supporting people with complex conditions in Central Queensland. It has reported zero unplanned psychiatric hospital admissions since 2020 for participants receiving full daily support. That is not accidental. It shows what properly resourced relationship-based support can achieve.

Susan McHugh also warned that this bill could do real harm to people with mental health disabilities if it is not amended. She makes the point that brief one-off assessments do not properly capture conditions that come and go, that suspending plans when a participant is uncontactable can be dangerous, as a lack of response may actually be part of a crisis, and that extra compliance demands mean very little if the pricing system still fails to reflect the real cost of complex support. That is a serious warning from a local provider on the ground, and this parliament should listen.

There are also serious concerns about the government giving itself broader powers to reduce funding for certain support categories, in particular social, civic and community participation supports and some capacity-building activities. These are not optional extras in the lives of many participants. These supports help people build confidence, develop life skills, participate in their community and maintain independence. Any change in this area must be handled with extreme care, because a reduction on paper can mean isolation, lost opportunity and greater pressure on families in the real world.

The bill also changes the way participant plans will operate. Right now, plans do not have an official end date and, in most cases, any unspent funds can roll over into the next year. Under this bill, plans will have a legislated end date and unspent funds will no longer be carried over.

On integrity, the coalition has been clear: we will support measures that crack down on fraud, noncompliance and exploitation. Public confidence in the NDIS depends on knowing the money is going to real supports for real people. When around 94 per cent of providers are unregistered and there are serious concerns about non-compliant or fraudulent claims, every member of this House should be paying attention. Fraud not only wastes taxpayer money; it takes support away from Australians with disability. That is why stronger provider registration, better record retention and tighter claims timeframes matter. But these measures should go after the crooks, not make life harder for honest participants and providers who are doing the right thing. Reform has to be fair as well as firm. But these measures should go after the crooks, not make life harder for honest participants and providers who are doing the right thing. Reform has to be fair as well as firm.

Behind those numbers is Paul, a Capricornia constituent caring for his wife Sharon after she was diagnosed with early onset dementia. It is a cruel disease that takes a person's memory, independence and quality of life little by little. For nearly two years, my office has worked with Paul to fight for the basic support Sharon needs. As Sharon's condition got worse, the funding simply was not enough. Because there was not enough care at home, she suffered a serious fall that put her in hospital for about six months. If Sharon had sufficient carer funding, that injury may well have been avoided. During Sharon's long hospital stay, Paul was working around the clock with the hospital and the NDIS to get an adequate care plan in place, all while continuing to work full time. Red tape between the hospital and the NDIS delayed Sharon's release. She was medically fit to leave, but it was determined she could not return home. The system completely failed them.

Then there's Mitchell, a 36-year-old man living with a rare auto-immune condition who has now also suffered a stroke and needs even greater support. It took 14 months of fighting by his parents alongside my office, to secure an increase in his NDIS funding to an adequate level. During that same time, his mother, his primary carer, was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer and was undergoing treatment while still battling the system to make sure her son was not left behind. No family facing that kind of heartbreak should also have to wage a bureaucratic war just to access basic care.

These are not one-off stories. They show what happens when the system lets people down. It's not ministers or bureaucrats who carry the cost. It's families already under pressure. It's carers trying to hold everything together. It's participants whose safety, independence and dignity depend on the right support being there when they need it. That is why every change in this bill matters. These stories are a reminder that behind every policy change is a real person, a real family and real pressure on households already doing it tough. The coalition will continue to support the NDIS, but we also we will also keep holding Labor to account for how it manages the scheme.

Australians with disability deserve reform that is careful, compassionate and properly considered. They deserve consultation, clarity and common sense. They deserve a government that understands sustainability is important and that sustainability cannot be achieved simply by setting savings targets and hoping the detail works itself out later. The coalition will continue to back the NDIS because we believe in it and in the Australians it supports. But we will keep holding Labor to account for every change it makes. Australians with disability deserve a government focused on supporting them, not one focused on chasing savings and fixing its budget problems on the backs of vulnerable people. Australians with disability are not a line item in Labor's budget, and they should never be treated like one.

I'm so very pleased that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is at the table and can hear this contribution because he needs to. He needs to know that certainly the veterans component of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the budget that was handed down by the member for Rankin, the Treasurer, has been met with white hot anger in the veterans community. I'm sure he is receiving the same sort of emails that I am, and I'm sure he's having some of those discussions that I am and that the shadow minister behind me, the member for Herbert, who looks after defence materiel and other things and is a veteran himself, is having.

Let me tell you, the Department of Veterans' Affairs changes, the staff cuts and the changes to the NDIS in the budget with the veterans component attached are simply not good enough, Minister. It's not always right, when you are a minister, to just take on board what the bureaucrats ask you to do and tell you to do. It's not always right when the Expenditure Review Committee overrules what you take to them—Minister, I have respect for you. I do, and I know it's a difficult job you have. I do. I told you to look after yourself when you came to Wagga Wagga to visit Pro Patria, and I did, but you have to be strong when you're around that cabinet table and you're making commitments and input for and on behalf of veterans because there are people in this place—many of them are on your frontbench—who treat veterans like a number. They are real people. They have fought for this country, they have bled for this country and they deserve the very best from this government and this country when the time comes to hang up their uniform.

From 1 July 2027, the DVA will cap allied health spending at $5,000 per veteran per year. This replaces the current 12-session treatment cycle per provider—that is, their general practitioner can recommend seeing a psychologist, and then 12 psychology sessions will be authorised.

Order! I want to bring the minister back to the content of the bill before us. This is the bill in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme amendment.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, but the cap is bundled with $169.7 million to increase allied health provider fees to NDIS rates—the first significant fee increase in more than 20 years. If that isn't relevant and if veterans aren't relevant to a discussion in this place, then I don't know what is, with all due respect. Our veterans out there are hurting. Our veterans are part and parcel of the NDIS changes in the budget. If that's not being relevant to the bill before us, then quite frankly I don't know what is. Our veterans deserve more; our veterans deserve better. I know I say that with passion. I find it extraordinary that I'm corrected from the chair when the minister at the table, who is responsible for veterans, wasn't arcing up.

Veterans with acute or critical needs can apparently apply for funding above the cap, but the process for doing so has not yet been designed, and it leaves significant uncertainty for veterans. Those veterans who happen to be bundled up with the NDIS and with disability services are being left high and dry by this government, and that is perfectly relevant to the legislation before this House. If the coalition and the shadow minister for veterans affairs can't speak up for veterans affairs and if the veteran behind me—the member for Herbert, who has given more for this country than most of us in this chamber and certainly anyone in this chamber right now—can't, then I don't know who can. So, with all due respect, I take your point of order, but it is perfectly relevant to the legislation.

Further to the legislation, aside from veterans, the NDIS is a mess. It is a total shamble. It is chaotic. Deputy Speaker and Member for Bendigo, I'm sure your office has been—just as mine has been and just as everybody who sits in this place has been—inundated in recent years with complaints, concerns and suggested changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I am a supporter of the NDIS. The member for Capricornia, who spoke before me, is a supporter of the NDIS. And, when the former Labor New South Wales cabinet minister John Della Bosca was around, it was his job, before the NDIS was legislated and after former prime minister Gillard had put the scheme up for discussion—he was seeking support. I was the first federal member from New South Wales to endorse the everyone counts campaign. It wasn't something that had been funded. It wasn't something the coalition had come out and said, 'You need to support the NDIS'—but I knew the work that Kurrajong Waratah in particular had done in the early intervention space in Wagga Wagga for nigh on six decades, and I knew that if that organisation supported it then it was incumbent upon me to do the same.

Those people on NDIS are our most vulnerable, and those veterans who are on NDIS are in the same category. They are in the same boat. They deserve every bit of help that we can give them, and to be short changed—as this mean spirited, cruel government is doing at the moment—is beyond the pale. Minister, I would appeal to your better judgement to not always accept what the bureaucrats down the hill bring you and to not always accept what is said around the cabinet table. There are people around that cabinet table who just rely on numbers. There are people around that cabinet table who just believe in savings.

When the savings come at the expense of those people who've donned a uniform, gone out and protected us—I feel safer at night knowing that they have, but they deserve the very best treatment that we can provide—it's not right. It is not right that they are being neglected and ignored as part of this legislation by this government in this appalling budget—a budget of broken promises, a budget that there has to be some restoration of. Minister, it's your responsibility to do just that. As I said, I've got respect for you. Please, for and on behalf of the veterans who you are supposed to serve, do the right thing.

When it comes to the NDIS, the difficulty with the changes that are being made as part of this broken-promises budget is that they are going to hurt Australia's most vulnerable—particularly in regional, rural and remote Australia. It wasn't bad enough that, in January, this government made changes by which the travel component of service appointments was bundled up. For anybody living an hour from a major regional centre—such as Townsville, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, Tamworth, Bendigo, and those sorts of places where there are service providers—the travel was all of a sudden part of the service fee. They stopped doing their speech therapy. They stopped doing their podiatry, because the service provider felt as though they couldn't then continue to provide the same service at less expense.

Then we've got the fuel crisis on top of that, which has hit regional communities even harder. But city-centric MPs, particularly those around the cabinet table, would not know that. They wouldn't care about it either. They wouldn't care about it, because they only ever think of themselves. They only ever think of the budget bottom line. I've sat around that cabinet table, and I've had those discussions. I have banged my fist on that table and said, 'This simply isn't good enough.' It's not good enough when you are a regional member at the cabinet table. When you are a veterans' affairs minister at the cabinet table, you have to stick up for the people who send you here to do the job because, if you don't, no-one will.

Then you get the likes of the Treasurer—the city based, Brisbane based member for Rankin. They don't understand the hardships that regional Australians endure every day simply to get podiatry, speech therapy, physiotherapy and all of those sorts of things. They should listen to the veterans. Every piece of legislation in this place should have a component of: how will this affect regional Australians? How will this affect veterans? How will this affect veterans who live in regional Australia? They're doing it the toughest, and I feel for them. I will fight for you. I will fight for them. I want you to know that.

This minister needs to do the same because, long after our political careers are over—and they are only fleeting; we are only custodians of positions—people will look back. They will stop you in the street, and they will say: 'What did you do for me when that budget of broken promises was handed down in 2026? Did you stick up for me? Did you have my back like I had yours when I put the uniform on, went on tours of duty and served this country?' You need to be able to look back at those people, Minister, and say, 'Yes, I did.' At the moment, I fear that you don't.

It's a pressing thing on each and every one of us to stick up for the people whose lives depend on it. At the moment, the NDIS does need an audit. With these changes brought about in this budget, you know who'll be okay? 'She'll be okay, mate.' It'll be the shysters, the grifters, those vile rent-seekers and the charlatans who pervade that sector and sponge off Australia's most vulnerable. They'll still get paid. They'll still get the work and the money that's coming to them.

I could not believe it when, a few years ago in Wagga Wagga, a mother of a Down syndrome son came to see me and said her son needed to go and prove it every year. Every year, they had to go to a GP to get a certificate to say his Down syndrome was still a condition. I mean, do you believe that? You don't get over Down syndrome. You don't recover from it. Yet he had to prove that he still had Down syndrome. That is the problem with the NDIS.

I'm not saying that the coalition covered itself in glory either, in one sense, because both sides of government have allowed the NDIS to grow into the beast that it has, to grow into the monster that it has, to allow some of these service providers to take the Commonwealth for granted. It's not right. That is why a full audit is needed to eke those people out and, in some cases where corruption can be proved, to send them to jail where they belong because they are sponging off and bleeding dry the vulnerable members of our community who need our support and our assistance. This legislation doesn't give it to them. They are going to be the ones who are going to suffer the most because their disabilities aren't going to improve.

You only have to listen to your constituents to know that. In Wagga Wagga, Donalee Gregory talks about the lack of consideration for each child's development journey. Caroline Hillier from Woodstock says that removing participants is blaming people with disabilities, not the cause of the cost blowouts. Julia Palmer from Cowra, whose 18-year-old son has high needs, says: 'I wish to note I understand why there needs to be cuts to the NDIS. However, I would humbly suggest the government go after those who are rorting the system, not the most vulnerable participants, as appears to be the case in my situation.' Do you know what? Julia and Caroline and Donnalee are all very correct. They are all very correct. The government needs to listen to people such as them.

The Minister for Veterans' Affairs needs to step up. He does. The NDIS ministers—I appreciate we've got one in this place and one in the Senate—also need to step up. They need to do an audit into the NDIS and get rid of these grafters and shifty people who are taking advantage of Australia's most vulnerable. (Time expired)

The Greens and I are opposing the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The sheer volume of amendments being moved to this bill demonstrates that this bill just should not pass in its current form. We'll be supporting most of the amendments, despite them not sufficiently addressing the scale of harm in the government's bill. The Greens will be moving our own amendments in the Senate.

The largest saving in this budget is $37.8 billion in cuts to the NDIS to be implemented via the changes in this bill. Here's what those changes will actually mean. They're changing the definition of permanent disability. Under this new provision, NDIS access won't be granted until all other medical treatment options have been exhausted and have failed to reduce people's disability. So if you can't afford to pursue all treatment options, too bad, you can't access the NDIS. They are going to reassess all participants and remove 160,000 people from the scheme, and it's still unclear what alternative supports will be available for that cohort. It's no wonder that people are rightly very, very scared. This bill gives the minister the ability to make broad reductions to entire groups of supports, which will enable a 50 per cent funding cut to every participant's social and community participation supports and a 10 per cent cut to their capacity-building supports, with absolutely no regard to what people actually need.

It's very clear to me that there are some problems with the way the NDIS operates, which have allowed the scheme to be exploited. Large providers who monopolise the system are the cause of so much fraud and abuse of disabled participants, in part because the NDIA does not require them to implement checks, balances or strong anti-fraud safeguards. No-one cares more about fraud than disabled people and their families, because they're the ones that suffer at the hands of fraudulent providers. But we don't tackle those issues with the NDIS, and we don't solve those problems, by kicking people off the scheme or making disabled people worse off by removing the support they so desperately need. When there's fraud in Medicare, we don't just kick people off it or reduce people's support because we recognise that as an essential service.

I sent out a survey about these cuts to my electorate, to people on the NDIS and those supporting someone on the NDIS who my office has directly helped with advocacy. Every single respondent said they were concerned about the effects of these cuts, about either being kicked off the scheme or having absolutely essential supports cut. One person supporting someone on the scheme said that they both—that's the person supporting and the person on the scheme—would not be able to work, contribute or live without the NDIS. Another said:

We barely survived before, I am absolutely terrified of going back.

Many others also said their participation in the workforce was contingent on the support they receive as well as the ability to stay out of hospital and to stay in stable housing. The social and community support that has been one of the main targets for the government's cuts means so much to participants because it allows them to participate in society. It's crucial for mental and physical health.

One participant who responded to my survey is blind and relies on support workers to get out and about. That has allowed them to get involved in competitive sport—which is great—which has in turn improved their health and resulted in fewer falls and hospitalisations. Of the changes, they said:

They will reverse the good and the feeling that I am an important part of society—at the moment I feel that only gas and coal bosses are important, and they all wish we'd just shut up and die.

The participants and carers from whom I've heard are also well aware that some level of fraud and exploitation is happening within the scheme. Many of them responded to my survey unprompted about how to actually address these issues. Notably, their suggestions don't include kicking people off the scheme. One person pointed out the huge amounts of money wasted by the NDIA on legal fees because participants are forced to go to the ART to get the care they need. They rightly point out that, if participants were given appropriate supports in the first place, there would be less need for costly review processes. Another simply said:

Don't target the participants, target the unscrupulous service providers and fraudsters.

The proposed changes we are debating give me absolutely no confidence that they will target those who are genuinely exploiting the NDIS. Rather, it's clear the government is using this as cover to unceremoniously and radically reduce the size of the scheme in an attempt to avoid political blowback. One of the survey respondents summed it up really well:

I am disgusted and horrified that the media narratives and political agenda continues to attack marginalised people, in this case some of the most vulnerable people in our rich country, to save a few bucks. Meanwhile multinational corporations get away with making billion dollar profits and paying no tax, our natural resources are taken by foreign investors and the citizens of our country don't benefit at all.

At the end of the day, it's clear that disabled people will be significantly worse off. For this reason, the Greens and I will be strongly opposing this bill.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of Australia's most significant social reforms. It exists because Australians believe that people with significant and permanent disability deserve dignity, independence and the opportunity to live full lives. This view is entirely shared by the coalition. But today we're seeing that families across the country are deeply anxious. This isn't because they oppose reform but because they fear that this government is asking them to carry the cost of its failure to properly manage the scheme. On the other side, there's also the anxiety of the Australian taxpayer who has no issue with providing support to those who are in genuine need but who right now feels that they're being ripped off and rorted. We've seen this across the country. We've seen it on social media. We've seen it playing out across the media as well.

There are a few different points I'd like to make in the course of my contribution on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. Firstly, it is that the coalition is a supporter of the NDIS. It is that sustainability matters. It is that fraud and waste must be tackled, that participants and families must not pay the price for government incompetence and that reform must be careful, transparent and compassionate.

When I speak to people across my electorate, we hear about their views on the NDIS. At a time when Australians are really hurting due to this cost-of-living crisis, it's not unexpected that people raise with me their concerns about the areas of government expenditure, and one of those that I hear about is the NDIS. The NDIS was originally expected to cost $13.6 billion, but we've seen that the NDIS bill is approximately $50 billion each year, and it's projected to increase towards the $70 billion mark by the end of the decade. We have 761,426 participants nationally, with around 3,790 participants in my electorate of McPherson, and we have a growth rate of around 10.3 per cent.

The issue is not—and this is not what we're discussing—whether the NDIS should exist or not. The issue is whether the government is able to make it sustainable without leaving Australians with a disability worse off, and that is something that is very important in the context of this debate. At the end of the day, it's about people. It's about the parents, the carers, the siblings, the support workers and the people who are doing their best to try and live independently. It's about people who have gone through an experience or who have been born with or developed certain conditions or issues that, through no fault of their own, have put them in a difficult situation. These people are not the problem. The problem is that, as with many different forms of government expenditure, there are people who can misuse the system. There is fraud, waste, weak oversight, poor administration and a lack of clarity. That is exactly what the government must address.

This is, I'll point out, Labor's third attempt to slow NDIS growth, and that's quite concerning. We have seen this gradual increase. It's gradual, but it's a persistent increase in the cost of the NDIS. Conversely, in the conversations that I've had with people across my electorate and with people who have written to me from across the country, we've also seen a reduction in the public confidence in the NDIS. Without that public confidence, there is no public licence for it. This is where the integrity of the system becomes so critically important.

In 2023, Labor promised a growth cap of eight per cent, and then they moved that target to 5.6 per cent, but we're still seeing growth sitting at the 10.3 per cent mark. The government is now trying to aim it at two per cent, which, as you can see, based on the record, doesn't really instil a sense of confidence.

The government has announced savings before it has properly explained the human consequences. As I said at the outset, most people I speak to—in fact, most Australians—say to me that they have absolutely no issue in putting out money to support Australians in genuine need. The issue comes where it is not used effectively or where those people do not actually get the benefit of the funds that are being used. This bill creates a new eligibility framework, new assessments and reassessments of existing participants, but it doesn't clearly explain how those assessments work, who conducts them, what thresholds apply and where people go if they are removed from the program. Families are being asked to trust a system that the government itself has not fully outlined or designed, and this is at a time where the level of trust not only in politics and government but in the NDIS is not very high.

I'd like to speak to a particular example, because this, I think, gives the human element and the human aspect of the NDIS. In my electorate, I've had many people who are involved in the NDIS reach out to me, whether they're participants or they're providers. Since I was elected, they've persistently spoken about a system that is broken. They've spoken about a system that doesn't actually do what it is or was intended to do. The casualties of those inefficiencies and of a broken system are people such as 12-year-old Levi. Michelle, who's the mother of 12-year-old Levi, reached out to my office towards the end of last year. Levi has cerebral palsy. He's a terrific, energetic and enlightening young man. Towards the end of last year, I had the opportunity to meet Levi at one of the end-of-year school awards. Levi's smile absolutely lit up the stage.

But Levi and his mum have been going through some challenges with the NDIS, and Levi's mum, Michelle, contacted my office seeking some urgent assistance regarding significant delays in the processing of Levi's NDIS plan. Those issues had been pending since July 2025. They came to my office because Levi hadn't had an updated plan in nearly five years, despite the fact that he requires critical supports, including a communication device to assist with his transition to high school. As well, Levi is in a mechanical wheelchair. Michelle said to me that her experience was of ongoing difficulties obtaining clear information from the NDIS. She received inconsistent updates and faced communication barriers with staff, and that situation was particularly worsened because of Michelle's own health issues. Michelle had a lung cancer diagnosis and surgery, which then limited her ability to act as a carer for Levi.

Once we reached out to the NDIS, the NDIS confirmed that contact was made with Michelle towards the end of November in 2025, and that matter was referred to the appropriate team for action. It was able to be addressed and there was an outcome that was favourable for Levi. But the point is that the situation shouldn't take the mother, who's obviously going through a lot herself, having to reach out to their federal member of parliament to then make representations on her behalf because a system that was designed to protect people exactly like 12-year-old Levi is not working and is broken. That is fundamentally what we need to be addressing here today.

There is, indeed, a story behind each and every one of the names of the people who are involved in the NDIS, and there are many people on both sides—people who are providers and people who are participants in the system—who have their experiences and their stories. But the other side of this debate that I will talk to is a part that has gained a lot of national attention, and that is the fraud issues with the NDIS. That, ultimately, pierces the integrity of the system. This is where we on the opposition side of this chamber can absolutely support reform, because reform is needed and is well and truly overdue. It's only reform that will ensure that funds are preserved to go to the right place and to make sure that people like Levi are able to get the support that they need.

But we don't think this proposed legislation is going to fix the NDIS. We don't think this goes far enough. We don't think it will do what it needs to do in order to restore integrity to the NDIS. I implore the government to reconsider its approach to the NDIS more broadly to make sure that we are actually going to address the issues that we are seeing in the NDIS. The fact that 94 per cent of providers are currently unregistered is something that, prior to entering politics, I had absolutely no idea about. It is absolutely shocking that, while across various industries, various sectors and professional bodies, if you want to practise in certain fields, you need to be registered, in the NDIS there's a different standard.

We are also seeing the value of the fraudulent activity, which goes to the integrity of the NDIS. Six to 10 per cent of claim outlays, according to the ANAO's estimates, are potentially fraudulent, incorrect or non-compliant. Based on 2025 spending, that's estimated to be between $2.9 billion and $4.8 billion of leakage annually, which could rise to $8 billion by the end of the decade. This is at a time when Australians are really struggling to keep up with their own payments, when Australians who have disabilities aren't able to access the care that they need and when people like Levi are not able to get immediate access to the support that they need. Every dollar that is lost to fraud is a dollar that's taken away from Australians with a disability.

On the fraud side, taxpayers deserve accountability, participants deserve protection and whistleblowers deserve support, not silence. We need to make sure that we build a system that Australians can be proud of, not a system that Australians are concerned about. Ultimately, if we don't do that, the future of the NDIS and everybody that it supports is in jeopardy. When I speak to people across my electorate, they talk to me about their needs, and there is no doubt that there is a considerable need on the Gold Coast, as there is, I'm sure, across the country. There is no shortage of funds in this space. What there is a shortage of is efficiency. We on this side of the House will strongly support and work with the government in doing whatever it takes to ensure we get through this and we're able to create a system that is going to instil confidence in the public.

The government can't continue to claim that it's protecting the NDIS while billions are leaking out through fraud and exploitation. We need to make sure we see reform that doesn't overburden those who are doing the right thing, those who are legitimate providers and those who are legitimate participants. We can't drive allied health workers out, and we're seeing that happen. I'm seeing it time and time again. A number of people who work in that space have reached out to me to say that they are overburdened with reporting, with paperwork. They're forced to complete paperwork that they feel—and I hear this time and time again—is never read by people. We need to have a system that gets past the bureaucracy and goes directly to the needs of the participants. It needs to put the participants first, and it needs to support those who are doing the right thing, support participants and work with them to help them get ahead. At the end of the day, restoring integrity in the NDIS is going to be the only way we can ensure it remains a long-term solution to supporting Australians with disabilities.

The NDIS belongs to Australians and to Australians with disabilities, not to governments who are balancing budgets. Reform is necessary, and fraud must be stopped because we must secure the future of the NDIS, but we must do it without abandoning Australians who depend on it every single day.

I too rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. Before I go any further into detail, I want to take a moment to reflect on what people in my community are actually experiencing right now. A constituent who is looking after elderly parents as well as a disabled child wrote to me recently, 'I'm not a case number on a bureaucratic desk; I'm a drowning mother in your community.' Other comments from recent emails demonstrate similar struggles: 'It's going to be another uphill battle for me to survive with the cuts to the NDIS. I have no hope left. I'm so tired of fighting the system.' Another one says, 'If this funding were to be cut, I feel it would have catastrophic consequences to my daughter's wellbeing.' Another wrote: 'I have no hope left. I'm really tired of fighting.' And another one says, 'This leaves us in a constant state of burnout and also highly concerned and worried not just for the present but also for the future.'

So this debate is not theoretical; it's playing out in people's lives. They are not isolated cases. These are real people, and they are anxious and uncertain. They're asking a very simple question of this parliament: 'Will the NDIS still be there for me when I need it?'

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a really important social reform in the history of our nation. It was built on a simple but powerful principle: that Australians living with permanent and significant disability deserve dignity, independence and the opportunity to participate fully in our society. I remember when the then Labor government brought it in. I remember the then opposition leader, Tony Abbott, saying:

The NDIS is an idea whose time has come.

There was a lot of support for the concept of doing something like this. Precisely because the NDIS matters so deeply, we must get these reforms right. When we talk about the NDIS, we're not talking about abstract budget lines; we're talking about people: families, carers, communities. We're talking about Australians who rely on this scheme every single day.

I don't think anyone in this House disputes that the NDIS must be sustainable. The scheme's growing rapidly, and there are genuine concerns about its trajectory. It is absolutely critical that we deal with the fraud, the rorting and the inefficiencies that we all know are out there. This scheme and system must deliver value to the taxpayer, and we must ensure that support is there for future generations. But sustainability cannot come at the expense of fairness, and it must never come at the expense of the most vulnerable Australians.

It's worth noting that the Morrison government proposed, for NDIS applicants, independent assessments conducted by privately contracted allied health professionals. But Labor, then led by Bill Shorten, former member for Maribyrnong, ran what was a fairly effective scare campaign on the reforms and lobbied state leaders to block the changes, and it forced the coalition to abandon that policy in late 2021. There was an opportunity to build a more sustainable NDIS, and that opportunity, unfortunately, was lost, and we are now faced with greater changes to try and rein in the costs and rein in this scheme.

When I came to this place, I was getting a lot of inquiries about the NDIS and could see that there were a lot of problems with it. I asked colleagues who had been here through the coalition government and who I trust, 'Why couldn't we get it under control when we were in government?' And those people, who I trust, said, 'There were a lot of design flaws to begin with, and Labor wouldn't let us fix it, for partisan, political reasons.' And that is a real disappointment. We know from correspondence and stakeholder engagement that people are deeply worried about what the changes we're proposing now might mean for them, and that is why a Senate inquiry is critically important. These reforms must be properly scrutinised. It is absolutely critical that the Senate do its work and look at what these changes mean for Australians.

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

Here are some people the government should be listening to about a 25 per cent tax on gas exports instead of the gas lobbyists. Jakub asks:

How is it possible that the government of Japan collects more taxes from reselling Australian gas than the government of Australia?

Great question, Jakub. Alan says:

both sides of politics have been compromised by the GAS and MINERALS industries. Money is changing hands constantly … TAX GAS.

Jason says:

stop the donations, gifts, sponsorships, whatever you wanna call it, from these big corporations. Major conflict of interest and having an influence on a decision.

Julia says:

by not taxing gas corporations they are alienating the very people who voted for them, which was the majority of us. Tax the gas!

Dean says:

Tax the gas

Niyazi says:

Tax the gas

Robert says:

Tax the gas

Chris says:

Tax the gas. Now!

Rosa says:

Tax them!

Ash says:

My wife is a teacher and constantly told "we can't afford pay rises"—and rightly points out that education, along with other public services, could be funded with the $17 billion this tax would raise.

Kieran says:

Our Gas sales should be beneficial to Our Children's Children, not Multinational corporations.

Hear, hear!

I rise to honour the life of one of our most loved Canberrans, Alan Jessop OAM, who passed away on 15 May at the age of 95. Well known in Canberra, Alan collected for the Salvation Army in Civic for almost 40 years and in that time raised over $4 million for the Salvo's critical work. My memories of Alan begin when I was a child shopping with my parents—he'd give me a sticker—and continue until his retirement just recently. He was ever present, a quiet yet deeply valued presence in the lives of so many, and he became an icon at the Canberra Centre. Through every conversation, smile and gentle greeting, he shared not only support for those in need but compassion, warmth and genuine care for others. His constant presence was a reminder to think of others and his dedication was an embodiment of the hope that together we can make things better.

Alan was named the ACT Local Hero in 2011, and he had his portrait painted in 2013 to commemorate Canberra's centenary. In 2022, he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia. Alan had recently celebrated his 70th wedding anniversary with his wife, Joy, and he was father to Wendy and grandfather to Emma and James. My deepest condolences go to them and to his Salvation Army friends and colleagues at this time. Alan's work changed countless lives, and he will be much missed. Vale, Alan, and thank you.

On 14 May, I launched my petition about this government ripping away private health insurance rebates for the over-65s. Since that time, we've had 5,366 Australians sign this petition. These are Australians who were told for decades: 'Invest in your private health insurance, and, when you need it most, it'll be there for you. And you'll get this concessional rate.' I just cannot understand why those members opposite would want to rip away that concessional rate once someone turns the magic age of 65. What is it about turning 65, when people need it the most and have been paying private health insurance for decades, that makes this government think it's okay to pull away that rebate? At gold level, the costs for a couple will increase by $1,600 a year. How is that fair to mum and dad or grandparents? It is a breach of trust. It's a breach of faith of successive governments of all colours. I plead with those members opposite and the Prime Minister to have a change of heart, to pull back and to restore it to the way it was.

Our federal Labor government is delivering for the people of Australia. As promised, the Darwin Medicare Urgent Care Clinic opened on Monday. Following on from the massive success of the Palmerston Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, which has already seen over 37,000 treatments in the Top End of Australia, the Darwin Urgent Care Clinic is now open. No appointments are required to get the bulk-billed care that you need when you need it. The urgent care clinic has got extended hours and is operating seven days a week.

The urgent care clinic on its first day on Monday cared for 35 Territorians. The first patient arrived at the centre just 20 minutes after opening and also right through to the close of the day. We saw about 40 per cent of those Territory patients being children under the age of 15, and they provided care for a range of conditions. About 35 per cent were acute injuries and about 65 per cent were non-acute illness. Importantly, 60 per cent of those patients said they would have gone to the Royal Darwin Hospital emergency department if the urgent care clinic wasn't open. We're really contributing to taking pressure off Royal Darwin and, at the same time, giving Territorians the care they need when and where they need it.

Like most people, I was appalled by the vile treatment of flotilla participants by the Israeli national security minister. The footage, showing bound and kneeling activists being taunted and harassed, is repulsive and inhumane. What it reveals, however, is not the exception but the rule of the Israeli government's brutal and dehumanising treatment of Palestinians, albeit this time deflected onto those seeking to deliver aid. The reality is that Palestinians in Israel and in occupied Gaza and the West Bank especially face this and far worse on a daily basis.

The International Court of Justice again confirmed the illegality of Israeli settlements in 2024, and in their ruling stated that governments and organisations were obliged to not recognise or lend any form of support to Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. So you can understand why I'm regularly contacted by constituents who want the Australian government to do more, much more, to hold Israel to account. I am contacted by constituents who highlight the sometimes unexpected layers to this horrid matter, like how familiar platforms such as booking.com and Airbnb continue to list properties on stolen Palestinian land, whitewashing the illegal occupation of genocide and generating revenue that flows directly into the settlements. I again implore the government to take meaningful action to hold Israel to account— (Time expired)

It is a simple dream and one that ought to be attainable—the sold sign at the front of a house, close to work and schools, a happy family pictured out the front. Though quickly, this was becoming a thing of the past. Locked out of the market, young people were increasingly despondent about the opportunity to own their own piece of Australia. Something had to change. So this Albanese Labor government has made that change. Only a party truly out of touch, truly not talking to community, truly comfortable with the status quo, would oppose giving young Australians the opportunity to own their own home, to start a family, to buy a dog and live their best lives.

My parents built the home they still live in when I was a toddler. They paid it all off before I finished high school. That's what I want for my daughters—to get into their own home, to not pay off someone else's mortgage but to be paying off theirs. That's what I want for every single Australian. That is what this government is going to deliver: more housing supply, more opportunity.

If you want a negatively gear going forward, fantastic. Build a new home, get a family living in there and you'll be investing in your future. You'll be investing in your tenant's future, and you'll be investing, most importantly, in the future of Australia. Every day I get constituents telling us that, yes, now they have hope. Now they see the light. Now they believe that they're going to live in their own home with their dog, with their children, with the stickers that their kid put up there when they were two, and they'll live there the rest of their lives.

Australia asks extraordinary things of the men and women who wear our uniform, and all they ask for when they return home is that we take care of them and we treat them with respect. That is not what has happened in this federal budget with the Albanese government's decision to impose a $5,000 cap on allied health services for veterans. I've spoken to many veterans in my electorate, many ex-service organisations, many RSLs. They are hurt. They are angry. They feel there is a lack of respect and understanding. Veterans often have complex and chronic health needs. They're not simple; they're not short term. Veterans deserve adequate support, respect and care from this federal government. They deserve nothing less.

That is why I oppose this cap; it is why the Liberal and National parties oppose this cap. The coalition will stand up and fight for our veterans. They fought for Australia, and they deserve all of us in this place standing up and fighting for them. They deserve nothing less, and that is why it is so disappointing to hear government members supporting the cap on allied health services for veterans.

Member for Solomon! You're out of your seat and you're highly disorderly.

Veterans have multiple conditions. They have complex and chronic health conditions. They need ongoing support. They deserve nothing less than adequate and full support from their country.

I'm a proud millennial. I speak the language of the Veronicas, Round the Twist, Twilight and too many peace signs. But, like every young person in this country, I know that our housing system is cooked. In 1980, the average home cost about three times the annual income and took three years to save for. In 2000, it cost about four times the annual income and took seven years to save for. But, today, your first home costs eight times the annual income. It takes 11 years to save for. And first home buyers face the reality that they may never pay off their mortgage. Young Aussies have got a housing system that is stacked against them. They're doing the right thing—studying, picking up a trade, working hard and saving—yet, still, they get to auctions and are outbid by investors next to them who are backed by the Australian taxpayer.

What our government wants is something simple: for young people to get a fair go at owning their own home, because, right now, it's easier to buy your 10th house than your first, and that's just not right. Our budget is backing first home buyers and levelling the playing field at auctions, like with five per cent deposits for first home buyers. In my electorate of Gorton, over 3,000 people have bought their first home thanks to our five per cent deposit scheme. It's changing lives and it's doing this for families right across the country. And, to make housing more affordable, we need to build more homes. Young Aussies don't want to pay rent forever. We want more sold stickers across our communities, put there by young Australians.

This budget represents the forced liquidation of Australia's economic future. It's a shonky ledger of broken promises, skyrocketing debt, lower living standards and fewer homes for Australians. At the very centre are toxic taxes, a fast-track formula to economic stagnation and a sneaky raid on anyone trying to get ahead. Pushing Australia towards the highest capital gains taxes in the world is a brutal assault on aspiration. It is a direct tax on saving, a tax on investing and an act of intergenerational theft. By spending more and taxing more, this Labor government is pushing up inflation, increasing interest rates—higher for longer—and leaving the next generation with a compounding liability. This government wants to tax Australians from the cradle to the grave, sneaking in a death tax on family assets. Labor call this trust reform, but the public has absolutely zero trust in this government.

Now, with the public backlash, the PM is panicking. Instead of admitting that these taxes are toxic, Labor is doubling down, acting like a backyard butcher, hacking out messy little carve-outs. They hope that the public won't notice that their economic butchery is slaughtering our economy. It's time for the Albanese Labor government to drag this broken agenda back to the economic chopping block.

A budget is more than a set of numbers. It is a statement of what a government believes people deserve. This federal budget says, clearly and proudly, that Australians deserve health care that is affordable, accessible and there when they need it. This budget invests in Medicare. It invests in bulk-billing. It locks in Medicare urgent care clinics as a permanent part of our health system. It delivers record funding for public hospitals, cheaper medicines and stronger digital health infrastructure. This means a child with a fever can be seen before midnight. It means a pensioner can fill a script without having to choose between medicine and groceries. It means emergency departments can focus on true emergencies. And it means Medicare is not just defended in speeches; it is strengthened in practice.

While Labor is building, others are barking from the cheap seats—and then there's the One Nation-Liberal coalition. There's a party that's spent decades perfecting the politics of the empty fist, all swing and no substance. They come into this parliament thundering about the forgotten Australian, but they have no intention of remembering them once the cameras are gone. On health care, they're not just weak; they are vacant. They have no credible plan for Medicare, no plan for hospitals, no plan for GP access and no plan for bulk-billing—nothing. It's just a long, tired performance of outrage from a party that confuses volume with virtue and anger with intellect. On these tests, One Nation and the Liberals fail every time. (Time expired)

I'm extremely grateful that game 1 of State of Origin is being played tonight, because, for many in my league-loving electorate of Hinkler, the brief distraction from Labor's budget of broken promises will be welcome. Phone calls and emails have been coming in thick and fast to my electorate offices in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg every single day since 12 May, when Labor delivered this bad news budget. Following dozens of face-to-face catch-ups across Hinkler last week at my mobile offices, I can categorically confirm to the House that the people of Hinkler don't want carve-outs to Labor's toxic taxes. They want them axed. That includes those aged 65 or older with private health cover. This Labor government is stripping back their private health insurance rebate. For Hinkler, 26,300 seniors are now facing a real and difficult choice: to cut spending on essentials, downgrade their cover or drop it altogether. Then there's the cruel cap on Hinkler veterans' allied health services. The uncertainty alone is putting immense stress on those who have served our country and fought for our freedoms. Bundaberg veterans are so incensed they are planning a protest this Friday, and who could blame them? Veterans should not be asked to bear the cost of Labor's budget repair. Let's hope a Queensland win over the Blues tonight can bring some joy, because Labor's budget has left regions like Hinkler in a state of despair. They've been left wanting and searching for a fair go.

One of the driving reasons why I ran in 2022 was to see that opportunity reached every part of my electorate of Hasluck. I walked thousands of streets and spoke to neighbours and community members who told me, whether they lived in Brabham or Ellenbrook or Aveley, that they wanted fair access to opportunity around health care, education, training and community infrastructure. I listened, the Albanese Labor government listened and we have delivered. We have now three urgent care clinics—in Ellenbrook, in Morley and in Midland—and with this budget they will be made permanent. We have cut medicines to $25 max, which is saving thousands of dollars for people across my community. We have been doing huge work around infrastructure. After decades of inaction under the Liberal government, we now have a train line to Ellenbrook, and it is so well loved. As well, we've got a brand new station out to Midland, and, importantly, we've got community infrastructure around it. We have delivered a swimming pool that was promised, again, for decades under the Liberals. We have got a community hub, where community can come together and celebrate all things great about being in the community. We have absolutely extraordinary work being done now around environmental matters because that matters to my community too. Then there are the more practical things. We are going to be delivering our fifth tax cuts. Labor is listening. Labor is delivering. (Time expired)

O'Connor's mineral and agricultural wealth drives the Australian economy, and in this toxic budget my regional communities have been sorely neglected. Families dealing with rising power bills, high grocery prices and increased mortgage stress have received no cost-of-living relief. Medicare bulk-billing remains the exception, not the norm, and we need new initiatives to attract and retain regional GPs. While Labor throws millions at Medicare urgent care clinics in the cities, there is not one planned for anywhere in my vast electorate. Labor claims this budget is creating intergenerational fairness, but in reality it's robbing our young people and families of the opportunity to grow their wealth while simultaneously curbing the self-sufficiency of our self-funded retirees. For our seniors, it's never been harder to access Support at Home, and not one new aged-care bed has been allocated in this budget. Wait times for home care and aged care have blown out to over a year, and our brave O'Connor veterans will be severely impacted by the $5,000 cap to their DVA funding. Our small businesses, farmers, explorers and mining operations will be crippled by the changes to the capital gains tax. No new road or water infrastructure funding further stifles investment and regional growth. Ultimately, O'Connor's mining and agricultural wealth drives this nation's prosperity. This budget raises a fundamental question: are we investing enough in the very regions that sustain Australia's economy and future? And the resounding answer is no.

Last Friday, I sat down for a coffee with Amelia from Camp Hill, a young parent raising her child, running a small business and doing what so many women in Griffith do every day, carrying family, work, care and community all at once. She was thinking about her child's future, her business, her time and the pressures of building a good life. As policymakers, we cannot pretend that decisions we make in this place impact everyone in the community in the same way. Decisions about wages, child care, paid parental leave, health, housing, safety and superannuation affect women in specific ways. That's why Labor brought back the Women's Budget Statement—to build gender equality into decision-making from the start—after those opposite scrapped it. Our progress is clear: women's average weekly earnings have grown by almost $300 since 2022, more than one million families have benefited from cheaper child care, paid parental leave is expanding to six months and women have saved more than $647 million through cheaper medicines and better access to contraceptives and menopause therapies. In Griffith, women lead across every part of community life. Their leadership is practical, generous and often quiet, but it is felt in every suburb of our community. This budget backs them. It backs their work, their safety and their health. There is more to do, but, under the Albanese Labor government, women are in the cabinet room and in the caucus room at record levels, helping shape the decisions that affect our lives, affect our communities and affect our families.

I rise to pay tribute to Leon Bloom, believed to be the last surviving Jewish Australian veteran of World War II. Born in Footscray, Victoria in 1923, Leon Bloom passed away, symbolically, just a day after Anzac Day this year. On that day, I had the honour of attending a post-Anzac Day service for the Victorian Association of Jewish Ex & Servicemen & Women in Melbourne. Leon Bloom was to have been there as well. Janice Furstenberg, the President of VAJEX, paid her final respects to Leon at his funeral by reciting the ode next to his five war-service medals. Leon Bloom served in the Royal Australian Air Force during the war and continued to serve the community after. Leon later worked in civil engineering before going into an electrical-motors business. His passion in life was photography, and his work was selected for the National Trust. On Leon's 100th birthday, in 2023, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Matt Keogh, paid tribute. He said:

Leon was proud to be of service to his country and said his time in the RAAF was life changing. He reached the rank of corporal and discharged from RAAF in February 1946.

Last year, on Anzac Day, there were four known surviving Australian Jewish servicemen who had fought in World War II. Although almost 4,000 Jewish Anzacs who served in World War II are no longer with us, they leave behind a legacy of courage, sacrifice and mateship. May Leon Bloom's memory forever be a blessing.

My community in Bonner is home to the Ampol Lytton refinery, one of only two refineries in the country helping to keep Australia moving and supporting almost a thousand local jobs. At a time of global uncertainty, Australians rightly want confidence that the fuel they rely on every day to get to work, run businesses and transport goods will be there when they need it. That is why the Albanese Labor government has taken practical action to strengthen Australia's fuel security. We have introduced the National Fuel Security Plan, strengthened fuel reserves, backed additional fuel cargoes and delivered fuel excise relief to ease pressure on households. We are also investing more than $10 billion to strengthen domestic fuel supply and boost Australia's preparedness during disruptions. Today, Australia has more fuel than before the war in the Middle East began—43 days of petrol, 38 days of diesel and 31 days of jet-fuel reserves. Thanks to the Albanese Labor government and facilities like the Ampol Lytton refinery, Australia is stronger, more resilient and better prepared for the future.

The jet-setting part-time Minister for Climate Change and Energy came into this House on 14 May, blustering that my electorate of Mallee had 1,466 batteries—six times that of Melbourne. On the data I can obtain—because the minister likes to play secret squirrels on this stuff, including batteries and fuel, and keeps the data to himself—Mallee actually ranks 33rd out of 38 Victorian electorates for battery installations and Melbourne is 38th, at the bottom. Not only are Mallee residents unable to afford a battery; their taxes are helping people in the leafy green suburbs of Melbourne install theirs. The minister claimed Mallee had installations six times that of Melbourne. He's actually referring to the electorate of Melbourne, which is full of high-rise apartments and rentals—households with little to no ability to install solar or batteries. The minister is comparing apples with cucumbers.

Yet again, Labor's energy policies do not deliver energy bills savings for regional Australians. Rather, they deliver pain. Australians have worked out this part-time minister for energy for the snake oil salesman that he is, and I say to him—through you, Deputy Speaker Claydon: keep it coming.

It is the first State of Origin game tonight, and I am a true Queenslander. It's a clash of the game's greatest. Like any good game, you need a game plan and courage if you're the one that's going to come out on top. It's a bit like this place. On this side of the House you have the mighty Maroons focused and ready to win, while on that side you've got the Blues with most of their bench out injured and still looking for a decent coach. But the Maroons have their game plan: the Prime Minister will have the first carry, with a breakthrough on tax cuts, cheaper fuel and cheaper medicines; the Treasurer will do a cut-out pass and find some savings on the wings; and then it's going back to the PM, who will score under the posts with a fairer deal for first home buyers.

On the other hand, the Blues went into the season opener with higher taxes and then tackled every cost-of-living measure the Maroons could push forward with. The captain of the Blues even said he'd repeal the tax changes, which was ruled a knock-on by the Australian people. We're not even at the end of the first half, and the Maroons are up by 52 seats. The weather's come in, the crowds want more action and they can't get into a home of their own. So what does the captain do? What does the Prime Minister do? He does the left-foot step and scores a try on housing, and in the post-match interview he said he saw the weather, he heard the crowds and he did what any good captain would do—while the Blues ignored the rules, leaving holes in their defence. The Blues are now back in the shed and we'll see if they've got a better— (Time expired)

The self-starters of Australia have been betrayed by the Albanese government. We have record small-business insolvencies—eight small-business insolvencies every business hour—a decline in the self-employed and families struggling to make ends meet. Real wages have fallen backwards by three per cent and costs have risen by an average income of $32,000.

Australians are already financially drowning under the Treasurer's active inflation agenda. Any budget tax cut will be wiped out by Christmas. Their business model is 'stoke inflation, tax inflation, then let's just spend the inflation'—wash, rinse, repeat. Young families who have invested their first home deposit are going to experience a double hit. And, of course, the Prime Minister has taken half the ownership of small businesses.

There is a better way. We can build a future where Australians work to create and build a future, and where this country backs them. A coalition government will back the self-starters of Australia. We're committed to a $50,000 instant asset write-off and making it permanent. Our tax-back guarantee will index tax brackets so the silent inflation agenda of this government doesn't steal your salary. And we'll have a small-business act to protect small business in this country from the Prime Minister and this government. We want your help. Go to standwithsmall.org and fight for a better future. (Time expired)

To those opposite: I think sometimes what we need to do in this place is think about people. I remember, in 2022, during the federal election campaign, meeting a woman who was playing a clarinet at the park by the Perth Zoo. She was experiencing homelessness. One of the fastest growing rates of homelessness that we've seen in Australia is for women in their 60s and older. But do you know what? We're not just a government that listens. We are a government that acts. That's why we have committed to 55,000 social and affordable homes. This is not just a number. This is actually happening.

In the week of the budget, I got to go to Victoria Park and Clark Court, where 15 homes are being built. Ten of those homes will be for women. Connect Victoria Park is an extraordinary organisation that is doing the work to get the job done. In my electorate alone, 524 homes will be built through social and affordable housing. How many houses did those opposite build during nine years for the entire nation? They built 373. That is pathetic. We are also fixing the housing tax system. We're doing that because it is right. This is a government that is doing the right thing for the next generation for today and tomorrow.

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

I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent from question time today due to his duties as Minister for Defence. The Minister for Defence Industry will answer questions on his behalf.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House how many of Australia's nearly three million small and family businesses will be carved out of Labor's capital gains tax grab?

I can inform the House that our government backs small business, and I'll make these points: we announced $3½ billion in the budget in new measures that lower taxes for businesses to encourage investment and innovation; we're making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent for the first time, providing $890 million in cash flow support over five years; we're introducing a permanent loss carry-back to support resilience, investment and risk taking, helping up to 85,000 companies a year; we're introducing loss refundability to help up to 25,000 startups per year grow in their early years; we're expanding tax incentives for venture capital to unlock industry knowledge for young, expanding firms; and we're better targeting the R&D tax incentive.

When it comes to capital gains, there are four different carve-outs and concessions for small businesses, and all four are staying in place. What that means is if you sell your active business to retire, to start a new business or to relocate you can still reduce, or in some cases completely remove, your tax on any capital gains. Ninety per cent of small businesses in Australia are eligible for these concessions, and they'll continue to remain eligible. All budget measures on top of that are entirely prospective. They don't start until 1 July 2027. That means that any business value that's been built up before this date can use the old discount rules, no matter when the business owner decides to sell in the future.

My question is to the Treasurer. Why are the reforms at the core of the budget so important in the current economic conditions? How does it compare with other approaches?

A big thank you to the member for Corangamite for her question and for all of her work. Inflation came down in the data today for April, and that's very welcome news. It came down by more than what was expected, but it's still too high in our economy. We had inflationary challenges before the war, but the war has made them worse, and those impacts are broadening out in our economy.

Petrol was a big part of the improvement in today's data, but it's not the only part. Rents and food came down a bit as well. Again, that's welcome. Our inflation came down in April in Australia while it went up in April in the US, Canada and the Euro area.

But we know that people are still under pressure, and that's why our budget strategy is so responsible and so important. It's why we've saved more than we've spent in the budget and improved the bottom line each year, and got debt down a bit more as well. It's why we're helping with the cost of living in a responsible way by cutting fuel taxes, and cutting income taxes as well.

Tomorrow we will introduce the tax cuts legislation with the changes to the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing. They're in the same bill because one pays for the other. It means that we are cutting income taxes five times and in three different ways. The average worker will save $2,800 a year when it's up and running.

If those opposite vote against a tax cut, they'll be making the exact same mistake that they made last year. It will prove beyond any doubt that they haven't learned a thing from the last election and that they haven't changed a bit since. Their three objectives are to talk down the economy, to talk up division in our society and to run a scare campaign against the same changes that the shadow Treasurer has repeatedly called for.

Our three objectives are to make it easier to own a first home, to cut income taxes again and again, and to better align the tax treatment of income and assets. That's why Bob Breunig at the ANU says:

Australia's most ambitious budget in decades deserves support. It acts on numerous fronts long treated as too hard: negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount, trusts and the tax burden on workers.

It's why the Barefoot Investor said:

The system lets wealthy families with good accountants pay less tax than nurses and tradies. That doesn't pass the pub test.

It's why the shadow Treasurer himself has said:

There's no intergenerational justice in such preferential arrangements …

He wrote that in his book. He said in the parliament:

… the tax system is screwing over young Australians.

The Institute of Public Affairs said that indexation is 'a more rational and economically efficient way to tax capital gains'.

Too many Australians are locked out of housing. We're addressing that and cutting income taxes for workers, and those opposite should vote for it.

Prime Minister, today's inflation data confirms that, if the coalition's tax back guarantee were in place right now, a typical taxpayer would receive $410 of tax relief this year, growing to well over $1,000 per year in four years' time. Will the Prime Minister index income tax brackets to end their inflation tax bracket creep?

I welcome the question from the Leader of the Opposition, who's actually asked me to comment on their tax policy. That is what the question goes to, and I welcome it, because tomorrow we'll be introducing tax reductions, and they'll have a chance to vote for them or to vote against them.

Now, we know that, when we changed stage 3, they said that they were going to fight it, that they were going to oppose it and that we should call an election on it, and then they voted for it. We know that, when it came to the tax cuts that were in last year's budget, they said that they'd oppose them. They voted against them. To be fair to them, they did what they said they'd do, and, then, do you know what they did? They took it to an election and they got smashed. They got smashed, which is why they're down to 41 members over there.

They have other tax policies as well. They want higher taxes on the resources and manufacturing sectors, because they want to abolish the production tax credits. They want higher taxes on motorists by abolishing the EV concession. Of course, we know they wanted higher student debts. We know that they want higher power bills, because they want to abolish the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. We know they want more expensive training courses, because they want to abolish free TAFE.

Order! The member for Goldstein will cease injecting. The manager on a point of order?

On relevance, Speaker. The question was about income tax and whether you will index to prevent bracket creep. Will you do it or not? It is a very simple question.

Resume your seat. There's a bit in this question, including about the coalition's Tax Back Guarantee. That policy—

We'll get through this, Leader of the Opposition. You not having a debate with me. We just need to make sure that, if the Prime Minister is referring to the coalition policy he was asked about, he makes it directly relevant to what he is responsible for for the government. He wasn't asked a broad-ranging question, as the manager indicates and was correct about, but he was asked about one coalition policy. I'll ask him to be directly relevant.

Yes, Mr Speaker. I was asked about their tax policy, which is higher taxes, and I was asked about our policy, which is lower income taxes—lower income taxes under those on this side and higher income taxes under those opposite. On 1 July—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The Leader of the Opposition, the Treasurer and the minister for infrastructure. I can't hear a word the Prime Minister is saying due to the interjections from both sides.

On 1 July, every single Australian worker will get a tax cut—and those opposite voted against it. Not only did they vote against it; they said they'd reverse it if they won the last election. But thank goodness—

And then you made him leader!

As a result of all that, he's now leader. If you want any indication that they're always looking in the rear-view mirror, this is the mob who just made Tony Abbott the President of the Liberal Party.

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How will the Albanese Labor government's reforms to employment services help get more Australians into jobs?

I'd like to thank the member for Boothby for that question but also for the absolutely huge contribution she's made to reforming employment services. Under this Labor government, we've seen the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in the last 50 years. We've seen the creation of more than 1.2 million jobs, and, in the past 12 months, we've seen more than 128,000 more Australians in work. But, unfortunately, there are still too many Australians missing out on the benefits of work, because for decades our employment services system has treated everyone the same regardless of their skills and experience or the barriers to work that they face. Around one in five Workforce Australia participants have been in employment services for five years or more, almost double the number of a decade ago. We must change the system to provide more targeted support and better calibrate employment services that help Australians into jobs.

So today I announce that our government is embarking on the largest reforms of our employment service system in 30 years—reforms that will help jobseekers get the right support at the right time and reforms that will deliver improved value for money by directing resources to where they are needed the most. Of course, these reforms build on the very important work done by the member for Bruce as Chair of the Select Committee on Workforce Australia Employment Services, and I'd like to recognise all the members of that committee for their very substantial report.

The system overhaul that we are performing will be centred around four main changes. The first and most important change is that we are ending the 'one size fits all' approach to servicing. We are creating three distinct, high-quality service streams offering different intensity of support depending on an individual's distance from the labour market. The second change is the introduction of effective mutual obligations that are designed to actually help people get a suitable job and that are calibrated to a person's distance from the labour market. Third, we are overhauling the assessment and triaging process so barriers to employment are identified early. And, fourth, we are introducing a new planning process which supports people to develop employment goals and work towards them. Our government has committed in this budget $312 million as a down payment to establish the key new elements of this system because every person in our employment services system, no matter how far they are from the labour market, deserves a clear pathway to employment.

I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are Mr Chris Quealy and Mary de Vay visiting from the Blue Mountains as guests of the member for Macquarie. Also in the Speaker's gallery today is Mrs Josephine O'Brien, who lost her husband, who is the nephew of the member for Kennedy, to leukaemia. With Josephine and her family is Rochelle Akhavan, who also lost her husband to leukaemia. They are here today in anticipation of World Blood Cancer Day tomorrow and are working to increase Australian stem cell donor registrations in support of this important cause. Welcome to question time.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Attorney-General. The recent resignations of both the commissioner and the deputy commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission present an opportunity to rebuild public confidence in the institution but only if the new appointments are made independently and transparently. In line with best practice, will the positions be advertised for at least two weeks, will selection criteria be made public, and will the appointments be made by an independent selection panel? If not, can you please explain why?

I thank the member for her question, which goes to the importance of the National Anti-Corruption Commission to Australia's integrity landscape, as delivered by the Albanese government following our election in 2022. I am pleased to confirm to the House that the government established a merit based selection process for all appointments to the NACC, which has been followed to date and which will be followed in future. The appointment process will be consistent with the Australian Government Appointments Framework and the NACC Act. Candidates for appointment are assessed by a selection panel following public advertisements. Only candidates assessed as suitable by the panel are presented to me as Attorney-General for appointment. Candidates are then referred for consideration to the cross-party Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, comprising members and senators from across the parliament, including the honourable member for Indi, who serves as its deputy chair. I also thank the member for Indi for her work on this very important committee. The committee's decision is then reported to the parliament.

I note that all appointments made to the commission to date have been unanimously approved by the parliamentary joint committee. The merit based process for NACC appointments reflects the Albanese government's commitment to integrity and accountability in government, and I thank the honourable member for her positive engagement in this regard.

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government's budget delivering reforms to housing policy that are pro aspiration and pro supply? Why is this important, and are there any alternatives?

I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and for her passionate work in the suburbs of Melbourne, campaigning very strongly to give young people a fair crack at a better future. The truth is that the housing system is broken. That is the truth. Young Australians know it. Their parents and grandparents know it. They know that the housing system is not working in the interests of Australians. Young people simply can't get a fair crack if they're turning up at auctions and they're competing with people who have the taxpayer as a partner where, if the taxpayer has to bid that extra $20,000 or $30,000 in order to be successful, then they can, because they know it will lead to a reduction in their tax. That is why this has been called for—the reform—by so many, including the shadow Treasurer. It's why it was acknowledged by the member for Canning as well. It's why, in his valedictory in 2015, Joe Hockey said:

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

I've got a lot of time for Joe Hockey. Joe Hockey yesterday was asked about this comment at the National Press Club, and he doubled down. He said this:

… if you don't like it, tough … I stick by what I said in my valedictory speech.

The difference between what my friend Joe Hockey did and what this government has done is that we're actually doing something about it. We're not giving a speech on the way out; we're doing something about it to make a difference. That's why the legislation that we will introduce tomorrow is pro-aspiration, to give young people a crack, and pro-supply because people will still be able to invest in negative gearing and receive the existing capital gains tax discount, but, in order to do that, they not only will be investing in their future wealth and their future assets, they'll be investing in the future wealth and assets of the nation as well. We are doing this because we want aspiration for all, not just for some. That is what we on this side of the chamber stand for—introducing legislation to improve housing supply, to improve aspiration and the opportunity for people to get into their first home at the same time as we are decreasing taxes for them through our working Australians tax offset and the $1,000 automatic tax deduction. All of this chamber should take the opportunity to vote for it.

Resume your seat, member for Goldstein. You have a habit of, each time, walking up to the dispatch box in a dramatic way. Just wait till you're called, and then you will get the call and get to the question. It works both ways. When questions run out of time, I could easily withdraw questions out of order, but I'm not doing that, and I'd like to give the opposition a fair go with their questions. Each time someone yells out, 'Time!' we can have this discussion again, and we can easily go down this path. I have got an account of the amount of times opposition members have gone over the time, and the questions will be ruled out, but I like to include as many questions as possible. If you could assist the Speaker by not interjecting, 'Time!' it would be greatly appreciated.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said: 'We are simply returning the CGT system to what was there before 1999.' In 1999, capital gains could be averaged over five years to stop small-business owners being pushed into the top tax bracket. Prime Minister, in your own words, 'It's time to be honest.' Is this your policy?

This is from the shadow Treasurer, who wrote a terrific book, justifying why this should occur. There are, actually, as well, a range of comments about capital gains tax. Here's what the Institute of Public Accountants had to say—

Opposition members interjecting—

The member for Casey will cease interjecting. Members on my left, enough is enough. The yelling has got to stop. It's ridiculous.

Here's what they had to say. The Institute of Public Accountants, last time I looked, is not an affiliate of the Australian Labor Party, though I am worried about the IPA being quoted by the Treasurer, I must say. It's the second faux pas he's committed today, on top of the tie. The Institute of Public Accountants had this to say: 'Over 90 per cent of small-business owners will potentially qualify for some of the CGT concessions.' If they can avail themselves of those concessions, they're going to achieve, in some cases, tax as low as zero. This is what Nash Advisory had to say:

The preservation of the small business CGT concessions is the most important detail in this budget for business owners considering a sale.

They went on.

… the concessions under Division 152 were always the more powerful mechanism, and they remain fully available.

That is what they had to say. Daniel Petre, the co-founder of Airtree Ventures—they help founders launch and grow their companies.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australians across the country to get into a home of their own? Are there any other approaches to housing policy?

I thank the member for Gorton for her fantastic question. She's one of our brilliant incoming class of 2025, one of many in our caucus who speak so powerfully for the younger generations of our country who are being treated so unfairly by our broken housing system. The member for Gorton and I share a really simple belief, and that is that everyone in our country should have a safe place to call home. But, for far too many Australians, their housing dream keeps slipping further and further away. Whether it's the dream of buying their own home, renting somewhere near where they work or getting into much needed social and affordable housing, the system is not working for them.

As the Prime Minister said before, our housing system in this country is broken. It is cooked. It is hurting people, and that is why our government is standing up and doing something about it. That is why our government is levelling the playing field for first home buyers and building on the work that we have done to get a quarter of a million Australians the keys to their own home, and we're damn proud to have done it. It's why we're committing another $2 billion of investment in last-mile infrastructure to unlock another 65,000 homes. That builds on $4.3 billion that we'd already committed to that endeavour. It's why our government is so proud to be delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes around the country. We've just ticked over 7,000 of them being completed.

I'm asked about alternatives, and I want to speak about the approach of those opposite. For nine long years, this group of charlatans sat on the government benches—for most of that time, without a housing minister.

To assist the House—we don't need that sort of language, Minister.

I withdraw.

We want to show everyone respect here and use correct titles as well.

Those opposite did nothing about the housing challenge that went from bad to worse to awful. They did nothing about a generation of young people who were being locked out of the housing market. Now they come in here, and they want to lecture us about aspiration.

The member for Barker is now warned.

I don't want to just speak about the record of the Liberals. We can't forget the Nationals in this discussion. I want to see if the parliament can remember how many social and affordable homes the Nationals built in the whole of rural and regional Australia when they were in power. How many was it? It was absolutely none. Not a single home was built in regional and rural Australia by those people sitting opposite.

We have got a long way to go on housing, but our government has the most ambitious housing plan that the Commonwealth has had in this country for 70 years. We started in 2022, we built on it in the budget and we'll keep fighting because we believe that every person in this country should have a safe roof over their head.

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to your previous answer. In 1999, capital gains could be averaged over five years to stop small-business owners being pushed into the top tax bracket. Is this your policy?

The member for Spence will leave the chamber under 94(a). It's highly disorderly.

The member for Spence then left the chamber.

He referred to the previous answer, so I'll take up where I was rudely interrupted last time around. Daniel Petre, the co-founder of AirTree Ventures, runs a company that helps founders to launch and grow their companies.

Opposition members interjecting—

The Leader of the Nationals in the House and the member for Goldstein are warned.

This is what he had to say:

I call complete—

BS—

that founders … are saying they are going to move overseas because of tax.

He said:

I think you need to … take a Bex and have a lie down.

… I think it is just appalling that you have this … hyperbole going on without people firstly thinking through … what might be fair in this country …

I just warned the member for Goldstein, and you carry on with that sort of behaviour. You are going to leave the chamber under 94(a). I think everyone heard me say very clearly that you and the member for Gippsland were warned. The member for Gippsland got the message, but you didn't. You've had an extremely good go at this, but you're not going to continue to disrupt question time with that sort of behaviour.

The member for Goldstein then left the chamber.

Jevon Le Roux, who's the co-founder and CEO of Keeyu, said this:

But here's what I don't see anyone posting about.

The government gives founders 43% back on every R&D dollar spent. Today. Not in five years. Not when you exit. Right now.

You fill it in. You submit it. You get it back in 30 days.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare after a decade of cuts and neglect? What additional support does the budget provide to lift bulk-billing rates on the Central Coast and in the Hunter region?

I thank the member for Robertson for hosting me in his beautiful electorate last week. He still pulls shifts at the emergency department at the Wyong Hospital, which is why he's known affectionately as Dr Gordon in that community. Importantly, he knows more than most the benefit of a well-functioning primary care system.

He also knows that when we came to government in 2022, bulk-billing rates in this country were in freefall. Just in that one year alone, bulk-billing rates plummeted by more than 10 per cent, and it's no mystery why. It's because, for years and years, those opposite froze the Medicare rebate, strangling the income of Australia's general practitioners and forcing them to put in place gap fees. That is why, in our first budget, we tripled the bulk-billing incentive for Australia's pensioners and concession card holders. I'm pleased to report the latest data indicate the bulk-billing rate for those Australians with that concession card is now around 93 per cent.

Unfortunately, the bulk-billing rate continued to fall for those Australians who didn't have a concession card, so last year, for the first time ever, this government extended bulk-billing support to every single Australian, not just those who had the card. We also offered a significant incentive to those general practices who decided to bulk-bill all of their patients all of the time. I'm pleased to report that, after only a few months, that is already making a huge difference. Since 1 November, more than 1,400 general practices have shifted from charging gap fees to becoming 100 per cent bulk-billing. The bulk-billing rate to the end of March—in just a few months—for those Australians without a concession card has already climbed by around nine per cent, delivering millions of additional free visits to the doctor already.

As the member for Robertson and his colleagues in that region know, those benefits are not being enjoyed by Australians everywhere. In Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, parts of the Hunter and the Central Coast, the number of 100 per cent bulk-billing practices is about half the New South Wales average. The bulk-billing rate in some of those communities is around 20 per cent below the New South Wales average and a whopping 30 per cent below the rates you see in Western Sydney and south-western Sydney, with absolutely no rational explanation. That is why this budget is funding six new fully bulk-billing clinics in those regions—to ensure that there is competition within general practice in that region and to spread the benefits of bulk-billing to that terrific community that the member for Robertson and his colleagues represent. Our plan to strengthen Medicare is a plan for all Australians.

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. This morning, the opposition leader and I met Paul, a Bungendore farmer who's worried about Labor's broken promises—

Who else was in the background?

Order! The minister for infrastructure is warned. The member for Gippsland will—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! No. We're going to do this the proper way, and it applies to both sides of the chamber. Out of respect for the member for Gippsland, he'll begin his question again.

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. This morning, the opposition leader and I met Paul, a Bungendore farmer who's worried about Labor's broken promises and higher taxes. Will the minister confirm that more than half of Australian farmers are not eligible for the capital gains tax concession, exposing them to massively higher tax bills when transferring family farms to their children?

I want to thank the member opposite for that question. I'd say to the member opposite that they really should stop running scare campaigns and they should be presenting the farmers with the facts. Let me quote from the National Farmers' Federation release, the day after the budget, where the National Farmers' Federation said:

"In that context, there are several measures in this Budget that are welcome and reflect the Government listening to the concerns the NFF has consistently raised on behalf of farmers."

The NFF welcomed changes ensuring primary production income will be exempt from the new 30% trust tax and confirmation there will be no changes to small business capital gains tax concessions.

It goes on:

"Family farms are generational businesses built over decades and often represent a family's life savings and retirement plan. We are pleased the Government has listened."

