I have received a letter from the honourable member for Groom, resigning from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.

In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendment moved by the member for Kooyong to the amendment moved by the member for Curtin to the amendment moved by the member for Fowler to the amendment to the motion moved for the second reading of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 moved by the member for Lindsay, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fowler be agreed to.

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lindsay be agreed to.

I move:

That further consideration of the bill be made in order of the day for the next sitting.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today we are proud to introduce the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026.

This is a bill for workers, first home buyers and future generations.

This is the first step in the most ambitious tax reform package for a quarter of a century.

It will help ensure aspiration and opportunity are the birthright of every Australian, not just some.

This bill delivers on three objectives.

It cuts taxes for every Australian worker—again, and again.

It makes it easier for people to buy their first home.

And it better aligns the tax treatment of labour income and asset income.

The bill has four core elements:

This bill delivers even more tax relief for workers.

The Working Australians Tax Offset will provide a permanent tax offset of up to $250 every year for over 13 million Australians from the 2027-28 financial year.

This is responsible tax relief targeted to working people.

It means more money in the pockets of our nurses and teachers, tradies and truckies, and other Australians who earn salaries and wages.

It represents the most meaningful, permanent increase to the effective tax-free threshold since Labor last increased it more than a decade ago.

The bill also delivers on our commitment to introduce a $1,000 instant tax deduction from the 2026-27 year.

Not only will this make tax time simpler for millions of workers; it will put cash back into their pockets as well.

Around 6.2 million people will benefit, with the average worker receiving an extra $205 at tax time.

More than a quarter of those who will benefit are under 30, and more than half are women.

People claiming more than $1,000 in work related deductions still can, and anyone claiming other non-work related deductions will be able to do so on top of the instant deduction.

This includes charitable donations, superannuation contributions, union and professional association membership fees, and income protection, sickness and accident insurance premiums.

The Working Australians Tax Offset is set out in schedule 3 to the bill, and the $1,000 instant tax deduction is set out in schedule 4.

This is more relief from a government which cuts income taxes whenever it responsibly can.

We are now cutting income tax five times in three different ways.

We've already delivered tax cuts to every single Australian taxpayer by bringing rates down and pushing thresholds up.

Another tax cut will commence on 1 July in just over a month's time and again on 1 July next year.

Together with the new tax relief in this bill, the average Australian worker will receive a combined benefit of up to $2,816 in 2028.

Our tax cuts have been opposed before, and they should not be opposed again.

We are cutting taxes for workers, and we're also making it easier to buy a first home.

For too long now, too many Australians have been locked out of the housing market.

We have an ambitious housing agenda, and supply is still our primary focus.

But it has become increasingly clear that that can't be our only focus.

After more than two decades of a distorted tax system, property prices have far outstripped wage growth.

Following the policy mistakes made a quarter of a century ago, home ownership has been pushed further and further out of reach, especially for young Australians.

We hear a lot about helping people get on the property ladder, but there's no point having a ladder if the first few rungs are missing.

For too long, governments have turned a blind eye to a broken status quo—a status quo that is unfair for people and unproductive for our economy.

We are not just acknowledging this; we are acting on it.

This bill limits negative gearing on properties purchased after budget night to new builds and returns the capital gains tax to its original intent.

Our reforms will mean 75,000 more home owners entering the housing market over the next decade, reversing a decade of decline in home ownership rates.

Schedule 1 to this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and related legislation to replace the 50 per cent CGT discount for individuals, trusts and partnerships with cost base indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax rate on capital gains accruing from 1 July 2027.

Under these changes, investors will index the cost base of their assets in line with inflation so they only pay tax on their above-inflation profit.

The changes will apply prospectively, with the 50 per cent CGT discount applying to gains accruing up until 1 July 2027, while indexation will apply to gains accruing thereafter.

Not everyone will pay more tax under these changes; some will pay less tax. It will depend on a range of factors, like rates of return, inflation and the holding period.

Someone who invested in the Australian share market and received the average return would have done about the same or possibly better under indexation over the past 10 or 20 years.

This is all about removing the distortions in the system that have warped our housing market and coincided with decades of low productivity growth.

Returning to indexation across all asset classes ensures investments are treated in a neutral way and that we don't create a new distortion.

Encouraging investment to follow economic returns, not tax advantages, will support productivity over time.

In addition to indexation, a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent will apply to real capital gains accruing from 1 July 2027.

The minimum tax reduces the incentive to defer realising capital gains until marginal tax rates are low, and it better aligns the tax rate on gains with the tax rates paid by most workers.

Recipients of certain government payments, such as the age pension and JobSeeker, will be exempted from the minimum tax.

These changes will apply to all CGT assets, including pre-1985 CGT assets, held by individuals, partnerships and trusts for at least 12 months.

In line with our goal of supporting new housing supply, investors who buy new builds will be able to choose either the 50 per cent CGT discount or indexation and the minimum tax when they sell the property.

The existing CGT discount of up to 60 per cent applying to qualifying affordable housing will be fully retained to preserve incentives to invest in those assets.

And, importantly, the four existing small-business CGT concessions will remain in place, allowing eligible small businesses to reduce or completely remove tax on any gains when they sell.

Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to limit negative gearing for residential property investments to new builds and key government housing priorities.

From the 2027-28 income year, losses related to existing residential investment properties purchased after 7.30 pm AEST on 12 May 2026 will only be deductible against other income from residential properties, including capital gains.

Excess losses can be carried forward to offset residential property income in future years, so investors can continue to claim a deduction in the future for costs such as maintenance.

These changes will only apply to residential property held by individuals, partnerships, companies and most trusts.

Commercial property and other asset classes, such as shares, will remain subject to existing arrangements.

Widely held trusts and superannuation funds (including SMSFs) will be excluded.

Investors can continue to use negative gearing on new builds, ensuring the benefits of negative gearing are directed to investments that support growth in Australia's housing stock.

Negative gearing will continue to support those residential properties which genuinely add to supply, such as dwellings constructed on vacant land or where existing properties are demolished and replaced with a greater number of dwellings.

Properties held at announcement will be allowed to be negatively geared in future years until sold. This ensures that taxpayers who made investment decisions under the existing rules will not be affected by these changes.

Investors that support government housing priorities will be exempt from the changes. This will include build-to-rent developments and dwellings provided as social or affordable housing.

We are presenting these elements in one bill not just because they are related but because one part helps fund the other.

This is the first tranche of legislation to implement the very significant tax reform package announced in the budget. There will be further legislation on specific implementation details and other parts of our tax reform package.

Legislating significant tax reform in tranches is a standard approach, consistent with how other governments have undertaken tax reform, and it's appropriate to ensure the core policy features that apply broadly to most taxpayers are in place first.

This provides certainty to taxpayers and the market, while enabling further consideration and consultation on subsequent tranches of legislation dealing with more complex or specific policy issues.

As outlined in the budget papers, the government is consulting with stakeholders on the treatment of capital gains of small and startup businesses where indexation is applied to a low or zero cost base.

Further consideration will also be given to a range of specific details such as interactions with attribution managed investment trusts (AMITs), tax consolidation, residency changes, along with any other relevant issues.

Where appropriate, these details will be finalised in subsequent legislation following consultation.

We know that these changes are contentious.

We have seen dishonest scare campaigns already and deliberate distortions of the truth.

But the facts matter and I want to make those facts clear.

Firstly, we are not introducing a tax on inheritances or inherited assets.

Secondly, people will still have their capital gains tax reduced under the new system, with the reduction now accurately reflecting inflation.

Thirdly, the vast majority of small businesses in this country will remain eligible for generous CGT concessions.

This means the overwhelming majority of small businesses can pay reduced or no capital gains tax when they sell.

These are the facts.

It's also a fact that this bill presents a choice—a choice between cutting income taxes for Australian workers, or keeping them higher; a choice between standing with first home buyers, or locking more Australians out of the housing market; between taking our intergenerational challenges and responsibilities seriously, or defending a broken system that fails future generations.

This side of the House is proud to stand with workers and first home buyers.

We are proud to make the tax system fairer for the next generation of Australians.

This is about making a difference, not just marking time.

It's about taking the hard road of reform not the path of least resistance.

It's about making the right decisions, even when they are politically contentious.

It's about making difficult decisions, and dealing with issues which have been neglected for too long, even when it would be easier to do nothing at all.

Most of all, this legislation is about cutting taxes for workers, making it easier to buy a first home, and better aligning the tax treatment of labour and asset income.

That's why I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In thanking my colleagues who are here and for all of the reasons that I have just outlined, I commend this bill to the House as well. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027:

(1) immediately after prayers on Tuesday, 2 June, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027:

(a) returning to the House for further consideration;

(b) when called on, the questions being put without delay or debate on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill; and

(c) standing referred to the Federation Chamber;

(2) when the order of the day for the further consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 is called on in the Federation Chamber, consideration of the schedule being in accordance with the following order, and the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put for each portfolio in accordance with the timeframes indicated below, or earlier if no further Members rise to speak:

(a) Education Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 5.45 pm on Tuesday, 2 June;

(b) Defence Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 6.30 pm on Tuesday, 2 June;

(c) Health, Disability and Ageing Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 7.30 pm on Tuesday, 2 June;

(d) Industry, Science and Resources Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 11.15 am on Wednesday, 3 June;

(e) Finance Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12 noon on Wednesday, 3 June;

(f) Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12.45 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(g) Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 1.30 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(h) Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 4.45 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(i) Attorney-General's Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 5.15 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(j) Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 6 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(k) Treasury Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 6.45 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(l) Home Affairs Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 7.30 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(m) Social Services Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 11.15 am on Thursday, 4 June;

(n) Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12 noon on Thursday, 4 June; and

(o) Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12.30 pm on Thursday, 4 June;

(3) any questions necessary to complete the consideration in the Federation Chamber of each of the bills being put immediately without debate;

(4) the bills returning to the House and, when reported, any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of each of the bills to be put without amendment or debate; and

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

Each year, the government allows consideration in detail to happen in the Federation Chamber. This is to allow the opposition to do what was originally thought of as a House of Reps equivalent to Senate estimates. It's never quite landed that way, but, effectively, it allows us to go portfolio by portfolio in the Federation Chamber, which is something that the opposition traditionally would have already requested. It's moved for those reasons.

Can I first acknowledge the manner and the way in which this motion has been put. Normally, there are some discussions between the government and the opposition as to how this might work. That's something which, unfortunately, hasn't taken place on this occasion. I would just remind the Leader of the House about his own words at the Press Club in 2023:

The consultative approach that we have applied to the Parliament itself and to the way we have governed is of itself not just a difference in the way Government functions.

If we could just make sure that there are the appropriate discussions of these things—as there always are—that would be great.

I now want to talk to the substance of this motion. The Leader of the House did mention the fact that this is like a House of Representatives version of Senate estimates. But, for it to work and for it to be taken seriously, it does require ministers to turn up. The last time that this was done, ministers failed to attend. Now, we can understand there would be some ministers who would be away, some ministers who might be on leave et cetera. But the list, for the record, of ministers that failed to attend is thus: the Treasurer; the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, and Minister for Cyber Security; the Minister for Climate Change and Energy—maybe he was on a plane to Fiji; the Minister for Defence; the Minister for Education; the Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for Pacific Island Affairs; the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities; the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations; the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, and Minister for Emergency Management; the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors; the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government; the Minister for Communications and Minister for Sport; and the Minister for Social Services. As you can see, it is a long list.

Every member of this House, I'm sure, agrees that, whether it was scrutiny when we were in government or scrutiny now that Labor's in government, we do have to take these processes seriously, because there are serious questions that can be put to ministers around the appropriation bills. So I think we need to make sure that we can do this. As a result, I would like to move an amendment to this motion, which will, if carried, compel ministers to actually show up and to answer questions. I understand it's not the most rigorous of processes, but I think it is important that the ministers are there to the largest extent possible, at least to be able to try and rebut what has occurred. It was something that we took seriously when we were in government, because I think it really demonstrates and shows respect to the parliament if you do turn up. I'm hopeful that, in a bipartisan way, the government might agree to this amendment. Basically, the amendment asks for responsible ministers to be present in the Federation Chamber for the consideration of each portfolio. So I move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the House:

That after paragraph (2), paragraph (2A) be inserted as follows:

(2A) the responsible Minister being present in the Federation Chamber for consideration of each portfolio;

Is there a seconder?

I'll second the motion, and I acknowledge the Leader of the House being here. I know the Leader of the House and, indeed, the Prime Minister have always said how much they respect the processes of this chamber and the parliament and the importance of transparency and the parliament itself, and I think to maintain rigorousness about this chamber—within this chamber, the Federation Chamber and the Senate—is very important to our parliamentary democracy.

I'd also like to reiterate and remind those opposite that, when this government got elected the first time, four years ago, they said one of their main aims was going to be improved transparency within this chamber and in the parliamentary processes and the rigorousness of this chamber and the consultative nature of what they wanted to undergo. I think what we've seen ever since they've been elected, with all due respect, is everything the opposite of that. There have been changes to the standing and sessional orders—with, indeed, suspensions of standing orders and the way those processes would work—that I think have weakened the transparency of this chamber, parliamentary democracy and parliamentary processes.

I reiterate what the Manager of Opposition Business just said, listing 13 ministers who couldn't be bothered to turn up to consideration in detail last year. I think it's especially important, with all due respect too, this year more than any other and this time more than any other. We have quite a controversial budget. There are a lot of opposition shadow ministers who have real questions and ramifications and things they want to ask about—if things have been modelled, if things have been looked at in relation to this current budget and their portfolios.

The fact of asking—the fact that the Manager of Opposition Business feels he needs to move an amendment to encourage ministers to turn up to this—is a bit embarrassing in itself. But we're here to help, and we are doing this in a consultative and transparent manner. It was a positive suggestion to give to the Leader of the House, who I know respects these processes. He says he respects them. I actually heard him say one day that, if he could, he would spend every day of every week sitting in the parliament rather than going home. If he's so enthusiastic, as he says, about the processes within these chambers, I don't think he'll have a problem with this. I think he'll go: 'You know what? Let's do this. Let's make sure our ministers are there defending the budget. Let's make sure the Treasurer does go in there and defend what he thinks are the bravest reforms this government has ever done.' Of course, all his ministers would support this because all his ministers think this is brave reform transforming our country to the positive. So let's see them turn up and defend it in consideration in detail.

If there's no-one else, I'll speak in reply. The amendment here is a solution looking for a problem. It's the case across a range of portfolios that there are multiple people sworn in to that portfolio. For example, there are two cabinet ministers in this House sworn in to Home Affairs. There are a further two assistant ministers in this place sworn in to Home Affairs. It is the case that there is always someone sworn into the relevant portfolio who is there for this process. If those opposite have a problem with that, then I simply say this. It's a brand new sense that they have to have a problem with this.

Let me give a simple example. The member for Calare, who is now sitting on the crossbench, used to be a government assistant minister. In 2021, he turned up as an assistant minister in the Morrison government, as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment in this process. Who do you think the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment was who he was representing in the Federation Chamber in 2021? Could the trade minister at that time possibly now be the Manager of Opposition Business himself? The exact person right now who's in this place wanting to say, 'But you all have to turn up,' is the same person who had an assistant minister represent him in this precise process. It's not the first time that the Manager of Opposition Business has called on things and been outraged by things that were actually done by him personally.

Let me give you one more example while we're on it. You'll often hear the former minister for trade say a line used by those opposite on immigration, 'They're letting in all these yoga teachers.' You'll often hear that when the skills list comes out. Why do you think yoga teachers were added to the skills list? Because there is an agreement with India that was done under the Morrison government that said they would be added to the skills list. Who do you think was the person who announced that agreement to say that they'd be on the skills list? Once again, it was the Manager of Opposition Business. So, if you want to know what makes the Manager of Opposition Business the angriest and what really gets under his skin, it's anything he has done. So the next time he gets up and complains just know, if he's getting really upset, if he's passionate about it and if it really angers him, it's probably something that he's done.

So I'd say, members of this House, when this amendment comes up, we should defend the record of the Manager of Opposition Business. Even if he won't, we should stand strongly by it and say: 'We think you did the right thing.' Even if you're having buyer's remorse, our view is the way the Manager of Opposition Business behaved with respect to this procedure when he was in government was right and accurate. Even if you won't, we will defend you in this House and oppose this amendment.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

The housing market in Australia is broken, and many young Australians know that very well at the moment. When a nurse, a teacher, a childcare worker, a police officer or an ambulance officer pays more tax in our taxation system than someone who earns millions of dollars by simply buying and selling assets, then we know that there is an issue with our taxation system. Our government is determined to fix it to ensure that the taxation system is fairer and that it promotes productive work in our economy and delivers for the average Australian worker and their family.

We know that, in Australia at the moment, housing is becoming incredibly unaffordable. In the electorate I represent, we're finding that a lot of teachers, nurses and police officers can't afford to live in the community they work in. When they go to an auction on a weekend to potentially buy their first home, they're priced out of the market by investors who are receiving large tax concessions under our taxation system to support them to buy a negatively geared property. That's why our government is acting to reform our taxation system—to ensure that it is fairer and delivers for working Australians.

Those opposite are teaming up with One Nation—so we've got the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation in a crackpot coalition teaming up to defend the current system. They want the system that is currently broken and is not delivering for working Australians to be maintained and to stay in place. It is Labor that is proposing to change the system to ensure that it is much fairer and works for the average Australian. We're proposing to do that by reforming negative gearing, ensuring that people who currently negatively gear properties will be able to continue to do so into the future—so they're not affected by the prospective changes—but that, from a point in time, those that wish to negatively gear properties will have to do so on the basis of purchasing off the plan or new developments, the philosophy being that we're encouraging people to invest in building new properties as an increase to the supply of housing in Australia, which we greatly need.

Secondly, we're also reforming the capital gains tax discount, returning to the inflation based method of calculating capital gains and providing discounts based on inflation rather than the current 50 per cent discount that was put in place in 1999 by the Howard government. This will generate a much fairer taxation system and ensure that Australians who are working hard, trying to make ends meet, feel that the taxation system delivers for them. And because we're making those reforms, we're able to deliver tax cuts for working Australians. Two tax cuts are coming up—one this year, one next year. We're also able to deliver a working Australians tax offset of $250 and a $1,000 instant return on taxation returns for the average working Australian.

This is all part of our government's broader economic plan, providing real relief for Australians who are doing it tough while strengthening our resilience and delivering meaningful reform for the future. These are all part of a responsible budget, shaped for a responsible moment, for Australians who are facing cost-of-living pressure and know that that is real, for families making difficult choices, for pensioners who are stretching every dollar, for young people wondering whether homeownership is still within reach and for small businesses that are navigating global uncertainty that continues to ripple through supply chains, energy markets and interest rates.

In this environment, our government has a responsibility to act—and that's exactly what we're doing. We're providing support where it's most needed while also laying the foundations for a stronger and more productive economy. That's exactly what the budget does—it delivers targeted cost-of-living relief measures, ones that won't pour fuel on the fire of inflation we've had over recent times in Australia, ones that strengthen essential services, reform the tax system, invest in housing and build a more sustainable budget for the longer term.

At the heart of our plan is a simple principle: responsible relief, responsible reform. We're helping Australians today while preparing the nation for tomorrow. One of the most significant ways we're helping is through that cost-of-living and tax relief—and this year, the legislated tax cuts will flow to every Australian taxpayer. That means more money staying in people's pockets at times when they need it most. On top of that, we're going to deliver new and permanent income tax relief through the $250 working Australians tax offset. It's a measure that boosts take-home pay and rewards work. We're also simplifying returns and reducing compliance burdens through the $1,000 instant tax deduction.

These reforms are part of a broader effort to build a tax system that is fairer, more efficient and more supportive of aspiration. They sit alongside changes designed to help more Australians achieve security in owning their own home. Through targeted tax reform, we're supporting around 75,000 additional Australians into homeownership. It's a meaningful step forward, restoring fairness and opportunity in the housing market, given that housing is one of the most significant challenges of our time.

We're not just undertaking tax reform; we're also ensuring that we're building the supply of housing in Australia. The Housing Australia Future Fund is now beginning to ensure that it's investing in new housing opportunities for Australians. In Kingsford Smith, 282 new social and affordable homes funded through the Housing Australia Future Fund are currently being constructed and will provide vitally needed housing, particularly for essential workers. Nurses working at the Prince of Wales Hospital, police officers working with the Eastern Beaches Command and childcare workers working and educating our kids in our local community are the people who will benefit from Labor's reforms around negative gearing and capital gains tax and our reforms to ensure that we're building more homes and adding to the supply of housing throughout the country.

We're also ensuring that we're unlocking infrastructure that supports housing with a $2 billion investment in enabling infrastructure to unlock the construction of up to 64,000 more homes. That brings our Homes for Australia Plan to more than $47 billion. It's a comprehensive long-term strategy to increase supply, improve affordability and ensure that more Australians have a safe place to live. At the same time, we're providing the states with $59.4 million to help secure social and affordable housing for more than 4,000 young people at risk of homelessness. These are practical, targeted measures that respond to real needs.

We're also delivering immediate cost-of-living relief for Australians with their fuel costs, immediate relief at the bowser. For three months, the fuel excise will be halved, providing direct savings to households and businesses. The heavy vehicle road user charge will be reduced to zero over the same period, helping to ease pressure and costs associated with freight. We're protecting consumers, doubling penalties for major breaches of consumer law.

You wouldn't believe it, but we actually have more fuel reserves in Australia now than we did when the crisis started. Much of that is thanks to the good work of the minister for energy and renewable energy, who's sitting here with me at the table. He's done an excellent job in securing those additional fuel supplies for Australia. We now have more fuel than we did when this crisis started, and, because of the good, strong relationships that we have with our partner nations within the regions like Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Brunei, we've been able to negotiate additional fuel supplies for Australia with more fuel on the water on its way to Australia. Through Export Finance Australia, we've been able to put together an arrangement that ensures that we can underwrite contracts by a contract for difference to ensure that people who are importing fuel into Australia aren't risking huge losses into the future should the price of fuel fall dramatically. It's all part of a suite of arrangements that were put together by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in conjunction with other ministers in our government, to ensure that Australia's fuel security is as certain as possible into the future and that we're putting pressure to lower costs at the bowser, and hopefully that will begin to flow through to Australians.

In the Medicare and healthcare sector, we're ensuring that urgent care clinics become a permanent feature of our healthcare system. I know that the Medicare urgent care clinic in Maroubra, in our community, is open from 7 am in the morning till 9 pm in the evening, seven days a week. Everything is bulk-billed, ensuring that Australians and people living in our community get the health care they need when they need it and, importantly, taking much needed pressure off the Prince of Wales Hospital. The number of GPs that are bulk-billing in our community is increasing as well. I visited one last Friday, the Maroubra Medical & Dental Centre. All of their doctors and GPs now are bulk-billing. It's a fully bulk-billing practice, adding to the number of practices that are increasing their bulk-billing in our community.

This particular bill also ensures that there's relief for people in the budget, particularly those that are paying the Medicare levy at lower rates of income. Schedule 5 of this bill increases the Medicare levy for low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners to 2.9 per cent, in line with recent movements in the consumer price index. This ensures that low-income households continue to be exempt from paying the Medicare levy or pay it at a reduced rate if their incomes have increased, in line with or less than inflation. It's a simple, fair adjustment that protects those who can least afford additional costs. Successive governments have increased these thresholds in line with CPI since 1997, and it's a longstanding practice that ensures that the Medicare levy remains progressive and equitable. More than a million low-income earners are expected to benefit from these increases in 2025-26. It's a practical example of how we're easing pressure on household budgets while maintaining the integrity of our healthcare system.

Schedule 6 introduces an important reform that will assist a lot of the migrants that we have, particularly the Greek community in Kingsford Smith, who tend to travel back to their homeland during the summer months, which we're coming up to soon, through a change to the pension, a supplement for Australians travelling overseas. It doubles the amount of time a pensioner can travel overseas temporarily before their pension supplement is affected from six weeks to 12 weeks. I know that many of the members of the Greek community in our area will travel back to Greece, to their islands and their homelands, for a period of up to three months. Who wouldn't want to go back to Greece and enjoy the summer months? I often say to people in our community, Minister for Climate Change and Energy, that the streets of Kingsford and Kensington seem to be a lot freer during the summer months of Europe, when a lot of those people head back home—

They're Lebanese in McMahon.

And the Lebanese in McMahon—many communities throughout Australia will benefit from this. It recognises that the pensioners who travel overseas for short periods still have ongoing costs in Australia, such as their energy bills and their phone and internet bills, and around 92,000 pensioners a year will benefit from this extension.

At the same time, the measure ensures that the pension supplement is better targeted. The basic amount of the pension supplement was originally designed to compensate pensioners for GST costs. It's currently the only supplement assistance that is paid indefinitely while the recipient is overseas. But pensioners who are outside of Australia for a long term or who leave permanently are not incurring Australian GST related costs in the same way as someone who is living here. So, under this proposal, the pension supplement will cease after 12 weeks whilst someone is temporarily overseas or departs and chooses to go overseas permanently. This is a measure that doesn't affect a person's eligibility for the pension or change how the base pension is calculated. The base pension will continue to increase twice a year with indexation. But it's a measure that ensures that the supplement is better targeted and provides better support for people who are travelling overseas for those short periods of time.

I always love the way that the Labor government words its legislation and the titles thereof, like 'Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026', as though the public needs to be hoodwinked into thinking that there is trust involved in this budget—well, there's no trust if you're a farmer, if you're a small-business owner, if you're the average, everyday, ordinary Australian family trying to pay the cost of living, your energy bills, your grocery bills, your fuel costs. For them and for many, many others, the trust has been taken away, has been stripped clear away, in this budget. I'm glad that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy is at the table.

Your honourable friend.

My honourable friend. There are many things on which we have agreed, and there are many, many things, Minister, that we have disagreed on.

Respectfully.

Respectfully—always respectful. I'm always respectful.

But the recent situation with fuel—and I appreciate that there's a component of this in this particular legislation—was a great worry. Not necessarily the fuel supply—I'll say that before I get any interjections. The government kept telling everyone—particularly those regional Australians who travel further, longer and more often than our city friends—that the supply was there. The supply, apparently, according to this government, was always there. But it was the distribution, it was the logistics, it was the supply, it was the affordability—and we saw communities such as Batlow, in the foothills of the Snowy Mountains in my electorate of Riverina, run out of fuel.

We saw farmers being held almost at ransom to be able to fill their trucks, fill their air seeders and fill their tractors with diesel at a busy time—it is sowing season. Unless the farmers take that window of opportunity after the rain comes to get their crops in, before the winter sets in and before the frosts start, they miss out. If our farmers in Australia—who we should thank three times a day, every day, when we tuck our knees under the table to eat; I think they often get forgotten—can't get their crops in for that winter season and then, obviously, harvest towards the end of the year, that becomes a food security issue. When you have a food security issue, that becomes a national security issue. Our farmers deserve every bit of praise and every bit of assistance, and they did not receive it when the war in Iran and over the Strait of Hormuz began, when the fuel crisis began and in those ensuing weeks.

What did the minister do? He appointed Anthea Harris as the fuel supply coordinator. Anthea Harris was already a very busy person doing the review of the Water Act—busy enough, I would suggest. We probably don't have to go too far into the Water Act and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the effects they've had on our farmers to know that Anthea Harris already has a very busy job. She shouldn't have been doing the job she was tasked with by the minister, requested by the government, and the Water Act review at the same time. She should not have been doing the minister's job, and she was. The minister should have been doing his own job, but the minister was too concerned with being the president of the COP, with being the president of fixing the world's climate—good luck with that, Minister—and our farmers were left, literally, high and dry without diesel.

For those who could get it, some of them had to pay cash and could only half fill their tanks. That's not good enough. When you're halfway through the circular rounds of your paddock and you run out of diesel, what do you do then? Your air seeder is full of seed, and you've only half finished the job. It's a little bit like Inland Rail, only half finished—Melbourne to Parkes, instead of Melbourne to Brisbane. It's a little bit like what most of this government does. It half finishes the job. Then they come into this place and, in the title of their legislation, use the word 'trusted'. 'Trust me,' they say; 'Trust us.'

Well, we know what happens when you trust Labor. Don't ever believe what Labor says it's going to do before an election; just look at what Labor does after an election. We remember well the 97 occasions, before the 2022 election, when Labor said it would reduce the power bills by $275. How did that work for you, Minister?

Fail.

It was a fail. I hear the member for Casey say 'Fail.' It was an abject failure, and an abject breach of trust. That is what Labor does: it breaches trust. Then, of course, we have the situation around the capital gains issue. We had an issue around housing, we had an issue around the Murray-Darling Basin, and we had an issue with the changes to the trusts, as I said, and many farmers use that for succession planning so that they can pass the farm on from one generation to the next. Labor, in the blink of an eye, has breached that trust with this budget, with this economic 'plan' that the Treasurer brought down just a few short weeks ago. It's hard for Labor members to go and sell this budget because it's a crock. It's an absolute breach of faith with the public, with those people who thought they would give Labor another go—and they did, in 2025. They've been let down badly again. They've been let down by all of these breaches of faith from this Labor Party and from this Labor government. This is what happens. When Labor runs out of its money, it comes after yours—the hardworking taxpayers of Australia.

You only have to look at the changes that Labor is introducing in the National Disability Insurance Scheme space, and in the changes that it's introducing in this budget to veterans, capping services, capping those allied health, podiatry, speech therapy, psychology, psychological help, mental health care and all of those provisions that our veterans need, want, expect, demand and, most of all, deserve. They have put on a uniform to keep us safe, to protect this country. In our hour of need, we were able to say, 'We can sleep safe at night because we know that we've got our men and women on the frontline protecting our interests, protecting our coastline and protecting our country.' Then, when they give up their uniform, they give up their military careers and they return to civilian life, what do we do? What does this Labor government do? It turns its back on them, shuns them. It's not right, and it's not fair. How can our veterans or anybody who wants to be a recruit and join the Army, the Air Force or the Navy expect to have that patriotism to go out and serve our country when they don't know if a future Labor government will have their best interests at heart? This government has failed our veterans. This government has shunned our veterans. This government has turned its back on our veterans, and it's simply not good enough to cap those service entitlements. They are entitlements. They are an eligibility that our veterans deserve.

Then, the Labor government talks about trust. How can you trust a Labor government that does this to Australia's most vulnerable? In the NDIS space, we saw in January that many of those of people who live an hour from a regional hub, who rely on speech therapy, allied health, physiotherapy and all of those things that give them a quality of life that they deserve and set them on the footing for, at least, a reasonable future, had the rug pulled from them because Labor changed the provisions which they'd always had in that space and made the travel component part of the service fee. Many of the service providers who were doing some great work, who were putting Australia's most vulnerable on the path to a better life and a better quality of life then said, 'Well, it's not economical for us to continue to provide that service for those people who live about an hour or so outside of a regional hub such as Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, Tamworth, Bendigo, Ballarat or wherever.' And so those people are already vulnerable because they live a long way out of town, and some of them can't get access to travel to get to those regional hubs. It's hard enough when you live in the country to get quality health services, let alone when you're disabled, let alone when you don't have access to transport, let alone when you don't have access to public transport and let alone when the government then pulls the rug from underneath you and you cannot access those services which are going to give you a better quality of life.

So I say to the government: you need to go back to the drawing board. What needs to happen with this Treasury Laws Amendment bill is that it needs to go to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for proper scrutiny. Whether or not that will happen remains to be seen, because, obviously, the Labor government wants to do as it always does, and that's push through the legislation. I can remember not that long ago, the Labor government guillotined the appropriations bills from the budget before last, and so there was no ability for members of the opposition to represent their constituents and talk about what the bills meant to the average person out on the street.

This is what this Labor government does. This Labor government came to office in 2022 saying, 'Let the light shine in. Let there be transparency. Allow there to be proper scrutiny of bills,' and they have done the complete opposite with so many things. It's not right, it's not fair, and the public are wise to this. They are wise to this—

 They've certainly worked it out, member for Casey. And they have buyer regret. They do. It's in so many areas. I will admit this bill does contain a range of technical tax measures, many of which are sensible and non-controversial. But when you have the changes to the capital gains provisions which the Prime Minister himself prior to the election—he actually got quite angry at some of the press conferences at the insistence of the journalists daring to ask him a question about CGT—went on and on and on saying that there would be no changes. And yet now at the first opportunity, the first budget since the election, he's changing all that. He's turning it all around because it's in Labor's DNA to take a sledgehammer to aspiration.

It's middle Australia that is going to hurt the most out of this. The fact is that when you take the sledgehammer to aspiration, when you don't allow people to be able to invest, to be able to take the risk and invest, what those people end up doing is having less. When they come to retire, when it comes time for them to enjoy their twilight years, they then become a burden on the government. They then become a burden on the public health system because they don't have the capital that they would have otherwise put away to save for themselves and to save the burden and the economic cost for a future government. And what is that going to mean in the future? It's going to mean more costs. It's going to mean more pensions are going to have to be doled out by this government.

That's what this government wants. It's socialism by stealth because this government wants people to be dependent on it for their livelihoods and for their income to be able to pay the groceries and the fuel and the power bills. And the power bills! Minister, when you get up in parliament and talk about the fact that renewables are saving people money, I mean, really? Seriously? If you honestly believe that, you are living in la-la land.

I have people in my electorate in Yass Valley who are very worried about their investments because their communities are being littered with wind towers on an industrial scale. It's an industrial junkyard. Don't ask me. Ask the mayor of Yass Valley, Councillor Jasmin Jones, who is very worried about the proliferation of wind towers. It wouldn't be in your electorate, Minister. Wouldn't be in your electorate, and shame on you for wanting to cover mine with them.

I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026, which is another bill in support of the Albanese Labor government's drive to strengthen the integrity of the tax administration system. I'm going to do something a little different to previous members who have contributed to this debate and actually talk about what's in this bill. In doing so, I seek to do two things. Firstly, I seek to highlight that this bill contains a number of very uncontroversial measures. Secondly, the measures may be uncontroversial, but they're very important on a number of topics for the Australian people, particularly with respect to research and development—which I didn't hear mentioned in the contribution from the previous member. There are important things in this bill that deserve to be highlighted. To start with, it's important that our tax system is modern and easy to use, with compliance costs for individuals, trustees, beneficiaries, business and taxation professionals that are as low as possible. This bill, which is comprised of four schedules, seeks to do just that.

Firstly, schedule 1 is directed at philanthropic giving and removes the requirement that a donation to a deductible gift recipient be valued at $2 or more before the donor may claim an income tax deduction. This removal supports charitable giving and also contains updates that reflect contemporary fundraising practices. This modernisation takes effect by amending the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1997 to allow donors to claim a tax deduction on donations to deductible gift recipients under subdivision 30-A even if they are valued at less than $2. There is a background to this, and it stems from the October 2022-23 budget, which led to the Productivity Commission conducting a review of philanthropy as part of the government's election commitment to double philanthropic giving by 2030.

The final report from the Productivity Commission was handed down on 10 May 2024 and included 19 recommendations. The measures contained in schedule 1 to this bill implement one of those recommendations. The modernisation reflected by schedule 1 to the bill relates primarily to point-of-sale round-up schemes with retailers and online vendors. For example, when I go to Petbarn to buy cat food for my cats, I'm always asked whether I wish to round up to make a donation to an animal welfare group. This system, since 2012, has actually helped the Petbarn Foundation itself donate over $25 million to help animal welfare groups and rescue organisations through Australia.

The purpose of these amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act is to continue to encourage these low-value donations because, as I have explained—30c here, $1.50 here—low sums that you don't even notice can make a huge difference to charitable organisations, and that is worth highlighting to this chamber. In section 30-15 of the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1997, there is a table that sets out the situations where a gift or contribution is deductible, who the recipient of the gift or contribution can be, the type of gifts or contributions that are deductible, how much is deductible and any special conditions.

Schedule 1 to this bill amends that to remove the $2 threshold listed in the 'Special conditions' columns of the table. That means there's no minimum donation amount for the donation to be deductible for a number of organisations and institutions. The removal of the $2 gift threshold is limited to gifts or contributions under subdivision 30-A of the Income Tax Assessment Act. It doesn't extend to donations to political parties—let's be clear on that—candidates or members, including independents. These amendments will have retrospective effect applying from 1 July 2024, so anyone who has donated to a deductible gift recipient since then will enjoy the benefit that this amendment brings.

Then we have schedule 2 to the bill, which operates to again amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to require trustees of closely held trusts to report in the trust's income tax return the quoted tax file numbers of beneficiaries when they have an entitlement. This will be a requirement from 1 July 2026 and will streamline how trustees report tax file numbers, removing reporting on a separate form. What this means is that trustees must report beneficiary tax file numbers at the same time that the trust tax return is lodged for income years that the beneficiary is presently entitled to a share of income of the trust. This requirement replaces the obligation for trustees to lodge a tax file number report for the quarter in which a beneficiary quotes their tax file number to the trustee.

The amendments support efficiency because they support prefilling of beneficiary income tax returns. This amendment also speaks to the integrity of the tax system, because it will help to ensure the right amount of tax is being paid by trustees and beneficiaries on trust income, which is fair to everyone. This is also about improving and digitising trust and beneficiary income reporting to reduce the compliance burden on taxpayers by increasing prefilling capabilities and improving the ATO's processes—again, something that is worth highlighting in this chamber.

Then we have schedule 3, which makes small amendments to legislation within the Treasury portfolio directed at sustaining the government's ongoing commitment to the care and maintenance of Treasury laws. The point is to make sure that the Treasury portfolio of legislation remains current and fit for purpose and continues to work for relevant stakeholders and the broader public. It might be minor and administrative in nature, but it does have significant and important impact.

Finally, we have schedule 4. To the extent that it's possible to have a favourite schedule of a bill about the integrity of the tax system, schedule 4 is my favourite. The background to the amendment proposed by schedule 4 is important, and it's relevant to understanding the amendment's purpose. In MYEFO 2024-25, the Albanese Labor government announced that activities related to gambling and tobacco would be excluded from research and development tax incentive eligibility for income years starting on or after 1 July 2025. The government made this announcement following the ATO's first annual R&D tax incentive transparency report, which was handed down in October 2024 and which provided information on companies that claimed the R&D tax incentive in 2021-22.

Schedule 4 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to exclude activities related to gambling and tobacco from research and development tax incentive eligibility—except those related to harm minimisation. This amendment is directed at ensuring the community can have confidence that they are not subsidising this kind of research and development, which can exacerbate serious social problems, including health risks, addiction and associated harms. This is research and development relating to all types of gambling and any type of tobacco. With respect to tobacco, activities related to tobacco, as well as nicotine products and vaping goods, are excluded from what is called core and supporting research and development activities.