That's from the National Farmers' Federation.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, we mark the beginning of Reconciliation Week, an opportunity to reflect on our shared history. Why is it important that all Australians come together and play a part in our journey towards a more unified Australia and deliver better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?

I thank the member for Lingiari for her question. More importantly, I thank her for the grace that she shows in a long career representing Australians of all backgrounds but particularly representing the largest Indigenous communities in remote Australia. She brings a great deal of dignity to that role. Of course, all Australians have a great privilege of sharing this island continent of ours with the oldest continuous culture on earth, and the beginning of Reconciliation Week is an important time to note that. We come together with First Nations Australians and recommit our efforts to shaping a future that is better for them and therefore better for our nation.

Last Friday, I joined with thousands of Australians taking part in the Long Walk to the MCG, together with Michael Long. It was indeed an uplifting experience. What struck me was the sense of hope and optimism and pride shared between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians walking together and then gathering almost 90,000 people at the 'G for the match between Richmond and Essendon and the dancing, the singing, Dan Sultan and all of the performances. It was a time of enormous respect granted as well.

Today, I welcome to our nation's parliament Travis Lovett, who walked from Melbourne to call upon Australians to walk together towards reconciliation. This week comes after the devastating death of Kumanjayi Little Baby and the national outpouring of grief that has followed an adored and loved little girl of just five years old who should have had her whole life ahead of her. Last week, I travelled to Alice Springs with the member for Lingiari and the Minister for Indigenous Australians. I joined with the family of that beautiful young soul—her mum, her grandfather, her grandmother. We visited the town camp and the memorial which is there, and we spoke with all of the community leaders who had played a role and those who had searched for Little Baby—the police, the emergency services, the council workers, the SES, the land council, the community organisations, Tangentyere and others as well—to say thank you on behalf of the nation for the way that they responded to an extraordinary tragedy. Their grief is profound, and their hearts are shattered.

As Prime Minister of Australia, I conveyed the sentiment of the nation, reiterating our commitment to their dignity and our respect for their grief. One of the things that struck me there was, in spite of their feeling and that sense of loss, their generosity of spirit. I do want to say as well that they appreciated the visit by the member for Berowra in the week beforehand as well. I want to say to the member for Berowra: they really appreciated you standing with the community there as well.

As Prime Minister of Australia, I can say it is just a horrific thought that they've gone through that. But they were generous, they gave me a skin name—Jangala—and they engaged in such a positive way. They're determined to go forward, to channel that grief into a positive future. This week, Reconciliation Week, is a chance for all of us to recommit to doing better. As a nation, we have to do better. All sides of politics have failed to do as well as we should have since Federation started and, indeed, before. So let us use this week—it is a public holiday on Monday here in Canberra for Reconciliation Day. That's an opportunity for us to recommit to doing better in the future.

on indulgence—I associate the opposition with the Prime Minister's sentiments about the importance of reconciliation to our country. All of us are committed to reconciliation with our First Nations people. From time to time, we may disagree on the best path to get there, but all of us are committed to seeing better outcomes for Indigenous people. I was pleased, as the Prime Minister has acknowledged, to go to the vigil for Kumanjayi Little Baby, to see the local member, the member for Lingiari, there, to go there with Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from the other place, from our side, and to meet members of the family. We've all got to do better. We've all got to take more responsibility. We've all got to improve outcomes.

Prime Minister, my constituents are concerned that the government is increasingly using automated tools to make decisions without proper safeguards. Nearly 1,000 Australians have had their income support payments unlawfully cancelled by an automated tool, automated aged-care support decisions are opaque and eroding trust, and more automation is expected under the NDIS changes. We need to keep the human in our human services. Why has your government still not actioned the robodebt royal commission recommendation to legislate safeguards and oversight for automated decision-making in government?

I thank the member for Curtin for her question. Issues around when and how the government uses automated decision-making are very important for us to grapple with as a parliament because AI is increasingly prevalent right across our society and right across our economy. Of course, we as a government have discussed in a great amount of detail the appropriate safeguards that we need when automated decision-making tools are used in any of our portfolios. Our approach is that in every case there needs to be human oversight of any use of AI. We don't just hand over decision-making to abstract computer programs, as was the case under robodebt, which caused such great suffering for 430,000 Australians. Of the robodebt royal commission's 52 recommendations, 93 per cent have been implemented, and, for the remaining four measures, work is ongoing; three of those four measures will require legislation.

Those opposite came up with an automated decision-making program that was designed simply to raise revenue. It was used to attack the most vulnerable people in our community. There is certainly no way that our government would ever do such a thing that we know resulted in the suicide of Australians who were impacted by this.

Opposition members interjecting—

I don't understand why those opposite are interjecting on such an important issue. The reason we had a robodebt royal commission was because of your irresponsibility and cruelty in this area, which had real human consequences. The member for Curtin can be reassured that, whenever we use the opportunities that AI gives us to process information more quickly and more efficiently, that happens with strict guardrails and strict human oversight.

I'm pleased to advise the House that we're joined today by the school captains from Unity College in Murray Bridge, who are in the gallery as guests of the member for Barker. Welcome to question time.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the Albanese Labor government working with our farmers, fishers and producers to secure more fuel and fertiliser to help keep Australia's food production system strong?

I thank the member for Hunter for that question. He's one of many terrific regional members on this side of the House, and his region, of course, is home to some of Australia's best beef, dairy and wine, although I would like to say my own electorate also has some great Australian produce. But he, like all members on this side of the House, understands the critical role that our farmers, our fishers and our producers have in our communities.

Of course, our party have been supporting farmers, and we are indeed the party for our regions. We understand the importance of keeping our farmers farming and keeping our food production system strong. That's why earlier today I was really pleased to announce that our government have locked in over 80,000 tonnes of additional urea through our $7.5 billion Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility. Through Export Finance Australia, we've partnered with Incitec Pivot to support the purchase of two shipments from Indonesia, and the National Farmers' Federation said today that they're pleased to hear more fertiliser is on the way to Australian farmers and that every bit counts.

As I have said, we do have enough fertiliser either in the country or on the water today for the current planting season, but we're adding to this to provide some certainty for farmers in the coming months. We have now secured, through Export Finance Australia, six shipments of over 209,000 tonnes of urea through our Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility. Of course, we also have secured, through the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, over 800 million litres of additional fuel, including critical diesel for our farmers. This is part of our $14 billion Strengthening Australia's Fuel Resilience package. The CEO of GrainGrowers, Shona Gawel, has welcomed this and has said it 'addresses a number of the priorities outlined in our longstanding fuel security policy'. We've also made changes to get fertiliser to farmers faster. We're getting it into the country, and by streamlining, but not compromising on, our biosecurity border processes, it will get to farmers faster.

I'm pleased to see that our work to get fuel and fertiliser to our farmers has also been recognised by those opposite. I want to give a shout-out to the shadow minister who said to Sky News that 'the feedback from farmers from right across Australia is that supplies in the country are going to be okay for the immediate future'. We do know that the war in the Middle East is impacting globally and it's also impacting here at home—with our farmers. We'll continue to stand up for our farmers and we'll continue to shield them as much as we possibly can from the impact of this war, because our government will always back the farmers.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said ISIS sympathisers who returned to Australia would 'face the full force of the law'. How many ISIS sympathisers who arrived in Australia last night have been arrested or charged for entering a declared terrorist zone?

Of the two cohorts that have arrived in recent weeks, there are three people currently behind bars. Of those three who are currently behind bars, one is charged with entering a declared area and two are charged with crimes against humanity. No-one should presume that at any point in time the work of the Australian Federal Police in terms of investigating and gathering evidence is over. I would remind those opposite, before we came to office, 45 people who had gone there to fight had self-managed their return.

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. How has the Albanese Labor government used the laws passed by this parliament in January to prohibit dangerous hate groups?

I acknowledge the member for Bennelong and also acknowledge that the electorate of Bennelong is one of the electorates where hate groups have been distributing some really horrific antisemitic and racially supremacist literature. In January, following the antisemitic terrorist attack, this parliament passed new laws so that organisations that had been able to evade terror listing by keeping themselves just below those thresholds were still able to be listed as prohibited hate groups. Shortly after that, we had a process which I previously reported to the parliament where we listed Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate group.

On 15 May, the government listed the Neo-Nazis as a prohibited hate group. They've gone by a number of names: European Australian Movement, National Socialist Network, White Australia. The process for prohibiting a hate group has a high threshold, as it should, and the process has to be initiated by ASIO. There's then a ministerial decision. There's then further work that has to be done by the Attorney-General, and consultation occurs with the Leader of the Opposition. That threshold had been reached with organisations which the director-general of ASIO had previously described as at that point in time having been 'awful but lawful'. When we introduced the legislation to this parliament, at that point, the Neo-Nazis claimed that they were disbanding because of those laws. They didn't disband; they phoenixed. They went from one name to a new name, and they continued with their hateful ideology and their hateful methods of organisation.

Effectively, what the listing means is this. While we can't stop people from having horrific levels of bigotry, we do make it a criminal offence for anyone to support them, fund them, train them, recruit for them, join them or direct this group, with a series of penalties—the maximum of which reaches 15 years in prison. It sends a clear message to people who believe in racial supremacy that their views have no place in modern Australia. We are a country that judges you on who you are, not where you are from. The Neo-Nazis have gone after almost every group you can imagine: the Jewish community, the Muslim community, people of Asian heritage, First Nations Australians. They've engaged in all kinds of bigotry, but what the parliament has now done is set a standard that says: their views, their hate, has no place in modern Australia.

Health Minister, the Life-saving List campaigners have taken Australia's bone marrow donor registry from 168,000 to nearly 190,000. Three years ago, you said Australia had not moved fast enough to help blood cancer patients find donors and promised action to grow the registry. In these three years, Australia has lost 18,000 lives, 20 people a day. For many, including my nephew Liam, it is too late. Minister, have you really done everything you can to reverse Australia's continuing failure to meet our international obligations in this area?

Thank you to the member for Kennedy for the question and for his long interest in this as a member of parliament but also as a member of a family who have suffered grief and loss, with the loss of Liam a couple of years ago. Speaker, I repeat your acknowledgement of the presence of Josephine and Rachelle and other campaigners for the Life-saving List in this chamber. They'll be joining you in your courtyard. Thank you, Speaker, for hosting the event tomorrow on World Blood Cancer Day. I know the member for Kennedy and many other members on both sides of the chamber have campaigned for a better blood stem cell donor list.

The member for Kennedy is right to say that, a few years ago, I did acknowledge that Australia should be doing better here. We were then and are still one of the smaller stem cell donor registries of all developed countries. I said, after the member's question a few years ago, that I would take to health ministers a proposal to increase funding to the relevant organisations to undertake additional activity to recruit new stem cell donors to that registry. We did do that. We did release additional funds, and there has been an immediate impact from those activities, with double-digit growth in donor recruitment in 2024. This financial year in 2025-26, which is still not finished, the registry has expanded by almost 30 per cent.

But you're right to say that there's more that we should be doing. The registry is still relatively small, and I look forward to hearing more ideas at tomorrow's events. You have asked me, Member for Kennedy, before and since, whether we would consider expanding the age limit for new registrants to age 40. As you know, the clinical advice is that donations from younger donors is clinically superior, which is why the current limit is 35 years of age. That is the age limit for new donor registrants. But balanced against that, frankly, is our need to make the donor base as wide as possible. Ultimately, though, this has to be based on clinical advice, and, as it happens, the department only earlier this week issued a tender for those services to go back out to market. We'll see who wins that tender. But I can undertake to go back to health ministers, first of all, to review the progress we've made and what else we can do and, particularly, to direct the new provider to seek clinical advice about whether we should lift that age limit to 40 from 35 and undertake and progress any other ideas that come from this really important community based campaign, Life-saving List.

My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government working with local government to help our regions thrive? How does this compare to other approaches?

I thank the member for Bendigo for her question. She is an incredible advocate for regional communities, and I've seen that first-hand during my visits to her electorate. The Albanese Labor government supports a strong and sustainable local government sector because we know the important role that local government plays in helping communities to thrive. That's why, in this budget, we have committed over $3.6 billion for local government through the Financial Assistance Grant. That's an increase of over five per cent from the 2025-26 budget, where the amount was $3.4 billion. How does that compare to other approaches? Those opposite froze indexation on financial assistance grants when they were in government, ripping nearly $1 billion away from councils.

This budget delivers for regional Australia, and it does so in partnership with local government—a billion dollars a year across the country through Roads to Recovery, $200 million a year under our Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program, $150 million a year under our road black spot funding. And our Growing Regions Program is already delivering almost $600 million in funding for community infrastructure across communities across our country. From Tamworth to the Kimberley, Growing Regions money is flowing to applicants, sods are being turned and foundations are being laid for legacy-building community infrastructure—projects like the now completed town centre revitalisation in Mission Beach, Queensland, supported by $8 million in the Growing Regions fund. In this budget, there was a further $750 million for future rounds of Growing Regions and Thriving Suburbs, and I can't wait to back in more of those worthy projects across the country.

That is a very different approach to that of those opposite. I read with interest in the Sydney Morning Herald today that the North Sydney 'regional pool' will open to the public in just a couple of months, only five years after it closed, only blowing out to $122 million—a project proudly sponsored by Senator Bridget McKenzie in the other place when she was minister for regional services, funded under a grant meant to support regional women's sporting facilities, a grant with the stated objective of 'strengthening regional sustainability, capacity and diversity'. I've seen the pictures of the upgraded North Sydney pool, and it is absolutely beautiful—right there under the Sydney Harbour Bridge. But is it regional? I mean, hardly. Will it strengthen regional sustainability, capacity and diversity? I highly doubt it. This was a project funded with no guidelines, no tender process and no application form.

Those opposite used colour coded spreadsheets to decide which regional communities got funding. When it didn't suit them, they channelled money promised to regional communities to the North Sydney pool. We're building the Roma pool; you gave money to the North— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Since 2022, have any Australian government agencies provided operational support to repatriate any of the ISIS sympathisers?

I thank the member for his question. I'll just repeat what the government has already said: we have not provided, and will not provide, assistance to anyone in that cohort.

My question is for the Minister for Small Business. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australian small businesses, including in the budget?

I thank the member for Petrie for her question. Last month I had the pleasure of visiting a fattoush restaurant with the member for Petrie and speaking with the owner, Rod. I didn't get to try their fattoush, but I promised I'd be back to give it a go, even though I do believe that my version of fattoush is one of the best. We'll see!

I've also been meeting with small businesses right across the country. I'm hearing about their challenges, about their opportunities and about their aspirations. And, importantly, I've been hearing from them about their operating environments and how we can deliver the settings that they need to be able to flourish and grow. That's why this government is focused on cash flow and operating expenses through targeted measures to reduce red tape and make it easier for small businesses to do business.

It's why the budget includes $3.5 billion in supports for small business to support resilience, investment and growth—things like making the $20,000 instant asset write-off and the two-year loss carry-back permanent, introducing loss refundability for startups, taking measures to reduce compliance costs and removing nuisance tariffs. The Business Council of Australia said:

Making the instant asset write-off permanent and delivering loss carry back are useful steps for small- and medium-sized businesses and will help businesses invest, grow and create jobs.

On making the instant asset write-off permanent, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand said:

… it cuts red tape … and lets businesses focus on running and growing their operations …

They also said that it 'supports growth and strengthens the economic foundations Australia needs in a challenging global environment'.

The Housing Industry Association, ACCI, COSBOA, the National Farmers' Federation, Master Electricians, the Finance Industry Association and the Motor Trades Association of Australia have all welcomed these budget measures for small business, recognising that this government focuses on improving cash flow and supporting confidence so that small businesses can get on with doing what they do best. That's what small businesses tell me every day. They want us to make it easier for them to run their business and to grow when they need to. The Albanese government is backing small business, and we'll continue to do that. We'll continue to do that because small business backs Australia.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I acknowledge your government's commitments and investments through the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. However, in my home state of Tasmania, two women have been killed in alleged domestic violence incidents just in the past fortnight. Will you join me in Hobart for a roundtable with family violence advocates, survivors and families who have lost loved ones to domestic violence to hear directly from them about what urgent action is still needed?

I thank the member for Clark for his question and for his genuine concern and engagement with people in his electorate. There are, of course, four women occupying the other Tasmanian seats in this House—the members for Franklin, Lyons, Bass and Braddon. They are all strong women who are strong advocates for the right of women to live in peace and free from violence, which has such a devastating impact. The figure that the member raises of two murders in the last fortnight is horrific. Every act of domestic and family violence is abhorrent and completely unacceptable.

We have, as the member has acknowledged, invested over $4.4 billion to take action to end family, domestic and sexual violence, and that includes funding for the sort of organisations that the member has spoken about—1,400 organisations that have directly helped around 450,000 people experiencing violence across Australia. We've funded 500 additional community workers. Last Friday, the Minister for Social Services and member for Sydney launched the major consultation to shape the next phase of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032. That process will be driven by a wide range of people across the community, including academics and experts, frontline workers, employers, community members, victims-survivors, and children and young people.

The Minister for Social Services has encouraged everyone to have a say, and there is a consultation being held in Devonport on—I think it's 18 June. That's coming up as well. I'm always happy to meet constituents where it's possible. Sometimes it's difficult to fit 50 hours into a day, but I've engaged with the member when I've been in Tasmania, as he knows. The focus of the second action plan will be on what works to deliver practical and systemic solutions, those with the greatest impact. In areas where we are making a positive difference, we look for opportunities to redouble our efforts. We'll listen to all ideas.

Quite frankly, this is a task for every level of government, but it's also a task for every part of society. Men need to take responsibility for the actions that take place. There's overwhelmingly violence against women and children from men. That is just a fact, and we need to do much better. I look forward to participating with the national plan. I look forward to continuing engagement with the member for Clark.

My question is to the Minister for Education. How is the Albanese Labor government investing in education in this budget? What would put this at risk?

Can I thank my friend, the wonderful member for Whitlam. Tomorrow is Public Education Day, and I am a proud product of public education. The truth is that our public schools have never been properly funded or even on a path to full funding until now, until this government and until this Prime Minister fixed the funding of our public schools. In the budget, you see it—the biggest new investment in public education by an Australian government ever, $20 billion over the next decade. All of that is now at risk. We remember what the Liberal Party did the last time they were in power. They ripped the guts out of funding for our public schools.

On the weekend, on Sunday Agenda, with Andrew Clennell, Senator Andrew Bragg threatened to do it all over again. He repeatedly refused to rule out cuts to health and cuts to education. I think that should send a shiver down the spine of every parent around the country. But it's not the only thing that they've threatened to cut. There are two other things on the chopping block.

We're building childcare centres at the moment, right across the country, where they're needed—in our public primary schools, including two in the member for Whitlam's electorate, one in Calderwood and one in West Dapto. It makes sense because, if you're a mum or a dad with a child in primary school and a child in child care, then it means one drop off, not two. Guess what? The Liberal Party have said they'll get rid of all of that as well. We're also helping kids get the skills that they need to get ready to start school, kids like Marina's little boy, Jason. Good name; good kid. Last year, Marina couldn't get him into child care, and that little boy wasn't talking—

What was his name again?

His name was Jason. What a good kid. He wasn't talking, wasn't making eye contact and wasn't playing with other kids. Guess what? Now, he's in a childcare centre in Broadmeadows, and he's doing it all. He's talking, he's pointing, and he's socialising with other kids. That is the power of early education. That is life-changing stuff. That little boy is there because of a decision that we made here—because we changed the law, because we created the three-day guarantee. That means that Marina is guaranteed access to three days a week of subsidised child care, and that little boy Jason and every kid in this country has the chance and the opportunity that they deserve. Guess what? The Liberal Party want to get rid of all of that as well. (Time expired)

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

I rise to congratulate Prime Minister Wale on his recent election as Prime Minister of Solomon Islands. Solomon Islands is an important nation in our region, and Matthew Wale was elected just a short time ago. I spoke to him on 15 May and congratulated him on his election. I invited him to visit Australia; I am very pleased that he will be here next week for an official visit—his first visit as prime minister of the Solomons. He will be accompanied by senior cabinet ministers from the Solomon Islands government and will meet members of the government and members of the opposition, and, of course, will be welcomed formally on the forecourt of Parliament House. Prime Minister Wale will discuss opportunities for further economic development and security cooperation with Australia. We had a very warm discussion; I've now had two discussions with him. It says a lot that the first international visit he is choosing to make is to here in Australia, and he will be a very welcome guest indeed. Despite the global challenges that we confront, we recognise that we will be stronger if we face these things together—the challenge of dealing with climate change, the challenge of dealing with security issues in our region. He will be a most honoured guest.

Before members leave, I have a statement to make to the House. It's been brought to my attention that the member for Goldstein, after he was directed to leave the chamber for constant interjections after being warned, took to social media and has seriously reflected on the Speaker. I ask that, when the member returns to the chamber, he apologise to the chair, and I remind all members not to reflect on the chair—inside the chamber or on social media.

(): I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 34 of 2025-26, entitled Cybersecurity readiness for the 2026 census: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Document made a parliamentary paper.

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

The impact of the Government's rushed and damaging tax changes on small businesses, farmers, and all Australians who save, invest, and take risks.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Two weeks ago, something changed in Australia. Something has changed in the psychology of Australians, and over time that will take effect in what Australians do and what Australians don't do—especially entrepreneurial Australia, Australians who want to take a risk, Australians who want to start a small business and any Australian who really wants to have a go. What happened two weeks ago was a very big change in the risk-reward of what you do with your money in Australia. Historically, if you took a risk in Australia, you got the reward. But the change is that now, when you take a risk with your money in the Australian economy, the people who will take the reward are the Albanese Labor government.

When I think about this, we all—almost without exception, I would say—have worked in our own private enterprise or have worked in private enterprise, so we understand. When you hang up your shingle, when you roll up the door, when you open the door to your business and you are waiting for customers to come in or ring, you know the risk of that, you know the anxiety of that, and you know how hard you have to work to make money not only for your own salary but also for other people's salaries.

As a matter of interest, I thought I'd Google two people and look up their work histories, because I thought, 'They should get this.' I thought: 'Let's have a look at the current prime minister of Australia's work history. Surely, he has worked in a private enterprise. Surely, he has worked for a business and knows the pressure of having to pay someone's salary from your efforts or the efforts of your staff.' So I had a quick look. The first job was research officer for Tom Uren, a Labor minister. I thought: 'Okay, that's only his first job. It might get better.' The second job was assistant general secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. I thought, 'Okay, he might have branched out after that.' The third job was senior adviser to Morris Iemma. Well, at least he swapped from federal to state Labor. Anyway, let's keep going. The fourth job was principal adviser for Wayne Swan. So we've gone back to Swan. The fifth job: Labor MP. Deflated by then.

This is an important point. What we have are two senior people who are running the Australian economy on behalf of the government right now, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I have respect for both those positions. The problem—we can't overstate this—is that neither of them have actually worked in the real world. Neither of them has actually worked in a business. They've all worked in this bubble of federal politics. They've all worked as staffers or walked into this chamber at a young age—I congratulate them on getting into this chamber at a young age; I'm not criticising that—with no real-world experience. That is the problem with everything we're talking about, because for them this is just theoretical. This is just some idea or some understanding they wouldn't have of the real world. There's something cellular that you get when you know that when you go to work, you've got to make money that day. You've got to sell whatever you're selling, or you can't pay your own salary or other people's. That's something cellular that everyone here gets. We get it. We know the importance of it, and that what is sadly lacking on the other side of politics.

Now I want to go to some people who do know. I want to just quote four or five people who do know. Actually, I will give a shout-out that the member for Parramatta has had some real-world experience. I think he's been a Labor staffer as well. He's made some interesting comments about this budget.

Firstly, 40 Australian business owners under 40 have penned an open letter to the Prime Minister, saying that his tax reform is an 'aspiration ambush'. It's not me saying that; 40 young leaders in Australia who have done very well are calling this an aspiration ambush. Young business builders in Australia from technology, artificial intelligence, retail and manufacturing sectors told Anthony Albanese that his budget has hit them the hardest. They said:

We work the hours. We carry the risk.

But now the reward is going to the Albanese Labor government.

Janine Allis, Boost Juice founder, said the changes could 'destroy the core of what Australians are'. We're built on having a go. If you have a go, you should get rewarded. She went on to say that you need to inspire people to actually take the risks needed to get ahead. With this policy of the Labor government, she says:

We won't want to open businesses or start businesses, because the risk of failure and the risk for reward doesn't add up.

It's not me saying that; it's a very successful Australian businesswoman saying that. She also said the government should say what they do and do what they say, after telling people before the election they would not touch negative gearing and capital gains taxes.

Chris Richardson, an economist, says you don't want to discourage people from taking a risk.

Dave Hughes—this is an interesting one—starts by saying:

I voted for Albo and Chalmers, they didn't have a mandate for changing capital gains tax.

It's now the highest in the world. No one is going to want to invest in Australia.

…   …   …

You didn't have a mandate for it. You—

Can I quote 'lie'? I'd better not say it.

No, you cannot.

I won't say that word. He said:

It's not valid, so let's go to the polls again.

I'm going to get to one Labor member—oh, he was here, but he's left; the member for Parramatta.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The member for Hunter and just about every member on this side. I can barely hear the member for Page at the dispatch box.

You're missing a lot!

I do want to hear you.

Anyway, Andrew Charlton—and I acknowledge the member for Parramatta, who has been a staffer but has also made a go on business—has said:

… the point that many start-up founders and many small businesses have been making is valid.

It's a valid point—

Order! A point of order from the member for Swan.

I note that the member did not use titles earlier in referring to the member for Parramatta.

It is a good reminder for us all. Thank you very much. We will stick with correct titles in the chamber.

He says:

It's a valid point because that new regime doesn't interact well if you have a really low capital base, because you've got nothing to inflate off.

So I acknowledge him.

Now, here is the other thing that I'm hearing from a lot of people about this. Obviously, I have to mention this. Besides the fact that it's killing the risk reward formula of this country, besides the fact it's actually killing the core of having a go in Australia—that's not me saying that; that's some well-known business people in Australia—the other thing about this is the absolute deceit of this. You should all hang your head in shame. There's not a member over there, even the new members, on that side of the chamber. You should all hang your head in shame because you got in on deceit. When the Prime Minister was asked, or you were asked if you went to campaign forums, about negative—

It might be better to direct your comments through the chair instead of personalising this, please.

Good point. As all members opposite, they all would have been asked, as the Prime Minister was, before the last election, 'Are you going to make changes to capital gains tax, to negative gearing, to trusts,' as a prime minister was asked 52 times, and 52 times he said, 'My word is my bond.' We all know, when the Prime Minister says that, that that has no credibility, and that does great disservice not just to that side of politics and to everyone that sits there who got in on that deceit but to this whole chamber, because the Prime Minister is bringing our occupation into disrepute by misleading the Australian public continually.

This budget deals with three big issues. Firstly, it deals with the fact that the tax system is not working for young Australians and is working against their aspirations to get into the housing market, and it deals with those issues. Secondly, it delivers another big set of tax cuts. It delivers the working Australian tax offset and the instant deduction. Thirdly, it deals with some very longstanding issues in our tax system in terms of better aligning taxes coming from capital and those receiving income from trusts versus those earning income from labour.

Now, if you heard the speech from those opposite just then, you would think that this is a topic that warrants a lot of mirth and merit. Look, humour has a place in this chamber. But if you listen to that speech from those opposite, you'd think the tax system is just fine. The opposition tomorrow are going to face two tests. The first test is whether they are going to vote against tax cuts yet again. They went to the last election opposing the two tax cuts for all Australian taxpayers that we took to the last election. They're going to face a test tomorrow. Are they going to vote against the working Australian tax offset and the instant deduction? The other test they're going to face is whether they are going to say that the tax system is just fine when it comes to young Australians and the housing market? Are they going to say the tax system is just fine when it comes to the balance between those paying income on labour versus those paying income from other sources?

Those opposite come in here and they crack jokes for five minutes about CVs, but what is it they're saying about our tax system? What is it they're saying about the need for change? We had a three-day economic reform roundtable. We had a three-day economic reform roundtable in which experts from right across the tax system—policy experts, academics, business leaders, union leaders, leaders from civil society—all agreed that we need more intergenerational fairness in our tax system. We need reform in our tax system to make it easier for young people to get into a house. They all agreed that we need to rebalance our tax system away from relying so much on income taxes and towards other sources, and this budget addresses those big themes. There's an agreement from that three-day economic reform roundtable from all the experts. There's also an agreement from the conversation in the community. When I talk to young people in the community, they all say that the tax system is not working for them. Those opposite face a big test. Are they going to stand with the status quo? From the speech you just heard, the answer is yes.

Now when it comes to small businesses, when it comes to business in general, this budget helps small businesses in a number of ways. Firstly, we're making the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses permanent. They've been calling for that for years. This is a longstanding source of uncertainty for small businesses. Those opposite had almost a decade to do this. They sat on their hands. We're doing it. That's a big change for small businesses. We're reintroducing permanent loss carry back from 1 July 2026 so that business is better placed to withstand shocks from global uncertainty. In a period of uncertainty, this is a big change. We're also increasing the maximum asset cap on venture capital limited partnerships and early-stage venture capital limited partnerships, so that more entities can receive these important tax incentives. We're providing small start-ups that generate a loss in either of their first two years of operation with the option of a refundable tax offset. We're also better targeting the R&D tax incentive in light of the conclusions from the SERD report. So there is a lot of serious reform in this budget when it comes to small business, start-ups and venture capital.

Let's look at the capital gains tax. This is an area that has been calling out for change for over two decades. The 1999 changes that the Howard government brought in were supported on the basis that they would encourage more people into share ownership. What has happened in those 25 years? We have seen a significant drop in the proportion of Australians owning shares. We've seen, instead, a significant increase in the proportion of Australians owning highly-leveraged standalone houses. It has introduced significant distortions in the way in which assets and capital are taxed in our country. It hasn't worked the way it was supposed to. It hasn't led to an increase in share ownership; it has led to a decrease, and it has distorted the housing market in a way that is adding to barriers to young people getting into houses.

Our approach, when it comes to negative gearing and a more rational way of indexing the cost base of capital gains, is modelled to increase, over the medium term, the number of owner-occupiers by 75,000. That is 75,000 individuals and families owning their own home rather than renting. That is 75,000 houses with individuals or families as owner-occupiers, rather than being investor owned. That is a significant change in the housing market as a result of removing tax distortions that have been there for too long.

It is the interaction of negative gearing and this artificial 50 per cent reduction on nominal gains that is distorting the housing market. We are returning to the indexation method that was originally in place as introduced by the Hawke-Keating government. The goal of that indexation method is the sound 'neutral across different asset classes' method, whereby we are identifying real gains—that is the capital gain that will be taxed, the real gain. We're taking away inflation. That is the rational way to do this.

A number of commentators have discussed this way of taxing capital gains. Let's look at UBS chief economist Richard Schellbach:

From a 'big picture' point of view, equities would become a relatively more competitive investment proposition—

under the approach we are supporting.

Let's look at the comments from Sally Auld, the chief economist at NAB: 'By the principles of optimal tax policy, this CGT change should deliver an efficient, fair and robust regime once fully implemented.' The speech before contained a lot of hyperbole when it came to risk-taking and investing. But when we talk about the tax experts, what they're asking for is to remove distortions from the tax system that were introduced in 1999, which have had the opposite effect of what they were supposed to.

Let's look at the comments from Westpac's chief economist, Luci Ellis, an extremely accomplished economist: '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.' Luci Ellis has identified exactly what happened after the 1999 changes; it led to a boom in investment in highly-leveraged standalone houses. That is exactly what is contributing to keeping young people out of the market, and that's exactly what underpins the fact that the modelling from Treasury shows that 75,000 families will shift from renting to being owner-occupiers.

Let's look at another key component. I talked about the three overarching themes. One of the key themes is this working Australians tax offset. This is a significant component. What it will represent, along with the instant deduction, is that this government will have cut income taxes five different times in three different ways over the course of its first four years. This will represent a $250 annual offset that will only be applied to earned income and will not apply to other forms of income, such as investment income. So we are designing an additional way in which we can cut income so that it applies to those earning income from labour. Again, this was one of the core themes that was identified in the three-day Economic Reform Roundtable. It is one of the core themes that has been identified in any number of tax reviews over recent decades. This government is delivering. When you add up all the different tax reforms that we have delivered, the five different tax cuts in three different ways, somebody earning the average income will see up to $2,800 a year taken off their tax bill. This is meaningful change being delivered in a responsible way.

The test for those opposite tomorrow will be do they support the WATO or not? But the other test for those opposite will be do they support changes to the way in which the tax system is distorting our housing market or not? These changes have been called upon by so many experts. So many have said for decades that we need to address these distortions, that we need to address the way in which trusts are taxed. If you listen to the speeches here of those opposite, the questions in question time and what they say outside this chamber, they have become the party of the status quo. They say that nothing's wrong, the housing market is fine, and the tax system is operating with the housing market in a way that's AOK. That's not what I'm hearing from the community. It's not what the experts are saying, and that's why this government is doing something about it.

I want to commend the member for Page for this very, very important matter of public importance, and I want to start today with the voice of my constituents Peter and Fiona Devilee. They are business owners in Mildura, in my electorate of Mallee. They are very well known. They have an incredible reputation. Fiona has told me this today:

For 35 years, we have worked hard, taken risks, employed local people, paid our taxes, and responsibly built "off-farm" assets to secure our future, our retirement and the opportunity for the next generation of our family. Every investment we have made has been funded with after-tax income—money that was already taxed before being taken out of our business.

We purchased our business from my father-in-law when it employed just 17 people. Through decades of hard work, reinvestment, long hours, financial pressure, and commitment to our region, we have grown that business to now employ over 75 people while delivering an essential service to our community. We have created jobs, supported families, trained apprentices, paid substantial company and personal taxes, and continually reinvested back into the economy.

Now, the proposed Federal Government CGT changes threaten to significantly erode the very assets and retirement savings we have spent a lifetime building. It is difficult not to feel as though people who have worked hard, created employment, taken business risks, and contributed positively to their communities are being penalised for doing exactly what governments encourage Australians to do—build businesses, create jobs, invest prudently, and become self-sufficient in retirement.

She continues:

At some point, there must be recognition that these are not speculative gains made overnight. They represent decades of sacrifice, responsibility, taxation, and contribution to Australia's economy and regional communities.

I want to state that this couple have not only built a very successful business; they have been huge community contributors. They volunteer; they encourage others to volunteer. They are on boards. They are very invested in their community. I am really saddened by this text from Fiona. She speaks the truth that Labor's politics of envy does not want to hear, does not care about, in its war on aspiration.

I invited the Leader of the Nationals, Matt Canavan, and Deputy Leader of the Nationals and member for Gippsland, Darren Chester, to Mallee on Thursday and Friday last week. It was a tremendous visit with great turnouts and a strong message that the Nationals are the party for regional Australians and that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers. Farming is not a high-income game. Farm returns tend to be capital gains, like increases in farmland values, so capital gains tax changes will hit farmers the hardest. Despite what the government claimed in question time today, based on historical returns, our farmers face an increase in their capital gains tax rate from 23 per cent to 36 per cent under the government's changes. Arguably, Labor's capital gains tax plans will give us some of the highest such taxes in the world, behind only Denmark and Chile.

I have said a few times in this place that some of Labor's bills create a lawyer's picnic. Well, in the case of Labor's tax changes for business, accountants and lawyers will both be cracking open the bubbly. During Labor's cost-of-living crisis and their power bill price spikes, Labor are hiking compliance costs, because so many small businesses will now need legal and/or financial advice on what to do with their assets and with their businesses.

As I said earlier today in the House, Labor's tax changes have no mandate, no permission, from the Australian people. It's not like John Howard's goods and services tax. Labor's— (Time expired)

I appreciate the contributions from those opposite. Of course, small-business owners are fearful because those opposite have been whipping up a scare campaign that is almighty. Those opposite are scaring small-business owners, and that's why they've been flooded with these emails and texts. Those opposite are a veritable haunted house that you roll out at Halloween. There's a scare campaign at every corner. We've got the ghoulish ghost of the so-called death tax, the zombie return of the tax on aspiration and the same tired lines they drag out every single time there's a whiff of reform. They creak open the door, whisper a new fear and dress it up to look real, but, when Australians turn on the lights, there's nothing there. There's no death tax. There's no grand conspiracy. What there is is support for small businesses.

The claims that they are making today—in all the emails and texts that they are reading out—that these changes somehow hurt every small-business owner, every farmer and every saver are simply not true. When, in this place, we talk about small businesses, we should do it with respect but, importantly, with facts. Small businesses employ millions of Australians and contribute enormously to our economy. In my electorate of Reid alone, there are around 26,000 small businesses. They are the cafes along Majors Bay Road, family shops in Five Dock, restaurants in Burwood, small firms in Rhodes and tradies who keep our suburbs running, and they deserve facts. They are not just businesses; they are local families, local jobs and a myriad of stories of hard work and opportunity.

So let's give them facts. Around 90 per cent of small businesses will not be affected by these CGT changes at all. That is nine in 10 small businesses that will be unaffected. We didn't hear that from those opposite. If you've owned your business for 15 years and you're retiring, you still pay zero capital gains tax. You can still reduce gains by 50 per cent on active assets. You can still exclude up to $500,000 through the retirement exemption. And you can still defer CGT by reinvesting in another business asset. The reason why nine in 10 small businesses will remain unaffected by our CGT reforms is that those four exemptions still remain, so stop with the scare campaigns. When those opposite claim every business owner is under attack, they are not telling the truth. They are trying to scare people, and we have to call it out.

Let's also be clear that this is not rushed reform. There is a clear transition period from 2027, giving businesses time to plan and restructure if they need to. This is responsible policymaking. 'Responsible' is an adjective that those opposite may not understand, because they've been running away from it for so long, but, on this side of the House, we are about responsible policymaking. Those opposite talk about backing small business, but, when they were in government, what was their track record? Too often, small businesses were left to fend for themselves. Those opposite announced deregulation agendas. They came in here talking about cutting red tape, but nearly half of businesses said regulation was stopping them from growing. That's not delivery; that's disappointment.

The difference here is that we on this side of the House are providing practical support for small businesses: a permanent $20,000 instant asset write-off so businesses can invest with certainty; loss carry-back, so you can recover from tough years; real reduction in red tape and compliance costs; and a cut in energy bills and help to improve energy efficiency. And, importantly—and this is something that those opposite completely mismanaged—we are investing in skills and training because that's what small businesses need—they need skilled workers. So we are backing small businesses. We're not running fear campaigns. We're not using recycled attacks. Get with the program.

I too rise to speak on this matter of incredible public importance. I feel that these are rushed reforms, because they were off the table a year ago. A year ago, for the 50th time—'It's off the table.' All of a sudden, once they'd won the election, they were back on the table. I suspect they were on the table all along. But I want to talk about what it means to create a capital gain in a business. I'll use the example of farms, but it applies to all sorts of business. Creating a capital gain requires risk on the part of a business owner. It requires labour, and it requires significant investment.

Today, when the member for Gippsland, the shadow agriculture minister, asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry about whether there would be exemptions for farmers, the minister gave an answer to say that, yes, there will be exemptions. But here's the truth: there are holes in this policy that, as one expert said, you could drive a header through.

Even though capital gains, specifically, might be exempted for primary productions, a lot of these farms are set up with trusts. They don't operate as a simple entity; they have a trust that owns the land and another that runs the business. The operating trust will pay the rent to the landholding trust. And that's standard. That's the way farming businesses work. Farming is hard enough, so I think they're allowed to use some advantages in the tax system to run a successful business that benefits Australia. But, under this government's approach, that rent is not considered primary production income. It means that the farm pays rent to itself, and that rent is now hit with a 30 per cent minimum tax. What are the arrangements for? Perhaps the agriculture minister can come in and clear this up and explain it during question time. What are the arrangements for business—for farming businesses? The way it stands at the moment is that, from 2027 onwards, this Labor government is slugging farming businesses on their capital gains.

Monique is a dairy farmer in my electorate. She's doing a lot of really hard work. On her behalf, I say to the Labor government: if you want to slug her heaps of capital gains tax 10 years after 2027, you go out there and drive around at three o'clock in the morning and pull calves out of a cow. You get up and milk the cows—and then again at 3.30 in the afternoon. You take the risk: you sit with your back manager and go build a barn, not knowing whether that risk is going to pay off. You do all the hard work: you build a rotary dairy and take the risk on that investment and then work it for 10 years. They're taking a massive risk and working very hard, and they don't need a government to come and treat them as a cash register because they've spent too much. And that is exactly what's happening.

Matt's an orchardist in my electorate. He's going to have a capital gain, I hope, over the next 10 years. But if you, the government, want to take all of the money from his capital gain as a result—or a huge proportion of it—then you go out and plant the trees. You take the risk that there might be a hailstorm and that, for two years, you will not get a crop at all. So, then, you spend the money and take the risk on putting hail netting up, which is a huge investment—you have to sit there and talk with your bank manager. Can I really do this? Well, you have to. There might be a hailstorm that will limit your income for two years. The Treasurer should go out and help put up that hail net. The Prime Minister should go and pick a bit of this fruit to understand what it's like to work really hard and take a risk in regional Australia.

The fact is that these are big, big reforms, and when you've got a big reform you have to have the courage and decency to take it to an election, and, unlike John Howard in 1998 and, to his great credit, the former member for Maribyrnong before the 2019 election, they did not have the courage and decency to take this to an election. That's the way democracy should work—you have an idea, you take it to an election and you get a mandate; you sell it, people who don't agree with you criticise it, and the Australian people make their minds up. But they weren't given the chance to do that.

If you work hard and save hard, you should be able to purchase your own first home. But, sadly, for young people in my electorate of Gilmore on the picturesque New South Wales South Coast, the dream of buying their first home locally has been unattainable for years. First home buyers just can't compete with investors who are paying top dollar for homes in our popular beachside towns, lakeside hamlets and quaint historic villages. Our kids and grandkids are being forced to pull up roots and move away from the communities they love and grew up in.

We know investors have a huge advantage over first home buyers. They have an unfair tax advantage, and we want to fix that. The Albanese Labor government is making bold changes to help young Australians get a foot in the door of the property market. I'm a mum of four adult children and, like so many other parents, I want my kids to be able to continue to live locally if they so choose. Opening the door to homeownership on the South Coast means young people can be involved in our communities. They can raise their kids locally and contribute to our local economy all year round, not just at holiday time.

I live in a coastal village and I've seen small businesses in these small communities die when there are not enough permanent local families around to support them. Our tax changes will help young people and families in highly sought after lifestyle and investor property markets like Jervis Bay, Mollymook Beach and Batemans Bay buy their first home and live locally. These changes will mean more kids in our local schools, more workers for businesses and local services, more spending in local shops and cafes, and, of course, the opportunity to get involved in sporting, cultural and community organisations.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation being thrown around by the three right-wing parties, who do not want to help younger people get a roof over their heads and secure their future. The reality is that we're taking steps that have been talked about for a very long time, but only Labor has been brave enough to deliver. Since budget night, I've spoken to many people in Gilmore who are excited for these changes—excited for their kids, for their grandkids and for future generations.

You can imagine my surprise when I stopped at my local servo in Nowra a couple of weeks ago and one of the employees came up to me with a big smile on her face. She wanted to thank me and the Albanese Labor government for helping her purchase her first home through our five percent deposit scheme. I'm so proud that this government has already been able to help this young woman and more than 780 other first home buyers across Gilmore to get off that relentless roundabout and get the keys to their dream home sooner. Our expansion of the five per cent deposit scheme will help even more Australians buy their first home, with all regional first home buyers now having access to the scheme with no caps on places or incomes.

I was also delighted to receive another thank you last week following our budget announcement, this time from self-funded retirees in Kiama, who have welcomed Labor's tax reforms, including changes to trusts, negative gearing and capital gains tax. In an email, the couple said, 'We need to do everything we can to tip the scales in favour of homeownership over rental investments.' They urged me not to back down but to 'continue in favour of fairness and retirement security of the have-nots rather than the have-lots'. Amidst all the misinformation on social media and scaremongering by those opposite, it's really refreshing to see our older generations stepping up to back our plan to help young ones, their kids and their grandkids reach their dream of homeownership.

Finally, our focus is to address the huge challenge of housing supply and affordability in regional Australia and to ensure regions like Gilmore remain strong, connected and well-positioned to provide opportunities to those who want to live and work there.

This is the highest taxing budget in Australia's history. And why? Because government spending is at a 40-year high outside of the pandemic. Look, they're not spending it well enough for us to want to give them more. We see NDIS rorting, criminals stealing from the NDIS, and, instead of the government exposing it, it has to be two blokes on social media doorknocking in Western Sydney. We're spending $20 million on advertising on how people can pump up their tyres so they use less fuel. These are the types of programs that are being funded out of higher taxes on wage earners through bracket creep, small businesses through CGT and property owners through negative gearing. The PM has never seen an aspiration that he didn't want to crush. Under this budget, you take the risk, and the Prime Minister takes the reward. In this budget, if you earn an income, they tax you more; if you invest, they tax you more; if you build a business, they tax you more; and, if you're a young person, they'll tax you more.

Under this budget, young people are far worse off.

How?

Young people and the next generation—I just got asked how. Young people today will pay more income tax than I have ever paid. They will pay more income.

Government members interjecting—

It's not funny. Why do you think it's funny that young people will pay more income tax than I have ever paid? They will pay more capital gains tax than I have ever paid. It has just been doubled. I can continue to negatively gear my place while no young person will ever be able to negatively gear their place. How is that funny? How is that funny?

Government members interjecting—

Order! Member for—

I would love to see you—

Order!

They're interjecting. I have the call.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Excuse me. I've just called for order because it is outrageous, the interjections coming from this side. And, if you would try to refrain from inviting that interjection, it would be very helpful as well.

If they didn't interject, Speaker, I wouldn't be responding to it.

Would you like to argue the toss a bit longer?

No—

Then let's get on with the debate.

Good. Young people—that is how they're worse off. They're paying higher income tax than I ever did. They're paying double the CGT that I ever did. And they're never paying negative gearing—

A government member interjecting

That is why they are. I would love to hear the next speaker, whoever it is, explain those three points and why they're wrong. Explain to the Australian people, explain to young people, why they are going to pay higher taxes than I have ever paid and then gaslight them that it's in their interest. It's despicable how you can look young people in the face in your electorate when they're paying far higher taxes than you ever will.

Direct your comments through the chair to depersonalise this debate please.

It's despicable how these members look young people in the face in their electorate when they are paying higher taxes than they will ever pay. With bracket creep every year, taxes are going up. CGT is doubled. Anyone with money in ETFs or saving for a deposit will pay double than I have ever paid. It's not just young people; it's actually businesses as well. Businesses and young people will be worse off and taxed more. Why? Because we've got $1 trillion in debt. It will be young people who have to repay that $1 trillion.

Business woke up on Wednesday after the budget with a new cofounder owning 47 per cent of the business: the PM. It set off meme after meme, and, the next day, the PM described those memes as 'flattering'. How out of touch do you have to be to describe those memes as 'flattering'? Read the room.

Guess what? Australia's capital gains tax is the highest in the world. We have 47 per cent CGT. Do you know what it is in New Zealand? Zero per cent. Do you know what it is in Singapore? Zero per cent. But here's something for my comrades across the aisle to get excited about: in China, it's only 20 per cent. You beat communist China by 27 per cent; well done. In Soviet Russia, it was 11 to 23 per cent. You've beat Soviet Russia. We can't even find a communist nation with higher capital gains tax than us, and you guys think it's funny. I'll tell you what, Australia's businessowners don't think it's funny.

Please stop. Direct your comments through the chair. I'm not going to ask you again.

The members are interjecting and laughing, Deputy Speaker, and I find it very difficult, but they think it's funny.

Member for Cook, resume your seat. This is about the third time I've had to ask this in this five-minute debate. I do not want to hear more interjections from this side, I do not want to hear more interjections from this side, and I do not want to hear members deliberately provoking interjections in their commentary either. I asked you twice to refrain from doing that. The point of me asking you to direct your comments through me as the chair is to prevent this kind of behaviour from happening. I don't think anybody sitting up in this chamber gallery watching this debate right now thinks that this is a good discussion, okay? Let's get this back on track. I think you had about 10 seconds left.

To those watching: I will fight for you, so you pay lower taxes. I will keep fighting, and I will not be deterred, because we need to hold this government to account.

This budget takes pressure off Australians now by building a stronger and more productive economy for the future. Hasluck actually provides a really great example because Hasluck is a community of small businesses—it's the Lonely Cafe in Midland, providing great service and the absolute best cheesy ham toastie sandwiches; it's Framous Picture Framing on the Great Eastern Highway, making everything look better; it's Claire at Precision Hair, who makes me look better; it's Cyclowest Radiopharmaceuticals in Bayswater who are investing in new technology; and it's the very many tradies in Brabham, building new housing, buying tools, upgrading equipment and taking on apprentices. This budget backs them in practically and directly.

One of the most important measures for small business continued in this budget is the instant asset write-off. Eligible small businesses—those with a turnover of under $10 million—can immediately deduct the cost of assets costing under $20,000 instead of waiting for years to claim depreciation. I know, when I established my distillery prior to entering this place, that that really mattered. Knowing that businesses can have that certainty over the long term because we're making it permanent is a significant step, and it means that that courier business in Hazelmere can invest also in new equipment, the local mechanic in Midland can upgrade the tools and the small logistics operator just near my office can improve productivity immediately. In my electorate alone, there are over 12,000 small businesses that are eligible for this measure.

I also want to get to a little bit about what we've heard from those opposite and that really sticky AI slop that's out there. Around 90 per cent of small businesses will not be affected by the capital gains tax changes that are part of our reform agenda for this budget. The existing small business concessions will remain in place. If you've owned a business for 15 years and are retiring, for example, you can still pay zero capital gains. You can still reduce your gains by 50 per cent on active assets. You can still exclude up to $500,000 through the retirement exemption, and you can still defer CGT by reinvesting in another business asset. Those protections are still there.

We talk about saving, investing and taking risks to take on a new business. As it was for me in setting up my business, so it is for the people across Hasluck. These are not abstractions. These are my constituents, and they are asking for simple law reform and legislative reform changes for tax reform. They want stability. They want fairness, and they want a government that understands the pressures that they're under right now. This budget does exactly that. It provides cost-of-living relief for households, and that includes our fifth tax cut, which those opposite are likely not to support. That tax cut is, in effect, a pay rise for people working in those very businesses. That money can go towards the essentials, but it can also go to discretionary spend in those businesses. It supports economic growth by making it easier for businesses, and it helps them to invest and expand.

As the Prime Minister stated in question time today, the $3½ billion in the budget is in new measures that lower taxes for business to encourage investment, including the instant asset write-off that I mentioned, the permanent loss carry back, help for start-ups, incentives for venture capital and better targeting of the R&D tax incentive. As I said, 90 per cent of the small businesses in Australia are eligible for existing concessions on capital gains, and they remain eligible today. That's 90 per cent of those 12,000 businesses in my electorate of Hasluck.

The truth is that this MPI says more about the opposition than it does about this ambitious budget, because they're only offering the slogans, and they're joining in that sticky AI slop, instead of offering solutions. Everything they do these days seems to be truly motivated solely by trying to climb out of that very deep hole that they're sitting in with One Nation. It's a hole that they dug themselves when they should have been writing policy. So they talk about backing small business, but they don't. We'll see the truth of it on Thursday.

I'll take the finger-waggling from the member for Hasluck about this MPI, which is about the rushed and damaging taxes on all Australians—those Australians who save more and will pay more tax, those Australians who invest and will pay more tax and those young Australians who take risks and will pay more tax under this budget of betrayal. Indeed, the member for Hasluck is right. It says a lot about the opposition that we will fight these taxes. We will fight these taxes until the very end.

The Prime Minister of Australia has become very fond of quoting people in this place. So I thought I'd enlighten the House with a couple of quotes from my own electorate. One constituent says:

the recent budget is appalling and has raised so many questions

This particular constituent goes on and says:

they are going too far and continue to—

I've got to stop there, Deputy Speaker, because this constituent has used a three-letter word starting with L, ending with E, and I won't break the standing orders.

You are going very close.

He says:

they are going too far and continue to—

I'll amend it slightly to 'break promises'—

to the Australian people (this is not the first time) …

It is taxing us more, holding people back, limiting desire to grow, creating more debt for future generations, won't solve the housing issue …

This constituent is far from lonely in my inbox. Another constituent says that the Treasurer said two years ago 'when multinationals pay less, individuals and domestic businesses pay more'. So this constituent Glenn asks why it is in 2026 that the Treasurer has got his large stick out for small businesses and is whacking them with a tax rate four times higher than the amount that multinationals are paying. Another constituent Ross says:

This Labor mob have announced in the budget that the 30% tax on taxable income only applies to Discretionary trusts. Not true if your fund grows in value, you pay 30% anyway in all … fund types. All—

I've got to stay away from that word, so I'll say 'porkies'.

That's not to say that this is the only assault on aspiration that we see. At the end of the day, the government is contemplating carving out the tech bros of Surry Hills, but our standard of living and our prosperity in this nation today depend on the dollars that flow from Western Australia's mining industry. Every dollar the Commonwealth spends on hospitals, submarines, pensions and pork-barrel train lines for the Victorian state government is underwritten by mining in WA. But the big holes that we see today spitting out cash began as little holes funded by mum-and-dad investors taking a punt 20, 30 or even 40 years ago. I'll put the productivity of those mines up against those in the member for Hunter's seat any day, like I will put our wine, our world-class wine from Margaret River, up against anywhere else in Australia.

At the end of the day, it is those mum-and-dad investors who were able to take a risk, who chose to save up and invest in a junior miner, that result in WA's net contribution to the Commonwealth today being more than $13,000 per person. It's 19 times higher than the next best contributor, New South Wales, which is chipping in 700 bucks a person. Every other state and territory in this nation has its hand out for a share of Western Australia's prosperity. But none of these mines or indeed the gas wells existed before Australians took a punt, put their hard earned capital on the line and backed a fledgling exploration company hoping to make it big. That is what we should be incentivising in Australia.

Junior explorers are, by definition, loss making for years. Investors accept that. They accept that 19 out of 20 exploration plays will return nothing but dirt. They tolerate that risk because of the upside. When the 20th one hits, this government is going after their capital gains in a way that they did not disclose before the election. They're taking a hammer to the CGT discount for investors and, indeed, those brave souls who start exploration companies. Why should these founders who hitch up a caravan, drive into the desert and risk everything to find the next great ore body be treated differently from the tech bros of Surry Hills whose factory floors are just the co-working spaces of Sydney? It is egregious, it is unfair and it is an assault on what makes this country great.

Across Griffith, people are working hard to build secure, decent lives. People are raising children, caring for parents, running small businesses, studying, renting, saving, working and contributing to our community. They are making careful choices about household budgets, and they want a government that understands those pressures. That's why this is a budget that delivers practical help now and responsible reform for the future. It strengthens Medicare and backs in workers, it supports small business, investment and innovation—we are strengthening our fuel supply chains—and it delivers the most significant tax reforms in more than a quarter of a century. These reforms are measured, targeted and responsible. They are about building a better, fairer and simpler tax system that works for more Australians, not just those who already have wealth behind them. We are delivering reform that takes our intergenerational responsibilities seriously.

This government will not leave younger Australians with a broken housing system—unlike those opposite. Housing is one of the biggest issues I hear about across Griffith. I hear it from young people who are working hard, saving carefully and doing everything they were told to help get ahead. They are studying, working extra shifts, building careers, starting families and putting money aside for a deposit all while paying rent in one of the toughest housing markets we have ever seen. Since 1999, housing prices have risen more than twice as fast as average full-time earnings. Between 2001 and 2021, the homeownership rate for households aged 25 to 34 declined by seven per cent. We know that the system is broken and is not working.

I will share some words from someone I have a lot of respect for, Scott Pape, the Barefoot Investor. He said of the current system:

The system lets wealthy families with good accountants pay less tax than nurses and tradies. That doesn't pass the pub test.

Someone else who I have quite a bit of time for—I might be the only one on this side of the House—is the shadow treasurer. I do co-chair a parliamentary friendship group with the shadow treasurer. I'm not going to win any friends on this side! This is good evidence for why we should give him a little bit of time. He has said, in his wisdom:

There is no intergenerational justice in such preferential arrangements.

I think most people on this side agree with that. He also did say in this place:

The tax system is screwing over young Australians.

Those opposite would leave this system untouched. They would leave younger Australians to keep falling further behind. They would tell first home buyers to work harder, save harder and wait longer while defending tax settings—we heard it this afternoon—that have helped push homeownership out of the reach for too many. Young Australians should not be left behind in a country they are helping to build.

From 1 July 2027, negative gearing for residential property will be limited to new builds. That means investments will be directed towards adding more homes to supply. People will still be able to invest in property. People will still be able to build wealth. New builds can continue to be negatively geared before and after 1 July 2027. Properties held before the budget night will be grandfathered. If someone has already made an investment decision under the existing rules, they can continue to negatively gear the property until it's sold. I think they are all really important items in this discussion to understand, because there is just so much fearmongering going on at the moment. This is careful, responsible policy design which protects existing investment decisions while making sure future tax settings better support housing supply, an issue that this government is absolutely committed to confronting head on.

We are also reforming the capital gains tax. The current 50 per cent discount was introduced in 1999. It does not accurately reflect inflation and, depending on returns as a result, that can overcompensate investors while also undercompensating others. Our reforms return to cost base indexation based on CPI, with a 30 per cent minimum tax on real capital gains. In plain terms, investors will not be taxed on inflationary gains; only their real gains. The reforms only apply to gains after 1 July 2027, and only when the gain is realised.

Those opposite would protect the status quo. Labor is building a fairer tax system, a stronger economy and a housing market that gives more Australians a chance to get ahead.

The time for this discussion has now concluded.

on indulgence—I understand a social media post that I made today has been interpreted by some as reflecting on the Speaker or the chair. That was not the intention.

Government members interjecting—

Please. I would like some silence in order to listen to the statement on indulgence.

I understand a social media post may have reflected on the Speaker or chair. That was not my intention. If any offence was caused, I happily apologise.

In continuation, I want to turn now to the changes to eligibility and access in relation to the NDIS. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 proposes a new framework based on 'substantially reduced functional capacity', with new thresholds to be introduced in rules. On the face of it, consistency and evidence-based assessment are things we should support, but the reality is this: the thresholds have not yet been defined. We are being asked to pass a framework without knowing how restrictive it will ultimately be. We are told that, from 1 January 2028, new participants will be assessed under these new rules, while existing participants will be progressively reassessed. That raises some serious concerns, because, for many Australians, reassessment is not just a bureaucratic process; it is a very stressful, very intrusive and deeply disturbing and distressing experience. We must ensure that people are not being forced to repeatedly prove their disability.

The bill also tightens access to unscheduled plan reassessments. We are told this is necessary to control cost growth, but we must consider the other side of the ledger. For participants, flexibility is essential. People's circumstances will change and their needs will evolve. Unexpected events will occur in their lives. We've just got to be cautious not to lock people into plans that no longer reflect their lived reality.

One of the elements in this bill that I have concern with is the restriction of supports to those directly arising from a person's primary impairment. That might sound like it works in theory, but in practice people do not live with a condition in isolation. Health conditions often overlap and complications can arise. Under this proposal, supports for related or secondary conditions may no longer be covered. Instead, people will be pushed back into an already stretched health system, and that risks creating gaps in care and, ultimately, it risks shifting costs, not reducing them.

The bill also grants the minister the power to reduce funding across categories of supports. This includes areas such as community participation and capacity building, two really important parts of what the scheme set out to do. While critical supports are preserved, these categories are not necessarily optional luxuries. They are supports that help people build independence. They are the supports that help people gain employment, and they can help people engage with their communities. I think that, in some ways, as a society and as a parliament, we've lost sight of that—that we wanted to give the support to people with disabilities to help them not just do nothing and manage their disability but get involved in the community, get involved in employment, if they're able, and build that independence.

The introduction of fixed plan end dates and the removal of rollover funding is another significant change. For some participants, this may improve structure and accountability, but for others it may create pressure, particularly where services are delayed or they're difficult to access. This is common in many regional areas, and participants should not be penalised because the system fails to deliver supports in a timely manner. In changes to travel arrangements, we've already seen some regrettable changes to the provision of necessary services for people in regional areas. Again, I believe it's sometimes Canberra not understanding how things work out in regional Australia, where your primary service provider might be a two-hour drive away.

The bill also expands the minister's ability to set limits on what is considered 'reasonable and necessary'. This includes caps on funding, staffing ratios and frequency of supports. Again, we've got to be consistent, but flexibility is essential, because every individual is different. As I stated at the start of this contribution, we've got to make people feel like they are people. They are members of our community with families and needs, not just numbers in a bureaucracy. We must ensure that decisions are made based on real needs, not on administrative convenience.

There are elements of this bill that the coalition supports, particularly those aimed at strengthening integrity in the system: improved provider registration, stronger compliance powers and civil penalties for misconduct. I wish the parliament could have come together previously to sort some of this stuff out. It really did drag on too long, and I don't think the then Labor opposition did everything they could to work with the Morrison coalition government to try and straighten some of this stuff out. But these measures are necessary because fraud and exploitation undermine the scheme and erode public trust. We must be clear that the problem is not the participants. The problem is the bad actors in the system, and they do exist and they should be called out and held to account. Not only are they abusing the Australian taxpayer by rorting our money; they are also taking away from a scheme that needs every resource focused on giving meaningful and true help to people with disabilities. We've got to target that bad behaviour and hold it to account.

The bill also introduces automated decision-making processes, and I know that might improve efficiency, but we've got to proceed with caution in relation to that. Decisions about people's lives cannot just be reduced to algorithms. It's a tool, and I get that the world is moving in that direction, but none of us really understand exactly where that's going to go. I think that, in relation to these sorts of things, we need to use it as a tool to assist decision-making, not see it as a decision-making tool in its end. What that needs is human oversight and safeguards.

Finally, I want to address the transitional provisions, particularly the inclusion of what we call a Henry VIII clause. This allows rules to effectively override primary legislation for a limited period. That is an extraordinary power, and it should only be used in the most limited and justified circumstances. It is essential that this aspect of the bill is fully examined through a Senate inquiry, because parliament—it doesn't matter who's in government—has got to retain oversight of fundamental legislative changes. That's a really important principle that our democracy is based on.

In closing, the coalition believes in a strong, sustainable NDIS. I thought it was a really good moment when the then Gillard government presented the NDIS legislation and then Tony Abbott, the then opposition leader, talked about the NDIS as 'an idea whose time had come'. Everyone believes in the principle and the intent, but we've got to tackle the fraud and waste. We want a scheme that can support future generations, but we believe in protecting participants. We're not going to support changes that create uncertainty, undermine confidence or place vulnerable Australians at risk. We're going to engage constructively with this legislation. We're going to listen to participants, families, carers and providers—many of us have been doing that in our electorate offices across Australia—and we'll use the Senate inquiry process to properly interrogate these reforms. Getting the NDIS right is not just a fiscal responsibility; it is a moral responsibility.

The parliament must ensure that, in seeking to secure the future of the NDIS, we go back and understand what its purpose was. What was the principle in setting it up? I think that principle is to support Australians living with disability to live with dignity, independence and, critically, opportunity.

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, and I do so acknowledging something that every member in this place should understand very clearly: behind every clause in this bill is a person—a child with profound autism whose parents are exhausted and frightened about the future, a young person with an acquired brain injury trying to rebuild their life, a mother caring for an adult son with disability and wondering what will happen when she is no longer there, a regional family already stretched by the cost of living and trying to navigate a system that too often feels confusing, adversarial and impersonal.

For many Australians, the NDIS is not an abstract policy debate; it is the way to help people with disability live their life. I can't imagine what life would be like now for people with disability without the NDIS. It remains one of the most significant social reforms in our nation's history. It changed the way Australians with disability are seen and supported. It recognised that people with disability deserve opportunity, inclusion and respect. But we also know that confidence in the scheme has been undermined by serious concerns about waste, exploitation, fraud and unsustainable growth.

Australians rightly expect that taxpayer money—their money—intended for vulnerable people is used properly. Participants themselves are often the first to say that the current system is not working as it should. Families are frustrated by inconsistent decisions. Participants are overwhelmed by bureaucracy. Good providers are being undercut by dishonest operators, and genuine participants are increasingly worried that the actions of a minority are threatening the long-term sustainability of the scheme itself. That is why there is broad support for measures that genuinely target fraud, abuse and exploitation within the NDIS. The disability community understands that, if public confidence in the scheme collapses, the people who will suffer most are those who genuinely rely on it.

The concern many people have with this bill is that, while it contains significant structural and access changes, it appears to do comparatively little to directly address the organised fraud and rorting that Australians have repeatedly been told is occurring inside the scheme. The bill does introduce some fraud related measures, including tightening record retention obligations, shortening claim timeframes from two years to 90 days, expanding some information-gathering and regulatory powers and enabling greater automation and digital oversight of payments and claims. Those measures may help improve compliance and administrative integrity, but many participants, carers and providers are asking a fair question: where are the measures that actually go after the criminal networks, organised exploitation and deliberate abuse that have so badly damaged confidence in the scheme?

This bill asks a great deal of participants and families. It tightens access requirements. It narrows assessment eligibility. It strengthens the connection between impairment and support needs. It introduces new powers to reduce support funding. It changes the definition of 'permanence'. It creates mechanisms for automatic plan renewals, and it gives significant additional discretion to the minister and the NDIA. These are substantial reforms, and, for many Australians living with a disability, they are deeply confronting.

One of the areas causing significant anxiety is the proposed change around 'reasonable and necessary supports'. The bill allows for maximum funding amounts, maximum support intensity and even maximum worker-to-participant ratios to be set through determinations. For government, that may sound like administrative efficiency, but for families it can sound like rationing. For a parent of a child with profound needs, it creates fear that supports will increasingly be driven by budget settings rather than individual circumstances. For people like the Melmeth family, they know this fear all too well. In October last year, I rose in this place to raise serious issues about the treatment of the Melmeth family, a family doing incredible work to give their severely disabled son Harry the best life possible, by the NDIA. Harry's story highlighted the systemic failings of the NDIS, showing how its processes can undermine the very people it is meant to serve. In my speech at the time, I shared these words from Marie, his mother:

It is clear in Harry's medical documentation that his disabilities are life-limiting, but instead of spending time and making memories with our family, I must waste my time fighting this David and Goliath battle that consumes and controls my life.

Harry passed away in January this year, an unthinkable loss for his family. Not only did the Melmeth family have to deal with the profound pain of losing a child, but they also had to experience the pain of a system that continued to let them and their boy down. The facts of this case are a shocking indictment of the NDIS, where pleas for help are met with silence or worse, silence from a minister having twice raised the concerns of the Melmeth family with no response whatsoever. We should acknowledge cases like these honestly and respectfully when considering reforms.

These proposed changes are already causing significant anxiety for people with disability and their families because the government has not clearly defined how these powers will operate in practice. That uncertainty matters because people living with disability already live with enough uncertainty. Another area of concern is the proposal allowing the minister to reduce funding across groups of supports through legislative instruments. While the bill states the minister must consider participant safety, many Australians will worry about the precedent being created. People want assurance that the supports they rely on will not simply become a budget balancing exercise.

Similarly, the changes to reassessments and eligibility tests raise understandable concerns. The bill proposes a far tighter framework for unscheduled plan reassessments, limiting them to situations involving significant and ongoing changes in circumstances. I understand why the government is doing this. There are around 12,000 unscheduled reassessments every month, and these have contributed significantly to plan inflation. But we must also remember that disability is not static. Life changes. Carers age, housing arrangements collapse, mental health deteriorates, children grow, medical conditions worsen unexpectedly and, in regional Australia, service availability can change overnight. We must ensure the system retains enough humanity and flexibility to respond when people genuinely need help.

There is also concern about the proposed changes to the definition of permanence. The bill seeks to ensure that all appropriate treatment options have been explored before access to the NDIS is granted. Again, there is logic behind that principle. The NDIS was never intended to replace every part of the health system, but Australians with disabilities should not feel pressured into treatments they do not want and should not fear losing support because the bureaucrats determine they have not done enough to pursue improvement. These are deeply personal decisions, and they must be approached with compassion, common sense and respect for every individual autonomy.

I also note concerns regarding the broad transitional rule making powers in the bill, including what has been described as a Henry VIII clause, allowing rules to effectively alter the operation of primary legislation. That is extraordinarily significant power, and parliament should always be cautious about handing over broad authority with limited scrutiny, particularly in legislation that affects vulnerable Australians.

Within my own electorate, I've been contacted by constituents working within the sector who, though initially strongly supporting proposed reforms to the NDIS and the implementation of the Thriving Kids program, now after completing the expression of interest process and reviewing the draft program specifications have serious concerns that in practice the implementation of reforms do not align with the stated aims. Nikki and Laura constituents working as speech pathologists in Maitland shared with me their concerns about the reforms. They say:

One of the stated aims is to support children where they live, learn and play by building the capability of the adults around them. Yet the current model appears to exclude early childhood educators from accessing meaningful therapeutic education and support.

This is deeply concerning.

Early childhood educators are among the adults best placed to positively influence a child's development through daily interactions.

If we are genuinely committed to building capacity where children learn and play, why are these key adults being excluded?

I am also concerned about access pathways for children who require targeted therapeutic intervention.

Who determines when a child needs therapy?

What developmental expertise will referrers hold?

What happens when progress is slower than expected?

Child development is not linear.

Rigid, short-term block models may work for some children, but they will not meet the needs of all.

There is also the very real issue of workforce capacity.

Australian Early Development Census data show increasing developmental vulnerability among children entering school, including communication-related domains. At the same time, speech pathology access was already stretched before COVID, particularly in regional areas.

The likely outcome is predictable: increased demand, reduced provider access and families waiting longer for support.

I am particularly concerned by the apparent intent to preference NGO and community providers while limiting access to experienced private providers except in exceptional circumstances.

Many highly experienced paediatric clinicians now work in private practice.

Excluding this workforce does not strengthen the system. It weakens it.

The longer-term implications concern me greatly.

We know unmet developmental and communication needs do not simply disappear. They often emerge later as school disengagement, behavioural distress, mental health challenges, family burnout, and greater reliance on more intensive and expensive systems of support.

This risks becoming a cost shift rather than true reform, moving pressure from the NDIS onto families, schools, health systems and communities.

I genuinely support reform that improves outcomes for children. But reforms must be built on developmental science, workforce reality, and practical implementation, not assumptions about where expertise currently sits …

Children only get one early childhood.

We cannot afford to get this wrong.

Alison, who is another speech pathologist that lives in my electorate, has raised her serious concerns. She says:

Children who would have got NDIS last year are now getting knocked back by NDIS with no plans to direct them into the Thriving Kids program, which as we know they are still trying to plan.

I talked to one provider coordinator who said they haven't been given any different criteria for their submissions on behalf of applicants to the NDIS but they are seeing more children refused.

They are also not keeping any sort of a list of possible eligibility for Thriving Kids (it wouldn't be hard for NDIS to do this or to ask providers to do this, to create a data base for those previously requesting assistance to receive a personalised contact from NDIS when Thriving Kids is due to be launched with instructions to help them access) and have in fact been told they will find out about Thriving Kids along with the rest of us, when it is in the Media.

That is so disrespectful to everyone, the families, the provider workers, everyone! It shows the organisations contempt for helping families with kids who are struggling to develop skills.

With them refusing kids entry without a possible alternative program to put them into immediately, they are creating a group of children who will probably remain in a gap between services or will never receive services and create a group of disadvantaged children for some time.

None of this means reform should not occur. Reform is necessary. The scheme must be sustainable. If costs continue to grow unchecked, future governments will face impossible choices. And, if fraud and waste continue to undermine confidence, the social licence that underpins the NDIS will weaken. But sustainability cannot simply mean reducing expenditure. True sustainability also means maintaining trust that genuine participants will be treated fairly, that vulnerable Australians will not be abandoned, that the system will remain centred on people rather than bureaucracy and that governments are targeting the real causes of waste and exploitation, not simply making it harder for vulnerable people to access support.

Australians with disabilities should never be made to feel like they are the problem. The overwhelming majority of participants are honest people trying to live their lives with dignity. The overwhelming majority of carers are doing extraordinary work under immense pressure, and many providers are deeply committed people that deliver essential support in difficult circumstances. They deserve a system that supports them and protects them from those who seek to exploit the scheme for profit. That is why many Australians will be looking closely at whether this bill genuinely cracks down on organised fraud and criminal behaviour or whether much of the burden of reform instead falls on participants and families already struggling to navigate the system. As legislators, we have a responsibility to get this balance right to protect taxpayers' money, to protect the integrity of the scheme and, also, to protect the people that the scheme was created to serve.

Yesterday I was delighted to meet Clare Waiss, the Tasmanian representative at the parliamentary carers event. What she had to say there was powerful and worth repeating here, at least in part:

Seven years ago, when our son Felix was born, we thought we understood what parenting would look like. What we didn't understand then was how quickly parenting would become advocacy, caregiving, administration, crisis management and constant negotiation with systems.

Felix lives with a rare genetic condition called ARF1, which has resulted in cerebral palsy, intellectual disability and significant support needs. He is non-speaking, requires assistance 24/7 and relies on mobility aids and AAC devices for communication. But to us, he's just Felix. He's funny, cheeky, stubborn, determined and full of personality. He's also a big brother to his 5 year old sister Lily.

Like many families entering the disability world for the first time, we suddenly found ourselves navigating specialists, hospital systems, therapy providers, education supports and the NDIS, all while trying to process the emotional reality of what our future now looked like.

For families like ours, there is no pause button. When therapies are reduced, children like Felix lose opportunities to build and maintain the skills that give them independence, mobility and connection to the world around them. When support worker funding is cut, families are left scrambling at the last minute, rearranging work, appointments and daily life just to keep everything functioning. When waiting lists blow out, children miss critical early intervention and families remain in crisis longer.

Every policy decision made in Canberra, every legislative amendment and every systems reform will eventually land somewhere very real, at a kitchen table like ours. It will land with parents trying to decide whether they can keep working. With carers already surviving on exhaustion. With siblings quietly adapting around systems that were never designed with them in mind. And with people with disability whose quality of life depends on whether support remains accessible, timely and sustainable.

Clare's personal experience eventually led her to create Care Plus Management, a support, coordination and plan management enterprise which, along with her own family experience, makes her insights supremely valuable. Indeed, in a recent letter to the Tasmanian disability minister, she had this to say, at least in part:

I have many concerns regarding the proposed legislation, however some of my biggest concerns relate to the increasing medicalisation of disability access and support eligibility. From my reading of the Bill and associated material, I am increasingly concerned that participants will effectively be required to demonstrate that all possible treatment pathways have been exhausted before disability support eligibility can be established or maintained. As a parent, this raises some really confronting questions for me. In Felix's case, he has Cerebral Palsy and has previously been assessed by his Rehabilitation Paediatrician through Tas Health as possibly not being an appropriate candidate for SDR surgery. However, another Paediatrician or Surgeon with less familiarity and clinical history of Felix may potentially form an entirely different opinion regarding whether he should undergo the procedure. That is what concerns me most about the direction of this legislation. Children and adults with disability may effectively be forced to pursue invasive and extremely expensive medical procedures with long and difficult rehabilitation timeframes simply to prove that their disability remains functionally impairing despite treatment attempts, even where there is conflicting medical opinion or significant uncertainty regarding the likely outcomes for that individual person.

For some people this may involve major orthopaedic or spinal surgeries, experimental treatments, intensive rehabilitation programs, or medications with significant side effects and limited evidence of long-term functional improvement. Families and participants should never be placed in a position where access to essential disability supports becomes contingent on undertaking high-risk medical interventions in an attempt to "prove" permanence. I worry about what this could mean more broadly for participants with Cerebral Palsy and other lifelong disabilities. Would families be expected to pursue spinal surgeries, orthopaedic procedures, or other invasive interventions in order to establish permanency? At what point does this shift from disability support into requiring families to medically "prove" their child cannot be fixed?

What concerns me further is that this approach simply shifts costs into other already overwhelmed systems, particularly Medicare, the PBS and the public health system, while placing enormous emotional pressure on families navigating incredibly complex decisions regarding their child's care. For many participants, therapies and interventions are intended to improve comfort, maintain mobility, reduce pain, or maximise quality of life, not cure disability. The existence of a possible intervention should not undermine recognition that a person still has a lifelong functional impairment requiring support. I also question where the line is drawn regarding expensive medical treatments, medications or therapies that may not even be fully covered under the PBS. Families living with disability already face enormous out-of-pocket medical costs. We are now potentially moving toward a system where participants will be pressured to pursue extremely expensive treatments, specialist interventions or medications simply to demonstrate they have "tried everything", even where the evidence of meaningful functional improvement is limited or the treatment is not considered clinically appropriate for that individual.

I am also deeply concerned regarding the proposed reduction of funding for social and community participation supports within Core budgets. Whilst these supports are often portrayed publicly as "nice to have" or non-essential, the reality is they are frequently the only mechanism allowing people with disability to meaningfully participate in their communities. The disability community has spent decades advocating for inclusion, accessibility and equal participation in society. We have finally started seeing real progress, inclusive playgrounds, accessible beaches, community events, schools, sporting programs and councils beginning to genuinely consider accessibility and inclusion in planning and infrastructure. On the Gold Coast last week I saw firsthand what genuine inclusion can look like. Free beach wheelchairs are available for families to access without cost or complex processes, allowing children like Felix to participate in spaces that historically excluded them entirely. These initiatives matter because inclusion does not happen naturally, it requires intentional investment, support and accessibility.

The Federal Government has publicly stated that the proposed NDIS reforms are expected to reduce projected scheme expenditure by approximately $35 billion over the coming 4 years. Whilst this is often framed politically as "slowing growth", the reality is that the NDIS is not simply a budget line item, it is a workforce. Aside from areas such as Assistive Technology (Disability Equipment), almost every dollar spent through the Scheme directly funds somebody's employment. Disability support workers, therapists, local area coordinators, support coordinators, plan managers, allied health professionals, administration staff, transport providers and community participation programs will all inevitably be impacted by reductions in funding flowing through the sector. This is likely to have significant broader economic consequences, particularly in regional communities where the disability sector has become a major source of employment growth over the past decade. It is also important to recognise that the disability and care workforce is overwhelmingly female, with women making up the substantial majority of the sector nationally. At a time when governments continue to speak about strengthening female workforce participation and investing in the care economy, these reforms risk doing the exact opposite, reducing jobs, suppressing wages, and destabilising one of the country's largest female-dominated workforces.

For decades, people with disability were largely hidden away from society. Many were segregated into institutions, group homes, or isolated within their own homes because they simply did not have the supports required to safely and meaningfully participate in the community. Over the past 10 years since the inception of the NDIS, we have slowly started to see genuine social change occur.

Disabled people are now visible in our communities every single day, at playgrounds, beaches, sporting events, shopping centres, schools and workplaces. Slowly, the stares from strangers have started to lessen. The whispered 'shh' from a parent when their child asks questions about a disabled person in public has started to lessen. Society has slowly started normalising disability as part of everyday Australian life, because people with disability have finally been given the opportunity to actually participate in society. My greatest fear is that these proposed policy directions risk taking us backwards. If social and community participation supports are significantly reduced, many people with disability will once again become isolated behind closed doors because participation will simply become inaccessible. Families already under enormous pressure will no longer have the support required to safely take their children into the community. Adults with disability will lose opportunities for connection, independence and visibility within society. I worry we are slowly moving back toward a system that values segregation over inclusion because inclusion is considered too expensive.

The NDIS was never supposed to simply keep disabled people alive. It was supposed to allow people with disability to live meaningful lives as visible and valued members of Australian society. Once disabled people disappear from public life again, society stops designing for them, thinking about them and including them. History has already shown us where that leads.

Unsurprisingly, Clare also has much to say about plan management—she's a plan manager—which, regrettably, I'll need to truncate heavily here for the lack of speaking time:

I remain extremely uneasy about the Government's position on Plan Management and the broader messaging around fraud within the sector.

Plan Managers are already one of the most highly scrutinised parts of the scheme. We operate under registration requirements, auditing obligations, compliance standards, financial accountability frameworks and direct NDIA oversight. There are currently only approximately 1,443 registered Plan Managers nationally supporting more than 460,000 plan-managed participants across Australia, despite the broader NDIS market consisting of more than 260,000 active providers across the sector. In that context, registered Plan Managers already represent a relatively small and highly regulated subset of the overall disability workforce.

More concerningly, the direction of the reforms appears to be moving toward consolidation of Plan Management into a small number of very large multinational or corporate providers. From an NDIS perspective, I worry this risks fundamentally undermining participant choice and control, one of the core principles the scheme was built upon. Smaller community-based Plan Managers often provide highly individualised support, understand local services, identify emerging safeguarding concerns early, and assist participants to navigate increasingly complex systems in ways that large, centralised providers simply cannot replicate at scale.

I believe another critical issue within the proposed reforms is the ongoing public narrative being presented about the role of Plan Managers, including statements made by the NDIS Minister which do not accurately reflect either the legislation or the operational realities of Plan Management. For example, there have been repeated suggestions that Plan Managers are driving unnecessary plan reassessments or financially benefiting from early plan reviews. However, Plan Managers cannot and have never been able to request a plan review on behalf of a participant under the legislation.

Similarly, the suggestion that Plan Managers financially benefit from participants seeking earlier reassessments is fundamentally incorrect. Early plan reviews create significantly more administrative work, manual processing, participant communication, compliance monitoring and financial risk for Plan Managers, without any additional payment being received.

I could go on and list my own concerns, like the financial inability of the Tasmanian government to fund the additional services that will be expected of it. But, you know what, I think I'll stick with Clare because she's done a better job than I ever could have done. I'll give her the last word:

I fully appreciate the complexity of managing a scheme of this size and absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring the NDIS remains financially sustainable long term. My son Felix will rely on the NDIS for the entirety of his life, which means I have a deeply vested interest in ensuring the Scheme continues to exist and remains viable not only for him, but for future generations of Australians living with disability.

Families like mine understand better than anyone that sustainability matters. However, sustainability cannot come at the expense of the fundamental purpose and philosophy of the NDIS itself. I strongly believe the current direction risks shifting the Scheme away from one centred on inclusion, participation, independence and quality of life, toward one focused predominantly on cost containment, functional minimisation and restricting access to support. The NDIS was never intended to simply deliver the bare minimum required to keep disabled people alive. It was designed to allow people with disability to participate meaningfully in society, exercise choice and control, and live with dignity as valued members of their communities.

I say thank you to Clare. She gives voice to countless people.

Firstly, I want to commend the member for Clark for bringing Clare's voice to Canberra. I echo his sentiment, and I let Clare know that we are listening and we have heard that, so thank you. We have an important role to speak, as members of parliament, but the most powerful role we can play, particularly in this conversation, is in bringing the voices of participants and those involved. So thank you, Member for Clark, and please let Clare know that people have listened.

This is an important conversation that we are having. We need to get this right. Last month, the Minister for Health and Ageing dropped a bombshell on every single person who relies on the NDIS during a speech at the Press Club. He announced that every person with a disability who receives support through the NDIS would face being reassessed to get vital and often life-saving supports. Since that announcement and that bombshell, my office and, I know, every office across our community has been inundated with calls and emails from distressed locals and their support workers, uncertain of what the future holds.

In my electorate of Casey, there are 5,459 individuals who rely on the NDIS, and that's just the individual participants. Beyond that number are their families, their communities, their loved ones, their support networks. These changes will impact tens of thousands in my community and millions of Australians all across the country, which is why it's so important that we get it right. As I stand here today and speak on this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, I want those Australians to know that I hear their concerns loud and clear.

For Australians navigating significant and permanent disability, the NDIS is much more than a safety net. It is the bridge between isolation and community. It brings independence, the ability to work and the supports to thrive and live a life of dignity rather than limitation. For families and loved ones, it gives them a support network and it gives them hope and certainty for the future. For so many families, the NDIS is a lifeline. It provides people with disabilities and their families with hope, structure, support and guidance. In some cases, the support of the NDIS is what holds families together. At the moment, too many of these families feel like that hope is slipping away. They've seen their supports reduced and their funding cut. What is just a line item in the budget in Canberra is the difference between hope and despair for the families impacted. We need to remember that behind every number and every budget saving the government talks about, we are talking about people.

We are talking about people like Jackson in my electorate of Casey. For Jackson, the NDIS has changed his life and changed his family's life. It's provided him with the supports that allow him to work and get back into our community, and that give his parents the support they need and the break that they need. I had the opportunity to meet with Jackson's parents and hear firsthand from them about Jackson's story. When I first met with them—I've engaged with them quite a lot—they brought a photo of Jackson to make sure that I knew there was a person behind the conversation, because Jackson wasn't able to attend. Then they invited me to, and I had the honour of attending, Jackson's work to see him working with his carer, and to meet Jackson and talk to him about the football that he plays at the Montrose football club in the all abilities team and really see firsthand the life that Jackson is building and how important it is to him and his family, and that is because of the NDIS.

We need to make sure that people like Jackson can get the support that they need, and part of that, clearly, is making sure that the NDIS is sustainable. It's clear that the status quo isn't working. Fraud and rorting have infiltrated the scheme, and it's broken. The NDIS was intended to be a participant-friendly system, yet I continue to hear from families within our community that they are struggling to navigate the system and are living in fear of funding cuts and what that means to their loved ones.

I want to share the story of a family in the upper Yarra who reached out to my office this week. This is a single-parent family already experiencing severe financial and social hardship. They are currently living without permanent secure housing. This family relies on the NDIS support for their son and recently applied for a review, given the son's escalating aggressive behaviours and difficulty attending a mainstream school. Not only were they unsuccessful in getting further support; the NDIS reduced the supports the family already had, severely reducing the son's plan at the time they needed it most. This included the removal of support coordination and reductions in behaviour support, including spreading funding that was initially intended for a 12-month period over a three-year period, as well as almost halving the therapy supports available. Despite clear risks, these critical supports have been cut at a time of worsening behaviours and financial distress for the family.

There are a lot of people right now who are exceptionally worried about whether they themselves or their child, family member or loved one will still be eligible for support through the NDIS. The answer isn't clear, and where do they go? Our state health systems are already at capacity, and people are being turned away from daily services. We have a situation where NDIS participants are too scared to ask for a plan to be reviewed for fear that it will be cut, like the family that I just spoke about—and this from a prime minister who said that no-one would be left behind. At the moment, those on the NDIS are feeling left behind and forgotten by this prime minister. Let's chalk that up as another example of the Prime Minister saying one thing before an election and delivering another after it.

There is no doubt that the NDIS has rapidly grown since its establishment. Originally intended to support around 410,000 Australians, the NDIS now supports 760,000 participants, and the number continues to grow. Originally estimated to cost $13.6 billion, the NDIS now costs around $50 billion, and this is expected to reach $70 billion by the end of the decade. Clearly, this isn't sustainable and changes are needed; however, how the changes happen also matter. The fact is that one of the reasons this is the first piece of legislation the government introduced after the budget is that they need to rush this through the parliament so they can start to bank the savings that they've already spent in other areas of their budget.

This is now the Albanese government's third attempt to slow the growth of the scheme. They set a target of eight per cent in 2023. In January this year, that was reduced to five to six per cent. In April this year it was revised down again to two per cent. Right now, growth in the NDIS is sitting at 10.3 per cent, meaning this government is failing on every metric. They've banked savings previously that they've failed to hit, and they've banked more savings into the future. That's what makes those on the system so nervous right now.

Without a clear implementation strategy, policy guidelines and consultation with the disability community to get these significant changes right, the government's growth targets will be nothing more than an aspirational target to fix their bottom line and there will be significant damage done to those on the system as they rush to get this number banked. As I said, the government has already banked the number. They've spent the savings from the NDIS in this budget. While the NDIS has to be sustainable and spending needs to be reduced, this cannot be because the government and this Treasurer cannot manage the budget. This Prime Minister cannot punish those on the NDIS and their families because of his failures and his Treasurer's failures.

Labor's bill makes a number of changes to the scheme. The bill will restrict a person's ability to ask for an unscheduled reassessment of their plan. It will establish a framework to assess a person's eligibility for full support through the NDIS. Until now, eligibility has been based primarily on a person's diagnosis. This bill will change that to be based on a person's reduced functional capacity as a result of the diagnosis. This bill establishes the legislative mechanism to change the way a person is assessed but provides no detail of what that new assessment will look like. This hasn't been developed yet. This in and of itself has caused a level of fear and anxiety amongst the community.

As the shadow treasurer would know, this government is big on making announcements but providing no detail. Whether it is the NDIS, capital gains or negative gearing—so many things about this government are big headlines with no detail and more damage done. But when it's impacting people on the NDIS—

It's deceitful.

It is deceitful, and it's disgraceful. 'My word is my bond—no Australian left behind.' This prime minister has not delivered one shred of honesty or integrity in his time as Prime Minister. Changes of this magnitude need to be done right. People need to be consulted, and they haven't been. There will also be changes to plan renewals, and the caution we have for the government on this is to ensure that there is no gap between a person's plan ending and the new plan being created and no delay in supports for people with disability because of slow bureaucracy. They need to make sure that the states are ready to provide the services through Thriving Kids and other mechanisms. At the moment, we're hearing stories and we're seeing the government pull funding to go into a state service that is not ready. Again, they're looking to bank a number in the budget at the expense of Australians that need the support.

One of the most disappointing aspects of the NDIS has been the rise of fraud and rorts within the system. Week after week, we are seeing stories of criminals exploiting the scheme for personal gain—in some cases, in the millions—often for services that were never provided. In the calendar year of 2025, $48.83 billion was spent on paid supports to participants. If six to 10 per cent of those transactions were non-compliant, fraudulent or incorrect, that would equate to a $2.9 billion to $4.8 billion cost to the scheme per annum. It sounds very similar, shadow treasurer, to the CFMEU and the Allan Labor government. There's a connection between Labor promising things and not delivering and providing services that have been for fraud and corruption for their friends.

It's a pipeline from public money into organised crime.

A pipeline from public money into organised crime—well said, shadow treasurer. Evidence from investigations and prosecutions shows that these losses arise from a range of activities, including outright fraud, deliberate overservicing, false invoicing, claims for services never delivered, and collusion between providers and participants.

This bill goes some way to addressing the rising number of bad actors taking advantage of participants and taxpayers by introducing additional provider registration requirements. Right now, around 94 per cent of providers are unregistered. The controls and fraud protection mechanisms are far too weak, and we see this nearly every day in the papers and on social media. This is absolutely unacceptable. These providers are taking advantage of NDIS participants, and they are taking advantage of the taxpayers who are funding this work. There are a few measures in this bill that stamp out this fraud. The digital payments platform needing to retain receipts and evidence of services and the 90-day claim timeframe will help with some of this, but it will not stamp out the rorts. That's why the coalition has called for a Senate inquiry into this bill. Submissions are currently open to participants, families, carers, providers and advocates right across the country. We must carefully scrutinise these changes. NDIS participants can't be expected to trust reforms that this government can't even explain, and they need more information on what these changes will mean for their future.

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The intent of this bill is to ensure a sustainable NDIS for future generations by slowing growth of scheme costs, reducing fraud, strengthening provider regulation and improving governance. I recognise the need to rein in the NDIS, to make it sustainable, fair and protected from fraud and poor providers. Like me, many providers and families in Mackellar support sensible reforms. We want the scheme to work for the people it was designed to support, and we want to ensure that public money is used well. However, several core issues must be addressed before this bill proceeds to ensure that participants are not left without important supports they need. Such issues include the ministerial power to cut support determinations, the ministerial pricing power, changes to the permanence test, the hierarchy of evidence for reasonable and necessary supports, the reliance on automation and the lack of readiness for alternative supports outside the NDIS. Until these issues are fixed, the risk of unintended consequences and people being left behind without adequate support is simply too high.

We cannot ask families to trust a new system when the details are unpublished, the rules are not clear and the services outside the NDIS are not yet established. Parents, carers, participants and local providers in my electorate are deeply anxious about this bill. Elise, mum of Rafferty, a 14-year-old hot-shot wheelchair basketballer in Mackellar, fought to get him on the NDIS. But Rafferty has recently been given a five-year plan that has no funding for physiotherapy and allows only 12 hours a year for exercise physiology. There's also no funding for a new day chair, even though he will grow out of his current adjustable chair in about six months. There is no funding for a sports chair to enable him to continue the sport he loves. There is no funding for the changes that happen between 14 and 19: growing independence, learning to access the community safely and building confidence. His mother puts it plainly: 'These are not nice-to-have items; they are core necessities for functional capacity and basic daily living.' This is why people are frightened by broad ministerial powers to cut supports. If this is already happening, families rightly ask: what will happen when wider ministerial powers are added?

I've also heard from Nora, from North Narrabeen. Nora is 69. Her daughter is a young, vibrant, happy adult and an NDIS participant. Nora's husband had a stroke seven years ago and uses a wheelchair. Nora's daughter is non-verbal. She cannot read or write. She cannot drive, and she cannot go to the shops alone or meet friends safely without support. Nora is deeply concerned about cuts to social and community participation funding. For her daughter, this support is not an optional extra. It's what lets her leave the house, meet people, be safe and live a life beyond four walls. It took years to build the right team of support workers. These are trusted relationships that were built slowly and carefully. Nora is worried that the changes to provider rules and pricing may disrupt these relationships. She also asked a simple question about review rights: 'If funding is cut where is the fair opportunity to challenge it, and where is the consideration of safety, continuity and longer term costs when support is removed?'

I've also heard from Lisa Hughes, Founder and CEO of Occupational Therapy Helping Children in Frenchs Forest. Lisa has supported children, young people and families for more than 30 years. She's worried this bill may reduce access to early intervention, weaken family choice, increase pressure on parents and destabilise experienced local providers. Lisa knows what existed before the NDIS. In the 1990s, she ran the paediatric occupational therapy service at Mona Vale Hospital. At that time, there were only 19 hours of paediatric occupational therapy available each week for the whole of the Pittwater and Warringah council areas.

The NDIS has allowed many children to access regular, local and consistent support. It has helped families avoid long waitlists. It has helped children build skills early at a time when support can make the biggest difference. Lisa's concern is that children may lose access before alternative local supports are funded, staffed and tested. Lisa also raised concerns about the new assessment process. Children do not function the same way in every setting. Their needs change with fatigue, sensory load, school demands, emotional regulation, family stress and the environment around them. A child may manage in one controlled setting and struggle in a busy classroom, on public transport or in crowded community spaces. Assessment must look at how a child lives, learns and plays. It must not reduce complex children to rigid categories or an automated result.

One of the main concerns is that families need a fair and responsive pathway for review when a plan no longer fits. They need human review, transparency and clinical judgement. They need the ability to correct errors easily. I've also heard from Evelyn and Alexander. They are Northern Beaches parents of a 22-year-old son with severe autism and intellectual disability. Their son has limited speech and no effective means of self-care. He relies on others for daily care, transport and basic needs. With the NDIS, his life changed for the better. He has been able to take part in meaningful activities and contribute in ways that were not possible before. This gives him purpose, achievement and connection.

Alexander and Evelyn are worried that the definition of 'functional capacity' may be shaped later by rules made outside of this parliament. They're worried about changes to the permanence test and what those changes may mean in practice. Key terms such as these in the act should not be left to uncertain future rules. They're also worried about plan reassessments. Their own request for a plan review was not acted on for more than a year. They had no clear way to track the progress and they found contact processes unreliable, inaccessible and unfair, yet the bill proposes consequences when participants do not respond to contact.

Evelyn and Alexander are also concerned about broad powers to reduce plan funding. They point to the proposed section 34A and the risk of a large percentage reduction that may not be reviewable. They're also concerned about the move away from reasonable and necessary supports, which are part of the promise of the NDIS. Sustainability should mean providing supports that are reasonable, necessary, evidence based and cost-effective. It should not mean giving executive power to reduce supports below what has been assessed as needed. I absolutely recognise the need to ensure that scheme growth is sustainable. However, the potential for significant cuts and changes to people's plans that this bill enables and the level of direct ministerial control that will be made possible have the potential for disastrous outcomes for some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Pragmatic system improvements, such as fraud minimisation; provider enrolment; payment changes to improve capacity for the National Disability Insurance Agency to monitor and ensure compliance; and, if implemented correctly and safely, new framework planning, provide the necessary foundations for prudent management of scheme finances while also retaining a focus on participant rights and outcomes. Providers and participants must be part of the solution and participants must not be moved off the NDIS until alternative support is real, funded, staffed and ready. These are reasonable requests.

Minister Butler identified in his speech to the National Press Club last month that the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee said recently more time is needed to deal with the legislative uncertainty and remove the risk of other unintended consequences. The same advice must apply to this bill. While the NDIS desperately needs reform, let's take the time to address this now and get it right.

I rise today to speak on a matter that cuts straight to the core of our national conscience, the National Disability Insurance Scheme. A civilised society is judged by how it cares for its most vulnerable citizens, which is why we must get the NDIS right. In the coalition, our foundational wish is for every single Australian to live an absolute best life. It is a human baseline that every person in this chamber would want. To understand the true value of the NDIS, you must look at the immense emotional, physical and financial strain borne daily by individuals and families living with disability just to survive and thrive. For these families, the NDIS is a lifeline. It is the absolute difference between surviving in isolation and thriving in a vibrant community. It is the support worker who provides a parent with a few hours of much-needed respite. It is the home modification that allows a young person to move freely around their own domestic sanctuary. It is the specialised equipment that grants a child the ability to communicate with the world.

Because of the sheer human importance of this scheme, we in the coalition affirm our strong, unshakeable, bipartisan support for the NDIS. We believe in its core mission, and we want it to succeed for generations to come. But, because we want it to succeed, we are deeply concerned that this government's heavy handed cuts are on track to hurt the wrong people. We know that the vast majority of participants are honest, true-blue Australians who simply need a helping hand. They're not rorting the system. They are just trying to survive the challenges of everyday life. Those with real, profound, structural needs should be getting every single bit of help that they require without having to fight their own government for the privilege.

However, we must also confront a cold, hard financial truth that ensuring the long-term sustainability of this scheme is absolutely vital. If we do not secure its foundations, the entire structure will collapse under its own weight, and the people who will suffer the most are the very participants who rely on the NDIS just to live. Let us look plainly at the staggering numbers. The rapid expansion of this scheme has completely outpaced the original forecast. When first established, it was expected to support around 410,000 Australians at a total cost of $13.6 billion. Today, the scheme supports over 760,000 participants, and it continues to expand daily. The cost for this financial year alone is sitting at a massive $50 billion, and on its current trajectory it is projected to blow right out to $70 billion by the end of the decade. This is simply not sustainable. No economy can bankroll a runaway trajectory like that. Something has to give way.

Let us examine the specific mechanisms of this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, starting with eligibility and access. This legislation seeks to establish an entirely new legal framework for determining who gets into the NDIS. Until now, eligibility has been based primarily on the person's medical diagnosis. You had a condition, and that condition opened the door to support. This bill shifts the foundational goalposts. Eligibility will now be based on a person's substantially reduced functional capacity—and that is certainly a mouthful—introducing a strict centralised definition. The government tells us this will create a consistent, objective and evidence-based assessment process. But in regional communities like mine it is currently creating fear. Parents are staying up at night, wondering if their autistic child will suddenly be deemed too functional for support. Individuals who have spent years building a life are terrified that their independence is about to be stripped away.

While this bill establishes the legislative mechanism to create the assessments, it provides zero detail on what these new assessments will actually look like. This lack of transparency has caused a massive wave of anxiety throughout the community, where respectful consultation has been completely lacking. From 1 January 2028, all existing NDIS participants will progressively be reassessed over a three-year period, stretching to 31 December 2030. With over 760,000 participants currently on the books, that represents an absolute mountain of bureaucracy, and it begs a massive unanswered question: if these people are forced out, where do they go?

Our state and territory health systems are already bursting at the seams. In regional areas, our emergency departments are overwhelmed and our hospital services are having to turn people away daily. Finding a GP appointment can take weeks, and despite this Prime Minister claiming that all you will need is your Medicare card, everyday Australians are still paying massive out-of-pocket expenses just for the privilege of seeing a doctor. The waiting lists for specialists are months, and sometimes years, long. We are deeply hopeful that people with significant and permanent disabilities are not about to be put through the wringer, forced to provide a multitude of new, highly expensive medical reports just to continuously re-prove a lifelong disability.

This bill also takes direct aim at unscheduled plan reassessments, which currently average 12,000 every single month. Each mid-plan adjustment results in an average funding variation of around 20 per cent, costing taxpayers a projected $6.4 billion over the forward estimates. This mechanism has been aggressively exploited by bad actors, who treat a participant's plan like an unregulated ATM, triggering unnecessary reassessments purely to skim additional funds for services that they've either grossly inflated or never actually provided.

I recently met with a registered NDIS providers group in Townsville, and their frontline audit of this decay is confronting. They've encountered numerous examples of unregistered, completely unaccountable operators actively raiding the piggy banks of vulnerable participants, blowing an entire year's budget in a matter of months. Once the cash is completely drained, honest registered providers are directed to step in and deliver life-saving care for free, because, without them, these people would die. These local businesses are forced to absorb crushing overheads, carrying immense operational risk and fighting a hostile bureaucracy that routinely denies payment for critical care. It is fundamentally unfair, and we're going to lose our very best providers if we do not stop these crooks from stealing from our most vulnerable.

To top off this disgrace, these dedicated teams are trapped in a vicious catch-22: if they attempt to take an unfunded, high-risk patient to the hospital, the agency flags them and penalises them with disgusting accusations of neglect. They are forced to shoulder the entire burden of care for zero funding and are then weaponised against if they seek emergency medical help. No wonder this entire system is completely broken. This failure is supercharged by a system that also grants complex financial control to self-managed participants who, due to profound mental challenges, simply do not have the capacity or the budget. It is a cruel administrative failure that leaves vulnerable people entirely penniless for months on end—a glaring policy blind spot that demands immediate and total reform.

The coalition will always support measures that improve the integrity of the NDIS. We want genuine safeguards in place to protect participants and to stop the rampant fraud and rorting that is currently undermining the scheme. Right now, a staggering 94 per cent of providers are completely unregistered. With $50 billion in taxpayer funds going out the door, our fraud protection mechanisms are simply too weak. The Albanese government has more than 10,000 people working within the NDIS scheme alone, yet they are completely failing to use these massive resources to get on top of the issue and, more importantly, act. To date, neither the government nor the agency have been able to clearly quantify the scale of the theft. The data we have is deeply concerning. The Australian National Audit Office reported that six to 10 per cent of all claims could be noncompliant, fraudulent or simply incorrect.

Let us look at the true cost of this inertia. In the 2025 calendar year, $48.83 billion was spent on paid supports. If 10 per cent of that is leaking out, we're looking at a total loss of up to $4.8 billion a year. On the current trajectory, this leakage could hit a massive $8 billion annually by the end of the decade. This represents a sophisticated wave of organised crime, deliberate overservicing and false invoicing. Law enforcement agencies have warned that criminal groups are directly targeting these weak entry controls. We must remember the human cost of this failure. Every single dollar lost to a fraudster is a dollar directly ripped away from an Australian living with a disability, and they rely on the NDIS for support.

We are constantly receiving deeply concerning reports in our electorate offices across Dawson about participants seeking basic help around the home, like cleaning or gardening. The second they mention they have a NDIS plan, the quote for the exact same service instantly quadruples in price. This is completely unacceptable. These predatory operators are taking cruel advantage of vulnerable participants and treating the Australian taxpayer like an infinite gravy train.

Earlier this week this chamber offered its profound condolences following the passing of an absolute hero, AFL legend and motor neurone disease campaigner Neale Daniher. For 13 years Neale fought a courageous, deeply inspiring battle against the beast that is MND, touching millions of lives and raising over $100 million for vital medical research through FightMND. He showed our entire nation what true selfless determination looks like. Rest in peace, Neale.

A great shame is unfolding right now within our regional communities. In my electorate of Dawson, we're seeing multiple incidents of everyday people diagnosed with similarly degenerative neurological conditions. For these individuals, the path only goes downhill. There is no recovery. Yet, despite being increasingly incapable of looking after themselves and despite rapidly declining, their applications for support have been consistently rejected by the NDIA. If the NDIS is already so broken that people in such genuine, desperate need cannot even gain access to the scheme, then we have a profound moral crisis on our hands.

We absolutely must ensure that these proposed cuts do not place an even higher barrier in front of vulnerable Australians, completely blocking them from receiving the frontline care they require to live their lives with dignity. We need a system that is robust, transparent and completely secure. The message from our communities is clear: stop treating taxpayer funds like an open chequebook, clean out the rorters and protect the vulnerable Australians who rely on this care.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring on Wednesday 27 May 2026:

(1) standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) being suspended for the sitting;

(2) at 8 pm, notwithstanding standing order 31, the adjournment debate being interrupted and government business having priority until:

(a) business concludes, if earlier than 10 pm; or

(b) 10 pm; or

(c) a later time specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm;

at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until 9 am Thursday 28 May; and

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

For the information of members—this just covers us to make sure that we get through the debate tonight. At the moment, we're at the point where, if one or two more people add themselves to the speaking list, we won't get through it. Effectively, what this means is that, if we haven't finished the debate at 7.30, we will go to the six people who are listed to speak on the adjournment, they will give their speeches and at eight o'clock we will resume this debate. The debate will continue until the first call for a division, which will happen at the end of the second reading debate. There will be about five different opportunities for a division when we finish the second reading debate. There's a chance that this won't be needed at all, but, as I've watched the speaking list be added to, I just wanted to make sure that we're covered. That's the reason for the resolution. We will not be doing in detail tonight, though. We will only be going as far as the votes relevant to the second reading.

Question agreed to.

The NDIS must be made fiscally sustainable, but sustainability cannot come at the cost of Australians with disability being left worse off. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 contains reforms that are genuinely necessary—stronger fraud controls, provider accountability and modernised governance—and I support those measures. But this bill also contains reforms that are moving too fast without the supporting infrastructure, independent modelling or accountability frameworks that responsible reform demands.

Warringah has heard from participants, carers, occupational therapists and providers, and their message is consistent: fix the system, don't punish the people it exists to serve—NDIS participants and their families, many living with autism, psychosocial disability, Down syndrome and complex fluctuating conditions. My electorate office has heard from local NDIS providers, including Northside and Bushlink, one of Warringah longest serving community disability organisations; allied health professionals—occupational therapists, speech pathologists and social workers, all of whom work with NDIS participants daily; and parents of children with developmental delay and autism, who are anxious about the Thriving Kids transition. The NDIS is essential to each of their lives. Constituents are reporting change-of-circumstance requests sitting unprocessed for months, and some have reported drastic funding reductions—in one case, from 36 hours of support to just seven, without explanation or clinical justification. Families of young children are deeply anxious about the Thriving Kids transition, uncertain as to whether community services will actually exist in Warringah when their child's NDIS plan ends. Many of these constituents have raised their view that this bill appears to be driven by a cost reduction agenda, not by ensuring people receive reasonable and necessary supports

In 2022-23, NDIS expenditure grew by 20 per cent. The government committed to an eight per cent growth cap by July 2026, but the latest figure shows that it is still exceeding that. There are currently 774,456 NDIS participants. Without reform, that figure is projected to be exceeded, and that is an issue. In 2026-27, the budget projects some $37.8 billion in reduced expenditure growth over four years. The NDIS spending on core social and community participation reached $11.9 billion in the 12 months to 31 March 2026, and the government says average actual spend in that category has risen from around $14,000 five years ago to about $31,000 this year. I agree: these are real sustainability pressures that cannot be ignored.

But the system's existing failures are also real and can't be dismissed. Participants in my electorate face chronic delays, inconsistent decisions, poor plan quality and an overwhelmed appeals system, with a backlog estimated at 35,000 change-of-circumstance cases. Non-clinically-trained planners are making consequential decisions about complex disabilities. Significant public funds are being spent on administration, tribunals and consultants—not supports.

Fraud and provider misconduct are genuine issues, but this claim is often conflated with legitimate participant need to justify eligibility tightening. It's concerning that there are even allegations that there was messaging consultation done by the government that actually said, 'If you amplify the concern around fraud, you will get more social licence for reining it in and for these changes.' In some ways, it's almost like it was a marketing strategy to enable these changes to be pursued. The government should absolutely pursue fraud, but that cannot be the whole story. The bigger issue is that the scheme has been allowed to operate with insufficient oversight. The regulator does not have full visibility over the provider market, creating space for overcharging, poor practice and exploitation to take hold.

But let's be clear. This is not the only area where it happens. Medicare fraud has been estimated at around $3 billion a year, yet we don't see the Prime Minister and members of the government—when they come in here brandishing their Medicare cards—also concerned about fraud in the Medicare system. We certainly don't see them come in here demonising patients and blaming them for that fraud. We don't describe Medicare fraud as a reason to demonise patients, yet the NDIS is too often discussed as though participants themselves are the problem.

A fair reform agenda would strengthen regulation, close loopholes in the provider market and protect the people the scheme exists to serve. The scheme's integrity problems should not be treated as though they sit with participants. People with disability are not the ones designing pricing models, running provider businesses or exploiting gaps in oversight. Reform should be aimed squarely at those who profit from failure.

This bill gets a few things right. Strengthening fraud controls, civil penalties, expanded information-gathering powers and record-keeping requirements—these are necessary and long overdue. Expanding mandatory registration to higher risk providers—personal care, daily living supports, closed settings—is sensible and consistent with the NDIS Review's risk-proportionate model. But, again, there is overreach in the government's response. The ministerial pricing mechanism provides a lever for cost containment that may be necessary, but there is no precaution or arm's length and the government may not always use this responsibly. There are serious concerns.

Firstly, the I-CAN automated assessment system—transparency and accountability are sorely missing. This question was put to the government today in question time, and there is no reasonable or real answer to this problem. From April 2027, participant support plans will be determined through I-CAN—the Instrument for the Classification and Assessment of Support Needs—a semistructured assessment rating support needs across 12 domains, including communication and mobility. Our current reporting indicates that, once I-CAN generates a budget—and this is an automated system—NDIA staff will have no authority to change it. It will not be reviewed or managed by people. This is an automated system. They can request a reassessment using different inputs, but it is still an automated output. This risks allowing a standardised assessment and budget-setting method to carry decisive weight in determining a participant's support with limited transparency about how the generated budget can be reviewed, varied or overridden.

The assessors conducting these conversations are not required to have allied health qualifications. It's just staggering that we're still at the point of saying that. It's highly desirable but not mandatory. It's deeply concerning. As NDIS expert Dr Georgia van Toorn has noted:

If algorithms are going to determine who gets support and who goes without, then the entire apparatus—including the algorithm itself, its modelling, classification rules and training data—must be open to scrutiny.

The bill permits automated administrative decision-making but does not establish the transparency, the override mechanism or the accountability frameworks needed to make this safe. I'm calling on the government to publish the I-CAN algorithm and modelling, require qualified allied health assessors, guarantee that human override of automated plans is possible and establish an independent audit function for algorithmic decisions. We've seen what happens when automated systems go wrong: they have dire consequences. What the government appears to be doing is repeating the same mistakes. It has done so with aged care. It is repeating the mistakes and ignoring the recommendations that came out of the robodebt royal commission.

Secondly, foundational supports must exist before eligibility is tightened. The bill stages these changes unevenly. Access changes based on functional capacity are not due to commence until 1 January 2028, but changes affecting social and community participation are being advanced before the Inclusive Communities Fund and broader foundational supports are fully designed, funded and actually operating in local communities. We can all see the gap. The $10 billion national agreement on foundational supports over five years sounds substantial, but $4 billion is already committed to the Thriving Kids program for children under nine, leaving just $6 billion for adults and the broader population.

The government has allocated only $200 million over three years for the Inclusive Communities Fund. Just think about that—$200 million over three years to replace social and community participation supports for over 368,000 participants currently using those supports. The maths just don't add up. This sequencing is precisely what the 2023 NDIS independent review warned against: reforms being implemented piecemeal without the supporting structures required. As put to me by a Warringah constituent, rushing these reforms risks 'entrenching cost driven decision-making that undermines both the integrity of the scheme and Australia's disability rights obligations.'

Thirdly, the Thriving Kids transition must have a no-service-gap guarantee. Children with mild to moderate autism and developmental delay under the age of nine will be transitioned from the NDIS to the new Thriving Kids program, which is set to begin rolling out from 1 October 2026. But the NDIS eligibility changes don't take effect until January 2028, meaning there's a real risk that there's going to be a gap between when NDIS support winds back and when Thriving Kids services are available in communities in Warringah and across Australia. We've raised this issue with the government but have yet to be absolutely assured that a service gap will not occur—keeping in mind that these are young children, where every month and period of development is crucial to ensure they are reaching their full potential. State based delivery means geographic inconsistency. Services in Warringah may look very different from those in regional New South Wales or other states. Families have already reported receiving exit letters from the NDIA, claiming children have 'achieved their goals', even when therapists and parents know they still need support. I'm calling on the government to provide a clear, legally binding guarantee that no child will lose access to funded supports until Thriving Kids is operational in their community—not just nationally but locally.

Fourthly, there is no accountability framework for systemic failures. The bill does not address the systemic failures that are driving costs and participant distress—inconsistent decision-making, delays, poor plan quality and a high-volume appeals backlog. Without statutory timeframes for decisions, mandatory clinical input in planning and independent oversight of the NDIA, the structural problems remain and reform risks layering cost cuts on top of dysfunction.

At the consideration in detail stage, I'll be moving three amendments to this bill. The first is about broadening the reassessment trigger. Currently, the bill limits when a participant can request an unscheduled plan reassessment, tying it to a narrow set of circumstances defined by the NDIA. The bill narrows when participants can request an unscheduled plan reassessment, and this amendment adds three practical triggers: when supports in a plan are no longer available, when a plan is not meeting a participant's needs in practice or when new clinical evidence has emerged. These things are not static; they fluctuate. Disability is not static; it needs change. Providers exit markets, and circumstances shift between scheduled reviews.

The minister's power to reduce funding across classes of supports is broad. It is too broad as currently drafted. The bill does not require the minister to consider what that reduction will actually mean for individual participants before acting. My second amendment changes that. Before reducing funding across a class of supports, the minister must actively consider whether the determination would undermine supports assessed as reasonable and necessary for individual participants. This introduces a genuine, holistic safeguard into a ministerial power that currently operates with very limited constraints. It anchors cost containment decisions in the scheme's founding principle—that supports exist to enable Australians with disability to live independently and contribute on their own terms.

My third amendment makes support determinations reviewable decisions, and, in the bill as drafted, a ministerial determination reducing support funding is a legislative instrument, meaning it applies broadly and is not, itself, a reviewable decision that an individual participant can challenge through a merits review. This amendment closes that gap. Where a determination reduces a participant's funding, they are deemed to be affected by a reviewable decision and can access existing review pathways. It does not prevent the minister from acting, but it creates accountability. I want this scheme to succeed; it is so vital for so many. I want it to be here for Warringah families in 10 years and for every Australian with disability who needs it, but I will not support a bill that achieves fiscal sustainability by shifting the burden onto people with disability, their families and their carers. The government's urgency appears to be driven by fiscal and political expediency rather than best care for the most vulnerable.

On the NDIS, I will talk about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, but what I think is very important about the bill and the amendment is the human stories behind them. I recently received a letter from parents in my electorate which I would like to share with the chamber and put onto Hansard. Here are the words of Andrea and Jason, and their son Lachlan:

We are writing to express our deep concern about the removal/reduction of community access supports for our disabled son.

Our son Lachlan Rowney, is a 24 year old young man with a severe intellectual disability (mental capacity of a 4 year old in a 24 year olds body) along with ASD level 3, severe anxiety (medicated) and Epilepsy—grand mal (medicated).

Under the proposed changes, our son who is a participant for 'whom the Scheme was originally intended' (profound disability) will lose the current flexibility of his NDIS Plan. Due to fatigue heat and anxiety triggering his seizures, he attends group day programs 3 times a week. He stays in the centre if there is an excursion because group outings cause major distressed which can lead to meltdowns (where he can lash out or throw himself on the ground) and seizures (which require immediate medical attention from ambulance/hospital).

Lachlan accesses the community 2 days a week doing things he likes for example the gym or swimming using 1:1 support for programs designed by therapists to maintain his health. Due to Lachlan's severe disability he is unable to dress himself, toilet himself, catch public transport, cook meals or access community programs on his own so needs the 1:1 support to do these activities, us as normal people take for granted. The freedom to choose his weekly schedule is under threat. His family work 5-6 days a week and cannot replace paid support. Through community access, our son is able to participate in everyday life, build confidence, reduce stress, maintain social connections, and engage in activities that support his emotional and physical wellbeing. Without it, his world becomes smaller, more isolated, and far less meaningful.

People with disabilities deserve the same opportunities as everyone else to be included in their communities. Removing this support sends the message that their participation and inclusion are not important. Families already carry enormous emotional, physical, and financial responsibilities, and cuts to these services place even more pressure on carers and loved ones.

Community access is not a luxury—it is an essential part of his wellbeing, independence, mental health, and quality of life. Taking this support away isolates vulnerable people from society and removes opportunities that many of us take for granted every day. The look on our sons face when he goes swimming is priceless, due to the strength of a lot of the medication that he must take, it impacts his weight, by attending the gym and swimming it is helping him maintain a relatively healthy weight

I ask you to advocate strongly against any cuts or restrictions to community access funding and to support policies that protect the rights, inclusion, and wellbeing of people with disabilities.

My son deserves the chance to live a full and connected life, not one limited by isolation.

Andrea and Jason

That is the human impact of this debate. It's not a line item in a budget paper. It's not a bureaucratic category. This is not some abstract discussion about scheme design. This is Lachlan's life. It is his parents life. This is a 24-year-old man with a profound disability—one that the scheme was designed for—severe anxiety, epilepsy and the mental ability of a four-year-old. This family is doing everything they can to give their son dignity, structure, health, connection and joy.

How can this government look at Lachlan and his family and tell them community access is a luxury? How can the government look at Andrea and Jason, who already carry the physical, emotional and financial burden of care, and tell them that the answer is less flexibility and a smaller life for their son. The NDIS was created for Australians like Lachlan and their Australian families. It was created for people with permanent and significant disabilities. It was created so that families would not be left alone. It was created so that people with disabilities could live with dignity, safety and inclusion, and this is why the government must get this right.

Yes, the NDIS must be sustainable. Yes, the rorting must stop. Yes, bad providers, inflated invoices, fake services and criminal exploitation must be driven out of the scheme. It's taken YouTube influencers—two guys with an iPhone—to expose this, when we have tens of thousands of bureaucrats working in and around the scheme who are not doing their jobs properly. Every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar not going to someone like Lachlan and his parents. Every dodgy provider who drains this system makes it harder for genuine participants and honest families. But the answer to provider rorting cannot be to make life harder for profoundly disabled people. The answer to fraud can't be to strip flexibility from families doing everything right and suffering from the largest, biggest disabilities. The answer to waste cannot be to isolate people like Lachlan from their community.

This community access is not a luxury. For Lachlan, swimming is not just swimming; it's health, it's routine, it's confidence, it's joy. It keeps his physical weight up. It's part of maintaining his physical wellbeing. One-on-one support isn't an optional extra; it allows him to do basic things safely that most Australians take for granted. Without that support, Lachlan's world becomes smaller. His parents know that. They see it every day. They live it, and they're asking parliament to understand it. The government says it wants to return the NDIS to its original intent, and we couldn't do more but agree. But Lachlan is the original intent. People with profound disability are the original intent. Families who cannot replace paid support because they're already working, caring, carrying the weight every day, are the original intent of this scheme.

So if this government is serious about reform, and we will support them in serious reform, let's start where the problem actually is. Let's go after the rorters. Let's go after providers billing for services they never deliver. Let's go after the criminals exploiting vulnerable participants or sometimes even phantom participants. Let's strengthen the enforcement, improve detection, register providers properly and make sure public money goes where it's meant to go. But let's not take away the support that keeps Lachlan and Australians like Lachlan healthy, safe and connected. Do not call inclusion a saving. Do not call isolation a reform. Do not pretend that removing flexibility from the most profoundly disabled Australians is the same as stopping the rorts or attacking people the scheme was never meant for.

The NDIS has grown into one of the largest areas of Commonwealth spending, growing eight to 12 per cent a year. The government has now booked major savings from this reform, but Australians are entitled to ask where those savings will come from: stopping fraud and provider exploitation or targeting participants who the scheme was never meant for. We hear statistics of one in five or one in six five- and six-year-old boys being on the scheme. Is this who this was targeted for? For learning disabilities? There's no sunset period for some of these children to be on it. But then we have someone who has the mental capacity of a four-year-old. He can't work. His family are working and are now panicked with anxiety that it's going to be taken away. The government needs to be looking in the right areas. The government must stop the fraud and provider exploitation without making families like the Rowneys fight harder for basic supports.

Yes, there's bipartisan support for these NDIS reforms. We strongly support those bipartisan reforms. But let's focus where the rorting is. It's amazing to me that two guys knocking on doors in Western Sydney, armed with nothing more than an iPhone camera, can expose more rorts than I have seen in four years of this government. Australians rightly ask what is going on. Australians with profoundly disabled family members, families who are working, families who are doing exactly what this scheme is intended for, deserve the answers to these questions.

This scheme was not intended to be rorted. It was not intended for one in five or one in six five- and six-year-old boys to be on this scheme. That's not what this scheme was intended for. They were put onto it with no sunset date. We should be looking at sunsetting kids. I was talking to a plumber on the weekend who was proudly talking about his ADHD. He reckons it makes him one of the best businessmen in the Sutherland Shire. Imagine if he, at six years old, was put on a scheme and told: 'You'll be on this for life. You won't amount to anything.' He's one of the most successful guys I have met running one of those businesses. It's fantastic. We need to be telling Australians they can do more, taking crutches away from people who don't need them and directing this scheme to people it was intended for.

The other thing that gives me pause is the implementation time. I congratulated the government when they announced the intent to reform the scheme the day after Minister Butler gave his speech at the Press Club. But I was disappointed to learn in the days after that that the implementation dates were set for 18 months. Well, 18 months happens to be just after a likely federal election. I also saw the timing of the announcement—a mere weeks away from the federal budget. In that budget, suddenly, in the forward estimates, the spending is revised down, and that has led people in my electorate to ask me questions: Was this done just to improve the budget papers? Why are we taking 18 months to actually start implementing reforms that get the budget back into shape? There are a lot of questions.

It's families like Lachlan's who have questions, with profound disabilities, who this scheme was intended for. It's people who are seeing two guys wandering around with an iPhone, meeting providers, seemingly uncovering fraud after fraud after fraud, rightly asking: what have the thousands of bureaucrats administering this scheme been doing? You almost don't need the bureaucrats. You could be armed with an AI program and get some AI agents to go through and look at these unusual expenses. The cleaners who are going there and pretending to clean, booking for hours and staying 30 minutes—the fraud seems so endemic it must stop. Instead, I'm getting this, and this is one of many emails; I thank Lachlan's family for allowing me to use their case and their names. There were a number of other emails we received, similar in tone but where the families did not want to have their names or their personal circumstances put on the record. Those people, similarly, deserve to be heard. They deserve a chance.

Eligibility has primarily until now been based on a person's diagnosis. The bill will change that to be based on a person's reduced functional capacity as a result of the diagnosis. There are a lot of people just like Lachlan who are exceptionally worried about themselves, their child or their family members, so we need to get these answers clear, and what we hear is that the Albanese government hasn't developed it yet. What worries me even more is that we hear they won't develop it for 18 months. On the other side of the election, who will be in those portfolios? Can we guarantee we'll have the same NDIS ministers? Will we have the same people in the health portfolios? What worries me about this is: Are we kicking the can down the road for political convenience? Did we announce these reforms mere weeks before a budget to lower the budget estimates? Who will be implementing these reforms? And why do we have to wait for the answers to these questions

On the unscheduled plan reassessments, this bill will restrict a person's ability to ask for unscheduled reassessments of their plans. The Albanese government has said around 12,000 unscheduled plan reassessments are taking place each month, most resulting in additional funding variations of 20 per cent. Right now, a participant or their support team, including the plan managers, can ask for a plan reassessment if they believe the person's needs have changed. Unfortunately, we're seeing this power misused by some bad actors who are just out to skim additional funds from participants, often for services never provided. The changes in this bill will restrict who can ask for plan reassessments to a person's plan nominee or their guardian—this is sensible—and these will only be considered where there has been a significant or ongoing change in a participant's functional capacity. This will ensure that a participant or their trusted nominees or guardians remain in control of their needs. That part of the reform Lachlan and his family will welcome. But we must not forget who the plan was intended for.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the most important social programs in Australia's history. Across this country, it has changed lives in ways that go well beyond funding packages and support plans. It has given people with disability genuine agency and delivers on the promise that it was built on, that Australians with a permanent and significant disability would have access to the supports they need when they need them on terms that respect their own choices. We must ensure that we keep that promise.

In my electorate of Wentworth, I hear about these impacts directly. Many participants and their family members share with me how the NDIS programs have helped them participate in and contribute to the community in ways they previously didn't think possible. Just the other day in my electorate office, I met a family who have a non-verbal autistic son around the age of 13. I talked to them about the NDIS and the challenges that they found with the NDIS. We were working through some of the problems and I said, 'What did you do before the NDIS?' They said that they could barely cope. For all its faults, the NDIS has had a transformational impact on the lives of their child and on their own lives. This is why it is so important, but we cannot ignore the trajectory of the scheme and the problems with it.

The NDIS is now supporting almost 760,000 Australians, and annual expenditure is growing at a rate that, if left unaddressed, would threaten the long-term sustainability of the scheme itself. This is not just a problem for the budget. This is a problem for every person, every family member and every friend of someone who has a significant disability and is currently receiving support from the NDIS or may in the future. If we don't get this right, I don't believe those supports will be there in the future.

The program was originally modelled to cost $13.6 billion a year, or $20 billion in today's dollars, supporting just over half a million people. The Productivity Commission modelling from 2011 estimated that annual cost growth would sit between three and six per cent. Instead, between 2020 and 2024, costs grew on average 24 per cent per year. The program is now projected to cost around $58 billion a year by 2028, with an estimated 900,000 participants expected to be on the scheme by 2030 if no other changes are made.

I want to be honest about this because I think the disability community deserves honesty more than it deserves platitudes. We have an enormous challenge here with this program. I think one of the most profound aspects of this challenge is that, when this program was introduced, it became—and other people have used this expression—the only lifeboat in the ocean because many other services that others relied on were withdrawn. So the only option to get real support was from the NDIS. That is the world that we're in now, and that world is not sustainable nor suitable, so we need significant reform. That is why I approach this bill in good faith. However, alongside that good faith, I hold significant concerns about how some of the measures have been designed and how they will be implemented. My greatest fear of what the government is putting forward is that they're just not going to be able to provide the services on the timeline that they have outlined in these bills and people who really rely on these services are going to be left waiting.

This bill contains five schedules covering access and planning measures, fraud and integrity, governance, new framework planning operationalisation, and transitional provisions. I'm genuinely pleased to see that some of the reforms draw on the 2023 NDIS review and Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, among other reviews. These were hard-won findings from processes that listened deeply to the disability community, and it matters that they have informed this legislation. However, I do note that not all recommendations from these reviews have been incorporated, and I will return to some of those gaps.

I'm especially supportive of the integrity measures in schedule 2. Fraud is real. Major operations have uncovered scam schemes worth millions of dollars—money that is not going to support the people who rely on it most—and it undermines the entire NDIS scheme as it is. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has reported a sharp uptick in fraud referrals in recent years. This fraud diverts resources away from the people who deserve the support, undermining the integrity of the scheme at its core. I frequently hear from NDIS participants, providers and disability sector workers who have seen the fraud firsthand and are deeply concerned about its impact. New civil enforcement powers, tighter provider registration requirements and greater payment visibility through digital payment systems are welcome. I would encourage the government to also adopt the self-direction registration category recommended by the 2024 NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce, which would maintain pathways to greater participant choice within the expanded registration framework.

On pricing and governance in schedule 3, I understand the rationale for giving the minister binding pricing determination powers. If used judiciously, these can help address market distortions and ensure value for money. But I want to be clear: my expectation is that these powers will be used with genuine consultation, not as just a blunt instrument.

Let me now talk to where I believe the bill falls short, or risks falling short, in implementation. My largest concern underpins the rest—that the supports meant to exist outside the NDIS are not ready. As the Grattan Institute's Sam Bennett noted this week:

The success of a slimmed-down scheme will depend on the availability of high-quality alternative services for those who no longer qualify for the NDIS.

The federal government has set aside approximately $5 billion for foundational supports. While we know that $2 billion of this will go towards Thriving Kids, no information has been provided yet about which other services will be commissioned.

Thriving Kids is due to be stood up in its first stage at the end of this year, but we have not yet seen it in practice. Families across my electorate and disability community organisations around the country are understandably anxious about what could happen to children who may find themselves removed from the NDIS scheme before any alternative pathways are properly operational. I have heard similar concerns from others in the community that they do not have the certainty about the supports provided to participants with psychosocial disabilities, who expect to be deemed ineligible under these changes.

States and territories have responded tentatively to proposals about supports available external to the scheme, and that tentativeness creates real risk and enormous anxiety. If we narrow access before the alternative systems are ready, we will not be saving the scheme; we will simply be abandoning people. The sequencing of reform must be rigorous. Change must not run ahead of infrastructure designed to catch those it transitions out. This includes ensuring that families are informed about what new pathways will look like.

In a community survey I recently ran on the proposed changes, respondents shared these concerns, with one saying:

The QLD government hasn't yet agreed to Thriving Kids, Foundational Supports programs don't yet exist and public health services, especially mental health services, are already struggling to meet demand.

Another shared:

More information on the Thriving Kids initiative needs to be shared, and sooner. Any changes to publicly funded community health services need to be announced (and I hope that there are some!)

There's this anxiety, and people just don't know what will be there.

My second significant concern is about the automated decision-making in schedule 3. I understand it is important to be efficient in these services. Honestly, that's feedback I get consistently—that working within the NDIS and dealing with the NDIS is a bureaucratic maze, and it should be more efficient. But we do not yet know if automated systems alone can adequately address the complexity and individuality of disability. The bill authorises automated decision-making with safeguards, but those safeguards need to be legislated clearly, not left to administrative practice. There need to be clear frameworks and guidelines about how such decision-making will be completed such that the government and decisions can be held accountable. Many constituents have shared with me their real concerns about this element of the legislation—that it could be a repeat of robodebt, that machine decision-making could ultimately lead to negative outcomes for NDIS participants. I am supportive of the member for Curtin's amendment, which raises these concerns.

Third, my community have shared their anxieties with me about various new eligibility and assessment requirements, including the requirement that participants undergo all relevant treatments technically available before accessing the scheme. While I understand that exceptions are made within reasonable terms—such as someone who has hearing loss not being required to have a cochlear implant if they don't wish to—I hold concerns that not all the treatments are accessible to individuals, whether they be prohibitive by price or location or whether they are appropriate at all.

Fourth, I raise the planned reductions to social and community participation and capacity-building supports. I understand the expenditure within these programs has risen significantly and that standardising average cuts is one of the easiest ways to reduce costs. However, applying an average reduction to this category of support across the board may not be the best solution. We know that some participants, especially those with intellectual disabilities, heavily rely on capacity-building supports to ensure they can leave the house and participate in society. Approaching these reductions in more individualised ways should be considered. We must be cautious to ensure that these cuts do not undermine the key objective of the scheme—for people with a disability to participate in normal life.

Finally, as many of my crossbench colleagues have shared, there's the consultation timeline. Ten days for the disability community to respond to 109 pages of complex legislation affecting 760,000 Australians is not genuine engagement. I understand the government faces real pressures, but rushed process erodes trust at exactly the moment when trust is what this reform requires.

The NDIS is hugely important. I support the NDIS and the community it in turn empowers. I will continue to fight for its future, its sustainability and its ability to achieve the core objectives for Australians and their families. It is clear that a major redesign of the NDIS is warranted. The growth trajectory is real, the urgency of reform is real and the experiences of people engaging with the scheme and the challenges they face with the scheme are real. I strongly believe that. The design challenges the government is seeking to address—in abuse of the NDIS, in fraud, in eligibility, in planning, in market stewardship, in foundational supports, I do believe, on balance, are mostly the right ones. But this bill requires a huge degree of trust from the disability community—trust that the functional capacity tool will be fair, trust that automated systems will not produce outcomes that would never have survived individualised scrutiny, trust that the states will step up with foundational supports, trust that the instruments and rules—many of which have not been released—will be developed with the community, not imposed upon it. That is a huge degree of trust for the government to ask for.

This reform must also not be the end. There were lots of concerns shared with me in my community surveys which will not be addressed in this stage of reforms. There must be more steps to ensure the integrity, that fraud is countered effectively and that the level of supports provided to participants is proportionate. I support the principles of these reforms. I believe that they are necessary to secure the NDIS for the future. But I do think that the government is being heroic in its assumptions about what it can get done by when. It is absolutely critical for the government now to deliver on what it has promised to the community. I will look most carefully at the rollout of its implementation. I'll be listening to my community and ensuring that the legislation has achieved what it set out to do, because there are 760,000 Australians and family members who rely on this scheme, and they deserve nothing less from this parliament.

I'm going to start my contribution on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 by quickly thanking a wonderful person called Ruth Doyle, who works in my office and handles most of our NDIS issues. I'm sure that every person in this place has someone in their office who knows exactly who to call when we get those inquiries in from constituents who are having trouble getting onto the NDIS or working with a provider or finding the support that they need or just asking the first questions that one starts to ask when they realise there are issues that they need to face. Ruth has done a great job for my community over a long period of time, and I want to thank her for that. I hope she hears it. We often don't thank the ones at the front line in our offices.

I am going to, however, change my tone a little bit. I'm going to ignore the advice of both Gallagher brothers and look back in anger because we have in front of us a program that has massive design issues. Its budget has spiralled out of control, and I think it has lost the confidence of many people across Australia. If this were a rail project, like Inland Rail, the government would cut it and run. I actually commend them for taking on the hard work of this project of trying to address reform. I wish they had the same vigour on Inland Rail. A lot of hard work has to be done.

There was a time when you couldn't talk about the problems with the NDIS. You could not mention that this was a program that had massive funding issues and that was blowing out month on month. You couldn't talk about this. If you did, you were shouted down. You were told that you were scaremongering, that you were trying to cut funds from disabled kids and that you were all about cutting services. That's what those opposite said. They said exactly that. I'm going to give two cases of this.

There were certainly times when I was on the backbench that I enjoyed a frolic and I said what was on my mind, and I thought very strongly that I had to make a contribution to the national conversation about the NDIS because I was seeing it week in, week out. This program was blowing out, money was being wasted around Australia and, sadly, I saw evidence of it in my local community. Those who needed the support were not getting it, yet the money was still flowing.