As I said, R&D directed at harm minimisation is not covered by schedule 4, and that is entirely appropriate. This government recognises that modern, contemporary and effective harm minimisation strategies are critical when it comes to gambling and tobacco and that these strategies are driven by research and development, which focuses on practical, evidence based strategies with the key priorities of safety, health, dignity and the removal of shame and stigma—which is one of the most important factors in harm minimisation, because the removal of shame and stigma surrounding addiction is a key step in helping someone to address a problem.

Indeed, the statutory review of BetStop the National Self-Exclusion Register was tabled in parliament on 25 February this year. First and foremost, the review recognised that BetStop is actually working as a harm reduction strategy. The Prime Minister, during question time on 25 March 2026, noted that there had been a total of 58,000 registrants, with 38 per cent of those people having chosen a lifetime ban. Eighty per cent had experienced better overall quality of life and better mental health. This is important research that has measured the effectiveness of this self-exclusion system, and the results underscore why research of this nature must continue. Secondly, a key finding was that people who had registered for BetStop and who had nominated a support person were experiencing better outcomes from their registration with BetStop. A reason someone might not nominate a support person is that they are ashamed of their addiction and they want to keep it a secret, but a support person can help by providing accountability as well as care and kindness.

So it is important to highlight to this chamber that the carve-out in schedule 4 of this bill for research and development activities that are conducted for the sole purpose of harm minimisation is critical. This might include research directed at stopping addiction, and targeted and dedicated efforts of researching, measuring and implementing further harm minimisation strategies. Research and development that is focused exclusively on harm minimisation will still be eligible for support and, quite rightly, should be eligible for support. For the sake of clarity, and given the importance of this issue, the amendments operate to exclude certain gambling related research, both as a core research and development activity and as a supporting research and development activity. So activities that relate to a gambling service, gambling or gambling-like practice are excluded from being R&D activities.

What does this mean? 'Gambling service' will take the meaning in section 4 of the Interactive Gambling Act of 2001 and includes three recognised types of gambling: wagering, lotteries and games involving chance that are played for money or anything of value and which involve consideration, as well as any other gambling service within the ordinary meaning of that expression. The exclusion proposed in schedule 4 of this bill will quite rightly have a broad application.

Then we have the definition of 'gambling-like practice', which is defined by the digital games tax offset definition in the Income Tax Assessment Act. Activities that relate to a gambling-like practice contribute to gambling related harm in the Australian community, particularly by normalising gambling behaviours and increasing exposure. These have been excluded and, again, this is a broad-reaching and appropriate exclusion. Digital games will be unaffected if they don't relate to gambling-like practices.

Then we have the supporting research and development activities, and schedule 4 will operate such that an activity that relates to gambling services, gambling or gambling-like practices is also excluded from being a supporting research and development activity. Importantly, the dominant purpose test that otherwise applies to supporting research and development activities does not apply to these activities, as a more restrictive test is to be applied instead, which speaks to this government's commitment to harm minimisation.

I'm pleased to have shared the nature of schedule 4 to this bill with the chamber. There's a lot going on in this parliament at the moment, and I understand everyone wants to talk about the budget, but the details contained in this bill will have a significantly positive effect on the community. They take away the ability to research gambling and tobacco related activities and place an emphasis on harm minimisation. It is initiatives like this that do deserve to be highlighted and spoken about in this chamber, as they form part of the government's dedicated efforts towards improving harm minimisation. I commend the bill to the House.

I understand that technical tax legislation might not be enthralling for everyone and might not be everyone's cup of tea, but, like the member for Sturt, I think the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026 is an important piece of legislation. I may not have a favourite schedule, but I do want to take the House through not only what's important about this specific bill but also the importance of Labor's budget overall for everyday working Australians.

We know that right now too many people are feeling the squeeze. They feel it during their weekly shop, they feel it when they're filling up their cars and they feel it when the bills roll in. Cost-of-living pressures are not abstract. They are something Australians are copping every single day. That's why the 2026-27 budget really matters. This budget is about taking practical and responsible steps to ease that pressure. It's about putting money back into people's pockets, and it's about ensuring that support is targeted where it is needed the most. Fundamentally, it's about keeping the economy strong and resilient and robust for the future.

Let's talk about cost-of-living support. This budget includes a range of measures that are designed to take pressure off households. The Albanese Labor government wants Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. That's why, this year and next, Labor is implementing legislated tax cuts that apply to every Australian taxpayer, and today we will find out whether or not those opposite are going to go down that same road of voting against a tax cut for everyone. Today we will find out whether or not they are going to again say no when it comes to a tax cut that Australians so desperately need. Will they repeat their form?

These cuts are designed to provide immediate relief, easing pressure on household budgets and putting additional money directly back into the economy. But we're not stopping there, because Labor is also introducing further ongoing income tax relief to support Australian workers over the long term. This includes a new $250 working Australians tax offset, which will deliver permanent targeted support to help boost take-home pay. Not only that, it creates another piece of architecture within our tax system that can be used into the future. This will take effect for income earned from the second half of 2027, automatically lowering workers' tax obligations for the 2027-28 financial year.

Alongside this, the $1,000 instant tax deduction without receipts will make the tax system simpler and will make it more accessible, cutting red tape while giving workers a fast and straightforward way to claim deductions—no scrapping around for receipts, no looking through shoeboxes. It's something that is easy for people who are busy working, raising their kids and caring for their loved ones. Together, these measures ensure that tax relief is not just a one-off benefit but a sustained effort to support Australians, help people hold on to more of that income and, indeed, strengthen their personal financial security.

Schedule 5 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026 implements an increase to the Medicare levy low-income thresholds. This amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999. It will increase the thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners by 2.9 per cent, in line with recent movements in the consumer price index. These changes will mean that Australians on lower incomes will continue to receive important protections when it comes to the Medicare levy.

We all know that Labor mark the genesis of Medicare. We created it, and we don't sit and rest on our laurels when it comes to the important program that is Medicare, because we believe that, when you put something in place, it's important not to just let it sit there. We make it better. We improve it, and that's what this is all about. From 1 July 2025, eligible individuals and families will either remain fully exempt or pay a reduced rate, particularly where their income growth has kept pace with or fallen below increases in the cost of living as measured by the CPI.

Adjusting the low-income thresholds in line with CPI has been a consistent approach taken by successive governments since 1996-97. This longstanding practice reflects a commitment to maintaining fairness in the tax system, ensuring that those with the least capacity to pay are not disproportionately impacted over time. As a result of these changes, more than one million low-income earners are expected to benefit in the 2025-26 financial year. This is meaningful financial relief which helps to ease cost-of-living pressures while preserving access to essential health services that Australians need every day.

This bill will also benefit around 92,000 Australian pensioners who travel overseas for more than six weeks. It doubles the amount of time they can be away before their pension supplement is affected, from six weeks to 12 weeks. This amendment takes into account the ongoing costs that are still incurred at home, such as energy, phone and internet bills, and it will provide travelling pensioners with greater flexibility and financial support when temporarily overseas.

At the same time, the bill introduces a clearer and fairer approach for those who are overseas for longer periods or who choose to live outside Australia on a permanent basis. In these cases, the pension supplement will cease after 12 weeks overseas, or from the time of departure for those relocating indefinitely, rather than continuing at the reduced basic rate. This reflects the original purpose of the basic pension supplement, which was designed to help offset the impact of GST on everyday living expenses in Australia—costs that are generally not incurred in the same way by people living overseas in the long-term.

Importantly, this change does not affect a person's eligibility for the pension itself, nor does it alter how the base pension is calculated. Pension payments will continue to be indexed twice a year, ensuring they keep pace with living costs over time. Overall, this approach ensures the pension supplement is better targeted. It provides additional support to pensioners who live in Australia and travel temporarily, while removing ongoing payments for those no longer facing the same domestic cost pressures. The impact of this measure will be limited, affecting only about five per cent of pensioners. The vast majority will either benefit directly or see no change at all, as they continue to reside in Australia and typically travel overseas for only short periods of time.

The budget is also taking aim at tax system reformation to address critical issues of intergenerational fairness. Labor's reforms will support around 75,000 more Australians into homeownership over the next 10 years, helping more people to achieve the security of owning their own home. When the opposition talks about aspiration, I find it incredibly interesting, because, in my community, people aspire to own their own home. In my community, people aspire to set down roots and build a life. In my community, people aspire to have a place with bricks and mortar where they can plan their family for the future. That is what aspiration looks like.

When we talk about making sure that our nation and particularly our young Australians have something to aspire to, it must start with a home. We know that so many young people right now do not see that as a reality, and that is a problem. It's a problem that we have to fix. It's a problem that cannot simply be talked about. It is a problem that something must be done about, and that is what this budget does. That is what the housing bill does. That is what the cost-of-living relief does. If you don't believe that this is a budget where lower taxes and access to a first home as its core priority is something that you can support, that is an assault on aspiration.

Reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax settings will help create a fairer and more balanced housing market. We know that the interaction between the housing market and the tax system is broken. Under these changes, the tax advantages currently associated with negative gearing will be redirected to support investment in newly constructed homes, helping to boost housing supply while improving access for buyers. If you want it, we've got to build one for the country as well. That's about making sure that we address critical housing shortages that haven't just popped up overnight but have been around for 40 years, and that's what this budget is focused on.

Capital gains tax arrangements will be reformed, replacing the existing framework with a system that indexes the assets cost base and introduces a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent on capital gains. These reforms are necessary in the current environment and reflect longstanding shifts in Australia's housing market. Since 1999, house prices have risen at more than twice the rate of average full-time wages. The question is: if you're a nurse working shift work, if you're working at the checkout at your local supermarket, if you're working as an early childhood care educator, why should you be taxed more than someone sitting on an asset?

Over the same period, particularly in the first two decades of this century, homeownership among Australians aged 25 to 34 has declined by seven percentage points, highlighting the growing challenges younger people face in entering the housing market. The reforms are designed to address these pressures and to improve access for younger Australians.

From 1 July 2027, as mentioned, negative gearing will be limited to investments in new residential properties only. At the same time, the existing 50 per cent of CGT discounts for individuals, trusts and partnerships will be replaced with a system that indexes that cost base. Importantly, these changes are structured to protect current investments. Properties owned before the announcement on 12 May 2026 will not be affected by the new negative gearing rules, and the revised CGT settings will only apply to gains made after the reforms come into effect in July 2027. These changes are designed and intended to support the construction of new housing. They're designed to make it easier for first home buyers to compete in the market and to rebalance the tax system, so it puts less pressure on workers while still recognising the role that investors have to play in our economy.

Labor is also investing an additional $2 billion in enabling infrastructure to unlock the construction of up to 65,000 more homes, bringing our Homes for Australia Plan to more than $47 billion. The Albanese Labor government is also providing $59.4 million to states and territories to help secure social housing for more than 4,000 eligible young people at risk of homelessness. That's important work.

Labor is delivering meaningful cost-of-living relief right now, and it's directed at Australians who need it the most. This budget is helping households manage today's pressures, and it's also building a more productive and resilient economy that can create jobs and drive growth into the future. At the same time, Labor is working towards a tax system that is fairer, a tax system that is simpler, a tax system that is more sustainable and a tax system that ensures everyone pays their fair share while supporting opportunity and aspiration. The aspiration of owning one's own home is at the heart of this budget. We're addressing the challenges in our housing market now and taking practical steps to improve affordability and accessibility so more Australians can achieve that great dream of having a place to call home.

The budget strengthens the nation's finances, delivering a budget that is responsible today and sustainable in the long term. Real relief for Australians is not simply about the here and now, and the short term; it's about building stronger foundations for the future.

I thank those members who have contributed to this debate.

Schedule 1 to the bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026, removes the requirement that a donation to a deductible gift recipient be valued at $2 or more before the donor may claim an income tax deduction. This threshold is an anachronism that does not reflect innovations in fundraising. The government has an ambition of doubling giving by 2030, and this will contribute towards that.

Schedule 2 to the bill requires trustees to report, in the trust's income tax return, the quoted tax file number of beneficiaries when they have an entitlement. These changes, which apply from 1 July 2026, are part of modernising tax administration systems, helping to ensure the right amount of tax is paid by trustees and beneficiaries.

Schedule 3 to the bill makes minor and technical amendments to legislation within the Treasury portfolio. These amendments ensure that Treasury portfolio legislation remains fit for purpose and continues to work for relevant stakeholders and the broader public.

Schedule 4 to the bill will amend eligibility for the research and development tax incentive to exclude activities relating to gambling and tobacco from 1 July 2025. The exclusions will ensure that the community is not subsidising this type of research and development. Activities that are conducted solely for harm minimisation remain eligible to receive support. Regarding schedule 4, I acknowledge the amendment moved by the member for Mayo. The government takes seriously our responsibility to protect Australians, particularly children and young people, from the harms of online gambling. New reforms announced by the government earlier this year will minimise children's exposure to the harms of wagering advertising, break the link between sports and wagering, and reduce the saturation and targeting of wagering advertising.

This builds on reforms our government has already delivered by legislating a ban on the use of credit cards for online wagering, implementing monthly activity statements so Australians who gamble online can clearly see their wins and losses, and establishing mandatory preverification to prevent children and people who have self-excluded from placing an online bet. The government is taking decisive action to tackle concerns associated with gambling across the board, including through schedule 4 of this bill.

The government has also circulated two amendments to this bill which act to further strengthen the integrity and fairness of our financial ecosystems. As per these amendments, schedule 5 to the bill will increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families and seniors and pensioners by 2.9 per cent. These changes ensure low-income households continue to be exempt from paying the Medicare levy or pay a reduced levy rate from 1 July 2025 if their incomes have increased in line with or less than recent movements in the consumer price index.

Schedule 6 to the bill includes changes to better target payment of the pension supplement for recipients who travel or live overseas and ensure it remains sustainable into the future. The pension supplement is designed to assist with certain living costs in Australia. These changes balance providing increased support for pensioners who travel overseas for short periods but still have ongoing costs in Australia and ceasing this support for those who are absent from Australia on a long-term or permanent basis and no longer have the same costs.

This bill delivers a more efficient and fair framework for Australia's tax and pension systems. I commend the bill to the House.

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Mayo has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that that amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 be referred to the Standing Committee on Economics for consideration and an advisory report by 31 July 2026.

The government, in the last budget, has put tax reform on the agenda. I think this is the right decision and I think it was a brave decision. This is difficult, and we have not had significant tax reform in this country for the last 25 years. I recognise the guts and the courage that it took to do that. But I think the government is making absolutely the wrong decision to try and push this through quickly. It is making the wrong decision to try and push this through without significant interrogation at the Senate or at the House level. And it is the wrong decision to try and push through legislation without dealing with some of the problems that the government itself recognises with the bill and its impact, in particular, on small businesses and those in the startup space.

This is not just wrong for the government. I think this is wrong, firstly, for the economy. If we don't get significant reforms right and if we don't deal with the issues, and there are issues with what the government has put forward, then this bill will not deliver what it needs to as well as it could for the economy. Secondly, it is wrong for the people. I can tell you people do not understand what the government has proposed, and until a broader part of the community understands and actually backs this—this is not fair, frankly, to the Australian people, and it's inappropriate. Finally, it is the wrong decision for reform more generally. It is hard to get tax reform on the agenda. It is hard to get decent reform on the agenda. But the answer, once you've made that decision, is not just to ram it through and hope for the best and hope that people get over their concerns. If it's done wrong and if it can't build the support that it needs to build, it will set back reform not only in tax but also more broadly across the economy. That is a bad outcome for this country.

I want to talk to you specifically about why I support reform, because there are people in this parliament and the country who say: 'No, don't touch anything. Everything's okay here.' I have to say, I don't agree. I have been one of the strongest proponents for reform in the tax system over the last four years since I have been here. It is absolutely right that reform is on the agenda if we care about building prosperity and we care about building fairness. We need both those things in our economy. When I look at the personal income tax system at the moment, I identify three significant concerns that I believe need to be fundamentally addressed.

Firstly, we know that the tax system taxes you most heavily when you have the least ability to pay. Talk to any young person. I'll give you an example. There are two households living next door to each other that are both on a hundred grand, but one is a retired household. They pay on average half the tax of a working-age household despite the fact that—I think these are the numbers—they are four times more wealthy, much more likely to own their own home, much less likely to have a HECS debt and much less likely to be battling with renting costs, trying to save for a deposit and all those kinds of issues. It's never going to be perfect, but I'd like a tax system that taxes people appropriately or taxes people less when they're trying to build wealth and when they have less capacity to pay.

Secondly, we know we have a tax system that is not sustainable. In decades past, we used to have about six people who were working for every person over the age of 65. We now have under four people. In a few more decades it's going to be under three people. We need a tax system that recognises that our overreliance on taxing wages is not sustainable. I look to a future where AI is also coming, and we do not know what impact that will have on jobs. I hope that it won't be negative. I hope it will build prosperity. But I certainly recognise that we can't have a system that is just built on trying to tax wages more. The problem in relation to sustainability is that we have a tax system, despite the challenges, which relies on different Australians to tax people less. For instance, about 27 per cent of older Australians used to pay income tax. That's now down to 17 per cent.

Finally, something that I think is absolutely clear is that young people are falling behind. It's not just down to the tax system. It has a lot to do with housing. There are a lot of issues in housing that are not due to the tax system. But we cannot pretend that the tax system doesn't play into housing. We cannot pretend that negative gearing has helped drive equity into the housing system. I don't believe that, and I don't think the statistics back that either. So we do have issues to face. Genuinely, from an equity point of view, when people say, 'Why should we change a tax system at all?' I ask, and I've asked this really strongly—if you earn a hundred grand in wages, you pay $23,000 in tax. If you earn it on capital gains, you pay about $7,000 of tax. If you can split it with a spouse and through a trust, you might pay about $13,000 worth of tax. If you earn it in retirement, when you're in the pension phase on your super, you pay zero tax at all.

I don't think those numbers work, but I also don't necessarily think where the government is going is right, because they've got a bunch of problems in their bill too. I think this is the debate we need to have. This is why this bill needs to be referred to the Standing Committee on Economics. We need a tax system that balances fairness and prosperity. We need a tax system that incentivises innovation and rewards risk taking and we need a tax system that is fair, where people can get ahead regardless of who your parents are. That is the balance that I believe this parliament needs to strike. This is a balance that I don't think the government has got right, and this is the reason why we need to look at this carefully and get it right this time.

I want to go now to the reasons why I have concerns with the government's current bill. These are economic concerns, concerns from a fairness point of view and concerns from a prosperity point of view. The first point I want to make on this is if you're trying to help young people get ahead then you can change how other people are taxed so that they are taxed more, but you actually need to give that money back to young people. That should be a principle here, and I think this is one of the most significant principles the government has ignored in this. They have made these tax changes neutral over the forward estimates, over the next four years, but they have not told the country where they are trying to take the tax system. They are holding the $77 billion worth of increased tax receipts that this package puts forward in their pocket, and I think they're hoping to give them back at an election. I don't think that's a good idea for reform and I don't think that's a good idea for people's trust in the system. I think that is a purely political decision rather than a decision to try to drive good reform.

If you look at Hawke-Keating or if you look at Howard and Costello and how they changed and drove tax reform, they made it revenue neutral. That was the way that they got the community on board. Right now, people in my community are going: 'I don't understand how this benefits me. I am a young person. I'm trying to save. I'm being told I'm going to get a $250 tax benefit at some point, but the government is taking a bunch more money.' People are genuinely concerned that this government has raised spending in a way that they—I certainly believe it's not sustainable. They have raised spending at a level that is certainly out of step with previous spending and previous governments, so people have a genuine concern that the increase in taxes raised by the government is not going to go back into income taxes. They're not cuts. They're not going to go back into the pockets of younger people. They may go back into more spending. I think that is a bad outcome for people and I think that reduces trust. So that is my first concern with what the government has put forward.

The second concern is about prosperity. The government has said and has recognised, and I think is genuinely engaging with, small and medium businesses and the startup sector about how these tax changes work for these businesses, because it is important that we get this right. If we don't build businesses, if we don't reward risk and if we become too much out of step with the rest of the world in terms of how we tax capital, then we have the danger that people leave. People that we want to build the businesses of the future won't stay in this country. There may not be a lot of sympathy for people who are really successful in terms of building businesses, but I think there is a lot of sympathy for anyone who has started and tried to drive a business. It is bloody hard. It is extremely difficult. You often don't pay yourself, you often put your own money in and you often are not sure if you're ever going to get it out. It can destroy your confidence if it doesn't work. You give up years of good earning as well to do that. We do need to make sure that risk is rewarded. The government, I think, is sincere. They are trying to consult business, staff and the small-business community. It's not good enough to try and pass a bill on that without actually getting those changes right as well. Again, I take the government on their word on this, but, at the same time, I just think they should not be trying to pass this bill or put through this bill without actually deciding what is actually going to be done for those types of businesses. It's not just start-ups; it is all types of small and medium businesses. If you're a service business, if you're a knowledge business or if you're a brand business, you often have very little capital that you invest in the start. Therefore, the new way that the government has changed the tax system in is really going to penalise you compared to compared to other things.

The second question is about international comparison. My concern is that there's an intellectual's elegance where the government has put this bill, but the truth is that there's no other economy in the world that currently manages indexation in terms of capital except Israel, but their top marginal rate is 30 per cent, so this is quite different to Australia. That international competitiveness is important. It is not potentially unresolvable with the government's indexation system, but we need to take a breath on this because it really matters. The other issues are in relation to ones like taxation of nominal gains. The government's current bill puts forward that you pay tax on real gains, but you only get tax relief on nominal gains. This is a real asymmetry in what the government has put forward.

Finally, there's an issue that, if you put your money into risk taking and you lose all your money, you don't get income tax relief; you only get capital tax relief. Again, there is a risk that goes with putting capital in that is different to earning a wage. You can't, at the end of one year of wages, get it all taken away again. I think we've got to get this balance right. I want to align the tax system better to reward young people trying to get ahead, people who earn their income via wages, but I am not yet convinced that where the government has gone is right. Certainly, I think that the government needs to look at the income smoothing that the original Keating model included. That was really important, and, even if you brought that in, you could actually, potentially, take out the 30 per cent minimum tax rate, which the government has put in and which is very badly understood because it's meant to be on real rates but nobody really understands that. Those are some of the areas that we can work on.

Those are some of the issues that I have with the tax bill right now, and I believe that you can resolve these issues. It may need a different model, it may need some different changes, but it is possible to make this work. There are issues with the negative gearing grandfathering. It is possible to make this stuff better and deal with those issues and make sure we get the right balance between fairness and prosperity, but we are not going to do that if you rush this bill through the House and Senate without inquiry in other areas.

Finally, my plea to the government on this is really to take a breath. Reform really matters. The government has shown the courage to put this on the table; that is the right decision. The rhetoric that no change is needed is wrong. We do need change in the system, we do need to get this right, and we do need a tax system that allows people, regardless of who their parents are, to be able to build wealth and prosperity, frankly, just to be able to build financial security for themselves and their kids. The way to do that is not to push through a tax bill that is not well understood in the community where issues are still being played out in the media as people try and get their heads around it. I spent the last four years working on tax; I'm still trying to get my head around this because it is complicated and it is important.

Government, please slow it down. The community doesn't understand it. It is too important for the economy to get it wrong. We do not want to see tax reform as we have seen in the past decades which gets in and goes out again. That is wrong for the country, that is wrong for where we need to go—particularly on capital because we need stable treatment of capital over time so that people have confidence. We need to get this right because, if we don't get this reform right, then we will see issues in future reforms as well. It will be harder to do this in the future. The government needs to wear the pain and the discomfort of doing something that people don't understand, get it right, do it right, and make sure you commit to giving the money back as reductions through tax cuts over time. That will make this reform stick, and it will better for the fairness and prosperity we need in this country in the long term.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion. I agree with the stated intent of the tax reform bills, and that is to level the playing field on property. I think there is appetite for that and I commend the government for finally tackling the tough issues after decades of inaction from both sides. I've advocated for tax reform since I first started in this place, for the sake of intergenerational fairness and to shift more of the tax burden from active to passive income, and this is a start, but there's more to do. It is so important that we get this right.

These bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, will fundamentally change investment behaviour across our economy. They will affect millions of Australians and have significant interactional effects with superannuation, housing supply and business investment, so the stakes are really high if we get this wrong. The potential unintended consequences are significant for productivity, our other major challenge, and also for fairness.

I recognise there will always be winners and losers in tax reform. We have to accept that, but we need to understand these trade-offs, and the community needs to understand why these are the right trade-offs to make. I've had a lot of correspondence from constituents who are concerned about these changes. Some of those concerns are based on misunderstanding, but some raise legitimate concerns, and both types need to be addressed so that we can maintain trust in undertaking tax reform, so a 'crash or crash through' approach shouldn't be the right approach when we're making big changes like this. It's really important that the public understand the why and the how, and we are not there yet. If this isn't done well and with public understanding, it will make it much harder to do other reform—the reform that we need for intergenerational equity and to make sure we have a tax system that's fit for the demographic changes that we're seeing.

We have committee processes for a reason. Committees are there to receive public submissions, to hold expert hearings and to apply scrutiny to unintended consequences. Committee processes can also surface new information that the government doesn't have, and governments can't be expected to know everything and get everything right immediately without that broad consultation. A committee process will build legitimacy and trust. It will increase the likelihood that the drafting actually matches the policy intent, and it will provide an opportunity for government to clearly justify and explain the choices that are being made. It will make the legislation better. Rushing this through without adequate scrutiny makes it more likely that the legislation will require amendment, so it's actually lower cost to have proper scrutiny now too.

These bills are within the Economics Committee remit. The Economics Committee exists precisely to scrutinise legislation and policy with broad economic implications, and these bills have implications for a broad range of economic issues, including housing affordability and supply, investment incentives and capital allocation, revenue and fiscal settings, distributional outcomes across income groups, and productivity.

There are a range of unanswered questions that a committee inquiry could help to answer. On capital gains tax reform, it could look at what the pros and cons of the CGT changes extending to all asset classes are, rather than limiting it to housing, which is where the market distortion was identified. It could look at how the government might protect founders, employees and investors in startups, given that startups typically have a low cost base, meaning almost all future gains will be taxed as real gains, and given how vital they are to meeting our productivity challenge. It could look at what the impact would be on productivity and fairness if the small business CGT exemption threshold were raised. It could look at how we could allow founders to spread capital gains over multiple years and look at whether that's a workable solution and whether it has been modelled. It could look at how the changes would affect ordinary Australians investing in high-growth shares and ETFs as a means of building wealth and what the implications of that are. On negative gearing, the committee could look at what evidence there is that limiting negative gearing to new homes will meaningfully increase housing supply, rather than simply shifting investment patterns. It could also look at how the grandfathering of existing arrangements might impact the market.

Additional time will allow more consultation. The government has said that it is undertaking consultation on the CGT changes and that that will happen in due course. But if this goes to a committee and there is additional time, then a complete, considered legislative package could come back to the House, not bills that will require immediate amendment.

We really need to get this right. We have committee processes for a reason, and the government should use the committee processes that we have to ensure that we have the best version possible of this aspect of tax reform and that the public understands the implications and the trade-offs that are being made. So I commend this motion to the House.

We've said we will work with all members of this House to have these toxic taxes fully examined and to absolutely ensure that we're doing everything we can to make sure that the Australian people know what the broken promises will mean for them, and the best way in which we can do that, and the first step in doing that, is to make sure that they're fully examined.

I would say to the government: What have you got to hide? Why don't you want these toxic taxes fully examined? Why don't you want the entrails sorted through so that we know and understand who you're hitting? Not only do we need to know all the detail; we need to make sure the government understands the detail, because, as we've seen in question time time and time again, the Prime Minister doesn't have a clue about his own budget.

What we would like to know is this. The Prime Minister has said publicly, and I hope the Prime Minister was being honest with the Australian people, to use his own words, because he's said it is time to be honest, that these are just simple changes taking us back to the pre-Howard changes. Does that mean you can average over five years or not? Does that mean you can offset a loss on one asset against the gain on another asset? We've put that to the Prime Minister and, guess what, the Prime Minister hasn't got a clue about his own budget.

Not only that, now we're starting to see more and more people speaking out against these budgets. We read in the Sydney Morning Herald today—and I think the chair of the Labor economics caucus committee might be in the House with us today—that even they don't like it. They've got questions of it. The Prime Minister's innovation award winner for 2024 has come out and said he doesn't like this budget. Not only that, we've also heard from the Premier of Western Australia—Labor royalty. The Labor royalty has come out and said that they don't like this budget. Not only that, Chris Minns from New South Wales has come out and said that he doesn't like it.

So you've got the Labor economics caucus committee, you've got Chris Minns and you've got the Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook, all saying this is a dog's breakfast. Basically, every Tom, Dick, Harry—oh, and Andrew, the member for Parramatta, of course; I'd nearly forgotten him. He's come out and said that he's got concerns about it. I forgot that there's the member for Bennelong as well. He's popped up and said, 'I've got questions and queries about this.'

The list goes on and on. The Housing Industry Association have come out and said they don't like it. The Business Council of Australia are out saying they don't like it. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry are out saying they don't like it. COSBOA are out saying they don't like it. As a matter of fact, I think there are only two people in this country who do like this budget: the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I don't think there are too many other people lining up behind it.

Of course, there was all this spin at the start, and some people got sucked in with that spin. I would say to a lot of people: always look at the detail, because this government's very good at the spin. Once you get to the detail, you start to see, in particular, the unintended consequences which come from broken promises and from complete and utter spin. This is why this budget needs to be examined, and it's why these bills need to be examined. We've said we will do anything we can to get this parliament to examine these bills and then to throw them out.

I say to the Prime Minister you have a chance. The Prime Minister has a chance. He can show some courage. He can say, 'Yes, I told the Australian people one thing before an election and I did completely the opposite after the election.' The Prime Minister could have the courage to front up and say that is what he did. In doing that, he has not only embarrassed himself; he has embarrassed every single member of the Labor Party caucus. All of them have been embarrassed—

I'm not embarrassed.

because they know—well, I hope they know—that integrity in this place still counts for something. The minister's interjecting that he doesn't seem to think that integrity does matter in this place. That's a matter for him. But, I've got to say, I think integrity is important, and I say to the Labor Party caucus it should be important to you. So why don't you say to the Prime Minister: 'Prime Minister, you said one thing before an election. You've done completely the opposite after the election. It's time to at least front up and be honest about that. Be honest for once. Just say: "Yes, I misled the Australian people, and because I did that, I want these Treasury bills fully examined. I want proper public scrutiny of them. I want to make sure that everyone knows the details of these bills."'

If the Australian public don't know and don't understand the details, they won't know how it's going to hit them. We know it's going to hit small business. It's going to hit farmers. It's going to hit the tech sector. It's going to hit the mining exploration sector; we've had Roger Cook, the Western Australian Premier, come out saying this. It's going to hurt people when it comes to what they're doing on income tax; the Premier of New South Wales has said we've got to address bracket creep, which is what we will do.

The only thing we get when we ask the government questions about their budget is the Prime Minister saying: 'Oh, I'm not quite sure. I don't really know. You can't put you can't put those questions to me, because I'm not across the detail.' Well, we do need to know the detail. That's why it's important that this gets referred to the economics committee. Maybe, in having it referred to the economics committee, it will give the government time to reflect. I think they do need to reflect on that side of the House.

You even have the Prime Minister's award winner for innovation in 2024 saying that this needs changing. You have the Premier of WA, the Premier of New South Wales, the Labor economics committee caucus, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and COSBOA. You've even now got the National Farmers' Federation beginning to realise that there are serious consequences for farmers, especially when it's about them handing on their farms to the next generation. Remember, this was all meant to be about generational fairness. I tell you, this is going to kill family farming, and maybe that's what those opposite would like to see, like they would see the death of small and family businesses in this country.

We've said we'll work with this parliament to examine these toxic taxes. We've said we will work with this parliament to make sure that these toxic taxes do not go ahead. That's why we're happy to stand here and support this motion which will make sure that these bills go to the economics committee in the House, and we want to make sure there is proper interrogation also in the Senate. This is a toxic budget built on toxic broken promises, and it needs to be fully examined and thrown out of this parliament.

I support this bill being referred to the House Standing Committee on Economics, because it makes significant changes to Australia's tax settings and those changes deserve proper scrutiny. I thank the member for Wentworth for bringing this forward in the House today. I want to be very clear: I support the objective of improving housing affordability and making the tax system fairer. There is no question that negative gearing and capital gains tax settings have contributed to the distortion in the housing market, growing generational inequity and the difficulty in becoming a first home owner.

I also want to put on the record that I do commend the Treasurer and the government for having the courage to try and tackle this. It is hard. When I look at the grandstanding hypocrisy of some of the contributions in this place, there is no doubt that it is hard to tackle, so I commend them for having the courage to look at it when it comes to the housing aspect. But, because it is so hard, it is incredibly important to have that social licence and try and bring in the vast majority of Australians to make sure there isn't ground for festering misinformation and to make sure that the Australian people understand the case and the true consequences and possible unintended consequences of reform and this legislation.

What we know is that this bill goes far further than housing. It has implications for small businesses, family businesses, startups, trusts, shares and young Australians trying to build financial security outside the property market. The parliament should not be asked to rush through complex tax reform without a clear understanding of who is affected, what the unintended consequences may be and whether sensible carve-outs or transitional arrangements are needed. I understand that there are further negotiations and details that are being worked out, but, in that situation, it's simply impossible to genuinely assess the full measure without having all of that detail available. Good reform should be targeted, evidence based and durable, and that requires committee scrutiny.

In Warringah, it's not an abstract policy debate. Constituents have raised serious concerns about how these changes may affect their ability to build a financial buffer. One constituent—Nicola, a 36-year-old from Warringah—told me that she doesn't usually follow politics. She's not overly engaged, but, for this, her and her peers are very much engaged. She told me that she and her partner both work in demanding jobs and they are above average in income. They're in engineering and law. They have good incomes. And yet, as millennials, they're up early and home late. They've borrowed responsibly, yet they still feel like there is very little left over. They are barely getting ahead.

Nicola and many of her friends have invested the little bit of cash flow left over in shares and ETFs. It's not about getting rich. It's not about massive incomes on the side next to their work income. It's simply about trying to build some security beyond wages. It's about saving for a home, creating a buffer against rising costs or slowly building the capital needed to start a business. I've heard from many young Australians who have already been priced out of property investment. If we close off the share investment pathway, a beneficial way to build a buffer, then we risk pulling up one of the few remaining ladders for wealth creation or buffer creation for them.

Small business owners in Warringah have also raised concerns. Many are not large corporations with deep balance sheets. They are in fact local employers, family businesses and people who have taken risks, reinvested profits and built something over many years. The government has framed this bill as a housing affordability measure. That may be a fair description for parts of it, but it does not answer the broader concerns about shares, trusts, business assets and small business succession. If the policy goal is to reduce speculative investment in residential property, then the parliament should examine whether the bill is properly targeted to that goal.

We need to know whether the measures risk discouraging entrepreneurship, investment in productive businesses and modest long-term saving by younger Australians. We also need to understand the impact on people who have already made financial decisions under existing rules. Tax reform should not blindside people who have acted responsibly and planned in good faith. The Treasurer has said that one in 10 people under 35 hold shares, but that still amounts to 660,000 people. And then there are still a lot of other people who are looking at how they are going to grow a buffer beyond their income and earnings. So the concern is not that the capital gains tax should never change. The concern is that change should be carefully designed and we have to absolutely know what the unintended consequences may be.

Referral to the House Standing Committee on Economics would allow the parliament to test the evidence, hear from experts and stakeholders and improve the bill before it is passed. A committee inquiry should examine whether the bill should distinguish more clearly between residential property investment and other forms of investment, including shares, small-business assets and trusts. It should consider whether concessions, exemptions or grandfathering are appropriate for young investors, small investors or small businesses. It should examine whether there should be thresholds, caps or transition rules to protect ordinary Australians who are not the intended target of the reform. It should also seek the modelling assumptions and policy rationale behind the government's approach so the parliament can assess whether the measures will actively improve productivity and housing affordability.

There is so much misinformation and scaremongering out there, and that is one of the areas that the Treasurer has raised with me—the frustration around how much misinformation is festering. But the only way you address misinformation is by having a clear process of inquiry. It is not by shutting down debate and saying, 'There's nothing to see here; let's move on.' I would urge the government to consider that. I think the Australian people are reasonable. They want a tax system that is fair. Young Australians want a housing system that is fair to allow them to get in. Australians want a fairer tax system. They want this to be fair. I absolutely support that ambition and, as I said at the beginning, I commend the government for having the courage to tackle this, but we have to do it well for it to stick. We have to do it well for it to grow consensus among the Australian people.

We should not pass rushed reform that may create new unfairness while trying to fix an old one. Young people need pathways to build wealth and a buffer. Small businesses need confidence to invest and grow. Tax reform should strengthen those pathways, not diminish aspiration. The bill should be referred to the House Standing Committee on Economics so it can get the detail right, protect against unintended consequences and deliver reform that is fair, targeted and evidence based.

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The question is that the debate be adjourned and the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. It's a great privilege to represent part of the Latrobe Valley in this federal parliament. In addressing my remarks today, I want to pay my respects to the workers in the Latrobe Valley that keep our lights on and that keep our businesses running.

Of those once four now three coal-fired power stations—we had Hazelwood, Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B and Yallourn—Hazelwood closed a couple of years ago. It was run out of town by the Victorian state government, which tripled coal royalties overnight. We now have three power stations in Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B and Yallourn. Yallourn, of course, is scheduled to close in 2028, and that's only two years away. Yallourn provides about 22 per cent of Victoria's base-load electricity, and I have grave fears that that 22 per cent base-load electricity is going to be switched off overnight, in two years time, and we do not have adequate base-load capacity to replace it, thanks to the Victorian state Labor government and the Victorian energy minister, Lily D'Ambrosio—who doesn't like any form of 24-hour dispatchable power; she's driven a number of businesses in my electorate out of town. I have grave concerns for energy affordability and reliability after 2028, and that's why I'd like to see a gas-fired peaking plant in the Latrobe Valley that would be able to provide that continuity. AEMO forecast that the NEM is going to need 15 gigawatts of gas power over the next 20 years to hold up intermittent power.

I'm proud to come from a region that grows, makes and manufactures things, and that keeps the lights on. Those answers are above and below the ground. In addressing my remarks on this bill, I acknowledge the work over a long period of time by workers in the Latrobe Valley, since the establishment of the real State Electricity Commission that the inaugural chair, Sir John Monash, led—not the new SEC set up by the Victorian Labor government, for which most employees, I think bar one, are based in Melbourne.

The coalition supports this bill because its practical, balanced and noncontroversial reforms provide certainty for workers, certainty for employers and stability for an industry that has helped build modern Australia. At its core, this legislation establishes a voluntary pathway for employers to repay historical debts relating to unpaid portable long service leave levies in the black coalmining industry. I come from a state that proudly has the largest single deposit of brown coal in the Southern Hemisphere—500 years worth, on current usage rates—but this bill is dealing specifically with the resources in New South Wales, Queensland and other states.