In 2024 I pointed out that the growth of the NDIS was unsustainable. I pointed out that we needed to do something to it, not just from a pure economic sense but because this was such an important project that both sides of politics had embarked upon that we could not risk losing confidence in it. I was told by the Treasurer that I was engaging in heartless slash and burn politics in the Australian of the day.

A year later, in 2025, I returned to my criticisms and I pointed out two things. One was that the program at that stage was growing at around 12, 16 or maybe 18 per cent, that this was an extraordinary rate of growth and that both sides of politics should come together and find a way to limit its growth to somewhere around four per cent, just above inflation. If the growth was just above inflation, we'd know that no-one would be left behind, and then we could go through a broader reform structure.

I also pointed out in July 2025 that, at that point in time, 15 per cent of six-year-old boys across Australia were on the NDIS. I made the point that clearly 15 per cent of young boys are not disabled. For daring to say that, the minister of the day slammed me as being reckless and heartless—for daring to talk about reforming the NDIS. I'm not raising this just to flatter myself. I do that far too often anyway, and I have the member for Page to help me on occasion. I'm doing it because this is an important program and what we're dealing with at the moment, unfortunately, is a battle. I'm going to acknowledge the member for New England, who joined me in my criticisms of the NDIS in July 2025 in that particular article.

What we have now, sadly, appallingly, in Australia is a battle for funding among NDIS, health, aged care and even veteran support. When I talk to people in health, aged care and veteran support, they have the very strong feeling that in that battle the NDIS is winning and they are losing. I sat with a gentleman, Scott May, in my office, and he said: 'Watch this. I'm going to show you the most heartbreaking trick ever.' He called up an occupational therapist and said, 'I'm a veteran; I need to see you.' I sat listening in on the conversation. The occupational therapist said: 'You're on veterans coverage. I've got a six-month waiting list. Call me in six months.' We then went outside and he bought me a coffee, and we sat and had a coffee for five or 10 minutes.

You should have bought the coffee.

I should have bought the coffee. You're right. The member for Page is right. He scolds me appropriately. We had a coffee and came back in, and he calls the same occupational therapist. He says, 'I'm on the NDIS and I'd like to talk to you.' They say, 'Come in next week.' That's a true story. The gentleman's name is Scott May. We did it. That was heartbreaking to watch. We have created a scheme that has lost the confidence of Australians. I sat there looking a veteran in the eye, someone who has served this nation, someone who'd come back with injuries, and in his eyes he was being neglected and the battle for funding was being lost. What a terrible thing to do—to lose confidence in a project as important as this.

There is no-one I talk to who doesn't agree with the point that part of the tax that we pay should go towards helping Australians with significant disabilities and with significant vulnerabilities. We're proud to do that. That's what makes us a good nation. We like doing that. It's something that we should always continue to do, and the NDIS was set up as a conduit for achieving that. But, sadly, because we've been too timid to talk about reforming the NDIS, we've got to a point where that scheme no longer holds the esteem of the nation.

I've talked about the eligibility concerns we've seen. Clearly at that point in time 15 per cent of young boys being on a disability scheme—I can't imagine the impact that has on a young boy's life. He's going through maybe learning difficulties and being told that he has a disability. I think that would have a profound impact on someone. But we've seen so many unfortunate stories about where the money that is being poured into NDIS has gone. We've heard stories about it being used for holidays. We've heard about it previously being used for sex work. We've heard about fraud and organised crime. I saw the figure that about 10 per cent of claims raise concern for fraud.

It's important now that I don't do what those opposite did when we engaged with them in a conversation on reform. It's important that I say quite clearly: I want to be part of this. I'm open to a conversation about reforming the NDIS, and I'm willing to work with the government on this. It's important that we do it. It's going to be very difficult work because we've got ourselves into a very bad way. This scheme, which should be about doing some of the best things that we can do as a nation, sadly, has been designed in one of the worst possible ways. I hate to think what happens if we aren't able to do this and if we find ourselves creating a situation where we don't have confidence and we stop funding something like this. A future where the NDIS loses out is where Australia loses out.

I'm very much of the view that for many of the cases I've talked about with misuse of funds through the NDIS we should be taking a very strong law-and-order-style approach. We should be looking for every opportunity to track down those who are taking this money, which should be used for good purposes, and pocketing it themselves. I think we should be taking a law-and-order approach. We should be cracking down on those who are defrauding the scheme. We should be doing that. That would be appropriate.

I note the concerns of many previous speakers. I'm not going to repeat their concerns. Clearly there is an issue of uncertainty that these changes have made. What the changes to eligibility will do—I've heard from many local constituents who've reached out and raised their concerns. Mostly, it's parents raising their concerns about their kids and how their kids will continue to have the service they've had. So there is an issue here that the government needs to address very quickly. Again, I'm happy to work as closely as possible with the government to address those concerns and to hopefully come up with a solution to the anxiety that people in my electorate and around Australia are facing.

I'll finish on this. One of the problems, I think, in this place is that we get to a point in a debate where we refuse to acknowledge the truth that's in front of us, and the longer we find ourselves in that situation the worse the situation gets. Sadly, if we ignore a problem for long enough, it has a huge impact. At over $50 billion a year now on NDIS, we are seeing a huge weight on the Australian economy, and we are not seeing an equal and opposite benefit being given to those who most need it. That's the sad truth. If I could stand here, hand on heart, and say that that $50 billion was making the lives of people with disabilities better, that'd be a different conversation. But that's not where we are.

We can't ignore these things. We should be able to speak out about them. I think that's an important part of being in this place. I'm very grateful that the government is listening—mostly to solutions that we put on the table years prior, in some cases, which they wouldn't support back then.

We will be a responsible opposition, unlike them.

Absolutely. Bipartisanship, sadly, in this place often goes one way. It often goes one way, and this is a great example of that. It's a great example of that. When we needed help to get these sort of changes through, Labor wasn't there. But this is too important a program, too important an issue, certainly for me and definitely for those on this side, to play politics with.

I hope that we can have a day here where we've made sufficient changes to make this a program that is sustainable, that does what Australians want and that fulfils that desire for Australians to look after those of us who need support and who need help. I look forward to that day, and I think there is enough in here that starts us down that pathway. I think there is a start here, and that's why I'm very willing to work with the government on this. But there is a long way to go here.

I thought the honourable member opposite might want to have a say. I was there when we started this in the Expenditure Review Committee. I remember it very well. Abbott at the time was believing that if it was untenable that we couldn't support the NDIS. We believed that the then prime minister Gillard had her heart in the right place, that this was a proper thing to do. We were a bit overwhelmed by the cost. It was a bit shocking. I think they said it would cost $13.8 billion. Around the table, we needed some convincing as that was not out of the box, that we could deal with that. It was an immense payment, but it worked on the premise of something that had been discussed for quite some time, right back to 2008, and the Productivity Commission had suggested that we have an overarching scheme that encompassed so many of the forms of disability.

It was well-meaning at the time, but the problem we've got is that it has become crazy. It is completely and utterly out of its envelope. It is unsustainable. Hard decisions need to be made, and, when hard decisions are made in government, they are unpopular. But the alternative is that it hits the deck. Not only does it do that, if you don't take control of it, it is a substantial part of the financial problems of our nation. We cannot have the NDIS drawing more from the budget than Defence, and that's where we're off to. I believe right now it's more than Medicare. This is insane.

We have Public Accounts and Audit—I was there the other day—750,000 people or thereabouts are now on the NDIS. It was never ever designed for 750,000 people to be on it. It's heading towards one million people being on it. I don't think there are that many walking sticks to sell in Australia. A million people on the NDIS—it wasn't designed for that. In my belief, it was for catastrophic disabilities. We saw quadriplegia, paraplegia, schizophrenia, motor neurone disease. These sorts of issues are what we had in mind. We can't cover all these issues. It's unsustainable. And what people have to ask on the NDIS—I know how it works. I know how politics works. People come to your office, and they give an example of someone who quite obviously should be on the NDIS. But they don't bring in all the people who you'd say: 'Well, I don't know about that. I don't know about that person.' A person on the NDIS has to have the capacity to look at a person who pays the taxes for the other person not to have to go to work and say, 'I feel completely comfortable asking this person to go to work for me.' If that person feels uncomfortable about saying to that other person, 'I think you should go to work for me,' then, I suggest, they should not be on the NDIS. It won't matter what side of the political fence you're on; if we continue down this path, this will hit the deck.

When I knew we were going to lose government—I'd said, 'We're gone; we're cactus'—I remember I said to a bloke by the name of Bill Shorten, as politics does work: 'We should move some amendments on the NDIS to try and trim this right up. But, if we do that, Bill, you can't make them controversial. Let's do this for the Australian people. Let's get some amendments up, trim it up and let it through, because we're going to lose government, and, no matter how parochial you think we are, we have to put Australia in a better economic position, get some financial stringency in here and try and bring this thing under control.' Bill's a good bloke—I got along very well with him—but he couldn't come to it. He said no; he wanted to fight us. I think we still tried it, and he still fought us. I suppose he got a few points out there with people who believed that he was supporting them.

But the rejoinder to that—I remember exactly where I was in the car. We'd lost government, and I was driving from Tamworth down to Sydney. I'd just gone past Goonoo Goonoo Station and turned off to my left. I was near the truck stop that always has the bins there—these are the bins that are not filled up with other people's rubbish—and I got a call on the phone. It was one Bill Shorten. He said, 'Barnaby, about that deal you were talking to me about, can we still do it?' He was wanting to do exactly what we were going to do and didn't want us to kick up a stink about his amendments. I said: 'Well, you should have done this in the first instance. We were actually trying to help the Australian people, the Australian taxpayer, and straighten this rubbish out.' I said, 'Look, I'll give it my best shot.' The shadow minister then was Michael Sukkar, and I said: 'Sukes, this is going to be hard, but I think, on behalf of the Australian people, we've got to trim this right up. Bill is going to bring forward some amendments, and I believe we should be supporting them.' Sukes was pretty good. He said, 'He gave us a fair touch up when we tried to do this.' He really did. He took to us in the papers and dragged us through the prickles. I don't know how many amendments there were—five of them? Sukes said: 'We'll give them four, and we're going to touch them up on the fifth. Let him know that.' And that was it.

What is the point of that story? On both sides of this chamber, you'd better realise that, if we don't straighten this out, it is over—we will have to close down the NDIS. It is completely and utterly unsustainable. There has to be a bipartisan view. There'll always be the few who scream from the edges, because they never actually have to run the treasury bench. They can say what they like; they don't have to pay the bills. To bring this back under control, it needs a cap on it. It needs to be said: 'This is what you've got.' It was supposed to cost $13.8 billion. Say: 'Let's double it and add a bit, to make, say, $30 billion—that's it. There is no more money beyond that. That is it. So find your most profound disabilities. They have to fit within the budget. And that is it.'

If you don't do that, you have to say where you think the money will come from. You can't just believe in this magic—that it'll just fall out of the sky. You have to be responsible to the taxpayer and say, 'I'm really putting you on the hook for some massive expenses.' You have to say to the taxpayer: 'See these people? It is right and just that you go to work—work five days out of seven, seven-and-a-half hours a day—to pay your taxes, to pay for them.' That is morally justified. The Australian people are very generous. If they see a person with Down syndrome or a severe disability, they will do that. But the Australian people have every right to kick up a massive stink when they see someone who's gone to a prostitute and put it on the NDIS, who's gone for trips overseas and put it on the NDIS, who's gone for pony rides and put it on the NDIS or who's had Reiki therapy and put it on the NDIS.

The classic one is when one person is an unregistered provider and, in a suburb in Brisbane or Sydney, they divine that one of their friends has a child who might be a bit on the spectrum—a bit autistic. Remember that Tim Fischer, who was the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, was on the spectrum for autism. So they get that person's child on the NDIS, and they get paid to look after that child. Then a surprising thing happens: that other family look at one of the unregistered provider's children and say, 'Well, I'll be damned! Your child also looks like they might be a little bit on the spectrum, and I, as an unregistered provider, will look after them.' So they get paid to look after your child and you get paid to look after theirs. It's a great deal! It's a scam—a total scam.

The average cost of the NDIS is $65,000 a year per person. That's $65,000 per year per participant on the NDIS. Somebody somewhere has to find $65,000 to pay for them. If I was to say to a taxpayer, 'I want you to go out and do your job and I'm going to take $65,000 out of your salary to pay for someone of the NDIS,' I know the response I would get, and it wouldn't be a good one. That $65,000 is untenable for a million people. That's crazy. What's that? We're heading towards $65 billion. It's just out of the ballpark.

So let us not confuse compassion with reality. Compassion has its ring road. It is based on logic. It's based on what you can actually do. Compassion is not wishful thinking. Compassion is actually being able to follow something through. Given where the NDIS is at the moment, it is not able to be followed through. If we are going to continue on with this—if we are going to be truly compassionate—we have to trim this up massively. If we don't and our debt keeps going up, through $1 trillion and on and on and further up and further up, I'll give you a little lesson from a little bush accountant of what will happen: our cheques are going to bounce and we'll have no money for the NDIS—we'll have no money for anything, actually.

One of the biggest issues right now in trying to bring this back under control is to really drill down and make the hard decisions that a responsible government needs to make. I would suggest to both sides of this chamber that we need a responsible Treasurer who will come up with pretty severe cuts, to be quite frank, and will say that there is a ceiling on this and it will go no further. If a Treasurer were to have that honest conversation with the Australian people, I believe they would go along with him. Then go back to what Julia Gillard and everybody thought of at the time: this is for people with catastrophic disabilities; this is for people to whom we owe compassion. This is incredibly expensive. But, with a prudent economy that opens up its coal mines, runs its iron ore, runs its gas, has dams, has cattle, digs up the gold, processes the bauxite, has coal-fired power stations, has an economy that's humming and can produce money off the assets on its balance sheet rather than borrowing it from overseas—a lot of this NDIS money is borrowed. It's on the credit card. When you build up an economy that can hum, when you work the assets on the national balance sheet, you will make the money that pays for things such as the NDIS.

In conclusion, that is the call that you have to make. Are you going to make this economy hum? Are you going to remove the ridiculous ideas of climate change policy and climate change departments so that you can put in, in their place, things that make money so that, from that money, you can pay for that compassion and your compassion can be authentic and your compassion can be paid for, or are you just a foolish, wonderful spirit?

I want to start my contribution to this debate today by acknowledging the extraordinary disability organisations in my electorate. These are organisations I've worked alongside, people I've advocated for and people I've seen serve our community well and transform people's lives.

I think of places like Warrah school at Dural; Inala at Cherrybrook; Studio ARTES—which is an organisation, in my view, of national significance; CNS Precision Assembly at Hornsby; and Northcott, which specialises in disability employment and whose participants I've seen firsthand bring skill and dedication to the real workplace. I had the privilege of having Cain Noble Davies, who came to me from Northcott, in my office. I also think of the wonderful Clarke Road special school, which transforms the lives of so many young people and families in our community, families that trust the school with their most precious people every single day. These organisations don't just provide services. They provide dignity and community. They provide the daily proof that people with disability are human beings with gifts to offer and lives worth living fully.

Speaking of lives worth living fully, I want to note that I have been proud to stand up for the recognition of Australians with disability who are extraordinary achievers. It is my honour to be running a campaign in the Berowra electorate at the moment to rename Hornsby pool after not only our most capped female Paralympian but our most capped female swimmer ever, Ellie Cole. She has 17 Paralympic medals. No female swimmer, Paralympic or non-Paralympic, has ever won so many medals, and no female Australian Paralympian has ever won so many medals either, so she deserves the recognition of our community. She's a proud resident of the Berowra electorate, she's a wonderful Australian and I look forward to seeing Hornsby council eventually listen to the Australian people, listen to the people of Berowra and rename the pool in honour of a great Australian and a great Australian who's been such a wonderful advocate for people with disability.

Turning to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, I want to talk about the story of a constituent of mine, a child called Max. If the NDIS is about anyone, it's about a child like Max. Max is four years old. He lives in Berowra. He has multiple severe and lifelong disabilities, two rare genetic conditions and epilepsy. He's non-verbal, he can't walk and he can't stand independently. He requires high-level support for virtually every activity of daily living. He's a bright, curious, determined, wonderful little boy, and he's exactly the kind of child that this scheme was created to support.

Max came with his mother, Gemma, to my office. Gemma was in the depths of one of the hardest periods of her life. She hadn't been sleeping, she was managing Max's complex needs largely on her own and she had sustained serious chronic injuries to her arms and wrists from the physical demands of caring for him. Then the NDIS, the system that was supposed to be there for her son, had cut his therapy hours by approximately 40 per cent, down from 396 hours a year to 234. Around 4½ hours a week for a non-verbal, non-walking four-year-old with two rare genetic conditions and epilepsy was not enough.

The NDIA had suggested that childcare educators could deliver physiotherapy and speech therapy strategies for Max in a one-to-three ratio environment. For a 21-kilo hypotonic child with high-support needs—I want to be direct about this—that is not a solution. That is a risk, and it reflects the kind of decision-making that happens when people making choices about a child's plan have never met the child, never read his 30-plus clinical reports and are working under pressure to cut costs rather than apply clinical judgement.

I took up Max's case. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Jenny McAllister, who I went to see. She handled this matter with particular care and genuine human decency across party lines. Together, we were able to ensure that a much more experienced team at the NDIA was put in charge of Max's plan review. The difference was immediate and profound. When the new plan came through, Gemma told me she cried with relief. There were more support worker hours to help with his care and improved allied health therapy hours, and critical pieces of equipment were approved. What happened next? Max pulled himself up the stairs using just the handrail. He guffawed with laughter at the top. He started moving around the kitchen, exploring what was accessible to him. He's making progress in his receptive language. He seems, as Gemma says, so much happier.

That's what the NDIS is supposed to do. That's the investment that's worth making. That's why every dollar that leaks out of this scheme through fraud, gaming and waste is not an abstraction. It's a dollar that could have gone to a child like Max and didn't. Gemma has asked me not to use her story to fuel division between the parties, and I respect that. She saw Labor and the Liberals working together to help her son, and she values that. So do I. But I want this parliament to understand concretely and humanely what's at stake in this debate. It's not a budget line. It's about children like Max.

I want to make the most important call I can make in this speech today, and that is to call directly to the disability community of Berowra and across Australia. There's a Senate inquiry into this bill, and if you're an NDIS participant, a family member, a carer, a support worker or a disability organisation, this is your chance to shape the scheme's future. Your lived experience isn't just relevant; it's essential. It's the most important evidence that the inquiry will hear. I'm urging all the organisations I name today and every family I've had the privilege of serving and those I haven't met because the scheme works for them to make a submission. The Senate inquiry is open now. Don't leave this to others. Tell your story. Your voice will shape what this scheme looks like for the next generation.

Let me now turn to the bill and our position on it. The NDIS was originally established to support around 410,000 Australians, and it now supports over 760,000. It was estimated to cost $13.6 billion, and now it costs around $50 billion. By the end of this decade, on the current trajectory, it will reach $70 billion. On that trajectory, the scheme is unsustainable. Sustainability isn't the enemy of compassion. It is its prerequisite. In the coalition, we reaffirm our bipartisan support for the NDIS, and, to the extent that this government is genuinely pursuing sustainability and integrity, we are broadly supportive. We'll support this bill through the House, but we will also hold the government to account, because this is the Albanese government's third attempt to slow the growth of the scheme, and their track record of broken promises in this space doesn't inspire confidence.

In April 2023, the government committed to reducing annual growth to eight per cent, and they failed. The minister then announced a target of five to six per cent. They failed again. Growth is currently sitting at 10.3 per cent. The government's now proposing a two per cent growth target. It's an enormous reduction, and, without a clear, detailed, properly consulted implementation plan, it won't be a savings target; it will be a harm target.

The bill establishes a new framework for determining access to the NDIS, shifting from a diagnosis based model to an assessment of functional capacity. In principle, a more consistent and objective assessment process is quite sensible. The current system has produced real inconsistencies, and participants with similar needs have received vastly different support packages depending on who's assessed them and when. But here's the problem. This bill creates the legislative mechanism for the new assessment without actually telling us what the assessment will look like. The government hasn't developed it yet. The details will come through the rules and regulations—disallowable category A rules requiring unanimous agreement from states and territories. That's a significant amount of policy still to be written and a significant amount of anxiety being created right now in communities like mine.

Right now, there are thousands of parents across Australia who don't know whether their child will still be eligible for the NDIS under the new rules. There are adults with lifelong disabilities who don't know if their plans will survive reassessment. That uncertainty is cruel and unnecessary. The government owes people answers, not just a promise that the details will come later. I should note that all existing participants will be progressively reassessed between 1 January 2028 and 31 December 2030. That's more than 760,000 reassessments. Our health system is already stretched to breaking point. People are being turned away from emergency departments.

Wait times for specialists are months long. If people are exited from the NDIS and pushed into a health system that can't absorb them, we will have solved a budget problem while creating a human catastrophe. The government must be clear about where these people will go. I'm also deeply concerned about the burden being placed on participants to prove and re-prove their disability—costly new medical reports, new assessments and new processes for people who have in many cases spent decades navigating this system already. The government must apply genuine common sense and genuine compassion to this process.

And then there's Thriving Kids. As the shadow education minister, I want to say to Minister Butler and Minister Clare: families need to be able to trust a system, but how can they trust a system whose eligibility rules haven't been written yet? You've made an announcement that a group of people with disability will be moved from the NDIS and will end up being part of the education system. What will this mean for the education system? There are so many questions to answer. What's the expectation on schools? What's the impact on schools? The ministers need to explain this. They have left families and school communities worried, and, as the shadow education minister, I share their concerns.

Of all the changes in the bill, the ones causing the greatest anxiety in the disability community are the support determinations—the changes that will enable the minister to reset budgets in existing plans for social, civic and community participation supports and capacity building activities supports from 1 October 2026. The government says critical supports, daily living assistance, personal care, mobility equipment and home modifications will be protected. We will hold them to that commitment, and we will be watching closely to ensure that that commitment is honoured. But I want the government to be honest with the community about what these changes will mean in practice. Vague reassurances are not enough. People deserve specifics.

Let me be direct about something that I believe is at the heart of this debate and hasn't received enough attention. That's the question of fraud and waste in the NDIS. This isn't a minor administrative problem. This is a systemic failure that is stealing money from our taxpayers and our most deserving people. Around 94 per cent of NDIS providers are currently unregistered. The ANAO has reported that the NDIA's own assessment is that between six and 10 per cent of claim outlays may not be compliant. They might be fraudulent. They might be incorrect. Of the $48.83 billion spent on paid supports in 2025, that equates to between $2.9 billion and $4.8 billion per year. By the end of the decade, if current growth continues, that figure could reach $8 billion annually. Every single one of those dollars have been taken from a participant who needed it, and the Albanese government, with more than 10,000 public servants working on the NDIS, hasn't been able to get on top of it.

We hear every day about providers quoting one price to a customer and then quadrupling it the moment the customer mentions the NDIS. We hear about organised criminal networks deliberately targeting the scheme. We hear about services that were billed but were never delivered. This is unacceptable. It's a betrayal of every genuine participant in the system. The bill goes some way to addressing this: improved provider registration requirements, civil penalties, new information-gathering powers and a 90-day claims window. These steps are steps in the right direction, but they're not nearly enough. The digital payments platform will help. Mandatory record retention will help. But determined fraudsters won't be stopped by paperwork requirements alone. The government needs to bring genuine prosecutorial energy to this problem, not just regulatory machinery.

I want to close by speaking directly to constituents like Eleanor, who wrote to my office this week about her son Benjamin, an adult with significant permanent disability whose supports were confirmed by the Administrative Review Tribunal. Eleanor is nearly 60 years old. She's carried Benjamin's care responsibilities for many years. Her own sister, who had significant disability, died in respite care. She has seen what happens when the safety net fails. Eleanor asks that I not support any bill that weakens the rights of NDIS participants, reduces essential supports or places further burden on ageing carers. I hear that, and I share that concern.

The coalition's position isn't to weaken rights; it's to ensure the scheme is strong enough, honest enough and well funded enough to actually deliver those rights. That means cracking down hard on fraudsters and the bad actors who are bleeding the scheme dry. It means ensuring rules are being developed and consulted on properly and designed with human dignity at their centre. It means holding the government to account every step of the way. I've spent time as a parliamentarian fighting for constituents who have disability. I've sat across the table from parents who are exhausted, frightened and desperate for someone to listen. I've seen what happens when the system works, when a child like Max gets the support he needs and climbs the stairs, guffawing with laughter. I've also seen what happens when it doesn't.

The NDIS was built on the idea that Australians with significant and permanent disability deserve to live with dignity, independence and genuine choice. That's a noble idea, and our responsibility is to protect a scheme like this from those who'd seek to exploit it. The coalition will support this bill through this House. We do so not as a blank cheque to government but as a commitment to the principle of a sustainable and well-governed scheme. We will scrutinise the rules framework carefully. We will push for proper consultation. We will call out broken promises.

Let me again call on the people in the disability community in my electorate—the participants, the families, the carers and the organisations. Make your submission to this Senate inquiry. This is your scheme, and it's your voice that must shape the future.

The NDIS has been a game changer for constituents of our Calare electorate and communities around Australia. It needs to be supported and it needs to be sustainable.

Everyone wants the rorters and the wrongdoers identified, weeded out and dealt with. In fact, I am concerned that there is not enough focus on that in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. This is taxpayer funding we're talking about, and every dollar that is dishonestly taken by the unscrupulous is a dollar that doesn't go to those in need and that undermines public confidence and faith in the whole scheme.

The proposed changes have, however, raised serious concerns amongst many local participants. These are great local community members. They deserve to be heard, and they don't feel that they are being sufficiently listened to at the moment. I want to take some time to give voice to my constituents who've raised these concerns.

Skye is a constituent in the Calare electorate, and I have known her for many years. She has written to me and said:

I live with Spina Bifida and a lower limb amputation. These are lifelong conditions that already require ongoing management, adaptation, and support to maintain my independence and safety.

Skye says:

I understand the need for the NDIS to be sustainable. But sustainability cannot be achieved by reducing support for the people who rely on it to function.

Because when support is reduced:

Right now, I am already experiencing what it looks like when capacity is reduced and support becomes critical.

Under one of the changes 'using capacity not diagnosis to determine support' will be disastrous for someone like me because the NDIS considers me independent and able to function. This is not the case because what you and everyone sees outside my house is me putting a face on, because you know what disability is hard … what your capacity will be like day to day is hard enough to deal with, without having to prove that life sucks.

I would honestly give back the membership card if it meant being accepted in society as not the bad guy, or having to prove every single day that I have a disability.

This is not hypothetical.

This is my reality.

I ask that you take that into account when considering these changes, and that you bring the lived experience of people with disability into the centre of these decisions.

Victoria writes:

I am a sixteen year old, wheelchair bound constituent writing to express my concern about the proposed NDIS reform, specifically the shift toward strict functional impairment assessments and away from flexibility and personalisation.

In 2020, I developed Myalgic Encephalomyelitis after contracting Covid-19. I live with many other multiple, complex and debilitating conditions, including but not limited to Functional Neurological Disorder, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, fibromyalgia, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. To say that I live in a constant state of pain would be an understatement. The NDIS has saved my life. The funding that I receive is how I am able to get out of bed and do something meaningful with my life.

The proposed changes to the NDIS risk that. ME/CFS, as well as many other conditions, are dynamic disabilities. This means that while a disabled person can seem functional and capable one day, they can be severely impaired and unable to complete basic tasks the next day. What do you think would happen if an assessor deemed someone with a dynamic disability "functional" one week, and the next, they aren't able to use the bathroom on their own? That cycle may repeat for years, if not decades, and they will be denied help.

Victoria goes on to state:

A standardised assessor may see that and tell me that I am functional and do not need NDIS funding. But what they fail to see is that the next day, I am in so much physical pain that I can not move, breathe, or swallow. They do not see that the following night, I am at risk of falling onto the hot stovetop while preparing food as my body can not properly circulate blood. They do not see that I have had to quit mainstream school despite my exceptional academic performance because the mere environment induced violent seizures and extreme fatigue where I could not even lift my head without excruciating pain.

She goes on to write:

If access to NDIS support is restricted, people like me who suffer from poorly understood but very real dynamic disabilities will be failed. We will not be able to manage daily life, let alone participate in the community, build capacity, and advocate for ourselves.

I am already financially struggling with the NDIS chunk funding. I can not afford the support work that I need. The new changes will only make my situation, and thousands more, more dire.

I am pleading that you advocate for:

I am afraid for my future and afraid for the vulnerable people like me.

Cheryl lives in Kelso and she says:

I am writing to you as one of your constituents and as a person living with disability, to express my deep concern about the proposed changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

She says:

I rely on my NDIS supports for the most fundamental aspects of daily life: personal care routines, eating meals safely, moving around my home, mobilising in the community, going shopping, and attending medical and other appointments. These are not luxuries. They are the supports that allow me to exist with dignity and safety in the way that you and other Australians do. But they have also made something remarkable possible: I have been able to re-enter the paid workforce and contribute through volunteering.

She says:

The proposed changes … risk causing serious, even irreversible harm, particularly in regional/rural areas such as ours. I am fortunate—

she says—

to have the capacity to advocate for myself, but I think constantly of those who cannot: people with cognitive disabilities, people … in supported accommodation, and people without family or friends to fight for them. For these Australians, the withdrawal of NDIS support is not an inconvenience, it is a threat to their safety, their health, and in some cases their lives.

Kathryn says:

I am a young adult Autistic NDIS participant with high support needs. …

With NDIS supports, I have been able to start attending board game groups to meet new people and access therapies that have greatly improved my quality of life. I have learned more about my disabilities and been able to start engaging with the disabled community. I have no friends and no healthy family supports, so my only supports are NDIS-funded—my therapists and support workers. Without NDIS, I would have no support. … The current proposed NDIS cuts would impact me significantly, reducing my quality of life and negatively impacting my mental health.

Nicole, who is the director of Health Works NSW, which is a longstanding regional allied health organisation, has said of these proposed changes:

The greatest impact will ultimately fall on children and families.

Children may lose long-standing therapeutic relationships with clinicians who understand their communication styles, sensory needs, behavioural presentation, developmental history and family context. Families who have spent years navigating fragmented systems may once again find themselves without clear pathways to support.

In regional communities, the impacts may be even more pronounced. There are already significant workforce shortages across allied health, disability and paediatric services. Smaller regional providers often operate with narrow financial margins while carrying substantial travel, workforce and operational costs. Procurement models that favour large-scale metropolitan structures or unrealistic delivery expectations risk unintentionally destabilising the very providers currently holding regional service systems together.

Nicole says:

… I am deeply concerned about the practical implementation risks associated with the current reform and procurement environment, particularly if experienced private paediatric providers are excluded or significantly reduced within the broader ecosystem supports.

…   …   …

… many children over the age of 9 may also lose access to continuity of care and broader therapeutic supports.

These concerns are very real. Reform can't be at the expense of our constituents and our community members who genuinely rely on this scheme and are gaining life-changing benefit from it. It can't be at the expense of those who are doing the right thing. There needs to be genuine consultation, and the government needs to listen to those whose lives they are affecting. I support the NDIS, but reform needs to be properly thought through and properly planned. I urge the government to listen to those most affected and act on their concerns. Don't let genuine NDIS participants fall through the cracks of reform.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, in the remaining eight minutes before adjournment, is of immense importance to the parliament. It's immensely important to have a conversation about how we are going to take the nation forward together. There will be no-one you will find who will be more critical of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and its corruption and fraud than myself.

What we have allowed—what the Labor government has allowed, I should say more correctly—is for this to become a honey pot. So many people engaged in fraud and corruption have taken advantage of the honey pot and tipped their hand into the resources of the Commonwealth and the taxpayers of Australia, only then to use them for dishonest ends. We have honest Australians paying honest taxes on honest work, and it's ending up in the hands of dishonest means.

Of course, the government is now coming around, finally, and acknowledging that, despite the constant efforts in the period of the previous government, they have let it rip for organised crime, corruption and fraud. The solution now is to attack participants. Certainly that's a perception outside in the community in terms of the implementation. I just need to look at some of the emails that have come through the Goldstein office and what people have raised. You'll understand, Deputy Speaker, I want to respect people's privacy and to make sure that personal conditions are not revealed, but I will use their words.

One person wrote to me and said, 'I think everyone realises that changes need to be made to the NDIS, but not at the expense of participant safety. I'm not sure the politicians realise that NDIS participants are reliant on support to be able to live safely in their homes, access the community and live ordinary lives.' Well, I will clarify for one of the Goldstein constituents: we do, but, unfortunately, I don't think that this is understood by the Labor Party, who are too busy always finding pathways to cut rather than focusing on where they need to actually cut, which is around fraud and corruption.

This person went on to say, 'We're very concerned about Labor's proposed changes to the NDIS, which seem to focus on cost-cutting rather than supporting vulnerable Australians.' I think that's a legitimate and serious concern, because so many people have written to us and outlined their specific circumstances and what has been happening. People have faced what are, in their words, alarming changes which diminish their capacity to access essential care in a very challenging environment.

One person wrote to me and said, 'It's clear there is wastage which needs resolving in the system, but pulling support from those of us who are trying everything we humanly can do to preserve dignity and independence is really a low blow.' It's a really low blow from the Albanese government, because they were unwilling to support and work with the coalition the last time we were in office to actually bring in a lot of the changes that they're now seeking to bring in. But, instead of focusing on the fraud and the corruption, the way they're approaching it is to target the participants.

One person wrote to me and said they received an ambush call from the NDIS over the claims of their daughter, who's five years old, with cerebral palsy. That has a very significant impact on their lives. The NDIS planner that called then—they allege—lied, threatened, abused and patronised. Such was the wanton attempt by said individual to reduce the package of a NDIS participant. We have other examples. People have raised concerns about the NDIS cutting a lot of their funding. Their situation has changed considerably, yet there has simply been no leniency or understanding of the impact on them as an individual.

One person went on to say that their right side is affected now and it's hard to cope each day based on their disability. They're suffering a lot because of chest pains due to anxiety, which affects their mobility and/or shaking whilst moving around. They're seeking support and assistance, as is appropriate, to be able to maintain and balance out their life, but of course the NDIS under the Albanese government is not providing the support they so desperately need.

We have a lot of people who have faced really serious challenges. One person says that for the first time in eight years the NDIA has had to reject claims for their daughter's special needs netball program. I'm not sure about you, Deputy Speaker, but I think maintaining a physically active lifestyle is very important for young Australians, particularly those with a disability, to be able to get ahead because of the pathway and the social connection, which is a very important part of their quality of life. But that now seems to be, as part of the All ABILITIES Program, something that's been put on the back burner by the Albanese government.

In some cases acknowledging the importance of these programs, in particular, for those who have come here with no means—we have a Ukrainian refugee who's even contacted me talking about how their diagnosis of lifelong cerebral palsy is now being targeted by these cuts. They say that English is not their first language and on at least one occasion they have been contacted by the agency without any interpreter present despite having requested one. So we're seeing a decline in standards, a decline in quality and a decline in the services that are needed so desperately by some Australians, and the response from the Albanese government is 'tough it'. They're not prepared to make any accommodations or work with people to be able to improve their circumstances.

But there is one thing they are prepared to do. They are prepared to allow organised crime, fraud and corruption to continue to attack the NDIS at every step of the way and profiteer from it without any regard or any serious attempt to respond. On budget day there was finally an acknowledgement after the government was dragged, kicking and screaming, to the scale to address corruption and fraud in the NDIS. They were dragged, kicking and screaming, to be able to affect change and to address the fraud and corruption. Since then they've gone silent. It's quite clear that the government's approach to the NDIS is to target clients first and worry about the organised fraud and corruption later.

The problem is that it's ordinary Australians who just want to live a dignified life that are left on the chopping block of the Albanese government's approach. This is where the government has got its priorities fundamentally wrong. I can't fathom the scale of what is being done and why it is being done. This government has such a terrible record of allowing programs to become honey pots for organised crime and corruption, from the NDIS to home aged-care packages, to childcare packages and all the way through, of course, to handing $15 billion of public money to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. And who do they choose to punch down on? It is people with a disability.

What is wrong with this government and its priorities? They can't tell the truth. They can't be honest. They can't be clear with people about what they're going to do before an election versus the actions they take after an election, and when they get their chance at the levers of power, their solution is to punch down on people with a disability. This government has to end.

Debate interrupted.

Last week, almost two years after it was completed, the Australian government finally responded to The state of diabetes mellitus in Australia in 2024 report. The response falls far short of what Australians need.

The report was the outcome of a substantial parliamentary inquiry informed by extensive evidence from clinicians, researchers, public health experts and patient groups, as well as many public submissions and multiple hearings. I was very proud to be a part of the health committee conducting the inquiry. It examined the rapid rise of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Australia, including amongst our young people. Importantly, the report set out a series of practical, evidence-based recommendations particularly focused on prevention and early intervention. The government's response was to adopt none of them. Instead, there is support in principle for some recommendations, and others are simply noted.

The state of diabetes report was clear: if we don't invest properly in prevention, the problem will keep getting worse, and we're already seeing that play out. Obesity has now overtaken tobacco as the leading cause of preventable disease burden in Australia. Around 6.5 million people are living with obesity, and projections for children are heading in the wrong direction. Already, one in four children across Australia is above the healthy weight range, and in regional and rural areas it's even more. So I want to focus specifically on two of the recommendations in that report that are based on prevention and are evidence based.

First, the inquiry recommended that the government regulate the marketing of unhealthy food to children. A government-funded feasibility study released just this month looked at this exact issue and found very strong support for time-based restrictions of unhealthy food advertising on broadcast media from morning to night and for it to end altogether online and on digital platforms. It also found strong support for restricting things like on-pack marketing aimed at children and junk food sponsorship of sporting and community events.

Importantly, it confirmed that self-regulation is simply not working. Kids are exposed to a constant stream of advertising across TV, radio, social media and gaming. It's sophisticated, it's targeted and it's backed by large companies with vested interests. I've already put forward a bill, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Healthy Kids Advertising) Bill 2023, that would regulate the marketing of unhealthy foods to children on all these platforms, just as was recommended by the inquiry. It's a practical way to reduce that constant exposure and it's supported by a broad coalition of major health organisations. It's also supported by the 66 per cent of Australians who want to see an end to junk food advertising during children's hours of TV.

The second area I want to talk about is sugary drinks. Again, the inquiry recommendation was clear: that the government implement a graduated levy on sugar-sweetened beverages based on sugar content. Sugary drinks are the largest source of added sugar in the Australian diet—about a quarter of total intake—and they are clearly linked to diabetes and other chronic conditions. A graduated levy on sugary drinks would encourage companies to reduce sugar in their products, and where that doesn't happen, the revenue can be used to support healthier choices such as making fresh food more affordable or funding prevention programs.

More than 35 health organisations across Australia back a levy on sugary drinks. This is already in action in over 100 countries across the world. The UK did it in 2018, and when they did, the sugar in affected drinks fell by nearly 45 per cent over four years.

Stepping back, all our national health strategies already recognise that prevention is where we should be focusing. There's even a clear target—that five per cent of the health budget go to prevention by 2030. Right now we're at about two per cent—far below comparable countries like the UK and Canada.

Tomorrow, I'll be holding a roundtable discussion with health experts to progress these two measures: the regulation of unhealthy food marketing to children, and introducing a levy on sugary drinks. There's a clear path forward for the government to make a real difference to the health of Australians for generations to come. (Time expired)

Little more than a fortnight ago, the Treasurer stood at the dispatch box and delivered the federal budget. While there has been plenty of commentary about the big-ticket items in the budget—delivering more tax cuts, strengthening Medicare and giving first home buyers a fair go in the market—I want to use this opportunity to recognise some of the programs funded in the budget that haven't got a lot of recognition but will make a big difference for communities like mine in the great electorate of Banks.

In a previous budget, the Labor government committed $350 million over three years for the Thriving Suburbs program to deliver community infrastructure projects across Australia's urban, suburban and peri urban communities that support liveability, local amenity and social cohesion. This is a program that has been delivering for my community, with $9.5 million in federal funding making nine projects across the Canterbury-Bankstown local government area possible, including the new and upgraded Lambeth Reserve pirate ship playground in Picnic Point and the great whale playground at Deepwater Park in Milperra. The budget handed down two weeks ago by this government provided another $781.5 million for further rounds of both the Thriving Suburbs and the Growing Regions programs, enabling us to continue to deliver vital community infrastructure all across the country.

Another great initiative that has been continued is the Stronger Communities program. It has supported projects that strengthen and benefit our local communities. Round 9 was funded as part of the Labor government's 2024-25 budget. The funding provided to organisations in my community made some great projects possible. The Oatley Bay Sea Scouts received $10,000 for renovations of their boat shed, to improve safety and accessibility at their facility. The Picnic Point Public School P&C received $2½ thousand to fund the installation of a war memorial on the school's grounds, which was part of the school's Anzac Day commemorations just a few weeks ago. The Chinese Australian Services group received $8,000 to replace and renew flooring at their Peakhurst activity centre, providing a better space for their community support initiatives mainly focused on older Australians. All together, that's $110,000 of funding provided to organisations across my electorate, benefiting a total of 16 great organisations. The latest budget delivered by this government has provided $30.1 million over the next three years for round 10 of the Stronger Communities program, and I look forward to seeing how that funding benefits organisations in my community and across the country.

Lastly, this government is investing in our regional security and trading relationships. We are making a considered effort to build a more diversified range of relationships with international partners so we can face global challenges with more resilience and more choice. The budget allocates funding that strengthens these strategic relationships and implements our agreements. We are boosting our relationship with India, with a $25.3 million investment of funding over four years. We have allocated $33.2 million to initiatives needed to implement the Jakarta treaty with Indonesia, and we are enhancing our engagement with our Pacific neighbours with a $187.8 million package over four years through a range of initiatives. A strong Pacific is good for Australia and good for our regional neighbourhood. As global development landscape is shaken by major global aid cuts, trade disruptions and energy insecurity, Australia's role becomes ever more important.

This government's budget is focused on making the lives of everyday Australians better, and there is plenty more beyond the big headlines that is working towards this goal and deserves recognition. I look forward to implementing them and ensuring these implementations help many more Australians, including in my electorate.

Neale Francis Daniher was a son of the Riverina. He was a proud son of Ungarie, and he was a much-loved son of the late Jim and Edna Daniher. You don't get a better family than the Daniher family. They are quintessentially country Australia. Edna Daniher is one of the most beautiful people I have ever known. She, in recent years, has buried her husband, Jim, who passed away after a farm accident, a tragic farm accident, in 2019. She buried her beautiful daughter Fiona in 2021. And now she is going to bury her wonderful son Neale. No mother should have to bury any of their children. No mother should.

Anthony Daniher, Chris Daniher, Terry Daniher and Neale Daniher are, of course, well known because of their footballing feats. All four brothers played alongside one another in the mighty Essendon Bombers football team, and that's fantastic, but it was what Neale did as a fighter against motor neurone disease—such a cruel, insidious disease—that shone a light on not only the need for awareness of but also the need for funds to fight MND.

Most Riverina people are well aware of the Danihers—of course, most people in Australia are—but it does become personal. My wife, Catherine, had a coffee catch-up with Neale's sister Estelle just last Friday. I went to school with Dorothy. Most people in the Riverina, if you've been there for long enough, will have bumped into a Daniher. To know them is to love them. The Daniher boys' sisters—we talk about the toughness on the field of the boys; rest assured, I wouldn't like to face those girls in netball! They were very, very good at netball. Some still are. His sisters, Neale's sisters, Colleen, Angela, Julie, Nerolee, Estelle and, as I mentioned, Dorothy—seven sisters—are such wonderful human beings as well.

They have put Ungarie on the map, that family. Indeed, there is a big Sherrin in the main street of Ungarie, synonymous with the big things that Australian towns just love to erect and talk about and visit. What other town would even think to put a Sherrin in their main street? The ground at Ungarie—I've worn the black and white for Ungarie. I'm certainly not right up there with the Danihers, but Chris asked me one day when they were very short of players, horribly short of players—if I press up here hard enough, I can still feel the three broken ribs I copped in one of those games. But the big freeze at the G—we all should get behind it. We should. It's on the June long weekend. It has become synonymous not only with the Danihers but with raising funds for the fight against MND. The fact that Neale has passed away has really set this nation into a pall of grief I've not seen for a long, long time.

I know that the Big Freeze at the G this year will be a special occasion, a sobering occasion and a sombre occasion but also a celebration of life, because Neale fought the good fight for 13 long years. That shows the inspiration of this family. It shows the resilience of this family. It shows how much he was loved by all Australians and his wife, Jan; his children, Bec, Lauren, Luke and Ben; his grandchildren; and his many nieces and nephews. They will continue to fight the good fight against MND so that his name is never forgotten—not that it ever will be. There's no danger of that. But, to Neale Daniher, vale. May you rest in peace, champion. You have been a wonderful son, brother, father and husband and a magnificent Australian. There is no better than Neale Daniher, and I think we probably should even give him an AC posthumously.

I pass my condolences on to the member for Riverina on behalf of the people of Leichhardt. Neale Daniher was a fantastic footballer, a great man and someone that I remember fondly watching growing up.

Tomorrow I get to return to Leichhardt, as do the children of St Andrew's, who have been visiting us here in Canberra this week. Fun fact—the minimum degrees in Cairns over the last few days has been 18; I don't think it has cracked 18 here. Those children suffered, but they enjoyed democracy. Meeting us and being around us here at parliament came a very close third to Questacon and the AIS. At a close fourth was the War Memorial. They came, they saw, they enjoyed.

A lot has been said about the budget, but I do want to focus on what's happened locally, particularly in my area of the Far North. The Far North is getting the attention it deserves. It is getting the understanding that it deserves from this place—$6 million, which might not sound like a lot, but it's put towards eradicating the yellow crazy ant. The yellow crazy ant is a terrible creature. It's very small. It's yellow. It's not as crazy as they say, actually. It just tends to swarm. The ones that we've got up in the Far North are all related to each other. In their natural environment, they fight against each other. They don't get to take over. But all the ones that we've got have come from a single colony, so they're all related. They will swarm and they will drive out everything in it. If you enter a part of the wet tropics of the World Heritage area that has been taken over by yellow crazy ants, there is silence—no birds, no rustling, no skinks, just the ants. They create a hegemony, a monoculture of ants.

It was said that they could not be tackled and that they could not be eradicated, yet the good people of yellow crazy ants have found a way. They trample through some of the most unforgiving forests in the country, dropping every five metres a mixture of cat food and jam, because ants like both sweet and savoury food. They come back in a few hours to check if there are yellow crazy ants. If there are, they go about killing them. They have eradicated around 120,000 hectares of yellow crazy ants—gone. They cannot claim eradication until there's been no sign of these ants for five years. They go back and they check. They take the dogs out. They've got all manner of UV infra-red science. It's great. But what is really important is the boots on the ground—the people who are walking up and down through Wait a While. If the stinging tree gets you, you'll know about it for the next six months. There are leeches but thankfully no crocodiles in those parts of the world. They're doing a fantastic job. They've done something that is very difficult to do, and we see them out there every day.

There are a couple of other things that are worth mentioning. Of course, $70.3 million is going to ABF to handle Operation Broadstaff. The waters of the Torres Strait belong to the people of the Torres Strait. They are not there to be fished or plundered by any other nation. Broadstaff ensures that we have presence on the ground and on water to ensure that the food and the culture remains that of the Torres Strait. I was very proud to take up Minister Hill to visit that part of the world, to understand it, to see it and to be a part of the day there, part of the culture, and for the response accordingly. There are a lot of other good things. TRPI will receive $5 million, which supports our tourism industry and eradicates crown-of-thorns starfish and Drupella snails to ensure the health of our Great Barrier Reef. Great. I would like to thank Gareth at AMPTO and Mark Olsen at TTNQ for advocating for that.

But all of these things matter. They matter a lot. The greatest honour in being here—and I was reminded of this today—is when we help people. I had something come across our office that was unusual and traumatically life changing for the people involved, and we've been able to wrap our arms around that person. Ultimately, the budgets matter, programs matter—our most important job is to look after the people that we're here to represent. I know that that's the No. 1 thought of everybody in here. I was touched and honoured that this person felt that we were the place to go, and we will do everything we can to help anyone who comes through our doors. I know everyone else will too. The budget matters, but the people matter more.

Tonight I want to recognise the frontline domestic and family violence service workers in the seat of Cook. It's notable that domestic violence often peaks around sporting events. Tonight we have the State of Origin, and I hope the Blues get up. But we need to keep in mind that these are some of the nights that have domestic violence peaking and that have our police being called out. To the men out there, take responsibility tonight. To the women out there, we think of you and this is not acceptable.

Recently in the Sutherland Shire we hosted constructive roundtables with local services, practitioners and advocates. It was co-hosted by the Family Co.'s CEO Ashley Daines; their acting CEOs, Michelle Fairweather and Michelle Long; and Belinda Harrison. In these discussions, we prioritised four areas we want to work on improving in the Sutherland Shire: housing for domestic violence victims, prevention among school students and troubled men, gaps in local services and creating a one-stop shop.

I want to acknowledge Vicki Sherry and the team at Hopefield for the care they provide to local families facing hardship and crisis, particularly domestic violence victims and survivors. It's long been part of the fabric of the community, offering compassionate support.

I want to thank Mark Soper from the Salvation Army. The Salvos are often there when people have nowhere else to go, providing emergency relief and connection and helping numbers of domestic violence survivors.

I want to thank Sheldon Korneluk and all the other local practitioners who support victims-survivors through difficult legal pathways. They do a very important job. For many people leaving violence, legal support can be critical, particularly when safety, parenting, housing and financial pressures all collide.

I recognise Liza Barlow from the St Vincent de Paul Society. Vinnies has a proud tradition of meeting people with dignity, not judgement, and helping with practical pressures—especially domestic violence victims in the Sutherland Shire.

I acknowledge Bernadette Hoy and Elizabeth O'Neill from Orana. Orana's work recognises that safety is not only about leaving a violent situation; it's about recovery, housing, confidence, financial security and children's wellbeing.

I want to thank Tina Demetriou from ACOSS and the broader advocacy that helps connect local experience with policy changes for the work they're doing on prevention.

I recognise Graeme O'Connor and Interrelate for their work with families in the Sutherland Shire.

I'd also like to acknowledge the Sutherland Shire Police Area Command, who've participated in these roundtables; as well as the member for Miranda, Eleni Petinos, who brought great perspectives on how we can help from the state government.

I want to recognise two local councillors: Jen Armstrong, who has done a great job on council in helping raise this; and Jo Nicholls, who's also doing a great job trying to find council assets so we can have a one-stop shop in the Sutherland Shire.

I want to recognise Stef Allen from Kingsway Care and the contribution being made locally, particularly around housing, but also her passion for supporting men and working on prevention.

These organisations do difficult work. They deal with trauma, fear and crisis. They hear stories that most people never hear. They deal with people when they are at their most vulnerable. They carry the weight of helping others through danger and uncertainty. We're going to work together with them and at all three levels of government—local, state and federal—to do what we can do in our little patch in the Sutherland Shire to improve domestic violence services.

I want to recognise Simmo Braun, a dedicated father of three and committed blood donor and wellness advocate. I recently donated blood with Simmo at the Shire donor centre. He's truly a wonderful bloke, and he's doing some incredible things. On 31 July 2026, Simmo is helping to lead an effort to break a nationwide record by having the most blood donations in a single day by one team. This follows the Bloody Good Tour, an adventure led by Simmo, who went all the way round Australia visiting every Lifeblood donor centre in the country and donated plasma every two weeks. I'll be donating blood and plasma with Simmo as part of this effort, and I encourage every person in Australia and everyone in the Sutherland Shire who's able to donate to do so. This small action truly saves lives.

When you first enter this place, there are many parts of this job that come as a surprise. The speeches, media appearances and street stalls were to be expected, but something I did not expect was becoming a part-time radio DJ. That is exactly what I've been given the chance to do for a couple of these past Mondays with Valley FM, one of the fantastic community radio stations servicing the Tuggeranong Valley. I've been able to join Tim Kilby to talk not just about politics but about the music that I've listened to over the decades and the influence it's had on my life. It's the sort of conversation you so rarely get to have in this role—a much more personal conversation, but, perhaps, with a heavy nineties influence. I look forward to joining Tim again this coming Monday 1 June at 3 pm. Make sure to tune in, and, Speaker, let me know if you have any requests.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank Valley FM and their presenters, staff and board members for the service they provide to our community. In particular, I want to give a shout-out to Chris McLeod, who's one of the Bean volunteers of the year for 2025. Chris has been a dedicated radio presenter for over 20 years with Valley FM and has gone beyond that, offering valuable input into the ongoing development of the station. Having held the position of secretary for a number of years, he's played a crucial role in communication and organisation for the station as well as mentoring new members of the board and broadcasters. I know that, on the side, he is also a dedicated bagpipe and violin player and is involved in the Canberra Burns Club Pipe Band. This work, alongside the work of others at Valley FM, is all voluntary. Yet it provides a crucial hub of information and entertainment for our community. I look forward to working with Valley FM well into the future.

The annual Vinnies CEO Sleepout is being held on 18 June at Old Parliament House. This will be my 12th consecutive year participating in the sleepout. Thank you, Speaker, for your particular leadership in hosting the 2024 sleepout here in the Parliament House car park. It is no secret to anyone having to travel here at this time of year that the nights get cold, often dropping down to minus-six degrees. Ultimately, that isn't too bad for those of us who have a warm home to return to. But, as we know, not everyone is that fortunate.

At the last census, over 1,500 people were experiencing homelessness in the ACT. For the entirety of Australia, that total was over 122,000 people experiencing homelessness each night. It's important to note that the homeless aren't simply those who are out on the streets. It has been estimated that 15 per cent of homeless people rely on couch surfing with family, friends and acquaintances so that they have a safe place to sleep.

The Albanese government is taking action to help address this crisis. That's why we're investing almost $60 million to supplement rental income for community housing providers delivering social housing for over 4,000 young people aged 16 to 24 who are in receipt of the away-from-home rate of the youth allowance or Abstudy and who are at risk of or are experiencing homelessness. We're also continuing to roll out our ambitious social and affordable housing agenda, delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes right across the country. We are releasing a further $100 million from the Housing Australia Future Fund to improve the quality of housing for First Nations Australians in remote communities. And we're investing $31 million over two years into the Homelessness Access Program to deliver health care to Australians experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness.

Homelessness is a challenging issue, and it requires government leadership, great NGOs to invest their time and whole communities coming together to help address it—and the generosity of our community in supporting events like the Vinnies sleep-out. The Vinnies sleep-out is happening across Australia on 18 June. Thank you to all who have put up their hand to participate—in many cases, over multiple years. And thank you to all those who've supported our participation and to those that will step up to provide support over the next couple of weeks as the temperature goes down.

Kangaroo Island in my electorate is a hidden gem. I think it's one of Australia's best kept secrets. It has a population of around 5,000 people and is quite a large island, around 4½ thousand square kilometres. To put that into context, it is around 150 kilometres by about 50 kilometres in depth. It is a remote place to live. When Mayor Michael Pengilly let me know last week that Centrelink services would be stopping on the island because the current agent Mobo notified Services Australia that they would be ceasing the Kangaroo Island contract this coming Friday, I really sprang into action. I would particularly like to thank the Minister for Social Services for being so open and for helping us to provide a solution to this, because Centrelink services, when you are in a remote location, when you are on an island, when you can't just drive to the next Centrelink service, are incredibly important.

I wanted to notify the people on Kangaroo Island what's happening, so I immediately wrote to the minister and said, 'What can we do to fix some issues here and make sure that we can continue Services Australia services on the island?'—noting that we have a very elderly population, and, as I said, a very remote population. Now, Services Australia will shortly be putting out communication materials to the KI community about the process and how they can best support people. Services Australia will be sending a specialist team to the island between 22 and 26 June, with an aged-care specialist officer and a financial service information officer, to support people face-to-face. This is going to be a critical and important service, and I thank the minister and the minister's team for helping us. It will not be a mobile service centre. It's really important to note that while, typically, those buses that come into town only stay a day or two, they will be staying for the entirety of the week while we work on a more permanent solution.

Services Australia will also be consulting with the community about future needs—what having Centrelink and Services Australia services there on the island should look like. So we're going to be doing everything we can to see what flexibility there is to maybe provide some interim services while the next services stand up after the Mobo contract.

Again, I would particularly like to acknowledge the mayor, Michael Pengilly, for reaching out to me, also Minister Katy Gallagher, and their great work in trying to ensure that we have a continuity of services on Kangaroo Island.

I rise today to recognise Alan Beveridge OAM, who is an icon of Surf Life Saving in my electorate of Whitlam. It is no surprise that Alan has been honoured with life membership of the Warilla Barrack Point Surf Life Saving Club. He has been a patrolling member of the club for over 50 years. He has served as patrol captain, club captain, treasurer, vice president, and was president for almost 30 years. Over many decades, Alan has also coached both junior and senior members of the club and officiated at local branch, state and national carnivals. He is renowned for his readiness to provide guidance, encouragement and leadership.

Alan's dedication to surf lifesaving beyond his own club has resulted in his appointment as a life member of both the South Coast branch of Surf Life Saving Australia and Surf Life Saving New South Wales, and he has received the National Service Award from Surf Life Saving Australia. Alan was named Shellharbour Citizen of the Year in 2022 in recognition of his tireless dedication to the local community and surf lifesaving, and the following year he was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to lifesaving.

On behalf of the people of Whitlam, I thank Alan Beveridge for his extraordinary dedication to the vital service of lifesaving and for everything he has given back so generously to our community.

I rise today to recognise Lake Illawarra Cricket Club, known affectionately as the Lakers, which has its home ground at Howard Fowles Oval in my electorate of Whitlam. I had the great pleasure of attending the club's 80th-year presentation night at Warilla Bowls and Recreation Club this month, which included the induction of three new life members: Tim Hore, Kylie Hore and Ryan Smith. Life membership is the club's highest honour, recognising exceptional service, unwavering commitment and lasting impact over many years.

Since it was formed in 1945. Lake Illawarra Cricket Club has won an extraordinary 24 club championships, 45 first-grade premierships of various kinds and 37 premierships across lower grades. But the Lakers do not measure success by adding up these competition victories, or the number of finals series they have qualified for or matches they have won. They measure success by the community they have created—not just the people who play cricket for the club but the volunteers who coach the juniors, prepare the ground, work behind the canteen and sit on the committee—and the lasting friendships that are built between these volunteers. By this important measure Lake Illawarra Cricket Club is an outstandingly successful cricket club and community organisation. I congratulate the Illawarra Cricket Club on 80 years of success both on and off the pitch, and I wish them all the very best for the future.

We all saw it the other day—they blew up Liddell, blew up the stacks. It was absolutely, incredibly stupid. Why didn't they refurbish them? Why didn't they use all that ingenuity that they have? Apparently they can change the climate, but they can't refurbish a power station. There was a 2000-megawatt power station, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. But we are spending $42 billion on Snowy Hydro 2.0, which is 2000 megawatts for three days.

While we're on Liddell, they were supposed to get $5 million from the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program. Mayor Jeff Drayton is actually the chair of the Labor branch there, and he said that you've squibbed on the deal, just forgot about it. Once more, it's just completely unbelievable. You say things, you never do them and people are let down. They're going to build a big precinct there to make solar panels—that's just another load of rubbish. It's never going to happen. We're just being told not the truth.

Then we go to other things—the inland rail, we got rid of that. You came up with a fantastic figure, $31 billion, it's just that no-one can put any meat on the bone. They can't tell us how that adds up to $31 billion. Just say it! They say, 'Go to the axle report.' I did—it's one line, '$31 billion', no details. It's completely unbelievable. There's nothing that substantiates the validity of the Labor Party's capacity to get themselves around the numbers. It's all just a load of garbage. Blow your nose on the budget. It's just not worth it.

If we go to other things in our electorate, apparently you can't find $5 million for Mayor Jeff Drayton, but you can find $18.2 billion for the swindle factories, for the intermittent power precincts, your solar panels, your wind towers. And we're building the transmission lines all across the place. You're turning New England into an industrial dump for an intermittent product that's unreliable and hellishly expensive.

If you want to do something smart it would be confirming Chiswick CSIRO's funding, but you're not. At this point in time, they believe their funding has been pulled. Everything about this has no vision for the regions. Everything about this is misinformation. Everything about this opaque or not the truth.

And, of course, let's remember what we're doing with capital gains tax. We had record insolvencies in small business—there was a more than 34 per cent increase in small business insolvencies in the last 12 months. So ASIC says. That's because people take risks and sometimes they lose. They lose their shirt. And that's why we reward them when they win. But no, we don't believe in reward! We believe in creating a stupid nation, a lack of entrepreneurship, a lack of hope and a lack of vision!

Yesterday, the corridors of Parliament House were filled with something we need more of in public life: young people with optimism, purpose and a determination to shape Australia's future. I had the honour of hosting the first ever Maronite Youth in Parliament Summit, and it was a reminder of the enormous contribution that the Maronite community makes to our country.

In my electorate of Parramatta stands the Our Lady of Lebanon Co-Cathedral at Harris Park, the largest Maronite church in the Southern Hemisphere and one of the great centres of Lebanese Australian life. For more than four decades it has been where families gather, traditions are passed on, faith is kept alive and community is built. Maronite Australians have helped shape modern Australia, and Western Sydney would not be the same without them.

Last year we brought Maronite leaders into parliament, and this year we brought the next generation. Led by Bishop Antoine-Charbel Tarabay, Maronite Youth Australia and the Lebanese ambassador, the summit gathered 30 young Maronite Australians from across the country, including many from Parramatta, to speak directly with political leaders about the future they want to see. The conversations could not have been more important. They spoke about strengthening Australia's social cohesion, supporting Lebanon and the Middle East at this difficult time, creating opportunity for young Australians and ensuring that their generation has a genuine voice in national life.

For many Lebanese Australians, the events unfolding in Lebanon are not distant headlines; they are deeply personal. Families in Parramatta carry that worry every day. That's why giving young people a seat at the table matters so much. Multiculturalism in Australia is not about asking people to leave part of themselves behind; it's about recognising that our country is stronger because of the cultures, faiths and histories that people bring with them. Many of the young people at this summit were born and raised here. They're proudly Australian, proudly Lebanese and proudly Maronite, and those identities enrich our national story.

The summit was joined by the Prime Minister, senior ministers, the Speaker of the House and colleagues from across the parliament, a powerful sign that the government values and respects the Maronite community. These young leaders spent the day inside our democracy, attending question time, working alongside parliamentary staff and developing a formal communique with practical policy ideas for government. They also presented the Prime Minister with a cedar tree to be planted at the Lodge as a symbol of endurance, hope and the deep roots of this community. These are young Australians stepping forward to lead, in community life, in business, in public service and beyond. Their voices deserve to be heard, and their ideas deserve a genuine response.

No less than 24 hours ago, Chris Bowen, a minister of the Crown, lied to the Australian people.

Government members interjecting—

I withdraw. The minister of the Crown misled the Australian people. He said in question time that power prices in Australia are down in all jurisdictions. Well, he forgot the great state of South Australia. The default market offer shows that prices are up again. This is the state with 80 per cent wind and solar—80 per cent—and he attributed the cost reductions to more renewables! Well, South Australia is at 80 per cent and prices are up. We have the highest prices in Australia and some of the highest prices in the world, depending on how you measure it. It is unbelievable—more misleading.

I also rise to raise my concerns for older Australians in my electorate of Grey. They are facing a financial blow. Under Labor's proposed cuts to private health insurance rebates, over 23,000 residents will be hit with premium hikes of up to $807, and double that for couples. We tell Australians to take responsibility for their health and to be self-sufficient as they age, but this government is shifting the goalposts yet again. Right when their incomes are reducing and their need for speciality care is increasing, Labor is hitting older Australians where it hurts.

Private health covers over 26,000 hospital admissions annually in Grey and contributes $111 million to that care. With an average patient age of 61 years and almost a fifth of admissions being cancer related, this cover is not a luxury; it is indeed a lifeline. If seniors are forced to abandon these policies, they will be pushed directly into our already struggling public hospital system. If this happens, our regional waitlists will explode and our exhausted local doctors and nurses will be left to pick up the pieces yet again. I stand with the over-65s in my electorate. I urge everyone in Grey to sign a 'Hands-off our health cover' petition, so we can fight this terrible decision by Labor together.

During my two trips up north, I spoke to residents about the condition of the roads in northern South Australia— and they feel abandoned. The impacts of prolonged road closures are severe. Innamincka's tourism has plummeted from hundreds of visitors a night to just 11. Pastoralists can't move stock, risking prime cattle and sheep at a time when feed is good.

It means we're prepared to change arrangements that are skewed away from people trying to make a go of it and skewed towards those of us who are already doing reasonably well. It means we don't accept a situation in which homeownership is drifting out of reach of younger Australians. It means we don't accept a situation where the tax treatment of income from wages is less generous than the tax treatment of income from investments. What it requires is the courage to change. It requires the strength of character in all of us to deliver on our values. If we say that we support change for the greater good, then we need to make that true in our conduct.

There's no question that our tax system has elements that aren't as effective or as fair as they could be. The only question is whether or not we're prepared to do something about it. In a period of substantial global turmoil, the Albanese government has shown from the start that we accept the responsibility given to us by the Australian community to deliver sensible and necessary reform. We've done that with the stage 3 tax cuts. We've done that with the changes to increase superannuation overall and to make sure that super tax concessions are shifted to benefit people with low super balances. We've done that with reform to the PRRT and the introduction of a gas reservation scheme to make sure that Australian households and businesses can get fair-priced Australian gas while we drive the clean energy transition.

But we know there's more to do, and in this budget we're seeking to make further change in a careful and consultative fashion. Since the Howard government decided to change the capital gains tax arrangements in 1999, house prices have grown twice as fast as wages. That has fed into the housing crisis. It has created an investment distortion that is making housing less and less affordable while contributing to broader intergenerational inequity. If this distortion isn't fixed, then house ownership will drift further and further away from younger Australians. If we're not prepared to make sensible change, then the position of working people—the significant majority of Australians—will deteriorate further.

We are prepared to make the case for positive reform, and I've heard from so many people over the years who rightly expect their government to take responsibility for tackling problems that are embedded in the status quo. That's what they expect. That's what they should expect. That's what we are responding to. That is not the easy path. Change is not the easy path. But we're not here to do what's easy. We are charged with the responsibility to shift the dial in the direction of fairness, which is better for all of us, which is what Australian governments should deliver, which is what the Albanese government is delivering.

Anzac Day is an important date each year when the country stops to honour and reflect on the sacrifices and bravery of those who fought for our freedoms. We thank those who continue to serve to protect the Australian way of life, our democracy and our freedoms today.

It was heartwarming to see commemorative services held on Anzac Day in each and every corner of my community, with thousands of local residents attending to pay their respects. I was honoured to attend and commemorate with our local Anzacs at the Lilydale dawn service, the Mt Evelyn Gunfire Breakfast and the Wandin, Montrose and Mooroolbark services before heading to the local football at Mooroolbark and then finishing the day at Seville.

Thank you to the Dandenong Ranges, Healesville, Lilydale, Monbulk, Mount Evelyn, Upper Yarra, Upwey Belgrave, Warburton and Yarra Glen RSLs for their services. Thank you to the Rotary Club of Wandin, the Seville War Memorial Committee, the Millgrove Residents Action Group, the Mooroolbark Umbrella Group, Peter Adams and the Kalorama committee, Max Lamb, Mooroolbark Football Club, the Seville Football Netball Club, the Upwey-Tecoma Football Netball Club, the Olinda Ferny Creek Football Netball Club and the Yarra Junction Football Club for their continued dedication to remembering those that paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

It was also a privilege to attend many Anzac commemorative services held by local schools, community organisations and football clubs in the lead-up to and after Anzac Day. Thank you to Lilydale Memorial Park and our local schools—Belgrave South Primary School, Lilydale Primary School, Bimbadeen Heights Primary School, Yering Primary School and the Upper Yarra schools service, which includes Wesburn Primary School, Millwarra Primary School, Woori Yallock Primary School, Warburton Primary School, Upper Yarra Secondary College, Seville Primary School, Don Valley Primary School, Yarra Junction Primary School, St Joseph's Primary School and Launching Place Primary School. Thank you for the invitation to join you and pay our respects.

Each year, in the lead-up to Anzac Day, it is an honour to hold the Don Parsons Memorial Anzac Creative Writing Prize for all grade 5 and 6 students across the Casey electorate. This competition pays tribute to the late Don Parsons, the late president of the Lilydale RSL, who made a significant contribution to our community. The hundreds of entries were so well received, and it was heartening to see so many local school students pay tribute to our Anzacs through their writing. It was wonderful to visit these schools to meet the winners and the finalists of the competition, who were selected by the local RSL presidents. Congratulations again to the winner, Matilda, and finalist Jonathan, both from Rolling Hills Primary School; finalist Tahlee, from Wandin North Primary School; and finalists Lara and Kyla, from Montrose Primary School. Thank you to all the students who participated in the competition.

For more than 40 years, the Urban Camp in Parkville has opened its doors to people from all across Australia, welcoming them in to experience the very best of Melbourne. Urban Camp turns the traditional camp on its head, inviting kids from the country into the city to experience what Melbourne has to offer in the same way that kids from the city head into the bush. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Urban Camp. What stood out to me was the heart of the place. It was more than just a place for kids to sleep. It was a gateway to Melbourne. It opened Melbourne up to school students, sporting groups, community groups, disability groups, regional families and interstate visitors. It brought children into Melbourne to visit our theatres, our museums, our laneways and our sporting precincts and connected it with organisations like the Big Issue Classroom, helping young people engage with stories of resilience and disadvantage in ways which stay with them long after they return home. That is what makes it so special.

A sporting group can come into the city and watch a game at the G or feel the heart of Melbourne's sporting precinct. For the disability community, it might be a young person building confidence away from home for the first time, learning new skills, making friends and gaining independence in a safe and supportive environment. It also provides support for families and carers, giving them the opportunity to recharge in the knowledge that their loved ones are supported. Programs like this strengthen not only the individuals but the entire families and communities that love them. That is what Urban Camp does. It makes the possible practical. That matters because fairness is not only something we talk about in this place; it's something that families should feel in their everyday life.

Each year, Urban Camp welcomes thousands of visitors through its doors, and each year it operates at capacity. That tells us the need is real. It tells us schools and community groups are looking for an affordable way to experience Melbourne. It tells us regional and interstate communities want to be part of culture and sporting education life in our city. It tells us that Urban Camp has built something trusted. But it also tells us there's an opportunity to do more. Urban Camp wants to expand so it can welcome more groups, more students, more community organisations and more visitors into Melbourne. I support that work because Melbourne is a city that welcomes people in. That is the Melbourne I love—a city of laneways, libraries, footy scarves and theatre curtains, a city that says, 'Come in, have a look and be a part of this.' So thank you to Urban Camp for the work you do, and thank you for the kids that have come to enjoy Melbourne.

Right across the Fisher electorate there are tradies, cafe owners and small-business operators who are watching this government with deep suspicion. Small businesses make a vital and multilayered contribution to the Australian economy. As drivers of innovation, wealth creation and employment for millions of Australians, these businesses are built on personal risk, years of sacrifice and a genuine stake in the places and people they serve. Now Labor is telling thousands of them that the structure they built their livelihood around is 'a vehicle for avoiding tax'. The Prime Minister stood before the Victorian Labor conference last weekend and asked contemptuously whether Australians sit around the kitchen table thinking about setting up a trust. Well, the answer, of course, is yes. Many of them do. It's not because they are wealthy and not because they're rorting the system. They've done it because their accountant sat across from them when they were starting out and said, 'Here's your company structure and here's the trust that will protect your family home if things go wrong.' The ATO's own data shows that 60 per cent of all trust distributions flow to beneficiaries earning less than $120,000 a year. These are not hedge fund managers. They are mums and dads trying to keep their dreams alive and trying to protect their assets.

COSBOA has warned that the restructuring costs will fall hardest on the smallest operators, the very people who are least equipped to absorb them. The irony is that the genuinely wealthy, with their complex structures and advisers, will find their way through. The 30 per cent minimum tax does not distinguish between sophisticated tax planning and a family that uses a trust for the same reason they have a lock on their front door.

But there is a second group being caught in this net, and their situation is even more troubling. A wills and estates lawyer from my electorate has written to me about testamentary discretionary trusts. These trusts only come into existence because someone has died. They exist to protect inheritances for children, widows, disabled beneficiaries and vulnerable adults. There are fewer than 11,000 of them in Australia. This is a tax on grief, and the idea that traumatised families must now engage lawyers and accountants to restructure an estate while still processing their loss is nothing short of cruel.

The coalition will oppose these measures. The people of Fisher deserve a government that honours what they have built and protects what they have lost, not one that sends them yet another tax bill for it. This government, when it runs out of money, comes after yours.

Recent footage of the Israeli government minister Itamar Ben-Gvir taunting detained flotilla activists heading to Palestine highlights the arrogance, brutality and disregard for international law of the Netanyahu government. My understanding is that there were two recent interceptions of the flotilla, which consisted of 70 boats and 3,000 participants from 100 countries, including 17 Australians. With them was a dedicated medical fleet of 1,000 healthcare professionals carrying vital supplies to support Gaza's decimated healthcare system. Credible reports, including firsthand accounts from flotilla activists, allege violence and degrading sexual abuse towards some of those detained.

If the treatment of the flotilla members was perpetrated by any other country, there would be universal outrage throughout the community and across this chamber, but, because it is Israel, there has hardly been a murmur. There are also allegations that dual Australian-Israeli citizens have returned to Israel and participated in Israeli military operations that are now the subject of war crimes investigations.

One can only imagine the brutality and cruelty of how Palestinian prisoners are treated, and I do not dismiss allegations of sexual assault, rape and torture of Palestinians in Israeli detention centres, as has been reported time and again and which Israel continues to deny. Simultaneously, the Israeli settlements in the West Bank continue, in breach of international law and after international condemnation.

I commend the Albanese government for joining with several other Western countries in calling for:

… the Government of Israel to end its expansion of settlements and administrative powers, ensure accountability for settler violence and investigate allegations against Israeli forces, respect the Hashemite custodianship over Jerusalem's Holy Sites and the historic status quo arrangements, and lift financial restrictions on the PA—

Palestinian Authority—

and the Palestinian economy.

These are not the words of radicals but of the leaders of nine Western countries.

I also note that Israeli ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir were sanctioned last June by the governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom for inciting extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. However, there needs to be stronger measures taken because whilst the Israeli government has the backing of the USA it will continue to ignore global opinion and international law.

Is the Albanese Labor government waiting for older Australians to die so they don't have to provide them with Support at Home? Right now more than 230,000 Australians are waiting for aged-care services. The average wait time is 12 months, and 5,000 people have died while on that waiting list. This is a national disgrace, which the Prime Minister might recall he actually called the coalition government when the numbers were nowhere near this. The government has been secretive about data on wait times, dumping update data in the Senate on budget night—hidden, apparently. Labor has kicked critical price protections down the road and it clearly cannot manage the system. As usual, Labor is good with the spin and shocking at governing.

I want to thank Jonathan Lea and Sky News for sharing Mallee constituent stories in his excellent investigative report. The minister tried to head it off with a snap media release, but, like Labor's budget, his spin fell flat. Steve Willman is a physiotherapist in Mildura who has raised serious concerns about patients who are being consistently charged $215 for one-hour consultations through their home care package, despite the consultation being charged at $75 by Steve. He is outraged, and with very good reason, because people's packages are running dry and services are running out. Elderly Australians are being slugged with hidden, inflated costs, eroding the very funding intended for their care.

Brent Janetzski shared the story of his father Ian, a deaf man assessed for functionality on the phone. Why does Labor think this is okay? This is a system so out of touch it cannot even deliver appropriate assessment. Wendy Shelton is caring for her husband Serge, who lives with dementia. She is battling delays, rising costs and restrictions on funds while trying to keep her husband safe at home. This is a government that is out of touch. Julie Lewis—these people are all from my electorate—has been assessed as high needs. She has contacted every provider within 250 kilometres for services. No-one can help her. Everybody's books are closed. She's been told the waitlist for services is 12 months. Older Australians deserve transparency. The Albanese Labor government is failing them, and the minister must do better.

It was great to join with the Australian Jasmine Families and spend time with families to see some of their wonderful activities in action. The opportunity to engage and learn more about the social, cultural and family programs organised by Australian Jasmine Families made for a very enjoyable afternoon. What stood out most was seeing people of all ages come together through song, dance, activities, conversation and the sense of connection. It was a reminder that communities are built through shared experiences, traditions and relationships.

Australia has been shaped and strengthened by generations of migrants from around the world. The cultures, languages and traditions families bring with them contribute to the diverse Australia we all share today. Gatherings like these play an important role in helping people connect, support one another and maintain strong community ties. Community organisations such as AJF help preserve culture and tradition and create opportunities for people to build confidence, connection and a sense of belonging within the broader Australian community. Thank you again for the warm welcome extended to me and for the important work you do in bringing families together and strengthening community connections every day.

I'd like to acknowledge the wonderful work of the Turkish sub-branch of RSL Victoria for its dedication and ongoing commitment to bringing the community together in commemorating Anzac Day. Each year, the branch president, Ramazan Altintas, and his wonderful family devote considerable time, care and effort to ensuring this important occasion is marked with dignity and meaning. Their dedication plays an important role in preserving the traditions and values that Anzac Day represents, while creating opportunities for people from all backgrounds and generations to come together in reflection and remembrance. This work not only honours the service and sacrifice of the Anzacs but also reinforces the deep friendship and mutual respect between Australia and Turkiye, a bond forged through history and remembrance, and strengthened through enduring friendship. The commemorations they help lead are a powerful example of remembrance, recognition and respect, ensuring that the spirit of Anzac Day continues to be carried across generations and communities, while highlighting the enduring connection between our two nations.

Anzac commemorations across my community reflected on the strength of the human spirit as we remembered those who made the ultimate sacrifice. They also served as a reminder of the importance of unity, compassion and service to others, values that continue to shape and strengthen our communities right across Australia today. Thank you for your contribution to representing the legacy of Anzac Day and for strengthening the spirit that this national day of remembrance represents.

Mackay has recently proven that, when the regions are given the baton, we don't just run with it; we lead. Earlier this month, the 2026 North Queensland Games brought thousands of athletes to Dawson to compete across 40 different sports. The execution of these games was a gold-medal moment, proving that our local spirit has the stamina to host the world without breaking a sweat. Our regions are match fit for the ultimate big league: the Olympics. Should cricket be confirmed in the 2032 Games, Mackay is positioned as a leading contender. In the hunt for Olympic sailing success, the glistening waters of the Whitsundays would be the ultimate natural stadium for this event. The athletes who are representing us in 2032 will be those competing at regional events, just like the NQ Games. The true power of events like this is found in the hearts of the athletes who clear the hardest and highest hurdles to compete.

On a personal note, I was proud to watch a member of my staff return to the Masters Athletics after facing a brutal battle with cancer. Stepping back into the circle for the first time since chemotherapy, she claimed silver in the hammer throw. It was a true milestone moment, and, for the athletes like her, the bling is brilliant. But the real glory lies in the courage to get back on the field.

I applaud every single athlete who came to Mackay. They didn't just compete; they showed us the very best of our regional spirit, and they proved that the road to 2032 begins in our backyard.

While the North Queensland Games showcased the pinnacle of elite athletic endurance, you haven't seen anything until you've witnessed the high stakes, high drama of the Norm Perry Memorial Duck Race in Ayr. This is ducks for bucks at Plantation Creek. The competition is fierce, the sack races are brutal and the fashions on the field are judged on creativity and style. Forget the Melbourne Cup! The real race that stops the nation happens in the bountiful Burdekin, where duck No. 223 stormed down the creek to take the crown.

Beyond the old-fashioned fun, this timeless tradition floats on regional heart: it's driven by community pride and is a mighty good cause. Every duck in that water was raising vital funds for Ronald McDonald House, supporting families when they need it the most. My hat goes off to the Rotary Club of Ayr for organising another quacking success and proving that regional generosity always makes a massive splash.

That is a hard act to follow indeed.

Like many members, I want to rise to acknowledge the service history of my electorate—a federation seat, the electorate of Hindmarsh—particularly reflected through the Anzac services that took place late last month. I was honoured, once again, to serve as the MC at the 2026 Semaphore and Port Adelaide RSL dawn service. This was the largest crowd I remember in almost 20 years of playing that role at that service. Well over 10,000 people turned out from the local community. I want to thank them for showing their support for that local RSL sub-branch and for returned service men and women and families, particularly of those who made the ultimate sacrifice, from the western suburbs of Adelaide.

I want to acknowledge the president of the sub-branch, Derek Meadows; Daryl Mundy, who is on the committee and who, year after year, puts in the hard work to organise this very significant community event; and all of the officers of that RSL. I also want to acknowledge the Henley RSL, the Largs sub-branch, the Seaton sub-branch, the Plympton Glenelg sub-branch and the Port Adelaide Naval Association for their work.

Our community has a very long history with armed services, dating back to before Federation in 1901, particularly with the construction of Fort Largs and Fort Glanville in the 1870s and 1880s, which were designed to protect Adelaide shipping lanes into Port Adelaide against Russian attack, which was the major preoccupation that the colonies had at that time. That role with the Defence Force has continued right through the ensuing 150 years or so.

I want to share one little-known story about that association from the Second World War. In 1941, two seamen, who were stationed at the Port Adelaide naval base as part of the Navy's mine clearance program, were sent down to Beachport to disarm a German mine that had washed ashore in that part of South Australia. Able Seaman Thomas Todd and Able Seaman William Danswan, sadly, did not return to Port Adelaide that day after discharging their mine-disarming duties. Their loss marked the first Australian deaths on Australian soil during World War II as a result of enemy activity—in this case, the laying of mines on our coast.

Over the decades, our western suburbs have continued in that tradition, both before World War II and after, now culminating in the role that Osborne plays—particularly in the construction of our shipbuilding and submarine capabilities, which will be there for decades to come.

Today I rise to acknowledge the extraordinary life of Cecilia 'Cis' Sounness OAM, a woman whose remarkable longevity and unwavering commitment to her Plantagenet community leave a legacy few could ever match. Cis Sounness passed away on 19 April at the remarkable age of 103. Hers was a long life, filled from beginning to end with service, generosity and an enduring belief in the importance of community.

One of six children, Cis was born to Collie and Alice Moir in 1922 and raised on the family farm at Amelup. In 1941, both of her parents were tragically killed in a road accident on the Kalgan River bridge. In July 1943, Cis married Frank Sounness, and bred Santa Gertrudis cattle on their Merryup Farm and grew apples on their Muir Highway orchard.

Cis became not just a resident of the district but one of its most recognisable and respected figures. Her service to the community spanned more than eight decades. She was a member of the Mount Barker Golf Club for 70 years, serving as ladies captain, president and patron, and was still playing at the ripe old age of 100. She was a foundation member of the Plantagenet Village Homes, a dedicated hospital volunteer and a constant supporter of local sporting clubs, church and community activities.

Cis exemplified what it means to give back, and her contributions were rightly recognised over the years. In 1992 she was named Citizen of the Year for community service in the Shire of Plantagenet. She received the WA Volunteer Service badge in 2013, and in 2021 she was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia, one of our nation's highest honours.

Yet perhaps her greatest achievement was as a loving mother of three, grandmother of six, great-grandmother of 12 and great-great-grandmother of four. I know she was a role model to countless generations, setting the example of a life grounded in kindness, humility and a genuine willingness to help others. On behalf of the broader O'Connor community, I extend my heartfelt condolences to her family and loved ones.

In celebrating a life so well lived, we are reminded of the profound impact that one person can have. Cecilia Sounness OAM will be deeply missed by all who loved her, but her legacy will endure in the community she helped build and in the generations she inspired.

It was a pleasure to attend the Mother's Day breakfast hosted at Bexley North Public School recently. The morning brought together students, parents, carers and teachers to celebrate the important women in our lives, who provide endless love and support to the next generation. What stood out to me the most was learning about the school's impressive student parliamentary program. Students take on leadership roles, including the position of Prime Minister, with a ministry set up as well, and they actively participate in debating ideas, presenting and drafting motions and voting on initiatives that impact school life. I was very much inspired to see young people developing their confidence, teamwork and public speaking skills at such a young age.

I had the opportunity to speak with some of the students about my role as the federal member for Barton and share some insight into how our parliamentary system operates. Programs like this help bring civics and democracy to life in a very practical and engaging way. I want to thank Ms Danielle Scott—the principal—the P&C, teachers, parents and the students for organising such a wonderful event and for fostering future community leaders with such enthusiasm and care.

I recently also had the pleasure of attending an annual dinner of the St George and Sutherland Medical Research Foundation. It was an evening that highlighted the extraordinary work undertaken in our local health network. I want to sincerely thank Pam Brown and all the members of the board for their dedication, leadership and passion in supporting medical research that changes lives. Their commitment ensures that researchers at St George hospital and Sutherland hospital can continue groundbreaking work that improves patient outcomes and strengthens our healthcare system.

I particularly want to acknowledge Professor Emad El-Omar, the director of the Microbiome Research Centre in Kogarah, whose internationally recognised work on the gut microbiome is advancing our understanding of disease prevention and human health. I also want to congratulate the grant recipients recognised on the evening: Dr Joyce Chiu, Dr Michelle Fitzmaurice, Thisun Jayawardana and Dr Jennifer Wen Ying Lim. Their dedication and expertise in research excellence give our community hope for a healthier future. I am also a scientist by trade, and I know the importance of investing in research, innovation and evidence-based medicine. Behind every breakthrough are passionate researchers working tirelessly to improve and save lives. Our community is incredibly fortunate to have such talented people contributing to the world-class medical research in St George and Sutherland.

We're all trying to summit a different horizon in our lives. Many young Australians are looking to the future with confidence, as they should be, but few would say the pathway to success is scaling Everest. Bianca Adler from St Leonards College, though, is one. Since she was little it has been her dream to summit the tallest mountain in the world—the 8,849 metres of ice and altitude between her and the top of the world. She tried to summit once before and got within 400 metres before, sadly, being turned around. She spent months acclimatising and rotating through camps in Nepal. She didn't face it alone. Her family, her school community and her coaches and mentors gave her the tools, the belief and the preparation to do something truly extraordinary.

On 20 May, Bianca Adler stood on the top of the world, becoming the youngest Australian ever to summit Mount Everest, something that should make her incredibly proud. On behalf of the entire Parliament of Australia, congratulations, Bianca, on your record feat. Our community is cheering you on for what you have done but also for what is yet to come. Keep going!

One of the most important things is to encourage young Australians to become self-starters and to get on with their lives and achieve great things. Every time people open a new small business, they are encouraging commercial hope and encouraging others to get ahead and to back themselves in. This isn't a speech about the budget; though it could easily be. Let's talk about good news for a change, because what we know in the Goldstein electorate is there are so many self-starters and small businesses that want to get ahead, so the Sandy Street Art Project and Bayside City Council set out to encourage young Australians to be able to get ahead. Last Saturday in Melrose Street in Sandringham, the council ran the Young Creators Market, a real market with real stalls and customers, and 12- to 18-year-olds discovering what it actually feels like to run a business before they've even finished year 12. There I met so many different young creators, from those creating crocheted items for sale to young people who go to their friends' birthday parties and bend balloons. I even now have in the Goldstein office in federal parliament some of Felix's smoked salts. He not only smokes the salt—it goes beautifully on food; I can confirm that—but he also plants trees for offset. There were many stallholders there who shared what they learned about set-up cost, product ideas and how to make things work out commercially. It worked. I was there, and it was something they should be immensely proud of. So, to all the young creators, keep going. We believe in you.

It has long been my passion and commitment to listen to, learn from and empower younger generations. It is why I became a youth worker and it is why, as the member for Dunkley, I pledged in my first speech to do all I can to support young Australians and ensure their voices are heard and listened to, and that they have the skills and confidence to lead change into the future. That commitment is what inspired the inaugural Dunkley Emerging Leaders Program, which concluded last Friday, with a presentation event showcasing the passion of young people from our community.

Throughout the program, we heard from an extraordinary group of 18- to 25-year-olds, emerging leaders who explored their sense of purpose—their why—and identified the change they want to see in the Dunkley community. Their insights, empathy and determination were genuinely inspiring. Through the program, participants explored leadership, change-making and conflict resolution while also learning the often-understated importance of kindness and respect. In doing so, they grew in confidence, strengthened their self-esteem, and developed a deeper understanding of how they can contribute positively to our community.

I want to sincerely thank the Speaker of the House for working with us to mentor the group. His stories and reflections demonstrated the power of authentic leadership and the importance of seeing people beyond the tip of the iceberg. I also thank Senator Darmanin, Rod Glover and the many special guests who contributed their time and experience to guiding these young leaders.

When we create opportunities, young people engage, and this group rose to the challenge. I've been incredibly inspired by the calibre and by the thoughtful ideas they shared for the future of Dunkley. The value of this program was reinforced through a recent event hosted by the Committee of Frankston and Mornington Peninsula, where 100 young leaders from schools across the electorate discussed the challenges they face. The impacts of social media, artificial intelligence, housing affordability and cost-of-living pressures were common themes. These issues are complex, considerable and in many ways unprecedented, and young people were talking about how these issues impact their mental health and wellbeing. The world our young people is navigating is volatile and unpredictable, but the leaders I met showed me they are ready for that challenge. They are keen to work collaboratively, authentically, and are determined to lift others up as they go.

The great thing about the internet is the humour, and I have been seeing all these jokes and memes. I am not a big fan of the AI generated images of the PM, but businesses are so frustrated that they are putting up these images. They're putting up these images where you've got the Prime Minister—in the one I saw this morning, there's a guy on the building site digging a hole, and he's got the PM holding his arms around him. This theme goes on and on. The message now is that PM Albanese and the Labor government basically own 50 per cent of their business simply due to the high taxes and also, in particular, the capital gains tax changes, the trust changes and the negative gearing changes. It makes it really tough. If you've planned ahead in a small business, whether it be a person who may be in a hairdresser or a butcher or a tradie or whatever it is—in particular, tradies in La Trobe have been hit really hard. You've arranged income splitting on the accountant's advice, and now you've got the situation where—I spoke to people yesterday. People, especially from my multicultural communities, are all going and seeing their accountants at the moment. With booking and seeing the accountant once, you have to pay a fee to see the accountant, but the accountant is saying, 'We're expecting some changes,' and is saying to come back.

If the Labor members don't think this is going to hurt them when it comes to small business, in particular the multicultural community, I can tell you now the feedback I'm getting is absolutely red hot. They are really concerned about the changes they need to make for their future when they've planned ahead maybe 10 years. It's of great concern. I know that the Labor members—and I've heard the Treasurer and the Prime Minister speak about how all this is going to benefit young people and make it fairer. I ask them to listen to the interview with their own treasurer. The Daily Aus editor in chief, Billy FitzSimons was asking questions to the Treasurer. He obviously didn't have a clue about the impacts on young people. Concerns were raised by her in questions about facing higher rents, mortgages and financial uncertainty. The data suggests thriving they're but live lives of telling stories—it's going to make their lives so much tougher in the future. I just say to the Labor members, you're going to have to change this in particular for the trust, because you're hurting so many small businesses right across the country.

Last week, as the federal member for Lilley, I was very pleased to have the opportunity during National Volunteers Week to recognise the exceptional service of 40 volunteers across our northside community. The annual Lilley Volunteers Awards breakfast, which was held at the Geebung Bowls Club, is our way of saying thank you to volunteers, to leaders, to mentors and to organisations whose work is often performed quietly behind the scenes but whose impact is felt right across Lilley. Through service, leadership, advocacy and practical support, each recipient has made a meaningful difference.

It was wonderful to honour young recipients like Clara Scott, age 11, of Chermside West, who has already contributed hundreds and hundreds of hours of volunteer service to her community through school events, through reading support, through the Chermside & Districts Historical Society projects, through scouting and through Parkrun; and Archie Dutschke. Each week, 16-year-old Archie gives his time to Auskick at the Aspley Hornets, encouraging younger children as they build skills, teamwork and confidence through sport. His reliability and quiet leadership have made him an invaluable part of the team at the Aspley Hornets, and we appreciate him.

In contrast, we also honoured 16 northside residents for the Elaine Darling Lifetime Contribution to Volunteering Awards who have collectively given hundreds of years of service to their respective communities and organisations. These are people like 90-year-old Mavis Baxter from Wavell Heights, who began volunteering at the tender age of 16 at Norths rugby league club and has continued serving her community for decades across sporting and historical organisations like Nundah amateur swim club and the Nundah & Districts Historical Society in her later years. Her lifetime of selfless service, including recognition through life memberships at several organisations, reflects a remarkable legacy of contribution to her community.

There is also the late Beverley Donaghey. For three decades, Bev was a driving horse driving force behind the Boondall Synchronized Ice Skating Club. As president, she helped shape the club. She helped promote the sport locally and beyond as an international team leader for Australia. We celebrate Bev's extraordinary contribution and we farewell her with gratitude.

At the awards breakfast, we also welcomed some of the nearly 30 not-for-profit organisations who will share in over $66,000 thanks to the 2026-2027 Lilley volunteer grants program, funded by the Albanese Labor government. The successful applicants were selected from nearly 60 expressions of interest. The Lilley volunteer grants recognise the vital role volunteers play in building resilience and cohesive communities. Grants of up to $5,000 will be delivered via the Department of Social Services to help community organisations to support their volunteers.

Congratulations to all the award winners and to the successful grant applicants. We really appreciate you.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

In the October-December 2025 period, 46 per cent of patients were T4 or T5—that's low acuity—to Manning Base Hospital, but the T2 treatments that were on time in terms of servicing were 35.1 per cent, and T3 had 39.2 per cent treatment on time. Now let me compare this to Maitland Hospital. Maitland has an urgent care clinic—in fact, it was a commitment that I made and my Liberal Party colleague in the seat of Paterson made at the last election. In comparison, at Maitland Hospital 39.6 per cent of presentations were T4 or T5, yet the T2 treatment on time was 79 per cent and T3 was 60.1 per cent. In those figures alone you can see the benefit to hospital ED when you have an urgent care clinic available for low acuity, for people that could go and see a GP if one were available.

In my prebudget submission to the government back in January, under portfolio funding priorities for health, the Taree urgent care clinic was the No. 1 priority. I talked about what redirecting suitable T4 and T5 presentations to an urgent care clinic would mean. They would relieve pressure on the ED, and we can see that from those Maitland statistics. Free ED spaces and clinician time for high acuity presentations. Reduce overall waiting times and the of patients staying greater than four hours. Reduce ambulance offload delays by clearing ED capacity and reducing bottlenecks. Improve patient experience with faster treatment for low acuity problems in an Urgent Care Clinic model and make better use of workforce nurse practitioners' GP procedural skills. They can manage many of the T4-T5 problems at lower cost than an ED. I went on to say in my pre-budget submission that redirecting even 30 to 50 per cent of those annual presentations to an urgent care clinic would remove 5,000 to 8½ thousand presentations per year from the ED. That's 13 to 23 per day on average. It would deliver notable noticeable improvements in ED capacity and wait times. That exact same language I have said in numerous letters to the minister, laying out the case for an urgent care clinic in my area.

Let me give some more context. I know 'What about Taree?' is a bit of a catchcry in the parliament, and I know many people from across the chamber now know where Taree is, but I want to give some more context for why I'm so passionate about getting this facility in my electorate. Taree has an Indigenous population of some 12.7 per cent. There are a lot of Birrbay and Warrimay people who live in the Lyne electorate, who live in and around Taree from a population of about 25,000 people across the greater Taree area. So it is not only for the broader population but also specifically for a population with a significant Aboriginal population. This is a facility that would be of significant benefit and use to them.

The other context I want to give is the state of our public hospital in Taree. I grew up in and around Taree. As I've said, I went to school in Taree. We were very proud of Manning Base Hospital, back in those days. But I looked on NSW Health's site, and they don't even call it a base hospital anymore; it's now called Manning Hospital. When we, the Nationals, were in government in the New South Wales state parliament, we put aside a significant amount of money for redevelopment at what I'm still going to call Manning Base Hospital.

Recently, there have been significant concerns in the community about the state of the redevelopment, and questions have been put to Hunter New England Local Health District about these concerns about the future of the stage 2 redevelopment, and, frankly, they have been less than forthcoming. I'll read from an article from the local paper: 'The community has waited more than five years for the promised stage 2 upgrade, but, since the administration building was demolished in July 2025, there appears to be no activity on site, and the health district has ignored questions regarding whether hospital bed numbers will be slashed from 112 to 84 and whether floors 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the existing hospital will be closed on completion.'

The Manning Great Lakes Community Health Action Group and their president, Eddie Wood—and these are experienced health professionals, who are actively fighting for health services in our area—have raised these concerns and are bitterly disappointed about the response from the New South Wales Labor government and from the local health district. I'll read what he said in this article: 'What we're actually getting after 10 years is an incomplete building that does not meet the original stage 2 plan to meet the needs of our area. It is disgusting—absolutely disgusting. We're already so short of beds, it's causing bed block.'

So I want the parliament, the government and the minister for health to understand that my impassioned plea for an urgent care clinic is not just on the basis of having a service for T4 and T5. It is in the context of the serious concerns the community has about the state of health services in Taree and the area.

Interestingly, I had a retired doctor come and speak to me only last week in the electorate. He had been a GP in the area for well over 40 years. He is now retired, but his career as a GP basically spanned a very significant part in our area. He enlightened me that, under a former coalition government, in the Howard years, we actually had an after-hours GP program that was funded, and he, in fact, had received that funding for his clinic to provide after-hours, fully-bulk-billed, no-appointment-needed care. And what he said to me, in two words, was: 'It worked'—it worked for the people of the Manning. That's from the horse's mouth—from somebody who knows the value of an urgent care clinic, not just for his own business but for the people of Taree and the Manning area. An urgent care clinic has worked in our area. We desperately need one now. And he agreed.

In fact, I met another doctor, from a clinic in Tuncurry, only last week as well, and he too is impassioned about getting an urgent care clinic for the Forster-Tuncurry area. I'm so grateful that my colleague Tanya Thompson, the member for Myall Lakes, has been successful in securing state funding for an urgent care clinic under their model for Forster-Tuncurry. So she's fighting that battle, and I'm fighting for the federal funds to come for the urgent care clinic for Taree.

I wrote to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon. Mark Butler, after the announcement, prior to the budget, that there will be additional funding and they're locking in the urgent care clinic model, and I thanked the government for that commitment. But I asked him: 'Is there funding for Taree?' I can't be much clearer—I can't make the case any more clearly to him. Is the budget commitment providing funding for an urgent care clinic for Taree?

As I've said, there is not a clinic between Coffs Harbour and Newcastle. It's pretty hard for me, let alone for my constituents, to have to sit here and hear colleagues on the other side get up and say, 'We're about to get our second,' or, 'We're about to get our third urgent care clinic.' Are we not Australians? Are we not equal citizens in the eyes of this government? We're an area of low socioeconomic means, an area of great need in terms of the number of GPs we have per head of population. The case I've made in terms of the challenges that we have at Manning Base Hospital—surely, the minister cannot ignore the need on the Mid North Coast. Surely he is not so cruel as to take joy in announcing more urgent care clinics in electorates that already have them while denying one for the people of the Mid North Coast.

There are Labor members in the Lyne electorate. I think Labor got 20 per cent of the vote. What message is he sending to them? Come on, Minister, we need an urgent care clinic.

I'm really pleased to be able to speak on the 2026-27 Women's Budget Statement, which is a statement that reflects not only a set of policies but also a vision for the kind of country we want Australia to be—that is, a country where women are safer, where women are healthier, where women are paid fairly, valued properly, and given every opportunity to participate fully in our economy and thrive in our society. We know that when women do well, Australia does well, and that is exactly why the Albanese Labor government has made gender equality a central issue to our government and a core economic priority.

As the Women's Budget Statement says, creating greater opportunity for women is central to building a stronger, more productive and more resilient nation. Labor has a proud history here. It was the Hawke Labor government that introduced the world's first Women's Budget Statement in the 1980s, and it was the Albanese Labor government that restored it in 2022, because we understand that budgets are not gender neutral. The decisions made in this chamber shape the lives of Australians differently, and good governments must recognise that reality.

We have a caucus made up of a majority of women, one that is reflective of Australia and our communities, and that's why our government introduced gender-responsive budgeting, ensuring that gender equality is considered in budget decisions and embedded at the centre of economic policy. The results are already being seen. Women's labour-force participation reached a record high in 2025. The gender pay gap has fallen to an historic low of 11.5 per cent. Women's full-time ordinary earnings have increased by more than $290 a week since May 2022. Australia's global ranking for gender equality has risen dramatically from 43rd in 2022 to 13th today.

Those outcomes did not happen by accident. Those outcomes came about through deliberate decisions, ones directly informed by women around the table in our government and in our communities. These deliberate decisions include those like cheaper child care, expanding paid parental leave, backing pay rises for aged-care workers and early childhood educators, and making gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act.

For too long women's work was undervalued. There is, of course, still a lot of work to do for real sustained equality, but it is a focus of this government, and we are determined to do what is necessary to achieve that real and sustained equality. For too long the sectors dominated by women—care, education, community services—were treated as secondary to the economy, when in reality they are foundational to it. Our government understands that care work is nation-building work. Through our government, we're finally seeing that reflected in policy and in outcomes for workers.

The Women's Budget Statement highlights the government's investments in early childhood education and care, including the continuation of cheaper childcare reforms, the Building Early Education Fund and the three-day guarantee that commenced earlier this year, saving households on average $1,490 each year. These are reforms that make an enormous difference for women balancing work and caring responsibilities and, of course, have impact on their families and their communities.

Too many women throughout history have faced impossible choices—and still do—between career progression and family responsibilities, between paid work and unpaid care and between financial security and flexibility. Our budget continues the work of breaking down those barriers and of making decisions less difficult for families. We recognise unpaid care as real work. This is work that sustains families, sustains communities and sustains the economy itself.

Housing security is also fundamental to women's equality and safety. Unfortunately, we know that it is women, particularly older women, who are one of the fastest growing groups of people experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness in Australia. Our government is addressing this issue by investing in social and affordable housing, supporting renters through increased Commonwealth rent assistance and helping first home buyers into the market. For women and children escaping violence, this budget continues critical investment in crisis and transitional accommodation. No woman should have to choose between violence and homelessness.

The Women's Budget Statement rightly and clearly places gender based violence at the centre of the national conversation. It states clearly that gender equality cannot be achieved while women continue to experience violence and abuse in their homes, workplaces, communities and online. This is a truth we must face honestly, no matter how confronting. Nobody should lose their life to violence, and every woman living in fear is a failure of the systems around her. This is a system failure. She has been failed. Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions here. But, despite that, there must be determined action.

Our government has now invested more than $4.4 billion under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. This includes support through the Leaving Violence program, additional frontline workers, investment in prevention and early intervention and measures to address systems abuse and economic abuse. Importantly, this budget also supports the first standalone First Nations led national strategy to end family, domestic and sexual violence, recognising that lasting change must be community led and must be culturally informed.

The Women's Budget Statement also reflects something that many women have said for years: women's health issues have often been ignored, dismissed and certainly underfunded. We know that, for too long, women's pain has been minimised, women's conditions have been overlooked, and women's health outcomes have suffered as a result. Our government is changing that. Our landmark women's health investments continue in this budget, from cheaper contraceptives to expanded endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, menopause support, bulk-billing investments and improved access to Medicare services. These reforms matter because health care should work for women at every age and every stage of life. It also reflects the principle that women deserve to be listened to.

We know that representation matters in this place. That's the system our democracy is built on. So it follows that, when women are in rooms representing our communities where decisions are made, outcomes improve. We are more representative. Policies become more responsive. Institutions become stronger. Democracies become fairer. I spoke earlier this year about the importance of different voices being heard in positions of leadership and decision-making. I said then that positive change happens when women's voices are included in the rooms where decisions are made. This parliament is now the most gender balanced in Australia's history, with women making up nearly half of all parliamentarians at the opening of the 48th Parliament. This progress really does matter because young women and girls should be able to look at this parliament, at all institutions, indeed, and at leadership across the country and see themselves reflected there.

Representation alone is not enough, though. We must continue the work of dismantling the structural barriers that hold women back economically, socially and politically. Around the world, we're seeing women's rights challenged and rolled back. We're seeing growing misogyny online. We're seeing new threats emerge through technology, exploitation and disinformation. This tells us that progress cannot be taken for granted.

Earlier this year, reflecting on International Women's Day, I spoke about the activism of Zelda D'Aprano and her belief that progress builds person by person, voice by voice, to build a strong movement. That spirit of collective progress is at the heart of the Women's Budget Statement. We understand that equality is not achieved in one budget, one parliament or one generation. It requires sustained effort, it requires persistence and it requires governments willing to make choices that will shape a fairer future. Our budget contributes to that effort. We are investing in women's safety through this budget, as well as women's economic security and women's health and care. I'm really proud to speak on this statement in the House today.

Delivering for women matters for everyone. When women are safe, healthy, supported and economically secure, families are stronger, communities are stronger, the economy is stronger and Australia is stronger. A rising tide lifts all boats. I welcome that this government has continued the Women's Budget Statement. Gendered analysis of the budget was abandoned by my predecessor, Tony Abbott, and restoring it was an important step.

But analysis is not enough. This budget was largely underwhelming for women. This Women's Budget Statement rightly identifies many of the key problems—the gender pay gap, women's safety, unpaid care, financial insecurity and the compounding disadvantage faced by First Nations women. But the measures funded in this budget do not meet the scale of the challenge. In too many areas, the budget repackages existing announcements, applies selective gender analysis and celebrates progress against benchmarks that are far too low. There is no published gender analysis of the NDIS reforms that will divert some 160,000 participants to Thriving Kids by 2030 despite the enormous implications for women, who remain the majority of carers. Climate change, which disproportionately affects women in disaster recovery areas, in housing insecurity, in unpaid care and in community resilience, does not even get a mention in the Women's Budget Statement. These are serious omissions if the government wants to seem legitimate with this statement.

There are some really important measures in this budget that I do want to commend in relation to gender equity around child support. I welcome the government's investment of $182.6 million over four years, with $19.6 million ongoing, to improve patient compliance within the Child Support Scheme. It's long overdue and an issue I've raised on many occasions, because unpaid child support keeps women and children in poverty. As a former family law barrister, I have seen firsthand the impact of problems within this system. Child support is too often weaponised after separation, and the government has acknowledged that in this budget.

It's important to know the facts. There's around $2 billion in unpaid child support across Australia. Those payments are owed by 229,000 parents, and about 83 per cent of recipient parents are women. So overwhelmingly this unpaid child support impacts women and—let's be real—it impacts children's because ultimately it is what the children need to grow up healthy and have their needs met. Single Mother Families Australia has also highlighted the scale of the problem. Nearly 300,000 families lose approximately $810 million annually in family payments due to child support income that may never be received. So that's a structural failure. The maintenance income test can be harsher than the income test applied to wages or investment. A mother is often treated by the government as though she has received child support from the former partner when in reality that money has never been paid or arrived. Too often, mothers are left with unpaid child support from an ex-partner and then the Commonwealth seeks to recover a debt from them through the family support payments because it has arisen from their former partner's delay in disclosing their income or attempts to minimise their income to avoid paying child support.

In this context of domestic and family violence, it's deeply concerning that the system can effectively facilitate financial abuse. Parents should not be forced back into conflict, unsafe contact or repeated administrative battles with an abusive former partner simply to secure payments their children are owed. Where there is a debt owed to the Commonwealth, because child support has not been paid or has been under-declared for too long, the Commonwealth should recover that debt from the parent with the child support liability—not, as it currently does, from the parent to whom that debt is owed, who is already carrying the overwhelming burden of care. So this measure in the budget is an important step forward, but it is not the level of reform needed to make this system safe and fair. I've discussed this issue with the minister, who is well aware of the problem. More must be done to rectify this systemic abuse that is occurring, essentially facilitated by the Commonwealth.

The area where the budget falls most seriously short is keeping women and children safe from violence. Domestic and family violence is a national crisis. Women and children escaping violence need safety, secure housing, legal support, trauma informed services and long-term pathways to rebuild their lives. The budget includes $62 million a year to continue action on gender based violence. You'll hear, from many members of government, big numbers extrapolated over numerous years. What you need to do is break it down on a per year basis to understand the real shortfall. Violence against women is estimated to cost the Australian economy $21.7 billion every year. So consider the discrepancy of the scale of the commitment. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce has estimated that $128 billion could be added to the economy by boosting women's workforce participation and productivity. So why are we still underinvesting in the very services that keep women safe and support women's economic security and productivity?

Women's Legal Services Australia has warned that services are already forced to turn away around a thousand women a week. In the same day the budget was announced, Domestic Violence NSW reported a 49 per cent increase in high-risk referrals to services by New South Wales police. This year alone, 29 women and nine children have reportedly been killed by violence from people they knew. That includes five women and two children in the week following the budget. Yet frontline services remain chronically underfunded.

Every budget is a reflection of priorities. If this government is serious about ending violence against women in a generation, it must provide secure, long-term funding for frontline services including women's shelters, legal clinics, counsellors, crisis accommodation and perpetrator-intervention programs. This means listening to organisations calling for at least a 50 per cent increase in frontline service funding just to meet existing demand. We can't keep funding fragmented responses without interrogating the system that continues to fail women and children. We need accountability and we need funding that matches the scale of the crisis. And this is where we have to call out the government and the Prime Minister around the response to the now over 112,000 people who have signed a petition for a royal commission into domestic violence. The Prime Minister, when pressed, said:

We know what keeps women in these relationships. We know what's required … And we need to get on with action …

He said that we don't need a royal commission.

If the government knows what needs to be done, the real question is: are they doing it, and are they doing it to the scale that is really required? And that is what a royal commission can expose. It can force states and territories together, with the federal government, for some accountability around what is really happening. It's too easy to say, 'We know what needs to be done and we're doing it,' but you're not. You have not changed the laws around alcohol, you have not impacted gambling and you have not impacted the drivers. We need the accountability that only a royal commission can provide.

I need to say—and I accept and understand—that many in the industry are tired of providing evidence to various inquiries; there are hundreds of outstanding recommendations. But, again, we need that accountability. A federal royal commission can show how many of those recommendations have not been implemented.

This budget delivers no targeted relief for women in poverty. Lifting income support would have one of the most immediate impacts on women's economic security. The government has said 'no-one left behind', that this is a budget about fairness. But the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has repeatedly called for income support to be increased. That will have an impact on women's economic equality. The Australian Bureau of Statistics say there are more than one million one-parent families in Australia. Most are single mothers, and one-third of single-parent families are living below the poverty line, yet JobSeeker remains below 50 per cent of the minimum wage. Income support remains too low, too conditional and poorly designed for women experiencing coercive control or financial abuse. For example, a woman in an abusive relationship may be disqualified from support because her partner earns a sufficient wage even if she cannot access that income or benefit from it. That is a dangerous policy blind spot. It ignores the reality of financial abuse and coercive control and that poverty can trap women in unsafe relationships.

If the government is serious about women's economic security, it has to lift income support and decouple it from relationship status. The structural pressures that keep women in poverty—unaffordable child care, insecure housing, unpaid care, low-paid feminised work, inadequate support for single parents—continue. You can pat yourself on the back if you want, but there are so many other areas that need to be addressed. Women cannot leave violence if they cannot access housing and those kinds of supports. So, if you're genuine about leaving no-one behind, address these issues.

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

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I would like to speak to the women's budget that has been presented and to recognise what I believe is a deeply significant moment not only for women across Australia but also particularly for the women and families in my electorate of Pearce, where so many people are working hard to build secure futures in one of the fastest-growing communities in the country.

This budget matters deeply to communities like ours because the people of Pearce understand pressure. They understand what it means to juggle mortgage repayments, household costs, childcare costs, school expenses, transport costs and the demands of modern family life while still trying to create opportunities for their children and contribute to their communities. Across suburbs such as Yanchep, Butler, Hocking, Wanneroo, Clarkson and Two Rocks, families are working hard every single day to get ahead, and women are carrying an enormous amount of that responsibility.

What we saw delivered was not simply a collection of announcements but a budget that acknowledges the reality of women's lives and the extraordinary contribution women make to our communities, workplaces, families and economy.

Before anything else, it is important to congratulate the Minister for Women, the Treasurer, every member of government involved in the development of this budget and, equally, the countless advocates, organisations and community leaders whose years of advocacy helped bring these measures into a reality.

Budgets do not emerge in a vacuum. They are shaped by people who continue showing up year after year insisting that governments pay attention to the lived experiences of women, who care that work has value, that safety matters, and that economic equality is not an optional extra but a fundamental requirement of a modern nation. Today's women's budget reflected exactly that understanding.

The 2026-27 Women's Budget Statement made clear that gender equality is now being recognised as a core part of economic policy. It recognised that women's workforce participation has reached record highs, while the gender pay gap has fallen to historic lows, and that these gains are connected to sustained investment in care, safety, health and economic opportunity. That reality is especially visible in large and fast-growing outer suburban communities such as Pearce, where many families are young, where both parents are often working hard to keep up with rising costs and where access to affordable child care and health care can make an enormous difference to everyday life. The significance of this budget lies in the fact that it recognises those realities and responds to them in practical ways.

The continued investment in child care and early education deserves enormous recognition because affordable child care is transformational not only for individual families but also for workforce participation and long-term financial security. The introduction of the three-day guarantee is one of the most important reforms in this area because it ensures eligible families can access three days of subsidised child care each week regardless of activity levels. That matters enormously for families in communities like Pearce, where many parents are juggling casual work, shift work, study or changing employment arrangements.

In communities across Pearce, I regularly meet mothers who want to work more hours but cannot make the childcare arrangements work financially, women trying to return to the workforce after having children and parents balancing shift work with school schedules during a cost-of-living crisis. Every one of those families understands the difference affordable child care can make. It creates opportunities for women to increase their hours of work, return to their careers earlier, pursue leadership positions, undertake study or training, build businesses and participate more fully in economic and civic life. The truth is that childcare policy is economic policy. It is productivity policy. It is equality policy.

The investments in paid parental leave also deserve recognition because they reflect a growing understanding that supporting families during the earliest stages of raising children creates stronger outcomes not only for parents and children but for workplaces and the broader economy. From July this year, government funded paid parental leave will increase to a full six months, building on earlier reforms that introduced superannuation on paid parental leave. These are important reforms because they help reduce the long-term financial penalties women have historically experienced as a result of caring responsibilities.

This budget also recognised the critical importance of women's safety because economic security and personal safety are inseparable. A woman cannot fully participate in education, employment or community life if she is living with violence, insecurity or fear, which is why investments in frontline services, crisis accommodation, prevention programs and support systems are so important. The Women's Budget Statement highlighted that, since 2022, the government has invested more than $4.4 billion toward delivering the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children, including additional investments supporting frontline services and prevention initiatives. Every worker in the family violence sector, every frontline advocate, every counsellor and every support worker who has fought tirelessly for stronger responses to violence against women deserves acknowledgment because much of the progress reflected in this budget has been driven by their persistence and expertise.

The increased focus on women's health also represents an important and long overdue shift in national priorities. For many years, women's health concerns were too often minimised, underfunded or overlooked entirely, despite the fact that women's health directly affects families, workplaces and quality of life across the community. As someone whose own life has been touched personally by breast cancer and MSA, I know how important accessible health care, early intervention and compassionate medical care can be for women and families navigating incredibly difficult circumstances.

This budget includes measures to expand access to cervical cancer treatment through Keytruda, increases support for long-acting reversible contraceptives and continues progress toward universal perinatal mental health screening. These are practical reforms that will improve women's lives in meaningful ways.

One of the most encouraging aspects of this women's budget is the way it demonstrates that sustained advocacy can and does lead to meaningful change. Every community organisation, advocate, researcher and woman who refused to accept inequality as inevitable has helped shape the outcomes we saw delivered this morning. This budget also sends an important message to younger women and girls in Pearce about what they should expect from their government and from society more broadly. Young women in our northern suburbs should expect fair opportunities, fair pay, safer workplaces, stronger support systems and the ability to pursue careers and leadership positions without having to choose between professional ambition and personal responsibilities.

None of this means the work is complete. Women across Australia continue to face very real challenges. The gender pay gap remains. Women remain overrepresented in insecure and lower-paid work. Too many older women are experiencing housing stress. Too many women continue carrying overwhelming caring responsibilities without adequate support. Recognising progress should never mean ignoring the work that remains ahead of us. At the same time, it is important that we allow space to acknowledge meaningful progress when it occurs.

The fact that a women's budget now sits centrally within national economic discussion reflects years of determined effort and represents a genuine shift in how governments understand economic policy itself. What this budget ultimately demonstrates is that policy matters, representation matters and sustained advocacy matters. Most importantly, it demonstrates that governments can make decisions that improve lives in practical and tangible ways.

Today is an opportunity to congratulate everyone involved in bringing these measures forward, to recognise the years of work undertaken by advocates and organisations across the country, and to acknowledge the women and girls whose lives will hopefully become safer, fairer and more secure as a result of these investments. Those outcomes are worth celebrating.

Women matter and their voices matter: that's what I heard growing up in a house full of seven girls and a brother. Mum was a true role model. She was a powerful voice on social justice issues in our community. I've been surrounded by women teachers, coaches, mentors and friends who guided me and lifted me when I needed it. But, despite this, I navigated a world that was built for men. This isn't a criticism at all; it's just a reflection of our society—the norms and the infrastructure that underpin it.

Women make up half our population, yet our issues were often misunderstood, dismissed or ignored. As I reflect on my decades of life, the good news is the world is changing in a very positive way. We know that women getting elected matters, because we can drive the change that women need from within. I want to say to all women across the country, and in Brisbane, that you matter, that the Labor government are listening and that we are delivering for you.

Australia's Women's Budget Statement is more than just a financial document; it's a reflection of what we value as a nation and how seriously we take gender equality. In fact, it was a Labor government that introduced the world's first Women's Budget Statement back in the 1980s, under the legendary prime minister Bob Hawke, and in 2022 the Albanese government brought it back.

For decades, women in Australia have faced structural barriers that impacted their financial security, career progression, health outcomes and retirement savings. Women are still more likely to undertake unpaid work, earn less over a lifetime, experience domestic violence and retire with significantly lower superannuation balances compared to men. But reforms and investments made since 2022 are already improving the lives of women across Australia and will continue to do so into the future, because of budgets like this.

Women's labour force participation reached a record high in 2025. The gender pay gap is at a historic low, at 11.5 per cent, and women's full-time average weekly earnings have grown by almost $300 a week since May 2022. That's an 18 per cent increase. Australia has achieved its highest ever international ranking for gender equality, up at 13th, up from 43rd only five years ago. These gains reflect deliberate choices to put gender equality at the centre of government decision-making.

The Women's Budget Statement exists because budgets are not gender neutral. We get it. This is our fifth Women's Budget Statement, and it reflects our sustained commitment to making gender equality a core economic priority. Every funding decision—it doesn't matter whether it's in health care, child care, taxation, housing or workforce policy—affects men and women differently. At their core, the women's budget statements have focused heavily on key areas such as affordable child care, paid parental leave, women's health, domestic and family violence prevention, housing security and workforce participation.

One of the most significant investments has been in early childhood education and child care. In December 2024, this Labor government took the steps towards universal child care, announcing a three-day childcare guarantee and $1 billion to build and expand childcare centres. Child care is not simply a family issue. It is a family issue, but it's also an economic issue. When childcare costs become unmanageable, women most often are the ones who reduce their working hours or leave the workforce entirely. This does not have to happen now. I look at Elly, a Brisbane local. She's recently had a baby. She's on government paid parental leave with a solid plan to get back into the workforce.

Another major focus has been paid parental leave and superannuation reforms. As I said, historically, caring responsibilities have disproportionately fallen on women. This results in less super in retirement. That is why the government introduced reforms which include changes to the low income superannuation tax offset, payment of superannuation on government funded paid parental leave, increases to the super guarantee and super being paid on payday.

The Women's Budget Statement also acknowledges the devastating national crisis of domestic violence, and ending it is a national priority. Men's violence against women remains distressing, and it's an unacceptable reality. Gender equality cannot be achieved without women being able to feel safe in their homes, in their workplaces, in their communities and online. The government is putting money into this. To support this, the government has invested more than $4.4 billion under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. I acknowledge comments made by those earlier in the House—there is more work to do. But, since that investment, 10,000 victims-survivors have received financial and other support through the Leaving Violence Program in its first five months of operation alone, an additional almost 500 frontline workers have been employed across Australia to support victims-survivors, and almost $1 billion has been invested in emergency accommodation, frontline services, legal support and prevention programs.

Investment in these services recognises that women's safety is fundamental to women's equality. Programs like these have helped Karen, a local Brisbane woman who was escaping domestic violence. She eventually found a place of her own where she was safe and she could live her life her way. She no longer has to ask when to use the washing machine. She can leave the dishes to tomorrow. She can live her life in her home in safety and security.

Importantly, though, this statement also highlights women's health. For too long, areas such as reproductive health, menopause, endometriosis and maternal care have all been underfunded and/or overlooked. The landmark 2025-26 budget women's health package strengthened Medicare to better support women at every stage of their life. It's already delivering real benefits, including cheaper medicines, more choice and expanded access to women's health services, all designed to improve women's health outcomes into the future. Some key outcomes are 33 specialist endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics; more than 380,000 women having access to new, cheaper contraceptives—and that's in the first year alone; 430,000 women having access to new menopausal therapies; and Australia's first national menopause awareness program, which will launch this year.

This is making a real difference in the lives of women. I was at o-week earlier this year, and a student who had no idea that her contraceptives will now be $7.70 literally jumped for joy when she heard the news. There was also a lady I met while doorknocking whose menopausal medicines are now covered by the PBS. She was so happy. She said to me: 'I can now afford those meds, and it means that I can now go outside. I feel confident enough to walk outside my front door.' These are real stories of real people doing better because of this Labor government's focus on women's health. This budget also continues investment in bulk-billing, Medicare urgent care clinics and mental health support, building on the progress already made to improve women's health care. Our increased funding in these areas represents progress towards a healthcare system that better reflects women's real experiences. However, while progress has been made, challenges do remain—we have to acknowledge that. Women continue to be overrepresented in low-paid industries such as nursing and aged care. The gender pay gap still exists. Housing affordability continues to disproportionately affect single mothers and older women. In fact, First Nations, migrant women, women with disabilities, women in rural and remote communities often face even greater challenges.

A women's budget statement should not simply celebrate announcements, though; it must hold governments to account. Real equality requires long-term investment, not short-term headlines. It requires recognising unpaid care work. It requires safe workplaces. It requires economic security and it requires policies designed with women, not merely for women. Ultimately, the success of a women's budget statement should not be measured just by the dollars allocated but by the outcomes achieved. Are women safer? Are women healthier? Are women more financially secure? Are women genuinely equal in opportunity or representation?

We are seeing encouraging results, but there is always more work to do. The majority-women Albanese government continues to invest in women, putting them and gender equality at the heart of Australia's economic plan, and making women's lives safer, fairer and more equal. When women and girls stand equal, families are stronger, workplaces are fairer, communities thrive and society becomes safer for everyone. This is not about doing something special for women at the expense of men; it's about building our society. We have more work to do, but I'm proud to be part of a Labor government who is delivering for women across Brisbane and Australia. Hear, hear.

Eighty-four years ago, not a single woman had been elected to this place. Just over 60 years ago, not a single woman had been appointed as a minister in this place. Seventeen years ago, we hadn't yet had our first woman Prime Minister. Twelve years ago, there was no Women's Budget Statement, not because there had never been one before—indeed, as the member for Brisbane said, what Labor introduced in the eighties under the Hawke government was the first women's budget statement—but because the coalition government abolished it. In 2022, when the Albanese Labor government came back to power, we brought it back.

This is the Albanese Labor government's fifth Women's Budget Statement. If you've been paying attention over that time, you'll know that, for this government, the Women's Budget Statement isn't mere rhetoric; it's about doing something meaningful. It's meaningful action and it's measurable outcomes. It's not only a measure of our economic policy but also a reflection of our values as a society. It outlines and tracks our progress towards building a future where women are safe, where women are supported and empowered to fully participate in every aspect of our economy and our community, and, ultimately, it illustrates Labor's commitment to putting greater equality and gender equality at the centre of economic policy.

When we talk about economic policy as it relates to women, when we talk about this Women's Budget Statement, it's not a favour to women. It's not just a boost for women; it actually has a profound impact on our economy as a country. It has a profound impact on how well our economy goes and how much it grows, because we know that when women participate in the economy, our economy goes better. We know that when women participate in the economy, it boosts our GDP. We know that when women participate in the economy, we see economic growth. We know that when women participate in the economy, we see economic diversification. We know that when women participate in the economy, we close the gap on superannuation. And we know, when it comes to business, that when women participate at the highest levels of business and corporates, they make more profit. This is not a favour; it's something that will make our nation stronger.

The Women's Budget Statement focuses on five key priority areas to advance gender equality: addressing gender based violence, recognising and valuing both unpaid and paid care, strengthening economic equality and security, improving women's health outcomes, and ensuring women's leadership representation and voice in decision-making. These challenges, they're not siloed; they don't fit neatly into separate boxes. But these challenges are inherently what we must address if we are to make sure that women's participation in the economy is stronger. They are deeply connected. One woman's economic security is affected by her unpaid care responsibilities. Another woman's capacity to lead is shaped by whether she feels safe from violence. And a different woman's health challenges affect her ability to work and to participate in everyday society.

Recently, I attended a Mother's Day breakfast at the C&K Arnwood Place Community Childcare Centre in Ekibin in my electorate on Brisbane's southside. It was a lovely morning with director, Krystal Sisson, and her team, as well as parents, carers and children. As a mum of a toddler and whose daughter also attends child care, I can relate to the stories that the parents at that breakfast were sharing, from the struggle to get out of the house on time in the mornings through to the tension that can exist between the demands of work and the childcare hours available. In fact in 2024-25, the lack of available child care was the main barrier for 43 per cent of women who wanted to work or who wanted to work more hours but couldn't. Difficulties with accessing early childhood education and care are also linked to higher rates of part-time work among women, and women's disproportionate concentration in part-time work has significant long-term impacts. Around one-third of the gender pay gap is driven by time spent out of the workforce and disruptions to continuous full-time employment due to caring responsibilities.

The Albanese Labor government has been working towards narrowing the gap between women and men in part-time and flexible work. Since 2023, more than one million Australians families have benefited from cheaper child care. Since January this year, Labor's three-day guarantee has meant that every family eligible for the childcare subsidy is now guaranteed a minimum of 72 hours of subsidised early childhood education and care each fortnight. I like that word 'guarantee' because it means certainty. It means that families can plan. It means something they can rely on. And it has given women, particularly those with irregular or non-standard working arrangements, such as seasonal or intermittent employment, exactly that—a guarantee, not just for their work but for their family. By improving both affordability and reliability of access, it provides important support to low-income families and single-parent households, most of which are led by women.

The key to women's economic equality and security are core economic goals for this government. We need women's workforce participation. Measures like the three-day guarantee are an important part of this interconnected story. And Labor has implemented other crucial reforms to increase labour force participation and to decrease the gender pay gap. I'm talking about tax cuts. I'm talking about wage increases in highly feminised sectors such as child care and aged care. I'm talking about expanded paid parental leave. I'm talking about superannuation with parental leave. I'm talking about stronger workplace equity laws. These have all had a very important part to play in the fact that more Australian women are participating in the workforce than we have ever seen in our country's history. In 2025, women's Labor workforce participation hit that record; however, it still remained below that of men. That's why, in the 2026-27 budget, this government is committing to implement structural reforms aimed at progressing gender equality and removing barriers so that women can earn more, retain more of that income and build long-term financial security. One of these structural reforms is the requirement for Commonwealth public sector and private sector employers to be transparent about their individual gender pay gaps and their plans to meet equality targets. This is about making sure that people put on the table the actual figures. It's about making sure that there's accountability in the system and that you don't just get to talk about women's equality. You don't just get to bust rhetoric about it. You need to show your numbers and you need to share them with the public. That is what Labor has done to ensure that there is a driver of accountability there and that people have to put up and put their cards on the table.

Women represent over 61 per cent of the 2.7 million Australians who are covered by modern awards. The Albanese Labor government has supported an increase to award wages since 2022, emphasising that women are far more likely to rely on award wages. Over this period, the national minimum wage has risen by more than $175 a week. That's 175 bucks each and every week, and it makes an impact, particularly at a time when we know the cost of living is really hurting families. The new working Australian tax offset will implement a permanent annual tax offset of up to $250 from the 2027-28 income year. This will benefit 6.3 million women workers, and, when coupled with the instant tax deduction of $1,000 for work related expenses, it's going to benefit over three million women. I've just touched the surface of what's contained in the women's budget statement. I'd like to congratulate the Minister for Women and thank her and her team for continuing this important work. It broadens the conversation, but there is absolutely more to do.

Last Friday, I sat down with the gorgeous Amelia for a coffee in Camp Hill. Amelia is a young parent raising her child, trying to start up a brand new small business and doing what so many women in our community do every day—holding many responsibilities at once. She's thinking about her child's future, her family, her business, her time and the pressures that come with trying to build a good life. As we spoke about family, work and the daily reality of running a small business, I was reminded how important it is that public policy meets people where they are at. For young parents like Amelia, for example, paid parental leave is part of the support that helps families navigate those early months with a little more security, time and breathing room.

Across Griffith, I hear echoes of Amelia's story all the time from women at school gates, mobile offices, community events, local cafes and small businesses, from students working while they study, from carers supporting older parents and from volunteers keeping our local organisations going. They talk to me about safety, services close to home, wages that reflect the value of their work and a government that sees the full contribution women make to our economy and to our communities. Those conversations are at the heart of the women's budget statement.

The Hawke Labor government introduced the first women's budget statement in the 1980s, and, in 2022, the Albanese Labor government brought it back. For too long, budgets were treated as though they affect everyone in the same way, but decisions about tax, wages, child care, paid parental leave, health care, housing, superannuation and safety can land very differently in women's lives. We brought back the women's budget statement to make those impacts visible and to ensure gender equality is built into economic decision-making from the beginning. Good policy depends on seeing the whole picture—paid work and unpaid care, financial security and safety, health and housing, opportunity today and retirement security tomorrow. We are seeing the results.

Since 2022, women's average weekly earnings have grown by almost $300 a week. More than one million families have benefited from cheaper child care. Australia has recorded its highest ever international ranking for gender equality, moving to 13th in the world, up from 43rd when we came into government. Since 2023, women have also saved more than $647 million across 139 million prescriptions, including through cheaper medicines and expanded access to contraceptives and menopause therapies. That is meaningful progress, and we are ensuring progress reaches women in their daily lives—at work, at home, in caring roles, in study, in business and in moments when they need safety, dignity and support. In Griffith I see what women's leadership looks like every single day, like at the Women's Creative Centre in Greenslopes, which last year celebrated 50 years welcoming generations of women to learn skills, share knowledge, make things with their hands and build friendships. I've seen it in the leadership of Mama Saba OAM, who founded the Eritrean Australian Women's and Families Support Network in West End, helping people from refugee, asylum seeker and migrant backgrounds build skills, confidence and community. I've seen it in organisations like the Immigrant Women's Support Service, led by Mitra, and from Deb Kilroy OAM and her team at Sisters Inside. These are two incredible organisations that support women through some of the hardest moments in their lives, with dignity, expertise and so much care. I've seen it from Tamara and Sue, just down the road from my electorate office, at the Queensland Country Women's Association, our state's largest and most widespread women's organisation. And I have seen it in all of our local sporting clubs and communities, including the Southside Eagles, who I joined with the other weekend. Women and girls are claiming space on the field, building confidence, backing each other and helping shape the future of women's sport. These local stories show why the Women's Budget Statement is so needed. When we talk about gender equality, we are talking about real women, real communities and real organisations doing this work every single day.

This budget provides practical support for women and families. From 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will receive more tax cuts to help with cost-of-living pressures. On top of those cuts, we're delivering a new $250 working Australians tax offset. We're introducing a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses without receipts, which will benefit around 6.2 million working women. For a woman earning around the average wage of $81,000, the combined benefit of our legislated tax cuts, the new tax offset and the instant tax deduction could mean she is nearly $3,000 a year better off from 2027-28 compared with the 2023-24 tax settings. Cheaper child care has already helped more than one million families, and the three-day guarantee will give families access to three days a week of subsidised early childhood education and care. Paid parental leave, something that I discussed at length with Amelia, is also being expanded to reach six months from July this year, where eligible families with a baby born or adopted from July will be $14,000 better off than they would have been in May 2022. These reforms recognise something women have known for a long time: care is work and care supports work. When families can access affordable early learning, when parents can share care more fairly and when women are supported to return to work on their own terms, the whole economy benefits.

We're also investing more than $1 billion in the Support at Home program, supporting women both as unpaid carers of many old people and as the majority of people who use the aged-care services. We are continuing our record investment in women's health. Our government's historic $792.9 million women's health package is already delivering better outcomes, including cheaper medicines and better access to contraceptives and menopause therapies. In this budget we are strengthening Medicare mental health centres where women make up more than 57 per cent of users. We're also investing in perinatal mental health through our expansion of perinatal mental health centres, including at Gidget House in Greenslopes at the Greenslopes Hospital, which is in my electorate. It has been supporting my community with three individual psychological counselling services for expectant, new and potential parents.

At local women's health forums in Griffith that I have held over the last couple of years. I've heard women speak about the importance of being listened to, believed and supported when they seek care. Whether it's in reproductive health, menopause, mental health, pelvic pain, eating disorders or perinatal care, women deserve health services that take their experiences seriously. Women's safety remains a central priority. We've now invested more than $4.4 billion since 2022 towards the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.

This budget also includes $218.3 million to support 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices', the first long-term, First-Nations-led national strategy to end family, domestic and sexual violence. We're providing $61.2 million for the 500 Workers Initiative to support the frontline family, domestic and sexual violence response workforce, and $11.7 million to continue the Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties Scheme. We're also delivering the most substantial changes to the child support system in nearly 20 years, which will reduce the weaponisation of the child support system and help protect women and children from financial abuse.

We know there is more work to do, but progress for women has not happened by accident. It happens when women are in the room, when women are heard and when women help shape the decisions that affect their lives. Under this Labor government, we have a gender-equal cabinet and women proudly make up 56 per cent of the Labor caucus. For too long, women were expected to carry the consequences of decisions they had little power to shape. Women are now in the room, not through tokenism but as leaders, decision-makers and equals. When women help shape the budget, the budget better reflects the lives of the people that it is meant to serve. When our parliament looks more like the communities we serve, our democracy is stronger.