Importantly, these liabilities did not arise because businesses deliberately sought to avoid their obligations. Rather, they arose because of historical uncertainty around scheme coverage and interpretation—uncertainty that was brought sharply into focus through recent Federal Court decisions. As a result, some employers suddenly found themselves exposed to large retrospective debt liabilities that in some cases stretched back many years and carried potentially devastating financial consequences. Without reform, some businesses faced the prospect of immediate insolvency. Jobs were at risk. Workers entitlements were at risk. Communities that rely on the coal industry were placed under a cloud of uncertainty.

I share the great responsibility for representing the Latrobe Valley in the federal parliament with my friend and colleague the member for Gippsland. I know very well that with that large quantum of heavy industry, so too goes an ecosystem of small-to-medium businesses that interact with those larger employers, and their future and their sustainability is just as much at stake with these decisions and these risks. This bill seeks to strike an appropriate balance. It protects workers and preserves entitlements while recognising the commercial realities faced by employers dealing with those liabilities that were never intentionally avoided.

Under the bill, repayment arrangements can be staged over six years and employers who repay 80 per cent of their liability may receive a 20 per cent waiver. It's a sensible framework, and, given the diversity of investment within our energy sector and the coal industry, ensuring Australia's sovereign reputation as a safe, secure and stable place to invest is a very important imperative for all of us in this place. It allows businesses to remain viable, continue employing workers and continue contributing to regional economies while still ensuring those obligations are met. Importantly, the government has also confirmed that the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme is well placed to absorb these waivers without affecting levy rates or undermining the integrity of the scheme itself.

Long service leave in the coal industry exists for a reason. Mining is not an industry where people necessarily spend an entire career with one employer, although in my region they often do. Again, I want to pay my deep respects to and acknowledge the many workers in the Latrobe Valley power stations who have started at one power station and moved to another power station or stayed with that one power station for their entire career. They are proud of what they do. They are proud of the contribution that they make, and that deserves the greatest respect. Portable long service leave recognises that the contribution is to the industry itself, not simply to one company, and it acknowledges the reality of life in mining communities and the unique nature of the workforce.

The Coal Long Service Leave Scheme has a long history in Australia. It was established in 1949 and has been supported through Commonwealth legislation since 1992. Today, this scheme holds more than 71 million hours of long service leave on behalf of over 160,000 employees, including more than 65,000 active workers currently employed in the industry. That is a substantial national system supporting workers across Australia's coal regions.

When we talk about coal regions, it's impossible not to reflect on regions like mine in the Latrobe Valley, the Hunter region and many other regions that are proud to support the ability to grow, make and manufacture things the broader Australian economy relies on. For more than a century, the Latrobe Valley has powered our state, and I know the same can be said for other regional communities across New South Wales, Queensland and previously South Australia. The discovery and expansion of that resource has transformed our economy and many other economies across Australia.

Mining and energy generation involves physically demanding, highly skilled and often dangerous work. Whether it's underground miners in black coal regions or workers operating in massive open-cut mines and generation assets like in the Latrobe Valley, these industries have always depended on hardworking, highly skilled Australians willing to undertake difficult jobs in challenging circumstances, and those workers deserve respect. They deserve support. There are communities where generations of Australians have worked shifts through nights, weekends and public holidays to ensure homes have electricity, industries have power and businesses can operate. I know there's that sense of pride in the Latrobe Valley, where there are generations of workers in one family. I was talking to someone who is now working in one of the power stations. Her dad worked at the same power station. There's a great sense of pride and responsibility about the contribution that generations through those families make.

In regional Australia, industries like coal are not just economic sectors; they underpin entire local economies. They support cafes, mechanics, sporting clubs, schools, community groups and small businesses. A few years ago, when I was CEO of the Committee for Gippsland, I actually did a study of the small to medium enterprises attached to just one power station. I came up with a list of about 250 small businesses in the Latrobe Valley, from the car dealership to the newsagent that would sell newspapers to the tea room every day, the dry cleaner and the local sandwich shop that would do catering. All of those small businesses are connected to that broader quantum of larger industry.

It's not just confined to the power sector. I know that, for example, there are many outage workers that go between the power stations and Opal Australian Paper's pulp mill doing outage work. If you take one of those out of the region, you disrupt that whole broader economy of SME businesses and contractors who bring highly skilled, highly paid jobs and discretionary income to those communities. It's not isolated just to energy and coal. We've seen that with the timber industry as well and the devastating impact that the Victorian state Labor government have had by closing the native hardwood timber industry in regions like mine. When uncertainty hits the industry, the effects are felt far beyond the mine gate. That's why legislation like this matters. It's about ensuring that workers' entitlements remain secure while also ensuring businesses remain operational and communities remain economically stable.

The Australian Industry Group has acknowledged that many businesses would be facing hardship and potential insolvency if historical levy debts had to be paid immediately. Importantly, they recognised that this bill needed to strike a balance among the interests of workers, the interests of employers and the long-term sustainability of the scheme. I would add to that our broader economic needs and imperatives which go into big decisions like this. That balance matters. Good legislation is rarely about ideological slogans. Good legislation is about practical problem solving. This bill represents the best elements of some of those goals around practical problem solving.

It recognises that retrospective liabilities can create enormous commercial pressure. It recognises that insolvencies would help no-one—no-one in those regional communities, none of the workers, none of the associated small businesses and certainly not Australia's sovereign investment reputation internationally or any of those country towns that still very much rely on those businesses. It recognises that workers lose when businesses collapse. And it recognises that protecting entitlements and protecting jobs must go hand in hand.

Australia's black-coal industry continues to play a significant role in our national economy. It supports tens of thousands of direct jobs and many thousands more indirectly. It contributes export income, regional investment and economic activity that many communities rely upon. At a time when cost-of-living pressures are already placing a massive strain on households and businesses and when stability in major regional industries is unsure, legislation like this does matter.

It doesn't mean ignoring change or pretending that industries don't evolve over time, but it does mean recognising and respecting the contribution that coal workers and coal communities have made and continue to make to this country. It means ensuring that workers who have spent decades contributing to these industries are treated fairly and have confidence in the systems designed to protect their entitlements. It strengthens the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme, protects workers' accrued long service leave hours and provides businesses with a realistic pathway to compliance. That is why I support this legislation.

I'd like to thank all the members who have contributed to this debate. The Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 is about delivering fairness and certainty for workers in the black-coal mining industry and supporting employers. The bill creates a practical, time limited pathway for employers to resolve unpaid levies in a manageable way so workers can access their lawful entitlements without delay. The bill also introduces an effective penalty for late levy payments that promotes employers' timely compliance with their obligation and contributes to the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme's long-term sustainability.

I'd like to acknowledge the work of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee and thank all those who made a submission for their constructive engagement. The committee's report recognised the importance of resolving longstanding uncertainty while protecting workers' entitlements and highlighted practical issues around timeframes, historical records and prior long service leave payments. The government has listened carefully, and, shortly, the government will be moving amendments to respond directly to these matters. The government's amendments provide targeted refinement to the bill by allowing limited flexibility to extend opt-in timeframes for individual employers, broadening the use of reasonable assumption when historical records are missing or incomplete and ensuring that employers are not required to pay twice for long service leave they've already provided. Together, these changes along with the bill support participation in the payment arrangements, protect workers' entitlements and ensure the bill operates fairly and as intended. I commend the bill to the House.

I thank the minister for the contribution. The question before the House now is that this bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I seek leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (21), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (line 31) to page 7 (line 9), omit the definition of long service leave cessation payment in clause 2, substitute:

long service leave payment, in relation to a person, means a payment made by an employer that was:

(a) made to the person, or to the person's legal personal representative; and

(b) made:

(i) for long service leave taken by the person during a period of employment with the employer; or

(ii) in lieu of untaken long service leave, whether made during a period of employment with the employer or when (or after) the person ceased to be an employee of the employer; and

(c) made in pursuance (or purported pursuance) of:

(i) a law of a State or Territory; or

(ii) an industrial instrument; or

(iii) the National Employment Standards (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009).

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 7 (line 16) omit "cessation".

(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 8 (lines 27 to 29), omit paragraphs 5(2)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) if paragraph (b) of this subclause does not apply:

(i) the day (if any) determined under subclause (3); or

(ii) if no day is determined—the day that is 2 months after the unpaid levy calculation day; or

(b) if the Corporation is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for approving a later day—a later day approved by the Corporation at the written request of the person made before the end of:

(i) the day mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subclause; or

(ii) a day previously approved under this paragraph.

(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (line 2), omit "paragraph (2)(a)", substitute "subparagraph (2)(a)(i)".

(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (line 5), omit "paragraph (2)(b)", substitute "subparagraph (2)(a)(ii)".

(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (after line 6), at the end of clause 5, add:

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b), a day must not be extended beyond the day that is 12 months after the unpaid levy calculation day.

(7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 12 (line 23) omit "cessation".

(8) Schedule 1, item 5, page 12 (line 24) omit "cessation".

(9) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 1) omit "cessation".

(10) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 3) omit "cessation".

(11) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 13) omit "cessation".

(12) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 16) omit "cessation".

(13) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 18) omit "cessation".

(14) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 30) omit "cessation".

(15) Schedule 1, item 5, page 14 (line 29) to page 15 (line 4), omit paragraph 11(c), substitute:

(c) if the person does not have sufficient information to work out a matter required to be specified or included in relation to an employee covered by the arrangement—the person may, in working out the matter, make reasonable assumptions about:

(i) the employment of the employee; and

(ii) the employment of a class of employees of which the employee was a member.

(16) Schedule 1, item 5, page 18 (before line 10), before paragraph 17(a), insert:

(aa) to refuse to approve a later day to give a notice of intention, under paragraph 5(2)(b);

(17) Schedule 1, item 5, page 24 (line 14) omit "cessation".

(18) Schedule 1, item 5, page 24 (line 16) omit "cessation".

(19) Schedule 1, item 5, page 24 (line 18) omit "cessation".

(20) Schedule 1, item 5, page 24 (line 23) omit "cessation".

(21) Schedule 1, item 5, page 24 (line 32) omit "cessation".

I rise to speak on the government amendments to the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Last November, I introduced the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 to provide a voluntary pathway for employers to resolve historical unpaid levy liabilities to the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme for workers in Australia's black coal mining industry. These liabilities arose in the context of longstanding disputes about the coverage of the scheme, which were ultimately subject to litigation. The bill enables these liabilities to be dealt with in a structured and sustainable manner while ensuring eligible workers in the black coal mining industry can access their long service leave entitlements as soon as possible.

During the debate in the House earlier this year, the bill received support from all sides of parliament, reflecting a shared recognition that these legacy issues need to be resolved in a fair and practical way. The bill was subsequently referred to a parliamentary inquiry. While the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee recommended that the Senate pass the bill, some stakeholder submissions to the inquiry raised three areas where targeted refinement could further improve its operation. The amendments the government is moving today directly respond to that feedback. They are measured and practical changes that maintain the policy intent of the bill while removing unnecessary barriers for employers. Throughout this process, the government's objective has been clear: we want to connect workers in the black coal mining industry with their long service leave entitlements as quickly as possible while supporting employers to resolve liabilities that in some cases extend more than a decade.

The first amendment provides additional flexibility around timeframes for employers to opt into the payment arrangement process legislated by the bill. The bill, as it stands, sets a two-month timeframe alongside enabling the minister to extend this opt-in period for employers generally. The amendment will insert an additional mechanism to allow the coal long service leave corporation to extend the opt-in period for an individual employer where reasonable grounds exist. The amendment recognises some employers may face genuine circumstances, such as ongoing court proceedings, that could make it difficult to meet the general timeframes.

The second amendment addresses the practical realities of historical employment records. Some unpaid levy liabilities relate to service performed many years ago. Employers may no longer hold complete or reliable records of matters, such as hours worked, classification or base rates of pay. Currently, the bill permits a more limited range of assumptions relating to eligible wages, incentive payments and bonuses. This amendment would broaden the circumstances where employers can use reasonable assumptions. It supports a fair and workable approach that reflects the age of the liabilities. Safeguards are in place to ensure that any additional assumptions permitted by the amendments are subject to appropriate oversight, and employers may only make reasonable assumptions about employment matters where sufficient information is unavailable. In addition, any payment arrangements must include an audit report confirming that the amount specified in the arrangements is correct. All payment arrangements will be considered by the board of the corporation, which may request further information or documentation in relation to the arrangements. Allowing for reasonable assumptions supports the government's objective of ensuring workers are not excluded from repayment arrangements due to gaps in historical records.

The third amendment ensures the offset arrangements operate fairly. It would expand the circumstances in which employers can reduce the base amount payable to the coal long service leave corporation under a payment arrangement to include certain long service leave payments made during employment. This is in addition to offsets already allowed for certain payments made by employers on cessation. It includes payments made under any state and territory laws, industrial instruments or the National Employment Standards. Amidst uncertainty about the coverage under the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme, some employers may have paid long service leave under state laws or other instruments because they understood those arrangements to apply at the time. The government is moving this amendment to ensure employers are not required to pay twice for the same period of an employee's long service leave.

The minister has the call.

Importantly, this amendment has no impact on employee entitlements. Employees will receive their full entitlement.

Taken together, these amendments strengthen the operation of the unpaid levy payment arrangements and respond directly to stakeholder feedback provided through the inquiry process. They make it easier for employers to enter into the arrangements, deal with sensible legacy record-keeping issues and ensure fairness where other payments have already been made in relation to a period of long service leave. Most importantly, they support the central purpose of this bill by encouraging employer participation and removing unnecessary obstacles. These amendments will help ensure that workers in the black coalmining industry are connected with their long service leave entitlements efficiently and in full. This is about resolving the past in a practical way, supporting employers to meet their obligations and delivering certainty and fairness for workers who are entitled to these benefits. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Telecommunications is essential to the lives of every Australian. In 2026 the importance of quality, reliable and affordable mobile services cannot be understated. We rely on mobile phones for connectivity more than ever. Despite that, Australia's longstanding universal service obligation does not include mobile services. For rural and remote parts of Australia, that means no access to something as basic as being able to pick up your phone and dial triple zero during an emergency. The universal outdoor mobile obligation will change that.

We are, for the first time, establishing a legislative framework to create a universal outdoor mobile obligation. Our national mobile network operators—Telstra, Optus and TPG—will, for the first time, need to provide reasonable access to outdoor baseline mobile coverage across Australia on an equitable basis. The amendment bill before us, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025, is about recognising the importance of mobile services as essential services and treating them as such. That's because traditional mobile coverage is currently provided in areas where about 99 per cent of Australians work and live but covers only one-third of the Australian landmass. In those areas, of around five million squared kilometres, it is not possible to make a triple zero call. We are making sure that, when it comes to telecommunications, no-one is held back and no-one is left behind.

I've seen the need for amendment bills like this one before us firsthand in my electorate of Gorton. In Melbourne's west, we're one of the fastest-growing electorates in the country. I represent over 50,000 families across the electorate, with new ones being created every day. We have about 10 babies being born in the city of Melton alone every single day. In so many ways my electorate represents Australia as a whole, with its vitality, its rich cultural and linguistic make-up and its aspirations for the future. An electorate like mine—young, diverse and aspirational—has many needs that have yet to be met. But as communities grow infrastructure needs to keep up. I'm talking about the basics, like quality roads, access to water and sewerage infrastructure, and telecommunications.

Right now in my community, suburbs like Truganina, Mount Atkinson, Fraser Rise, Bonnie Brook, Aintree, Rockbank, Thornhill Park and Deanside don't have adequate mobile services. These communities don't have basic access to things people living in inner-city suburbs take for granted—like regular internet access to call your friends and relatives, to go about your everyday life, for kids to do homework, for parents to work from home or operate a local business, or for emergency services to be accessible in those most crucial moments. Emergency services are a true lifeline, and access to those emergency services when you need it is crucial. In those terrifying moments, seconds are critical. Not having the most basic access to mobile data is life-threatening. It is simply unacceptable that we have growing communities in Melbourne's outer suburbs who don't have access to telecommunications.

In my electorate, I've launched a campaign, the Mobile Signal Strength and Blackspot Mapping Survey. We've sent it out to the community asking them to help us identify our mobile coverage black spots, particularly in new suburbs within the growth corridor of Gorton, so we can collect real location based evidence to demonstrate the impact telecommunications has on the safety, business and daily life of our community and to advocate for community updates from service providers and infrastructure upgrades where required. I've had hundreds of responses to my community survey. Our community is coming together, helping us to identify those black spots and advocating for change, because telcos are an essential service provider and we need to hold them to account to adequately deliver these services. I know access to telecommunications is not a luxury, and I know it is an essential service that underpins public safety.

What we're doing here with this bill is providing that basic mobile access right across Australia, across rural and remote areas. There were people who thought it would never even be possible to deliver mobile coverage across Australia. I get that; Australia is a massive continent with vast inland areas. But with the advent of the new low earth orbit satellite direct-to-direct technology, this pipe dream will now become a reality.

Some have also said that we should wait until the technology is widely available before legislating the UOMO. But waiting is a risky game. We are legislating the UOMO now to ensure baseline mobile coverage is widely available, and available as quickly as possible. Waiting would mean leaving rollout decisions to industry alone and risking some Australians being left behind. What we're doing here is clever planning to avoid problems like what I'm seeing in my community right now, where one of the biggest barriers to provision of mobile towers is that they aren't accommodated for in industry planning and, as a result, some Aussies are getting left behind. Here's what we're doing to make sure no-one gets left behind.

This bill modernises Australia's universal service framework. Historically, universal service obligations focused on fixed voice services and payphones, but the reality is that Australians now overwhelmingly rely on their mobile phones. Mobile services are no longer optional extras; they are essential infrastructure. This bill updates the law to reflect the way Australians actually communicate in 2026. It incorporates designated mobile telecommunications services into the existing universal service regime for the very first time. To be clear, the UOMO isn't about replacing traditional mobile coverage with new technology; it's about ensuring they work together to complement each other, and making sure that together these networks cover as much of Australia as possible and enable the community to benefit from new technology. Initially, the mobile telecommunications services subject to the UOMO will be voice services and SMS, reflecting the early technology capability of our policy objectives of public safety. We're also creating a flexible framework with this bill, where the scope and timing of the UOMO can be adjusted by ministerial instrument as the market develops and satellite technology evolves as well.

We have a proposed default date of 1 December 2027. At this time, all three operators will be required to ensure that baseline mobile coverage is reasonably available outdoors throughout Australia. We also recognise that there are some circumstances where Optus, Telstra and TPG will not be able to meet this obligation. For example, D2D requires a clear line of sight to the sky. Sometimes this isn't possible to achieve. I know this well because it's also an issue in my community, in our growth corridor. We recognise that, but the intent of this bill is to make sure that services are available as widely as possible.

We're also creating new powers to set standards, rules and benchmarks for mobile services, with flexibility for these to apply before the UOMO starts. Standards, rules and benchmarks are so important here because it sets expectations for telcos and for our communities as well. Here we're providing a framework to hold industry to account if it doesn't deliver. Standards could cover issues like ensuring that there are affordable products to meet the needs of vulnerable groups or requiring industry to reduce the impact of planned mobile outages through better planning. Whilst standards will need close consideration, including the content of those standards and even the need for them, it's important to have the ability to step in if the market doesn't deliver. To make sure that's an option, there'll be a close consultation with regulators, industry and consumer groups to make sure standards are fair but consumer focused.

Importantly, this framework is enforceable. We are making sure that the ACMA will have responsibility for enforcement of the UOMO—there are a lot of acronyms here—and any associated standards, rules and benchmarks. That includes powers to investigate breaches, issue infringement notices, impose penalties and take compliance action where required, because obligations only matter if there is accountability behind them, and because communities deserve confidence that telecommunications providers will actually deliver the services that Australians rely on.

Importantly, this bill is also technology neutral. That means it does not prescribe a single technological solution. That flexibility is important because this technology is continuing to evolve rapidly—it's evolving every single day—and we want to make sure that regulation can evolve alongside this innovation as well.

This legislation is one piece in the puzzle of making sure every Australian can make a triple zero call no matter where they are. Our government has already taken significant steps to improve equitable access to mobile coverage. We've brought in the Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia, which provides more than $1 billion to rural and regional communities to improve mobile and broadband connectivity and resilience. It funds programs like the Regional Connectivity Program, the On Farm Connectivity Program, the Mobile Black Spot Program and the Regional Tech Hub. These are programs that improve access to reliable communications for households, businesses and farms, provide targeted solutions for communities with unique connectivity challenges and reduce gaps in mobile and internet access between metro and regional areas.

The BCP has also responded to emerging needs and government priorities by funding new initiatives that include support for broadcasts and news initiatives, extending the School Student Broadband Initiative and the First Nations Digital Inclusion package. This package is a critical step towards ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have equal levels of digital inclusion. It's a $68 million package of measures that improve access to internet and mobile services, digital services and infrastructure. These include telehealth, education, banking and government services, and this ensures that our First Nations Australians can access the information and services they need to make informed choices about their own lives and their own communities.

Our government has also provided significant funding to upgrade the NBN in regional, rural and remote Australia, including upgrading fixed-line areas with more resilient fibre services and expanding the fixed wireless footprint. We've also taken significant steps to strengthen regulations for telcos and ensure that telcos are providing transparent, reliable and equitable services to all Australians. In November 2024, we directed the ACMA to introduce enforceable industry standards to improve how telco companies communicate with their customers. These rules require telcos to keep customers informed and updated on major outages, and they ensure that in the event of an outage those affected receive communications and can access clear information about the outage.

Last year, we expanded on those rules with the significant local outages standard. This standard ensures that, when local outages occur, consumers are informed of the outage and updated with information, including the likely cause of the outage, the types of services impacted and the estimated timeframe for the issue to be resolved. We also directed the ACMA to introduce new obligations around preventing and managing triple zero outages. Since April last year, telcos have been required to provide information about outages to police, fire and ambulance services and report it to the ACMA. Significantly, the rules also mandate that, when a triple zero outage occurs, the provider enables calls to be carried by an alternative telco network. These new standards are clear and enforceable with serious financial penalties and civil proceedings in the Federal Court.

Earlier this year, we also directed the ACMA to ensure that appropriate support is provided to telecommunications customers experiencing financial hardships. The new financial hardship standard mandates that telcos establish and promote their hardship policies, identify customers experiencing financial hardship, provide a better range of options for assistance and prioritise keeping customers connected. This reform acknowledges that, as an essential service, telecommunications need to be available to everyone, including those experiencing financial hardship. It sets a clear standard that telcos must accommodate people in vulnerable circumstances and ensure that they are able to access telecommunications. For the first time, we're ensuring that telcos provide reasonable access to outdoor baseline mobile coverage across Australia.

We know that this legislation is the right decision because we know it's what rural and remote communities need right now across Australia. Extensive consultation informed this legislation with industry, consumer representatives, state and local governments as well as telecommunications stakeholders. That included mobile network providers, consumer advocacy groups and regional representatives. It's a collaborative process that has helped ensure the framework is practical, flexible and focused on public outcomes. It's been designed with the communities it will serve. The rural and remote communities have been at the absolute forefront of this thinking. It's so important because, at its core, connectivity is about safety, about equitable access to services and about better access to emergency services and support. This is exactly what this bill is focused on.

No Australian should be unable to contact emergency services because they live outside a metro area, and no growing community like mine should be left behind because of infrastructure planning failing to keep pace. We are bringing Australia's telecommunications framework into the modern era, expanding access to mobile connectivity, strengthening public safety and ensuring that all Australians, no matter where they live, can remain connected when it matters most.

I stand to support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 in principle and support what the government is trying to achieve here in the evolving shape of telecommunications. Particularly for those of us that represent rural and remote electorates, it's important. This evolving technology gives us hope because, at the moment, there isn't a lot of hope for us. Many of the telcos have packed up and left, and that cancer that started in regional Australia is now spreading to peri-urban areas around capital cities.

It's admirable that the government is trying to keep pace with the change in technology, and that is important. But there is an important admission in this bill that doesn't go to actually address much of the framework that is already in place through the universal service obligation. The universal service obligation was put in place when Telstra was privatised, and, at that stage, the technology that was available to every Australian were landlines and payphones. There were around 60,000 payphones when Telstra was privatised. We're now down to about 14,000. I mean, the only people using payphones at the moment are drug dealers. No-one is using payphones at the moment, and landlines are becoming less and less frequent.

But, unfortunately, the universal service obligation has not moved with the technology. This government is taking one step too far in terms of forgetting that there is still technology that we rely on out there in regional Australia, and the universal service obligation should be extended to existing telephony infrastructure that much of the Australian taxpayer has paid for, not the telcos but the Australian taxpayer through the black spots program that we put in place when we were in government we put in place. That was there to try and give coverage to people in regional Australia. But, unfortunately, the universal service obligation still only controls the landlines and payphones and omits covering the maintenance of mobile phone towers.

We put in place over 1,500 when we were in government under that black spot program, but there is no regulatory framework to make the telcos maintain them to the standards of which they're meant to. A mobile phone tower should in its establishment cover around a 14-kilometre radius. Now, in many of the cases because the batteries aren't being maintained, there is no service, and there is no requirement on the telcos to go and repair those towers. In regional and rural Australia, that has actually diminished, and, in fact, many of them are flat out being able to cover the towns in which they reside in or even the highways that they cover. But even worse is when they say, 'Well, we still get our landlines out there.' In many cases, a landline is all we can use. In the case of very remote stations in my own electorate out in western Queensland in the outback, it's their only communication to get the flying doctor in.

But under the old universal service obligation, the only requirement for the telcos to go and fix these landlines has an averaging provision. So even the Productivity Commission found that Telstra, who have the contract for the universal service obligation and who gets $270 million a year to maintain those payphones and to maintain those landlines, were actually averaging the provisions of repairing landlines in capital cities because, lo and behold, that's where their technicians were, but they were averaging provisions out in the outback. In my own electorate, I can tell you that in Birdsville and Roma, they were taking three, six, 12, 18 months to repair landlines. In fact, I even have a photo sent to my electorate office of Telstra's ability to actually repair a landline out near Roma. I think it was between Roma and Injune. They've actually run a new line from the main telephone power line coming down the highway, and, instead of putting new poles up, they've actually wrapped it around a couple of gum trees through to the house and attached it to the house. That was their way of fixing this landline for these people who'd been waiting for nearly six months.

Telstra is having a lend of us. $270 million a year, and they use average provisions to be able to take the money off the Australian taxpayer. I grant you, about $100 million of that is Australian taxpayers, and $170 million is what's levied of the telcos, but they are effectively having a go at us all. That is why this bill should actually extend to the existing infrastructure that's there, particularly that mobile telephony, to hold these telcos to account, to remove the averaging provisions as a penalty, to make sure that telcos are there, johnny-on-the-spot, to fix these problems not just with landlines and payphones but with mobile phone towers.

In the town of Dalby—12,000 people live in Dalby—Telstra took down their mobile phone coverage service for nearly two weeks. They did not care one iota about the fact that the good people of Dalby had no mobile telephony for nearly two weeks. That is a disgrace. My heart pours out to the families who lost loved ones because of the triple zero fiasco only less than 12 months ago.

Let me say to those in this chamber today that we face that sort of risk and that sort of outcome that we saw because triple zero went down because of Optus every day in regional, rural and remote Australia. Our mobile phone towers don't work. There's no regulatory guardrail for them to be fixed. That's the sort of risk that we face up to every day. While there's a national outpouring of mourning for the families that were lost, understand that that happens to us every single day. Our whole communities lose mobile phone towers for a couple of weeks. We lose them along our highways. This is where we've got to understand the technology that's there also needs to be protected.

I'm proud of the National Party that made the reform around USO pivotal to our policy pitch to make sure not just that landlines and payphones are protected but that mobile phone infrastructure—particularly that you, the Australian taxpayer, have paid for—is maintained and kept to a standard to protect every Australian. That's where we should go. Even with low-orbit-satellite technology, which is what we're moving towards to regulate here—and congratulations to the government for taking those steps; it's the right thing to do; it honestly is—the telcos themselves will tell you that their mobile phone infrastructure that is there, those towers that are right across, will still be required for backhaul and backup. So why wouldn't we, as legislators, amend this bill to also regulate to ensure that the universal service obligation is extended to mobile telephony infrastructure to protect every Australian?

I understand now. We've been battling for this for years for those that live in regional and rural Australia, and it's only now that this cancer has grown from regional and rural Australia to periurban Australia that we are understanding why there is action. This is why it's important, as legislators, that we get this right. We can fix it. If there's $270 million a year being paid to Telstra through a universal service obligation contract, then we have every right to change that. If Telstra doesn't want to do that, who cares? There'll be some other entrepreneur out there that'll want to take this contract up, and they'll want to go and make sure that these landlines and these payphones—whatever's left of them—as well as the mobile phone towers across Australia are maintained. That's a universal right that we deserve as Australians. This is a universal service that saves us.

Society has evolved because of the technology that's been provided to this country, and that's a great thing. But none of us should be left behind. I say to the government that the opportunity that lays ahead has been missed. It is right to ensure that there are regulatory guardrails around the new technology, but missing what's there is a missed opportunity. It does risk lives. It puts our lives at risk, and that's why we've been passionate, as the National Party, to stand up and say we can't go on with this any longer and that this is a risk to our wellbeing. It's not just for us to be able to get on with the commerce of feeding and clothing you and sending the resources in to save the bills. This is something that, as a parliament, I think we should come together and fix.

This is a positive step that the government has taken with respect to the new technology, but it's missing the opportunity that lays there for us. I say to the government: please go back to the drawing board and add this. It's not asking for any more money. We're not saying we want more than the $270 million that goes out every year in the universal service obligation. But, because there are fewer landlines and because there are fewer payphones, Telstra's having a red-hot crack at us. They're having a red-hot crack at the Australian taxpayer. Who wouldn't want a contract for $270 million to do three-fifths of bugger all? There are no payphones to fix—so much so that they made them free to use anywhere around Australia—and the landlines are definitely going down in usage.

There will be a day when technology will take out the need for the copper, and that's a good thing, even in those remote places in my electorate, like Birdsville, west of Longreach and even west of Roma, where you can't get mobile phone coverage so you still need that landline for that hour of need to ring the flying doctor. This is an opportunity to say, 'Let's get this right.' Let's actually pause and understand the complexity of the problem and not leave a gap, which—hands up—we've all missed. But it's one we've always fought to close in the National Party. This is pivotal to getting the telecommunications right in this country.

We can simply say that we are not asking for any extra money. We are asking for a reallocation of that $270 million, which doesn't need to go towards addressing these low-orbit satellites and the new technology that's going on. We don't even own that infrastructure. But we own the infrastructure that was there, which we gave as a free hit to these telcos, who are making money out of it. We are simply saying, 'Let's reallocate that $270 million to make sure those towers are maintained.'

While we're at it, why wouldn't we look at mandated roaming? I congratulate the government's move towards mandated roaming in emergency circumstances. But we face emergency circumstances every day in rural and regional Australia. The Mobile Black Spot Program allowed Telstra, Optus and Vodafone to all apply. We've got stranded assets across regional Australia. You might go through a Vodafone tower, then you hit two Telstra towers and then you hit an Optus one. Unless you've got three different phones that connect into them, they're basically useless. So why wouldn't we look at that? The ACCC, when they last looked at this, made a mess of it, to be honest. They said that we shouldn't have mandated roaming.

I'm not saying that you should get it for free. I'm saying that what the telcos should do is tell us what it costs to have roaming on your phone. If you go overseas and you decide to take roaming, you pay $5 a month or $5 a week or whatever it is. Give us the number and let the consumer decide whether they want roaming so they can use any tower. I'm not asking the telcos to pay for it. I'm simply saying, 'Why don't you give us the number?' It might be $10 a month, $20 a month or $25 a month. The consumer should decide. They should be able to decide that they can go under any mobile phone tower in this country and use it if they're prepared to pay for it.

But the telcos don't want that, particularly Telstra, because they use regional Australia as their biggest advertisement in the cities, saying they have the most coverage across Australia. They use us as their selling point but screw us over and give us nothing in return in terms of the infrastructure we need—so much so that the ACCC found just the other day that the claim they made in some of their advertising about the coverage they had was actually false. I could have told you that five years ago. They're full of it. The reality is that Telstra's been found out, so let's not let them dictate terms about how our telecommunications should be in this country. They don't care. They gave up a long time ago, and I gave up on Telstra a long time ago. They are full of it, and the reality is they are cleaning up the Australian taxpayer and having a red-hot laugh at us.

This is an opportunity for this parliament to go back to the drawing board and get this right—to add onto the work that this government is doing with respect to the new technology that's coming and to fix the mistakes of the past. That's what a good parliament would do, a parliament that understands the complexities of a universal right of telecommunications to keep us all safe and to give us the opportunity to go and make a quid. That's what we want.

We're not asking for a cent—not one brass razoo. I'm not saying we want one more cent, apart from that $270 million to force Telstra to do the job that they are paid to do and to do a job that they could do. If they don't, get rid of them. Who cares. Someone else will take up that universal service obligation and spend that $270 million in such a way that the Australian taxpayer, particularly people in regional Australia, might be able to turn on their phone or use it in their hour of need, when they need to ring triple zero. My heart bleeds for those families who lost loved ones, but just understand that that happens to us every day.

Why would we stand in this parliament, with an opportunity to fix it today, and just walk past it and let it go? That's not what legislators should do. We should have the courage to take on the telcos, particularly companies like Telstra, who have done nothing for regional Australia. They've done nothing but take. Now the good people of peri-urban Australia are feeling the same thing. This is the time to square the ledger, square it up with Telstra, and make that $270 million work for the Australian taxpayer.

I risk to speak on the Telecommunication Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025. This bill is about ensuring that, no matter where you are in this country, you will be able to call for help. If you're broken down on the side of the highway, if you're injured on a farm or if you're just lost in the bush, this bill ensures that, if you can see the sky, you will have coverage.

The concept of a universal obligation is not new. It originally came in 1991 and applied to the provision of voice services and serviceable payphones to everyone in Australia, regardless of where they lived. Now only 15 per cent of Australian adults use their landlines, whilst 98 per cent of us use our mobile phones. This reliance is even more pronounced in regional Australia. I can't say I know the stats for payphones, but it's safe to say it's pretty slim. It is for this reason that consecutive reviews have called the existing USO outdated, irrelevant and also costly. There are clearly few fans of the USO as it stands. Accordingly, this new UOMO focuses on dragging our telecommunications into the modern world.

The bill defines the UOMO as 'the obligation to ensure that mobile coverage is reasonably available outdoors to all people in Australia on an equitable basis'. This includes 'the obligation to supply each kind of designated mobile telecommunications service such that the service is reasonably available outdoors throughout Australia'. Said designated mobile telecommunication services are focused on voice calls and SMS. However, the minister is granted the power to update these DMTs following the next advancement in mobile services when they so choose. This means that, when SMS becomes the next landline, we can update our legislation efficiently. In the same way, this bill on a whole has a flexible framework which can be adjusted by a disallowable legislative ministerial instrument as the market develops and satellite technology evolves.

Importantly, this bill does not simply express a hope that coverage will improve. It creates a legal obligation. It gives government a clearer role in setting expectations for mobile network operators, and it gives the parliament a framework to make sure those expectations keep pace with technology. That matters because, for too long, mobile coverage has been treated as a commercial question alone. If a provider believed a place was profitable enough to service, it was serviced. If it was difficult, expensive or inconvenient, communities could be left waiting. This bill changes that starting point. It recognises that outdoor mobile coverage is not just another consumer product; it is part of the national safety net. This bill is a commitment to making sure that such a safety net is fit for purpose so that, when the worst happens, you can always reach out for help.

I also want to make this point clearly. A universal obligation cannot just be understood as a regional policy issue. Of course, regional and remote communities face some of the most serious and dangerous coverage gaps in the country, and this bill is a major step forward for them, but the principle behind the bill is much broader than that. The principle is that Australians should not be left disconnected simply because the market has not delivered reliable coverage where people live, work, commute and gather. That principle applies on a remote road. It applies on a farm. It applies in a national park. Just as we are saying that we are a mobile-first country, we must also accept that the principle applies when individuals are just trying to use their phones for the basics of everyday life in urban Sydney as well.

This problem of mobile coverage cuts right to the heart of our densely populated and urban communities, like the suburb of Carlton in my electorate of Barton. Carlton is a growing suburb that is home to a culturally diverse community of young families, students, small businesses and essential workers. Many would assume that, being less than 15 kilometres outside of Sydney CBD, Carlton is well within a fully serviced and urban telecommunications environment. Yet, for many of my constituents, mobile coverage is poor and, to their frustration, has remained so for many years.

Let me begin with one of the most notorious and persistently experienced issues: lack of connectivity at the Carlton railway station. During peak commuting hours, hundreds of residents pass through Carlton Station, commuting to and from work and attempting to access mobile data at the same time. The result is predictable: networks become overwhelmed and speeds drop dramatically, and that's if you're lucky. In most cases, service becomes entirely unusable. Constituents tell me that when they're near the station they cannot send any text messages, check emails, make calls or access transport apps for service updates. In a modern city, in a major transport hub, this is simply unacceptable.

This problem is compounded by the nature of housing in Carlton. The suburb is increasingly characterised by high-rise and high-density residential developments. While these developments are very much essential to meeting Sydney's housing needs, they also present unique challenges for telecommunications infrastructure. Residents report that their fixed line internet services through the NBN are unreliable and slow, in particular, during peak usage times. In these circumstances, mobile data is not a luxury; it is a necessary backup. Without it, residents are left with no reliable means of connectivity at all. The consequences of poor mobile coverage are not mere inconvenience; they are punitive. I've heard from constituents who have been threatened with fines because they were unable to produce a digital driver's licence or valid transport ticket when requested by authorities. In an age where government services are increasingly digitalised, we must ensure that the infrastructure underpinning those services is reliable. It is fundamentally unfair to expect compliance with digital requirements when the means to access them cannot be guaranteed.

Carlton is also one of the most multicultural suburbs in our nation. For many residents, English is not their first language. These constituents rely heavily on translation apps to navigate daily life, whether it's communicating through service providers, interpreting governmental services and health information or interacting with authorities. When mobile coverage fails so too does the community's ability to access these essential tools. A digital divide is not just a technology issue; it is a matter of inclusion, equity and social cohesion. The impact extends further still into the local economy. Carlton's small businesses depend on reliable mobile connectivity for their day-to-day operations. From processing digital payments to managing online orders and communicating with customers, mobile service is integral to the modern commerce in Carlton. When coverage is poor, transactions fail, productivity drops and customer confidence is eroded. For small businesses already operating on tight margins, these disruptions can have serious financial consequences.