In Griffith, I will keep listening to the women who shape our community every day, because their experiences should guide the decisions we make in this place. When women are safe, paid fairly, able to access health care and able to participate fully in work and community life, our whole community is stronger. That is the purpose of this Women's Budget Statement and that is the work this Labor government will continue to do.

I stand here proudly as the member for Lalor, sent here by my community to represent them—all of them. I stand here as a proud member of the Labor government, the Labor Party and the labour movement. It's a movement that is dedicated to equality and fairness, a movement that wants to see equity for all Australians, and gender equity is at the core of that.

I know, from my years as a teacher, from my years as a principal and from my years of playing sport, that we measure the things that will help us get better, the things that we think are important, and that's why the Women's Budget Statement is so important and the bedrock of a Labor federal government. We know that, if we don't measure the road to gender equity, we'll fall off the road to gender equity. I know, when I coach under-16s playing netball, that I need to set targets around the number of intercepts I want to see from the goal defence and the shooting accuracy I want to see from the goal shooter. I know that in my classroom I need to say to a student: 'You're capable of an A+ on this exam, and together we're going to get an A+ on this exam.' If you don't set targets, you don't reach them.

I stand here proudly, as a woman in the federal Labor government, to say that this tradition of setting targets and working hard to meet them delivers a budget with gender equity at its core. At the core of the five budget's handed down by the Albanese Labor government, Australian women have been a clear focus. In this budget, our fifth budget, and our fifth Women's Budget Statement, we've reported the significant progress made towards gender equality since we came to government in 2022.

It is essential that we invest in women and that we get it right. In a community like mine, with the highest number of nought- to four-year-olds in the country, there are lots and lots of young families, young couples starting out together, understanding that they're in an equal relationship—sharing responsibility for parenting, sharing responsibility for financial security, sharing responsibility for making that mortgage payment or saving for that deposit. These are all really important things in my community. What's also really important in my community is that, when women have economic security, they can make real choices for themselves and their children, alone or with a partner. They are free to do both. They are in relationships not because they need them but because they want to be there. That is critical in a journey to gender equity.

Women are earning $291.60 more per week on average than they were in 2022. This is because of the measures put in place by this government. More than one million families have benefited from our investments in cheaper child care. Earning more and keeping more of what you earn is a bedrock of this government, and we've worked hard to get there. We've expanded paid parental leave, meaning eligible families will be $14,000 better off than they would have been in May 2022. Important and critical superannuation reforms are working to improve retirement outcomes for women and close the retirement income gap, something we also need to set some targets around.

Our continued commitment to reducing the cost of medicines has saved women over $647 million on medicines and provided them with increased PBS access to contraceptives and menopause therapies. Who could believe that it has been 30 years since a new contraceptive was put on the PBS, and 20 years since a new hormonal menopausal therapy was put on the PBS? This is the work of the Labor government.

We've provided 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. Again, why? Because we measure the things we care about. We know that economic arguments often carry the day in this place. So let's start measuring the economic impact of domestic violence and have that as part of the arsenal in the conversations to reduce domestic violence. Eligibility has expanded for the parenting payment single, increasing Commonwealth rent assistance by over 50 per cent and ending ParentsNext. And Australia is now ranked 13th internationally for gender equality. It is our highest ever ranking. We are setting Australian women up for success, which in turn sets up Australian families for success and sets up our children for success.

The 2026-27 budget has built on this progress and made our investments larger than ever. We're making lasting change for generations to come. The $250 working Australians tax offset will benefit 6.3 million working women from the 2027-28 income year; around 6.2 million women will benefit from changes allowing Australian workers to claim an instant tax deduction of up to $1,000 for work related expenses; 182.6 million will deliver significant changes to the child support system; and, since 2022, $4.4 billion has been invested in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.

This budget includes further investments of $218 million to support 'Our ways—Strong ways—Our voices', the national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander plan to end family, domestic and sexual violence 2026-36; $61 million for the 500 workers initiative supporting the frontline family, domestic and sexual violence workforce; and $11.7 million to continue the Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme, which provides legal supp for family law matters involving family, domestic and sexual violence.

I've often spoken about the endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics around the country and particularly about the one in the heart of my electorate in Werribee, which is on the same site as the Medicare urgent care clinic. This is great for families, great for women, and mostly sees children at the busiest times on the weekend, post sport. This budget has also delivered a joint investment of $4 billion with states and territories to establish Thriving Kids. A $2 billion investment will provide Medicare Healthy Kids Check—a health assessment subsidised by Medicare to ensure the health and development of children aged three, referring them to appropriate support if required. This is critical for families, critical for mums and critical for children.

Improved practice around early childhood development and culturally appropriate support through national workforce measures is also supported, and there's more support for children with autism and their families. We're also growing the National Immunisation Program in pharmacies in a push to increase childhood vaccination rates. I know parents in my electorate will welcome these investments because they provide reassurance that every family deserves. Obviously, this budget locks in Medicare urgent care clinics permanently. This is an absolutely incredible thing for a community like mine. We've also improved bulk-billing rates, with 82 per cent of GP clinics in Lalor now bulk-billing.

We're levelling the playing field by reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax, making it easier for Australians to buy their first home. This sort of stability is life-changing, as the over 5,000 people in my electorate who've already secured a home with the five per cent deposit scheme are testament to. And there are single parents who are doing so in a two per cent deposit scheme. This is really going to make a difference in communities like mine.

Where to next? Where does Labor look next on this road to gender equity? Efforts on the gender pay gap are important, and they've seen us gaining ground on that equality target. The pay gap is the easiest to measure. Superannuation is another target we need, as is an income gap and an asset gap, because income, as many of us found out in this budget, is not just what you earn in your job but what you earn from your assets. What's the target there? Can we measure those things into the future to make a real difference on our road to equality? As I said before, we measure what we care about. While the road to economic equity may be long, we've shown that smart targets and targeted measures work, having women in the cabinet room works, having women in the caucus works and having women in parliament works.

To the women in my electorate, to those with children, to those without children, to women over 65, to those struggling to put food on the table, to those doing as much as they can—catching early trains to work, getting on a train at 6 am, getting off a train at 6 pm, picking up the kids from child care before you go home with your partner, perhaps, to cook dinner and get ready for the next day—to all of you: this government has your back.

I stand here today on the backs of Aussie women who have worked hard for the rights and opportunities that I and all Australian women are afforded today. I'm really proud to follow my friend, the member for Lalor, a wonderful representative for women in Melbourne's western suburbs. I stand here alongside a majority female Labor caucus—the largest female representation in any government in Australian history. We are led by Australia's first gender-equal cabinet. We are a government that wants to give women choice and opportunity, safety and security and financial independence.

It's not just something we talk about; it's something we act on. Back in the eighties, Labor introduced the world's first Women's Budget Statement. The Libs cut it, and in 2022 the Albanese Labor government brought it back. With our Women's Budget Statement, we continue to carve out change for Australian women by making sure to evaluate the impacts the budget measures will have on Aussie women and reporting on significant progress towards gender equality since 2022. The Women's Budget Statement is an essential part of ensuring gender equality is at the core of our economic agenda. Let me tell you a little bit about the impacts our budget will have on Aussie women. At the heart of our Labor government is greater opportunity for women by investing in women's health outcomes, closing the gender pay gap and delivering cost-of-living relief.

When it comes to women's health, for too long not enough has been known about women's pain and conditions like endometriosis, and not enough has been done. We're changing that. Thanks to this Labor government, more than 380,000 women have accessed new, cheaper contraceptives in their first year on the PBS. More than 430,000 women have accessed new menopausal therapies. We have opened 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics right across the country, including in Melbourne's western suburbs, in Werribee. And 100,000 people have received a new menopause and perimenopause health assessment. It's all part of this Labor government's health package, including the opening of urgent care clinics in my community in Sunshine and Melton. With this budget we are making our urgent care clinics permanent. It's because we know that women's health care matters.

In my electorate, the suburbs of Rockbank, Aintree and Truganina have the second-highest birth rate in greater Melbourne. That means we're a young community, a community full of families and a growing community as well. When babies come along into a family's life, women take breaks from work. Historically, women have taken on the burden of unpaid care. About 68 per cent of primary carers are women, taking long career breaks to take on the unpaid household labour, and it means women earn less. It means women face more obstacles towards career progression and a loss of future earning potential, and it means women retire with less super. The gender super gap is about $50,000 for Australians nearing retirement, and my electorate of Gordon is amongst the highest Victorian electorates for unpaid super. For Aussie women, this just isn't good enough, and it's why we're expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks from July this year, and it's why we've introduced superannuation to paid parental leave.

Thanks to the work of this Labor government, the gender pay gap is sitting at a historic low at 11.5 per cent. We've also expanded eligibility of the three-day guarantee, giving families access to three days a week of subsidised early childhood education and care. This is about relieving women of the primary care burden and giving women that opportunity to return to work. We've already seen more than one million families benefit from cheaper childcare investments. Let me be clear: these changes are positive for the entire household, because, when both parents have access to paid parental leave, it gives the entire family that freedom of choice and opportunity. In the long term, facilitating women in sharing the care burden and returning to work increases overall household earnings.

Everyone has a young family in their life who will benefit from this. For me, it's my sister, my sister-in-law and my cousin Hayley from Taylors Hill. Across my community in Melbourne's western suburbs, it's the hundreds of families who are experiencing these changes. It's no coincidence that Australia's first ever gender-equal cabinet has made big steps in confronting the cost-of-living barriers that women face, because, when women are at the table making the decisions, we get better outcomes for women.

As well as the unpaid care roles, women also take on a significant amount of the paid care sector, like childcare and aged-care workers, which is why we've introduced pay rises for early childhood and aged-care workers, stronger minimum wage and award wage settings and important workplace reforms, and it's working. Women are now earning, on average, $290 more a week than in 2022. With an instant $1,000 tax deduction, women are expected to make up 54 per cent of the beneficiaries.

Women's safety remains a priority in ending violence against women. To date, the government has invested over $4.4 billion under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022 to 2032. Under the national plan, more than 10,000 victims-survivors have been provided with financial and other supports through the Leaving Violence Program in its first five months of operation. 496 additional frontline staff supporting victims-survivors have been employed across Australia, and $985.7 million in funding has been provided to states and territories to support frontline service delivery. There is no simple solution, but we need to better support women and children who have experienced violence so they can recover. It's about working to prevent and address sexual violence and about activating more systems and more services to intervene at the earliest opportunity to disrupt violence and strengthen safety. The second action plan is guiding a coordinated whole-of-system response across governments, communities, employers, schools, health and justice systems, as well as frontline and prevention services, to identify high-impact solutions to prevent and end violence and hold perpetrators to account, because it takes a whole-of-system approach.

We are also investing $182.6 million to deliver the most significant changes to the child support system in nearly 20 years. These changes include historic reforms which will work to reduce the weaponisation of the child support system and protect women and children from financial abuse. Reforms will also help parents navigate the system, improve the accuracy and timeliness of support payments, and crack down on those avoiding their child support obligations.

Our government remains committed to making gender equality a core economic priority. Through significant structural reforms and sustained investments since 2022, the government has strengthened the foundations for lasting change. When everyone feels safe and valued and is able to participate fully in our economy and our society, Australia is stronger, more productive and more resilient. Everyone stands to benefit from reforms that create fairer systems, structures and attitudes. When women are involved in decision-making and policy design, outcomes are better for everyone. I am proud that we are seeing significant structural reforms, and I am proud that we have been putting in sustained investments since 2022—better for men, better for women and better for Australia.

Four years ago, the Albanese Labor government made a promise to the women of Australia: your economic security, your safety, your health would be at the centre of every decision we made, not as an afterthought, not as a sidebar but as core economic priority. Today I stand here to tell all of the women in Australia that we kept that promise, and, with this budget, we are going further, because here is what we know to be true: when women thrive, Australia thrives; when women are paid fairly, our economy grows; when women are safe at home, our communities are stronger; and when women have access to health care, our nation is healthier. This is not just the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do. This is a budget for every Australian woman—every mum, every nurse, every teacher, every engineer, every woman working two jobs to keep the lights on. To every woman who has ever been told that politics doesn't speak for her, this budget is for you.

Before I talk about where we are going, let me take a moment to acknowledge where we have come from, because the numbers tell a powerful story. Women's labour workforce participation is now at a record high—63 per cent. The gender pay gap has fallen to a historic low of 11.5 per cent. Women's full-time wages have grown by almost $300 a week since May 2022, an 18 per cent increase. And on the world stage, Australia's international gender equality ranking has jumped from 43rd to 13th. That is not an accident; that is the result of deliberate, sustained Labor policy. We didn't get here by luck. We got here by choice, and the choice was to put women first.

Let me talk about every woman's pay packet because this budget delivers real, meaningful tax relief that will be felt by millions of Australian women. We are introducing a new $250 working Australians tax offset. Around 6.3 million women will benefit from this ion the 2027-28 financial year alone. But that's not all. Combined with the three tax cuts we've already legislated and the $1,000 instant tax deduction, the average Australian female worker earning around $68,000 a year will be up to $2,494 better off per year compared to where she was under the old tax arrangements. That is more money towards groceries, rent, kids' expenses or simply having a little bit of financial breathing room for the first time in years. And critically, our tax cuts are designed to particularly benefit part-time and lower income earners, which means they are designed to benefit women, because we know that women disproportionately work part-time, often because they're carrying the weight of caring responsibilities. Our tax policies recognises that and makes sure that we're levelling the playing field.

There is one issue in this budget I want to speak about with the weight that it really does deserve. Every week in Australia, women are being killed. Every week, women are trapped in homes that are not safe. This is an absolute national emergency, and this Labor government is treating it like one. Since 2022, we have invested over $4.4 billion to deliver the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children—the most of any government ever. Over 10,000 victims-survivors have been supported through the Leaving Violence Program in just its first five months. We've added 496 frontline workers to the domestic and family violence and sexual violence sector right across the country, and we've provided nearly $1 billion to the states and territories for service delivery. Every woman deserves to feel safe in her home, on the streets, online and at work—everywhere.

Ending violence is not just about physical safety. It is also about financial safety. Right now, across Australia, there is $2 billion in outstanding child support debt—$2 billion owed to single parents, the vast majority of them women. Former partners refuse to pay what they owe to their own children. In this budget, we are investing $182.6 million to fix the Child Support Scheme and stop it being weaponised as a tool of financial abuse and control. We are making it easier to move to agency-collected arrangements, where there are greater protections. We are giving Services Australia the power to stop vexatious and harassing behaviour, and we are making sure that perpetrators cannot hide their income to minimise what they pay. This will protect 478,000 women receiving child support and around one million children. These are real families and real lives, and they deserve a government that has their back.

I also want to speak directly about the disproportionate burden of violence faced by First Nations women, because any serious plan to end gender based violence must start with them. In February this year, we launched the first-ever standalone First Nations led national domestic, family and sexual violence prevention strategy, titled 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices', developed in genuine partnership with the First Nations community. It is backed by $218.3 million in new funding, investing in a national network of Aboriginal community controlled organisations to deliver specialist, community led family safety services. Lasting change must be driven by First Nations communities. This government listens, and then it acts.

For too long, women's health was treated as a footnote. Conditions that affect millions of Australian women were underresearched, underfunded and too often dismissed. Labor changed that. Today, 33 specialist clinics for endometriosis and pelvic pain are open right across Australia. More than 380,000 women have accessed new, cheaper contraceptives for the first time since their PBS listing, and 430,000 women have now accessed new menopausal hormone therapies. This budget continues to invest in bulk-billing, Medicare urgent care clinics and mental health support. Good health is not a privilege. It is absolutely a right. Two clinics service my community of Bonner—the Carina-Carindale clinic and also the Redlands clinic. Over 8,000 people have already been through those doors since they opened in December. This week we also launched the first-ever national menopause awareness campaign, because it is long past time that we talked about menopause and perimenopause in an open and honest way, without shame.

Women in Australia carry a disproportionate share of unpaid care work, and that has a direct cost to their careers, their wages and their retirement savings. Labor is changing this. From 1 July 2026, the Paid Parental Leave scheme reaches six full months—six months to bond with your baby without being forced back to work before you or your child might be ready. We're investing $4.7 billion into cheaper child care and have introduced the three-day guarantee. So far, 80,000 more children are now enrolled in early childhood education, and 52,000 more educators are working in the sector, supported by a 15 per cent pay rise. Childcare workers, who are overwhelmingly women, have been undervalued for too long. Labor is fixing that.

There is another statistic that should make every Australian woman angry. On average, women retire with significantly less superannuation than men. They live longer. They earn less over their lifetime, and they've had their super cut off every time they have paused to raise a child. Labor is fixing this as well. Superannuation is now paid on government funded paid parental leave. The superannuation guarantee is increasing. We've reformed the low income superannuation tax offset, and we're ensuring that super is paid on payday so that employers can no longer delay payments that belong to you.

I want to close with this. No budget can be perfect, but this budget is proof of something powerful—that, when a Labor government is in office, women's lives are better for it. There's record women's participation in the workforce, a shrinking pay gap, six months of paid parental leave, tax relief in millions of women's pockets, 33 endometriosis clinics now open and over 10,000 domestic violence survivors given the help they need to leave. These are not talking points; they are lives changed. This Labor government will continue to put women first.

One of the clearest lessons in public life is this: when women are around the table, things change. They change because women bring lived experience, practical thinking and an unshakeable focus on the everyday realities families face. They ask different questions, they see different pressures and they push for different priorities. For example, on Monday, the federal government launched the menopause and perimenopause campaign to better understand the signs and symptoms of menopause. That matters in every parliament, but it matters especially when we talk about domestic and family violence. This issue is not something happening elsewhere to someone else. It is happening in our suburbs, in our streets, in our schools and in our communities. It affects women and children in Dunkley, just as it does across the country. That is why I am proud to stand with the majority of Labor women in this government that understand that women's safety must be at the centre of the budget—not an afterthought and not a footnote but a national priority.

This morning I was very fortunate to sit with the Minister for Social Services and the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence to talk about a range of consultations that will be rolled out over the second half of the year to talk about the impact of domestic and family violence and how we build a second plan to address this scourge on our communities. This budget shows what that looks like in practice—how we work with people in the community and support women.

Since Labor coming to government, $800 million has been invested into women's health. More than $4 billion has been invested to address gender based violence, strengthening legal assistance with $3.9 billion in new funding. This funding has boosted 1800RESPECT by $41.8 million and builds on the introduction of 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave. This leave and these measures support the first ever First Nations led plan to end family violence against women. It continues the full implementation of Respect@Work, including a legislated positive duty. These are not small changes. They are structural changes. They acknowledge that violence against women is not private, it is not inevitable and it is not something governments can ignore.

This budget also recognises something women in my community know too well. Violence is not just physical. It can also be financial. It can be coercive. It can continue long after a relationship ends. That is why we are investing $183 million to make the child support system both safer and fairer. Right now, there is around $2 billion in unpaid child support debt in Australia, and women make up around 83 per cent of recipients. The average debt is nearly $8,700. For many families in Dunkley, $8,700 is significant, particularly with the cost of living. It is money for braces, for a child's school excursions, sport registration fees, music lessons and groceries. It's food on the table. These reforms are the most significant changes to the child support system in nearly 20 years. They will crack down on financial abuse, reduce the scope for weaponisation of the system and help ensure more children and families get the support they are owed. That matters deeply because economic security is safety, as is a fair system.

Housing is safety too. Everyone should have a safe place to call home, especially women and children experiencing domestic and family violence. That is why this budget includes support that helps women leave unsafe situations and rebuild their lives. We are investing $59.4 million over four years for community housing providers, supporting young people at risk or experiencing homelessness. Girls and young women make up 66 per cent of homelessness service users, and many of those young people have also been affected by gender based violence. This builds on broader action we are taking: a 50 per cent increase in Commonwealth rent assistance, $1 billion for crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund and 30,000 new social and affordable homes. In communities like Dunkley I hear about the need for housing. The stress is real. I hear about it from young mums, grandparents raising children and women trying to start again after trauma. A woman cannot plan for her future if she does not have a house over her head. So housing security is not separate from women's safety but is fundamental to it.

This budget also continues our record investment in women's health because, too often, women's health has not been taken seriously enough. So far, women have saved more than $647 million across almost 139 million prescriptions on the PBS. And this budget includes an additional $2 billion to strengthen Medicare. We have opened 33 endometriosis clinics under this government and provided $2.7 million to improve access to long-acting reversible contraceptives, like IUDs and implants.

Health matters and safety matters but so does opportunity. Since 2022, women's workforce participation has reached a record high. The gender pay gap is at its lowest ever recorded level. Women's average weekly earnings have grown by almost $300 per week. More than one million families have benefited from cheaper child care. Australia's global gender equality ranking has improved from 43rd to 13th. Those outcomes do not happen by accident. They happen when gender equality is treated as a core economic policy. That is why the Women's Budget Statement matters.

A Labor government introduced the world's first women's budget statement in the 1980s, and, in 2022, the Albanese Labor government brought it back. It outlines the impact new budget measures have on women. Through gender-responsive budgeting, every proposal is tested against its impact on women as part of the budget process. That means asking who benefits, who misses out, who is safer, who has more opportunity and who still needs support. This is how we make gender equality part of our economic agenda, not separate from it. And it reflects something we should be proud of: representation.

Our government is majority women: 56 per cent of the Labor caucus are women. When more women are in the room, the national conversation changes. Women's safety, health, the unpaid work of care and the financial pressures on single mothers are all taken more seriously. I know this not only as a parliamentarian but as someone who has spent decades working alongside women in community life.

Before coming to this place, I founded the Women's Spirit Project in Frankston. It grew from a simple belief that women who have experienced disadvantage, trauma and abuse deserve more than a crisis response. They deserve connection, confidence and the chance to rebuild. Through the Women's Spirit Project, I witnessed the strength of women who had long been made to feel alone. When they were offered support instead of judgement, community instead of isolation and opportunity instead of barriers, real change followed. I saw women regain confidence, rebuild connections and begin to imagine a different future for themselves and their children.

Women are not asking for slogans. They are asking for action. They want safe homes, fair pay, affordable health care, reliable child care and systems that protect rather than entrench disadvantage. Above all, they want a government that understands the reality of their lives. This budget also helps with the cost of living, which is critical for women's economic security. In Dunkley, it matters. It matters to the women I meet at schools. It matters to women from every corner of this country. This budget says women should expect better, they should expect safety and they should expect fairness. And, under a Labor government, that is exactly what we are delivering.

In my first speech in parliament I mentioned that one of the biggest challenges facing leaders right now is the need to address intergenerational inequality. I think everyone in this chamber should be motivated to provide at least the same opportunities and aspirations to our younger generation as what we had. That thought is the ethical proposition that underpins this bill.

I've talked to many people across my Brisbane community—parents, students, young professionals and many more. All want to see a better future for our next generation. But what I hear is: 'We're working hard. It's tough to get ahead. This system isn't working for us.' And they are right. The status quo is not working, especially regarding the big Australian dream of owning your own home. That's why we have to make a change. We have to reform the system that is holding people back.

If we look at the big reforms of our time—Medicare, superannuation, NDIS et cetera—it's been a Labor government that's had the guts to make the big decisions to deliver structural reform. With this bill, we're doing that yet again. Why? Because it goes to the heart of our core values, values of fairness and opportunity for all, and because our system is just not working. As former prime minister Paul Keating said, leadership has always been about two main things: imagination and courage. That's what this bill is.

We know Australians are doing it tough at the moment. That's why our priority in the 2026 budget is to continue to roll out responsible cost-of-living relief for people across Brisbane and Australia. This budget is about making our economy more resilient and introducing big reforms that start to address intergenerational unfairness, especially when it comes to housing.

We know that the conflict overseas is pushing up prices here—at the servo station, at the supermarket. When we first came to government, we inherited a trillion dollars of debt, bigger deficits and stagnant wages from the coalition. Since then, in every single budget we have found savings, and this budget is our most responsible yet. The budget is nearly $45 billion stronger than the mid-year update and $264 billion better than what we inherited. We've found more savings in this budget than any on record. We found $64 billion in savings, and this means we can provide real cost-of-living relief for Australians through cheaper fuel costs, funding for hospitals, free health care, cheaper medicines and more tax cuts for working Australians while still managing the budget bottom line responsibly.

As a portion of the economy, debt is below what we inherited from the coalition. That's a fact.

This budget delivers more tax cuts for workers, takes the sting out of petrol prices, helps more Australians get into a home, provides more funding for free hospitals and cheaper medicines, and supports higher wages. We're helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn through another round of permanent tax cuts, with the $250 working Australian tax offset and the $1,000 instant tax deduction. All up, we're cutting income taxes five times in five different ways, putting nearly $3,000 a year into the pocket of a worker on an average income by 2028.

On top of providing tax relief to workers, we're also helping keep costs down. We're cutting the tax on fuel by more than half. Without this, the people in my electorate in Brisbane and across Australia would be paying around 26c a litre more for their fuel. That's around $50 every time you fill up. We're reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge and we're giving the ACCC more power to crack down on price gouging, scammers and unfair trading practices. We're also increasing maximum penalties to corporations who do the wrong thing to $100 million and providing almost $68 million to strengthen enforcement.

We're making more medicines cheaper and securing free healthcare visits with our Medicare urgent care clinics being a permanent part of Medicare. This includes our new urgent care clinic in Kelvin Grove, which I'm very proud to have delivered. We're increasing the Medicare low-income levy, which means that over one million Australians on lower incomes will continue to pay no or a very low Medicare levy.

Since we came to government, we've proudly backed higher wages for three million of Australia's lowest paid workers every year, which has led to an increase in the national minimum wage of over $9,000 a year. Helping with cost of living—we know it's tough—is our top priority as a government, and it really is one of the top priorities in this budget. By contrast, the coalition went to the last election with higher taxes for every taxpayer and spent the last parliament opposing sensible and responsible cost-of-living relief for Australians—another fact.

This budget is also about helping people, like Mary-Cait in my electorate, buy their first home or get into a home of their own, like Karen who had lived in shared accommodation following years of unstable living. In Brisbane, we have helped more than 2,200 people into their first home with the five per cent deposit scheme. We're taking decisive action in the budget to boost housing supply and make our tax system fairer, which currently favours investors at the expense of first home buyers. This will help more Australians into homeownership and help on our work over the last four years to deliver more houses.

I don't know about others in this room, but the access to affordable housing is something that is raised with me constantly throughout the electorate, and that's why we're making a big choice to change negative gearing towards new homes and to change the capital gains tax. It would almost be delinquent of us not to do something different. Despite what you're hearing online, people will still be able to invest in the housing market. Investors can still negative gear. However, this will be for new builds, which supports our nation building. It's estimated that these tax reforms will unlock an additional 75,000 homes for first homebuyers. If you put it all together, Labor's plan is a housing system that works for Australians. We're helping Australians buy a home, levelling the playing field for first home buyers and making the system fairer.

Combined with our five per cent deposit scheme and our Help to Buy Scheme, we're shifting the scales in favour of aspiring first home buyers. We're also building 100,000 homes just for first home buyers. We're also building homes more quickly. We're tackling housing shortages from every angle, investing another $2 billion in enabling infrastructure so we can speed up the housing approvals, cutting red tape and increasing the skilled construction workforce that we need to unlock another 65,000 homes. We're banning foreign investors from buying existing homes, and we're extending that ban on foreign investors doing this until mid-2029, again, helping more Australians into a home. We're also making rental fairer and more affordable. We're continuing to work with the states and territories to get renters a better deal by strengthening renter protections and expanding long-term rental supply. We've boosted the Commonwealth rent assistance by more than 50 per cent.

We're backing Australians doing it toughest. We're supporting young people at risk get into secure housing, with additional investment in crisis accommodation, and we're doing this through the National Youth Housing Supplement. We're continuing to deliver more social and affordable homes through the Housing Australia Future Fund, including in Brisbane. We're coming at this housing challenge from every responsible angle, and this budget builds on our ambitious housing agenda. Our housing plan is pro aspirational and it is pro investment.

We're reforming the tax system for workers, businesses and future generations through the most significant tax reform package in more than a quarter of a century. Again, this package is pro aspiration, pro worker and pro investment. Our reforms include reducing the tax burden for more than 13 million workers, supporting 75,000 more home owners into the housing market, delivering over $3.5 billion in new measures that lower taxes for businesses and reducing compliance costs for businesses by $540 million a year. This is about tax relief and tax reform to make our economy work in the interests of more Australians, more businesses and future generations. It's about helping workers, it's about helping first home buyers, it's about helping businesses so that more Australians can earn more, keep more of what they earn and get ahead.

I do want to talk about negative gearing. We're reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax to help more Australians buy a home, encourage investment in new housing supply and productive assets, help fund new tax cuts for workers and, importantly, make the tax system fairer and more sustainable. This is all about backing the Australian ambition of owning your own home and encouraging investment in new homes. We're limiting negative gearing for residential properties from 2027-28 so it can be only used for new builds that add to housing supply, and we're replacing the 50 per cent CGT discount with inflation adjusted indexation from 1 July 2027 to restore taxation of real gains as well as a minimum tax on realised gains. We are not abolishing it; we're changing it. If you hear what's going on in the online media you would sometimes swear to God it was disappearing, but that's not the case.

The fundamental problem that these changes are trying to address is that people who earn an income through their labour are paying a lot more than those who earn an income through assets. Approximately 82 per cent of the population earn their income through labour versus five per cent from capital gains. It's just not fair. Right now it's too hard for many Australians to get into the housing market and get ahead. Housing prices have risen 400 per cent in the last two decades or so. They have gone from four times to eight times the average income over the past 20 years, and ownership is down seven points for young people. Just 44 per cent of Australians aged 24 to 34 own a home of their own.

Our reforms will help level the playing field for first home buyers and encourage investment flows to where it's most productive, including new housing supply. We will work with the states on further reforms to cut red tape and support homebuilding. We know more needs to be done. These reforms struck the right balance. It's part of the government's reforms to make the tax system better, simpler and fairer for workers, homebuyers and businesses.

Those opposite want to keep younger Australians down and want to continue to lock them out of the housing market. They showed their true colours voting against our cost-of-living measures, including our tax cuts. They have said they will vote against tax reform—the tax reforms that are being introduced in this bill—and that, if this reform gets passed by the parliament, they will repeal them when they are next in government. What we are doing is making fundamental change to support our communities and get more people into a home of their own. We are helping with cost of living through this bill. And I want to say to the young people across Australia and in my Brisbane electorate: this government wants to support you, to give you the best opportunities in life and to give you a fair crack. That's the Australian way, and that's what we will always fight for.

As I said at the start of this speech, as leaders we have a responsibility to ensure the next generation can live a life that they are proud of, a life that is no worse than ours. Hopefully with our ambition it's better. It requires us to set the building blocks for opportunity, the same opportunities that we had. This budget lays down the foundations to deliver just that, and I am proud to be part of a Labor government that is delivering for my community.

I don't quite know where to start on the paucity of this budget. As an accountant, I was always fascinated by two groups of people amongst the three. The one in the middle you didn't really worry too much about. They never really went that far ahead and never really went that far behind. The ones at the bottom I was always very interested in. They went broke, and I was always working out how they did it. They had some remarkable similarities. The ones at the top made a lot of money. Here's a trick: if you want to get ahead in life, you buy and sell capital assets. You buy shares. You buy a house. You can go out and buy yourself a block of gold if you want. But you buy and sell capital assets, and ultimately you will become wealthy if that's what you want to be. If you want to be poor then it's quite simple. You buy chattels, which are dispensable, depreciating assets, or you buy straight-out expenses: a trip overseas, a new stereo, cars, boats, bikes—all that type of stuff. And you will be poor. That's very simple.

Now, the people who buy capital assets do it by not spending their money on chattels. They've paid their tax. And then, rather than go on a new trip to Sapporo to go skiing or to Port Macquarie for the weekend, they put their money away and they buy shares or they buy a deposit on a house. This budget says to those who are prudent, 'We are going to punch you.' It says to those who are spendthrift, 'We will reward you.' It shows is no understanding whatsoever of basic business principles. This is a budget, to be frank, that is driven by one thing: the government's run out of money and they're desperately trying to find it. And they're moralising about how they get it.

Here's another fundamental thing about economics. You have your balance sheet of your assets and your liabilities, and you have your P&L, your revenues and your expenses. What we've been seeing is a whole range of expenses making their way to the P&L—cost-of-living measures, this measure, that measure. And they always come out as talking points from the Labor Party. Whenever you're in the media, out come the talking points. These are all things done for you as if they actually came out of the Labor Party's own personal pocket. They didn't. They came from the taxpayer.

They got to a point where they went gone, 'Hang on; we can't pay for this.' Rather than make the assets on the balance sheet work better, they go back to the P&L looking for revenues, and revenues on the government. P&L are called taxes. So they increased their taxes to cover the trinkets that they handed out. To be honest, they should have told people when they were handing the money out that they were going to have to get it back. A business makes the assets on the balance sheet work better to earn more revenue in such a form that the assets create the revenue and therefore pay the taxes, which go across to P&L.

So what are the assets on the balance sheet? There are two major ones. There are the actual seed assets, which governments do have a role in. They are ports, railway lines, freight railway lines, approvals for mines, streamlining things so that they can get going, dams—dams are a great seed asset. Have a look around. Where there are dams, there's wealth. You can't miss it. The other great asset on the balance sheet is the entrepreneurship of small-business people. Small-business people, by the very nature of their being in business, take risk. It's not like a salary or wage earner. They have paid tax on money. Then they invested in a business which they may lose their shirt on. They may lose money, and therefore we are always mindful of that, because we need these entrepreneurial people to work our nation's assets on the balance sheet.

What this budget does is to say: 'We're going to punish you for being entrepreneurial.' It's saying: 'If you lose your shirt'—and remember that we've had record insolvencies in small business, says ASIC, in the last 12 months, and an increase in insolvencies of over 34 per cent—'we're not going to give you anything back; if you go broke, hard luck for you. But, if you win, we're going to take 47 per cent—45 per cent plus a two per cent Medicare levy. We're going to take 45 per cent and a minimum of 30 per cent off you.' This just tells people: 'Why bother?' They'll think: 'It'd be better if I just whooped it up and had a jolly good time. That would make more sense. I've always wanted to go skiing in Sapporo. Why not go?'

In this budget, I couldn't see anything to show that they're going to build a dam. There was a freight rail called the Inland Rail—and they just made up this fantastic figure, and they got rid of that. They are going to invest in high-speed rail from Sydney to Newcastle. Now here's the trick: that probably will cover about 30 per cent of its running costs from the tickets, even if we ever build it, and will cost well in excess of $100 billion—well in excess. And so you won't build the Inland Rail, which is freight rail, which actually pays for itself, but you will build a fast rail, with an 80 kilometre tunnel, and you've put money towards it.

An example of how passenger rail just never washes its face—but it eats its head off—is the one in Melbourne called the Suburban Rail Loop. It's going broke before it even starts. So they're tipping more money into it—because that's what you do: if something's not working, obviously, you go and just put even more money into something that doesn't work! So they can find money for another passenger rail, but they can't find money for the freight rail.

What we've also seen is this statement, which is wrong, that this budget is somehow going to help people who rent. People rent because they can't buy. People don't rent houses because there was an option that they could buy, but they decided not to, so they decided to rent. Generally, overwhelmingly, people are in the rental market because they cannot afford a house. As such, they are a static block in the market. And that static block can be moved up, so there are more in houses, or down, so you're squeezing people at the bottom out to live in their cars.

What you've done, immediately, with those people can be seen no more clearly than in the clearance rate for houses in the member for Cook's great city on the weekend. It was around 80 per cent; it's down to about 54 per cent—

An opposition member interjecting

or down to 40! What that means is: it wasn't that a whole heap of first home buyers turned up and—lo and behold!—all got themselves into houses. People just decided not to buy them, and they were just removed from the market. So what you are seeing now is not a more fluid rental market where people are coming in. You're seeing the poor getting pushed out. And you'll pick them up in their cars—that's where they're off to. That's what you've done.

And the reason you've done it—and, sorry, I hate to be trite—is that so few of you have ever been in business, and you just don't get the fundamentals of how businesses work. Paul Keating actually had a crack at this. You should have read your history books, at the very least. We've got a Treasurer who did a PhD on Paul Keating and didn't realise that he'd had a crack at this and it turned into a disaster. After two years, they had to reverse it. Why? Because they were just putting people out into the streets. And it has already started. It's amazing how quickly those in the market react. They reacted within weeks of your budget. They've already reacted.

What you'll see now is just going to be a more inflexible, static market that renters can't get into. Remember: the only reason you have an investment house is so you can put a rental tenant in it; otherwise, you can't claim it—you can't claim a house that you're not getting rental income from. Well, for a period of time you can, but, ultimately, it has to be an asset that is earning money, so you can claim your expenses against it, and, therefore, to claim the interest, you have to have the rent, and to have the rent, you've got to have a tenant—a rental tenant. In looking for that rental tenant, at times the market will drive the rents down so you can get that rental tenant in. This completely and utterly turns the whole logic on its head, because now—seeing I can't negatively gear it—the only way I can get my return is to put up rents. And, if I can put up rents, I don't care about the negative gearing; I've made my money. See if I'm wrong. Let's come back here. But the trouble is, to be proven right means that we've proven that we can really, really hurt people, and the people you will hurt are the poorest.

Now let's go back to another issue. Out in regional areas, where I live, there are people who wouldn't see themselves as poor but, in comparison to what you see around Canberra, they're poor. They have a unique thing, a lot of them. They live in weatherboard and iron houses on what was allotted—five-acre blocks. The magical thing about five-acre blocks is five acres is just slightly bigger than two hectares. What's magic about two hectares? Well, if you're on a block that's more than two hectares, you don't get to see that as your primary residence. Under this rule, the block's too big. A hectare is 2.471 acres, so two times 2.471—surprise, surprise—is less than five. So magically, for all these poor people even their primary domicile is not tax-free when they sell it. Well done—stroke of genius—because there's nothing better than to make poor people poorer. That's how it works when you don't know what you're doing.

We now see the Treasurer in panic mode. It's chaos. We really don't know what's happening. The government is changing it, carving things out. The Prime Minister has come in on the show. He's worried about votes. It's chaotic. They're running around seeing what the Greens will vote for to try and pass the most substantial financial document for the nation responsible for the expenditure of well over $700 billion a year. They're running around talking to the Greens about how they're going to change it all around.

This is quite a remarkable state of affairs we're in. Now, I'm not saying that the coalition hasn't done bad budgets as well. I was present for Joe Hockey's budget. That was a train wreck. This is up there with it—an absolute train wreck. What you hear all the time from wonderful colleagues on the other side are people going through the talking points who have absolutely no idea about how business works. So here's the suggestion: if you want to make the assets on the balance sheet work, you must give a strategic mechanism that gives them an advantage. One of the great strategic mechanisms that gives them an advantage is the price of energy. To get the price of energy going, you have to have a continuous supply that's predictable and reliable, which is coal-fired power. You have to have the brains not to blow up Liddell power station but to actually refurbish it and make it bigger and better and make it work. That's what brains do. That gives you a strategic asset on your balance sheet.

Intermittent power, by its very nature, is unreliable and expensive because you have to get it to match up to 24/7 power, and people will quote you intermittent power prices but they don't quote you the $42 billion for Snowy Hydro 2.0 or the batteries or the transmission lines, or the disruption to rural communities that underpins it. So that's just one thing. If you had the bravery and the brains to make your assets on your balance sheet work better then you would actually earn the revenue to pay for the trinkets on the PNL. But where we are now is you're going to have neither. You're going to go to the prudent and say, 'If you're prudent and succeed, we're going to take half of what you made,' and then you're going to go to the liabilities on your balance sheet and say, 'For what we can't rip off prudent people, we'll just borrow from other people, a lot of them from overseas.' That is an absolute fiasco of a situation you have put the nation in.

It's interesting, because I'm going to say the opposite—what we see is someone pretending to care about poor people when the truth is that it is the Albanese Labor government that backed minimum wages. The member for New England was a part of a government that deliberately wanted to keep wages low. That was part of their economic architecture. What we're seeing is cosplay, quite frankly, in the parliament of pretending to care about the most vulnerable people in our country—absolutely ridiculous.

Do you know what this budget is about? It is a choice. It is a choice about a first home buyer getting into their own home or someone wanting their third investment property. It chooses people who want to live in a home over people who want to profit from homes. That is a choice that this government is proud to make. This is a government that is not afraid of reform, and this budget proves it.

It's interesting, because what I heard from those opposite is that renters don't want to buy their own home. What we're seeing across Australia is the number of renters increasing, particularly the age brackets, because they cannot afford to get into their own home. But the Albanese Labor government is indeed changing the system. At the heart of it, our housing system has been broken. A part of that is because the coalition did not have a housing minister for five of their nine years. For too long, Australians' dream of owning their own home has drifted further out of reach. Young people are paddling furiously and going nowhere. Since 1999, house prices have risen more than 400 per cent. That is greater than twice as fast as incomes. That is a gap that this generation is being asked to close, an ask that has locked too many out of homeownership. Too many young people in the past have not seen a pathway to creating a deposit. Too many families want nothing more than to get a foot in the door of their own home.

That's why the Albanese Labor government is coming at the housing challenge from every responsible angle. We are building more homes, we are making rent fairer, we are also backing first home buyers and now we're making the tax system fairer. Let me start with supply because, contrary to what those opposite believe, you can't fix housing without building more of it. In my electorate alone, we are delivering 524 new social and affordable homes, and 487 of those homes are coming from the Housing Australia Future Fund, a fund that the coalition voted against, a fund they tried to stop. Now, that fund is delivering homes for Australians who need them most despite every effort that those opposite made to try and block it.

Last week, in my electorate of Swan, in a suburb called Victoria Park, we did a groundbreaking ceremony for 15 new units with an organisation called Connect Victoria Park. It is an extraordinary social housing organisation, and this is their first project in 37 years. I want to thank the CEO, Luke Garswood, for his amazing work and thank his entire team. Ten of these affordable homes will be built for older women over the age of 60 who are at risk of homelessness. This is the group with the fastest-growing rate of homelessness in our community.

What the Housing Australia Future Fund is delivering is real homes for the people who need them most. But we know we need to build more, so in this budget there's an extra $2 billion for enabling infrastructure. That's $2 billion to put in the water, power, sewerage and roads that will unlock up to 65,000 homes across the country. We're also securing social housing for more than 4,000 young people at risk of homelessness, with an additional $59 million for states and territories. All of this takes our Homes for Australia plan to more than $47 billion. This is the biggest commitment to housing this country has seen in a generation. We are changing the way that capital gains tax and negative gearing work because it is the right thing to do. Negative gearing for residential property will now be limited to new builds, and the capital gains tax discount will return to the way that it was always meant to work—that is, taxing real gains after inflation with a 30 per cent minimum rate so that everyone pays their fair share of tax.

I want to make something very clear. For too long, our capital gains tax settings have distorted the housing market—a market that is now heavily weighted against first home buyers. Eighty-three per cent of the current capital gains concessions go to the top 10 per cent of earners in this country, with over half of that gain going to the top one per cent. In the past week, that top one per cent have tried to drown out the positive generational tax reform—a reform that tips the scales back towards the average Australian. This one per cent have the loudest voices and the deepest pockets. What they do not have is the right to lock a generation out of a home.

These are Australians I hear from every day, and of course I hit the streets last week when I was back in the electorate. I spoke to a young man who was grateful for the 20 per cent cut to HECS and recognised that we were trying to make the housing system more affordable for his generation. I also spoke with an older gentleman, Garry, who explained that he loved the changes and wanted them to go further. Labor is, indeed, trying to govern for all. Just yesterday I spoke with Shane North, who called the office to say that he was absolutely behind our changes. He explained that he worked hard and bought his own home and that he wanted this for the next generation—and not because he's a father. He said it's because he sees it as, fundamentally, the right thing to do. That is my community, and I'm so proud to represent them.

Let's be honest: Australians are not mugs. Australians are struggling to buy a home to live in, not to hold as an asset. They want homes to live in. A house, first and foremost, should be a home. It's a roof, it's security and it is the place where you grow your roots and build a life, and every Australian deserves a fair shot at one. This change balances the scales. The system is tilting back towards first home buyers, back towards young families and back towards the generation that has been locked out. These changes will help 75,000 more Australians realise the dream of homeownership over the next decade. Some will say that these changes go too far. Some will say they don't go far enough. The test is not what the commentary says; the test is whether the system is fairer than it was before. Under this government, it is.

This budget is about continuing to strengthen Medicare as well. We are making urgent care clinics a permanent feature of the Australian healthcare system—not a trial, not a pilot but permanent. In Western Australia, 14 of them are now operating. Since the network began, they have delivered more than 300,000 bulk-billed visits. We are making it easier to see a doctor too. Since beginning the Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program, there are now 234 fully bulk-billed practices across WA. In Swan we've seen the number of bulk-billing practices double.

We are also making medicines cheaper through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, listing more treatments so that Australians can get life-changing care without being priced out of it. We are also making new investments in our public hospitals so that the system is there for you when you need it most. In Western Australia this budget delivers $4.3 billion in health and hospital funding next year, rising to $5.1 billion by the end of the decade. This is health care that puts people before profits. This is what strengthening Medicare looks like.

I want to spend a moment on something that does not make the front pages but matters enormously to the people that it touches, and that's the child support system. When someone—typically a woman—leaves an abusive relationship, the child support system can become another tool for their partner to control that person. It can look like refusing to pay, underreporting of income, or dragging out tax returns for years. It is financial abuse and it keeps the cycle of coercive control going long after the relationship has ended. As of March this year, almost $2 billion in child support debts sat unpaid. That's money that's supposed to be used for children, money that pays for school supplies, uniforms and groceries. This budget delivers more than $182 million to make the child support system safer and to help more children get the support that they are owed.

Parents move from private arrangement to agency collect, so the government can do the chasing instead of the survivor. Services Australia will also be able to refuse applications that are clearly being used to harass previous partners. There will also be stronger actions against parents who delay their tax returns to distort what they owe. The ATO now has stronger powers. And anyone that has a debt of more than $10,000 and keeps travelling overseas can now face a departure prohibition order. Idiotic parents who refuse to pay their fair share of child support will get stopped on their junket flights to Bali and other destinations. That's because we want to bring fairness to the system, and this is fundamentally about helping children. These reforms are about our government's broader investment to end family and domestic violence—$4.4 billion. Closing the loopholes that enable financial abuse requires continued work, and this budget is a much-needed step forward.

Finally, the government has continued its commitment to our communities. As someone who loves riding to school with my kids, I was delighted to see that the budget delivered an extra $500 million for the Active Transport Fund, bringing our total investment to $600 million to build new and upgraded walking and cycling paths right across the country. In my community of Swan, the city of Canning received more than $1 million to build and upgrade paths connecting Metronet's railway with the Canning River through the centre of Canning. This rail-to-river pathway is funding that will make a tangible improvement to my local community. It will also be safer for kids getting to school, easier for commuters and better for families heading to Cannington Leisureplex.

The Albanese Labor government is also providing $840 million in community infrastructure through programs such as Thriving Suburbs, Growing Regions and Stronger Communities. This funds things like libraries, parks, community centres, and sporting and cultural facilities that make our community a much stronger place. In my electorate, the Thriving Suburbs initiative is helping the City of Belmont deliver the Belvidere Streetscape Revitalisation Project with $4.7 million from the Australian government. This will transform Belvidere into an active main street that puts pedestrians and cyclists ahead of cars, with green space for markets and events, and a pocket park, better lighting and support for local businesses. It will be a safer, greener, more vibrant heart for Belmont.

The Albanese Labor government has continued to deliver for my community. There is a long pipeline of projects. The Boorloo Bridge is one of the most spectacular bridges that we have in Western Australia. It connects Victoria Park to East Perth. It is stunning, it is beautiful, and commuters, walkers, joggers and cyclists have all embraced it. I also have to say that upgrades to Metronet have been outstanding. I was not anticipating how amazing the new train stations would be and how much more productivity there'd be in our community, but Long Park, which is a six-kilometre park, is outstanding, and I've been to at least three birthday parties at the train station now, which is something that I could not have imagined. We've also seen $5 million to upgrade Maniana Park, which is in Queen's Park, a community that has often been overlooked. And we've seen $5 million to upgrade the Langford netball centre. These are tangible ways that the Albanese government is making a difference in the community of Swan.

I am very pleased for the member for Swan that she has been able to have all of that funding through Thriving Suburbs. I just want to point out that it has actually been taken out of the Growing Regions funding and the Building Better Regions Fund that we installed in our period of time in government, likewise through local communities and infrastructure funding. These are devastating facts for our regional communities. It's nice to see the suburbs are getting that funding.

After four years of inflation under Labor, Australians are still waiting for the $275 energy savings that were promised 97 times. That promise has clearly not been delivered. Instead, energy bills have risen by thousands of dollars. Now Australians are facing what can only be described as budget shock, defined by broken promises and shifting excuses. On budget night, the Treasurer repeatedly pointed to an oil shock as the explanation, but managing economic uncertainty is the fundamental responsibility of the government. Labor was simply not prepared, and the consequences are now evident. The situation resembles a ship heading straight for disaster, just like the Titanic. Labor had previously promised to act on fuel security, but only moved when the Strait of Hormuz closed.

In this budget, the government has reverted to deflection, echoing its earlier response to global conflicts by blaming external factors, instead of accepting responsibility. If this were a school assignment, the Treasurer would receive a failing grade. This budget reflects a clear agenda of wealth redistribution. While the government proceeds confidently, Australians who value aspiration and reward for effort are increasingly worried. With a large parliamentary majority, the Prime Minister and Treasurer appear determined to push through policies that risk alienating marginal seat holders while pursuing what many would describe as a radical economic program, a socialist agenda.

Labor has repeatedly sought to divide Australians. It attempted to do so along racial lines through a referendum. It has presided over deep divisions in religious communities, and it is now creating divisions based on age and postcode through this budget. Despite rhetoric about intergenerational equity, the reality tells a different story. Younger Australians are being locked out of tax arrangements that older generations will continue to retain through grandfathering provisions. At the same time, the government is passing on approximately $1.5 trillion in debt to future generations. Yes, that means you, kids, and your kids, and your kids after them. It raises serious questions about fairness.

The budget also reduces private health insurance rebates for Australians over 65. This is presented as a measure to fund aged care, but the likely outcome is that many older Australians who have contributed taxes and paid for health cover for decades will find private insurance unaffordable. That is what I am being told. That will push them into an already strained public health system. This approach is neither strategic nor responsible. It reflects short-term politics rather than long-term planning.

Aged care remains under severe pressure. Waiting lists continue to grow, with more than 230,000 people on waiting lists for aged care. Tragically, around 5,000 people have died while on that waiting list. The system labelled Support at Home is failing to deliver that support in practice. Meanwhile, the lack of price caps has allowed some providers to charge excessive fees. Steve Wilmann, a physiotherapist from the town of Mildura in my electorate, has told me that he charges $75 for a half-hour consult, but the provider charged his elderly client $215 for those repeated physiotherapy appointments. The client came in to tell him that he was ripping her off. When he looked at the statement, it became very apparent that the provider was ripping off the client. The problem with this is that that lady's package dives very rapidly. She has no money left to continue the physiotherapy that she actually needs. This is rorting, and it is wrong.

In the electorate of Mallee, approximately 23,400 people aged over 65 hold private health insurance, representing around 59 per cent of that age group. Nationwide, about 3.2 million Australians will be affected by changes to the rebate that Labor are bringing in. While the government suggests only a small proportion will drop their coverage, those projections rely on assumptions that many find difficult to accept. Members Health Fund Alliance says, for instance, that the supposed $482 million in savings from this measure will actually trigger a $547 million increase in public hospital costs. Where is the logic? Many older Australians are already reporting that the changes will significantly increase their insurance costs, contradicting official claims by the Treasurer.

The issue of equity is not limited to age. Regional Australians are also being left behind. Inland Rail funding has been cut by more than $4 billion, with the project now expected to terminate at Parkes rather than Brisbane. That's actually quite a gap for anyone who's geographically sensitive. At the same time, more than $3 billion has been allocated to the disgraceful and corrupt Suburban Rail Loop in Victoria.

Programs that once supported regional communities have been slowed, paused or cancelled. There is no funding in this budget for the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, which I mentioned earlier. That program previously provided flexible support to councils, particularly smaller ones with limited revenue bases like many of the ones in Mallee. Communities in areas such as West Wimmera and Yarriambiack relied heavily on this funding for essential infrastructure. Business owners have assessed the cumulative impact of new measures and describe the Prime Minister as effectively becoming a 'silent partner' in their enterprises due to the scale of taxation. This, of course, has been very evident in social memes—quite hilarious, except that it's true. This has raised serious concerns about respect for electoral mandates.

Governments are expected to present their policy intentions clearly during elections. Instead, policies affecting negative gearing, capital gains taxes and trust structures appear to have emerged after the fact, despite prior assurances. Most people would call that broken promises, especially when the Prime Minister has been noted as saying, more than 50 times, that he would not be introducing changes to capital gains tax or to negative gearing. Now, this is flat-out unacceptable. There is no mandate for the Prime Minister and his treasurer to go forward with these budget changes. Earlier proposals to tax unrealised capital gains were defeated, but fresh measures targeting wealth have since appeared. These changes have significant implications, particularly for farmers in my electorate, whose returns are often weighted toward capital gain growth rather than income. As a result, they face disproportionately high impacts, with Australia now among the highest taxing jurisdictions in the world.

The budget also introduces changes affecting trusts, including those established through wills. Discretionary testamentary trusts, commonly used by families and small businesses, will now face new tax burdens if distributions vary from year to year. Approximately 840,000 such trusts exist, with around 350 000 small businesses relying on them. It's no wonder these small-business owners are worried. From 1 July 2028, income distributed through these structures may be taxed at 30 per cent. This has been described by some as a form of death tax, affecting how families manage assets across generations. Of course, you need to die for that discretionary testamentary trust to be implemented.

On housing, the government has adopted elements of the coalition's previous infrastructure proposal but at a reduced scale, committing $2 billion instead of the $5 billion originally proposed. By contrast, the coalition's regional Australia future fund aimed to ensure a fair share of housing infrastructure investment for regional communities—something not clearly replicated in this budget. In response, the coalition's budget in reply outlines a different path. Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan have committed to reversing the new tax measures. We will repeal them.

The coalition has also pledged to abandon net zero policies and halt major transmission lines to nowhere, as the Leader of the Opposition stated last week, such as the VNI West line. At community forums, including events in St Arnaud and Maryborough last week, local farmers with me have expressed strong support for these commitments. Many have described feeling heard and represented, particularly after years of uncertainty and concern over large-scale infrastructure projects. There were over 220 farmers and people in the farming communities who came together at St Arnaud last Thursday to meet with the Leader of the Nationals; the Deputy Leader of the Nationals, Darren Chester; and the leader of the Nationals in Victoria, Danny O'Brien. The community made it very clear there is no social licence for the appalling way the Victorian government has been treating them. The distress in that community has been palpable for years. I have been fighting and standing with them for years. I will continue to do so. When they heard Matt Canavan say that we have scrapped net zero and we will stop VNI West—I have had text after text after text from farmers who are so relieved that finally someone is listening to them and policy will change. Their futures are now back in front of them and in front of their children. They were so worried their futures were being ripped away.

Finally, the issue of bracket creep remains significant. While the government offers modest short-term relief, the cumulative effect of tax settings will see workers paying substantially more over time. On average, workers may lose around $2,000 due to bracket creep, far outweighing the immediate benefit that the Labor government is saying. $250 a year, seriously—I haven't got a maths head to quickly work that out, but that's not many coffees. The coalition are saying we will deal with bracket creep, and we will index income tax. It is genuine reform that small businesses and that people on incomes have been crying out for. In just four years—and it will continue to go on—people will be saving $1,000 a year, and it will improve over time. This pattern of the Labor government reflects a broad concern. Australians are being told they're better off while their lived experience absolutely suggests otherwise.

I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 and related bills. I could not be prouder of the budget that my good friend the Treasurer has put forward. What the Treasurer has put together speaks to the heart of what it means to be a Labor government. It focuses on equity, on rebalancing the weights of the generations and on helping ordinary Australians. This budget is the most important and fair budget in decades. It is big and it is bold and it tackles long overdue reform to our tax system that will fundamentally change the future for future generations.

This has certainly not been easy, but government isn't easy. For those of us who genuinely care about people, like I know the Treasurer and the Prime Minister do, these decisions are really tough, and that is the hard work of government. That's what it means to lead the country to a better and fairer future. We're focused on helping people in our community to deal with cost-of-living pressures and the uncertainty of the war in the Middle East. We're building a more resilient economy and putting money back into the pockets of Australians.

It tackles some long overdue reform. It's no surprise that those who like the system as it is—stacked against younger generations and working Australians—are working hard to spread misinformation and fear. When things are new or complex, opponents unfortunately use this as an opportunity to spread mis- and disinformation. I've seen this in the offshore wind debate, and we've seen it for decades around immigration and refugees. We experienced it around these very same issues back in 2019. But the community now understands more acutely than ever that these changes must happen, and the time is now.

According to the 2023 Intergenerational report, over the next 40 years the rate of people participating in paid work is expected to decline from 66.6 per cent to 63.8 per cent. At the same time, the number of people aged 85 and over will more than triple, and the number of centenarians is expected to increase sixfold. If we don't take action now, we simply won't have the supports we need to deal with this shift. For too long, our tax system has been stacked against working Australians. It has incentivised investment in housing as a wealth generator, and it has given tax breaks to people using trusts and other mechanisms to reduce their tax burden unfairly.

Housing affordability is one of the biggest challenges for our community right now. Just to be clear, this crisis is not just impacting young people, but we do see them being disproportionately disadvantaged when it comes to cracking into the housing market for the first time. This is something that worries them, and it is something that worries their parents as well. I've heard too many stories of parents who are delaying their own retirement because they are still supporting their adult children at home. People want to be able to see their kids get the same leg-up that they did, and, in so many parts of our society, this just isn't the case. No-one wants to be the generation that leaves their kids worse off than they were.

Let's talk about the capital gains tax and negative gearing for a moment as they relate to housing. Capital gains tax, combined with negative gearing, makes it harder for first home buyers to buy a home. With the way the system is set up, investment into existing property is encouraged, and that investment is putting up prices and locking out first home buyers. It's also pulling investment away from other productive parts of the economy. This also impacts families and Australians who need to move for a whole range of reasons—those who are looking to get back into the market after a relationship breakdown or older Australians on lower incomes wanting to make a change for retirement and many more. Investors have a tax system on their side, which means they can spend more than those who don't. We need to make it more affordable and more attractive to buy new homes that add to our housing stock and help to take the pressure off the existing housing market. This means more homes for renters. It means more affordable homes for first home buyers. It means a rebalance in a system that rewards wealth.

What are we actually doing? When you sell an asset, you should only have to pay tax on the real gains that you have made, not on the inflation over the time you have held the asset. That's the purpose of the capital gains tax discount. When the system changed in 1999, instead of calculating the actual inflation of an asset, an arbitrary 50 per cent discount was calculated. This was billed as a simpler alternative, but it has helped make a two-class system when it comes to assets. For some assets, particularly high-growth assets, that discount massively overcompensated for inflation, but some slower growth assets were instead taxed too harshly. What has housing been since 1999? A very high growth asset. Combine this with negative gearing. When your rental income is less than your property expenses, these losses reduce your taxable income, meaning that if you spend more on your property you reduce your overall tax burden. So investors pay less tax on high-growth property gains than they might on slower growing assets, and they can reduce their overall tax burden if they spend more on housing than they receive in rent. Overall, it gives them more money to spend. This is a system tipped out of balance.

How are we fixing it? From 1 July 2027, we're going to discount capital gains tax based on actual inflation and will apply a minimum 30 per cent tax to real gains to keep them more in line with the rate paid by an average worker. Some people will be better off, and people receiving means tested income support payments, like the age pension, will be exempt from the minimum rate. These changes will not impact the properties you already own. Importantly, if you buy a new property, you can negatively gear that property just like you can now, and you can make a choice about whether to use the old or new capital gains tax discount system. We want people to buy new homes, and our changes incentivise that.

As I mentioned, there has been a lot of disappointing misinformation about what these changes mean. We are not taxing 40 per cent on real gains. Inflation remains discounted, so the effective tax rate will be lower than the nominal marginal tax rate. According to Treasury estimates, the average tax rate on gross capital gains will increase from 19.3 per cent to 21.4 per cent by 2036-37. We will also not be taxing your family home. We never have and we never will. And we are not implementing a death tax.

I've also heard a lot of talk about discretionary trusts. Around 90 per cent of trust wealth is held by the wealthiest 10 per cent of households. Using a discretionary trust helps those wealthiest 10 per cent to manage their tax affairs in ways that are simply not available to most Australians. The number of these trusts has doubled over the past 20 years, once again, disproportionately advantaging people who can use discretionary trusts and disadvantaging Australians living on a wage. And we are not saying that there aren't legitimate reasons to use a trust. There absolutely are. But this system should not be used as a way to simply pay less tax than you otherwise would. A 30 per cent minimum tax will help ensure tax on discretionary trusts is more aligned with tax on wages, and will help to pay for the $250 tax offset for 13 million Australian workers. The changes won't come into effect until 2028, to ensure people have the time to restructure.

Are these changes easy? No. Are they necessary? Absolutely, yes. It's the fair thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It will tax every asset class more evenly on the real gains made, stop encouraging short-term speculation and encourage longer term investment. The reforms to make our tax system fairer will help 75,000 more homeowners crack into the housing market over the next decade, and that's on top of our five per cent deposit scheme for first home buyers, which has already helped 1,159 people in Cunningham.

We also recognise that there are some local barriers to building more homes quickly. That's why we're investing $2 billion in the infrastructure needed to build more homes. Our new local infrastructure fund will see roads, water, power and sewerage built to unlock up to 65,000 homes over 10 years. This includes $500 million reserved just for regional Australia. At the same time, we're reducing red tape for faster approvals and providing new pathways for migrant workers already in Australia to get their existing qualifications and practical trade experience recognised, helping address workforce shortages. We're coming at the housing crisis from every angle to build more homes, give first home buyers a fair go and support renters with stable and affordable homes.

Our tax reform is also benefiting millions of small businesses around the country. This budget invests $3.5 billion in new business tax relief to boost investment, increase cash flow and support growth. We're making the $20,000 instant tax asset write-off permanent to give more businesses more certainty to invest. Over the next five years, that will deliver around $890 million in cashflow support, save 366,000 hours of recordkeeping and around $32 million a year in compliance costs. Our permanent two-year loss carryback for companies with turnover up to $1 billion will start on 1 July 2026 and will help small businesses to return to profitability faster, give them the confidence to invest earlier and withstand volatility.

We're helping startups to grow in their first two years by introducing loss refundability from 1 July 2028, providing a tax refund before they are profitable. We'll expand venture capital incentives from 1 July 2027 to help more innovative firms access the capital they need to scale and create jobs. We'll better target the research and development tax incentive from 1 July 2028 to unlock $400 million in additional R&D by young firms per year. There's a lot of research and innovation happening right across the Illawarra, and I know these incentives will help local businesses grow and shape the future made in the Illawarra.

All up, the budget's productivity package cuts red tape and regulatory costs by over $10 billion. I am particularly excited about our new 'tell us once' approach. I can't tell you how often I hear from businesses and community organisations about their frustrations with filling in a new form with exactly the same information every time they talk to a different department, and sometimes even a different section of the same department. It's a waste of time and energy, and many just simply do not have the resources. So we're investing $654.3 million to expand the use of digital ID to safely verify identity, reduce data storage and improve access to government services online. By 2030, the Australian Public Service will work as a single, unified enterprise to deliver simple, accessible services for people and businesses. This will revolutionise the way that government engages across the country, and will transform the experience that I know so many people have. And these are just a few ways that the budget is supporting business.

I want to touch on the massive ongoing investment that this budget is making in health. I talk about this a lot, but it's worthy of another mention here. This budget has $3.5 billion in measures to improve access to health care across the country. Medicare urgent care clinics will become a permanent part of Medicare. These free clinics have been a huge success in Corrimal, in Dapto. We have seen more than 68,000 free visits to these clinics, and I regularly hear positive feedback from people across the Illawarra about their experiences. They are delivering free health care closer to home when it's urgent but not an emergency. They are taking the pressure off hospitals like Wollongong Hospital, where we know the emergency department is already under significant pressure.

We are investing in more cheaper medicines for cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, various cancers and more, and we're making the RSV vaccine free for people aged over 75—and that's just to name a few. The Illawarra has a critical shortage of aged-care beds. It's one of the issues that keeps me up at night. In March this year, the member for Whitlam, Carol Berry, the member for Gilmore, Fiona Phillips, and I worked very closely with the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Sam Rae, to ensure that the federal government made the Illawarra one of its first priority regions to access $115 million under the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program. This will fund projects that can build and open more beds within two years. This is great news, but I know it's not enough.

This budget is also investing $3 billion in aged care to deliver 5,000 more aged-care beds every year, to significantly reduce wait times for Support at Home packages and to provide better care for older Australians. At the same time, we've made personal care services like showering and dressing free to help people age in their homes with dignity. I know this one in particular is a really welcome change.

This is a big, bold and fair budget. It's a Labor budget at its core, putting fairness first and supporting Australians. I'm proud to be part of the team delivering for the Illawarra and I commend the bill to the House.

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 is where the rubber hits the road. This budget of betrayal is built on Labor lies and broken promises and becomes clear to all Australians. It has been sobering, to say the least, to listen to the stories of so many small-business owners in my own electorate offering a vastly different perspective to the propaganda that we are hearing from government MPs at the moment as to what these changes will have on their small businesses. So today I want to share the story of Ian, who has written to me as a local Bunbury business owner who founded his first small business 13 years ago, at the age of 26. Subsequently, he has built that business to employ 100 people. And since taking on his first apprentice in 2017, he has seen 33 young Australians successfully complete an apprenticeship and qualify as tradesmen.

He has also founded a charity that is dedicated to raising funds for childhood cancer after losing his son at the age of five in 2021. These are the sorts of Australians that I want to back, that I think the government should be backing, instead of attacking with this budget of betrayal and its taxes on aspiration.

Here's Ian's story. He's lived in Bunbury most of his life and now is proudly part of a family of five. Living a modest life as a sole income family, his dad worked at the Bunbury TAFE and then later for Wespine, something of a local institution, as it has been for decades. Ian worked in a factory as a teenager which was shut down shortly after the GFC, and his parents lost everything. This is a chap who's seen times when they're tough. Indeed, he founded his first business in 2013 with just $3,000 in the bank after being made redundant as a labourer on the construction—

Ms Byrnes, on a point of order?

Sorry, Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to draw to your attention that the member opposite has used 'Labor lies', which the Speaker has ruled against. I ask him to withdraw.

To assist the House—I am perfectly happy to talk about the mistruths, the broken promises and all of the other ways in which the Labor Party are severely allergic to what the Australian people can see staring them in the face, which is, of course, the fact that they have been betrayed by a prime minister who looked down the barrel of the camera before the election and said, 'I am a man you can trust because my word is my bond.' The fact that Labor MPs in this place are now running a protection racket for this prime minister, whose integrity has been shredded by his own deceit of the Australian people, is a matter that they will be held to account for at the ballot box.