One of the frustrations I hear from these constituents is that coverage maps do not always reflect the lived experience. A map may show that an area is technically covered, but that does not mean a person can reliably use their phone when they need to. There is a difference between theoretical coverage and usable coverage. If your phone shows one bar but the call drops, that is not meaningful coverage. If a text message will not send, that is not meaningful coverage. If a person has to walk around a street corner and hold their phone up in the air or wait until they leave the station precinct before they can connect, that is not the standard Australians should expect. This is why the language of the bill is important. It focuses on coverage being 'reasonably available'. That phrase matters, because availability cannot just mean something that exists on paper. It has to mean something that works in practice.

I acknowledge that some of the issues in Carlton I've raised go beyond the narrowest reading of this bill. This bill is principally about baseline outdoor mobile coverage, with a particular focus on voice calls and SMS. It is not by itself a complete answer to the congestion, indoor reception, mobile data reliability or every local black spot. But that is exactly why it's worth raising Carlton in this debate. Carlton shows how quickly the line between basic coverage and modern connectivity is blurred. A phone call, a text message, a digital licence, a transport update, a translation app and a payment system are all part of the same basic expectation that when people are out in their community their phone will work. This bill starts with the most fundamental part of that expectation. It says that outdoor mobile coverage should be reasonably available across Australia on an equitable basis.

That is the right foundation, but as the technology develops and as the minister considers future designated mobile telecommunications services the lived experience of communities like Carlton must be part of that conversation. We should not build a framework that only asks whether a signal technically exists. We should build one that asks whether people can actually rely on the signal when they need it. This bill, with its evolving framework and its commitment to recognising new technology as it comes into the system, provides a strong, stable foundation for better mobile coverage across Australia. It means that we will not be locked into legislation that considered the landline to be the be-all and end-all as we were before. I hope that this bill sends a clear message to providers: coverage should span the whole of Australia, it should allow you to make calls in an emergency and it should not fail when you're simply using your phone to complete the small but essential necessities of everyday life.

This bill is an important step in modernising Australia's telecommunications framework. It recognises that mobile coverage is no longer a convenience. It's a basic part of how people stay safe, access services, participate in the economy and go about their daily lives. The Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation sets a clear expectation that, wherever reasonably possible, Australians should have access to baseline outdoor mobile coverage. That matters in the regions, it matters on our highways, on farms and in our remote communities, and it matters in suburbs like Carlton, where people are still dealing with the frustration and unfairness of unreliable mobile service in the middle of a major city. The example of Carlton shows why this work is so important. It reminds us that the coverage gaps are not always where people expect them to be. They can exist in dense, growing, multicultural communities close to the CBD where thousands of people rely on their phones every day to commute, work, study and run a business, translate information, access government services or even keep in touch with their family.

This bill will not fix every telecommunications problem overnight. It will not, by itself, solve every issue with congestion, mobile data, indoor reception and every local black spot, but it does set the right foundation. It treats outdoor mobile coverage as essential infrastructure and gives us a flexible framework that can respond as direct-to-device technology develops and as community expectations change. That is the practical value of this reform. It moves us away from an outdated model built around landlines and towards a framework that reflects how Australians actually live.

A mobile phone is now how many Australians call for help, receive emergency information, access transport updates, produce a digital licence, make payments, contact family and interact with essential services. The law needs to recognise that reality. For communities across the country and for the constituents in Carlton and in my whole electorate, this bill sends a clear message: reliable mobile coverage matters and the standard we accept must keep rising. I commend the bill to the House.

In the 21st century in Australia, reliable phone coverage is not a lifestyle extra. It's not a consumer perk. It's foundational national infrastructure. It underpins our relationships, our families, our businesses and even our safety. Phone coverage isn't just an issue in far-out regional areas. In Sydney, in the seat of Cook, we face this all the time. Constituents are continually raising concerns about persistent mobile black spots and poor reception, including in the Miranda region, which includes one of the largest Westfields in Sydney. We're not talking about an area in some remote, far-flung part of Australia, which also should demand good coverage. We are talking about Sydney. It's not a minor inconvenience.

I'd like to read some of the feedback I am getting from constituents about this, particularly about the T4 line. Again, this is not some far-flung, regional line. This is a line that services 410,000 customers per day, or one-third of Sydney Trains' customers. Rail patronage on the T4 line grew by 17 per cent, meaning they were operating at or above capacity. The T4 line is the most crowded line on the rail network during the morning peak, with passenger loads averaging 144 per cent of seated capacity and 75 per cent of services operating above target capacity. Here we have a line that is flat-chat full.

Let me read you some of the correspondence I have had about this line. Starting in Cronulla, it is also the line at Sutherland, going all the way into the city. Here is an email to Transport NSW that I was copied in on by a constituent, and this is what Transport NSW had to say:

Thank you for your feedback regarding the internet and phone connectivity along the T4 line from Cronulla to Martin Place. I understand how important it is for many to have Wi-Fi access while travelling, and I am sorry for the frustration it may cause

As you can appreciate, Wi-Fi relies on mobile reception to provide a consistent connection. There are currently a number of blackspots along the Blue Mountains and South Coast lines.

Please also be advised that there are no immediate plans to introduce Wi-Fi on trains, however your feedback has been forwarded to our service planning area for future consideration.

For further enquiries about your cellular connectivity, it is best that you reach out directly to your service provider and ask what changes may be made in the area to their infrastructure.

We reached out to both Telstra and Vodafone, and here is what the constituent had to say to me in response to both this and their responses:

What a disappointing non-response; I really did expect to hear that someone in your organisation would care about the connectivity concerns and productivity of the customers of the T4 line—and would have plans to remediate the issue.

Please escalate this further up your management chain as a matter of high importance to your customers. I have copied in my local federal and state member so that they are aware of your response as I had previously asked the question of both of them.

I am sure we have all personally experienced what happens when a residential person calls a telco—

So the solution needs to be from government. The constituent goes on to say:

Hopefully there is a near future state where we can all work together to solve problems rather than ignore them—or put the work back onto the customer to drive a solution. As a suggestion, perhaps you can engage with the telcos yourself to apply pressure for the changes required; a regulatory solution on minimum standards could also be the answer.

Here is another email from a constituent who wrote to me about what it was like in Cronulla:

I am not sure if this is in your remit, however train passengers from Cronulla to Sutherland suffer phone and internet blackspots at Woolooware tunnel, Kirrawee station (complete lack of any connectivity) and, if they go further, the Jannali cutting and of course, the complete technology blackout underground from Sydenham.

That's before they leave home at Cronulla where calls go straight to voicemail and you can't get decent internet connection especially around 3pm in the afternoon.

Is there any pressure that can be put on providers to upgrade their technology to a first world offering? Any support or suggestions you can provide would be appreciated.

Here is another one in Kirrawee:

I raised my concerns about the phone reception at my home.

…   …   …

I moved to a villa in May 2022 and immediately noticed that I had very limited mobile service with Telstra. One bar if I am lucky.

I raised my concerns with Telstra and the ombudsman, with no remedy unless I want to install an expensive antenna, as it is a strata complex this would be extra difficult to get approval for.

I had to upgrade my mobile phone to one that I could get calls through WI FI. This has solved the problem as long as there is no outage with the NBN or power. I work at home 3 days a week, when there is a power outage I am completely cut off from my colleagues.

A number of my neighbours are elderly and they are very concerned that in an emergency, it could be difficult to call someone.

This is a line in an area with over 400,000 passengers per day. Think about the lost productivity of these people. Even worse, it's a train line. Let's think about this from a safety perspective. It's in the middle of Sydney. How can Telstra, Vodafone and the other providers allow this to happen in Australia's largest city? It's meant to be one of the premier cities in the world, and we have a black spot for one of our busiest train lines in the country. This has to stop.

We've written to Telstra and we've written to Vodafone, and I will keep fighting for my constituents. We will not stop until we get services on this T4 line and we fix the black spots in Kirrawee and Miranda. I also have constituents in Lilli Pilli, where it faces the national park, writing to me. This is a high bushfire danger zone in Sydney where they don't have mobile phone reception. This area has been subject to bushfires in the past. We have residents there who have completely no phone reception. Again, I have written to Telstra, and Telstra has been found wanting, so it's time for government to step up.

My message is to both Telstra and the Labor government. Telstra, you must fix these black spots. We will not stop until you fix the black spots along the T4 line, around Kirrawee station, around Miranda station and down at Lilli Pilli near the national park. If you don't, I will fight for this Labor government to force you to fix these areas, because this isn't a fringe concern.

You can't tell me there's a cost-benefit analysis that doesn't make sense when up to 400,000 people are using that line. That's four times the size of Accor Stadium. They're on that train every single day. I hope it's fine and safe, but you shudder to think of what would happen if there were serious injuries or a serious incident there. It doesn't even have to be that. It could be someone experiencing a heart attack or heart difficulty. It could be some random occurrence. What could happen on these train lines where people are left flailing without assistance is limitless. This is a First World country, and it's the biggest city in the country. It's one of the premier cities in the world, and we don't have phone reception? It beggars belief.

I'm sick of the Sutherland Shire being screwed by governments—the Labor federal government, the Labor state government and the Labor aligned Sutherland Shire Council. We've had enough. We overshot our housing targets last term. The Sutherland Shire has increased the amount of housing. We're one of the few local councils that increases our housing targets. We're taking all these extra people, in part because of these reckless immigration policies. But we're getting screwed on the infrastructure while Western Sydney is getting train lines, metros, light rails, new schools and budgets.

I walk around my electorate. I go and visit all the schools. I'm watching kids using demountable toilets without toilet rolls. I can't find a primary school where they can fit the whole school in any of the halls. There are still school rooms without air conditioning in the Sutherland Shire. There's mould in some of these primary schools that I'm seeing. There are demountable buildings everywhere, and we're overshooting our housing targets. Why are we getting screwed on infrastructure? Why are we getting screwed with mobile phone black spots and insufficient school infrastructure? The roads are a disaster. They're building the M4 and stopping it before it hits the Sutherland Shire. It's got a sinkhole. They're not extending that. There are no new road upgrades.

I see Premier Minns is now looking at putting 4,300 apartments in Kurnell. It's got one road in and one road out—no public transport—and the phone reception there can be terrible. You drive to Kurnell, and you lose the signal every single time. This isn't some far-flung back heap of Australia. This is the place where the meeting of two cultures first occurred. It's where Captain Cook landed. This should be as important as the Opera House and as Bennelong and should be celebrated as much. We can't even get phone reception, and we just want to chuck in 4,300 apartments without any new infrastructure, new roads or new schools? They don't even plan to build a school. Well, Cronulla High School and Kurnell Public School have fallen demountables already. Where are these people going to go?

Stop screwing the Sutherland Shire. I've had enough of it. The citizens of the Sutherland Shire have had enough of it, and we're going to stand up. We can't have all of this development if we don't get the infrastructure. The Sutherland Shire has been overlooked for far too long. We've got a Labor federal government, a Labor state government and a Labor aligned council. We need these people to stick up. These should be bipartisan issues. I'm willing to work with them. I'm willing to put the partisan attacks away if we can see a plan. Let's start with fixing these mobile phone towers and black spots on one of the busiest lines in the busiest city in one of the best countries in the world. Let's fix them in Kirrawee, Miranda and Lilli Pilli, and let's invest in the infrastructure my people deserve.

If we look at the full bill itself, there are some good things. But we need to start thinking about the triple zero consequences and failure. This communications policy isn't theoretical. We've already seen what happens when people try to call triple zero and it doesn't connect. If you've got no phone reception, it can't connect. The recent history of triple zero is showing that newly emerging device compatibility issues have shaken public confidence in the system. Senate inquiries have exposed troubling governance and shortcomings and highlighted the gaps in oversight and governance. We had the tragic loss of two Australians following device incompatibility issues. This underscores the seriousness of communication failures. This is even more serious than device incompatibility. It doesn't matter if you have a device if you can't get access at all.

Australians can't afford another botched rollout, and people in the Sutherland shire can't either. We need assurances from this government that systems will be put in place that won't leave Australians with older handsets left behind and won't leave residents in the Sutherland shire behind. We're doing the heavy lifting on population. We met our targets. We're densifying. You can't find a park anywhere around Cronulla. You can't find a park anywhere around Sutherland shire hospital. We're doing the heavy lifting. We are the unsung heroes of Sydney. We don't complain. We don't kick up a fuss but we are sick of being taken for granted. I'm sick of receiving these emails and having nothing to show for it. I'm going to fight for the people in my electorate. I'm going to fight the federal Labor government, I'm going to fight the state Labor government and I'm going to fight the Labor aligned local council to see us get the infrastructure we deserve. It starts with mobile phone towers, but it doesn't end there; we'll look to schools, we'll look to roads and we'll look to parking.

We can't just keep having endless amounts of population growth with no infrastructure to show for it. Why is it that Western Sydney gets a metro? Why is it that Western Sydney gets light rail? Why is it that Western Sydney gets school after school? Why is it getting WestConnex? Where's 'SouthConnex'? Why are we cut off from the rest of the city? There might be passports on the bridge when you get down there. We might not always like everyone coming to visit, but I'll tell you what: we're building enough houses for them. And if we're building the houses for them, we should be getting the infrastructure for them too.

There is some structural reform in this bill, and structural reform of this scale warrants comprehensive parliamentary examination before it's locked into law. We want to make sure the definitions, the enforcement mechanisms, the spectrum allocation, the pricing implications and the device compatibility all get the detailed interrogation they deserve. Most importantly, we want to see how this will be physically delivered, developed, scrutinised and put into action—so we are calling for more scrutiny on this bill. Given the government's record on 3G and triple zero, due diligence on this isn't optional; it's essential.

The coalition has a proud track record on telecommunications. We've invested in regional connectivity and backing programs that deliver practical improvements on the ground, but we realise some of these issues have existed for a long time. So let's work together bipartisanly; I offer that, and I'm willing to do that in the Sutherland shire, but I need to see a plan for how we're going to give the people of the Sutherland shire the infrastructure they deserve. They're sick of being screwed over, and I'm sick of them being screwed over. I'm sick of these complaints and emails coming into my inbox and having nothing to show for it. Well, this stops now. We've got a petition to get the Sutherland shire the infrastructure they deserve, and I won't stop fighting until we deliver that outcome.

Well done, Member for Cook, on that passionate speech—a great local member for the Sutherland shire. I said in my first speech almost four years ago—

To quote yourself!

To quote myself, Member for Bruce—that 'the difference between a working phone line can be life and death'. That was in reference to my experience during the Black Saturday bushfires and also the June storms of 2021 that hit my community. My family and I lived those disasters, as so many in our community did, and we lived firsthand the experience and the vulnerability you feel when you can't call for help, when you realise that you're alone and that if something had happened to the people you love there would be no-one to come and help you. There is no greater sense of helplessness, fear and frustration that you have than when you don't have the ability to call for help. That experience I've lived, and my family has lived, is lived by hundreds of thousands of people in our community every single day all across this country.

But I've also seen the other side of the equation. Twelve months ago, just before the election—on the eve, actually, of the last election—there was a car accident in front of my house. A gentleman unfortunately had gone straight into a tree. I and a couple of neighbours were looking to help get him out of the car as it looked like it might start burning. We were lucky that my neighbour's wife was able to call the emergency services. There is no greater sound in the world, when you are trying, with no expertise and no skills, to help someone get out of a car that might come alight, than the sound of those sirens that came to help that community member and to help us. So I want to pay tribute very quickly to the Coldstream CFA, the Lilydale CFA, the local SES, Ambulance Victoria and Victoria Police, who were all there. All of our emergency services turned out to help that accident victim, and that was because we were able to call for help.

But let's imagine another scenario. It's a scenario I haven't lived but which many in Australia have. Let's imagine you're in a regional town. You might be in the great Gippsland area, which is so well represented by the member for Gippsland; I'm sure there are roads like this in Gippsland. You are driving along, and you come across an accident. You've come across a car that's hit a tree. You pull out your phone, and you go to call the emergency services. You look at your phone, and there's no reception. You have no ability to call for help for that community member. You're left with a choice. If you're fortunate, you might have two people in the car, and one person could stay with that accident victim and do the best they can with what they've got, and the other person could drive to the nearest town or farmhouse and hope that they're home and they've got a landline, or hope that they come into reception.

The sad reality in 2026 in Australia is that that's happening every day. There's a fair chance that that's a lived experience of someone today in regional Australia. That is why it is so important that we make sure that we get this legislation right. That's before we even talk about the basic standard that people all across Australia deserve to be able to call their friends, their families and their loved ones. Isolation is a significant issue. If you're at home, living in regional Australia, rural Australia or even suburban Australia and outer urban areas like my electorate of Casey, and you can't call your friends, you do feel isolated. You feel alone whether there is a disaster or you just want to say hello and catch up with someone.

The intent is right. We absolutely want to provide coverage for everyone. But, unfortunately, like so many things that this government does, the intent might be good, but the delivery has to be there. The concern I have with this legislation is not with the legislation itself—as I said, the intent is there—but the minister who has carriage of this legislation has a track record of not being able to deliver when it comes to important legislation. We saw this minister, when they were the Minister for Aged Care, fail to support the aged-care industry and aged-care residents. They needed to be reshuffled across to communications. We've seen that failure when it came to the triple zero debacle and the 3G debacle. We've seen that with the social media ban—a big announcement. We saw them fly to New York and spend over $100,000 of taxpayer money for a five- or six-minute speech to claim all the glory of the legislation. Speak to any high-school kid, though. I've got a son in year 7, and he has said to me that all his mates are on social media. I still valiantly keep him off social media. Let's hope he actually listens to his dad.

Listen to your dad.

I know. He probably doesn't; I live in hope, Member for Bruce! The reality is that kids these days are still on social media. It's not working. So there is a track record of this minister having big announcements and complete failure on delivery.

This is too important to fail. This is about people's lives. It's about their standard of living. It's about making sure they can call their families, their friends and their loved ones. If they have an emergency, they can get the help they need. If they come across an emergency, they can get that support. So we'll continue to scrutinise the rollout of this legislation. We'll make sure it goes to a committee process. We know and we've seen this week that this government does not like scrutiny. They do not like committee processes. We will hold this government to account.

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

There's broad support in my electorate for tax changes to fix the broken housing market. People understand that capital gains tax and negative gearing rules have priced out young people for their first home, and that needs to change. But many have also raised concerns about the government's planned reforms disincentivising investments in startups and small businesses. I've surveyed my constituents about this, and three in four respondents supported CGT carve-outs for founders, recognising that passive property gains and active business gains are different. But beyond the startup and tech sector, I've also heard from small-business owners who have put in years of hard work, often forgoing salaries and super, with the expectation that their business would support their retirement. While existing small-business CGT concessions will remain, there are 175,000 small businesses that won't be eligible. These larger small businesses do a lot of heavy lifting on productivity and employment.

Thankfully, there's a simple tweak that could go a long way. Lifting the eligibility threshold for the small-business CGT concessions from $2 million in annual turnover to $10 million would cover all small businesses and align the concessions with the ATO's definition of small business. The government is undertaking consultation on this issue, and I welcome their willingness to engage. I urge them not to rush but ensure that these important reforms work for young people and a productive economy.

Measures in the federal budget with respect to tax incentives for venture capital reflect this government's understanding that we need to create an investment climate which encourages more capital to come into this country and which rewards innovation and risk taking. The budget seeks to improve the early-stage venture capital limited partnership and venture capital limited partnership tax incentives by adjusting for inflation and increasing caps on investee business assets and maximum fund sizes. This measure is getting lost in the noise, but we need to shout about it because it is a measure that directly encourages venture capital investment in Australian businesses.

Tax concessions will be available where early-stage venture capital limited partnerships invest in businesses with assets up to $80 million at the time of investment. This is up from the $50 million asset cap set in 2007. Investors may be able to access tax concessions with respect to investee businesses with assets up to $420 million, up from the $250 million cap set 20 years ago. Tax concessions will be available where venture capital limited partnerships invest in businesses with assets up to $480 million at the time of investment, up from $250 million set in 2002. The budget significantly increases these thresholds that have constrained these programs for over two decades. It deliberately encourages the type of private equity environment we need in this country and supports startups and early-stage companies.

There are a number of four-letter words that MPs are unable to use in this place, and rightly so. They're unparliamentary. They're not reflective of civil discourse in a polite Australian society. Of course, we, with the rest of Australia, may think them, but they don't leave our lips in this place. Recently, we've seen the enforcement of another four-letter word that is used in general discourse—a word that someone might be called for being dishonest, distrustful, evasive or false with their representations. The word, while unflattering, is valid when used in the correct situation. I won't use that word today, but I will call out a consistent approach to question time from those opposite that Australians are sick of seeing, and that is divert, deflect and deny.

This week, I asked a direct question from a constituent relating to the slashing of the private healthcare rebate for those over 65. This is a serious concern with serious consequences not only for older Australians struggling to pay their bills but for the public health system, more broadly. Instead of answering, the PM chose to play semantics and denied the issue. Many of those affected reached out to me yesterday, and I can tell you they did use the four-letter L-word. How can you trust a government if they refuse to answer basic questions?

This government is about delivery, and we are delivering for communities all across the country, including multicultural communities. As the Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Nepal and the representative of an electorate that is home to a growing Nepali Australian community, I am pleased to report that, with the support of federal funding, the Nepalese community will have a place in the heart of my electorate in Riverwood to celebrate Australia's Nepalese culture and share it with the broader community through programs and events.

This includes sharing auspicious days like the one coming up tomorrow. The 29 May is Sagarmatha Day, celebrating the anniversary of the first summit of the world's tallest peak, Mount Everest, by Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary, in 1953. Importantly, Sagarmatha day has grown from a recognition of a mountaineering milestone into a celebration of Nepali culture and achievement, as well as an opportunity to highlight important global issues. The theme for the FeNCAA event this year is 'Melting Ice, Rising Responsibility', highlighting the impact of climate change on the Himalayan environment.

I look forward to joining the Nepalese community both from my electorate and from across Sydney at celebrations over the next few days, and I cannot wait to join celebrations in future years at the new space in Riverwood thanks to Labor's delivery.

AI is already reshaping our economy, our labour markets and our information environment. The scale of potential change is enormous, but Australia has done remarkably little to prepare. The government has identified broad goals for AI while implementing very little actual policy to achieve them. In the absence of this leadership, our future is being shaped by overseas tech companies and the billionaires who run them. This is why we're seeing a backlash against AI.

I'm releasing an AI discussion paper. In it, I address one simple question: what should we be doing now to build a future with AI that works for us? The paper contains 18 policy recommendations across five areas, setting up the structures to govern AI, actively capturing the opportunities, dealing with current harms, preparing for emerging risks and sharing the benefits of AI with all Australians. The policy recommendations are practical, no-regrets steps that should be taken now. They deal with issues like deepfakes, unhealthy relationships between children and AI chatbots, improving research and productivity and taxing AI companies so we can all share in the economic benefits. It's time to move from talk to action—from being passive to proactive. The risks of AI won't manage themselves, and the benefits won't just magically appear either. This is about shaping a future that works for Australia and Australians, not international tech companies.

No parent wants to hear that their child has cancer. It is a truly horrific experience. But what might be worse is the moment you are told a bone marrow transplant could save their lives, but, sadly, there is no match. We got that news, and my 19-year-old boy, Henry, passed in February 2024, after an 18-month battle with leukemia.

Today is World Blood Cancer Day. More than 145,000 Australians, many of them young Aussies like my Henry, are battling a blood cancer and many need a stem cell transplant or a bone marrow transplant to live. Australia is failing kids like Henry because we are one of the worst countries in the developed world for stem cell donations—a simple saliva test or sample. Why? That is something that has haunted me for two years. Aussies are generous people. We do so well with our blood donations. Why is it so difficult? Since coming to this place, I have had many conversations about this issue and have met with many organisations who operate in this space. I am hopeful for change. I was pleased to hear in the House this week that the Albanese Labor government has released a tender to do this important work and will work with the successful tenderer and the states to increase donors. Saliva tests should not be this hard.

This budget has not gone down like a lead balloon. It has gone down like a lead zeppelin. The best way of describing the attempts of the Prime Minister and Treasurer to explain it would be 'dazed and confused'. There are three main reasons why it has gone down like a lead zeppelin.

Firstly, it was predicated on a mistruth. The Prime Minister said 'for the 50th time' that negative gearing and capital gains tax were off the table. That was just over a year ago. Now, one year in, they've snuck it through the door. The Australian people do not appreciate that way of running an election campaign. You deceive them by saying you're going to do one thing and a year later do something completely different.

Secondly, they can't explain it. The member for Gippsland asked a perfectly reasonable question about farm trusts tax treatment and CGT, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry couldn't explain it.

Thirdly, it's just unfair. People spend so much time and effort setting these businesses up. For the government to slug them with all of this capital gains tax is just not fair. As I said in this place yesterday, if the Treasurer and the Prime Minister want that money, they should be setting up the businesses. They should be helping out. They should be helping. They should be doing fencing on a farm. They should be pulling calves out of cows at three o'clock in the morning, planting fruit trees and doing all of that hard work that you have to do to get a capital gain. The government wants to treat them as a cash register. It's not good enough.

This year's federal budget is about helping people now while making responsible changes for the years ahead. It delivers cost of living relief, strengthens fuel security, lifts productivity and reforms our tax system to address longstanding housing challenges. In health, we continue to strengthen and invest in Medicare. The Albanese Labor government is delivering $1.8 billion to make Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of our health system. The clinics are fully bulk-billed, walk in, open for extended hours and designed for urgent but non-life-threatening care. They are essential to the health of our communities.

In my community of Griffith, the South Brisbane, Coorparoo and Carina clinics have already seen more than 40,000 presentations. This means a parent can get help for a child with a fever, a worker can get treated for a minor injury and an older person can be seen after a fall. Our community loves them. I recently heard from Rebecca, a single mother from Coorparoo. She wrote in to me about her local clinic. She said:

I just wanted to thank you for the Urgent Care Clinic as I am not always able to afford to see a doctor due to being on Centrelink payments, studying and being a single mother of two kids.

Today I had incredible tooth pain after having a tooth pulled and it becoming infected.

Thank you dearly for providing this walk-in clinic.

It is so helpful and beneficial to people on the lower socio-economic side of life.

This story speaks volumes about why these clinics matter. This is what strengthening Medicare looks like, and this is what this budget delivers.

We all know the recent budget was a disaster. However, there's an initiative that I do welcome, and that is the $10.7 billion fuel security package, comprising $7.5 billion to establish a fuel and fertiliser security facility, $3.2 billion for a government owned Australian fuel security reserve and $10 million for a feasibility study into new or expanded refining capacity. Gladstone is ready to take the next bold step forward. A new oil refining and fuel storage facility would deliver long-term, high quality jobs; attract significant private investment; and strengthen Australia's fuel security at a time when it has never been more critical. Our region already has the foundations in place: a world-class port, a highly skilled workforce and a long established industrial base that continues to deliver for both Queensland and the nation. It is a clear opportunity to build on that strength and secure Gladstone's future as a powerhouse of industry and energy. With the right backing, this project can drive economic growth, support local businesses and provide greater certainty for families across Central Queensland. Importantly, it would also reduce our reliance on imported fuel, improving resilience in times of global uncertainty. By supporting this development, we can deliver real opportunity, stronger communities and lasting energy security not just for Gladstone but for Australia as a whole.

What has become clear since the delivery of the budget is that those opposite have no desire to help our young people live the Australian dream by owning their own home. On this side of the House, we are reforming a tax system that, unlike what those opposite have claimed, has only acted to increase the cost of housing and done nothing to address its supply. When house prices have grown by 400 per cent since 1999, you know that reform is needed. That's why we're levelling the playing field. Combined with our five per cent deposit program, we're shifting the scales in favour of aspiring first homebuyers. In my electorate alone, over 2,200 first home buyers have accessed the five per cent deposit scheme. Alongside this, we are investing in projects to ensure that housing supply increases, including over $18 million into infrastructure in my community of Bean to unlock future housing, and we're extending the bans on foreign property investors buying existing homes.

On this side of the house, we have the courage to stand up for younger Australians and are proud to do so. We take no shame in backing in our future generations every opportunity we can.

I want to acknowledge the extraordinary services and sacrifices of Australian veterans and members of the Australian Defence Force and the immense contribution they and their families make to our nation. The coalition strongly opposes Labor's $5,000 annual cap on veterans allied health services. These supports are essential, including psychology, physiotherapy, exercise physiology and occupational therapy, and help veterans manage the physical and psychological impacts of their service. For many, this care is not occasional. It's ongoing and life sustaining. A cap like this risks delaying treatment, reduces appointments and ultimately worsens health outcomes, placing greater pressure on families, community services and our hospitals.

At the same time, older Australians are already under significant cost-of-living pressures. Labor's proposed changes to private health insurance rebates for people over 65 will increase premiums for around 1.4 million seniors. That means some will be forced to downgrade or even drop their cover altogether, shifting pressure back onto our already stretched hospital system.

We should be strengthening healthcare support, not making it harder to access care and not making more expensive to stay covered. I'll continue to stand up for veterans, and I'll continue to stand up for seniors in the electorate of Wright and oppose every change, every step of the way. Today, Labor is pushing tax hikes on millions of Australians through its new laws. We will oppose them. (Time expired)

The Albanese Labor government is strengthening Medicare like no government has done before. In my electorate of Aston in Melbourne's outer east, we are delivering more bulk-billing so more of my constituents can see a GP for free. Since Labor's reforms, a number of bulk-billing practices in my community has grown from 10 to now 27 bulk billing practices. There's also been the opening of the Maroondah Medicare urgent care clinic in Bayswater. Since it opened a few years back, the clinic has seen more than 22,500 visits, including one from my own daughter. People in Aston and the surrounding suburbs have been able to walk in, see a doctor or a nurse, receive the care they need and not pay a cent. And that is why Labor is making urgent care clinics a permanent part of Medicare.

Under Labor, medicines are cheaper. The maximum cost of a PBS script is now just $25, while concession card holders pay only $7.70. In Aston alone, there have been more than 2.7 million cheaper scripts delivered under Labor's cheaper medicine changes, with 99 million cheaper scripts across Victoria.

Labor is also delivering record funding for public hospitals, expanding Medicare mental health clinics across Australia and taking women's health seriously through endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics and contraceptives now listed on the PBS. On this side of the chamber, we know that Australians deserve quality healthcare without worrying about the cost, and under the Albanese Labor government, that's exactly what they're receiving.

In this place 16 days ago, Labor delivered a budget of broken promises, higher taxes, lower living standards and fewer homes. And it reminded me of a phrase: 'sweet 16 never been kissed'. Can I tell you, in the last 16 days, this budget is loveless amongst Australians. No-one likes it. I can say that Australians don't just want tweaks. They don't want carve outs. They want these taxes axed. The Labor Party has shown its true form here, reverting to its actual type—high taxing, high spending.

In contrast, the coalition are the only people in this place who will deliver lower taxes for Australians. This budget kills aspiration. Just ask Keryn Spriggs and Scott Cumming from Aquamarine Services in my electorate who wrote to me on Monday this week. This is what they said.

We are working harder and harder in the boating industry on the Gold Coast and our costs are just increasing year on year.

We do not support the proposed changes to Capital Gains Tax proposed by the government or negative gearing changes.

This is the true story of how this budget is hitting real Australians. Now, today, Labor is pushing tax hikes on millions of Australians through these new laws. We as a coalition will stand united and oppose them. We will fight Labor's taxes, and, when we are elected, we will axe them.

This is a budget for aspiration. If you are a young Australian trying to get into a home, this is a budget for you. We know that housing prices have risen more than twice as fast as average incomes have. A lot of young people now need to go to the bank of mum and dad to buy a home, and obviously that's not available to everyone. But, even then, homeownership for young Territorians is in decline. The federal government's tax changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will help more Australians get into the housing market. These changes are prospective. They'll support more first home buyers to enter the housing market over time. We are exempting new builds. These changes are part of a package of reforms that also include the Last Mile infrastructure for roads, water and power that will support increased housing supply. That's combined with the federal Labor government's five per cent deposit scheme for first home buyers, which has helped 1,350 young people in the electorate of Solomon. That's young people in Darwin and Palmerston, first home buyers, 1,350, helped to purchase a home with that five per cent home deposit scheme. We're also helping with more tax cuts—two more tax cuts—a $250 Working Australians tax offset combined with an automatic $1,000 tax deduction. We're supporting Territorians and Australians.

Labor is pushing tax hikes on millions of Australians, and we will oppose them. We'll axe Labor's toxic taxes and deliver far bigger tax cuts for all income earners. Nearly 2,000 Berowra residents have responded to my survey on Labor's tax changes, and the message is loud and clear. The vast majority know these measures will worsen Australia's economy and make it harder for families to invest, save and get ahead. Labor's policy was rejected by Australians in 2019. It shifts the goalposts for families and makes it harder for the next generation to accumulate wealth and afford a home. By its own admission, Labor's policy will result in 35,000 fewer homes. Labor's changes add massive complexity, creating a bonanza for accountants and lawyers, and place another heavy regulatory burden on small business.

Berowra has the third-highest rates of negative gearing in Australia. Labor's changes hurt those people. It drives up rents. It penalises young investors who are building wealth through shares and other assets, and it discourages businesses risk taking and succession planning. We will oppose Labor's taxes in the parliament and repeal them in government. In the past three days, the comments have been flying in. Jyotsna warned that the trust changes feel like 'double tax'. Jocelyn added:

I'm very worried about the direction Australia is heading in and it is NOT the wonderful prosperous country that I grew up in.

Mike told us:

Nowhere in the world has a government managed to tax its way to prosperity.

Menny warned:

Don't change the rules halfway through the game.

And Evan said:

Never trust a leftie.

Berowra has spoken. It's time to axe the tax.

When my parents bought their first home 40 years ago, the dream of homeownership was within reach. A home cost about three times the average household income, and you could save for a deposit in just four years. When I bought my first home 15 years ago, it had already become twice as hard. Homes were six times the average income, and it took eight years to save a deposit. Today, for a young Australian, it's even harder. Homes cost around nine times a typical household income, and it takes close to 12 years to save a deposit. In less than three generations, we've made it three times harder to buy a home—three times longer to save, homes cost three times more, relative to income. And that's not just a statistic; it's a whole generation locked out of homeownership. We need to fix this, and we are. At every budget, we've invested in building more homes and helping first home buyers. In this budget, we've delivered the biggest tax reforms in over a decade. Changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax for property investment will help level the playing field so more Australians can get a fair shot at owning a home.

This government was elected on a very clear promise: no changes to capital gains tax, no changes to negative gearing. The Prime Minister didn't say it once; he said it more than 50 times. But now—'We've changed our position. We've changed our minds.' This is yet another grievous broken promise, and it's one among many. If the Prime Minister can break this promise, which he repeated more than 50 times before an election, why would Australians trust a single thing he says after it?

You've got no cred, Prime Minister; you can't lie straight in bed, Prime Minister. So what's next, we all must ask; tax our homes—take that to task. On their utes in the driveways, tradies will pay; tax the kids' piggy banks away. Ask yourselves, Australians, which promise will be conveniently reinterpreted next? Which goalposts will be shifted? Because with this government every promise comes with an expiry date, a 'what if', a question mark, a maybe.

Aussies are still waiting for that broken promise of $275 off their power bills, Prime Minister. Before the election he says one thing; after the election he does another. Look at what Labor do, not at what they say. Because when Labor run out of money they come after yours.

The budget handed down just a few weeks ago is focused on delivery for everyday Aussies. Whether you're moving from Mum and Dad's, you've been a lifelong renter or you've recently gone solo and need a new home to live in, we are delivering for you. Amendments to capital gains tax and negative gearing on existing homes means we are creating an environment where it is easy to get more people into their own home.

For those wanting to create wealth through the housing market, we are maintaining negative gearing concessions on new builds. This encourages the building of new homes across Australia by increasing supply and addressing the housing shortage issue of the last few decades. But this isn't the only way we're delivering for Australians. We're creating a tax system that is fairer, easier to navigate and better suited to the modern Australian economy, because Australians shouldn't feel like they are being punished for getting ahead or putting in the extra hours at work.

More than 13 million working Australians will benefit from the lower taxes we are delivering and will see greater relief in their household budgets. This is about building an economy that rewards effort, drives investment and gives Australians confidence in the future. I'd like to remind everyone that nothing worth fighting for comes easy, and these tax changes are worthwhile for each and every single young person and person who doesn't have a home across this country that's looking to enter the housing market. We have to change the status quo, and that's exactly what this side of the House is doing.

This week the Prime Minister told parliament, 'It's time to be honest,' and every day this week we've asked him questions about his broken promises and higher taxes. We soon realised he can't answer any questions, because he doesn't even understand the budget. But we shouldn't be surprised, because it's not his budget. This is Bill Shorten's budget. This is the budget that Bill Shorten wanted to deliver in the lead-up to the 2019 election, and we all remember what happened then. Our friend the member for McMahon, like a beacon of truth in a sea of lies, said, 'If you don't like our policies, don't vote for us.' That was the only good advice he's ever given us.

There is a fundamental deceit behind this government, which was elected on deception and trickery. Not one of those opposite had the guts to tell the Australian people before the last election about their plans to change negative gearing, capital gains tax and trusts. They knew if they told the truth the Australian people wouldn't vote for them, so they misled. They obfuscated. They were loose with the truth. They fudged the facts and they told 'little white Albos' to avoid being honest with the Australian people. They all told these 'little white Albos' to avoid telling the truth. It's time for the Prime Minister to be honest. If you want to hit Australians with higher taxes, have the guts to take those changes to an election and let the people decide. (Time expired)

Because it's 90-second statements, I ask all members not to use those titles. Calling another member by their surname is not allowed under the standing orders. I'm going to be very clear about that. There are standards in this House.

Today is a big day. Today the Albanese government has commenced legal action in the Federal Court against 3M, seeking more than $2 billion in damages relating to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS contamination, at 28 defence bases across Australia, including RAAF Base Williamtown in my electorate. This issue is deeply personal to my community. It is deeply personal to me. In many respects, I became involved in this issue and ran for Paterson because of it. My community wanted answers, they wanted accountability and they wanted action. Williamtown has been the frontline of the battle from the very beginning.

The very first PFAS working group has been established. My community is the pilot community, and our residents are helping shape the national response that will follow. Defence has already spent $1.3 billion across the nation on remediation and established a national coordination group to respond to this contamination. But today's action sends a very clear message: this government stands up for Australians. Unlike the former government, which fought my community, this government is fighting for it. We stand up for communities that have carried the burden of contamination for too long, and we stand up to multinational companies when Australians deserve justice.

To my community, I say thank you for your tenacity, your resilience and your forbearance over many difficult years. I'm honoured to be your representative. I want to thank— (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor has refused to be honest with Australians about its plan for new toxic taxes, a lie that the government hid from Australians at the last election. Why doesn't the Prime Minister have the courage to take his toxic taxes to the next election?

I'm just going to rule on that. I'm ruling part of the question out regarding the use of the word 'lie', as all Speakers before me have done. The manager on a point of order?

On that ruling, on 14 May 2026, you said:

I think it's in the best interest for both sides not to be referring to any individuals, people or parties using that term.

Later, on 25 May 2026, you allowed a question to be asked of the Prime Minister which (a) contained the word 'lie' and (b) did this with a direct reference to the government. So I just ask: given that that has been allowed previously, why can't we use it again this time?

Because I've made it clear to the House subsequent to that, which the member understands. Resume your seat. I'm going to deal with this now. I've been reflecting on the language used over the last few weeks and, more recently, the vulgar language that has been used during 90-second statements, and I'm going to make my position clear today on this matter.

I don't want to allow any ambiguity around permitting accusations of lying in whatever carefully crafted form to continue. It does not support the dignity of this House and all of us as members. An accusation that a member has lied or deliberately misled is an imputation of an improper motive. This language is unparliamentary and has been ruled by successive Speakers, including when directed at governments or political parties. I have observed, when such accusations have been made in recent sittings, language has led to disruptive and disorderly behaviour in the chamber. I deem it undesirable from that perspective as well.

I want to also address the comments that have been made both in this place and outside of it about occasions when the approach about language has not been followed in a consistent way over the years. I've looked back at previous Speakers' rulings on this matter and the number of times each Speaker has asked a member to withdraw this exact type of words: Speaker Hawker, 10 times; Speaker Jenkins, 40 times; Speaker Slipper, six times; Speaker Burke, nine times; Speaker Bishop, 21; Speaker Smith, 13; and former Speaker Wallace, twice. So I want to make it very clear, as I've been doing: I intend to treat any accusations of lying as out of order, and I will continue to ask such accusations to be withdrawn and will not allow them as part of the questions. If this behaviour persists, members may find that they lose the call or lose their opportunity to ask a question. I'm following all Speakers before me for the last 40 years in such a way.

Well, we're changing—

Order! The member for Herbert will leave the chamber under 94(a). The Prime Minister has not even begun words.

The member for Herbert then left the chamber.

We are lifting the standards today.

Honourable members interjecting—

The Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Social Services, I heard both of those. We are going to improve standards today. This parliament has not been its best this week, in behaviour and language. I've made it clear how I expect the parliament to operate. I'm asking all members to join and make sure that we show respect to one another and behaviour is improved.

In the legislation that the Treasurer introduced this morning, it proposes to change the tax system to give young people a fair crack at a first home as well as to build more homes. That is what the legislation does. It also changes the way that capital gains tax is treated so that there's more fair treatment of income earned from working, which is how most Australians get their income and pay their bills and buy their food. Income earned from assets is something that is different from earning from working, and there's nothing wrong with that. But why is it that, for so long, so many have commentated that there's a disadvantage in income earned from working compared with income earned from assets?

In addition to that, there are two further changes. One is the thousand-dollar automatic tax deduction, something that will assist, particularly, low- and middle-income earners. The other change, of course, is our latest income tax reduction. We have introduced reduction after reduction after reduction after reduction after reduction—five lots of income tax reduction.

The Leader of the Opposition is going to take his point of order.

On relevance, the question was very clear in asking why the Prime Minister hasn't got the guts to take his toxic taxes to an election.

Order! Adding extra words as part of the point of order is disorderly. I remind all members, when they're taking points of order, just to state that it's on relevance without extra commentary.

The Leader of the Opposition was triggered when I was talking about reducing income taxes. Immediately, you speak about reducing taxes, and they get upset. They've never been more angry than when we reduce income taxes for working Australians, which is what the legislation that we've introduced today will do. We're giving every member a chance—for some of whom this might be the last chance they have—to vote on income tax reductions. Over and over again, those opposite voted against the changes to stage 3 tax cuts. They voted against the income tax cuts when we introduced them in the last budget. They went to an election saying they would increase taxation for 14 million Australians and managed to, at the same time, have bigger deficits—quite an achievement for the former shadow treasurer. How did they respond to that? They made him the leader.

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

There was an interjection made by the Leader of the Opposition, which was way beyond unparliamentary, at the start of that answer.

Because of the issues I've raised with this House, I can't hear every interjection, but, if the Leader of the Opposition made an unparliamentary remark, then, to assist the House, I'll get him to withdraw it.

To assist the House, I withdraw.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I remind everyone that, if the number of interjections is reduced, I will hear more of the debate, which is in the best interests of the House.

My question is to the Treasurer. How will the reforms in the Albanese Labor government's budget help more Australians get ahead? How does this compare to other approaches?

I thank the member for Moreton for her question and also for the opportunity to share with her the responsibility of representing the great people of the southern suburbs of Brisbane, on her side of Compton Road and my side of Compton Road. I appreciate the question. The legislation we introduced today was part of the most ambitious tax reforms that we've seen in this place for a quarter of a century. That legislation is about three things. It's about cutting taxes for workers, it's about making it easier to buy a first home and it's about better aligning the tax treatment of labour and assets.

Anybody who votes against this legislation is voting for higher taxes on workers and for a broken status quo in the housing market. Those opposite have done this before, and they look like making the same mistake again. They don't understand that aspiration and opportunity are not things that you learn about from focus groups, and they can't be things that our kids read about in history books either. If we accept that generations of Australians are at risk of being disregarded and disconnected from our economy and our society, then we have a responsibility to act on that. When the country wants things to change, they are clinging to a busted status quo which locks too many Australians out of housing and out of our economy more broadly.

It would be easier but it would be wrong to leave things exactly as they are. Governing is about seeing problems in our economy and our society and taking decisive and difficult steps to address those challenges, as we are doing on this side of the House, not leaving them for somebody else to fix. Generation after generation would pay a heftier price for that cowardice.

Economic reform is always accompanied by dishonest scare campaigns, but those dishonest scare campaigns will not deter us. This legislation is all about cutting taxes for workers, and those opposite don't want us to do that. It's about making it easier to buy a first home, and those opposite do not want to see that happen. It's about better aligning the tax treatment of labour and assets.

Opposition members interjecting—

I hear them chirping away about going to an early election. I don't think they want an election right now. We've heard a bit of chat in recent days about the formation of a new minor party in our politics in this country. The most efficient way to create a minor party in Australia is to put the member for Hume in charge of a major one, and that's why they are so stroppy this week. The fair go must be a defining characteristic of our future, not just the defining characteristic of our past, and that's what our legislation is all about.

Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I understand that the members for Bowman, McPherson, Grey and Groom have signs that they have prepared to hold up—l-i-e-s. They're not permitted to do that, under the standing orders, so I'm going to ask them not to do that. There are props; they're not allowed in this House. For the dignity of this House, I will not have signs held up like that. I'm giving you fair warning that we are not having the Parliament of Australia degenerate into that.

You're on thin ice, too, Member for Kennedy, for wearing that Blues scarf! Trust me.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Labor Premier for Western Australia, Roger Cook; the Labor Premier for New South Wales, Chris Minns; the Labor members for Parramatta and Bennelong and the Labor economic committee are all opposed to Labor's toxic taxes. What will it take for the Prime Minister to axe these toxic taxes?

Order! The member for Cooper will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Cooper then left the chamber.

Where do you begin—seriously? That question was based upon complete fantasy. I stood up with Roger Cook last week at a 29-storey building that we are building in Perth—new housing, new social housing, new affordable housing for essential workers, new private rentals and new homeownership waiting as part of our $47 billion Homes for Australia Plan. The Premier of WA, just like the Premier of New South Wales and all of our members here who went through all of our positions, including of course our cabinet secretary and all our caucus—you know what the people on this side have to say in the Labor caucus? What they say to me is how proud they are that we are fighting for values that matter, that we are not prepared to leave the next generation behind. They say it would be easier to just stay still and leave it for someone else to fix the problem. Because every single one of my members—

The member for Parkes is warned.

If those opposite got out more and spoke to people, they would know that people in their electorates are saying the housing system is broken in this country, and we need to fix it—just like the shadow Treasurer has said, just like the member for Canning has said and just like the former treasurer Joe Hockey said, up in that corner before he left the building.

We believe, on this side, that when you have the power to affect real change, you should do it—that you have a responsibility to deliver real change. That is what we are doing through this. We are taking every dollar of tax from these measures and delivering income tax cuts over the forward estimates, making sure that we set up Australia for the future so that future generations don't say, 'Is it true, dad or mum, that there was a time where people were actually able to buy their own house, not just inherit it?' That is what we are fighting for. We are fighting for things that really matter because that's what the Labor Party does.

The member for Parkes is now going to leave the chamber under 94(a). If you're on a warning, Member for Parkes, it's best for me not to hear your interjection or to make any interjection.

The member for Parkes then left the chamber.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. What is the Albanese Labor government doing through our Homes for Australia plan to tackle the Australian housing crisis? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?

I thank the wonderful member for Swan for her question. We've got a housing crisis in our country that's been building for decades, and the member for Swan is proud, as I am, to be a part of a government that, with genuine and great conviction, is tackling this problem from every single angle. Our Homes for Australia plan is a long-term plan to rebuild Australia's housing system so it actually works for the Australian people—more homes, more first home buyers, a better deal for renters and helping more Australians in crisis. This morning, the Treasurer introduced legislation to deliver the next step: tax reforms that, for the first time in 25 years, will level the playing field for first home buyers and provide a tax cut for every single working person in our country.

We are having a big parliamentary debate at the moment about aspiration, so let me be really clear about where Labor stands. There is no greater aspiration in this country than to own your own home. For most families around this nation, this is the most important financial decision that they will ever make in their lives. Our tax changes are about helping Australians build financial security for themselves and their families.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! If everyone can take a breath, listen and not interject for the remainder of this answer, I think it'll be beneficial for the House and for everyone listening.

There are lots of surveys that tell us that we are at the point where most young people in our country do not think they will ever own a house in Australia. Problems like this can become so big and difficult that people start to give up altogether, not because they lack ambition but because they believe the system will not reward their effort. After all, what is the incentive to work hard when the thing that matters most to you and your family is out of reach? Once a country starts losing belief in aspiration, the consequences reach far beyond housing. Helping more Australians into a home of their own is central to our plan for housing, and it is central to our vision for Australia.

Those opposite don't just want to vote against the changes that we are making; they want to roll them back. They are promising to reimpose a broken system on this country. If we take that approach, we're going to end up living in a country where whether you own a home depends on the wealth you inherited rather than the work that you did for yourself—and that is not Australia. Our government rejects that future. We believe aspiration belongs to every single person in this country, and that's what the legislation that the Treasurer introduced this morning is all about.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will the ISIS affiliated women who landed in Sydney yesterday be living in Fairfield, Liverpool or Bankstown, and has the government or any representative of the government been in contact with local community leaders regarding this issue?

As I've said to the member for Fowler before in this House, the government isn't settling anyone. The government is not involved in settling people at all. We have had citizens return, as we had citizens have self-managed returns before we came to office—including 45 men who had gone there to fight. But, in terms of the consultation with the community, I can give examples of consultation that has been very powerful and has happened in the lead-up to when it was first reported that these individuals might seek to return. I'd include Manda House in Australia, the Assyrian National Council, the Assyrian Australian Association, the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.

I'd also add that there was no meeting more powerful than when a delegation from the Yazidi community came here from Wagga, which involved one woman—from memory, she would have been 19—who had herself effectively been a slave and hadn't seen her mum since she was eight. There are reasons why the government have the view that we have of what these individuals did.

My question is to the Attorney-General. Earlier today, the Commonwealth commenced legal action in the Federal Court of Australia against 3M and 3M Company. What is the significance of the legal action, Attorney-General?

I thank the member for her question. I also acknowledge her decade of strong advocacy in these matters and how important this is for her community and for others in this place.

This morning the Commonwealth commenced legal action in the Federal Court of Australia against 3M Australia and 3M Company for allegedly withholding information and making false statements about the long-term environmental impacts of the use of 3M firefighting foam containing PFAS. The Commonwealth is seeking more than $2 billion in damages to recover significant past and future expenses incurred in investigating and managing contamination resulting from the historical storage and use of this foam. This is the largest legal claim ever brought by the Commonwealth.

For the benefit of the House, PFAS are chemicals that have been contained in legacy firefighting foams for many years, including on Defence sites. Defence no longer uses legacy firefighting foams that caused PFAS contamination. The government's position is that 3M withheld a range of information and misrepresented the adverse environmental effects of this substance, including stating that the foam was biodegradable, nontoxic and could be disposed of safely. This misconduct has come at significant cost to the Australian taxpayer, including over $1 billion to date to investigate, remediate and mitigate PFAS contamination at Defence estate sites.

I know, as does my excellent colleague, the Assistant Minister for Defence, that Australians have dealt with the consequences of PFAS contamination for many years. Communities impacted by PFAS contamination deserve transparency, accountability and ongoing support. Protecting Australians, including our defence personnel, our veterans, local communities and First Nations peoples is this government's No. 1 priority. Australians rightly expect their government to stand up for them and hold companies accountable when communities and the environment are impacted, and that is why we are bringing this action.

The Commonwealth is a model litigant, and we will take steps to genuinely engage with 3M to resolve this claim as efficiently as possible. But let me be clear. We are not afraid to take on 3M in the interests of Australians. As I said this morning and will say again, this legal action against 3M is significant. It is the action of a government that is committed to fighting for Australians and their long-term interests.

My question is to the Prime Minister. It's now been two weeks since the budget, so the Prime Minister should be across the detail of his toxic taxes. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether capital gains for small-business owners will be averaged over five years, as in the pre-1999 system, to prevent some of the most hardworking Australians from being pushed into the top bracket?

In a quote from the Ralph review of 1999, which was commissioned by the then coalition government, they said this, which is why it was changed:

Australia's averaging provisions … are used by a section of the asset-holding community to reduce capital gains tax to zero, or near to zero, while others who are not in a position to engineer the same benefit carry the burden of taxation at close to their full marginal rate. This results in considerable inequity.

John Howard got rid of it. It's not the only way in which the current coalition have moved even further right than John Howard, because he didn't give One Nation preferences either.

My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government's budget making it easier for Australians to live and thrive in the regions? How does this compare with alternative approaches?

I want to thank the member for Leichhardt. Not only is he a great advocate for regional Australia, but he's a passionate Queenslander. Chin up, big fella, there are still two more games to go. It's also good to see the member for Kennedy return to the bandwagon.

Order! The minister will return to the question.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's great to be able to rise again today to speak about the Albanese Labor government's support for regional Australia—the best part of the country. This is a budget that has placed housing front and centre. Housing supply, affordability and enabling infrastructure in our regions are key to ensuring kids in the bush get to get their own home and raise a family in the town that they love. We have a $47 billion Homes for Australia plan to build more homes, to help first home buyers and to support renters. Regional Australians are a priority across our major housing initiatives. Programs such as our five per cent deposit scheme have already helped 83,000 people buy their own home in our regions. Now, our expanded five per cent deposit scheme and Help to Buy scheme are helping more regional Australians to own their own home.

Through the Housing Australia Future Fund, we're supporting the development of more than 2,900 social and affordable homes in regional and remote areas, with more to come in round 3. Initiatives like $12.4 million for the Cooma housing project in my own electorate will turn 12.6 hectares of unused land into new community, with 140 new residential lots with a mix of social, affordable and private housing options tailored to the local community and the $2 billion social housing accelerator payment to deliver almost 1,400 social homes in regional Australia.

We know that, in order to build new homes, we need the enabling infrastructure to get them done—the power, the roads and the drainage. Last term, we created the Housing Support Program with $1.5 billion, and we've heard from local government the need for more enabling infrastructure, which is why, in this budget, we've committed another $2 billion, with $500 million directed to regional Australia. The government has already invested over $6.3 billion in housing enabling infrastructure.

Opposition members interjecting—

I hear them complaining, but that is 50 times more than those opposite did when they were in government. Our $47 billion investment in housing is 10 times what the coalition invested when they were in last. I guess we ask where their regional infrastructure funding went? It went to the North Sydney regional pool, $11 a pop. There's a gelato bar if you want to go and help yourself next time you're in Sydney visiting regional communities. We want to make it easier for first home buyers to get in their home. We're putting our money where our mouth is, unlike those opposite who, for nine years, gave the regions nothing. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, it has now been two weeks since the budget, so the Prime Minister should be across the details of his toxic taxes. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, unlike the pre-1999 system, capital gains will now be taxed at a minimum 30 per cent, which would hit those on the lowest incomes the hardest?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The question's been asked.

Honourable members interjecting—

When he's finished, Mr Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer—the Prime Minister hasn't begun answering. Just cool it.

What these measures do, when it comes to capital gains tax, the negative gearing changes, the income tax reductions, the automatic tax deduction that we introduced today—quite the opposite of what the member for Page has suggested—is to enhance opportunity and aspiration rather than entrench privilege. We want every Australian to have the opportunity to own their own home, not just some, because we understand that Australians want not just a better life for themselves; importantly, they want a better life for their children and their grandchildren.

That is why the Howard government got rid of the averaging provisions. They said, 'It was used by a section of the asset-holding community to reduce capital gains taxation to zero, or near to zero, while others, who are not in a position to engineer the same benefit, carry the burden of taxation at close to their full marginal rate.' That is the whole point. People can still invest in housing and use negative gearing and use the existing capital gains tax discount, but, in order to do so, they'll have to invest in a new home. What that will do, importantly—

The question was regarding which of the lowest incomes will be hit hardest, and the Prime Minister is being directly relevant to that part of the question. But I'll hear from the member for Page.

The question related to capital gains tax, not negative gearing. I think the Prime Minister's confused.

Well, to be fair to the member for Page, the question began with, 'It's been two weeks since the budget, and the Prime Minister might be across the details.' You've made an allegation. The Prime Minister is answering that part of the question, and then he's talking about—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I'll make sure he's being directly relevant, and so far he is. He won't be able to stray too much further, because he wasn't asked about anything else, but he is being directly relevant.

I'm talking about why, in 1999, the Howard government got rid of and changed the capital gains tax measures—because they were inequitable. The question went to the issue of low-income earners and fairness. The truth is that what we are doing is fairer. Indeed, when it comes to—

What's fair about lying to Australians?

The Leader of the Nationals is going to leave the chamber under 94(a). I've already counselled him.

The member for Gippsland then left the chamber.

Canavan's gone.

The Leader of the Nationals in the House of Representatives.

Honourable members interjecting—

They've lost the Leader of the Nationals in the House of Representatives, and now they're fighting over who'll take that spot, over there. This is what the coalition, once one of the parties of government in Australia, have been reduced to.

We introduced legislation this morning that will make our tax system fairer, that will enhance the opportunity for people to own their own home. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How are the Albanese Labor government's investments in bulk-billing and urgent care making it easier for Australians to see a doctor, after a decade of cuts and neglect?

Through the member, can I thank the staff of the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre, which is stationed in Darwin. They are staffing the Bullsbrook quarantine facility down in Perth, and I announced only a few hours ago that the mandatory quarantine period for the six returned passengers from MV Hondius impacted by the hantavirus outbreak would be extended by another three weeks. That will be staffed by the NCCTRC. Also, they're doing terrific work in communities, helping with the diphtheria outbreak.

More broadly, our government has been busy building a better health system for the Northern Territory, delivering on so many of the things that the member for Solomon and the member for Lingiari had been arguing for for years. Finally, Darwin now has its own medical school, having taken its first students this year. There's been a 30 per cent increase in hospital funding from the Commonwealth after years of underfunding from previous governments. The NT hospitals will receive, over the course of our funding agreement, $1 billion more than they would have received if we'd rolled over the Morrison and Turnbull arrangements. As the member well knows, this week we opened the 136th urgent care clinic in the northern suburbs of Darwin, just around the corner from the endometriosis clinic in Coconut Grove. The Palmerston urgent care clinic has already seen 37,000 patients, and now the people of Darwin, particularly in the northern suburbs, will get the benefit of high-quality urgent care seven days a week, fully bulk-billed.

Without a doubt the most remarkable transformation and change we're seeing in Solomon is in bulk-billing. It's the beating heart of Medicare and the guarantee started by Labor that Australians can be confident that they can go to the doctor whenever they need to, rather than when they can afford to. I'm pleased to say Solomon has seen the biggest increase in bulk-billing of any electorate since our record investment last year. The number of 100 per cent bulk-billing general practices in Solomon has tripled just since 1 November. The bulk-billing rate in Solomon is now 90 per cent, where we want the country to be by 2030. It is 23 per cent higher than it was in 2023, when we made our first investments, and the biggest increases have been for those who don't have the benefit of a concession card. In just five months those people in Darwin have seen an increase of more than 20 per cent in their bulk-billing rate.

We remember that the Leader of the Opposition called our investments in urgent care and in bulk-billing, which the member for Solomon asked about, 'wasteful spending', but the people of Solomon know that a stronger Medicare is making a real difference to their lives.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving—

The Leader of the House is seeking the call.

Are you moving a suspension?

Yes.

Let's allow the Leader of the Opposition to move his suspension. He can begin again.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—That this House condemns the Government for:

I second the motion.

The Leader of the Opposition, resume your seat. It doesn't work that way.

He had to second it.

You second it after the person speaks. The Leader of the House?

As the Leader of the Opposition would know, because he's been here for a long time, when you move a resolution you say you move it, and you give the entirety of your speech. At whatever time you have finished your speech, you sit down. That can be right at the start. It can be at the end of the time limit. But when you sit down that's the end of your speech. At that point, you, as Speaker, would ordinarily ask, 'Is the motion seconded?' The seconder gets up, and at that point the seconder gives their speech, which will always begin with 'I second the motion', and then when they finish their speech they sit down.

I'd suggest we're in a situation now where the Leader of the Opposition, under the standing orders, has actually finished his speech—which was relatively short—and his alternative has seconded the motion and finished his speech too. It's an unusual approach to the debate, but for the Leader of the Opposition to now seek the call would be out of order.

It has always been the convention, and the way the standing orders work, that someone, when they move a suspension, gives their speech—they don't sit down—and the seconder then stands and gives their speech. This has not happened before in this way. I think the Leader of the Opposition was just intending to get the debate going; I understand where he's coming from. Under the standing orders now, the call does go to the other side, once it's been moved and seconded. There are provisions of the House to deal with this after question time under the standing orders.

Under standing order 47(e), I require that this debate be continued after the MPI.

That is the way the standing orders are written. I'll just brief the House so everyone knows. Standing order 47(e) says:

If a motion for the suspension of orders is moved during Question Time—

which the Leader of the Opposition has done—

after the terms of the motion have been proposed by the mover, a Minister may require that further proceedings in relation to the motion take place at a later hour, as set down by the Minister.

That has now occurred.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese government's record investment in defence delivering key capabilities for the Australian Defence Force, and how does this compare to alternative approaches?

I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her service in the Australian Army.

Last month the National defence strategy, which was part of the budget, provided for an increase in defence spending of $53 billion over the decade and $14 billion over the forward estimates. We are spending more on defence in the medium term, more over the forward estimates and more right now. Indeed, in this financial year, 2025-26, we've increased defence spending by $4.3 billion this year alone. That represents the biggest acceleration of defence spending in a single year in our country's history. That means that, right now, we are increasing the capability of our P-8 aircraft, our most important anti-submarine warfare capability.

We're investing in counter unmanned aerial systems for the Australian Army, which in turn forms part of a broader $12 billion to $15 billion allocation for drone and counter drone technology over the coming decade. We're increasing the capability of our airfields, which was identified as a priority by the Defence Strategic Review, and we are immediately uplifting the capability of the Defence Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation. All of this is a reflection of the strategic urgency of the moment. This is historic levels of real money being spent on real capability as we speak.

All we're hearing in response from the coalition are tired, old, recycled lines—thought bubbles about new capabilities which go absolutely nowhere. They're getting themselves lost in accounting rabbit holes and, ultimately, what their defence policy amounts to is the assertion of a single number. But, just as in the election campaign, when they are asked to identify what they're spending money on, they are utterly unable to nominate a single defence capability. It is completely hopeless, because, given the difficulty that our nation faces at the moment, the sad truth is that, when it comes to defence policy, the Liberals are not even on the park. As such, they are most definitely selling Australians short.

The Albanese government is going to continue to build our nation's defences. We are going to continue to be focused on defence policy detail, because it actually matters. In the process, we are greatly increasing the capability of our defence force to keep Australians safe.

My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, it seems impossible to divine what the cost of the Capacity Investment Scheme is in the forwards. The Capacity Investment Scheme underwrites the swindle factories, and I think the Australian people have a right to know what it is, so can we get within $5 billion? Is it less than a billion dollars? Is it between $1 billion and $5 billion? Is it between $5 billion and $10 billion? Is it more than $10 billion? Is it part of the $18.2 billion? Just spitball us a number. Give us some idea how much this is going to cost us.

I thank the honourable member for his question. The Capacity Investment Scheme is very important for creating jobs and investment across Australia. The auction just last week will unlock $17 billion in private investment and create around 19,000 construction jobs, so it's very important.

In relation to the cost in the budget, the costings are commercial-in-confidence, for reasons that the House would understand. It is an auction and it is appropriate that the taxpayers' interest be respected and defended by keeping it commercial-in-confidence. The member for New England would understand this. When he was in office, he once said, 'I don't believe there's a reason that everyone in the public needs to know commercial-in-confidence agreements in relation to government policy.'

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting workers and helping Australians into safe and secure work?

I'd like to thank the member for Barton for her question and for her ongoing commitment to supporting Aussie workers. At the heart of this government's tax reforms in our budget is a rebalancing of the tax system to support working Australians, because they deserve our support. From July this year—and next year—every taxpayer will receive a tax cut because of our government.

To support working Australians, we're cutting taxes by introducing a new $250 tax cut through the introduction of the working Australians tax offset. This means more money in the pockets of our nurses, teachers, retail assistants, cleaners and other Australians who earn salaries and wages. On top of this, our budget also delivers on our commitment to introduce a $1,000 instant tax deduction. This will make tax time more simple for millions of workers. The combination of these tax cuts means the average worker will benefit by up to $2,800 a year.

Not only are we supporting Australian workers through tax cuts; we're also taking action to improve and protect workers' wages. Our government has introduced same job, same pay, which is now delivering pay rises for thousands of Australian workers across this country. We've legislated to protect penalty and overtime rates, which make up an important part of many Australians' pay packets. We've backed our lowest paid workers at the Fair Work Commission each and every year we've been in government. Under our government, the minimum wage has increased by more than $9,000, and we've introduced significant reforms to reinvigorate enterprise bargaining, which is a key source of wages growth.

This government has introduced new standards that ensure gig workers don't have to rely on tips to survive, and we've backed and funded pay increases for early educators and age carers. Not only is this government supporting working people through tax cuts and higher wages; we're also supporting more Australians to get the opportunity for a job. Our government will help more people get a job with our biggest reform to employment services in 30 years, and we've delivered funding in this budget to start the reform process. It is only a Labor government that backs working Australians and is supporting more Australians into jobs.

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Peak agricultural bodies are warning that farmers are exposed to massively high capital gains tax under your government's budget. The National Farmers' Federation has said:

The concern is these changes could force families to delay succession, take on more debt or even sell parts of the farm just to manage the tax impact.

Minister, will you guarantee Australian farming families that they won't be worse off under Labor's budget of broken promises and higher taxes?

I thought we dealt with this yesterday, frankly—more scare campaigns from those opposite. Let's be honest about this. Yesterday, I quoted the National Farmers' Federation, who are pleased that the government has listened to them, and you coming in here talking about things like this is really not very helpful. The budget is very clear that the capital gains tax changes start from 1 July 2027 and apply only to gains from that date. It's very clear. It's also very clear that, of course, the small-business exemptions that are there mean that a lot of farmers right across Australia will be exempt. Indeed, the latest ABS data says that nine in 10 businesses in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industry will be eligible for these discounts.

My question is to the Minister for Education. How is the Albanese Labor government investing in education and backing public school teachers?

I thank my friend the remarkable member for Reid for her question. She's also a proud product of Sefton High School. It's Public Education Day. It's also Thursday. I know my friends opposite would like a story, so let me give one to you. I was looking at my old school photos over the weekend, and as I looked at my year 7 photo I saw the tallest boy in the class. He was a boy named Corey. He was a refugee from Vietnam. In my year 12 photo, he's the shortest kid in the class. Why is that the case? He was the tallest in year 7 and shortest in year 12. It turns out Corey was five years older than the rest of us. His mum changed his age on the paperwork because she didn't want him to miss out on an education. She didn't want him to miss out. I don't want anyone to miss out. We don't want anyone held back. We don't want anyone left behind.

It's what we do in education that is so important in that task, and it's public education that does so much of the heavy lifting here. It educates kids from everywhere—from rich families and poor families and everything in between, in the cities, in the regions, in the bush, of all backgrounds, of all cultures, of all religions. It's these schools, traditionally, that have been the most underfunded—until this government, until this bloke here, until this Prime Minister, who fixed the funding of our public schools. It's the biggest investment in public education by an Australian government ever—$20 billion of extra funding to fix the funding of our public schools—and it's not a blank cheque. This is funding that's tied to real and practical reforms, like phonics checks and small-group tutoring to help kids catch up. That's what mums and dads would expect. It's what kids deserve. It's what Labor governments do. It's what Liberal governments always undo. Labor governments invest in education, and it's Liberals that rip the guts out of education.

Can I use this opportunity for a quick shout-out to our teachers. They deserve every cent that they get. They deserve, like every other worker, the tax cuts that are in the budget and in the legislation that the Treasurer introduced today. Early education teachers as well. These are the people who are the real glue, the real magic, the real heroes of this story who teach our kids the basics and so much more. All of us know a teacher who changed our lives. That's what a good education does. It changes lives. A great education system changes countries.

My question is to the Minister for Education. Three million Australians are in for a horrible shock next week. On 1 June, their total HECS debt will increase by over $1 billion. Compulsory repayments that they have made in the last 12 months will not be counted towards their debt before their HECS debts go up yet again. Minister, will you fix HECS by changing the timing of indexation so that repayments can be counted before graduates are hit with indexation?

Thank you for your question about student debt. I know your passion and your commitment to this area. Can I make a couple of points about student debt and other related reforms that we're making in our universities.

The first is that we've cut student debt by 20 per cent for three million Australians, and that's the biggest cut to student debt by any Australian government ever. It's taking a massive weight off the backs of young Australians—the same young Australians, incidentally, that were helping with the legislation that the Treasurer has introduced to make it easier for young Australians to buy a home. We don't want to have a country where young Australians are forced to rent forever. That's what this legislation is all about.

The second point is we're now taking steps to make it easier for young people to get a degree cheaper and faster, particularly for young people that have already got a TAFE qualification.

A point of order on relevance under standing order 104. I asked a simple question about indexation of HECS, and I think that the graduates of Australia deserve a simple answer. Thank you, Minister.

The question the minister was asked was, 'Will you fix HECS by changing the timing of indexation so that repayments can be counted before graduates are hit with indexation?' I'm just going to ask the minister to be directly relevant to the question he was asked. He was asked about the HECS debt issue, so he's entitled to talk about that. It's only one minute into his answer. I'll listen carefully to make sure he's being directly relevant to the question he was asked.

On the point that I was making, let me go back to the point that you've raised. It's all part of the one system that we need reform of. We want to make it easier for young people to get a degree cheaper and faster, particularly if you've been to TAFE, so that you can potentially get a year off your degree and save, potentially, $10,000 off the cost of a qualification. Some universities are doing that already. We want more to.

I also want to make it easier for young people to get a crack at a university degree, full stop. About 50 per cent of young people today in their 30s have got a uni degree, but not everywhere. In an electorate like yours, it's about 70 per cent. In an electorate like mine, it's about 30 per cent. I want to change that. The legislation I'll introduce in a couple of weeks says that if you're a young person from a poor family or from the bush and you've got what it takes, you'll get a place at university.

On the point of indexation, we've already made some important changes to the way HECS is indexed, and that had important benefits for young people right across the country. I know you're also concerned about the job-ready graduates system and how all of that works. I hope you noted that today I announced that Professor Barney Glover has been appointed as the Chief Commissioner of the Tertiary Education Commission. A bloke with a big brain and a big heart. Nobody understands the tertiary education system better than him. He helped to draft the accord, and now he's going to help to build it, including the recommendations that you've pointed to in your questions. Professor Stephen Duckett, incidentally, has also been appointed to the Tertiary Education Commission and is doing work in this area as well, particularly around the cost of teaching and learning. I recognise that in that area, and in so many more, there is a lot of unfinished business and there's more work to do.

My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering the defence capability needed to keep Australia safe while creating jobs and building a defence future made in Australia? How does this compare to other approaches?

I thank the member for Bendigo for her question and her fierce advocacy for Australia's defence industry. Delivering the capability our ADF needs is critical to our nation's safety. We're focused on this and at the same time building a defence future made in Australia. That's why we're overseeing the largest peacetime increase in defence spending in Australia's history.

I'm proud to say to the House that three-quarters of the defence budget is spent in Australia, and as a result the Australian defence industry is growing. Since we came to government, Australian defence manufacturing output has grown by 35 per cent, and that's leading to more Aussie jobs and more Aussie capability. Last year alone, defence manufacturing employment grew by a massive 11 per cent in this country, and we've got a steady drumbeat of deliverables. Just last month we announced a $750 million investment to build almost 300 new Bushmaster vehicles in Bendigo—the largest single order for Bushmasters since the production line opened in 1999, supporting 300 direct local jobs for the next seven years and supporting thousands throughout the supply chain. The Bushmaster is one of Australia's great defence industry success stories. It is world leading and is in service in nine countries. It uses Illawarra steel shaped in Broadmeadows and is made in Bendigo.

The fact is we're rebuilding Australia's defence manufacturing industry after a decade of neglect. We've opened a Ghost Shark factory in Sydney. We opened a missile factory in SA last year and are opening a second in the Hunter next year and a third after that. We've placed the largest ever order of Aussie drones and we're investing in Australian made lasers to defeat drones. On top of that, we're also investing in supporting continuous naval shipbuilding in Australia, including building 26 landing craft in WA. This will create 1,100 direct jobs and more than 2,000 indirect jobs along the process. And then we'll build the upgraded Mogami class frigates after that.

All of this comes after a decade of neglect—a decade of neglect that was recognised by Joe Hockey this week, who said, and I quote: 'We got it wrong. We should have stuck with Australian shipbuilding and had continuous shipbuilding, but instead we went elsewhere.' Never has a truer word been spoken. The truth is they had six shambolic ministers and three hopeless shadow ministers, and the result is they have failed up again with the Leader of the Opposition promoted into this position. The truth is you can only trust Labor on defence, not those opposite.

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister guarantee Australian farming families won't be worse off because of Labor's toxic taxes?

They seem determined to continue this scare campaign on that side of the House. I answered the questions in the past about how the capital gains tax changes will work, and those on the other side need to stick to the facts when it comes to the changes that we are making. We've been very clear that the capital gains tax changes start from 1 July 2027 and apply only to gains from that date. Obviously, there are generous capital gains tax concessions for small businesses and, according to the latest ABS data, nine out of 10 businesses across agriculture, forestry and fisheries will get that concession.

Before I call the member for Cunningham, I am pleased to advise that in the gallery, as guests of the member for Corangamite, are year 11 students from Christian College. I give a very warm welcome to the students to question time.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government working to reduce family, domestic and sexual violence?

I want to thank the member for Cunningham. People working in family, domestic and sexual violence in her electorate know that they've got someone who has got their back. She has made a huge contribution on this issue. Family, domestic and sexual violence is a problem that's been with us for generations, but it's a problem that is changing all the time. We're seeing evolving threats—like more tech facilitated abuse, more victimisation where the perpetrator and the victims are both under 18, and more choking in intimate relationships. As the threat evolves, we need to evolve our response. That's why the government is consulting right now on our second action plan under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.

But we're not waiting for these consultations to take action. Right now, in this parliament, for example, we've begun the work to prevent perpetrators of family, domestic and sexual violence from receiving the superannuation death benefits of their victims. I want to congratulate the Assistant Treasurer on that work. We've established an inquiry into the relationship between family, domestic and sexual violence and suicide, and I want to thank all the members of that committee for that work. We have already, as a government, changed our social security system to prevent the weaponisation of social security debts against victims of family and domestic violence.

In the most recent budget, we set aside $183 million to update our child support system. We know that the child support system is being weaponized against children and against victims of family and domestic violence. I think every member of this place has probably heard some really disturbing stories. There's almost $2 billion of debt owed to Australia's children because of people avoiding their responsibilities. Almost 100,000 people on the system have an indicator that shows there has been family or domestic violence in that family. We need to make sure that children get the support they need and that systems like the child support system are not weaponized against victims of family and domestic violence.

These efforts right now and the further consultation we're doing on the next action plan really build on the $4.4 billion that we have invested as a government to eliminate family, domestic and sexual violence in this country—measures like making the leaving violence payment permanent, launching our first ever standalone First Nations plan on family, domestic and sexual violence with a $218 million investment in the most recent budget, boosting funding for our 500 Workers program by 70 per cent, boosting funding for 1800RESPECT by 40 per cent and funding practical programs that help men, adolescents and children specifically address the risks of violence in our community. Every one of us has a responsibility—every level of government and every one of us as citizens.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister allow a conscience vote on a 25 per cent gas export tax?

I belong to the Australian Labor Party, and what we're doing when it comes to these issues of energy, firstly, is securing Australia's fuel supply. The member who asked the question mightn't be conscious of the war in the Middle East and the impact that it's having on fuel supplies right around the world—not the least of which is here—but we certainly are. It's quite remarkable that today we have more petrol than we had on 28 February. We have more diesel than we had on 28 February. Indeed, we have more jet fuel than we had on 28 February as well. We have worked with industry, and, in spite of the fire at the Geelong refinery, it has exceeded expectations.

People might recall that prior to Easter we had people turning up at petrol stations, filling up jerry cans and putting them in their garage. We had businesses—

The member has asked a very broad question, and I know she'd appreciate a yes or no answer. But, just like every other member, I can't deliver that for her with the standing orders. Out of courtesy I'll give her the call.

Point of order on relevance: the question was about tax, not fuel supply.

It was about gas exports, so the Prime Minister needs to make sure he's being directly relevant, and he is being directly relevant regarding the topic he was asked about.