But I return to the story of Ian, who, as I said, founded his first business with $3,000 in the bank after being made redundant. For the first five years, he paid himself a salary of $80,000 a year, which was his sole income, whilst his wife was welcoming young sons into the family. After five years in business, he was the lowest paid employee in his own business. It was hard financially, he wrote to me. It was hard on his wife. It was hard on their relationship. It was stressful, and he was regularly physically unwell from anxiety and stress. But his goal was to shift the future for his family and ensure that one day they would enjoy financial freedom. That is the story of how so many Australians have become successful, and, indeed, it's something that we on this side of the chamber want to see into the future.

He wrote to me that across his business they now generate literally millions of dollars in tax every year—across PAYG, GST, payroll tax, fringe benefits tax and company tax. Governments, both state and federal, are the largest benefactors of his business, receiving far more in tax than the profit that he and his wife are left with as business owners.

His business was structured in accordance with the advice of a local Bunbury accountant. They hold shares in a trust and distribute some of the dividends that they receive through to his wife. The structure is legal. It was established within the rules, and they pay significant tax, as we discussed earlier. His wife, Ian wrote to me, has been by his side the whole time, riding the highs and lows, supporting both him and their boys through this entire time, which, as I mentioned, included the tragic loss of one of their sons at the age of five to cancer. So the changes that are proposed by this government, which were, of course, not mentioned before the election—in fact, quite the opposite. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer repeatedly promised Australians that they would not change these tax settings. These changes mean that Ian and his wife face an assault on the aspiration with which they built their business.

Having turned 40 and looking to a better future, Ian and his wife were considering selling the business that they've invested heavily in for over a decade, sacrificed and saved for and paid an untold price for through stress and anxiety and all of the pitfalls that go with being a business owner in a volatile, modern economy. But the government now tells them that their fair share needs to somehow be carved up, with taxes on aspiration that leave he and his wife angry, frustrated and feeling betrayed after 13 years of sacrifice and playing by the rules. Somehow this Prime Minister seems unable to tell the Australian people what his plans are until after an election, when suddenly those solemn promises he made 50 times can be broken.

I know they're allergic to the L word over there, so we can use every other word for it. But Australians like Ian and his wife know what's going on here. They can see it and they are angry. That's why we on the coalition side will be voting against these sorts of outrageous taxes. This assault on aspiration and this raid on the pockets of Australians are simply because this is a government that has run out of money. And when they run out of money, they come after yours. That's exactly what Ian and his wife have seen, and their story, unfortunately, is far from unique. Ian wrote that he was unsure whether other people from—

Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:00

I rise today to speak in support of the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 and related bills. This Labor budget is focused on relief, resilience and reform that delivers for all Australians. That's why this budget is delivering more tax cuts, a stronger Medicare and a fair go at homeownership. It's delivering more cost-of-living relief and helping build an economy that works for more people. We know that people are doing it really tough right now. Cost-of-living pressures have been compounded by the conflict in the Middle East, while at the same time we face longstanding challenges when it comes to productivity, intergenerational equity and access to housing.

Over the past two decades, house prices have risen by around 400 per cent, and incomes have not kept pace. We can't just ignore this problem and the impact that it's having on Australians, particularly young people with aspirations of homeownership. So we are taking action and overhauling the rules for negative gearing and capital gains tax. These changes have been carefully designed to help more Australians into homes and encourage the kind of market activity that leads to more supply.

We're also making other very important changes to Australia's tax system. The package of tax reform and relief in this budget will reduce the tax burden for over 13 million workers, support 75,000 more homeowners into the housing market, deliver over $3.5 billion in new measures to lower taxes for businesses and reduce compliance costs by $540 million a year. This is an ambitious Labor budget because the Albanese Labor government is committed to building resilience, bolstering the economy and delivering for businesses, first home buyers and future generations of Australians. The budget's about more cost-of-living relief, more Medicare, more aged care and more housing.

The budget contains the most significant tax reform package in more than a quarter of a century. This package of tax reform and tax relief is about making our economy work in the interests of more Australians, more Australian businesses and all those future generations. It's a package that's pro aspiration, pro worker and pro investment. The budget delivers a new and permanent tax cut for Australian workers. Every working Australian will benefit from the $250 working Australians tax offset, along with the $1,000 instant tax deduction. The working Australians tax offset will begin to apply for income earned from work for the second half of 2027 and will automatically reduce workers' tax liability for the 2027-28 income year. It will lift the effective tax-free threshold for eligible workers by almost $1,800. This is the largest permanent increase to the effective tax-free threshold since 2012-13. This new offset will provide responsible cost-of-living relief and help make the tax system much fairer for workers. It will help Australian workers to keep more of what they earn, incentivise participation for lower income workers and, very importantly, help with the cost of living. The $1,000 instant tax deduction will allow workers to deduct up to $1,000 from their taxable income without having to keep receipts. What a big difference that will make. These measures all build on the legislated tax cuts starting in July 2026 and July 2027. The combined benefit to an Australian worker on average earnings from our three tax cuts, new tax offset and instant tax deduction will be up to $2,816 from 2027-28.

We're also making changes to ensure more equal and sustainable treatment between workers earning a living from wages and those with income from assets held in trusts. Currently, discretionary trusts allow some Australians, often high-wealth individuals and families, to plan their tax affairs in ways that aren't available to most people. From 2028-29, a minimum 30 per cent tax rate will apply to discretionary trusts. This will make the tax system fairer and more sustainable by aligning tax paid by trusts more closely with the income tax rates paid by the vast majority of Australians. Importantly, primary production income earned through discretionary trusts will remain exempt, recognising the unique income volatility and seasonal nature of farming businesses.

In this budget we're creating a fairer system for first home buyers and future generations. Our reforms are about helping more Australians buy a home, encouraging investment in new housing supply and helping to fund new tax cuts for workers. Fixing the tax treatment of capital gains is necessary so that it operates as originally intended, by helping to ensure investment flows to where it's most productive. We're replacing the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with inflation adjusted indexation to restore the taxation of real gains. We're also establishing a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent on realised gains. Importantly, income support recipients, including pensioners, will be exempt from the minimum rate. These changes apply from 1 July 2027 to all assets except new builds, where both new and old arrangements will be available to choose from. Any gains made up to 1 July 2027 will be treated under the old rules. We know that early-stage and startup businesses, particularly in the tech sector, have unique features, and further consultations are being undertaken with stakeholders to clarify the details for implementations for these kinds of businesses. We're also limiting negative gearing for residential properties to new builds that add to the supply of housing that we desperately need. For properties purchased after 12 May 2026, negative gearing can be used until 2027-28. For all existing investments made before 12 May 2026, negative gearing arrangements will remain absolutely unchanged.

These changes to the tax system will help around 75,000 Australians get into the market over the next decade. This is the equivalent to reversing around a decade of decline in Australia's homeownership rate. All of these changes, when combined with our other massive housing reforms in the budget, will boost supply of housing by another 30,000 homes over 10 years, which are all desperately needed.

The budget, really importantly, also includes an investment of a further $2 billion in a new local infrastructure fund for enabling infrastructure. Enabling infrastructure refers to roads, water, power and other systems required for all these housing projects to go ahead. This funding will be provided to local governments and our state utility providers responsible for this infrastructure. Access to the fund will require state based reforms to improve productivity in the housing sector. This means faster and simpler approvals, freeing up more land to build new homes and the delivery of a consistent National Construction Code. The local infrastructure fund will support up to 65,000 more homes over 10 years, and reforms to cut red tape have the potential to support tens of thousands of additional homes, as well as reducing regulation costs by up to $3 billion a year. This brings the value of our Homes for Australia Plan to more than $47 billion—a massive investment. We're also committing $59.4 million of funding to community housing providers to help secure social housing for more than 4,000 eligible young people at risk of homelessness.

Very importantly, in this budget, we did as we always do—strengthen Medicare and deliver better health outcomes—because we're committed to delivering on all of our plans, like cheaper medicines, a stronger Medicare, more bulk-billing, more doctors and nurses and more urgent care clinics. In this budget, we've committed $1.8 billion over five years and more than $500 million ongoing to make urgent care clinics permanent—a great initiative. These clinics provide fully bulk-billed and accessible care, taking pressure off hospitals and making life easier for so many Australians who use these services.

In my electorate of Richmond, more than 5,400 people have visited the Tweed Heads Medicare urgent care clinic since it opened in December last year, delivering vital reform for access to health care for locals. As part of this budget, we're also delivering a landmark $25 billion in additional funding for state and territory hospitals, to reach a record $220.3 billion over five years. We're investing $5.9 billion in this budget to list new medicines on the PBS, including treatments for cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, some cancers and many more. Since July 2022, our government has funded over 430 new or amended PBS medicines. When it comes to cheaper medicines, across my region we've had more than 2.6 million scripts for cheaper medicines that have been filled. That's making a huge difference to so many people in my region.

Earlier this year, our government took immediate and effective action following the outbreak of the crisis in the Middle East and the absolute disruption of the global fuel supply. We cut the fuel excise by more than half, reduced the heavy-vehicle road user charge to zero for three months and doubled penalties for major breaches of consumer laws. We also secured more than a billion litres of extra fuel from March to June by relaxing the minimum stockholding obligation, underwriting additional cargoes and adjusting fuel standards, and now we're focused on building up reserves for the future and ensuring Australia's energy sovereignty. In this budget we saw our government establish a $3.2 billion government controlled Australian Fuel Security Reserve, and increase Australia's diesel and jet fuel reserves to 50 days. It's so vitally important that we do that. We're also taking action to secure more gas for Australian homes and businesses through a domestic gas reservation scheme. This scheme will require gas exporters to supply around 20 per cent of exports to the Australian market. This will put downward pressure on domestic prices while shielding our market from global price volatility and making us more resilient to any potential supply shortfalls.

As in all budgets, we're backing businesses. We're backing small businesses with this budget, we know that the key to higher wages and higher living standards is lifting productivity, and small businesses and start-ups are an important part of that. This budget contains $3.5 billion in new measures aimed at lowering taxes for businesses, increasing cash flow and supporting growth to boost investment. New measures include making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent, which will give businesses more certainty and allow them to invest in themselves with confidence. It's anticipated this change will slash compliance costs for small businesses by around $32 million a year, saving more than 350,000 hours on record-keeping. It will deliver around $890 million in cashflow support over the next five years.

There's so much more in this budget providing assistance to Australians right across the board. There are so many measures that we have, particularly the indexation of many social security payments and more than $3 billion for aged care, including more beds and more packages. We know how vital this is, particularly in my electorate and the large number of senior Australians that we have. This is an issue and we've responded to that with more beds and more packages. We've also got more than $180 million in this budget to make the child support scheme safer and fairer, helping to ensure single parents and their kids get the support they need. Also in the budget is more than $27 million to reduce prices for essential groceries across remote Australia.

Right across the country, wherever that need is, we have really addressed this with this budget. This really is a Labor budget built for resilience in incredibly uncertain times and incredibly uncertain global times, yet at the same time we are reforming for the future and particularly addressing that intergenerational equity that we've spoken about and that people raise all the time. We've done that through our reforms with negative gearing and the capital gains tax. This budget recognises the absolute pressures that Australians are facing today while also taking on the long-term challenges that have, in fact, been ignored for too long, particularly when it came to housing. We saw the previous government just ignore the housing crisis, and it built up worse and worse for years. Since day one, since we've been in government, we've invested a massive amount in all areas of housing. Whether it's that five per cent deposit or whether it's making these important reforms, plus our massive investment in social and affordable housing and massive building right across the country, we are absolutely committed to making sure that Australians—particularly young Australians—can access homeownership.

In this budget we are delivering cost-of-living relief without losing sight of productivity, housing supply, energy security or that really important intergenerational fairness. This budget invests in workers, backs small businesses and strengthens Medicare. One of the biggest issues in my electorate is accessing healthcare. We've seen more than 30 GP clinics that are now fully bulk-billing. It's making a huge difference to locals.

This budget also supports vulnerable Australians and really, at the end of it, also helps more people achieve the security of their own home, because we want to build an economy that works for everyone, no matter where you live. Particularly for areas like mine in regional Australia, this budget really provides a lot of assistance. We want to build an economy that's stronger, fairer and, really importantly, more resilient to the many global shocks that we have seen. We're building that economy not just for today but for future generations of Australians, particularly through our housing reforms to ensure there's an even playing field for younger Australians. And the response to this has been overwhelming because young people have had so many difficulties in accessing housing.

This is a government that acts right across the board in terms of providing support now and building for future generations.

It's good to follow someone else speaking on regional Australia and the impact of this government's budget. We are on a unity ticket; this is very much a Labor budget. I'm going to address some of the issues that I have with this budget. I think it is important to reflect on both the local impact and the broader one. Obviously, I'll start locally with the news we had dropped two days before this budget: the announcement that the government would not be pursuing Inland Rail to Toowoomba, which has a huge impact on our local economy and on local confidence. This was a promise that this government had made that the Labor, when in opposition, had made that they would maintain. We were never under any doubt that this project would be delivered. This was a project that was going to deliver huge benefits to our region. It was something that we were looking forward to. As I've mentioned in other speeches, we invested. Locally, I can speak to one project where over $50 million of private investment was made in preparation for Inland Rail coming in. There are other sites that have also made those sorts of investments.

To us, to have that project taken away from is was a big hit. It was a big hit to our plans for the future, for our future economy. It's a project that we are going to fight to try and maintain. It's a project that we think still stacks up, and we hope very much that the government will listen to our pleas to bring the Inland Rail to Toowoomba. We still think there are plenty of benefits that can be achieved from our region and for the nation by doing so.

Before I before I go to more details, I want to speak on one issue that this budget does address which is a worthy point of conversation: what an east-coast gas reservation might look like. I think this is an important conversation. We are going through a period of time where it's very clear that, in terms of our resources, self-sufficiency is something that has had a heightened level of acceptance that we need to address in this country. The government, to their credit, have started that conversation. I think they have some issues to address, and I want to I want to lay out the practicalities of what it takes to establish an east-coast gas reservation. Ninety per cent of the gas on the east coast comes from Queensland, but 90 per cent of the usage on the east coast is in the southern states and mostly in Victoria. That gas travels through a pipeline from Queensland to Victoria that is currently at capacity. There is no more reservation. There is no more room. It's at capacity. To have an east-coast reservation, you're increasing either the number or the size of that pipeline or you are opening up new gas projects down south, at the southern end of that pipeline. That's what an east-coast reservation actually, practically looks like. People have this idea that the government's proposing to build these tanks or some sort of storage capacity that's got to be around. No, there's a pipeline that's already at capacity. You can't push more gas through it. We're already at capacity, so to actually address this requires some significant change—far more than what the government has envisioned in this budget. I think that shows this government's lack of practical understanding of what it takes to do things. You can talk about a gas reservation all you like, but this will not create that. It's a challenge to the government. Can it put on paper something that can actually solve the problem it seeks to address? I look forward to that.

But this budget is the highest taxing budget ever. Goodness me! In this economy, at this time, it is the highest taxing budget ever. What a challenge for future treasurers! How do you address the impact this will have? What this budget does in addition to being the highest taxing budget ever is it banks in 10 years of deficits. When you talk about the performance of a Treasurer or a government—the economic credibility, its legacy—one would think that the economic situation it leaves after it is the most important factor in determining that legacy. A government that leaves you a decade of deficits, after having delivered the highest taxing budget ever, that's an incredible legacy and one that this government should be ashamed of. It is also the highest spending budget in 40 years, outside of the pandemic. In the first term of this government, we heard about spending restraint from the Treasurer. I'm not sure that the word was being used as it is commonly understood. We have the highest spending budget in 40 years. There is no restraint. There is no spending restraint here at all!

If we look back to 2019, at the last budget before the pandemic hit, since then we have seen spending almost double. So we went through the pandemic. We agreed. Labor, then in opposition, supported and, in fact, wanted us to spend more and, on multiple occasions, pushed us to spend more than we were spending in our pandemic response. Having gone through that, we haven't reduced our spending at all. That spending hasn't come down. We've actually continued the same heightened levels of spending. We didn't come down afterwards, and I can't find the justification for that. During the pandemic, it was the decision of the government of the day to provide support to the states to allow them to individually manage how they responded to the pandemic. We provided that. We made that decision. What is the justification for keeping spending at that rate now? I think that's an important conversation for us, because it does have an impact.

There is no surprise that in a period of continued heightened government spending that we are seeing inflation continue to stay high. In fact, homegrown inflation, as confirmed in this budget, will be five per cent. That's domestic inflation; that's not imported. That's what we're doing here. That's the result of domestic issues. We can't blame wars overseas for this. And that five per cent is above every other developed nation. There is a long-established link between government spending and inflation, and, sadly, we're seeing it here again.

Back in 2024, I decided to raise my voice in public—much to the chagrin of the leader of my party of the day—that I thought that we needed to address the growth of NDIS spending. I made the argument then that this was becoming a very bad way of doing a very good thing. There's not a single Australian—and I stand very strongly with them—who feels that we shouldn't be spending some of our tax dollars looking after our most vulnerable and disadvantaged people. There's no question whatsoever. I'm proud of that. It makes us a good nation. It's something that we should always strive to achieve. However, it has been clear for a long time that the growth of the NDIS has been at an extraordinary rate. I'm very happy and comfortable looking back at my public comments at the time, which I then doubled up again in 2025, repeating calls for the government to look at reforming the NDIS—again, much to the chagrin of the leader of my party of the day.

I recall very clearly being absolutely shut down by Labor when I dared to raise the issue and say that it was worthy of reform, that it was worthy of keeping, and that to keep it, it required reform. I was the subject of something of a scare campaign. According to that scare campaign, it was my intention to kill the NDIS and to cut services—absolutely not. What I was concerned about was that there was a program in place that was disincentivising care and support for the most needy. We have seen that time and time again. If you have a service provider who has the option of giving care at the same rate to someone with high needs versus someone with mild autism—I'm talking about the personal, intimate care that is required to be provided—they are going to choose the person with mild autism. They are not going to choose the person with high needs. Why would they? It's a much harder job, but they're being paid at the same level. I have seen that over and over again. We are disincentivising, through this scheme, care towards those who need it most. Sadly, I saw that firsthand. Residents in my electorate made me acutely aware of that, and I thank them for doing so.

So I'm glad that we are finally addressing the growth of the NDIS. I think it's an important step. I would point out that most of the steps that have been put forward by Labor are steps that were previously put forward by the opposition, some also by the crossbench. They're steps that are quite reasonable. They were subject to scare campaigns then. The government is now putting them forward. Unlike the government, I won't fight back. I'm very happy to engage. I think it's an important conversation. It was important when I was saying it then, and it's still important now.

The other issue I want to talk about—and I think this has been the subject of much conversation with regard to this budget—is the changes to tax settings. I refer particularly to those relating to housing—negative gearing and CGT. For a long time both sides have argued, based on evidence from a study in New Zealand, that to make such changes would result in a reduction in the supply of housing. There is evidence of that, and that's always been offered as a reason not to make changes. Much to the chagrin of my party's leader of the day, I said I was always open to this conversations. I though we should look at it and have a discussion about it, but I had always had the proviso that we should do so in a way that never puts downward pressure on supply. That was my obvious proviso: if you want to talk about these changes, we must maintain supply. Clearly, at a time when supply is at its lowest level in our history, any changes can't negatively impact supply.

When the budget paper came out, I got to page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1 and read very clearly that the result of the government's taxation changes would be 35,000 fewer homes built by the private sector. It was exactly as everyone had been concerned about—that if done in an inaccurate way, the result would be a downward pressure on supply, and that's exactly what we have. Thirty-five thousand fewer homes will be built by the private sector as a result of these changes. There is nothing that can make that a good news story—absolutely nothing.

When you frame this within the context of a budget that was being sold as one that addressed intergenerational inequality—the disparity between those who have and those who want to have—this is a laughable attempt at addressing the concerns of young people who are trying to get into property, because what it is doing is reducing the supply of housing. A basic, entry-level view of any economic theory will show that, if you maintain demand and reduce supply, prices will go up.

But it is much worse than that for young people, because this budget confirms that there will have been two million people arrive in Australia during the first two terms of this Albanese government. This is an issue of simple mathematics. Not only are we reducing the supply of homes; we're increasing demand. You add both of those things together and the mathematics go one way: prices go up. Sadly, there is no moral outrage that one can apply to mathematics. It simply is. That is what will happen. Those are the courses that this government has chosen to take—to reduce supply and to increase demand. Prices will go up. So, on any assessment, does this budget help young people? No. It reduces their opportunities to get into affordable housing. It will not help them.

But there's one thing about this budget that I think really rubs people who I've spoken to about it. The idea that we would be introducing a death tax in 2026 is extraordinary, and I think that will hurt people a lot—particularly young people, who are looking ahead.

Young people in my electorate wanted to have the opportunities we had. They wanted to have the pathway to prosperity that was created for my generation. It'll have to be a different pathway—sure. But we have to create it. That's our job. We have to find that. And this budget does not find that. There is no new pathway to prosperity. All there is is the closing of a door for the young generation, who are looking ahead and saying, 'I wanted that,' and now can't have it.

This is a government that has, I think, been characterised by the fact that it has made hard decisions. We make the hard decisions. We're making the hard decisions because, effectively, they're the right decisions to make. You see that in the debate around this year's budget, and in our record of delivery over a period of time, because we are focused on helping workers, we're focused on helping first home buyers and we're focused on helping small businesses, so that more Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn and also get into the housing market and get ahead.

The tax package is pro aspiration, pro worker and pro investment. And that is very good. It is very good for my incredibly diverse and aspirational community in my electorate of Wills.

We've had a quarter of a century, now, of a tax system that has encouraged the misallocation of investment and resources in our economy, and we've had a 2½ decade productivity problem in our economy as well. It may be that, on the other side of the aisle, it's all too hard—it's just too difficult to make those hard decisions to try and make sure that we have a better future.

But we want to encourage people to make investments, because there are good economic outcomes, not just good tax outcomes, that flow from that. That's why the government has cut taxes for workers five times and in three different ways—that's what we've done. We cut taxes in our first term. There was another tax cut in July, and another one the July after that. And this week we will introduce the legislation to cut income taxes further—including a $1,000 instant deduction, and also the working Australian tax offset of $250.

We're reforming the tax system to support 75,000 more homeowners into the housing market—that's significant. We're also investing an extra $2 billion for enabling infrastructure to support up to 65,000 more homes, taking our Homes for Australia plan to over $47 billion in investments over our time in government. We're also helping to secure social housing for more than 4,000 eligible young people at risk of homelessness, with a $59.4 million package for states and territories.

Now, it may be the case that those opposite are unaware of history. But they risk repeating their history, and making the same mistakes that they've made in the past, if they don't support these tax reforms—if they once again vote against tax cuts and against aspiration.

The aspiration to homeownership is at the heart of the budget that we delivered recently. House prices have risen over 400 per cent over the last two decades or so. They've gone from four times to eight times incomes over the past 20 years. And ownership for young people is down by seven per cent. These are all facts that they can't hide from. And our reforms, frankly, will be helping to level the playing field for first home buyers and to ensure investment flows to where it's most productive, including new housing supply.

Unfortunately, in the information landscape in which we all operate, there's been a lot of misinformation about the recently announced changes to the capital gains tax discount. Let's just have a bit of clarity and the facts.

Under the Howard government, a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount was applied to the sale of all assets that had been held for more than 12 months. It basically cut that tax in half, given that discount. That system distorted the market by encouraging people to invest in established houses, not units or shares. On average, the 50 per cent discount tends to overcompensate investors in housing for inflation and to undercompensate investors in units, especially in the regions, and in shares.

The return to indexation will mean, in future, that only real capital gains are subject to tax, supporting investment in assets like shares and medium- and high-density housing. The announcement that was made in the budget was to replace the 50 per cent CGT discount with inflation-adjusted indexation from 1 July next year, to restore the taxation of real gains, as well as a minimum tax on realised gains. It's all about fixing the tax treatment of capital gains so that it operates as originally intended, helping to ensure investment flows where it's most productive.

The return to indexation will mean in future that only real capital gains are subject to tax, supporting investment in assets like shares and medium- and high-density housing. The announcement that was made at the budget was to replace the 50 per cent CGT discount with inflation-adjusted indexation from 1 July next year to restore the taxation of real gains, as well as a minimum tax on realised gains. It's all about fixing the tax treatment of capital gains so that it operates as originally intended—helping to ensure investment flows where it's most productive. Returning to indexation will mean in the future only real capital gains are subject to tax, supporting investment in assets like medium-density housing, thus ensuring everyone pays a fair share when they make a capital gain. Income support recipients, including pensioners, will be exempt and there will be a grandfathering of gains made before 1 July. As we go through this process before the implementation, there is a lot of consultation going on with business to make sure we get all of this right.

There's been a lot of discussion as well about the negative gearing changes that we're debating. Our negative gearing changes put homeowners first and will help more Australians get a foothold in the housing market. Going forward, we are limiting negative gearing for residential property so it can only be used for new builds. You can still negatively gear. You can do it on a new property, and it stimulates new home builds. We knew that something had to change. Too many people, too many young people, have been locked out from owning property by the fact of the distortions in the systems for the last several decades. But we're making these changes in a very responsible way.

What's disappointing is partly the misinformation that has flooded the information landscape, conflated with rather, I think, deceptive messaging around and a misunderstanding of what's happening to confuse people and to scare people. We heard the previous speaker talk about scare campaigns. Well, this has become almost a kind of characteristic of our current information landscape—that it's almost expected—but that's not good enough. This might not reach many people, but at least we can actually debate in this place what we're doing and why we're doing it. Hopefully, people can see and hear that.

Australians who are currently negatively gearing will not see any change to their arrangements. That's just a fact. They'll continue to be able to negatively gear. Nothing changes for properties purchased before the budget. This includes contracts entered into. And if you want a negative gear going forward under the new system, you can. You absolutely can. We ask that you contribute to the national goal of building more homes by negatively gearing on new builds. That's a fact. People who've been online recently would have seen all these AI generated images of the PM as a silent partner, taking 47 per cent of profits from a small business or start-up. I'm sure this has been spread around everywhere by bots and others who want to create mischief and further misinformation. Well, these posts are referring to 47 per cent marginal tax rate that has existed for more than a decade. It doesn't change in this budget at all. You've got all of these memes going around and all the rest of the social media campaigns by the proponents. One of the main proponents of the social media campaign actually explained the issue with the memes by saying, 'Unfortunately, the more nuance you have, the quicker someone will scroll past and not really care about what you're saying.' That's the motivation for putting information out to misinform the Australian people? It's remarkable. So let's not scroll past right now. I've got a small audience here, maybe a few more people that might watch this if I put it up on social media. Let's not scroll past.

There are four key capital gains concessions for businesses that are unchanged in the budget. We are supporting small businesses to get ahead, and it's a big focus of this budget. We're actually consulting and working with the sector on how the new rules will actually apply to start-ups. As I mentioned, there'll be a consultation process going forward on some of this. The fact is we're delivering $3.5 billion of tax relief to new businesses, which includes the $20,000 instant asset write-off becoming permanent. That's going to wipe away around $890 million in cash flow burden. We're delivering a permanent two-year loss carry-back so that small businesses can return to profitability faster and have the confidence to invest earlier and withstand volatility. We're introducing loss refundability to help startups grow in their first two years. We're expanding tax incentives for venture capital to help unlock more investment in young and expanding businesses, in startups, in transforming ideas into great businesses that can be productive in the economy.

How come there are no memes on that? How come no-one's putting that out on social media in the same way and spreading that information? Guess what? If anyone knows anything about investing in small businesses, you know that upfront is where you need that support—when an idea is just an idea, when there's the passion of the entrepreneur. So all the things I've just talked about—the $3.5 billion in tax relief and tax measures to help small businesses and startups—is actually what matters. And then we've got all this misinformation about how on the back end the discount through indexation will somehow be terrible for the investor down the end. Well, I'll tell you what—some investors and some of these businesses will actually benefit from an indexed tax discount, depending on inflation rates.

So there's a lot of misinformation in the ecosystem, but we know this: small businesses are the backbone of the Australian community and of employing people. This government will continue to support them through all this noise, through all this white noise and this smoke and mirrors, by delivering through these bills into law the support that they need to be able to be successful in small business. So we change the culture and the distortions that have occurred for decades, which have funnelled people away from investing in small businesses. As some of the people on the other side would know, there are exemptions all the way through already for businesses with a turnover of under $2 million or assets of less than $6 million, so 90-plus per cent of small businesses are not affected by any of these changes.

Some people online have also said, 'This is so unfair to young people who are trying to save a deposit by investing in the share market.' But the truth is that most young people—just take a walk down your local electorate; it's certainly the case in mine—don't make income from capital gains, buying and selling assets. They make it from working. Taxpayers aged between 18 and 34 account for—wait for it—four per cent of the total value of capital gains declared by all taxpayers. Let's say that again. Four per cent of 18- to 34-year-olds represent capital gains declared by all taxpayers. Let's quote the Betoota Advocate. That's a good one. They said it with their headline: 'Regional supermarket employee has no option but to walk away from her diversified share portfolio thanks to Labor'. It's funny, but it's true.

Young people who can't afford to own their own home should not be subsidising the underperforming investments of the asset-owning class. That's just a fact. I think it's an important one to put out there. It's unfair, and that's why we're changing it. I know it's hard, and it's been difficult for previous governments of other political persuasions to make these tough decisions, but we're doing it because it will make a difference in the future. I guarantee you that in five years time we'll look back on this and think: 'Oh my God, look at all that crazy misinformation that was flying around. These changes were so important.'

Every year, there are almost 40,000 children and young people who have nowhere to live across this country. I want to talk about the really vulnerable now. They're certainly not part of that four per cent making income through assets. They have nowhere to live—40,000 too many. Behind every statistic on youth homelessness is a young person who deserves stability, opportunity and hope. Every night, thousands of young people across Australia face uncertainty about where they will sleep, and that is simply unacceptable. We're having a debate about young people who are going to be impacted by these CGT discounts and so on; 40,000 of them haven't even got a place to sleep.

So let's talk about what really matters right now. Early intervention and community support can change the trajectory of a young person's life. That's why the Albanese Labor government is investing $60 million—$59.4 million, to be exact, in case I'm accused of misinformation—to help vulnerable young people access stable housing and avoid homelessness. That's the national youth housing incentive, which fixes a structural flaw in Australia's housing system that has discouraged providers from offering tenancies to young people and disadvantaged youth housing proposals in funding rounds. That flaw, known as the youth housing penalty, makes young people financially unviable tenants. We're changing that. It's meant in the past that generations of young people haven't been able to access social housing to escape homelessness. We're changing that. Today, around only two per cent of social housing tenants are under 25, despite young people making up almost 15 per cent of Australians experiencing homelessness.

This is smaller in the grand scheme of things in this big budget. I talked about billions of dollars supporting small business. But this investment is really important for 40,000 young people who can't find a home or find a place to sleep tonight. That's the culmination of years of work and advocacy—and I want to congratulate them—by the Home Time campaign, who've elevated the voices of young people who have experienced homelessness. That's an investment in the youth of this country. That's what matters. This whole budget is about what matters for the Australian people.

There was a gas-tax shaped hole in the budget, a $17-billion-per-year sized hole. We could all see it. We were all disappointed by it. In the lead-up to this year's budget, Australians of all political persuasions, people across my electorate and people across the entire country were hoping that this would be the budget where we finally secured a fair return on our natural resources. These resources are owned by the public and yet they're given away often royalty-free and on minimal tax to multinationals and Australian corporations that rake in literally billions of dollars every year. Unfortunately, this budget does nothing to change that.

Since 2022, the absence of a 25 per cent tax on gas exports has cost us over $70 billion. This is a missed opportunity of outstanding proportions—$17 billion a year is around $50 million a day, more than $2 million an hour or $577 a second. All that revenue is flowing to corporate coffers instead of the public purse. These figures sound large, but what do they really mean in practice? What could we do with an extra $17 billion every year? Well, the budget papers make it really easy to put these numbers into perspective. A figure of $17 billion is around $1.5 billion more than the cost of the entire childcare subsidy. It's $4.5 billion more than the total federal funding for public schools. It's more money than the Commonwealth provides to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. With an extra $17 billion, we could make meaningful improvements to any of these public services, or we could choose to do something else—to invest in some of the things that we all want but are so often told that we can't afford, to fund some of the nice things that other countries have, like free dental care, free university or a film and television industry that's properly supported by this government. The list of possibilities is considerable. Although $17 billion wouldn't fund everything on the list, it would allow us to fund pretty much anything and to improve countless lives across the country in the process. But that remains out of reach so long as we continue to let gas corporations off the hook.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions, alongside think tanks like the Australia Institute, advocates like Konrad from Punter's Politics and so many others have worked really hard over many years to bring this issue to the fore. They've helped build this into a movement that now extends right across the country. Today, everyone knows the government gets more money from students repaying their HECS debt than from the petroleum resources rent tax. Everyone knows that the government pulls in more cash from taxing beer than from the PRRT. Everyone knows that the system is broken and isn't delivering for anyone except the gas lobby. The government knows this as well. They're just choosing to ignore it. The longer they wait, the clearer the polls become.

A majority of voters across the spectrum, from Labor, the Liberals, the Greens, One Nation and Independents, support a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. There is a clear and growing consensus that Australians should receive a fairer return on our publicly owned resources, and yet the Australian government continues to dig in its heels. It claims that the industry already pays its fair share but uses statistics derived from the gas lobby to support these claims. It says 'our gas is keeping the lights on in Tokyo' but neglects to mention that Japan resells vast quantities of gas than it imports from Australia. And Japan makes even more money by taxing the gas that they import from us than the money we make by taxing our own exports to them. Time and time again, the government repeats lines from the gas lobby. It's just an undeniably clear case of vested interests versus public interest in this situation—and the government continues to wonder why its primary vote is consistently declining.

In the lead-up to the budget, the Prime Minister dismissed this reform as 'populist'. This is a mistake. When the Prime Minister calls this proposed reform 'populist', he is seeking to diminish your valid concerns. He is trying to convince you that it's unreasonable to desire a fair return on the resources that you own. He is trying to persuade you that you simply cannot ask for more of what is already yours. And when he blocks this reform, he's not just disregarding the will of the people; he's hamstringing his own government's ability to deliver the services and cost-of-living support that we all so desperately need. And that's exactly what we saw in the budget. We've heard two things from the government in the past few weeks. First, we heard about the need to find savings wherever we could. And second, we heard that this budget would be all about tax reform. By deciding to leave a gas export tax off this budget, the government has directly undermined both of these goals.

If the government chose to raise that extra $17 billion, it would be under far less pressure to reduce funding and cut valuable services. We would not, for example, be forcing people with disabilities to bear the brunt of government savings through NDIS cuts. And if this budget was focused on tax reform, why did the government leave the most obvious area for reform untouched? In fact, the budget shows revenue from the existing tax on offshore gas, the PRRT, is actually going down. It's going down from $1.9 billion this year to $1.25 billion in 2029-30. This projected decline is coming despite high international gas prices caused by the wars in Ukraine and Iran. It is coming down despite huge increases in gas export volumes. And it is coming down despite the changes made to the PRRT in 2023, which the government claimed would increase revenue.

In light of this, you'd be thinking the government would be chomping at the bit to secure an extra $17 billion a year. Although it has chosen to let this opportunity pass, the fight is not over. The budget is not the only window for reform. The government could turn around tomorrow and announce a 25 per cent gas export tax if it so chose to. And I believe the pressure will continue to grow. My colleagues on the crossbench and I will continue beating the drum on this issue. We will be keeping your voice alive and loud; we'll be giving voice to your demands. And with your help, it won't be long before the government simply can't afford to ignore us anymore.

When Australians talk about cost of living, they want to know if they can afford to see a doctor, if they can afford to fill a prescription, access mental health assistance, age with dignity, put a roof over their heads, keep the lights on and pay the bills. And that is why this Labor government's priorities matter. We stand for strengthening Medicare, strengthening public hospitals, making medicines cheaper, supporting older Australians, investing in mental health and building a cleaner energy future that lowers bills for all Australians, and that's what we are delivering.

Labor believes all you need to access health care is your Medicare card, not your credit card. That's why we delivered the single largest investment into Medicare in Australian history through our bulk-billing reforms. For too many Novocastrians, seeing a GP had become harder and more expensive. Bulk-billing rates had been in decline for years. People were putting off appointments because they simply could not afford them. The Labor government stepped in because universal health care is not something you should allow to slowly disappear. It is something you fight for. In this budget we are delivering six new, fully bulk-billing clinics across Newcastle, the Hunter and Central Coast regions. That means more families are able to see a doctor without worrying about the bill at the end of the appointment, more pensioners getting care earlier and more people being able to take sick children to the GP before conditions worsen. That's what Medicare is supposed to do, and we are not stopping there.

We've made Medicare urgent care clinics permanent. These clinics are changing lives. Across Australia 136 urgent care clinics have opened their doors. In our own community almost 30,000 Novocastrians have already visited the Charlestown clinic since it opened in November 2024. Think about what that means. It means that nearly 30,000 people got urgent medical attention free of charge, without having to sit for hours in an emergency department. But it's not just the convenience of not sitting in the department that's important. It's the fact that we don't want people who need primary health care presenting at a tertiary health institution like a hospital. Nearly 30,000 people have received free care close to their homes. That's nearly 30,000 people who avoided the stress of unnecessary hospital visits. This is practical reform. That is what investment in health care looks like.

While we're expanding access, we're also strengthening the backbone of our healthcare system—our public hospitals. Labor has delivered an extra $25 billion into public hospital funding. That funding matters in communities like Newcastle. It supports frontline workers. It helps reduce pressure on emergency departments, and it helps hospitals deliver the care Australians deserve.

We also know that affordable health care means more affordable medicines. There is not much point in getting a prescription if you can't afford to fill it. That is why Labor cut the maximum cost of medicines on the PBS to just $25 a script and only $7.70 for concession card holders. In my community of Newcastle there's been almost $3 million that people have saved in cheaper medicines administered since those changes were brought in. That's $3 million sitting in people's pockets that they wouldn't have otherwise had. This is real cost-of-living relief. It means that someone managing diabetes, heart disease, asthma or chronic pain can save hundreds of dollars a year. It means older Australians are not forced to choose between groceries, medicines, petrol and rent. That is the difference Labor governments make.

We're continuing to modernise Medicare for the way Australians live today. Through 1800MEDICARE, Australians can access free 24-hour telehealth advice and care right from their own home. For regional communities, busy families and people who cannot easily travel, that service is incredibly important. Health care should not stop at the door of a clinic. It should meet Australians where they are.

One of the areas where this government is driving the most significant change is around women's health. For far too long women's pain has been dismissed. Conditions went undiagnosed. Essential treatments were unaffordable. Women were just told to put up with it or that it really wasn't that bad. This government has said, 'Enough,' and that is why Labor delivered the biggest investment in women's health in Australia's history. We've opened 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics across the country. For the first time in more than 30 years new contraceptive pills have been added to the PBS. We've reduced the cost of menopause and endometriosis medicines to just $25 a script. We expanded bulk-billing for long-term contraceptives like IUDs, saving women up to $400. These reforms are not symbolic. They are practical, they improve lives and they restore dignity. They send a message that women's health matters.

Mental health matters too. After years where Australians struggled to access support, Labor is rebuilding mental health care backed by Medicare. We are investing more than $1 billion into mental health services. We're opening 92 Medicare mental health centres across Australia, including one in Charlestown. We're upgrading the Newcastle headspace into a headspace Plus service and, through the Medicare mental health check in, Australians can access free therapy and support from their home, because mental healthcare should not be available only to those who can afford expensive private treatments. Every Australian deserves support when they need it, and every parent deserves to know that their child can get help early.

Labor also believes that Australians deserve dignity as they age. Older Australians built this country. They raised families, worked hard, paid taxes, volunteered in their communities and helped shape the nation that we are today. They deserve respect and, after a decade of neglect in aged care, Labor got to work. We put nurses back into nursing homes. We've delivered the biggest aged-care reforms in a generation and we're now building on them with more home-care packages, more aged-care beds and more choice for older Australians and their families. If older Australians want to stay at home for longer—and many do—they should be supported to do so safely and independently. We listened to concerns around dignity in care and we're delivering reforms that put people first.

Australia is also facing another challenge that goes right to the heart of cost of living, and that's housing affordability. For too many young people, homeownership has felt further and further out of their reach. People who work hard, saving hard and doing everything right have felt that they've been locked out of the market. This government understands that frustration. Indeed, it's not just a frustration of younger people, as important as that is. Their parents—indeed, sometimes their grandparents—are coming to me sharing that frustration, worry and concern about their children or their grandchildren not having the same kind of opportunities that they've had in life. It's really exactly the reason why Labor's pulling every lever available to us as a Commonwealth government to make homeownership a reality again. We're increasing housing supply, we're building more homes we are supporting renters and, importantly, we're delivering tax reforms now that create a fairer and more efficient system that actually helps first home buyers compete. Young Australians should not feel like the system is stacked against them when they are trying to buy their first home, and these reforms are about restoring balance, about making sure that the dream of homeownership is not reserved for those with wealth behind them but remains achievable for teachers, nurses, tradies, retail workers and young families.

For first home buyers, this matters. It means a system that works better for the people trying to get into the market, not just for the people who are already deeply invested in it. It means more opportunity, more fairness and more confidence that hard work can lead to security. Labor knows that there is no single fix to the housing challenge, which has been built up over many decades, but we know also that doing nothing is not an option, and that's why this government is tackling the problem from every angle, boosting supply, investing in infrastructure, supporting affordable housing and reforming the tax system so it works for the next generation, not just the last one. Homeownership should still be part of the Australian dream.

And now I want to turn to another issue that affects every household every day: energy bills. Australians want lower power prices, they want reliability and they want a government prepared to invest in the future rather than argue about the past. That's exactly what Labor is doing, and one of the practical ways Labor is doing this is through the Solar Share Offer, helping households benefit from cheaper, cleaner energy. This is about making sure Australians can benefit from the massive growth in renewable energy even if they don't own rooftop solar themselves. The idea is simple: during the middle of the day, when solar energy generation is high and electricity is abundant, households can access periods of free daytime power, and this means that families can run their dishwashers, their washing machines, dryers, hot water systems, electric charge, electric car chargers and other appliances during those hours where you're getting free electricity and save money on those bills. This is about sharing the benefits of Australia's renewable energy success more fairly, and it's part of Labor's broader plan to deliver cheaper, cleaner and more reliable energy. It's important.

The evidence is already coming through. Just yesterday, new figures showed that Australia has hit 50 per cent renewable energy and we're leading the world in battery deployment. This record renewable energy generation is helping drive power prices down. Across New South Wales, my home state, household electricity prices are forecast to fall by another 3.4 per cent with even bigger reductions for small businesses—up to 20.9 per cent reductions for small businesses in rural New South Wales. That matters enormously for families and local businesses doing it tough.

Labor understands that the transition to clean energy is not just an environmental policy. It's an economic policy, a cost-of-living policy and an industry policy. For regions like Newcastle and the Hunter, it's also a jobs policy because our region has always powered Australia. From coal and steel to clean energy and advanced manufacturing, Newcastle has never been afraid of hard work or big transitions. Under Labor, Newcastle and the Hunter will continue to play a central role in Australia's economic future.

The measures I've spoken of today are united by a simple principle. Labor believes government should make life better for ordinary Australians—not harder, not more expensive and not more uncertain. Government should not be dragging us back to the last century. Whether it's strengthening Medicare, making medicines cheaper, expanding mental health care, supporting older Australians or investing in cleaner, cheaper energy—these are reforms designed to improve people's lives. They are reforms grounded in fairness, grounded in opportunity and grounded in the belief that no Australian should be left behind. That's what this government is delivering, and that's why these investments matter so deeply to communities like Newcastle and the Hunter.

Tonight I rise not just to speak about the appropriation bills but to give voice to the concerns, the frustrations and the hopes of the communities that are too often left behind—communities in the electorate of Lyne. Let's call this budget what it is: a patchwork of blunders that, when woven together, form a tapestry of neglect for rural and regional Australia. And the consequences are not abstract. They are lived, felt and endured by families, workers and small-business owners right across our electorates and beyond.

Before this budget was handed down, I made a detailed prebudget submission. I spelled out, in no uncertain terms, the urgent needs of the communities and people of the Lyne electorate—for our roads, our telecommunications, our water security, our seniors and our children—and worked closely with communities and organisations across the electorate. What was the Albanese government's response? Well, we did get three things from the submission, and I'm grateful. We've got another round of the Stronger Communities Program, funding for the Growing Regions Program and funding for enabling infrastructure to unlock development-ready land for housing.

Key issues were raised with me in a housing forum I held last year. No-one raised changing the CGT or negative gearing settings. What people were talking about were things like investing in power, water and sewerage, in enabling infrastructure. All in all, just three items from Lyne's wish list were addressed, which I think most here would agree is pretty paltry in the scheme of things. It is pretty unsatisfactory for the hardworking, taxpaying people of Lyne to think that is all they are worth.

Taken as a whole, this budget lets rural and regional people down big time. It's a budget that defunds regional Australia. It's as though Labor has drawn a line around metropolitan Labor seats and said, 'The rest of you: you'll have to make do.'

Take a look at our roads. There's not a single cent for the critical upgrades and interchanges on the Pacific Highway our communities rely on for safety and growth. Telecommunications has been stripped of over $21 million in funding, making it even harder to fix mobile and internet black spots. The national water grid has been slashed by $103 million. That's money that could secure our water future with projects like the Kiwarrak off-river storage.

Let's talk about health. You know I like this topic. The Albanese government has all but abandoned regional healthcare. From a $1.8 billion commitment to urgent care clinics, Taree, despite repeated evidence based requests, gets nothing, zero, zilch. Our aged-care system, already stretched to breaking point, receives a pittance that won't even make a dent in the Support at Home waiting list or fix the workforce crisis. Worse, our older Australians—those who have worked hard all their lives—are hit with a higher tax burden as their reward for decades of contribution, punished for aspiration, for paying off their homes and for doing the right thing.

It doesn't stop with today's seniors. The door is closing on the next generation's hopes for investment and a secure retirement, thanks to the changes to capital gains and negative gearing. I've heard from constituents of all ages who are outraged, anxious and disillusioned. In my opinion, every regional Australian is a loser in this budget. For older Australians, the reduction of the private health insurance rebate has been nothing short of a stab in the back. Constituents in my electorate feel utterly betrayed by the government that has changed the rules mid-game. Joanne, who lives in Bolwarra, cannot fathom why, in a cost-of-living crisis, this government is making it harder for older Australians to access affordable health care. Lorraine said:

This country, but especially the health system, is going backwards very quickly and we need to stop this decline before it gets to the point that to live in this town, or indeed Foster/Tuncurry is a danger to your life. I thought I was doing the right thing by always having private health insurance but now feel totally betrayed and misguided by this government.

For many, private health insurance isn't a luxury. It's the only way they can get the surgery, the specialist treatment and the procedures that restore quality of life. The Howard government understood this, which is why it increased rebates for older Australians. The Albanese government's cuts mean couples over 65 could pay an extra $1,600 a year, a 21 per cent increase, and that's on top of a 4.4 per cent rise in premiums for everyone. This is the largest premium hike in eight years, and it comes as Australians face the highest out-of-pocket costs to see a GP in Medicare's history—over $50 on average. All this is in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis made worse by budget mismanagement. The result is that every Australian forced out of private health puts more strain on our already stretched public hospitals. Manning in Taree, Port Macquarie, Maitland and John Hunter hospitals—these hospitals are the lifelines for our region, and the immense pressure they are already under has just been made much worse thanks to Labor.

Labor says these cuts are about fairness, but where's the fairness in punishing those who paid taxes their whole lives and who took out private cover to ease the burden on public hospitals? Where's the fairness in driving up costs, pushing more people onto waiting lists and shifting the financial burden onto taxpayers and state governments? It is not just; it is unjust and it is deeply wrong.

Let's turn to trusts and tax changes hidden in this budget. The government says it's about fairness again, stopping trusts from distributing income to family members. For many Australians, for many families, for farmers, for small businesses in regional Australia, trusts are not a loophole. They are a legitimate way to protect assets, to plan for the future and to pass on a legacy. Many people in Lyne have spent decades building a small business, running a farm, paying off a home and saving carefully so they can leave something behind for their children and grandchildren. They've worked long hours, taken risks and gone without all in the hope that the next generation might have a better future.

Before the election, Labor promised it wouldn't touch key tax settings like negative gearing and capital gains. Now those promises are gone. There is no fundamental difference between the challenges that existed at the last election just 12 months ago and the challenges that exist today that are barriers to young people getting into housing. So Labor's argument that you had to change your position is a big fraud. You said, 'For the 50th time, we won't make changes.' These were just words of convenience at election time. I'm going to have to say that this broken promise has done immense damage to the trust that Australians have in our democratic institutions and their processes, at a time when they need to be able to trust government more than ever before. I say that most sincerely. Labor, you have done immense damage to the trust that Australians have in our democratic institutions and processes at a time when the Australian people need to be able to trust government more than ever before.

This budget is a warning: when the government run out of money, they come after yours. They're chasing you down the street for the last $2 in your back pocket. Regional Australians deserve better. You cannot keep treating working people, small-business owners and farmers as cash cows for Canberra. I've heard from local business owners, constituents, who have contacted me about the impacts on their business of high taxing governments who break promises. One is in autoelectrics and air conditioning. He is closing his business after 21 years because Labor's taxes have made it too difficult to operate. He's closing shop to take his skills and resources to Canada.

Owen and Lyn in my electorate emailed me to share this:

The Labour Party continues to target and destroy small businesses ... Our son, who now runs our joinery company, after our retirement is disillusioned and considering moving his business and family to a place where they can thrive and are appreciated. Our business has been operating for some 49 years and contributing to our community with quality products and services and this would be a great 1oss. We are so frustrated by the constant attacks on small businesses and young entrepreneurs. The budget was the last straw for many people and the defining factor that has led to this decision. We sit here and ponder how, we the people, can revolt against this evil government and cause an early election to rid ourselves of such a corrupt regime!

This is not just a fiscal issue; it's a question of values. Do we want a country that rewards hard work and aspiration or one that penalises it?

And, while we're talking about hardship, let me remind this House that it's been a year since the devastating floods on the Mid North Coast, especially in the Manning Valley. The scars are still visible. Recovery is far from over. Roads, homes and businesses are still being rebuilt. People are still carrying the emotional and financial toll. We've heard a lot from government about resilience. It's popular among agency officials and bureaucracies, but locals just roll their eyes when the word 'resilience' is used, as they are sick of being told that resilience is the government's objective. In June last year, the PM said:

Whether it's helping families get back into safe housing, or supporting local businesses and farmers to clean up and keep going, we're standing with communities every step of the way.

Well, here's the news: no, you aren't. Where is the funding for house raising and buybacks? Where is the funding for community infrastructure, like Wingham pool? Where is the revitalisation for our Taree and Wingham CBDs, smashed by the floods; for road repairs; and for just simply being there and helping people? This week I heard that, potentially, the recently announced package is not going to be fully fulfilled.

I was with people only this weekend who were in the communities of Croki and Bohnock, people who lost everything. I was with them in the mud. I was with them in their homes when they were trying to find those family heirlooms, those photos that were their connection to the life they once had. Then they hear the words from the Prime Minister but don't see the follow through. Can you imagine what it feels like to be those people? These are the things that we need the government to remember when they make grandiose commitments to the people of Australia—that there are real people that listen and expect delivery when they need it most. Governments make promises when the TV cameras are rolling, but when the spotlight fades the support disappears, and we are left fighting tooth and nail for every scrap of assistance.

Right now, Australians are seeing a clear choice. Labor's vision is to tax more, spend more and hope the numbers add up. They talk of intergenerational fairness, but the reality is uncertainty, higher taxes and less incentive to invest or innovate. Business leaders warn these policies will stifle ambition and investment, especially among the young. Contrast this with the coalition's approach: growth, lower taxes, rewarding work and aspiration. We will tackle bracket creep, index tax brackets to inflation and repeal Labor's changes to negative gearing, capital gains and trusts. We'll link migration to housing supply and infrastructure, and we will invest in regional Australia. Communities like mine are feeling the strain on roads, health, aged care, water, telecommunications and housing. For too long, governments have failed to plan for population growth and failed to deliver the infrastructure and services that make growth sustainable. And abolishing the Mobile Black Spot Program and reducing funding for the Regional Tech Hub is proof positive that Labor couldn't care less about regional needs.

Families in Lyne are at breaking point, with rising energy and fuel bills, soaring insurance, expensive groceries and mounting pressure on household budgets. Small businesses and farms need certainty, not the constant threat of new taxes or spending blowouts. This year's budget debate is about more than numbers. It's about the kind of country we want to be—a country that backs the people who grow our food, build our homes, care for our sick and educate our children; a country that rewards effort, supports resilience and honours the regions as the wealth creation centre of this nation. This year's budget debate showed Australians that there is now a very clear choice about the direction of the economy and about what kind of country we want Australia to become.

In a calm, measured response, I'll just repeat these words: no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to SBS—and every single one broken. There's the carbon tax. We all remember that great lie, and that can be said a lie, because the then chief of staff to Prime Minister Abbott, Peta Credlin—that great lefty—got up and admitted on Sky TV that their whole campaign was a lie, an absolute lie. But it was put on the Australian people. So you can't take the words of those opposite to be genuine and fair dinkum when they come in here with probably the greatest hypocrisy of events that we've seen in a long, long time. It's just not right.

But I'll tell you what is right. What is right is building a budget and building a nation's future. It's about picking up the pieces after nine long years. We were told we would have a budget surplus in each and every year. We were told we were going to have debt cut, but it went to $1.2 trillion. We've paid down debt, with billions of dollars saved in interest. Billions of dollars saved means that we can put it into the things that matter, such as housing, education, health and investment in roads.

At the last election we had a Liberal candidate get stuck into us because we hadn't finished building a road project that had been on the cards for 10 years. In those 10 years that it hadn't been built, we were actually in there doing it, standing knee-deep in mud. It was great fun. They came out and celebrated, standing there next to the brass plaque that said, 'This footbridge was opened by Fran Bailey and John Howard in 2003.' Imagine coming out to a marginal seat, the seat that you went to the election saying, 'This is our No. 1 target,' and the only thing you could celebrate was something that happened 22 years ago.

In fact, over the nine years of the Liberal-National coalition, not one dollar was spent on road projects. There were lots of press releases. Damian Drum was out there flicking press releases saying, 'We're going to do this;' 'We're going to that.' Apparently, they were going to duplicate 20 kilometres of the Hume Freeway—both sides, under bridges, over roads—at a cost of $50 million. That's a 10th of what they gave the Great Barrier Reef Foundation in a promise made to them that they didn't even know about. That was a government that could not deliver a pizza, let alone a road project, a hospital, bulk-billing—anything. But when our government came to power, we had to turn that around. And we're playing catch-up. Do you remember Victoria? It only received $7 out of every $100 in road infrastructure funding across the nation under the former government. But we're addressing that.

Our budget is about delivering for families, for young people, for working people and for those who rely on our safety net. It's a fair budget. It's a budget that faces the challenges we face today. When you work hard and save, you should be able to buy your own home. But, right now, first home buyers have been priced out of property by investors, where the tax department is on their side. We are on the side of Australians. We want to see people in their own homes. No more will you go to an auction and see investor versus investor because they can use tax breaks to get through. We want to make sure that the families that are working hard, trying to build their foundation and get somewhere to settle down, have the opportunity to buy a home.

That's the distinction between us and those opposite. We talk about housing and homes. We talk about putting people into homes—people fleeing domestic violence, people on low incomes, first responders, healthcare workers. It's about getting them a home to live in, whereas when you listen to the language of those opposite it's about houses being an asset. All they're worried about is a taxation break. You can still do that, and I think the decision that was made on housing and homes has been sensational. If you want to use negative gearing, then go out there and buy a new home. Get a new house built. Put one into the country's stock to help the biggest issue we have. You'll see a lot of deflection from those opposite about what's happening in the housing market. They'll try and blame every migrant, with every excuse under the sun, but you look at any major piece of work that's been done on housing and shortage is the No. 1 issue.

Having a government focused on getting homes built—places for people to settle down—and increasing stock is the way forward, not giving tax breaks to people who have 10, 20, 30 or 40 properties to be able to work off, not leaving the people that go to work every day to carry the burden of the tax system. We had a visit from Joe Hockey this week. Remember Joe Hockey, who stood in this parliament and said, 'We've got lifters and leaners.' The people that are doing the hard work of the lifting are those that come to work and use manual labour to get things done. They're the ones carrying the burden of the system. Those that are able to sit at home and invest in properties, because they've had the opportunity to build wealth—it's about time they chipped in a bit. It's about time the tax system worked for people trying to get ahead.

Right now first home buyers are being priced out of the market—no ifs and buts—but the tax reforms are all about reducing the gap between how Australia taxes income from work and income from wealth or investment. If we think about a worker who's earning $120,000 in wages, they're generally paying the full marginal income tax on every dollar earned, while investors are able to reduce tax through concessions like negative gearing and the 50 per cent capital gains discount. The reforms aim to narrow down that difference, so workers are not, effectively, shouldering the load and subsidising the investment losses of others. Redirecting tax incentives for investors towards newly built homes, as I said, is the way forward, and that's what we're doing. These are investments that add to housing supply, rather than increasing prices on existing homes.

Four years ago, we inherited a broken taxation system, and we've been focused and determined to fix it. The concessions favour those who produce in our economy, and they couldn't come at a better time, with a global oil shock and a housing crisis. We are delivering tax relief. We are building an economy that works for people. An economy begins with homeownership. A dream of homeownership is part of the Australian story. Sadly, as I said, right now it's just too hard for many Australians to get into their own home and get ahead. A decade of coalition government let these conditions take root. In recent weeks, the opposition has made much of the 'aspirational Australians' budget, but it's a very narrow and limited view of the world. Why should aspiration be limited to people who can afford to trade assets? Aspiration should extend to a childcare worker, a nurse or a teacher who's working hard and trying to get ahead. We know this. That's why these landmark reforms to capital gains tax and negative gearing are being introduced. I'm happy to be on the record, even as late as last year, saying that I had discussed with the Treasurer my support for restricting tax breaks for housing investors to brand new properties and for grandfathering the current arrangements for existing landlords. I was clear that I'd certainly support changes to capital gains tax and I would support changes to negative gearing. Now budget night has come and gone and we are getting on with the job, cleaning up the mess that was left to us by those opposite.

From these reforms we'll get 75,000 extra homes on the market. I want to emphasise the scale of that assistance. That's 75,000 families, in their own home, who can feel secure and realise an Australian dream. Labor is leading from the front by putting money back in the pockets of regular working people. A total of 3.5 million Victorians will benefit from our new $250 working Australians tax offset. That's just the latest step in Labor's track record of tax relief. We're not the party of vested interests; we are the party of the fair go. On top of that, the Albanese Labor government will introduce a $1,000 instant tax deduction next financial year, with around 6.2 million workers set to benefit directly from that. Charitable donations and other non-work related reductions will continue to be claimed on top of the instant tax deduction, as will union and other trade or business or professional association membership. It's simple: with Labor, Australian workers can earn more and keep more of what they earn. In total, the average Australian average worker should benefit by about $3,000 in their pockets by 2028. Let's be clear, it's about helping everyday Australians.

We on this side look at local investments in our community. While listening to the tirade about investments in infrastructure and Black Spot programs, I was shocked because we know that, under the previous system, they were set up in such a way that a fair go was not a fair go. We saw with Black Spot programs three major things: rural and regional areas, being prone to major disaster and new transport routes. Somehow the 'One Neurone' member got 28 towers in their electorate of New England, but the seat of McEwen, which had about 83 per cent of it burnt out in the last few decades—200 lives lost during fires—and has the Calder and the Hume freeways, got 1½. You would have to say that was not a program that was treated fairly and equally and based on the criteria.

We have also delivered roads, and delivering roads is something I'm very proud to see us doing. We are delivering Donnybrook Road, which was neglected since 2004, with not a piece of road work being done. We're also delivering $175 million into a new overpass on the Hume Freeway and the first stages of the duplication. We couldn't be prouder of this. With our state government's $7.7 million, the much-needed upgrades will make a real difference to the people who live in those communities, who have to suffer every day with the traffic. Our minister for infrastructure put it best: it's an upgrade people living in Melbourne's outer north have called for and deserve. We're a peri urban electorate. We're situated on the city's biggest growth corridor. We are growing like topsy. It's clear investment in McEwen is investment in our future.

It doesn't end there. In Wallan, we took on the Watson Street interchange, the one that was promised and never delivered. The Northern Highway intersection is now going ahead at stage 2 of those three-stage projects. The Watson Street upgrade completes the diamond interchange for Watson Street and Hume Freeway, with new ramps giving drivers direct access to Wallan north and south on the freeway, ending congestion, improving traffic flow.

We've got the duplication of Yan Yean Road commitment at stage 2 as well. These are the important arterial roads that carry us around. The Hume Highway carries people not only to Melbourne but across Victoria and across regional communities. It's also where we've delivered the Cameron's Lane Interchange, nearly $1 billion in investment to build the Beveridge Intermodal Precinct. That's the Melbourne end of the Inland Rail, the rail that was multibillions of dollars overdue, multiyears behind. We fixed that, got it back on track. We've got shovels in the ground actually delivering it. We're not saying we're going to do it; we're actually getting on with the job and getting it done. You can actually see it in the ground now. When we think about the nine years of the previous government, there was not one drop, not 1c, of infrastructure funding going into our region. So with over a billion dollars in roads, we're getting on with something else that's been neglected for a long, long time—the old Sydney Road promise.

We've got bulk-billing rates going up far in excess of what they were even during the COVID period, when bulk-billing rates went up and people could go and get their vaccination for nothing. But we're also backing small businesses because we know the importance of that. The recent reform direction set by the Treasurer's Economic Reform Roundtable will deliver a significant package of practical reforms that will meaningfully boost productivity growth. The $20,000 instant asset write-off will be permanent from next year. That is so important. It was a great Labor policy that we kept on to make sure that we help supported small businesses, to give them a fair go and the confidence they need to invest. We're sending a message: we will give you a fair go. We're cutting red tape by reducing financial sector compliance costs by $780 million a year by progressing 14 legislative reforms; reforming the research and development tax incentive to unlock $400 million per year in additional R&D by young firms; and expanding tax incentives for venture capital. These changes build on the work done in our previous budgets to help actually make life better for small businesses in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. We've also been working every day since we came to government to help with the cost of living, with, already, three rounds of tax cuts, more bulk-billing, cheaper medicines, free TAFE, cheaper child care, more support for parents—all these things.

In an uncertain world, we're making sure Australia is prepared for whatever comes next. And it's not just members of the government praising the budget. I'm constantly hearing from locals, especially young people, that we are doing the right thing by them. Whether it's in Woodend, Wallan, Doreen or Diamond Creek, McEwen residents are in a better position for growth. In this parliament, we have already weathered global headwinds outside the control of one government. But, with this budget, we can improve the lives of Australians even in the face of international challenges.

I must say to anyone listening at home: you must feel like you're in a parallel universe when you hear contributions from the government saying that everything's rosy, everything's great, and Australians have never had it better. In the real world, when you get out there and you talk to Australians, they're angry, they're frustrated and they've been left behind by a government which has made them worse off in just four years. The message I get, everywhere I go, is that Australians want their country back.

This week's Mood of the Nation poll found that 66 per cent of Australians believe the country is heading in the wrong direction—that 66 per cent of Australians believe our nation is not on the right track. And who could blame them? They have experienced a declining standard of living. They have seen, over the last four years, 15 interest rate rises. The average Australian mortgage holder now is paying $25,000 per year more in interest than they were before the Albanese government came to power.

And, up against those headwinds, families would have turned on the TV on budget night and found out that they had been misled repeatedly before the 2020 election. The voters won't forget, because the Prime Minister himself, in a very snippy little interview where his glass jaw broke in front of the assembled press gallery, said he'd 'told you 50 times'—50 times—that he was ruling out changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing. After the federal election, in May last year, the Prime Minister continued, when he said: 'We have a mandate for what we took to the Australian people. That is our mandate.' They're his own words: 'We have a mandate for what we took to the Australian people. That is our mandate.'

The Prime Minister has no mandate for the changes announced in the federal budget which hit small-business owners and which hit our farming communities. And he knows it. The Prime Minister knows that he's broken his word. He likes to say, 'Now I've changed my position,' or some other little weasel words, to try and get around it. He's fundamentally broken a promise to the Australian people, and they won't forget it.

Why can't this Prime Minister just be honest? Just be honest with the Australian people and say: 'I did break my promise. But these are my new policies, and I'm going to take them to the next election and give you a chance to vote on them.' That's kind of how a democracy is meant to work: you have a policy position; you take it to the voters; the voters decide; and you get a winner. What you don't do—unless you're a little bit gutless—is to mislead voters and tell them 50 times you're not going to do something, and then, at the first available opportunity, break your word and give no-one a chance to vote on it.

This is going to hang around those opposite like a dead albatross, all the way to the next election. The member for Chifley shakes his head. And they've got every right to be confident, because they've got 94 members of the House of Representatives. They think they're on a winner. I can tell you: when you get out on the streets and you listen to people, they know they have been misled, deceived, by a prime minister who cannot be trusted with anything he says, going forward, because he told us 50 times he wasn't going to change capital gains tax or negative gearing, and he's done exactly the opposite without having the fundamental decency to take it to the Australian people. In his own words—'We have a mandate for what we took the Australian people. That is our mandate'—he has no mandate for what he's done in the budget.

The Prime Minister also told Australians—this is probably the funniest thing I've heard out of him in recent times: 'My word is my bond. I believe that, when you go to an election and you make commitments, you should stick to them.' It's good advice for any leader. He also said, 'I will lead a government that keeps its promises.' So why would any Australian believe him in the next election when he rules out other tax changes? They know he'll just conveniently change his mind after election and do whatever he wanted in the first place. This is Bill Shorten's 2019 election campaign being delivered by the current Prime Minister, but at least Bill Shorten had the guts, the intestinal fortitude, to take it to the voters. We even had the member for McMahon saying, if you don't like our policies, don't vote for them. Australians don't need to be told twice; they didn't vote for them. That is why this is such a fundamental deceit of the Australian people—because they didn't actually seek a mandate for this. The Labor Party knew that, if they'd sought a mandate, what happened in 2019 would happen again, because, if people didn't like their policies, they wouldn't vote for them. They always planned to do this. That is the disgrace that is at the very fundamental core of the budget that was delivered by the Treasurer only a couple of weeks ago.

Instead of a plan for the future of regional Australia, in the budget we saw more broken promises, higher taxes, more debt, lower living standards and fewer homes for Australians. The budget papers themselves say that, under the changes being delivered by this government, 35,000 fewer homes will be built. That's in their own budget papers.

We're facing a decade of deficits worth $150 billion, but the greatest deficit isn't $150 billion; it's the deficit of trust that now exists between this Prime Minister and the Australian people. A hundred and fifty billion dollars is a lot of money, but the deficit of trust that exists now between this Prime Minister and the voters of this country has been widened in a manner which is unprecedented in my time in this parliament, and that's 18 years. To see a prime minister so deliberately mislead the Australian voters and then pretend nothing happened is quite extraordinary.