I say to the member, with respect, that most people who've looked at this issue for more than a nanosecond recognise that the connection between Australia being a secure supplier of energy in our region is one of the things that have led to us being a secure receiver of energy in our region as well. At a time when we have a global crisis as a result of the war in the Middle East, to then just dismiss that and pretend that that is not happening is something that—it's on the news every day. It's not a secret war. It's not secret that the Strait of Hormuz is shut, and it's not secret that that is having an impact here. It is also not a secret because we have declared that this is our absolute priority. Quite frankly, the achievements that have been done with the support of industry, through Export Finance Australia, through working with our refineries and through working with our suppliers, have been quite extraordinary. I take the opportunity to thank Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, South Korea, Malaysia and China for the cooperative way in which we've delivered.

I tell you what—if someone turns up at a petrol station and there's no fuel, that's when you have a big issue, because it's so important as well for our agricultural sector. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government dealing with the immediate challenges facing Australia while building our resilience for the future? What are the alternative approaches?

I thank the member for Maribyrnong for her question. One of the issues that we're dealing with goes to the member for Ryan's last question about the impact of the war in Europe and how we're dealing with that. We're showing our resilience with our fuel security plan in the budget, making sure that we have a fuel reserve for the government that is government owned here, making sure that we continue to get those supplies of fuel and fertiliser into the country so that the agriculture sector in particular can continue to plant during what is planting season at this time so that they can be confident that they'll have the diesel to be able to harvest food for our people and for our exports as well. This is absolutely critical.

But when our government came to office, four years ago, we faced many challenges. We did face a challenge with schools and TAFE. What we've done there is fully fund every public school, and, on Public Education Day, we are very proud of that. We had a TAFE system that had suffered from a decade of neglect. What we've done through free TAFE and proper funding is make sure that public TAFE is again at the centre of our vocational education and training system.

We had public hospitals that were at breaking point. In the deal that we delivered with states and territories of $25 billion of additional funding, that will make a substantial difference. But it's not just that, because we have responsibility for primary health care. Our urgent care clinics—in two weeks time, the 137th urgent care clinic will open in Australia—make an enormous difference. We have increased bulk-billing right around the country as well—much faster than was anticipated—and $25 scripts for medicines on the PBS are making an enormous difference.

When we came to office, we had a royal commission that summed up aged care with one word: neglect. We had the biggest reforms in 25 years as a result of getting it right. We now have nurses in nursing homes 99 per cent of the time as a result of our reforms, and we're paying aged care workers properly. When we came to office, low wages were a deliberate design feature of those opposite. What we've had is successive increases in the minimum wage, making sure that we deal with those challenges.

Of course, when it comes to housing, when we came to office, we had a system that simply is not working for young people, and we are reforming the system so that young people can have the security of a roof over their head. These are all reforms to deliver real change. Delivering real change is what Labor governments do.

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

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

The Government's refusal to be honest with Australians about their plans for new toxic taxes at the last election.

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—

Labor's toxic taxes will destroy aspiration in this country, and if the Prime Minister wants to force these toxic taxes onto Australians, he should have the guts to take it to an election. But he won't. He won't because he can't tell the truth. This is a prime minister who leads a government that misleads and deceives every single day, a government that dupes and distorts, a government that says one thing, does another and has a very, very loose association with the truth every single day.

This Prime Minister's word is never his bond. It is never his bond, and Australians absolutely know it now. He promised that Australians would be better off under his leadership. Well, they're not. He promised that their power bills would go down by $275. It's not even close. They haven't. They're up 40 per cent since this hapless energy minister was in place. He promised Australians that they would have cheaper mortgages—not even close. A typical mortgage holder is $35,000 worse off since Labor has come to power. He promised that there would be no changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax, in his own words, for the 50th time. Well, surprise, surprise. He's changing them. He's because he changes his mind. He's changing his mind again, and he is whacking new and higher taxes on hard working Australians. No Australian can trust another word that comes out of this bloke's mouth.

Now, did he take his tax increases to the last election? Well, of course not. As I said, he hasn't got the courage. He leads a government that is tricky and is sneaky, and Australians are seeing him for the prime minister he truly is. He's a man who occupies the highest office in the land, but he lacks the character to lead this great country. He absolutely lacks the character to lead this great country. He stands condemned, and his condescending government, the condescending government he leads, stands condemned as well. He's bungled budget confirms that his government is the highest taxing government in Australian history—the highest taxing government—because they are addicted to spending. We know only too well that when Labor runs out of money it comes after yours.

Let us consider Labor's changes to negative gearing. This is purely and simply a tax on housing, on homes. That's what it is. It's a tax on homes. When you put a tax on something, you get less of it. There was one tiny shard of honesty in this government's budget. I think it was snuck through by the bureaucrats worried that there needed to be a little bit of honesty in it. It was on page 158. It snuck through, and I'm sure the 400 staffers they have missed it. They missed this one. Do you know what it said? It said that when you take negative gearing away on housing, you get fewer houses. It snuck through. This isn't a level up for young Australians wanting to get into a home; it's a lock out on homeownership in this country. That's what it is, and that's what this government stands for.

Now we'll go to the next one. We've just done negative gearing. We'll go to capital gains tax. Scrapping the 50 per cent discount is a tax on savings, pure and simple. It's a tax on savings on every asset class—crypto, ETFs, shares, bonds and you name it. It is a tax on Australians trying to build a nest egg. We know that, in an economy that is not working for young Australians, and it's not, so many of them are building up a nest egg so they can buy a home. That's what they're doing. But this government has decided to whack them with a new tax. They want to go after the savings of Australians, and it's not just those who are saving; it's also small businesses.

I heard the Minister for Social Services interjecting during question time on a question about capital gains tax. Do you know what she said when we asked the question? 'Oh, you should just go and see the accountant.' That's what she said. We want to hear what the situation is from the government that's putting these toxic taxes in place. Tell us how it's actually going to work. The truth is that they didn't want to fess up to the fact that this prime minister has said in this House that we're going back to the pre-1999 settings. But we're not. He deceived the Australian people in this chamber. That's what he did, and it is a shame on the Prime Minister that he should choose to do that. We are not going back to the pre-1999 settings. They are planning to hit small businesses, farmers and hardworking Australians harder than ever before because they have run out of money. Labor has started a war on aspiration, and its toxic taxes will obliterate opportunity in this country.

There is a long list of people who think these taxes are wrong for Australia: the Premier of Western Australia, the Premier of New South Wales, Andrew from Parramatta—

Leader of the Opposition, you know about the use of correct titles.

The member for Parramatta. There's another chap from Bennelong, the member for Bennelong, who has very similar views. We know there are many more—well not that many more who understand small business, but they're hearing it from small-business owners in their electorates. They're hearing it alright, because they are being smashed by a Labor government that simply doesn't understand aspiration and the hard work of small-business people in this country.

When you're running a small business, the daytime runs into the night-time, the weekdays run into the weekends and work time runs into holiday time. In fact, so much of the time, you give up your holidays because you've got to invest a bit more in the business to try and get ahead.

Mortgage your house.

You mortgage the house—absolutely right. It is all on you. If the business fails, this government's not going to be helping out, but if it succeeds, they want half of it. That's how they think.

This government knows or at least enough of them know that this is an aspiration killer, so they're talking about carve-outs. The truth is that Labor's carve-out is a cop-out, because so many of these people have never worked in a small business. They can't even understand how you would carve it out. They're trying to carve something out for the tech bros. The truth is we have a problem in this country with these taxes, all the way from tech bros through to hairdressers, plumbers, fitness instructors—you name it. Every small business in this country is being smashed by a government that simply doesn't believe in what they do.

We do support the $250 income tax cut, but let me tell you this: if it was put in place today, it would be gone by Christmas, because Labor's raging inflation would take it away. Every month, every year, inflation is raging away. It raises Australians' income tax rates. That's what it does. It's called bracket creep. More and more of your money goes up into higher tax brackets. Labor takes that money and then says: 'Hey, I'll give you a little bit back. It'll get you through to Christmas.'

There is a better way through, which is our 'tax back guarantee'. That will ensure that governments live within their means, just like every Australian has to do, in their businesses and in their households. We need these toxic taxes axed.

I must say—and I think I speak on behalf of many in this place—I preferred his short suspension speech to his long MPI speech. What I think I admire most about the Leader of the Opposition is how much he goes out of his way to prove Malcolm Turnbull right. It wasn't that long ago that former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull was out there saying: 'I mean, the curious thing—what a lot of people say about the Leader of the Opposition is he is the best qualified idiot they've ever met.'

Member for Barker, just take a seat. I know that is a quote, but it is still very—you need to withdraw it.

I withdraw.

I'll be keeping a close ear on all sides of this debate for imputations. You have the call.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I agree it was particularly harsh of former prime minister Turnbull to say that, but I'm not the one who's out there proving former prime minister Turnbull right now.

I would say to all those opposite—we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition that he thinks the tax cuts that Labor introduced into parliament are a good idea. Well, there's only one way to show that you think Labor's tax cuts are a good idea, and that is to vote for Labor's tax cuts. That is a choice that those opposite will have. If they choose to vote for them, I'll commend them for that. But if they choose to follow the path that they followed just a year ago, then I think everyone on the benches opposite will have questions to answer.

Unlike those in the Liberal and National parties, I have indeed read the review of the 2025 federal election, written by two well-respected former parliamentarians, Pru Goward and Nick Minchin. That review—and this goes to the economic capability and credibility of the Leader of the Opposition—said very clearly:

The Opposition announced that it would oppose that tax cut on Budget Night and voted against it when the legislation was introduced.

I think that's in our recent memory, but it seems that those opposite have forgotten that very quickly. Then it singles out the then shadow treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, who was a member of the leadership group. It says:

The leadership group's decision to oppose an income tax cut, which many MPs told us they had not been consulted about and would have opposed, immediately impacted on the Coalition's economic credentials, historically, a strong part of the Coalition's brand.

That's something they chose to give up.

It wasn't just at a clandestine meeting of the leadership group that the Leader of the Opposition went out and opposed a tax cut and made that decision unilaterally with just a small group. He then went and led the campaign publicly. It was the Leader of the Opposition who was out there in the media calling Labor's tax cuts 'a betrayal'. It was the Leader of the Opposition who campaigned against Labor giving a tax cut to working people, which he described as 'class warfare'. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said that Labor's determination to give a tax cut to working people was somehow 'a war on aspiration', and as if he hadn't gone far enough and embarrassed himself too much already he then described the idea to lower taxes for those on low and middle incomes as 'Marxist economics'. Well, I've got news for the Leader of the Opposition: if you didn't notice, on 3 May last year, the people of Australia endorsed Labor's tax cuts and they endorsed the tax plan that we outlined when it came to lowering taxes for working people, as well as the package that we brought into the parliament today that, again, lowers taxes for working people.

But it's not just me who thinks that sometimes, just sometimes, the Leader of the Opposition gets it a little bit wrong. There are those who once were in his own party that have now left the Leader of the Opposition's party. We had the then Liberal senator Hollie Hughes say this about the Leader of the Opposition:

I have concerns about his capability. I feel we have zero economic policy to sell.

She went on to say:

I don't know what he's been doing for three years. There was no tax policy, there was no economic narrative.

That is from a member of the then opposition two days after the election. So what is the Leader of the Opposition's solution? He goes: 'I've been told I've got no economic narrative. I've been told by my own people I've got no policies.' What does he do? Does he sit and do the hard work of writing some policies out? Does he go into a consultation with his colleagues? No. Do you know who told us that they hadn't done the hard work? It wasn't anyone with any guts on that side. It was One Nation.

One Nation came out on the budget reply night, outraged, and the headline in the Financial Review was 'One Nation says Liberals are copying its housing and migration policies'. So, in this coalition of chaos that has been formed between the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation, they're already an unhappy family. They're stealing homework from one another. If we've seen that the migration policy and the housing policy have been stolen from One Nation, it'll be interesting to see what the Leader of the Opposition steals from One Nation next. Will he be having a fundraiser in a private jet over Sydney in the middle of a fuel crisis? Will he come into the chamber in dress up? I don't know; it'll be interesting to watch.

What we do know and what is very clear is that when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition he lacks credibility on tax just as he lacks credibility on fuel. We've heard too many times the fact, which has never been denied by the Leader of the Opposition, that he had Australia's fuel reserves in Texas. People on my side of the country know that when it came to fuel security it was not helped when the Leader of the Opposition oversaw the closure of the BP refinery in Kwinana, Western Australia. Then of course there was that really interesting way that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in government, decided that he would hide energy price rises. He made the decision before the 2022 election and thought that it was better not to tell anyone until after the election. In fact, we have a report from the Guardian that it wasn't an accident; it was a deliberate ploy from the now leader of the opposition. The report says:

The former energy minister—

the Leader of the Opposition; I'll refer to him by his title—

… asked his department to consider delaying telling voters about electricity price rises before the May election, then made the decision to do so.

I'll take the interjection about mentioning the measures in our budget. We've talked a lot about the $250 permanent tax cut for Australian workers through the working Australians tax offset, and I challenge all of those opposite to vote for it, but I also want to talk about some of the measures that maybe haven't had as much attention in the budget. In question time just a few moments ago we heard from the Minister for Social Services about the $182 million investment in the child support system to make sure we address the issues of weaponisation, financial abuse and noncompliance. Many of us know, and have heard a lot, about the $25 billion investment in public hospitals, which is a record investment in our public hospitals. But I also want to highlight one of the measures that haven't got as much attention, and that is the $44 million to extend Birthing on Country—again, a program that supports Indigenous mothers and their children with culturally-safe maternal care.

Now, we've heard a lot about the $14.9 billion investment our government has made in Australia's fuel resilience. But I want to point out that we've also invested in protecting the Great Barrier Reef, with another $91 million for restoration and protection efforts. Again, we've talked a lot about our investments when it comes to housing and helping Australians into a home of their own. But I also really want to commend the work that's in the budget when it comes to AusAlert, a new national messaging system to help and support Australians to get the information that they need when they are in the middle of a crisis.

I want to finish with some really good news that you won't hear elsewhere. You won't hear it from those opposite, but you can find it in a good, reputable publication like the West Australian newspaper. We hear, so often, 'Catastrophe!' from those opposite, about what's happening in so many parts of our economy. Well, we had some good news today, and this is the headline: 'Investment in WA resources sector hits decade-high and $226b in sales generated for 2025'. Now, that's not happening under two conservative governments; it's not happening under two Liberal-National-One Nation governments. That's happening under two Labor governments that are supporting the jobs of Australians—supporting Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. And I can guarantee that all on this side of the chamber will be voting for a tax cut for working Australians.

Toto, I've got a feeling we aren't in Australia anymore! Just like Dorothy standing in a strange land, Australians are looking around and asking, 'How did we get here?' because this does not feel like the Australia we were promised. Somewhere along the yellow brick road, the Wizard of Oz has lost his plot.

For generations, Australia was a place where aspiration was not something to apologise for. But the Albanese government wizard stands grinning behind the curtain right now, hands yanking rusted levers labelled 'higher taxes', 'bracket creep', 'CGT', 'negative gearing' and 'red tape'. Smoke pours through the room, while ordinary Australians—the tradies, the nurses, the small-business owners and the families—stand watching the Australian dream crumble, brick by brick.

There was a time when a tradie could follow his own yellow brick road. It started in a battered ute, with 300,000 kilometres on the clock, a toolbox rattling in the trailer and a thermos of bad coffee riding shotgun, before the sun rose. They built futures for their families and helped build the economic backbone of this country—because tradies do not just build homes, roads and skylines; they build Australia itself. In 2023-24 alone, the construction industry accounted for seven per cent of Australia's GDP and employed around 1.3 million people. These are the men and women who physically built modern Australia: a plumbing company; a roofing crew; one apprentice became two, and two became 10; the ute became a fleet; the rented workshop became a warehouse with a family name on the front. That was the Australian dream—the emerald city.

But, right now, too many Australians feel like characters trapped in The Wizard of Oz. There are the scarecrow Australians, treated like they're too foolish to notice what's happening to their pay packets, to their businesses and to their futures. They're told anyone with an investment property is some kind of wealthy property baron gaming the system, when, for many Australians, property is their single-biggest financial asset. Most investors are on modest incomes. Seventy-one per cent own just one investment property and 19 per cent own just two.

Then there are our tin man Australians, exhausted by a system that no longer seems to have a heart. They're small-business owners lying awake at night wondering how they will cover wages, insurances, power bills and rising costs.

Then there are our lions. They are Australians not lacking courage, but fearful in Albanese's Australia, where every shift worked, every risk taken and every sacrifice made is just slugged with more taxes—on housing, on savings, on investment and on small businesses—because the wizard can't manage money. He's coming after yours, while one in three households wonder not what they'll eat tonight but whether they can eat at all.

Every new tax, every change to investment rules, every attack on small business and family assets sends the same message to working Australians, including to our working poor: how dare you try to build something of your own! The people being hit are not billionaires in penthouses; they are sparkies with busted knees, concrete workers with shoulders held together by painkillers, and families who missed holidays and weekends because they believed sacrifice today would mean security tomorrow.

The Albanese government's changes to capital gains tax put at risk a longstanding Australian tradition of working hard to build something of your own and pass it on to the next generation—a tradition that has long defined families, tradies and small businesses across this great land, especially in mortgage belt communities like Lindsay, where we have nearly 21,000 GST-registered businesses, and they power our Penrith economy. We have 5,000 construction businesses and over 860 manufacturers. Together, they support nearly one in four City of Penrith jobs. Lindsay is the canary in the coalmine of the Australian economy. It is the pulse of aspiration in this country. The canary knows before anyone else, and right now Lindsay is twitching.

The Real Estate Institute of Australia doesn't agree with these taxes, nor does the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The list goes on, and the Australian people are really clicking their heels together right now, dreaming of a better land. They're dreaming of home, because there's no place like home, and this is not the country Australians have worked so hard to build.

I might just change the tone that's going on in this chamber, because there are some people that are really impacted by this issue. Housing is the biggest issue that I learned of through my time at St Vincent de Paul. I just want to reflect on some of the remarks from the member for Hume today. He talked a lot of smack about other people in this chamber and outside the chamber. But he didn't talk about young people. He didn't talk about the future of Australia. He didn't even provide an alternative to the Australian people, other than taking this down.

What we also need to highlight is that we have to be honest about the housing system. It's broken; we know that. Since 1999, house prices have risen by more than 400 per cent. Wages have not kept up. In 1999, I was 12 years old. I am now 39. That means the rise in house prices has happened entirely across my young adult and full adult life. So it took a long time for me, as a 39-year-old, and my husband to, between us, to save to buy our first home. I feel very grateful that we were able to buy in the St George area, in my electorate, and be close to family and friends and the places where we work. But since being elected to this place, we've also been able to purchase a small apartment in Canberra so we can juggle the lifestyle between being here and being back in the electorate.

I've also had the opportunity to be a scientist and a lawyer. Some people have been making comments today about whether people are small-business owners. I myself was not a small-business owner, but I know there are a lot of people on this side of the chamber who have been. But I have the privilege of being a member of parliament. The roles that I've been in at those different points of my life have given me access to secure work and decent pay. That was not only because of working hard—the people I grew up with also worked hard. The reality is that we live in one of the luckiest countries in the world. We have so much opportunity.

My experience is that I was in the right industries at the right time with the right opportunities. Growing up, I had friends who also worked very hard. They worked hard at school. They completed their training. They built their careers. They're raising their beautiful kids. They're caring for their parents. They've done all the right things, and still they're struggling to buy a home. We talk a lot about houses and investment, but it's a home. I cannot look my friends and other people in my community in the eye and tell them that the current system is fair. And I can't defend a system that tells people my age to suck it up and keep supporting rules that favour investments over homes, because that's what we've heard today from the member for Hume and the member for Lindsay.

I had the privilege of helping people in the member for Lindsay's electorate when I worked at St Vincent de Paul. It's not all roses in the member for Lindsay's electorate. There are people really struggling. One in three people that came to the St Vincent de Paul Society were first timers. They had two secure jobs in the household, two incomes coming in, but struggled to pay the rent. That is a reality for many people, even the people in the member for Lindsay's seat.

If it hadn't been hard for people my age, I cannot begin to imagine how hard it is for Australians 10 years younger than me, who are approaching 30, about to take the next step in life, who want to settle down, have their first kid, maybe have another kid, build stability and stay near to people they love. But then, they look at their bank accounts and they think, 'Where on earth is that money supposed to come from?'

Last week, I had the opportunity to go to a youth radio station in Kogarah and meet some of the volunteers there. One young woman said to me—she's about 17 years old—'Ash, I've accepted the fact that I will never own my home.' This is the reality for young people. They have resigned themselves to the fact that they will never own a home. We can't write them off; we can't keep talking about avocado and toast. Those days have to end. The reality is that she is 17. These are young people. This is not the Australia we should accept, and this is not the future we should ask our young people to settle for.

I'm not giving up on the Australian dream—the dream that you can own your home, that you can live near your family and people you like, that you can build a stable, secure life through hard work. This government is not giving up on that dream either. That is why we have introduced this budget, and the Australian dream should not be something a 17-year-old already has to give up on.

I tell you what, it was quite amazing this week and last week that there was a big conversion from those opposite. They're talking about housing like, suddenly, in the last 12 months, housing became an issue for young people. If you believe the logic of those opposite, it wasn't an issue at the last election because they didn't want to change the tax settings when it comes to housing in the last election. That is a circle that they cannot square. None of them could explain how they went to their communities 12 months ago and said, 'Nope, we're not going to change the tax system. It's all working fine,' and then suddenly, today, everything is tough.

Of course everything is tough, but have the courage to talk about it and change it 12 months ago, if you were going to do that. But there's a reason that these changes were not proposed last year by the Prime Minister and by the Treasurer. The first reason that they didn't want to change it was that it will not actually help young people. It will deliver less housing for the Australian people. The tax changes in this budget will deliver less housing for the Australian people. Don't take my word for it, look at the budget papers that say it will deliver 35,000 less houses. These tax changes in the budget paper will deliver 35,000 less houses. It's in the budget paper.

That's not what the budget says; it's 75,000 more. Be honest.

The minister opposite is questioning the integrity of Treasury by saying, 'Be honest.' The claim I have made, Minister, is in your own budget papers. It says 35,000 less houses under this change. If you don't like the Treasury budget papers, you can always listen to the Treasurer. The Treasurer himself, in 2024, said in media: 'We do not need to change this system because I haven't been convinced it will increase supply and deliver more housing.' Those are the Treasurer's own words in 2024. His budget papers confirm that these tax changes will not deliver more housing.

In fact, it will make it even worse for the Australian people, confirmed in the budget paper. In the Treasurer's budget paper: 'These tax changes will deliver higher rents for the Australian people.' Again, those are not my words, they're from the Treasurer's own budget paper. That is why we find many criticising these changes, including the Labor premier in WA, Roger Cook, the Labor premier in New South Wales, Chris Minns, the member for Parramatta, in this House, the member for Bennelong, in this House. They are both members of the government. The member for Chifley, also in this House, said, 'This budget needs to change.' Senator Ananda-Rajah in the other house is also criticising this change. They were the ones on the Labor side that were prepared to put their objections on the record. But we also know, through reporting in the media, that there were heated discussions and disagreements in one of the caucus committees, where many were asking the Treasurer many questions about these changes.

Member for Grey, I have found one Labor premier that does support these changes. The Victorian Premier, Jacinta Allan, supports the changes, so I look forward to those opposite from Victoria getting out on the hustings with Jacinta Allan and getting her to spruik them as their local member. I don't think the member for Menzies will be doing that, and I don't think the member for Maribyrnong will be hanging out with Jacinta Allan, given the support that Jacinta Allan has in Victoria.

There is clear talk here. There are clear challenges that the Australian people face, and that's why we, as a coalition, want to help the Australian people. It's why we've got a tax-back guarantee that will deliver lower taxes for everyone. It will mean that every time you get a pay increase, every time you work overtime—to put more money in your bank, to put food on the table—you will get an automatic tax cut under the coalition plan.

The question for those opposite is are they going to back indexation of tax brackets, or are they going to play the smoke-and-mirrors game of giving money back to people after they've already paid the tax through bracket creep? That's the reality for the money they're promising—two years time after you're already paid for it.

I'm absolutely delighted that those opposite have chosen a very interesting topic for the MPI today: plans for toxic taxes taken to the last election. And I'm glad, because such a topic would usually seem to indicate that those opposite have had time to reflect on the deeply damaging decision that they made last year to not only vote against a tax cut for every taxpayer in the country but also to go to an election promising Australians that they'd raise taxes if they formed a government. I hope that they have taken that time to reflect, and I hope that they won't make the same mistake again. Unfortunately, at the moment, it doesn't seem like it.

While we've been out listening to Australians about the cost-of-living challenges facing them, those opposite have been cowering in fear at the rise of One Nation and the prospect that their 1950s-style politics just might not be relevant to 2026 Australia.

Now, we on this side of the chamber—without our heads buried in the sand—do take note of the economic circumstances facing the world and the economic circumstances facing this country. And we have seen the dramatic impact that the conflict in Iran is having on Australians here at home. We know that these impacts are not short term. Even if the war ends tomorrow, there will be serious long-term impacts on our economy from this conflict. We on this side have been hearing about the cost-of-living pressures facing Australians—including fuel, groceries and health. But Australians have told us that the biggest impact on their cost of living has been housing. International economic pressures have only made the cost-of-living pressures associated with housing more acute and more urgent.

This is a government that listens, and this is a government capable of adaptation. This is a government that puts housing at the forefront, with the most ambitious housing agenda in generations: $47 billion to build more homes, back first home buyers and help renters get a better deal. This is a government reducing tax for 13 million workers, providing tax relief and tax reform to make our economy work in the interests of more Australians, of businesses and of future generations. This is a government that's strengthening Medicare with free urgent care clinics as a permanent part of Medicare and a record funding boost to public hospitals. It's making more life-changing medicines cheaper. This is a government responding to an uncertain world, making sure Australia is prepared for what comes next by investing to buy more fuel and fertiliser now and growing our national reserves of fuel and diesel to 50 days.

Those opposite now have the opportunity to support these measures and get behind a government that is listening to the Australian people and delivering ambitious reform, or they can take the opportunity to vote against Australians in the name of a desperate attempt to cling on to fleeting power. What will they do? It is hard to know. But one of the best predictors of future behaviour is past behaviour. Our government have spent the last four years putting forward measures to ease cost-of-living pressures on Australians and, each time, we have reached out to those opposite in support of the national interest to offer them the chance to support Australians and, each time, what have they done? They have turned their backs. They have voted against tax cuts. They have voted against cheaper medicines. They have blocked housing investment.

We on this side of the chamber have undertaken this incredible once-in-a-generation tax reform. We've introduced the working Australian tax offset. We've introduced a $1,000 instant tax deduction, which the ATO estimates will amount to $380 million in compliance cost savings. We're limiting negative gearing to new builds, where it will boost supply, from 1 July 2027. This is an important moment for the coalition. Australians are watching. They will remember who stood on their side and who stood against them. They will remember who backed a tax reform that is backing new supply into the Australian market and is standing against the status quo that is not working for young people. Those opposite now have an opportunity to decide where their priorities are and what the future of the coalition looks like.

I want to tell a little story about Dale and Tanya, who are local businesspeople in my electorate. They come from Wurtulla. They received in the last few years an export award for their business. I'm not going to name them because we all know what happens. Some trolls on the other side will—

Government members interjecting—

Oh, you're going to try and say it doesn't happen? It happens. So I'm not going to name them. These people won an export business award and—do you know what?—they rang me on Monday night, as a result of these changes, and said, 'We think we're going to have to relocate to Singapore.' Here's a successful business that was built from a garage, employing Australians and exporting to the world, and, because this government didn't have the courage to take these tax changes on capital gains tax to an election, like so many other small businesses around this country, they are fearful. They are worried that this government is going to have its hands in their pockets when they go to sell. That is the reality. Australian businesses are very, very worried, because they don't trust this lot. If this government had any modicum of courage, it would have done what Bill Shorten did and taken its policies to a general election. But they didn't do that because they knew that in the 2019 election they were resoundingly defeated. So what did they do? They kept it under wraps. They kept it quiet.

You can't tell me that it's not a series of policies that this government has held since the 1980s. We know Paul Keating got rid of negative gearing in the 1980s. It lasted less than two years—because what did it do? It forced the price of rents up in capital cities. That is exactly what's going to happen here. Don't take my word for it. The government's own budget papers accept that residential rents will rise. If you talk to any young person, they will tell you the No. 1 challenge they have in buying a home is saving a deposit. If rents go up by as much as, per what some economists are saying, 20 per cent, the more money kids are paying in rent, the less money they're stashing away for a deposit. That is the reality. That is the reality. You are making it harder. The government is making it harder for younger people to save for a house. That is the reality, on your own budget figures—on the government's own budget figures.

Honourable members interjecting—

Members, order!

Even if you talk about the five per cent deposit, you still need five per cent. You still need five per cent. Five per cent of $1 million is $50,000 on the Sunshine Coast—a $50,000 deposit. The member for Hughes is saying, 'What's $50,000? It's nothing.' But $50,000 is a lot of money. That $50,000 is a lot of money, and—

On a point of order—I've been misrepresented. That's not what I said.

You'll have an opportunity at a later date to actually raise that matter. Member for Fisher, resume. Having a little less interjections so that I can hear clearly what the member for Fisher is saying would be helpful.

That would be great, thank you. It is taking up my time as well. This government has no courage. If it had the courage, it would have taken these policies to the election. But they didn't. The coalition is offering sensible alternatives. We are offering to index people's incomes, their thresholds, their payment thresholds. This will overcome bracket creep. That is one of the single largest problems in this country that just promotes lazy governments, and we will fix that. It's one of the best things that came out of the budget-in-reply—

The call goes to the member for Menzies.

Just this morning, the Treasurer introduced the bills for the most ambitious, reforming and courageous budget that we've seen this century. This is a budget that addresses a status quo in housing so that hardworking Australians who have the aspiration to own their own homes will be able to realise that aspiration. In the first speech that I was privileged to be able to deliver in this place, I talked about rising wealth inequality. The issue with rising wealth inequality is that it doesn't just deprive people of opportunity when we're talking about a limited resource like housing; it is also damaging to social cohesion. It means that, when people see that they can't get ahead, they lose hope, and they lose faith in the system being able to deliver for them.

The 50 per cent capital gains tax discount was introduced in 1999. Since it was introduced in combination with negative gearing, it has turbocharged housing prices. The cost of a home, when the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount was introduced, was four times the average annual wage, and it's now eight times the average annual wage. So there has been a 400 per cent increase in housing unaffordability. That's a broken system. It's a broken status quo. And we can't continue on that trajectory. Not surprisingly, homeownership rates have declined as the cost of housing has increased, and it has particularly declined amongst younger people. We're locking a generation out of housing if we continue on this trajectory, and this is a generation of young people who are working hard and who are saving and still can't get a foothold in the housing market.

Last week, I went out doorknocking in my community in Menzies, in Mont Albert. Mont Albert, for those that are familiar with Victoria, is not a particularly low-socioeconomic area. The houses there are pretty big. I was curious to see how our budget measures had gone down there. I do a lot of doorknocking because I think it's really important to get feedback from locals on the measures that we're taking, and I think it's the best way to get honest feedback—having a conversation with people at their door. I knocked on the doors of younger people who were living in the electorate, and, not surprisingly, they really welcomed these changes. Many of them recognised that the system had been stacked against them for a long time because of tax breaks for housing investors. Those housing investors hadn't been doing the wrong thing. They were investing in housing. But it did mean that younger people were getting locked out of the market. They would go to auctions and they would bid, but they would just be outpriced by housing investors who were able to draw on the equity of their existing properties in order to make higher bids. That is part of the reason that we've seen this decline in homeownership.

We also have had many people contact my office, not just after this budget but prior to this budget, who were talking about the housing system being broken. Those aren't just younger people, but those are older people as well, who recognise that changes to the capital gains tax discount and changes to negative gearing might not advantage them, but they recognise how important it is that everybody and future generations have the opportunity for homeownership. When I was doorknocking, I met some of those people—people in their 50s and 60s who were living at home with kids in their 20s, and they recognised that their children didn't have the opportunity to get into the housing market, and they were concerned as well that their children wouldn't be able to buy houses close to them and that they wouldn't be able to play a role in their grandchildren's future, should their children choose to have children themselves, because they would have to live so far away and so far out that they wouldn't be able to provide that care, and being able to live closer together in well-located homes in suburbs is such an important thing for families. That's a trajectory that we can't continue on.

We also have a youth advisory council in my electorate. These are young people aged 16 to 24. A really common thing that they'll say is that they think that they'll never be able to own their own home. That's why we need to make sure that we're making these changes and addressing this growing wealth inequality and a generation that's locked out of housing. That's exactly what we're doing. Importantly, we're still allowing negative gearing to be made available for new homes, and that's because we know that we want to increase supply to increase affordability.

I rise today to speak on a matter of national disappointment. It is a matter concerning the current government and their refusal to be honest with the Australian people about their plans for new taxes prior to the last election. Despite having slipped this week on more than one occasion, I'm actually a student of the standing orders, and I will respect them. I know full well that I am from forbidden from using a certain three letter word to describe the statements made by those opposite. I'm simply not allowed to call those pre-election guarantees Labor—I can't do it. Therefore, out of respect for you and the rules of this House, I will not do that today. I will refrain from calling this government and their promises what every single Australian sitting at home already knows.

Let us look at the facts. Before the election, the Australian public was looked squarely in the eye and offered a very solemn pledge: no changes to CGT. It was an unambiguous commitment—52 times. Yet what have we seen? We've seen a relentless and calculating rollout of toxic taxes that will suffocate regional economies, punish families, cripple our small businesses and do nothing to positively impact housing. When the government went to the polls, they were, let us just say, remarkably creative with their foresight. They presented a complete fiscal fantasy. They suffered a sudden and highly convenient bout of pre-election amnesia regarding their true socialist taxation agenda. They painted a beautiful picture of the future, completely omitting the dark and taxing clouds they'd already prepared in the background or should I say that Bill Shorten had prepared in the background.

The people in my electorate of Grey, the builders, the butchers, the farmers, the fishers and the small business owners—they are certainly not fools. They know when a politician is selling them a pup. They know when a promise is written in disappearing ink. They were promised relief, but instead they are being handed a massive bill by this government for their ideological crusade. If a mechanic in Port Augusta or a farmer in Bute conducted their business the exact way this government conducts itself, they would be run out of town quick smart. In the real world, a handshake means something, a commitment is binding, but here in Canberra, under this government, a pre-election guarantee is merely a rough draft subject to immediate reversal the very moment the polls close and the ballot boxes are safely sealed away.

I will adhere to these strict rules in the chamber today. I will not say that banned three-letter word—heavens no! I instead say that Labor engaged in a breathtaking display of storytelling where fact and fiction blend to create a river of falsehood.

At least he didn't fall off the stage!

He didn't fall off the stage. I'll say they were economical with this truth. I'll say they dealt in severe factual deficit—not to be confused with economic deficit, something they also know very well. They manufactured a furphy. If only the people at home could hear the nonsense coming from that side of the chamber. They served up a platter of bulldust. They took a detour from reality. They promised a feast but delivered a toastie. Call it what you will—call it a terrible breach of faith, call it a broken promise, call it a betrayal of the highest order—we all know what it is, and the Australian people know it too. They know exactly what this government did when they made their pre-election promises and then broke them like a pane of glass. They will all clearly remember this absolute masterclass in political deceit when the time comes to vote them out at the next election.

I rise to speak against this motion because this motion is not really about honesty; it's about an opposition looking for a scare campaign because it has run out of an economic plan, but this government has not. Australians know what this government stands for. We stand for lower taxes for working people. We stand for responsible cost-of-living relief. We stand for stronger Medicare. We stand for cheaper medicines. We stand for more homes. We stand for an economy that rewards work, not just wealth.

Labor cut income taxes for every taxpayer in our first term. We are cutting them again, and we are cutting them again after that. That is tax relief for working Australians. This Albanese Labor government is putting more money in the pockets of 13.3 million workers through the working Australians tax offset. It is delivering a new $1,000 instant tax deduction. It is cutting fuel taxes to help people fill up the car. It is making Medicare urgent care clinics permanent, and it is investing in public hospitals and cheaper medicines. That is the evidence. Not slogans, not fear—evidence.

Here is the part the opposition does not want to talk about: when Labor delivered tax cuts, they opposed them. When Labor delivered cost-of-living relief, they opposed it. When Labor backed higher wages, they fought against it. When Labor acted to strengthen Medicare, they stood in the way. The Prime Minister was right when he said the opposition went to the last election arguing for higher taxes and higher deficits. Now they want to lecture Australians about tax. The opposition cannot spend years opposing tax relief and then pretend to be the party of lower taxes. They cannot oppose help for households and then pretend to care about the cost of living. They cannot block, delay and complain, and then ask Australians to forget the record. This is not strength. This is not leadership. This is not honesty. It is politics at its smallest.

The opposition attacks these reforms because they do not want the real debate. Should the tax system reward people who work hard for a wage? Should young Australians get a fairer chance to buy a home? Should government make careful choices so we can fund Medicare, hospitals, housing and cost-of-living relief? On this side of the House, the answer is yes. That is why we are delivering tax cuts for every taxpayer. That is why we are delivering more tax relief for workers. That is why we are putting fairness back into the system. That is why we are making reforms that help bring the dream of homeownership within reach.

This government is making difficult decisions, but difficult does not mean dishonest. Leadership means being straight with people about the challenges in front of us. The housing challenge is real. The cost-of-living challenge is real. The pressure on public services is real. The need to repair the budget is real. As a serious government faces those challenges, a serious government acts. This budget does not just acknowledge the people who feel the system is not working for them; it acts on it. That is what this government is doing—taking pressure off households, cutting taxes for workers, strengthening Medicare, building more homes, repairing the budget, making the tax system fairer for the future.

The opposition can say what they like, but Australians can see what really is going on—an opposition that opposes relief and then complains people are under pressure, an opposition that defends unfairness and then talks about aspiration, an opposition that offers slogans when families need solutions. This motion should be rejected, because it is about fear. Australians deserve better than fear. They deserve a government that acts. That is what Labor is doing. We promised to help with the cost of living; we are delivering. We promised to strengthen Medicare; we are delivering. We promised to build a fairer economy; we are delivering—and we are just getting started.

I thank the member for Melbourne.

During question time, the Leader of the Opposition proposed a motion to suspend standing orders and sessional orders. The Leader of the House required, under standing order 47(e) that further proceedings take place after the matter of public importance, where the House is at the moment. I understand the seconder of the motion, the member for Canning, wishes to seek leave to address the House for five minutes.

I seek leave to address the House for five minutes.

Leave granted.