The deceit which goes to the very heart of this budget is these mealy-mouthed claims from those opposite that it's about intergenerational equity, but it's actually about intergenerational fraud, and they know it. The negative gearing treatment in the budget and the way it's been grandfathered to protect people like me and people like the Prime Minister but then pull up the ladder of opportunity for young people in this country is quite extraordinary—again, when you acknowledge that no-one took it to the election in the first place. The Prime Minister, like me, has worked for a long time, purchased a family home and then been in a position to invest in an investment property, have it negatively geared and have the benefit of that tax treatment. But what happens now is that people who hadn't made those investments prior to budget night no longer have that opportunity in the same manner which the Prime Minister and I have enjoyed throughout our working careers.

A government member interjecting

The member opposite says, 'Wrong.' When he stands up, he can explain to explain to the Australian people who want to buy an existing home whether they can negatively gear like the Prime Minister. Oh, no, they can't. Not an existing home—exactly. You changed the rules. Come in spinner! You changed the rules. So young people don't have the same rules that I had access to and the Prime Minister had access to, and you're too gutless to take it to an election. You are so gutless. You're so brave now. Why wouldn't you take it to the Australian people at the election?

A government member interjecting

Order! I'll remind members to address their comments through the chair.

And I remind those opposite that interjections are disorderly!

Instead of helping young Australians into their own homes, the Treasury itself has acknowledged that the tax change will result in 35,000 fewer homes being built and that rents are expected to increase.

We've seen in regional Australia a government which constantly punishes the people who live outside our capital cities, because by and large they don't vote for the Labor Party. We've seen it with water buybacks in the Murray-Darling basin, which stripped water out of productive use in the communities which feed and clothe our nation. We saw it with the cut to the Inland Rail project. It's quite extraordinary to cut the Inland Rail project and, in the very next breath, throw a few billion dollars at the suburban rail project in the Melbourne metropolitan area. This is part of Victoria's Big Build, which has been exposed as a home for rorts and corruption involving the CFMEU and bikie thugs, to the turn of $15 billion per year. The Big Build program has been independently assessed as having people working as traffic coordinators and then performing as strippers for the CFMEU members in the workers hut at night. What steps has the government taken to ensure that no federal taxpayer dollars are going to assist the rorts and corruptions on that program? I can tell you, in Victoria today, when they see the reports of $15 billion being wasted on CFMEU rorts and bikie thugs, they know that's hospitals and roads that weren't built and roads that weren't fixed. That is the lost opportunity when $15 billion of taxpayers' money is wasted in this manner. And now we find out this government is throwing more money at the suburban rail project, a project that has not even been assessed by Infrastructure Australia. Sadly, this budget is one which divides Australians more than ever before.

I want to refer to the capital gains tax changes and how they will impact on many of our farming families. I can promise you that, out of 150 members in the House, probably about 145 of them have no idea what it means. From my own perspective, I've been getting some advice today and over the last couple of weeks, trying to understand how this will play out. This is so complex and so damaging to Australian farming families. The government has no idea what it's just done. As the Victorian Farmers Federation has pointed out, more than half of the farming families in Australia will miss out on any concessions under these changes, and they will face massively higher tax bills at the time they try to transfer their properties within their families. Succession planning is hard enough as it is, when you have an asset-rich and, in many cases, cash-poor business. I don't think the government understands what it's done here. We want to see more families taking up life on the land, and these changes will lead to more corporate farms.

Today I visited a farm at Bungendore with the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Nationals. Paul, who's about 70 years old, and his daughter Hannah run a mixed-farming enterprise and a local butcher shop. They're worried about the impact of the capital gains tax changes on their family farm, which has been in the family now for three generations. The minister was asked about this in question time today, and she clearly doesn't understand her own government's changes, which do, once again, represent a broken promise to all Australians.

As I said, the Victorian Farmers Federation has publicly warned the government that more than 50 per cent of farmers will not receive a capital gains tax concession, because the concession thresholds have not been adjusted. They will pay massively higher tax bills when transferring their farm ownership to their children. What this will mean is that some farming families will have to sell off parts of the property, just to pay the tax bill, or, perhaps even worse, they won't make any succession plan at all. They'll wait till the farmer dies and then won't transfer the property in an orderly way. They'll seek to avoid the changes altogether. The VFF acting president, Peter Star, said the current thresholds no longer reflect the reality of modern farming businesses. He said:

Family farms have been locked out of concessions that were specifically designed to help them transition between generations.

Farmland values have increased dramatically over the past 20 years, but the thresholds governing access to CGT concessions have stayed frozen in time. We're working off a framework that is no longer relevant.

The government has been told that by the Victorian Farmers Federation, but it hasn't acted. The minister today, in her answer, demonstrated she has no idea what this is going to do to more than 50 per cent of farming families when they try to undertake succession planning in their businesses.

Budgets are always about choices. In this budget, the people in my community and throughout regional Australia know the Albanese government didn't choose them and didn't choose our farmers. There's a $52 million cut in this budget to the Future Drought Fund. Maybe the government believes we'll never have another drought—I don't know. At a time when the global conflict is driving up fertiliser prices, increasing diesel costs and putting pressure on food production around the world, the government has failed to provide a single new dollar to implement the unfinished National Food Security Strategy—not a dollar to implement it; it's quite extraordinary. They're clawing back funding from the Pest and Disease Preparedness and Response Program as part of more than $104 million in agricultural grant reductions. At the same time, the government has allowed the Supporting Communities Manage Pest Animals and Weeds Program to lapse, without any replacement.

Budgets are about choices, and the government didn't choose regional Australia. It certainly didn't choose our farming communities. Farmers are already battling—exploding populations of deer, wild dogs, feral pigs, invasive weeds and growing biosecurity threats—but Labor's response in this budget is to cut the preparedness funding and walk away from coordinated pest management. I'm the first one to acknowledge that state governments have a major role to play when it comes to natural resource management and feral animal control, but federal government has a critical role to play in controlling invasive species as well. Everyone accepts that invasive species are responsible for more extinctions in Australia today than climate change or any other issue. That's accepted by everyone who works in natural resource management, and yet here we have a government that is cutting funding for practical environmental management and invasive species control.

I'm going to finish where I started. There is a growing mood for change in our nation. We see it in the opinion polls, and everyone acknowledges these are very volatile times in the Australian electorate. The mood that I am sensing in my community is Australians feel like it's business as usual in parliament—in this place, under this Prime Minister—and that 'business as usual' is just more broken promises. They want their country back. After four years of the Albanese government, Australians are worse off—and they know that our nation is heading in the wrong direction.

I had a speech I wanted to roll through, but I've instead decided I'm going to respond with gusto to the previous speaker, the member for Gippsland. I had to sit through his canard of falsehoods and I figure it's important to respond to some of the stuff that he said.

It's a very seductive suggestion that has been put forward by him, which is: don't make changes on negative gearing and capital gains tax; go to an election and put those changes; don't listen to the fact that people want to have a roof over their heads. I believe, firmly, housing is a human right. People do a lot better when they are comfortable, assured and confident they have a roof over their heads and they don't have to worry about being homeless. And so we made changes that are particularly for first home buyers so as to give them a chance to buy an existing home.

If you listen to the member for Gippsland, if you listen to the coalition, they say it's not important enough that we make those changes now, and that what we should do is put it to an election. And here is the seductive element to it: if we were, in some bizarre world, inclined to accept what he has just put to this chamber, it would mean we would basically have a scare campaign from now until the election of overblown claims that don't actually stack up to reality. From their perspective it would mean this change would never happen if we went to that election with them planning all those falsehoods.

They will react, no doubt, to me putting that claim forward, but in the space of just a couple of weeks, boy, have we seen the outrage machine, generated by those opposite, crank up. Some of the claims that are being put forward—even by some in social media, who even admitted that their claims were misleading and weren't tethered to truth—have had tax accountants say they were misleading and not tied to truth. That is what the member for Gippsland wants. That is what the coalition want. They want two years of misleading claims.

We don't want that. We want people to be able to get a roof over their heads. We want to make these changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax so that when a first home buyer, like what I have in my neck of the woods, turns up to an auction they can buy a home. Previously, they would turn up to an auction and face a wall of investors who drive up auction prices for homes in my part of Western Sydney and shut the door on first home buyers who want to buy existing homes. We are saying: 'No, we want better for first home buyers. We want them to get a foot into the door.'

I will be completely honest to the chamber. Yes, I've absolutely had people contact my office opposed to the budget and opposed to the negative gearing and CGT changes. Why? Because of the whole lot of hot air and misinformation that has been put out by, frankly, the coalition or enabled by elements of the Murdoch press that have decided that they will paint, for example, our Treasurer as a massive communist and mislead people on the stuff that is being done. You have to explain that negative gearing can still happen; it's just going to happen differently. By that I mean, if you want to build a nest egg for yourself and you want to negatively gear, what you can do is buy a new home. You can invest in it and build wealth for yourself but also build a new home for the country and, importantly, add to the housing stock. That's the big challenge in this nation. I don't need to tell you this, Deputy Speaker, because you are fully aware of this. We need to build more homes quickly, and we want to be able to do that on top of everything else that we're doing. I've argued for this change. I argued well before the budget that we needed to do this. It is important for us to go through this.

If I may find some sort of agreement with the member for Gippsland, the previous coalition speaker, I will say this: budgets are a reflection of values and we absolutely in this budget demonstrate values—values of fairness for first home buyers who want to get a foot in the door and values of better health care for people by investing in Medicare. I think Medicare is a great reflection of Australian values—that we all chip in to make sure that, when people need help with their health, they are not dependent on their wallet. We all chip in to provide a quality universal healthcare system. If you compare us to the United States, one of the biggest causes of bankruptcy there is medical costs. We don't have that here. We're providing now, under this budget, cheaper medicines. We've made permanent Medicare urgent care clinics, like the one we opened up in Rooty Hill in 2023 that has seen nearly 23,000 people out of hours and given them urgent health care, and all people needed to bring to get that help was their Medicare card. It's a terrific development.

We have also made sure we're providing cost-of-living relief. Again, our values are to help working Australians. We've provided five tax cuts. There's an instant tax deduction that will be provided for working Australians, a tax offset. The tax cuts that we're putting forward will deliver just over $2,800 of tax relief for people. This is hugely important, particularly in my part of Western Sydney.

I'm really happy that we've got a budget that delivers in terms of housing. We'll put in more money to help homes be built on top of everything else that we're doing to try to increase housing stock. What previous coalition speakers have failed to talk about and never really reflected on in their tirades against the changes that we've made to make it easier for first home owners or first homebuyers to get into the market is their own record on building homes. They've opposed everything that we have done and put forward in this massive ambition to build 1.2 million homes by 2030. It is a big target and a hard one to reach but one that is absolutely worth pushing for because, as I said, housing is a human right. We should be able to give people the confidence and assurance of a roof over their head, and we should be pushing and working as hard for that as we can. Our side of politics has those plans. The other side of politics have opposed them and have hidden the fact that, during their time in government—all that time that they were in government from 2013 to 2022—they built the grand total of 380-plus homes in this country. That's not good enough. Then they refused to back in what we're doing.

I think this has been a really important budget, particularly for my part of north-western Sydney. I have argued rather robustly about the need for us to get more money into New South Wales so we can see infrastructure projects such as, for example, the extension of the Sydney Metro from Tallawong to St Mary's. I think that is an important project. There are people spread across five electorates, both Labor and Liberal electorates, that will benefit from that major infrastructure project that needs to happen. I do think that we need to see that. I would also love to see some more infrastructure and, for the long-term good of this country, for the long-term benefit of this nation, for us to find a better way for us to get a stronger return from our natural resources. I'm a firm believer that we should be taxing gas exports and using that money to build a stronger economy into the long term to build resilience and sovereign capability and get us standing on our own two feet. We have been ripped off for too long in terms of our natural resources, and I genuinely, with my full heart, believe that we should absolutely get a better deal on our natural resources. It should make us into an energy superpower and confer on us huge economic and commercial strength. That's going to be a debate that will be ongoing, but I absolutely want to assure people that I stand for that, and I do think it's a debate that will continue.

Earlier, I reflected on some of the debate that we have seen. We have seen some truly off-the-charts behaviour by the coalition—a bit of 'MAGA minor' behaviour too, I might add. We saw one coalition speaker in this chamber call for a revolt, an uprising against the government, and we've seen some other really peculiar rhetoric that's been used, even by coalition frontbenchers who should know better. I sat in that chamber and listened to the Leader of the Opposition effectively write a budget-in-reply off the back of a dog whistle, try and target permanent residents and suggest that they had done something wrong by answering the call to come to this country on skilled visas to fill jobs we couldn't find people for. They're apparently now a bad thing under the coalition.

The coalition is also talking about ramping up resources to drive these permanent residents out of the country. I think that smacks of the Trump approach—what we've seen on American streets with ICE, the driving out of people based on who they are as permanent residents, believing that they're doing the wrong thing and kicking them out of the country. This type of divisive behaviour didn't work well for the former leader of the opposition, and, in a moment of startling logic, it has been decided that the new opposition leader would re-embrace that and use some of that rhetoric in what they're saying.

We've also seen people like Senator Bragg. Senator Bragg has described our budget as a communist tax plan by a communist government. Imagine for a moment if I had decided, based on what I had just described to the chamber about some of the deportation mentality that the coalition are trying to unleash on us, to describe them as fascists. If I had used that type of phrasing, I'd be condemned, no doubt. But they feel free to use that. But not only that—Senator Bragg is a person, by the way, who calls us a communist while also writing a book that wanted to nationalise superannuation and default retirement savings and put them into a government-run investment fund. He calls us communist, but he wants to do that. He's like the Kim Philby double agent of political ideology. On the one hand, he's a mass capitalist; on the next, he's a raving communist in terms of nationalising savings funds.

But on Instagram, back on 17 May, Senator Bragg said, 'Just remember—taxation is legalised theft.' This is a frontbencher of the coalition saying that taxation is legalised theft. He draws his salary from Commonwealth revenue that has been generated by that legalised theft. I don't know if he's going to donate his salary back because he believes that in some way, shape or form these are the proceeds of crime. If he would like to do that, I'd more than welcome him to do that. But this is the kind of out-there mentality that has been used by people like Senator Bragg to try and undermine this budget. He has drawn the support of the same person who ran this campaign that suggested that the government was now going to become an owner in startups, on his post where he said that taxation was legalised theft. This is a coalition frontbencher, mind you, who wants to form a government—unless they are saying that they will no longer tax people at all, which I don't suspect is the case. But this coalition frontbencher got support from someone else who has run a social media campaign that has been shown to be grossly misleading, that they even admitted wasn't the truth and that tax accountants said didn't stack up, and they got the great approval of that person for their statements. This discourse is nonsensical.

If you want to talk about undermining democracy, you can either see what the coalition—the MAGA minor—are saying in terms of calling for revolts, using lines like 'taxation is legalised theft' and describing what's being done as communist. That's what coalition frontbenchers are doing. If this is the standard by which the coalition's opposition leader believes is acceptable, then that is showing us what is undermining democracy in this country. I believe that, regardless of the differences we have, particularly between major parties, we would conduct ourselves responsibly.

We're not expected to agree on everything, but we do have to agree on facts—not the notion of alternative facts, as has been described by some in other arenas in different parts of the world, but that facts matter, that the way you put things forward matter and that, importantly, in a pitch for their own survival, the coalition will not become MAGA minor. They will not try to out One Nation, One Nation, and that they will do the right thing. They may even—if I may end with the words of the late senator Ron Boswell—recognise that, if they preference and support a party like One Nation, they are legitimising them and delegitimising themselves. The coalition deserves to be better, or should be better, than what they are doing, but instead they're into theatrics and overdramatisation.

I rise to speak on the bills that give effect to the government's fifth budget. These bills facilitate appropriation for government expenditure. They do not, of themselves, implement the policy and legislative changes announced in the budget, and that's important to remember. However, in bringing the budget into effect, these bills reflect the priorities of the government and how it will fund the delivery of essential services and investments against revenue.

Every year, I work with local governments, health services, tourism bodies and others to develop a budget submission for Indi, which I take directly to the Treasurer. I want to acknowledge the many individuals and organisations across Indi who contributed to this budget's submission. Across regional Australia, including in my electorate of Indi, people are experiencing growing challenges, from access to health care, housing and child care to infrastructure and disaster recovery following devastating bushfires and floods. At the same time, global instability is causing tidal waves domestically for supply chains and uncertainty for key industries like agriculture, manufacturing and construction. Together, these pressures are being felt acutely in the hip pockets of everyday Australians. That's why the key message from the people of Indi was that, in these uncertain times, the budget needs to respond with targeted investment and meaningful reform.

I want to touch on the regional budget statement, because, once again, sadly, I was underwhelmed by it. I was less tactful on budget night when I said it could have been a post-it note. But the truth is that it contains an awful lot of repackaged information and very little new spending or dedicated support for regional Australia. This does very little to address the deep satisfaction felt towards governments by the third of the population living in regional Australia—the third of the population who are so often the last to get and the first to lose.

In this budget, the government has taken steps towards addressing intergenerational inequality and housing accessibility. I welcome the government committing to action, and I acknowledge the ambition it reflects. At the same time, though, there's no doubt that further work is needed. The tax changes announced in the budget will go beyond the expectations the government set in the lead-up to the budget and beyond the original framing of these measures as part of a housing response.

Tax reform, of course, requires careful design and very detailed consultation. I urge the government not to rush these changes but to undertake a genuine and comprehensive process through parliament and with stakeholders so that the legislation works as well as possible and avoids unintended consequences. This will help Australians understand these changes, whether and how they will be affected, and how the government sees these reforms delivering a fairer and more effective tax system in the future. If ever there's a potential remedy or some way of addressing misinformation, then surely bringing people along through consultation and genuine engagement is part of that remedy. It's important to consider the full impact of these changes. It's particularly important to understand what the full impact is for small businesses and primary producers. I'm reaching out to my electorate, and I'll be listening carefully to the feedback I receive.

On aged care, I was pleased to see the government reverse its stance on personal care services. When the government introduced its aged-care reforms in 2024, I raised serious concerns about the co-payment. Basic care, like help with showering, eating and getting dressed, is not a luxury. It is, essentially, clinical care that underpins dignity, health and quality of life. This is the right outcome. It shows yet again that, when communities speak up and their voices are championed by the crossbench, we can find meaningful change. I congratulate the government on changing their mind on that particular element of the aged-care reform.

This budget provides $1.7 billion over five years and $110.9 million ongoing to deliver a really important plank of what we seek from government in looking after the most vulnerable in our community, and that's the 'securing the NDIS for future generations' package. It's important to note that this is not new funding. It's not. This is a reallocation of unspent funds. Following the budget, the government introduced legislation to implement this package. I've spoken in detail on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. I've spoken in detail about the serious concerns that I have—in particular, the ones that have really been brought to my attention by my constituents.

I've consistently pushed this government to invest further in the critical enabling infrastructure that unlocks housing. I welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement of the Housing Support Program in 2023, one week after I met with him to make my case for this funding. In this budget, a further $2 billion is allocated through a new local infrastructure fund. That's designed to help councils and utility providers roll out the paths, the poles and the pavements that are holding back new housing and, most particularly, holding back new housing in regional electorates such as mine. I have argued long and hard for a fair share of housing investment for regional Australia. At the last election my costed policy reflected the need for, in fact, $2 billion in enabling infrastructure investment for the regions alone. There is a gaping hole out there. While there's plenty more to do, it's good to see that the government have now committed one quarter of the local infrastructure fund to the regions. It remains incumbent on the government to ensure this funding is fairly distributed to regional communities.

I welcome further funding allocated to the Growing Regions Program. However, the decision to bundle this funding announcement with a suburban program, without certainty on regional allocations, raises a really key concern that a program that's been relied upon by local communities as a merit based, competitive funding stream will be lost to metropolitan priorities. I'm really concerned about this one.

One positive for farmers in Indi is the $7.5 billion Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility. I hear directly from primary producers that rising costs and uncertainty about supply of both fuel and fertiliser are making it difficult to sustain their operations. With the sowing season for broadacre crops well underway, access to fertiliser is critical to the success of this year's harvest. I welcome the government's recognition of this vital input and its inclusion in this facility.

While I acknowledge the government for some of these reforms, they can and they should do more to address the deep-rooted inequities facing regional and rural Australia. This is not just a question of fairness. It's about setting our nation on a path to greater productivity and long-term prosperity. Regional Australia consistently demonstrates strong productivity outcomes with a track record of outperforming our share of the population. The deputy speaker knows this. To realise our full potential, we need strong health services, we need sound infrastructure, and we need policy choices that back in the ambition of regional communities and invest in our future.

Health care remains the No. 1 concern right across the length and breadth of the electorate of Indi, and, indeed, I know it is a key concern right across rural and regional Australia. While this budget touted an extra $25 billion for hospitals, let's be clear eyed about this. This is predominantly made up of the increased base funding agreed with states and territories last year. This is not new funding over and above what the Commonwealth has already agreed to pay. Importantly, it does not address the pressing need for investment in infrastructure for rural and regional hospitals. Last year, I moved a motion calling on the government to deliver a $2 billion building rural and regional hospitals fund, a fund that would provide an open, transparent and needs based program for health services—like Albury Wodonga Health, Alpine Health, Corryong Health, Mansfield health—to apply for infrastructure funding that they absolutely desperately need. It's not too late to address the fundamental issues driving disquiet in rural and regional Australia and nor too late for action on the very real frustration that's felt by underinvestment in the most fundamental of things—health care infrastructure. If the government would do this, it would show communities that they are actually listening.

There's a compelling case for the government to expand the Commonwealth paid prac program to include all allied health and medical students. These students are required to complete hundreds, often thousands, of hours of unpaid placement. It is critical and important unpaid training, and it puts many students in the most precarious of financial situations. As a result, students are skipping meals, delaying their degrees and, in some cases, considering dropping out altogether because they simply can't make ends meet. Expanding prac payments is a targeted non-inflationary reform that invests in the future productivity of our country, and the success of schemes like Thriving Kids will rely on a strong allied health workforce, and that workforce depends on students being supported through their training, not pushed into placement poverty.

On the essential role of telecommunications and the absolutely critically essential role they play in regional Australia, despite this, this budget not only fails to announce any new funding for regional telecommunications, but, in fact, it has reprioritised millions in funding previously allocated to the Regional Connectivity Plan. In this budget, regional communications have actually gone backwards, and this absence of action on regional telecommunications is why I introduced a private member's bill earlier this week to strengthen our communications in natural disasters. This one just beggars belief to me. It absolutely beggars belief that the government have not put the investment towards this on the back of the summer bushfires that we've just had and on the back of everything that we have learnt, through Black Summer, through cyclones and through devastating floods. I'm never going to let up on this. The government has to invest in regional telecommunications in a way that is meaningful and in a way that will actually save lives.

Local governments face serious and systemic financial sustainability issues, yet this budget offers no long-term certainty nor any confidence for the hundreds of rural shires and city councils. The bringing forward of Financial Assistance Grant payments is a welcome short-term measure, but it's an accounting fix, and it shouldn't be necessary. What is necessary is meaningful action between the Commonwealth and the states to sustain regional councils to put them on a more stable footing for the long term, because, without financially sustainable councils, we can't hope to build the strong regions for our future nor address the core needs of these communities.

One of these core needs, I have to say, is the upkeep of our roads. I know the government loves to spruik increased funding for the Roads to Recovery Program, but the problem is the government is giving in one hand and taking away in the other. The planned growth in Roads to Recovery funding in the next financial year is significantly outweighed by the winding down of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, representing a more than $400 million shortfall between this financial year and the next. The reality is that funding for roads infrastructure is largely stagnant at an aggregate level under this government. However, you don't need to comb the budget papers to know this; you just need to take a ride down a regional road.

Another glaring hole in this budget—the biggest pothole you might ever see—is the lack of further funding for early education and care wages. The government has been touting its 15 per cent wage rise for early educators, but it's now leaving the sector in the lurch, with no clarity on how future wage rises determined by the Fair Work Commission will be funded. For smaller rural providers of child care in my electorate, it's keeping them awake at night. Many are not-for-profit operators already under strain, so the falling away of the government's support could not come at a more challenging time, and it truly puts centres across Australia at risk of closure. It's a nightmare for parents and carers struggling to balance parenthood and work and for the centres in thin markets.

As I finish, in the agriculture portfolio, I want to call out that savings are being scrapped from a number of programs that are critical to my electorate, including the wine tourism cellar door program and the pest and disease preparedness and response program. These are critical. The wine tourism cellar door program has benefited 15 wineries across Indi. We in Indi know that outbreaks of things like avian influenza are just devastating. It may seem easy for the government to cut small ag programs like this, but—mark my words—they have a huge impact on local communities.

The government might ask how I would fund the policies that I put forward. Let me just add my voice to the millions of Australians who say that one clear opportunity is to tax our gas exports and use that revenue to invest in regional Australia. (Time expired)

This budget is a responsible and forward-looking plan that recognises the pressures people are under right now while also making our economy fairer into the future. Canberrans are feeling the pressure right now, and this budget meets those pressures head on. It delivers targeted cost-of-living relief, strengthens essential services like health and housing that people rely on, supports Australia's transition to clean energy and reinforces a more resilient economy. Importantly, it reflects Labor values of fairness, opportunity and ensuring that no-one is left behind. For the ACT, it continues a strong record of investment in our services, infrastructure and national institutions. It ensures that Canberra remains a great place to live, work and raise a family.

We are delivering further tax cuts from 1 July this year for every Australian taxpayer, helping ease the pressure of the cost of living. More tax relief is already flowing. This means lower tax bills for working Australians, with permanent relief that puts more money back into people's pockets year after year. For many, that is hundreds of dollars returned, making a real difference to household budgets.

We are also making it easier to claim deductions, introducing a simple $1,000 instant tax deduction with no receipts required, cutting red tape and ensuring more people can access what they're entitled to. Taken together, these changes mean meaningful relief for workers and families, with an average benefit reaching about $3,000. That is before you factor in our fuel tax cuts, which are helping Australians save every time they fill up.

For small businesses, we are cutting red tape and boosting cash flow by permanently extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off. This gives many thousands of businesses, including around 60,000 businesses here in the ACT, the confidence to invest, to grow and to create jobs in our community.

For too long, young people and families have been priced out of the housing market, forced to compete with investors benefiting from tax concessions such as negative gearing and the CGT discount. It is an issue that comes up frequently for me when I'm talking with my constituents here in Canberra. That is why we are committed to delivering a fairer system, one that gives first home buyers a genuine opportunity to get into that market. We also know that improving affordability means increasing supply. We need to build more homes and we need to build them faster. Negative gearing will be limited to only new builds from July next year, and we are delivering 1,000 homes set aside specifically for first home buyers, creating more opportunities for people to secure a place of their own. We are delivering practical support right now. Our five per cent deposit scheme for first home buyers has helped more Australians take that step sooner. Since we came to government, around 1,600 people in my electorate alone have bought their first home through this scheme, creating real outcomes for first home buyers and local families.

Shortly after the budget, I joined the Prime Minister, Treasurer and housing minister to meet with two of my constituents, Mika and Matt, and their dog, Pikelet, in the Canberra suburb of Kingston thanks to Labor's five per cent deposit scheme. Mika told us that it would have taken many more years of renting and saving before they would have been able to afford their own home had they had to have a 20 per cent deposit.

And Labor is not stopping there. We are making sure new homes can actually be built. Through the ACT share of the local infrastructure fund we are investing $50 million in the essential infrastructure that unlocks development, including roads, power and drainage, the building blocks of new communities. We also recognise that not everyone is in a position to buy yet, and that's why we have increased Commonwealth rent assistance by more than 50 per cent since 2022—to help ease pressure for those doing it tough in the rental market. Through the Housing Australia Future Fund we are investing in long-term solutions supporting more social and affordable homes and ensuring that those most in need can access stable and affordable housing. This includes women and children at risk to ensure that they have access to safe and secure accommodation. We saw a $60 million investment into housing for those struggling with youth homelessness. This is about fairness. It is about opportunity and it is about building a future where every Australian has the chance to get ahead.

Since coming to government, we've committed more than $4 billion to the ACT, ensuring our city receives the investment it deserves. This budget continues that strong trajectory with practical measures that support households, strengthen services and invest in the future. Canberra's national institutions will receive over $20 million in additional funding to continue their essential work preserving and sharing Australia's History. This includes nearly $10 million for the National Film and Sound Archive and $3 million in the Museum of Australian Democracy as it prepares for its centenary. This is such a loved institution in our community. In science and innovation, the CSIRO will receive almost $390 million, building on last year's $278 million investment. This funding supports world-leading research and reinforces Canberra's role as a hub for scientific excellence. We are also contributing $30 million to deliver a new RSPCA animal welfare campus in Pialligo, supporting better care for animals and strengthening services for the region. We are working with the ACT and New South Wales governments to improve rail connections between Canberra and Sydney, helping deliver more reliable and efficient travel. This is something that has been a long time coming and many people have advocated for, including people who were part of the inquiry I chaired last term into fostering the significance of our nation's capital. It was great to see another recommendation of that report delivered on in the investment into the rail between here and Sydney. This budget has a really strong investment for Canberra. It strengthens the services people rely on and helps build a more resilient and inclusive economy for the future.

Every budget since the Albanese Labor government came to office has included a Women's Budget Statement, providing a clear view of how our investments support women, strengthen women's economic security and advance gender equality. This continues to be a proud Labor legacy. Gender-responsive budgeting and women's budget statements were first introduced by the Hawke government in the 1980s and were restored by the Albanese government in 2022. I know that in opposition we continued to put those out as well in between those periods. This budget delivers for Australian women. We're continuing to invest in women's safety and we're making the child support system fairer and safer so more families get the child support they are owed. We're investing almost $183 million to make the child support system safer and fairer. Currently, there are more than one million children in the child support system and women make up 83 per cent of recipient parents. Currently, almost $2 billion is owed in unpaid child support debt in Australia—even more when private arrangements are included. That's $2 billion that children are missing out on. The average debt is nearly $8,700. We know that, for many families, this amount could enable a parent to pay for braces for their child, fund club or representative sport, go on school excursions or learn a musical instrument. Our reforms will crack down on financial abuse and strengthen the child support system against weaponisation, ensuring more children and families get the child support they are owed. These are the most significant changes to the child support system in nearly 20 years. These important reforms will both help keep children out of poverty and ensure government systems are not weaponised when relationships break down. These important reforms will both help keep children out of poverty and ensure government systems are not weaponised when relationships break down.

Our majority women government will continue to deliver better outcomes for women and girls. Since 2022, we've made significant progress towards gender equality. Women's average weekly earnings have grown by almost $300 per week. More than one million families have benefited from cheaper child care. Australia has recorded its highest ever international ranking for gender equality in 13th this year, up from 43rd when we came to government. Women have saved more than $47 million across almost 139 million prescriptions, including through expanded access to contraceptives and menopause therapies.

In the health portfolio, this budget delivers real, practical improvements to health care for Canberrans, strengthening Medicare and making it easier for people to get the care they need when they need it. We are making free urgent care clinics a permanent part of our health system, and that includes investment in a new urgent care clinic to be opened in Woden and investing in the five existing nurse led walk-in centres that people know and love here in the ACT. These clinics are already easing pressure on our hospitals and helping families access care quickly without the worry of the bill.

We are also expanding access to primary care, with three new fully bulk-billed GP clinics and stronger incentives to support existing practices right here in Canberra. This means that Canberrans will be able to see a doctor without reaching for their wallet, and this is in direct response to the fact that bulk-billing in Canberra has been historically low, among some of the lowest rates in the country, and it's something that my constituents raise with me. I'm really proud that our government has responded in this way to deliver that really practical support to get these new clinics up and running.

This budget continues our strong support for public hospitals, with an additional $4.1 billion over five years to ensure the ACT has the resources it needs to deliver high-quality care. We are also building on our work to make medicines cheaper. Millions of scripts have already been delivered at a lower cost, putting money back into the pockets of families, ensuring they do not have to choose between their health and their finances. Importantly, we are investing in the wellbeing of our young people. This includes targeted funding to strengthen youth mental health services, including to close gaps and ensure support is available earlier, when it can make the biggest difference. We are improving preventive care, from expanding access to dental services for children to strengthening immunisation programs for older Australians. Taken together, these measures reflect a clear priority: a stronger, fairer health system that delivers for every Australian.

Climate and energy issues are consistently among the most important concerns raised with me by my constituents. Many residents are increasingly focused on the transition to affordable, reliable and sustainable energy, as well as the need for practical policies that both reduce emissions and support local jobs and industries. I'm proud that our Cheaper Home Batteries Program is delivering real and measurable benefits for households and for our energy system. Since the program began in July last year, more than 414,000 batteries have been installed across the country, including nearly 7,000 here in the ACT. This effort has effectively doubled Australia's total battery capacity and builds on our world-leading adoption of rooftop solar, which is now installed on around one in three homes.

Together, these changes are transforming how energy is generated, stored and used in this country. Households are seeing meaningful savings on their power bills, and there are broader benefits as well. By reducing demand during peak periods, batteries are helping to ease pressure on the grid and put downward pressure on electricity prices for everyone. Across Australia, we are already seeing the impact. The recent release of the final default market offer reflects a significant structural shift in the energy system, driven by increased battery uptake and reduced reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal and gas.

There is always more work to do. Over 130 renewable projects have been approved. Already, over 50 per cent renewables are supplying Australia's grid, and that's growing. In contrast, the coalition left behind chaotic energy policies and opposed cost-of-living support when Australians needed it most.

The Albanese government is taking a different approach. We are focused on practical reforms that provide immediate relief for households, while laying the foundations for a stronger and more sustainable energy system. Our budget also supports cleaner and more affordable transport. Fringe benefits exemptions for electric vehicles have been extended through to 2029 and beyond, making these vehicles more accessible and reducing exposure to volatile fuel prices. I know this is very popular in my electorate, which has some of the highest uptake of EVs around the country. At the same time, we are strengthening energy security. We're increasing national fuel reserves by lifting coverage to 50 days and requiring gas companies to reserve 20 per cent of supply for the domestic market. We are also investing to expand our reserves of jet fuel and diesel. By keeping more fuel here and ensuring reliable domestic supply, we are better prepared for future shocks.

No matter what is happening around the world, the Albanese Labor government is taking action to support Australians at home. This is a budget that is delivering a fair go for all Australians.

I rise to speak on the appropriation bills at a time when Australia stands at a crossroads. Across the world, we are seeing uncertainty, instability and conflict. The global order is shifting. Supply chains are fragile. The strategic environment in our region is deteriorating. Social trust is under pressure, and families are being stretched. Businesses are questioning whether this is still the country where effort is rewarded and risk is worth taking.

Australia itself is not experiencing conflict, but we are living in a world that demands preparedness, discipline and leadership. This should have been the moment when the government used its time in office to strengthen our economy, harden our national resilience, rebuild trust in our institutions and prepare Australia for the challenges ahead. Instead, Labor has turned this moment into tougher times for Australians. This is a government with a leadership deficit. It talks about responsibility but refuses to lead by example. It talks about fairness but divides Australians against each other. It talks about security but does not fund the capability required to keep Australians safe. It talks about aspiration while punishing those who work hard, save hard and take risks.

Australians are not stupid. They know what's happening in their own lives. They know whether the weekly shop costs more and whether the mortgage is harder to pay. They know whether their rent has gone up and whether their business is being buried under taxes, wages, regulation and uncertainty. And they know that, after years of Labor government, life has not become easier; it has, in fact, become harder. The first failing of this budget is economic. Before the latest global instability and conflict had fully flowed through to prices, inflation was already going the wrong way. The ABS reported annual CPI inflation at 4.6 per cent in March. That's up from 3.7 per cent the month before. Interest rates remain painful for Australian families, and the RBA cash rate is at 4.35 per cent, which means Australians are paying more, borrowing more, saving less and falling further behind. Yet what is Labor's answer—more taxes, more spending, more debt, more intervention, more government. And because Labor cannot manage money, it's coming after yours.

This budget attacks capital gains, negative gearing and discretionary trusts. It limits negative gearing. It changes capital gains tax arrangements. It introduces a minimum tax on discretionary trusts. These are not abstract accounting changes; they hit people who have done the right thing—small business owners, mum-and-dad investors, retirees, young savers and families who are all trying to build a future without depending on government. This is not tax reform; it's an assault on aspiration.

I'd like to read to the House a message that I received from a local business owner. These are their words, not mine. They say:

Hey Leon, I'm sure you are hearing this plenty but this budget killed me. I've already taken steps to close a new business that I was launching here and I'm shifting it home to NZ. The CGT greed and attack on bucket companies is the last straw. I know I'm not the only one. Both of my mentors left Australia 3 years ago and warned me. I went to Dubai last year after Albo tried to push for unrealised gains tax and I met with an accounting firm. When the accountants entered the room they said "sit down we know why you are here, every new customer since your budget has been an Australian" This Government has destroyed business opportunity. Wages are through the roof and now the shameless grab for 47% has broken me. I have been on call 24/7 for 20 years while I built a business and jobs. We were already taxed too much but I stayed anyway. I'm furious. If this gets through my wife and I are likely to pull the kids from school and start again in NZ. This is just greed and mismanagement on an epic scale.

This is the human consequence of this budget. This is what happens when government treats aspiration as a problem to be taxed, rather than a virtue to be encouraged. A business that shuts its doors employs no-one. A family that leaves Australia takes with it skills, capital, jobs and confidence. A young person who sees effort punished will eventually stop believing that the system is fair. Government does not create wealth. Businesses do, families do, workers do, entrepreneurs do and investors do. Labor's role is to create the conditions for them to succeed, but Labor's instinct is, quite frankly, the opposite—to regulate more, tax more, spend more and then act surprised when ambition leaves our shores.

The second failing of this budget is defence and national security. For years now, the Prime Minister and the defence minister have told Australians that we face the most complex and testing strategic circumstances since the end of the Second World War. On that they are right, but words are not capability, announcements are not deterrents and press releases alone do not defend a country. The government points to additional defence spending over the decade, but the question every member of this place should be asking is really quite simple: can Australia stand on its own two feet under this government? The answer is no.

Our alliances matter. ANZUS matters. AUKUS matters. The Five Eyes matter. Our partnerships with like-minded democracies matter. But partnerships alone are not enough. We must have the domestic preparedness to defend our national interest. We must have sovereign industry, fuel security and a defence force that's properly equipped, properly supported and ready for the realities of the decade ahead. This budget does not meet that test. It does not provide the urgent, credible and meaningful plan required to keep Australians safe. It does not move with the seriousness that the strategic environment demands, and it does not send the message to our region, nor to our allies or our adversaries, that Australia is prepared to do what is necessary.

My view is clear. Defence spending must rise to at least three per cent of GDP. We need a whole-of-nation national security defence strategy. We need serious investment in capability, and we need to back the Australian businesses, including on the Gold Coast, that are building the next generation of defence technology, not punish them with tax settings that drive them offshore and disincentivise their need to innovate. Fuel security is national security. Economic resilience is national security. Sovereign manufacturing is national security. Social cohesion is national security. The government does not seem to understand that all of these things are connected.

The third failing of this budget is social cohesion. Australia's social fabric is being pulled totally apart, and we are seeing this in our electorates across the country. This is a government that talks about inclusion, but it plays the politics of division. Right now, it is pitting young Australians against older Australians. It pits renters against mum-and-dad investors. It pits workers against small businesses. It pits people who have served and people who have sacrificed against those who are told that their challenges can only be solved by government—and not just by government but by government punishing someone else. That is not leadership; that is division dressed up as fairness.

Labor's tax changes are presented as 'intergenerational fairness', but let's call them what they are. They are intergenerational fraud. Young Australians who cannot afford to get a home are doing the responsible thing. They are saving. They are investing. They are trying to build a future through shares, ETFs, small businesses or other assets. But now Labor wants to punish them for doing exactly what previous generations were encouraged to do—work, save, invest and get ahead.

The same is true in housing and migration. Migration has been one of Australia's great success stories when it is well managed, when it is in the national interest and when infrastructure and housing keep pace. But under Labor, migration is running ahead of housing, it is running ahead of infrastructure and it is running ahead of essential services. Australia is on track to take in around two million migrants by the end of Labor's first two terms while homebuilding remains nowhere near what Australians need or what new migrants to Australia need. That does not strengthen social cohesion; it strains it. It puts pressure on rents. It puts pressure on roads. It puts pressure on schools, hospitals and communities. It makes it harder for young Australians to buy their first home and harder for families to find a rental. It diminishes the very settlement success that made Australia a strong multicultural nation. A government serious about social cohesion would not govern by wedge. It would not tell one group of Australians that their hardship is caused by another group of Australians. It would, however, bring people together around shared values, responsibility, contribution, fairness, opportunity and respect for the country that we are all blessed to call home.

In my first speech in this parliament I spoke about the need to look beyond the next election cycle and ask what Australia should look like in 100 years from now. That is the test of serious government—not what headline can be won today, not what political advantage can be seized tomorrow but what kind of country we leave to those who come after us. This budget fails that test, but there is another way.

The coalition have put forward a plan for a freer, fairer and better Australia. We will end Labor's inflation tax through a tax-back guarantee, indexing income tax thresholds to inflation so that Australians can keep more of what they earn. That is generational tax reform. We will link migration to housing supply so our intake is sustainable and in the national interest. And we will put Australians first by ensuring that essential welfare and the NDIS are preserved for Australian citizens. We will establish a future generations fund to bank resource windfalls, pay down debt and build national infrastructure. And we will deliver more fuel, more storage and more security. We will back small-business investment with an instant asset write-off of up to $50,000, and strengthen Australia's security with a whole-of-nation national security strategy and defence spending of at least three per cent of GDP. That's the difference between short-term politics and long-term responsibility.

Labor believes that government should take more, that it should spend more and that it should control more. We on this side of the House, the coalition, believe that Australians should be trusted to keep more of what they earn and that Australians should be trusted to own their homes, to build their businesses, to defend their country and to shape their own future. Australia is not a nation that is destined for decline. We are not a people who need to be managed by government into lower expectations. We are a country of builders, workers, families, migrants, entrepreneurs, volunteers and quiet Australians who ask for very little but give so much.

Our task, as I said in my first speech, is not to manage decline but to shape destiny. It's to restore the promise that effort will be rewarded, that freedom will be protected and that opportunity is not the privilege of a few but the inheritance of all. This budget does not do that. The coalition will.

There is a simple question at the heart of these appropriation bills: what kind of future are we choosing to build, and who gets to share in it? The Albanese government's budget answers this question clearly. This budget is focused squarely on levelling the playing field—in our tax system, in our economy and in the services and infrastructure that underpin a good life. It is about our people. It's about the families I meet across the Bellarine, the young workers I speak to on the Surf Coast, the retirees I visit in Ocean Grove, the small-business owners in Leopold, the TAFE students from Grovedale, Newcomb, Queenscliff and the towns right across my region. It is about building a future that works for all of them.

This budget will strengthen housing, health, energy security and opportunity at a time when we have global uncertainty and supply chain pressures and when ongoing cost-of-living challenges are being felt in every household. It delivers cost-of-living relief now, while investing for the long term, and there's no better investment than education. From early years education to TAFE and university, this is where people build the skills, knowledge and experience to get ahead. That's why this budget includes investment in education.

This budget backs working Australians and the future they are trying to build for their families. A central pillar of this budget is redressing the imbalance in our tax system so that Australians know that if they work hard they can achieve. Our government knows that to do this we must make change. It's about real reform. It's not about taking the easy road. It's about setting our nation up for the future and ensuring that Australians continue to have a fair go. We are a hopeful nation, and this budget is about ensuring that hope endures.

From 1 July, every taxpayer will receive further tax relief, including a permanent additional tax offset worth $250. We're also introducing a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses, cutting through unnecessary complexity and putting money back into the hands of working people. Across all of our tax cuts, the average working Australian will be up to $2,800 better off each year. That is 13 million workers getting meaningful tax relief. For a teacher in Leopold, a nurse in Geelong, a cleaner working early shifts in Torquay or a tradie on the Surf Coast, this is practical relief that matters. These are people who are working hard, often across multiple responsibilities, and trying to keep up with rent, mortgages, groceries and bills.

We are also continuing to target fuel relief and strengthen domestic energy resilience, including measures designed to reduce exposure to volatile global energy markets. For a regional electorate like mine, where families often travel long distances for work, school and health care, that matters every single week. This is a budget that recognises pressure and responds with action, not rhetoric, and there's no clearer example of this than the housing measures we're putting in place.

Homeownership has always been central to the Australian story. It is not just an economic outcome; it's about security, stability and belonging. It is about knowing you can build a life in the community you grew up in. Too many young people are now finding that foundation increasingly out of reach. In towns like Torquay, Ocean Grove, Drysdale and across the Bellarine, young people are being priced out of the communities they call home. They are turning up to auctions and being outbid. They are watching homes in their neighbourhoods—homes that once symbolised possibility—slip further beyond reach. This is not just a housing issue. It is an intergenerational fairness issue, and it is one this budget takes seriously.

Right now, the system makes it easier to buy your 10th home than your first. House prices have risen about 400 per cent over the last two decades, and fewer young people own homes today than at any point in living history. We cannot stand by and let this keep getting worse. That is why this budget changes the rules on negative gearing and capital gains tax. From now on, negative gearing for residential property will only be available on new builds—homes that actually add to supply. Investors who already own properties will not be affected, and investors who buy new builds can still use negative gearing, but we are no longer allowing the current tax system to give investors a leg up over first home buyers competing for the same established properties. By directing investment into new builds, we are also helping build the homes Australia needs. These changes are expected to help around 75,000 Australians buy a home of their own.

On capital gains tax, we are moving back to discounting gains based on actual inflation—the system that was in place before 1999—rather than a flat 50 per cent discount that overtaxes some people and undertaxes others. These changes only apply to gains made from 1 July next year. Existing gains are not affected. Family homes are not affected and never will be under these changes. For many people investing in shares and managed funds, the new system could be as good or even better than what is in place today.

We are also making the tax treatment of discretionary trusts fairer. Right now, a high-income earner using a family trust to split income can end up paying a far lower effective tax rate than a nurse or a teacher earning a similar amount from wages. Under our changes, from 1 July 2028, trust income will be subject to a minimum 30 per cent tax rate—the same rate paid by an average middle-income worker. More than 95 per cent of individual taxpayers will not be affected by these changes at all. For small businesses, the vast majority will not be affected either. The capital gains tax concessions that most small businesses rely on are not changing, and we are making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent so small businesses can continue to invest with confidence. These are changes grounded in fairness. The vast majority of Australians go to work every day, get paid and pay their taxes. This budget makes sure those workers are treated equitably, not disadvantaged by a system that was skewed against them.

We are continuing large-scale investment in social and affordable housing after years of underinvestment. We are working with state and local governments to speed up approvals and unlock land supply, and we are supporting pathways that give first home buyers a fairer chance to compete, including the First Home Super Saver program and support for people to buy with a deposit of just five per cent. We are choosing to build, not wait, and to invest, not ignore, because young Australians who work hard, study hard and contribute to their communities deserve a genuine opportunity to put down roots where they grew up. This is not an aspiration for a select few. It should be a national expectation.

Health care is one of the clearest expressions of fairness in Australia. Across my electorate, from Armstrong Creek to Indented Head, from our growth corridors to coastal towns, people want to know they can access quality health care when they need it, without cost determining whether they can seek treatment. This is what this budget is all about. It strengthens Medicare. We are making Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of the health system. This includes the Torquay and Belmont clinics in my electorate. These clinics are already making a real difference in our region, reducing pressure on emergency departments in Geelong, shortening wait times and ensuring people can get treated quickly and locally. We are continuing to strengthen bulk-billing incentives, which are already improving access across the region and in our surrounding communities. And we are ensuring that GP visits become more affordable. Delayed care can become more serious if people do not go to their GP. It can be more expensive and more distressing for the individual, so strengthening bulk billing is good for people's health and good for the health of the economy.

We are also reducing the cost of medicines to $25 per script. For concession card holders, it's now $7.70. These are real savings that make a difference to pensioners, families and people managing chronic conditions across our community. We are also investing in the health workforce of doctors, nurses and allied health professionals because growing communities like mine require sustained investment in staffing, not short-term fixes. This is what a strong Medicare system looks like: accessible, affordable and universal.

My community cares deeply about our environment and its future. From the Bellarine coastline to the Surf Coast and inland family farming communities, people see the environment not as an abstract debate but as a place to live, work and raise their children. They see the impacts of changing weather patterns, coastal erosion and pressure on ecosystems that underpin tourism, agriculture, local identity and jobs. This budget invests in Australia's clean-energy transition not as an ideology but as a commitment to the next generation to deliver jobs and reduce emissions. We are investing in renewable energy generation, battery storage and transmission. We are supporting clean manufacturing and supply chains. We are ensuring regional and peri-urban communities are not left behind but are active participants in the jobs and industries of the future. For my communities, this means opportunity. It means secure long-term employment in emerging industries. Importantly, it actually means a healthier environment for our children and for their children. This transition must be fair, orderly and forward-looking because it is so important that we continue to strive towards our net zero target. Our government has committed to this, many across my communities have advocated for it and I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure we do our very best to meet those targets.

This budget also continues the government's commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Across my region, families value the NDIS for essential supports that enable independence, participation and dignity. The responsibility of government is to ensure that the scheme remains strong, fair and sustainable into the future.

This budget is also about trust—trust in a government that delivers and trust that people's taxes are being invested responsibly, effectively and fairly. This budget strengthens systems that must endure and ensures that essential programs are not only funded today but remain viable into the future. Budgets are not just about economic documents; they are building blocks to a good life. They are statements of values. This budget makes the Albanese Labor government's values clear. We choose fairness over inequality, investment over neglect, long-term stability and prosperity over short-term politics, practical solutions over slogans.

Labor's budget backs working Australians not just in principle but in practice. It supports families under pressure. It strengthens Medicare. It builds housing supply. It makes the tax system fairer and it invests in clean energy and our environment. This budget moves us in the right direction—a direction grounded in fairness, opportunity and responsibility. It recognises the pressures people are under and responds with practical measures that make a difference. It invests in the future, not just in the present. It ensures that Australia remains a hopeful nation that continues to believe in a fair go for all, where opportunity is not determined by postcode, background or circumstance but by effort, contribution and fairness.

I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027. Labor's budget of broken promises and higher taxes destroys any concept of a fair go for the people of Hinkler. I was on the road only last week with my mobile offices straight off the bat. At every stop on the map, from Fishermen's Park at Urangan to Pialba, from the foreshore at Bargara to Woodgate Beach and to the bustling main street of Childers and then across to Bundaberg, in every location I've heard loud and clear that confidence is low and so, too, is the trust in this Labor government. There's the lack of a fair go for veterans, the unfair private health insurance rebate removal for our over-65s, despair over Labor's toxic taxes and crippling conditions for small businesses.

After five Labor budgets, Australians are paying more, working harder and going backwards. We are faced with more debt, lower living standards and fewer homes for the people of Hinkler. Less than two per cent of new infrastructure pipeline projects outlined in the budget are for the regions. That's less than two per cent, and nothing at all for Hinkler—zero. The Labor government is cutting infrastructure payments to the states and territories by $4.7 billion over the budget forward estimates. But it did manage to find an additional $3.8 billion for the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop—convenient timing in an election year for Victoria. And then there's a $3.9 billion cut to road funding.

With a massive cloud of uncertainty hanging over major projects in Hinkler, local councils and state government MPs are calling on the federal government to do more to help get boots on the ground. I back those calls for more action and less talk as costs for these projects rise and indeed threaten to blow out. Hinkler projects with previously committed federal funding are now sitting in limbo. As an example, what's next for Paradise Dam on the Burnett River? Will it be repaired, rebuilt or left as it is?

Long-term water security remains critical to the future of my region, and I'm committed to seeing the original capacity restored. And we must not forget it was a state Labor government that built this dodgy dam in the first place. Now we must make the right decisions, provide some real certainty to farmers and fund the fix appropriately. And downstream, just two and a half months since the Burnett River's major flood that inundated hundreds of Bundaberg homes and businesses—what's the next step for flood mitigation for Bundaberg? Locals have been waiting for something, anything, for 13 years.

As our Hinkler population booms, our road network is under significant pressure, but this Labor government is ignoring the fact that projects like the Maryborough-Hervey Bay Road and Pialba-Burrum Heads Road intersection upgrade are going nowhere, and the costs just keep climbing and work still yet to commence. I thank the state member for Hervey Bay, David Lee, and the state member for Maryborough, John Barounis, for their interest in this project as we work together to see some action fast. I also recently met with the full Fraser Coast Regional Council to talk about the challenges facing our region, considering the high population growth. In Bundaberg, there's money set aside for the Quay Street revitalisation project. Let's see some of these funds get spent and work commence.

Hinkler needs certainty, not broken promises and lost funds, especially at a time when costs are on the rise. Don't forget the regions like Hinkler. A fair share is what we need. Support for health services. Cheaper electricity. Cutting red tape. Yet, as these issues are pushed to the side under Labor, they will still find a way to spend another $18.2 billion on net zero—$18.2 billion. While I talk about big-ticket items such as roads and infrastructure, it's often the smaller projects that mean the most. Those opposite are quick to announce projects for their electorates, but the regions represented by the coalition are being conveniently forgotten.

Last September, I wrote to the Prime Minister. I outlined the commitments I made prior to the election, and, while these were promises from opposition, they are desperately needed now more than ever. They would support vital community and sporting upgrades across Hinkler. The projects include an upgrade to amenities at the Isis Cultural Centre in Childers; Hervey Bay Basketball Association's complete fit-out of its new home including canteen, office and accessible change rooms; Bundaberg Touch Association's upgrade to lighting and bathrooms; a new LED sign for the Woodgate and District Residents Association; upgrades to accessible bathrooms, kitchen and electrical systems at the Fraser Coast Swim Club; accessible bathrooms and a ramp at the Burgowan Bowls Club; installation of an automated irrigation system at the Burrum District Golf Club; and lighting upgrades for the Bundaberg Hockey Association

Funding of these Hinkler projects would play a key role in building stronger and more resilient regional communities. These projects were identified based on demonstrated community need, regional growth and their ability to provide long-term benefits. While these initiatives would not be considered costly, they would be welcomed for the betterment of the respective groups and organisations. Again, Hinkler just wants a fair share.

I've been advocating strongly for the continued delivery of specialist palliative care—fee-free—for local families. The Fraser Coast Hospice, originally funded with support from a previous coalition government, needs further assistance including community and business support. The shortfall is around $750,000 per annum. Fraser Coast Hospice is a six-bed, short-stay facility where people spend their final days and weeks surrounded by comfort, dignity and the people they love. This is something everyone deserves. Meanwhile, I recognise the efforts of the Bundaberg community hospice group in their bid to build a new hospice. We must do more to help people receive dignified care in their final moments.

Earlier this year, here in parliament, I joined the calls for more support to be delivered to neighbourhood centres. In regional Australia, in electorates like Hinkler, neighbourhood centres are an essential service, the heart of our communities. They foster safety, connection and social capital. They're the places where community connection happens. The Burrum Heads Neighbourhood Centre services a small but rapidly growing coastal community, and it has outgrown its home. Powered largely by volunteers, the team delivers outreach, counselling, training, sewing classes, a library, community transport, an op shop, community markets and so much more. I thank the Burrum Heads Neighbourhood Centre's Julie, Kathy and Lynne for updating me on their situation and sharing the story of the centre's growth over the past 15 years. Centres like this are especially called upon to stand up and support communities during times of crisis. So now, more than ever, we need to provide them with adequate support

To further break down the failures of this budget from Labor, I note that mining investment is collapsing to zero growth in 2027-28. Labor is prioritising gas market intervention and red tape over new investment, risking jobs, investment and future tax revenue.

Then there's tourism. As the whale-watching season draws closer, Tourism Australia is being cut by $49.4 million over four years including a $15.1 million reduction in 2026-27 at the worst possible time for regional tourism operators already battling soaring costs. Hardworking bodies like Bundaberg Tourism and Fraser Coast Tourism & Events are doing all they can with what they have. But, as fuel prices impact forward bookings and the cost of doing business skyrockets, cuts will make it even harder to survive.

Then there are the already infamous toxic taxes. Labor's broken promises will hit regional Australians in places like Hinkler the hardest, with the proposed capital gains tax changes set to damage Australian agriculture and family farms. ABARES data shows the average broadacre farm achieved just a 0.6 per cent rate of return on capital in 2023-24, with most long-term returns coming through land value growth rather than yearly income. Average broadacre land values have risen 9.8 per cent each year over the past decade, meaning Labor's CGT changes will punish farmers for long-term asset growth while discouraging younger Australians from entering agricultural pursuits. Combined with Labor's attack on negative gearing and trusts, these changes further undermine investment confidence, intergenerational family farming and regional small business.

Staying on farming, the lifeblood of Hinkler, Labor is cutting $191.6 million from the agriculture, fisheries and forestry portfolio over five years, with ongoing cuts of $30.5 million every year thereafter. More than $104.6 million is being stripped from regional and agricultural grant programs, including pest and disease preparedness—more hits for Hinkler. Another major issue is Labor's cap on Hinkler Veterans' allied health services. I've been very vocal on this and I'm simply urging the government to remove the uncertainty and reverse the decision to impose the $5,000 annual cap. Veterans should not be asked to bear the costs of Labor's budget repair.

While the Labor government has dealt Hinkler a budget of broken promises and toxic taxes, in stark contrast, the coalition has an alternative plan, a plan for a fairer, freer and better Australia. Only the coalition can deliver a fair tax-back guarantee. From 2029, a coalition government will index the bottom two income tax thresholds to inflation. This will fully protect around 85 per cent of income earners, with a relief of around $250 in year 1, growing to more than $1,000 a year in year 4. From 2031-32, the coalition will index the top two thresholds as well, fully protecting all income earners from inflation or from what many know as bracket creep. This is generational tax reform that is fair, simple and honest.

Only the coalition can fix the migration and housing crisis. We will ensure Australia only brings in as many people as it can house. Under the coalition's pledge net overseas migration will be capped each year at the number of new homes completed in Australia. The pledge will be backed by a housing supply package, including a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to unlock up to 400,000 homes by funding critical last-mile infrastructure such as water, sewerage, power and access roads.

Only the coalition is putting Australians first. We will reserve welfare payments and future eligibility for the NDIS for Australian citizens. From 1 July 2028, access to 17 welfare payments and benefits will be limited to Australian citizens only. Future eligibility for the NDIS will also be limited to Australian citizens. If you commit to Australia, Australia will commit to you.

Only the coalition will deliver a future generations fund to ensure resource windfalls are used responsibly. Where resource windfalls are higher than forecast, a coalition government will bank 80c in every dollar into the future generations fund and quarantine at least 25 per cent of that fund for regional Australia. The fund will help pay down Labor's trillion dollars of debt and invest in nation-building infrastructure. These windfalls will help build the roads, rail, hospitals and schools our country needs.

Only the coalition can be trusted to deliver more fuel, more storage and more security for Australia. We will reduce pressure on families and small businesses by scrapping Labor's Safeguard Mechanism, a carbon tax on business that will cost refineries around $165 million by 2029-30. A coalition government will keep pushing for a daily public fuel dashboard so Australians can see supply levels in real time. The coalition will also unlock an Australian fuel supply by reversing regulatory barriers, reforming the EPBC Act, and fast-tracking national significant projects like Queensland's Taroom Trough—not far as the crow flies, just inland from my electorate. If fuel stops, Australia stops.

Importantly, only the coalition will boost small-business investment. The coalition will back small businesses to invest with a permanent $50,000 instant asset write-off. The coalition will also continue to fight Labor's changes to capital gains and trusts, which are an attack on small business. I'm conducting a small-business survey in Hinkler this month and, so far, 59 per cent of respondents are not confident with how things are travelling.

When it comes to strengthening Australia's security, only the coalition will make Australia stronger and safer in the face of global threats, with a whole-of-nation national security strategy and real increased funding for defence. By increasing defence spending to three per cent of GDP, the coalition will provide real increases to defence spending.

The coalition will back Australians who work hard, save hard and want to get ahead because our country is worth fighting for. The coalition will ditch Labor's capital gains tax and negative gearing changes. We will scrap net zero and deliver the lowest possible power prices. Australia needs to be a country that uses its land, its resources and its people. Labor may have given up on Hinkler and regional Australia, but the coalition never will. We are just getting started.

This is the most significant budget to be brought before the parliament in many years. It seeks to address the many challenges that are being thrown our way, whilst also tackling the much-needed reforms to help level the playing field for Australians. The tax reform package at the heart of the government's fifth budget is focused on three clear objectives: making it easier for Australians to buy their first home, cutting income taxes for 13 million Australian workers and ensuring a fairer alignment in the tax treatment between people who earn income through work and those who derive income through other legitimate means.

A really important part of the budget is targeted towards workers, with the most meaningful permanent increase to the effective tax-free threshold for a long time—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 measures. The last time this parliament voted on tax relief for working Australians, they opposed it. They not only voted against it; they also promised to repeal it if given the opportunity. Had they succeeded, they would have taken money out of the pockets of working Australians.

We've got a $1,000 instant deduction next financial year, and now we have 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 are also supporting the productive side of the economy, with more than $3.5 billion in new measures to reduce taxes on businesses and reforms that will reduce regulatory costs by more than $10 billion. It's tax reform designed to lift productivity and investment in productive assets.

Having grown up in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, I've always been determined to fight to ensure that aspiration is afforded to everyone who works and contributes, not just an exclusive realm for people who already own significant wealth while leaving policy settings in place which serve to leave the many behind. This is what this budget is fundamentally about: rewarding work, aspiration and restoring fairness. This budget shows ours is a government determined to tackle the problems facing this country. It is a calm, thoughtful response to a generational problem decades in the making.

I fail to understand the purpose of those opposite as political parties and as an opposition coming into this chamber to argue and fight for the status quo. It's the most futile approach at an attempt at progress and delivery by demanding Australia stand still, racing ahead on neutral—and that's the good bits. All too often their policies are in reverse, as though we're back to the future.

This is not a budget that will fix every problem for every person. No budget will, and nor will any single policy lever. But it is a budget delivered by a government determined to throw everything at keeping us on the course of delivery that this government has already started.

For decades, thanks to a legacy of Liberal Party rule for 20 of the last 30 years, Australia has been shaped by an economic agenda built around privatisation, economic rationalism and the view that Australia should remain nothing more than a quarry. The Liberals told us that governments needed to get out of the way, that governments needed to step back, that governments needed to leave essential parts of our society and economy solely to the private sector and that, if we did this, the natural neoliberal order of things would deliver prosperity. They even had robots chasing our most vulnerable people, such was the contempt they had for ordinary Australians.

If we look around, the consequences are visible right across Australia. Entire industries that once provided secure, dignified employment were hollowed out. Manufacturing, once the backbone of working-class communities, delivering on aspiration and uplifting communities, were pushed to the brink. Good, secure, well-paying jobs that allowed families to buy a home, raise children and build a future were increasingly replaced with insecure work, stagnant wages and rising costs of living. At the heart of this was an economic philosophy that treated markets as the sole solution to every problem, where Treasury and government's role was to deliver the axe for cuts and reversal of the role of government. This ideology put forward that government had to step away from actually functioning as a government and that an unfettered economy would somehow regulate itself in the interests of working people, with no role or recourse for government. We saw it in their inability to even bother to appoint a housing minister for most of their decade in power. Energy generation was increasingly privatised, with the assumption that competition alone would deliver affordability and security, so they allowed our refineries to close. They allowed our national strategic reserves to be held in Texas on the other side of the world, which meant it was not here in our nation and not here in reserve. That's the strategic prowess of those opposite.

Instead of progress and a future that delivered for working people, what Australians have experienced are soaring rents, increasingly impossible house prices and rising power bills. Listen to the irony of the former treasurer under the Abbott government, Joe Hockey, who said on his way out:

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

The difference is we've got a government with the guts to actually do something about it, to budget it and to deliver it, as tough as it is, so that the odds are not increasingly stacked against Australians, especially younger Australians, for forever and a day.

That very same former treasurer today talks about domestic innovation, forgetting his record of trashing and decimating the very industries that help power science and innovation in this country. He spent most of his time chugging at cigars, budgeting and subsequently celebrating the demise of our manufacturing industry on the balconies of Parliament House. Rather than actually offering something to the Australian people and rather than actually having a policy alternative that we can even begin to work with and debate, the opposition resorted to what could possibly be their last refuge in the dividing of Australians into migrants and Australians—whatever that means—and into permanent residents and citizens.

The 2.7 million small businesses in Australia are the backbone of the Australian economy and are the heart and soul of local economies in communities like mine. That's why this budget is backing them in. This budget will make the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent. It will give businesses more certainty to invest and grow. Not only will this change bring around $890 million in cash-flow support over the next five years; it will slash compliance costs for small businesses. This change will also save hardworking business owners 366,000 hours on record keeping. This budget will see permanent two-year loss carryback for companies with turnover of up to $1 billion from 1 July. It will help ensure that small businesses can return to profitability faster and have the confidence to invest earlier and withstand volatility that may come their way. Our small business tax cuts will also look towards helping new and innovative businesses with the introduction of loss refundability to help startups grow in their first two years, expanding tax incentives for venture capital to help unlock more investment in young and expanding businesses.

This budget continues the massive investments our government has undertaken when it comes to health care. One of the proudest things I speak about in this government's delivery is in the area of health care. Making sure that health care is accessible and well funded makes the world of difference for so many in my community. In just this term of parliament, the number of Medicare bulk-billing practices in our area increased to 46, with our bulk-billing rate going from less than 40 per cent when I was first elected to more than doubling to over 90 per cent. Our health investment is breaking down barriers not only when it comes to seeing a doctor but also when it comes to getting the treatment one needs as well.

We've cut the cost of medicines on the PBS to $25 and $7.70 for concession card holders whilst continuing to add more medications to the PBS. I'm pleased to inform the House that 2,198,573 is the number of cheaper pharmacy scripts issued in our community. This investment has already made a positive impact on my community. That's why I was pleased to see this budget go even further, in particular with the $25 billion in additional public hospital funding, which will go a long way to improve hospital wait times, reduce emergency department crowding and free up hospital beds.

I welcome the government's implementation of a domestic gas reserve requiring LNG producers to reserve 20 per cent of exports for the Australian market. This is important reform. Manufacturers in my electorate know that putting downward pressure on domestic gas prices will support local industry and better shield Australians from global price volatility. The reality is the conflict in the Middle East is affecting communities here at home, from the bowser to the factory floor. It's our job, and it's been a focus of this government that Australians should not continue paying the price for instability overseas. That's why the budget's $3.2 billion investment in an Australian fuel security reserve is so important, strengthening our national fuel security by increasing diesel and jet fuel reserves.

There is a clear difference between this government and those opposite. We want to see the issues in the housing market for young people and we want to fix them, rather than doing absolutely nothing about them. We see the rise in social and economic and political division and dislocation around the world, and we want to shield Australia from it, while all three arms of those opposite want to import it, copy it, fuel it and, ultimately, be consumed by it. When younger Australians lose faith that hard work leads to stability, security and opportunity, the social contract itself begins to fray.

This moment calls for courage, for reform and for governments willing to recognise that economic policy must serve people not just markets. We have before us a generational opportunity born from a generational necessity, an opportunity to rebalance our economy towards productive investment, to make housing accessible again, and an opportunity to rebuild the industries, to strengthen public infrastructure and restore the principle that prosperity should be accessible to all Australians. Most importantly, it is an opportunity to restore a fighting chance for younger Australians to own their own home, a fighting chance that secure work can deliver a decent life and a fighting chance that there is a generation that will not simply just inherit rising costs and shrinking opportunities but a country that invests in its future and a government to do what is necessary to adjust the policy settings that have long held Australians back and left them behind.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:33