I thank the Leader of the House for the opportunity for some late afternoon truth-telling. The truth is that Labor's toxic taxes are a war on Aussie aspiration. Small businesses, farmers, families and millions of Australians looking to get ahead will be hit by the tax hikes that Labor has introduced today. The Prime Minister went to the election promising no new taxes. He said his word was his bond. Fifty times, he ruled out changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. But, as Australians have found out, he's been planning this sneaky attack on Aussie aspiration for the last 12 months, and today we've seen exactly his battle plan. He is going to hit Australians with toxic new taxes. They say one thing before an election and do another thing afterwards.

Australians are being hit with more taxes. They're being hit with a housing tax, a small- and family-business tax, a tax on savings and investment and a tax on aspiration. The Albanese government has breached the trust of the Australian people. Australians can see through the sneaky way that this government operates. The Prime Minister is short on policy, but he is long on tactics. He has shown a very great ability, in fact, with his sneaky, stealthy hit on Australian aspiration.

Australians work hard. They make sacrifices. They put in extra hours, take risks and start businesses. They produce our food on farms, they invest in the future and they try to build something better for their children. That should be encouraged. That's what we're about on this side of the House. But this government sees aspiration as a source of revenue. Australians see right through the Prime Minister and this Labor government's sneaky war on Aussie aspiration. They see this as an attack on our prosperity, our security and our competitiveness as a nation. What kind of country do we want our nation to become? Do we want to be a country that rewards hard work, risk taking and enterprise or a country where government keeps taking more, spending more and making it harder for the average Australian to get ahead?

Under Labor, Australians are going backwards. This is exactly what's happening to them. Power bills are up, housing is less affordable, small businesses are under enormous pressure, families are cutting back on their budgets, there's less discretionary spending and now Labor wants more of Australians' money to pay for its failed policies and reckless spending. The truth is—and you know what I'm going to say here—when Labor run out of money, they come after yours. That is the story of this government—more tax, more spending, more bureaucracy and less opportunity for ordinary Australians.

The coalition believes in something different. We believe in protecting families and small business. We believe in rewarding hard work, and we believe in aspiration. That means restoring a culture where people who work hard and take risks are supported and rewarded by government—not punished by government, which is what's happening under the Albanese government. It means restoring the dream of home ownership for young Australians who feel locked out of our housing market. They are losing hope of ever having a stake in our great country. It also means rebuilding an economy that produces things again, things of value, because a strong country needs those things in times of crisis.

For that, we need affordable energy, and affordable energy means productive businesses. It means strong industries. That's why the coalition will always stand up for Australians trying to build something better for themselves and their families. We want to restore the Australian standard of living, we want to reward hard work, we want to restore home ownership and we want to secure Australia's future. That's why we want to give Australians more of their own money back with our tax-back guarantee, indexing income tax thresholds to inflation. We're going to stop the bracket creep. That's why we want to cap migration based on how many homes are being built. Housing supply matters, and young Australians deserve a fair shot at owning a home. To be very clear, we're going to peg net overseas migration figures to housing completions every single year.

That's why we're scrapping net zero. We believe this country could be an energy superpower. We have an abundance of coal, gas and uranium. We also have plenty of sun and wind, but you need reliable, affordable baseload power, and that only comes through fossil fuels. Australia is one of the biggest exporters of coal and gas around the world, and we export to some of the world's biggest and fastest growing emitters, countries like China, India, Japan and Korea. The reality is, under Labor, we deny those very fuels to the Australian people, and they're paying with their family budgets. They're paying with their businesses. We're seeing industry across this country collapse under this Labor government.

The taxation system in Australia is broken. When a teacher, a nurse or a police officer working hard to try and get ahead is paying more tax than someone who is simply buying and selling assets, that system is broken. That system stinks. That system is unfair. Our government is determined to fix that system to make sure that it works and to ensure that we're incentivising and supporting hardworking Australians who are trying to get ahead, not punishing them simply because they can't afford to own investment assets.

Who is opposing the reforms that our government is putting to the parliament? None other than the opposition, but they're not alone this time. We've got the Liberal Party. They've teamed up, of course, with their friends in the Nationals, but they've been joined in recent times by—I don't know if you can call them their enemy, but they're friends for this purpose—One Nation. So here you have the Liberals, the National Party and One Nation. A coalition of crackpots have come together to oppose the sensible reforms that the Labor Party and the government is putting to the parliament.

Opposition members interjecting—

I must have hit a nerve.

The assistant minister is going to pause. I want to hear from the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Representatives.

He's one of the most respected members on their side, and he's better than that.

If we're going to refer to the coalition, we'll just refer to them as 'the coalition'. Please withdraw the unparliamentary term that was made to members of the House.

I withdraw. Imagine the first meeting of this said coalition. Imagine when they came together. You've got the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Canavan, the member for New England and Senator Hanson talking tactics about how they're going to oppose sensible reform. But I think we all would love to know who's going to be the leader of this said coalition. If you go on raw numbers in the parliament, then it probably should be the Leader of the Opposition. But, when you look at recent polling and you look at recent trends, the trend is not his friend. The trend is not his friend, particularly when you look at the outcome of the Farrer by-election, where we know the Liberal Party lost a blue ribbon seat to their friends in One Nation. And the ironic thing is that they did it on the back of preferences from the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party helped One Nation get up in the Farrer by-election. Fantastic. Great move. Well done, Leader of the Opposition; you helped elect One Nation to one of your blue ribbon seats. This motion should be opposed—

Debate interrupted.

I rise today to give voice to the deep anger, frustration and sense of betrayal gripping the communities of the Central West. The business support package recently announced by the New South Wales government for those impacted by the indefinite closure of the Great Western Highway at Victoria Pass is an absolute disgrace. If governments believe they can drop some small change on our area, wash their hands of it—and us—and walk away, they had better think again.

Cheap talk and token gestures don't cut it when livelihoods are on the line. This crisis was not an act of God; it was caused by the outright negligence of successive governments. They well knew that a bridge built by a convict chain gang in 1832 would fail. But instead of fixing it, Macquarie Street chose to monitor the decay while prioritising billion-dollar vanity projects in Sydney, including $2 billion for a new expressway to the airport. Our local economies are being smashed by their neglect, yet all they can offer is a paltry $10,000 grant. That doesn't even cover businesses in Lithgow or further west. To a small family business in Little Hartley, 10 grand is only a drop in the ocean for what they really need.

I've been out on the ground with locals who are living this nightmare every single day, and I can tell you that the pain is real. I spoke with Shannon Kus, local father and owner of Erins Quality Outdoor Power Centre. He rightly pointed out:

Ten thousand dollars wouldn't even cover a week's wages for a lot of businesses. It wouldn't even cover the fuel bill, let alone the overheads we are racking up just trying to keep the doors open. It's absolutely disappointing.

Ange Richardson, the manager of Hartley House Cafe, who employs up to eight workers, put it even more bluntly:

It's not really a support package. I'm not sure how ten thousand dollars is really going to help us at all. We needed it weeks ago and it needs to be ongoing. We'll have to keep scrimping to survive. It's a joke.

This package is totally and utterly inadequate. It highlights a government completely out of touch with what's happening on the western side of the sandstone curtain.

Governments are supposed to serve the people they represent, not wreck their businesses and insult them with pathetic token gestures while families struggle to put food on the table. Worse still, the package deliberately excludes businesses in Lithgow and further west. And why? The answer is simple: to save money. This closure has disrupted the entire western New South Wales supply chain, sending freight costs through the roof. Yet those businesses get zero support. It also completely ignores our larger employers, whose staff are now at immediate risk of being laid off because of this debacle. To add insult to injury, the support offered to our local councils is equally pathetic. This package is an insult to the hardworking residents suffering through this government-made disaster. Our business owners are literally selling their homes to get through it. It's an outrage caused by governments.

The state and federal governments are going to be hearing a lot more from our communities because the sandstone curtain will not stop our voices. We will not be quiet. We will not be bought off with token gestures. We demand meaningful financial support to all areas affected, and ultimately the delivery of the genuine high-speed access in and out of the Central West that we deserve. Get on with it, federal government. Do your jobs and deliver it.

I want to recognise two extraordinary community sporting institutions in my electorate, the Drummoyne Rowing Club and the Rhodes parkrun. They are different in form, one on the water and one along the waterfront, but they share something important. They are powered by volunteers. They bring people together and show what community sport is all about.

Established in 1919, Drummoyne Rowing Club has operated continuously in Iron Cove for more than a century. It is one of Sydney's oldest community sporting institutions and a true anchor on the Parramatta River foreshore. The club is a community driven organisation, not-for-profit, self-funded through memberships, grants and fundraising and powered almost entirely by volunteers. I want to thank Steve Burke, the president of the club, for his decades-long association with the club and for inviting me to attend a regatta recently. With more than 250 members aged from 13 to 83 and a strong majority of women and girls participating, the club reflects the diversity and inclusiveness that we value across our community. I'm told that rowing is a sport that really gets into your blood, and I met so many members who have been part of the club for decades, generations of families who were there rowing alongside each other.

I want to acknowledge three remarkable members. Graeme Wearne joined Drummoyne in 1969 and at 83 is still training and competing. He was a national champion, representing Australia at the 1979 world championships, and recently collected five medals at the New South Wales Masters Championships. He served as club president from 1980 to 1995 and remains a regular presence, proving, as he says, that, 'The older I get, the better I become'. Kathleen Hextell completed a Learn to Row program at Drummoyne in 2006, and she's been at the club ever since. She has poured thousands of volunteer hours and has helped hundreds of people get involved in the sport. I also want to acknowledge Kai Sakakibara, a champion BMX rider who suffered a serious injury in 2020. As part of his recovery, Kai took up pararowing at Drummoyne. His time there showed what an inclusive para program they run.

Last Saturday my son, Max, and I joined local residents at the Rhodes parkrun. It was so much fun. There were people there of all ages and all backgrounds. There were super fast runners and some slower walkers all participating in this great community event. They were part of something special. Rhodes parkrun was established in 2015 and is a free weekly five-kilometre walk, jog or run held every Saturday morning around the Rhodes Waterfront and Bicentennial Park. And for many people, parkrun is not just an exercise; it's a fixture in their social calendar, a chance to meet with their friends, connect and have a cup of coffee afterwards. It's also a great opportunity to get fit and look after your mental health.

It's one of the most popular parkruns in Sydney, regularly attracting more than 600 participants. Since its inception, more than 24,500 people have completed the course, recording more than 190,000 finishers. None of this happens by accident. Rhodes parkrun is delivered entirely by volunteers. More than 1,800 volunteers have assisted from course set up and marshalling to timing, barcode scanning, results and tail walking. Thank you to the run director team: Mark and Anilda Lehane, Adrian and Annette Ferris, Mike and Anna Richardson, Declan and Lorraine Ruane, Nicole Petrin, Debbie Kang, Shiona Will and Nancy Yan. They do an incredible job leading the parkrun each Saturday.

Rhodes parkrun supports young people by who are completing their Duke of Edinburgh award, helping them to build their confidence. I commend all the volunteers, members, participants and supporters and thank them for everything that they do for our community.

I rise today to acknowledge two very special milestones in Central Queensland: the 100-year celebration of the Yeppoon Surf Life Saving Club and the 40th birthday of the Central Queensland Family History Association. These are two very different organisations, but both represent the very best of our region. Both have served our community with dedication, both have brought people together and both have helped preserve something precious, whether that is lives on our coastline or the stories of the people who have built our region.

It was a real pleasure to join the Yeppoon Surf Life Saving Club for its centenary celebrations and to see the pride that so many people have in this outstanding club. For 100 years the club has helped keep beachgoers safe while building a strong sense of community across the Capricorn Coast. Generation after generation of volunteers in the red and yellow have stepped up to protect others, often without fanfare, simply because they care deeply about their community. That kind of service deserves to be recognised, and this centenary was a fitting opportunity to honour all of those who have helped shape the club's proud history.

For me, it was also a particularly special occasion because my own family has a long association with the Yeppoon club. I was pleased to sign the commemorative surfboard and reconnect with past nippers and long-term members whose dedication has helped shape the club over many decades. It was wonderful to see the memorabilia on display. It reflected a proud history of volunteerism, mateship and achievement. More than that, it told the story of the people who gave their time so others could enjoy the beach safely.

Surf lifesaving clubs are part of the fabric of coastal communities, and that's certainly true in Yeppoon. They teach young people discipline, resilience, teamwork and respect for the ocean. They bring families together through nippers, patrols, carnivals and volunteer service. We are celebrating much more than an organisation; we are celebrating a century of public service, local leadership and community spirit. That is a legacy every member, volunteer and supporter should be proud of.

I also had the pleasure of attending the 40th birthday celebration of the Central Queensland Family History Association at historic Glenmore Homestead. It was a wonderful setting for the occasion, a lovely morning filled with stories, conversation, morning tea and George Birkbeck's famous damper. Visiting Glenmore Homestead also brought back memories for me, having attended bush dances there in my youth. It was a warm and fitting celebration of an organisation devoted to preserving local stories and local identities.

I was pleased to present a congratulatory certificate to President Roseann Creagh in recognition of this special milestone. Congratulations also to Linda Marshall, vice-president and secretary, and Chris Wright, technology coordinator, who were awarded lifetime memberships for their incredible contributions over many years. Guests also heard from lifetime members Sharon Wright and Karl Makela, who shared memories from the association's early days and reflected on how much it had grown over 40 years. Moments like these remind us that strong organisations are built by people who quietly give their time, knowledge and heart to a cause they believe in.

Today the association holds an impressive collection of 6,094 resources, including microfiche, books, special collections and digital archives. That is a remarkable achievement, and it speaks to the importance of their work of preserving the stories of Central Queensland families for future generations. Family history is about more than names on a page. It's about understanding where we come from, appreciating the sacrifices of those who came before us and making sure local stories are not lost. The association's work has practical outcomes too. In 2023, I was asked to present a copy of When the Americans came to town, written by local author Norma Hempenstall, to Caroline Kennedy, who was the American ambassador to Australia at the time.

In a fast-moving world, organisations like these need help to keep us grounded in our shared history. Whether it is saving lives on the beach or preserving the stories of our region, both organisations reflect the very best of Central Queensland. I congratulate everyone involved with Yeppoon Surf Life Saving Club on their centenary and the Central Queensland Family History Association on 40 years. These milestones reflect the service and community spirit that make Central Queensland so special. They deserve our thanks and very best wishes for the future.

I was so grateful to attend the Sitzler First Nations netball competition last weekend at the Territory Netball Stadium on Larrakia country in Darwin. It was a great chance to celebrate culture and community through sports, and there's no better sport than netball to bring people together, as the Chief Government Whip and member for Lalor well knows.

In the Northern Territory, our First Nations communities are incredibly well represented in our sporting teams and clubs. The carnival represents a space for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and young women to come together from remote communities—Katherine, Central Australia, Darwin and across the country—to play netball and connect with one another. I was particularly happy to see the welcome return of the Mparntwe, or Alice Springs, team to the carnival. Players, coaches and umpires of all ages and at every level of the game came together, and it's easy to see why it has become one of the best events on the Territory netball calendar.

We know the importance of engaging with young people through sport. It helps boost mental, social and physical health. It was great to see local health organisations at the carnival as well, making sure that clubs and players can access support and resources in a culturally safe way.

This year's event was massive, with 20 teams and more than 200 players. From the under-11s to the opens and mixed teams, there was a chance for everyone to get involved and have a go. To see players, coaches and umpires improving their skills in a supportive environment was also encouraging.

The carnival also included a NO MORE round to raise awareness of domestic violence. Players wore orange ribbons and linked arms in the centre of the court before the matches as a visible sign of unity and strength against domestic violence. It was wonderful to have the founder of the NO MORE campaign, Dr Charlie King AM, attending the closing ceremony to present awards for teams and umpires who best embodied the values of respect and fairness.

I also want to acknowledge the donation of sports bras from the Sports Bra Project. These were distributed to all the female players and umpires during the carnival to support women and girls to participate in sports comfortably and confidently. It's one aspect of women's sport that's not often considered as an essential item but makes a real difference for women and girls.

I want to say a big thank you to the entire team at Netball NT. To the CEO, Debra Farrelly, and the chair, Catherine Sansom: thank you for showing me around and organising what was an amazing event. I'm glad it was such a success. I want to acknowledge the important role played by Indigenous women from the Northern Territory netball community Tash Guse and Michelle Kerrin, who emceed the opening and closing ceremonies. The welcome to country, delivered by Larrakia women Taylah Godwin and Paxton Miller, was a meaningful and powerful way to commence the carnival. Thanks also to Indigenous netballers Alicia Hosking and Taylah Godwin, who presented the Rising Star and winning team medallions. To all the participants: I want to thank you—and a big congratulations. It was a fantastic weekend. I'm going to encourage members on my side to come to Darwin, to the Northern Territory, for the 10th anniversary of this carnival. It'd be a fantastic carnival to be part of.

I'm proud to be part of a government which has continually invested in our sports teams, especially for young women and young girls. The $200 million Play Our Way program has helped lift barriers for women's sports. As the Minister for Sport has said before, too often women have to change in men's bathrooms, wear hand-me-down uniforms and play on fields that men wouldn't play on. I'm glad that, with the recent rise of women's sport, our government is acting to make sure that women get the same access to sports and all the benefits that come with it.

I'm going to use this opportunity to speak on the very difficult issue of domestic violence. In doing so, I will praise and acknowledge the work of the member for Lingiari. I've spoken to her in private, and also from dispatch boxes previously, acknowledging the hard work she does in talking about this issue—and also about empowering women, as she's done in her most recent speech.

I've spoken on the issue before, but it's something I want to get better at. The reality is that it's a really tough conversation not only for us to have; I am sure that every one of us who's been in this job for a while will have had someone come into the electoral office and begin this conversation. What they're telling you, in essence, is that the person they love has done something very, very bad, and that's a really difficult conversation. It's difficult for them to tell, and it's actually difficult to hear. I was speaking to the Minister for Social Services today about what help can be provided to electoral offices, because they have to deal with that too, and I think this is an important part. Sometimes people do come to us in their darkest hours.

I'll be honest, what's forced me into talking about this—I'll be part of an article in the media in over the weekend that is, in part, based around the impacts of domestic violence. I felt it was important to talk up about this. Certainly, as a local member, when I go to places like Protea Place, a women's crisis shelter run by the unstoppable Amanda Dalton—she's done a great job of talking to me about the issues we face in a regional community like Toowoomba. A lot of people out in the west of Queensland and northern New South Wales, when they go through breakdowns, sadly often involving domestic violence—what we're seeing is this heightened group of women aged 55-plus who have decided to leave, and where do they come to from those regional communities? They come to Toowoomba because they hope that there are services there to support them, and the sad truth is our services are, like in a lot of places, just desperate. We do not have enough, and that's the truth. I thank Amanda for her work.

I also will point out people like Tony Rehn from Toowoomba Together, who has really pushed the drive in Toowoomba to talk to men about domestic violence and what role men can play. I think, in the way that he does it, coming from a former policeman's view, there is the sufficient black and white when we're talking about where crimes have been committed and what lines have been crossed, but there's also a conversation to talk about men who are open to change. I think we need to have programs in place that deal with that. He addresses that very strongly. Between that strong law-and-order line and also working with people and being open and talking about it, I hope that there are things that we can do. I note the limitations of the federal government, and I know we have to work with the states and we have to work with our councils and our communities and those service providers as well. But I would really hope that that's something that can continue to have a bipartisan approach in this place. Whilst we might have different views as to the solutions and the priority of solutions that we would have, I have always believed that we have a bipartisan approach to dealing with this.

On my side, I'll acknowledge Peter Dutton's strong positions with regard to domestic violence and the discipline that he's certainly brought into our party in dealing with that issue as strongly as we can. I'll also acknowledge Julia Gillard's National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children in 2011. The effort to treat the issue seriously is from both sides. I would hope that is a continuing theme of my time in this place.

The hard part is—and this is where I hope to get better with it. The truth is so many people have a domestic violence story connected in their lives, and it's really difficult to talk about. I certainly have family history of it. I come from a regional community and town. Sadly, it's a fact of life. I have friends who have told stories about it. I have extended family members who have told me their stories. It is really difficult and confronting to do so. I remember my father telling me he was raised in a household that had domestic violence, and I always thought the best thing about my father was that he was somehow able to not continue that cycle on, and how he did that I have no idea. But that's a topic I want to talk about more—how we break that cycle. That was such an effort for him to say. I think on and hope that, in some way, I can take his example and bring it to this place and, in a cooperative, way work together to make this issue one that we can be proud of the efforts that we've done here.

Two weeks ago, the Treasurer delivered the fifth Albanese Labor government budget. It was a strong, measured budget set to deliver for every Australian. Most importantly, it included fundamental tax reforms, making our tax system fairer for generations to come. To echo the words of the Treasurer, and those of the Assistant Treasurer in the chamber today, our tax reforms are built on three core objectives: delivering tax cuts for every Australian worker, making it easier for Australians to get into their first home and better aligning the tax treatment of those who earn their income from work, from their labour, with those who earn income derived from assets to get a level playing field in that space so that we can level the playing field for people to actually get their first asset.

I represent a community that has grown. My first memory of seeing the population sign in Werribee, where I was born, was when it said 13,000. The city of Wyndham, which is the extrapolation of that small country town of Werribee, now has a population of over 330,000. I was elected in 2013. In 2013, I was the member for Lalor, and my electorate was the city of Wyndham. Thirteen years later, I'm the member for Lalor with half the city of Wyndham. The growth has been extraordinary and sustained over 40 years. There has been sustained dramatic growth because we are the place in Melbourne where people move to build that affordable home or purchase that affordable home. So in the debate that has been occurring around homeownership, my views might be slightly different to people who represent inner city seats because mine is not a community where parents say, 'My child's priced out and can't buy a home where we live now.' Mine is the community where the children of someone from the inner city are coming to buy their first home because we are still the place for affordable housing.

Let's just put that into perspective. I'm talking to Victorians. Let's put Sydney aside, because Victorians struggle to even think about house prices in Sydney, and I know the Assistant Treasurer will be nodding along with me. When I bought my first home in Werribee, I bought a home on spec. I was a teacher, and my husband was an electrician. We bought a home on spec for $62,000. It is hard to fathom that the average price of a home in the city of Wyndham is now about $650,000. This budget is about making sure that the kids who grow up in Victoria can afford to buy a house in what we consider to be the affordable suburbs that I represent. That's what this budget's about.

In my vast, multicultural community, there are a lot of people who, once they've bought that first home and the minute they can afford it, buy an investment property. There are a lot of families who have done that in my space. I'm really proud that this budget has landed in a place where their investments and the processes around those investments have been grandfathered so that they can continue to negatively gear that property. I'm really pleased that we've landed in that space, because otherwise they'd feel that we didn't have faith in them or that we weren't supporting them. So I'm really pleased that that's the case. But I'm more pleased that we've got it right so that future people who want to invest in property will be encouraged by the positioning to invest in new builds so that we can support the supply of housing and increase that supply and put downward pressure on the rising price of houses.

I'm really thrilled about this budget because I think it gets that right. For someone who represents working people who mostly pay income tax on income derived from their labour, I'm really proud that we're going to balance that up. And I'm really proud that, at auctions this Saturday, first home buyers won't have so many investors trying to outbid them to purchase that first home.

House adjourned at 16:59

We hear a lot from this government about a future made in Australia. It's a great headline and a great pitch, but I want to ask today: how real is it? Recently I visited a business in Wetherill Park, right in the heart of my electorate—Mario & Sons Steel Fabrication, a proud family owned business that has been part of our community since 1966, nearly 60 years. They fabricate and install structural steel for major distribution hubs, data centres and large warehouse facilities. They supply the steel that helps build infrastructure for some of the most recognisable brands in this country. This is exactly the kind of business we say we want to support when we talk about Australian made—local jobs and sovereign capability.

But, when I sat down with Livio Palozzo, his brothers and the next generation of their family who have now joined the business, I heard a very different story, a deeply concerning story. This is not a business that has failed to work hard enough. It is not a business that has cut corners on quality. Livio and his family told me plainly that Australian steel fabricators can no longer compete on price. They face enormous domestic pressures, higher labour costs, payroll tax, rising electricity bills, heavy freight costs, fuel costs and the constant weight of compliance. When you add all of that together, local manufacturers are being priced out of the very markets they helped build.

For a long time, quality was their protection. Builders trusted Australian steel. But Mario & Sons told me that it's no longer enough. Imported steel from China, South Korea and Japan has improved significantly. When overseas product is now comparable in quality and substantially cheaper, Australian steel is being bypassed at a tendering stage. The consequences are catastrophic. Mario & Sons has been forced to halve its production workforce in just three years. Longstanding clients have walked away. Their forward pipeline is emptying out, and they're watching other local businesses in the industry close their doors entirely. In Wetherill Park alone, more suppliers, like the InfraBuild Steel Centre, have already shut down. That is a flashing red light for the entire manufacturing ecosystem in Western Sydney.

The Australian Steel Institute has formally applied for safeguard measures, including a tariff rate quota, to give local industry breathing room to adjust. The Productivity Commission is conducting that inquiry right now. The government has no excuse for delay. We already accept this logic in other industries. The government subsidised our two remaining domestic oil refineries because it understands their importance to our national economic security. Why would we not apply the same logic to domestic steel manufacturing? Businesses like Mario & Sons are not asking for special treatment; they're asking for a fair chance to compete, to keep their workers in jobs, to keep making things here in Australia. I'm calling on the government to act, to give businesses like Mario & Sons the support they need to survive and to fix the system that is currently working against those very people. (Time expired)

One of the most important issues in last year's election in Western Sydney was health care, and I'm pleased to provide the House and my community with an update on the Albanese government delivering on improved health services for the people of McMahon and Western Sydney, starting with Fairfield Hospital. Fairfield Hospital was a proud achievement of the Unsworth Labor government in New South Wales, but the Unsworth Labor government was a long time ago. It was built in 1988 and it has not received any major works since then. All that is changing now. I was pleased to visit it a week or so ago with the state member for Fairfield, Dr David Saliba, to inspect the early works on this $630 million upgrade jointly funded by the Albanese and Minns governments, with $80 million from the Albanese government contributing particularly to the expanded emergency department, which is so important for our community. I've had to use that emergency department with my kids—many parents in Fairfield have had to. The service there is wonderful, but it is not keeping up with community growth. The first element will be the expansion of the car park, which is always full. But we're also going to see a new and expanded emergency department, intensive care unit, medical imaging, new operating theatres and new inpatient wards.

Of course, Fairfield Hospital is only one of the initiatives that we are pursuing. There are four urgent care clinics servicing various parts of my electorate: 13,700 people have visited the Fairfield urgent care clinic; 22,500 have visited Wentworthville, which services Greystones; and 22,500 people have visited Rooty Hill, which services Blacktown. In addition, four million cheaper scripts have been delivered in my electorate under the Albanese government, which is so important for people who are doing it tough, have chronic diseases and need that extra support. In addition, we have opened the Blacktown Medicare Mental Health Centre. I've visited it now twice with the member for Dobell, the assistant minister who's doing an outstanding job. Already, there have been 1,000 occasions of care in the Blacktown mental health clinic—walk in, no appointment necessary, no fee. This is a wonderful service in Main Street, Blacktown providing mental health support for the people of Western Sydney.

Finally—and the Assistant Minister for Health and Ageing is joining us—I'm very pleased to be able to say that I attended the opening of the Fairfield Hospital Perinatal Mental Health Centre for people undergoing postnatal and prenatal depression, an important addition. Services for people with perinatal mental health challenges have been lacking in Western Sydney. I saw it growing up as a kid in Western Sydney, where people had nowhere to go other than the GP, who often didn't understand matters of postnatal and perinatal depression. Now there's a specific purpose-built clinic at Fairfield Hospital and I'm very proud of that.

The town of Euroa in my electorate of Indi is plagued by repeated power outages and brownouts. This problem has been decades in the making, and it's one I've spoken about repeatedly in this place before. Euroa's electricity is supplied by the BN 11 feeder line from Benalla. It's the single-longest feeder line in AusNet's Victorian network, stretching 1,216 kilometres and serving around 4,800 customers. These customers are families, older residents, small- and medium-sized businesses, local health services, GP clinics, farmers and more.

In 2025, the BN11 feeder line recorded around 76 unplanned sustained outages, and, while not every outage affected every customer, each outage had a real impact on people who depend on reliable electricity. Repeated unexpected outages forced business owners to drop everything and scramble to switch on generators and risk losing valuable stock. People lose all the food in their freezers. The outages leave people worried about elderly neighbours and families with young babies whose health could be at risk without air conditioning or refrigeration during sustained heatwaves. This January, during the Victorian bushfires, people in Euroa lost telecommunications, including access to the Victorian emergency services app, while the Longwood fire burned just kilometres away. Unreliable power is a business killer and, in an emergency, it could be fatal. AusNet recognise the need to strengthen power security in Euroa. They put a proposal to the Australian Energy Regulator to build a new feeder line along the same route from Benalla to Euroa. Now, that line would not have solved every power issue, but it would have provided critical power backup when the existing line went down.

Last month the Australian Energy Regulator rejected that proposal, and instead approved AusNet to spend $5.6 million to install covered conductors on that line. I have met with AusNet and I've met with the Energy Regulator to understand why the feeder line was rejected, and what this alternative will deliver for Euroa instead. They both acknowledge the urgent need for better security for energy in Euroa, and they say they want practical, effective solutions. Well, so do I. They are engaging productively with me on this issue, and I really thank them for that. But this decision does not mean that we pack up and wait in hope for another five years for AusNet to return to the AER with a new proposal. I'll keep working with AusNet, the AER, Strathbogie Shire Council, the chamber of commerce and the residents of Euroa to secure an urgent fix while also working towards a sustainable, long-term solution.

Energy insecurity of this scale is unacceptable in 2026, and I'm so pleased that we have the energy minister here today listening to this speech because it is absolutely fundamental to rural Australians. I will keep fighting until Euroa gets the reliable power it deserves. (Time expired)

I rise today to acknowledge the significant progress being made on the new aquatic centre in Mordialloc, in my electorate of Isaacs. The pool is a major investment in our local community. I'm proud to say it is also one of the largest community infrastructure projects being undertaken by the City of Kingston. When the doors open, it will provide exceptional modern and accessible aquatic and leisure facilities for everyone in our community.

I want to emphasise the community contributions that have helped shape the design of the Mordi Aquatic Centre from the beginning of the project. More than 10,600 community submissions were received and, along with the work of the community reference group, have helped to guide the design and the planning process. The name Mordi Aquatic Centre was chosen by the community, with almost 4,000 votes cast. It reflects the strong local identity and the pride that people have in Mordialloc and the surrounding area.

The Mordi Aquatic Centre includes a 50-metre lap pool, a learn to swim pool, warm water exercise pool, gym and fitness facilities and so much more. It has been designed with accessibility at its core, including parking, change facilities, ramps, hoist access and rehabilitation spaces to ensure that the centre can be enjoyed by the whole community. The Mordi Aquatic Centre is jointly funded by the City of Kingston and the Australian government, and is an investment in, and for, the community that brings with it tremendous benefit.

Local pools are places where families meet, children learn to swim, seniors stay active and local sporting clubs train. They are also places where Australian Olympians are made. We're a nation of champion swimmers, and I am certain a future star will be born at the Mordi Aquatic Centre.

Construction is now well underway, and I know that the community is excited to see the doors open. I've been there on multiple occasions with the mayor and councillors to check progress during the course of construction. It is going very well. I'm looking forward to doing my first laps in the new 50-metre pool. I thank the City of Kingston, community members, local sporting groups and everyone involved in bringing this important project to life.

I'm proud to represent the Latrobe Valley in this federal parliament, and it's a privilege I share with the great member for Gippsland, my friend and colleague. We are both passionate about standing up for the Latrobe Valley. People across Victoria owe the Latrobe Valley a debt of gratitude. The Latrobe Valley has helped set up Victoria as a manufacturing state, and it keeps our lights on today.

I was very privileged recently to speak at the Latrobe City Business Chamber following the federal budget. In the Latrobe Valley we have a quantum of heavy industry, but also an ecosystem of small to medium enterprises. I'm proud to represent people who make things with their hands and spend long hours on their feet. We make world-beating product made by world-leading people in the Latrobe Valley. At that business breakfast, those small-business owners shared with me their pain and the fact that they are running on financial and mental reserves right now, grappling with the federal budget. We had broken promises on capital gains tax, negative gearing and family trusts, and that is being felt very acutely in the Latrobe Valley by small-business owners. I want to thank those small-business people for sharing their feedback, ideas, challenges, hopes and aspirations for a better Gippsland region and a brighter future for Australia.

I also want to recognise that this week our community learned that the 75-year-old Cyclone Tools factory in Wonthaggi will be closing its doors in October, ending an era of local manufacturing and costing 15 local workers their jobs. For decades, cyclone shovels and tools have been made in Wonthaggi, and those products have been used in gardens, farms and work sites right across Australia. At its peak, the factory employed around 200 people and became an important source of employment for the town, particularly following the closure of the state coalmine back in 1968. It is an example of how the cost of energy, the cost of doing business and the cost of making and manufacturing things in Victoria and Australia right now are just becoming too much for so many businesses.

Victoria was built as a manufacturing state. Businesses like Cyclone Tools have proudly contributed to the history and legacy of manufacturing in Victoria. We should be making more things in Victoria and across Australia. I'm really sad to see this business close its doors. I want to say to the people of Wonthaggi and to the communities right across the Bass Coast: I will stand up and fight for manufacturing businesses to be able to grow and develop in our region. It's really important. I want to stand up for blue-collar workers. I'm very proud of the products and services that you provide to our regions. The coalition will back you. I will back you. You deserve better.

I rise this morning to note the substantial investment the Australian Labor government is making in housing in my electorate of Lyons and to share some of the stories of people whose lives have been transformed as a result.

We are delivering nearly 300 social and affordable homes through the Housing Australia Future Fund in towns like Campbelltown, Carrick, Hadspen, Bridgewater, Triabunna and Perth—a program that the Leader of the Opposition has pledged to cancel if the coalition is elected. These are new homes that will support the people in my electorate, like Sarah and her kids, who recently told me that they've been waiting 12 years on the state Liberal government's social housing register.

We're also supporting renters, who have seen an increase in Commonwealth rent assistance by more than 50 per cent since we were elected, and that's helping to make renting more affordable for more than 8,500 families in Lyons. We understand that the ultimate goal for many renters is to one day own a home of their own. That's why I'm really proud that our five per cent deposit scheme has supported nearly 800 of my constituents into homeownership. Tasmanians like Jessica and Romain, who were facing eviction from their rental because it was going to be sold, were able to become owners of their home through the five per cent deposit scheme. That's why our government is reforming the capital gains tax and negative gearing to refocus incentives on new builds and to give young people and first home buyers a real crack at owning their own home. We're delivering on our 100,000 new homes for first home buyers plan, including through the recent agreement that we've struck with the Tasmanian government. With $165 million of federal support on the table, we'll deliver enabling infrastructure to support 4,000 new homes, including more than 2,100 just for first home buyers.

In my electorate of Lyons, there will be significant new investments in communities like Brighton, Sorell and Meander Valley, where 2,700 new homes will be developed, with almost 1,100 reserved just for first home buyers. On top of that, I was recently able to join the Prime Minister to announce 1,000 new homes at Dowsing Point. These are homes that will help thousands of people find a place to call their own. Ultimately, that's what our housing policies are all about—a safe place to live for Sarah and her kids, making renting a bit more affordable and a real shot at homeownership for people like Jessica and Romain. A fair go for all Australians.

Health remains a key challenge facing regional Australia. My electorate of Hinkler is the nation's top spot for the number of people living with one or more long-term health conditions. For the past two years, we've been blessed to have one of our very own local GPS in the position of president of the AMA Queensland, Dr Nick Yim, who concluded his tenure on 14 May. I thank Dr Yim for his ongoing advice to me regarding many matters, including Medicare, care delivery, aged care and so much more. Doctor Yim is a passionate medical educator, and he'll remain as immediate past president of the AMA Queensland for the next two years. I commend him on his advocacy and commitment to long-term planning instead of bandaid solutions for our GPS in regional Australia.

In Queensland, May is Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month. The awareness campaign is coming to an end, and the theme this year was 'Together we can prevent domestic and family violence.' Together my community of Hinkler is making a difference. Together we are remembering. Together we are standing against violence. Bundaberg Netball, Bundaberg Rugby League and Bundaberg Soccer Association each held special awareness rounds in support. I had the privilege to join school students and community members at walks for awareness and I also joined a huge turnout in Bundaberg CBD on 6 May for a sombre vigil to remember lives lost to domestic and family violence. Many local businesses all turned purple for the cause. These events are led by Edon Place, an organisation which has provided domestic and family violence support, assistance and services to my community for almost 50 years. I acknowledge the work of Jenay George from Edon Place and all the staff who have been at the forefront of the community engagement.

I'd also like to recognise the role of the DFV Free Community Working Group, which consists of many community services and stakeholders, together making massive inroads with a vision to end domestic and family violence. And there's a new voice in Hinkler. It was an absolute privilege to be at the launch of the Bundaberg Upbeat Arts choir, a project which creates connection, builds community and gives participants purpose. It provides those living with a mental illness an opportunity to join a choir and make new friends. This is the fifth choir of its kind to be established and the first outside of the south-east corner of Queensland. I want to acknowledge the Upbeat Arts staff, volunteers and participants and make a special mention of general manager Susan Gilmartin, who I've had the pleasure of knowing since my much younger days. Susan is Bundaberg born and bred, and it was fantastic to see her launch this powerful project in her home town, and for her parents, Jim and Margaret Dean, to be on hand was very special. I hope this project can keep growing both locally and more widely, because music and like-minded people are good medicine.

Last week, right across this country, from school halls to sporting clubs and community centres alike, Australians gathered in support of the Cancer Council's Biggest Morning Tea. It was great to join my mate the mayor for Gawler, Nathan Shanks, at the Gawler Barossa Jockey Club for what may well have been one of the biggest and best morning teas anywhere in Australia. It was an incredible turnout. More than 350 people from across the community came together not just for a cup of tea and a slice of cake but also to hear the latest edition from Ray, our frequent emcee, and his terrible jokes to warm us all up before a heartfelt address from John and Vanessa Eason about their battles with cancer. Together the community raised around $15,000 for the Cancer Council. That is an extraordinary effort from the people of Gawler and the north because the reality is that this disease touches every single Australian family in one way or another. Almost one in two Australians will be diagnosed with cancer before the age of 85. Those numbers are surely confronting. Events like the Biggest Morning Tea remind us that there is also enormous generosity, compassion and resilience in our communities. One morning tea at a time, Australians are helping fund research, support services and prevention programs that save lives. While the fundraising total was fantastic, what stood out most was the spirit of the event, with people giving up their time to help others, volunteers making sure every table was full and every guest felt welcome and students from Trinity College North and Indi School Elizabeth doing a fantastic job cooking and serving some delicious food. What is a morning tea without great food?

I also want to acknowledge the many local businesses and community groups who supported the event through donations and prizes. They are businesses like Elders Real Estate, Knights Roses, Gawler Quilters and Bakers Delight all played their part, as did the Lions Club of Gawler. It may seem like a small gesture to some, but these contributions make a real difference. They help bring communities together to raise vital funds, and they help remind people facing cancer that they are not alone. This is what great communities do. When times are tough, they rally around each other. They remind us that, even in the face of something as devastating as cancer, there is still hope, kindness and generosity all around us. So to everybody involved in Gawler's Biggest Morning Tea: thank you for your generosity and your hard work, and thank you for helping build a future where fewer Australian families have to experience the pain of cancer. Let's start planning now to ensure that we have an even bigger and better success next year for the next Biggest Morning Tea.

The coalition strongly opposes Labor's decision to impose a $5,000 annual cap on allied health services for our veterans. This is a cost-cutting measure that unfairly targets the men and the women that have served our great nation. Veterans rely on allied health services. That's not a luxury but an essential part of managing service related injuries, mental health and other conditions. Many veterans live with complex and chronic conditions that have resulted from their services to this great country. For those veterans, a $5,000 cap will simply not cover the care they require throughout the year. The consequences are very clear. Veterans will be forced to go without treatment, their conditions may worsen and families will be left to carry the financial and emotional burden.

Australia's obligation to our veterans does not end when they take their uniforms off. Veterans deserve certainty, to know that the care and support they need will always be there. Measures like this undermine trust and send the wrong messages to current serving personnel and young Australians considering a career in the ADF. Veterans should never be treated as a line item of Labor's budget repair. I'm calling on the Albanese government to immediately reverse this decision and reinstate full support for our veterans.

Labor's also slashing seniors' private health rebates. Many older Australians in our community are already under pressure from rising living costs. Healthcare costs are not something seniors should have to worry about on top of everything else. Affordable and reliable health care should be something Australians can count on, especially later in their life when they need it the most. Labor's proposed changes to private health insurance rebates for Australians over 65 will simply make cover more expensive for many seniors in the country. More than 1.4 million Australians could be hit with a premium increase of up to $640 a year. At a time when households are already tightening their belts, this is the wrong priority.

The coalition introduced higher private health insurance rebates for over-65s because we understood older Australians rely more heavily on healthcare services, and they deserve the additional support. These rebates help seniors maintain private cover and reduce the pressure on the public health system. If private health insurance becomes unaffordable, many people will be forced to downgrade or cancel their cover altogether. That would place even greater strain on already stretched public hospitals and emergency departments. I want to make my position very, very clear. I'll fight these changes every step of the way.

I've had the honour of hosting two extraordinary young people in my office: Yanky Super, whose family lives in my electorate; and Mendy Liberman, a paramedic who was working the day of the Bondi terror attack. Mendy was thrown into the scene and was asked to triage all of the different victims of that day. What was even harder and more extraordinary about his efforts was that he was a member of the community himself. I asked him: 'How do you know that it's safe for you to go in there? How do you make the decision, as a first responder, to put yourself in harm's way and decide that you're going to get in there?' And he said: 'Look, sometimes you don't really know the full answer to that. You don't know what's around you. And if you leave people too long, to know that the scene is a hundred per cent safe, then it's going to be too late.' What he did is he started triaging people, and one of the people who he triaged was one of his best friends, Yanky Super. Yanky was also a first responder volunteer. He was shot in the back and he still has shrapnel all around his back. It hurts to move in certain ways. Extraordinarily, when he was being presented to his good friend Mendy, who was triaging people, he was telling him to send other people who needed help to the hospital. At that point, he actually had a collapsed lung and was fighting for his life.

These two young men faced more than they ever should have that day. But, when they were sitting in my office, they were beaming and they were talking, speaking about hope and about how they are. It was one of the most incredible moments I've had in my office. I was privileged to meet two people who embody the very best of our country. In the hardest of moments, they rose to the occasion. They were selfless, they were powerful, they were kind and they were generous to everyone around them.

These two men, Mendy and Yanky, were a privilege to speak to. I'm in awe of their bravery. I'm in awe of the way that Yaakov 'Yanky' Super, who is literally still dealing with shrapnel all through his back, is able to not be bitter but to actually be hopeful, to talk about his experience and to talk about the work he's done since. He was very grateful for all of the engagement right across this place from all different sides of politics and didn't have an ounce of bitterness in him. Mendy, who's dedicated his life to being a first responder, spoke about the humility and the importance of what he went through. I thank them both for all of their efforts.

I'd like to recognise Emma Corrin, who is a 17-year-old athlete from the Cobram Barooga Canoe Club, in my electorate of Nicholls. In October this year, Emma is due to represent Australia at the ICF Canoe Marathon World Championships in Argentina in the under-18 junior women's short course event. This is a dream Emma has worked towards for years, and I saw a glimpse of that work when I visited the Cobram Barooga Canoe Club, and Emma took me out for a paddle on the Murray River. I was in the front of the kayak, and Emma was paddling behind me. When she paddled, it felt like I had a Mercury houseboat engine pushing us along, and, when she stopped, it got really hard!

This is the kind of young Australian we should be backing, but right now there's a risk that Emma's chance to represent Australia will come down to whether her family can meet the cost. Paddle Australia has informed Emma's family that, due to current fuel prices, it's going to cost $10,000 per athlete to compete in Argentina, and most of that cost is going towards shipping the boat over there. Emma has earned the right to wear the green and gold, and she shouldn't be left to carry the cost alone. I call on the government to provide more support for Emma and for regional athletes like her that are selected to represent Australia internationally. Emma's family and supporters have set up an Australian Sports Foundation fundraiser, and I encourage those who can to donate. I wish Emma all the best.

I want to put on the record my real concern and that of the President of the Seymour RSL, Matt McLaughlin, over the recently announced $5,000 cap on allied health care for veterans. Matt wrote to me this week, and he said:

Many veterans rely heavily on ongoing allied health services—such as physiotherapy, psychology, occupational therapy, and exercise physiology—to manage service-related injuries and long-term health conditions. For a significant number, these needs are complex and chronic. A capped annual limit is unlikely to reflect the real cost of maintaining their health, function, and quality of life.

This concern has been widely expressed within the veteran community and in this place by the member for Herbert, a veteran and strong advocate for the men and women who have served their nation. I quote again from Matt's letter:

Veterans should not be placed in a position where financial limits determine access to clinically necessary care, particularly when that care relates directly to injuries sustained through service. A policy intended to manage expenditure must also consider the long-term health, wellbeing, and dignity of those who have served.

I urge that this policy be reconsidered, or at the very least reviewed in close consultation with veterans and treating clinicians, to ensure it does not unintentionally harm those it is meant to support.

Over the course of the last few weeks, I've had the absolute privilege of visiting some small businesses not just in my electorate of Cowan but in other electorates around WA. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for inviting me along and for the openness of the conversations that we had. I do want to specifically mention a few of those small businesses.

I want to mention Cafe Viazza in Greenwood and Eve, who runs Cafe Viazza. It's a bit of an institution in Cowan. Cafe Viazza in Greenwood has a regular clientele who come in. They serve some pretty good homemade fare, I have to say, for their clientele there. I want to also mention Ahmed from Distinct Homes. Distinct Homes is a small outfit involved in the management of building homes, and they really contribute to our policy and our aspiration for building more homes in Australia. I want to mention Kareem from QA Bathroom Warehouse. QA Bathroom Warehouse in Malaga has been around for a while. They do a whole lot of bathroom supplies and sinks. Anything you can think of that goes into a bathroom can be found at QA Bathroom Warehouse in Malaga. Zak from the Meat Giants in Mirrabooka is my local butcher. I actually go there and get all my meat. There's a great variety of meat. Zak has really had to pivot a lot for the clientele in Mirrabooka and really understands and explained to me the flexibility of running a small business. I want to mention Henk from Industrial Automation in Joondalup in the member for Moore's electorate. Henk has this really great business where he automates things like water and lights coming on in public spaces, really improving the operational efficiencies of local councils.

All of these small businesses that I visited are very diverse—from cafes to automation—but they have something in common. They have a few things in common, but one of the things that they have in common is that they are all run and started by migrants. Around 34 per cent of small businesses are started or run by migrants. Some may be citizens. Some may be permanent residents awaiting citizenship. Something else that they share with all Australians is that they have an aspiration of a life for themselves and an aspiration to contribute to their communities. That's what all of them are doing. I had a conversation with Eve not just about the financial aspects but also about what she does for her community. These are the small businesses in Australia run by migrants, and we love them. (Time expired)

It's just unbelievable that they're talking about aspiration on the other side of the House.

I'll take that interjection from the minister. I rise proudly today to speak about the IMPACT Gold Coast Youth Summit 4.0, a nation-leading event that I was thrilled to pioneer in 2023. I continue to serve as patron in my role as shadow minister for youth. This year more than 200 young people aged 15 to 24 converged on the Sea World Resort conference centre to connect, learn and speak openly about the issues that are impacting them personally. This gives young people on the Gold Coast a voice and, certainly, a stage and a microphone to talk about their issues.

IMPACT brings together young people from all backgrounds—all cultures, identities, abilities and schools across the Gold Coast, and some university students as well. When you put young people from different backgrounds and different schools together in a room, that's when the magic happens. They get to meet new people. They have a new network and new role models, and new relationships are built. I call that opportunity. What does opportunity do? It helps with aspiration, which those on the other side don't seem to understand. It gives young people a platform to talk about their concerns and their hopes and dreams for the future, which is so very important.

We heard loud and clear from young Gold Coasters this year that their biggest concern is the cost of living and how they're struggling to pay their bills because of inflation and other measures that the government has mishandled. They're also concerned about their mental health. They're concerned, of course, about the environment. Right now, young Australians are being hit hardest by rising rents, by grocery bills, by fuel costs and by the soaring costs of their education under this government's gross mismanagement, and many young people feel that homeownership is becoming entirely impossible for them.

At the summit, 18-year-old Levi Knight, an outstanding young Gold Coaster, spoke about the growing financial pressures facing young Australians, from university costs and unpaid internships to transport and everyday living expenses. His message reflected what so many young people are feeling. They are working hard. They increasingly feel like they're getting hit over the head with opportunities disappearing under this government because they're going to inherit higher taxes, higher debt, higher cost of living and higher unemployment, which is all in the budget as going up, and fewer opportunities than generations before them.

I'd like to thank all of these sponsors for the IMPACT summit: Sea World Foundation, Griffith University, Southern Cross University, Village Roadshow Theme Parks, Homecorp, TAFE Queensland and many other media partners, as well as Karen Phillips OAM for her outstanding direction of the IMPACT youth summit.

I rise today to recognise the 20th anniversary of Illawarra Women in Business. I recently attended their milestone event, which also marked the 18th Illawarra Women in Business awards. These awards shine a spotlight on the remarkable women in our community who demonstrate drive, determination and passion in their fields. They celebrate not only success but the hard work, resilience and dedication that underpin these achievements. This year's event brought together an inspiring group of business leaders, entrepreneurs and community members united by a shared commitment to excellence and supporting one another.

Over the past two decades, Illawarra Women in Business has grown into a respected platform that champions excellence and empowers future generations of women to pursue their ambitions with confidence. It creates opportunities, fosters meaningful connections and encourages leadership across the Illawarra while also reflecting the diversity within our region's business community. I want to say a huge thank you to the amazing Glenda Papac, Suzanne Kent and Dianne Chalk for their commitment over the last 20 years to recognising and empowering women across the Illawarra. You've fostered leadership, innovation and opportunity throughout our community, and we are so very grateful.

This year's awards recipients have demonstrated exceptional dedication and made a big impact on our community in their respective fields. Mariana Zurak of Relativity Films was recognised as Champion Networker, known for bringing people together and strengthening creative collaboration. Nardia Guillaumier of NEG Photography received Outstanding Commitment to the Community for her creativity and genuine care for those that she photographs. Tash Hedges of Wallawa Traffic Group was awarded Outstanding Employee for her reliability and commitment to safety. Brodie Meney of Symbio Wildlife Park was recognised as Outstanding Executive Employee for her dedication to wildlife education and engagement. Always Education received the Outstanding Customer Focus Award for their commitment to empowering young people through supportive learning environments. Dr Meghan Dares of Joint Vision Orthopaedic Group was named Business Woman of the Year and Innovative Business Woman, reflecting her leadership in musculoskeletal care and patient centred approach.

Women Illawarra received Outstanding Not-for-Profit or Charity for their decades of service supporting equality and education across the region. The Industry Performing Arts Studio was awarded Best New Business for nurturing creative talent. FLW Connect received Best Home-Based Business for professionalism and strong client relationships. Orlane Mortimer of Wollongong Crane Trucks was named Young Business Woman of the Year and Best Small Business, recognised for emerging leadership and dedication within her team. Finally, Active Property Conveyancing received Best Business for professionalism. (Time expired)

After four years of higher taxes, more debt, fewer homes, weaker borders and falling living standards under Labor, the coalition is putting forward seven policies to restore Australia's standard of living and protect our way of life. Under Labor, inflation has pushed up prices, wages and tax bills. Australians are not better off, but they are being taxed as if they were better off.

From 2028-29, a coalition government will index the bottom two tax income thresholds to inflation. This will fully protect around 85 per cent of income earners, with 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.

We will restore common sense to housing and immigration by ensuring Australia only brings in as many people as it can house. Under the coalition's policy pledge, net overseas immigration will be capped each year at the number of new homes completed in Australia. We'll put Australians first by reserving 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.

We will establish 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.

We'll deliver more fuel, more storage and more security for Australia and reduce pressure on families and small businesses by scrapping Labor's safeguard mechanism, a carbon tax on business that will cost refineries, for example, around $165 million by 2029-30. We'll back small businesses to invest, with a permanent $50,000 instant asset write-off. Any business with a turnover of less than $10 million will be able to immediately deduct assets costing up to $50,000, on a permanent basis.

We'll make Australia stronger and safer in the face of global threats, with a whole-of-nation national security strategy and a real increase in funding for defence. By increasing defence spending to three per cent of GDP, the coalition will provide increases to defence spending so that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have the proper platforms, equipment and protection to fight for us.

We must back Australians who work hard, save hard and want to get ahead, because this is a country that is worth fighting for.

On 16 May, I found myself uncomfortably spinning inside a blue teacup. I was with my daughter, Margaret, and we were at the Sherwood festival. The Sherwood festival is a very, very special community event in my local community on Brisbane's south side. It was started in 1995 as a street festival, and now it brings everyone together in a big celebration of what makes us tick.

I want to particularly thank and congratulate the president of the volunteer organising committee, Sophie Julian, as well as all of the volunteers at that event, because it's had a rough trot of it in the last few years. It has been rained out a couple of times. This is a community that is not only tenacious but resilient, and we've gotten back up on our feet. Thanks to those fantastic community organisers, it went ahead this year with four stages, entertainment, free rides, stalls, food—so many different community vendors. It was very specially held at the Sherwood Arboretum, which is one of only three botanical gardens in our entire city.

I and Minister Aly had the great pleasure of being in Moorooka, not too long ago, at the African Village, which is a community organisation in the heart of my electorate. It's headed up by Beny Bol OAM, and Faysel Ahmed Selat, who's the president of the Queensland African Communities Council. It's got a focus, just like an African village does, for Australians of African heritage, of mentoring young people, of connection to cultural heritage and of assisting people to overcome systemic barriers. When Minister Aly and I were there, we enjoyed traditional coffee and we enjoyed fantastic local musical artists. I'm so proud of the African Village, because we've been able to inject $4.4 million from the Office for Multicultural Affairs, under the African Australian Communities Program, to support participation in our local community.

Kuraby is from an Indigenous word meaning 'a place of many springs', and Kuraby State School has so many beautiful springs in the form of children from across different ethnic backgrounds in my local electorate. I want to thank Principal Kerrin Cridland for hosting a fabulous Harmony Day celebration on 29 April this year. There were some 366 students from across 50 different cultural backgrounds celebrating with a kaleidoscope of different traditional national food and dress, and an excellent culinary taste testing that represented the best of what our local multicultural community has to offer. It was a family and community event with involvement from so many different groups in our community, and it's an absolute bedrock of who we are.

Today I rise to first give a shout out to the Sanctuary Cove boat show, one of the iconic events on the Gold Coast calendar and one that I'm extremely proud of. The significance of this show to the Gold Coast economy cannot be underestimated. I say that because this year, having started back in 1989, the boat show has now reached over 45,000 visitors, 300 exhibitors, 800 boats and 2,500 marine products on display. The Gold Coast economy is spread across a number of sectors, but we shouldn't underestimate the importance of the marine industry. In the northern Gold Coast, we have the Gold Coast Marine Precinct, which drives jobs and manufacturing. The Gold Coast economy has 500 marine companies, 6,000 workers involved in the marine sector, and it's worth over $2 billion to the Gold Coast economy.

The boat show is a wonderful four-day event. It doesn't matter whether you want to buy a jet ski from JSW or a ski boat from Nautique Central. We also have local manufacturers like Riviera, Maritimo, boat brokerages like AMT Marine, and Custom Dry Docks, another local business in my electorate. So to the boat show at Sanctuary Cove, thanks again for another great year. Sorry I couldn't be there this year due to my family commitments, but I look forward to being back again next year.

Second, I give a big shout out to the community at Pacific Pines in my electorate. On 16 May, we held a community carnival at the shopping centre near Woolies. It was a fun-filled day despite some rainy weather. It was classic carnival style. We had a jumping castle, balloon artists, raffle prizes and lively community performances. It was great to attend with my daughter Marigold, who had a fantastic time, and I look forward to that event again next year.

Third, a big shout out to the Crisafulli LNP government, which has delivered on the Hope Island train station. On 18 May, we saw this come to fruition in my electorate. It is a wonderful addition to the transport network at the northern end of the Gold Coast. This is something that's been on the books for many, many years and has finally been delivered by the Crisafulli LNP government. Premier David Crisafulli is my local member and he's doing a fantastic job. To Premier Crisafulli and team, thank you for delivering this much-needed transport infrastructure. With two accessible entrances, platforms with lifts, new bus connectivity, park and ride, kiss and ride, bicycle parking, this is a fantastic piece of infrastructure. Of course, they got the name right. It's Hope Island Station.

This is a boarding announcement for Jetstar and Qantas Group. Before take off, passengers are told to follow the safety instructions, but, when it comes to workers, Jetstar seems to have found a different set of safety card instructions. Fasten your seatbelt, because Australian based cabin crew are being locked out of higher value international flying. Brace for impact, because workers are losing pay progression and career opportunities. And locate your nearest exit, because some overseas based crew are reportedly being paid as little as $10 an hour, with allowances so low they struggle during layovers in Australia. This is not the spirit of fair work. That should not be the flight path for our aviation industry. This is not the journey to better standards; it is a one-way ticket to the bottom.

Same Job, Same Pay has delivered important gains for workers across the country. It has helped ensure that companies cannot simply use labour hire arrangements to undercut wages and conditions. But companies should not be allowed to taxi around the rules, exploit a legal loophole, take off with cheaper labour and leave Australian workers standing at the gate.

The Transport Workers Union has been relentless in sounding the alarm on this issue, standing up for aviation workers and making sure these concerns are heard in this place. I thank them for their tireless work, because when overseas based crews are used to undercut Australian rates and conditions the whole industry feels the turbulence. It divides workers, it weakens standards and it sends a dangerous signal across aviation that if a company does not like Australian labour standards, it can simply re-route the work offshore. That should not be the boarding pass to doing business in this country.

Companies that benefit from being based in Australia should not be able to cruise at altitude on Australian profits while avoiding Australian obligations. It is about whether cabin crew doing the same job, wearing the same uniform, serving the same passengers and keeping the same flights running should be treated as a cheaper class of worker because of where they are based. And it is about whether we are serious about safe, secure and fair skies. This is exactly why we need stronger whole-of-industry accountability, including through a safe and secure skies commission. Because aviation safety is not just about the aircraft, the runway or the passengers; it is also about the people who keep the industry flying, and secure skies should mean secure jobs too.

The population of the Parkes electorate gives me more than 216,000 reasons to love this job. Those 216,000-plus people include some of the most unselfish, kind and caring individuals you could ever meet, who go above and beyond every single day to make their communities great places to live. And, in the past month or so, the full generosity of this electorate has given me many reasons to celebrate.

Recently I was honoured to join the community in Broken Hill to celebrate 90 years of the Royal Flying Doctor Service south-eastern division in New South Wales. The RFDS has been recognised as Australia's most reputable charity 13 times, and with good reason. Every two minutes someone from around Australia is calling on the RFDS for help. For nine decades the Royal Flying Doctor Service has been the lifeline for people in the Broken Hill region and beyond, delivering world-class health care where and when it's needed. This milestone is an opportunity to recognise the incredible doctors, nurses, pilots and staff who make their service possible, along with the volunteers, the supporters and the communities that have stood beside the Royal Flying Doctor Service for generations.

I'd also like to congratulate the Royal Flying Doctor Service Broken Hill Women's Auxiliary, who recently celebrated their 75th anniversary. This wonderful organisation has been hosting the RFDS ball for more than 60 years and raising funds for the RFDS.

Another amazing organisation at work in the Parkes electorate, and beyond, is the Country Women's Association. The Condobolin branch and the Terramungamine branch in Dubbo will next month celebrate their 100-year anniversary. A century of serving your community is truly something that must be applauded, and well done not only to those people on today's committee but also those who have worked hard over the past 100 years.

I must also say a big thank you to another organisation that provides transport for seriously ill children in rural and regional areas, and that is Little Wings. Recently I attended a function for the start of the monthly paediatric clinic in Nyngan. What a difference Little Wings is making for sick kids, and also for their parents.

I'd also like to pay tribute to another organisation who care for their community, and that is the Pink Angels. The Pink Angels support breast cancer patients and their families in Dubbo and western New South Wales, travelling as far as Cobar and Lightning Ridge. They raise their own funds to help patients with home-care expenses and many other needs. The Pink Angels are yet another example of great work that great people are doing throughout the Parkes electorate. It is an honour to serve such a caring electorate. I congratulate all volunteers, not just those in these organisations who give their time, resources and skills to the whole community. (Time expired)

Talent is spread evenly, but opportunity is not. Quite rightly, the parents and teachers in my electorate of Hasluck absolutely expect me to fight for every opportunity that can be extended to the young people within my electorate of Hasluck, and it's a challenge I'm quite happy to rise to. As a graduate of the public school system myself, starting out in Lockridge Primary School and then continuing to York District High School and Northam Senior High School, I understand the value of, and the huge opportunities that come from, public education. It's one that I am absolutely proud to have backed in.

That started with the Gonski recommendations, back in 2012, being implemented under the Albanese Labor government so that every public school is funded 100 per cent to the School Resource Standard. That is making a difference: the principals, the teachers, the support staff talk to me about the difference that has made; and parents talk to me about the difference that it has made to their child. For example, recently I had the opportunity to visit Akeley Secondary College, and what a school that is! This is a school, from years 7 to 12, that provides opportunities for students, be it across ATAR or vocational training. In fact, they have a dedicated trade training centre where they are literally building houses. They do mini, scaled-down versions. It's super cute and practical; it's giving them the practical, valuable life skills they need to support the building of homes—amongst the many other trades and skills that they're learning there.

In the same school, they have what is called an education support hub. This centre is able to support children from years 7 to 12 with moderate to profound disabilities. Every child—with talent, without talent and everything in between—is given the full opportunities to rise to the occasion. It's so special to see. In this particular context, Akeley Secondary College has a hydrotherapy pool. For children who are not able to play cricket and tennis and basketball, they're able to exercise and get full-body movement through hydrotherapy. It is something else! I am so proud that we are funding the public education system to be able to ensure opportunity is extended to every student in that school, and it absolutely is. It was remarkable to see. The community is proud of it, and I'm absolutely proud to support the funding to back them in.

I've also had occasions recently, particularly around Anzac Day, to visit a number of other high schools. The discipline in schools in the public system is something that the teachers should be proud of, and I thank them greatly.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.

Unfortunately, this budget is an assault on aspiration, and the Prime Minister has never seen an aspiration he didn't want to crush. I wonder whether the Prime Minister and the Treasurer actually want to hear from the Australians affected by the budget—not the spin, not the slogans, not the carefully chosen lines from a Treasurer's presser but the real stories from people who are paying the price, who did everything right, who played by the rules, who worked incredibly hard to get ahead and who are having the rug pulled out from under them. Many of them are younger Australians who will be taxed far more than my generation and far more than generations that came before them. Behind every one of these Labor tax changes is an Australian who worked, who saved, who sacrificed and who invested. Behind every so-called reform is someone who made decisions in good faith, built a plan for themselves and often for their families. They tried to get ahead and are now being told by the government 'we're going to tax future wealth'.

Labor wants to talk about fairness. Well, let's talk about fairness. Is it fair to tell a young nurse or teacher that the taxes on the investments they built for their first home deposit are now being doubled? Is it fair to tell a retiree who spent decades saving and renovating their plan to stay off pensions that it's now under threat? Is it fair to tell Australians before the election that there would be no new taxes, and then, after the election, hit them with taxes on housing, savings and small business, and income taxes through bracket creep?

This government doesn't want to hear these stories because these stories expose the truth. Labor's budget is not about hitting a political stereotype. It's about hurting real people in real households around real kitchen tables. Their stories say more about this budget than any speech from the Treasurer ever could. I recently heard from Lyn in my electorate. I want to read her words on the record. She wrote:

I'm wondering if you have any ideas how we can object to the Labor Party's new budget regarding property investment?

It's totally unfair to bring these changes in against their election promises and to punish us for our hard work to buy and retain these investments.

It hasn't been a walk in the park with savings, renovating, managing, putting up with good tenants turning bad causing thousands of dollars of damage which we could not have endured if it wasn't for negative gearing.

Now we have retired our plan was to sell something to help while retaining a couple which would help us from requiring the pension and provide much needed homes for renters.

Our portfolio is not a multimillion dollar empire that was achieved without blood sweat and tears. The banks still own a major portion too. We worked hard for this and believe that Labor is going to ruin us.

This is the human impact of Labor's housing tax. This is not about some caricature of wealthy property barons. This is about people like Lyn, who worked hard, saved, renovated, took risks, dealt with the damage, dealt with the debt and tried to build a retirement that would keep them off the government pension.

Labor is punishing aspiration. It's punishing people who provide homes for renters, and, worst of all, it's doing so after promising to not do exactly this thing just 12 months ago. If it was such a good idea, why would you purposefully mislead the public about it just 12 months ago? You don't fix a housing crisis by attacking people who provide rental homes. You don't fix a housing crisis when your very own budget papers say that this policy will lead to 35,000 fewer homes.

Andrew, a young Australian in his late 20s, trying to build a future for his family, wrote this to me:

My name's Andrew and I'm Writing to you as help as an Australian citizen, Tax payer and Public servant. Life has been hard for someone in his late 20s to try and build a future for my family as with many other Australians. Inflation has made it difficult to keep up with saving for a house and my wife and I have been saving, investing, working hard to try and build a home and call our own.

Do you have a message for Andrew?

He's going to really love our changes, because he'll have a better chance.

Andrew, what you've heard today from Labor—and I'll finish reading your letter in a minute—is that they're not listening. They just said, 'You're going to love these changes.' That is how tone deaf this Labor government is. But, Andrew, do not worry, because I'm going to fight for our community; I'm going to fight for people in their young 20s. And when they say, 'You're going to love it,' I'm not going to be interrupted, and I will finish reading your letter right now. Andrew went on to say:

The hard part is the Labor government without asking it's citizens has decided to change the Capital Gains Tax discount which means the investments we've worked so hard to build and risked so much money on will now only give us half the profit we would have and is now dragging us further away from having to call a home our own.

Please please please help with rectifying this and at the very least force a vote as to whether the capital gains discount should be changed because it's not fair for hard working people trying to get ahead. My wife's a nurse and I'm a teacher, we should be able to have a roof over our head and not worry about money.

That is what Labor's tax changes are doing. Andrew is a teacher and his wife is a nurse. He's written to me out of desperation. He said 'please, please, please' three times, and the message I heard from a Labor member in here today is, 'Andrew, you're going to love these changes.' That is how much this government listens to you. They don't listen to what I say even when I come to parliament and read out your letters. Instead of reflecting or asking a question—

Member for Macquarie?

I don't know the order, but I feel like I've been misrepresented by the member's comments.

It's not a point of order and not the time.

The member did take the interjection, and that was not what she had said that you said, so I'll just remind members—

What she said is 'Andrew would love the changes'. That's exactly what she said.

'Because it will help him get a home'.

I'll just remind members to come to order and—

I'm not interjecting. I have the call, so I'm not interjecting. If she wants to interject, I'll take the interjection. But Andrew will not love these changes. This is what Labor's capital gains tax changes look like, and this is what it looks like when you call them out in parliament—defensiveness, no listening and telling people like Andrew that they'll love them. I've had enough of it, and you can tell I'm hot under the collar, and I am, because I think this could destroy Australians. They're getting double the CGT tax that I have ever paid. Not only are you getting double the CGT tax that I ever paid; you'll be paying more in income tax than I have ever paid because of Labor's bracket creep tax. Every single year, your income tax will go up, and, as I read out here today, you will lose the negative gearing benefits that all boomers have had and that I have had. You will never have those same opportunities.

Instead of actually showing some self-reflection and wondering why people like Andrew and Lyn are writing in to me, asking me to come to parliament and fight for them, which I will do—I will not be deterred from fighting for you. Instead of listening, being curious and asking questions, we hear interjections, interrupting my speech, that you will love them. I've had enough of that. This isn't just a debate for economists, accountants and politicians. This is about Andrew and his wife, a teacher and a nurse. These are two people serving their community, working hard, saving and investing, taking risks, trying to do the most basic Australian thing imaginable—buy a home and build a future. But their deposit is now being taxed double than what my deposit was when I invested in shares and ETFs, just like them. What message are they getting from this government?

What they're hearing is, if you work hard, save carefully and invest responsibly, Labor will come after you. Andrew and his wife are not asking for special treatment. They're just asking for the same settings that applied to every other Australian until two weeks ago. Andrew and his wife are not asking for a handout. They're not asking for free money from the government. They're not asking for someone else to pay their way. They're doing exactly what every government says young Australians should do. They're working. They're saving, they're investing, and they're trying to get ahead—a teacher and a nurse. But Labor's answer is to punish them at a time when inflation has already made it harder to save for a deposit. You're struggling, and I know many in my electorate are. I'm here fighting for you. At a time when inflation has pushed your rents higher, when mortgages are out of reach because interest rates are higher, while there's a war in Iran with inflation going up and while petrol prices are going up, Labor is now making the ladder even harder for you to climb because you are going to pay higher tax than any generation before you—far more than me. I think that's incredibly unfair.

This is intergenerational unfairness at the very heart of these changes. Older Australians have had the chance to build their wealth under a completely different set of rules with lower taxation. Younger Australians are now being told the rules will change just as you start trying to get ahead. They're now being locked out of homeownership, so they're asking you to invest in other assets to build a future, but then they come up with a tax on that too—doubling CGT. CGT now being at the top rate taxed at 47 per cent. In New Zealand, it's zero per cent. In Singapore, it's zero per cent. In communist China, it's more than half what ours is at 20 per cent. We have a communist country with less than half the CGT that we have. I'm almost speechless. I don't understand it.

I would love to fight an election on this issue. It's a shame we didn't, and they weren't upfront about it 12 months ago. I think we would have had a very different result. I'd love to, but they're trying to jam it in between elections. I think we could win an election on this, but I hope they backflip on it. I really do hope this is backflipped on because I think it will destroy Australia. We're hearing about carve-outs, and now we're hearing in the press carve-outs aren't going to fix it. It's not going to go far enough. We need these taxes axed for Andrew and his wife, a teacher and a nurse. That is the face of what is happening here. This budget's not just a fiscal document; it's a statement of values. And Labor's values are clear. If you work hard, they're going to tax you more. If you save, they will tax you more. If you invest, they will tax you more. If you run a small business, they will tax you more. If you try to build a future for your family, they will make that harder. It's not reform; it's an assault on everyday Australians. And the great contradiction is this: Labor says it wants more housing and more housing supply, but its policies will drive investment away from housing. Labor says it wants to help renters, but fewer investors means fewer rental homes, and we know how many: 35,000. It's in black and white in the budget papers for that policy.

Now, they try and trickily say it will lead to a 35,000 increase, because they came up with another plan, spending the money they're taxing from you to build more homes, which they've been unable to do in the first four years in government. But this time they're saying, 'Trust us.' Well, they said that at the election 12 months ago, and you've seen just 12 months later how much you can trust.

This is a government that can't manage its spending. Spending is at a 40-year high outside the pandemic. That is why this is the highest taxing budget of all time—it's one of the highest spending governments of all time. And Australians are just starting to wake up to where they get the money from. It's from you. But, because those tax settings haven't changed aggressively, this increased government spending is catching up with them, and this is the only way they can pay for it. It is increasing the taxes on people like Andrew and his wife, who's a nurse. It's everyday Australians.

So this Treasurer can dress this up however he likes, but Australians can see what's happening. This is a government addicted to spending and looking for new ways to fund it, pushing tax hikes onto millions of Australians. Under Labor, families have been hit across the board. Gas is up, electricity is up, food's up, health costs are up, education's up, child care is up, insurance is up, rents keep going up. And then, after all of that, Australians are being asked to pay even more tax—none more so than the next generation. That's why people are angry. That's why our social media feeds are littered with memes. They're not angry because they've refused to contribute. Australians are happy to contribute. They just want a fair go. They pay income tax. They pay GST. They pay rents. They pay strata fees, levies and charges. Small businesses pay company tax, payroll tax, workers comp, insurance and compliance costs. Investors already pay CGT tax. Retirees pay tax. Families pay tax every day in one form or another. What they object to is a government that wastes money, drives up inflation, breaks promises and then lectures Australians about fairness and tells them they should love it. That's what I heard here today. 'You should love it.' There's nothing fair about telling a young nurse and teacher that they should love a path that they don't. There's nothing fair about telling a retiree who built a modest property portfolio through sacrifice that their plan is now under threat. There's nothing fair about treating aspiration and hard work as a loophole. Hard work is not a loophole. Saving is not a loophole. Australia should be a place where aspiration is rewarded, where a teacher and nurse can believe that, if they work hard and save carefully, homeownership is still possible, where retirees who plan for their future are not punished for staying off the pension, where small businesses can invest with certainty and where young Australians are encouraged to build wealth, not told that Canberra will take more money away from them for the wealth and homes and assets they're trying to buy.

There's been a lot of focus on tax reforms in this budget. Our three objectives are to make it easier to own a first home, to cut income taxes and to better align the tax treatment of income and assets. I want to touch on some of the things that haven't really been talked about in some of the misinformation and disinformation willingly peddled, including by those opposite. From the 2026-27 year—so the next financial year—a new instant tax deduction of up to $1,000 every year, which will simplify work related expense deductions, kicks in. This will deliver 6.2 million workers an average tax benefit of $205 for that year. The following year we're introducing a $250 working Australians tax offset, the WATO, providing another ongoing tax cut annually for more than 13 million Australian workers. These are on top of the three tax cuts that the government's already legislated.

From 1 July this year, the 16 per cent tax rate on taxable income between $18,201 and $45,000 will drop to 15 per cent. From 1 July 2027, that tax rate will drop to 14 per cent. As this flows through every single tax bracket, it means that every single Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut of up to $268 from 1 July and then $536 every year from 1 July 2027, compared to the 2024-25 tax settings. In every budget, we've embedded these tax cuts that are small, affordable and meaningful and that build up over time. For an Australian worker on average earnings, the combined benefit of the government's five tax cuts, which started back in 2024, could be up to $2,816 a year, helping every Australian worker keep more of what they've earned.

These cuts also help every single sole trader running a small business. Since the Treasurer handed down this budget, I've been talking to local small businesses about some of the practical measures that will benefit them in this budget. We've permanently extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off from July this year. This allows small businesses with turnovers of up to $10 million to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000 off that year's tax return. You can claim more than one asset, which helps businesses make their investment decisions with confidence. This is estimated to improve cash flow for small businesses by around $890 million over the next five years. These are testing trading conditions for some businesses and, from July, eligible companies that make a loss in the current income year will be able to use that loss to get a refund against tax paid in the prior two income years. This will benefit up to 85,000 companies, mostly small businesses.

We're also introducing loss refundability to support new startup businesses. From 2028-29, small startups in their first two years of operation will be able to get a refund for tax losses up to the value of the fringe benefits tax and withholding tax paid on employee wages. This will benefit up to 25,000 young companies each year, providing valuable cashflow support. I think there's been less focus so far on these measures. But, from speaking with local businesses and learning about their situations, there are benefits that they'll receive.

One of our stated aims in this budget is to make it easier to own your first home. It's something I did as a matter of course in my 20s when I started earning a full-time wage. I remember the joy of being able to put whatever I wanted on the walls, to paint, to change things and to have the sense of security that having your own place brings. I think younger generations deserve to be able to make the same choice without being forced to gamble on the stock market to build their deposit. They should have an even playing field. But right now, and for many, many decades, would-be first home buyers have been up against it because it has been an unfair playing field tilted towards people buying their second, third or 13th property. In this budget we're reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions to level that playing field for first home buyers. But grandfathering arrangements remain for some of the measures to respect the decisions that current investors have made. If investors still want to use negative gearing on property into the future, they can do so on new builds so that their investment goes towards creating more housing supply. These changes are estimated to support an additional 75,000 homeowners over the decade to get their own first home. I want our kids and grandkids to be able to realise the dream of owning their first home. That's the purpose of this and the housing measures in the budget. It's the most ambitious housing agenda in decades.

We're extending the ban on foreign investors buying existing homes, until mid-2029, and we're establishing the new $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund to help governments and state utilities build essential infrastructure to support new housing, including by connecting those essential services, like water, power, sewerage and roads. In Macquarie, where we face a dual challenge of bushfires and floods, we aren't likely to see as much activity as some other areas when it comes to new housing from the Housing Australia Future Fund, but at East Penrith, not far over the electorate boundary, there are right now 135 new homes under construction. One housing measure that is already helping plenty of Macquarie first home buyers is the Australian Government 5% Deposit Scheme. More than 1,200 people in Macquarie have bought their own home using the scheme.

Our budgets—this one and earlier ones—recognise that you can't build new homes without a skilled workforce. More than 545 construction trades apprentices in Macquarie have benefited from the $5,000 incentive payments. What's really exciting is the establishment of a new TAFE centre of excellence for construction at the Kingswood TAFE campus. Thousands of construction workers and their employers will benefit from new skills to help boost housing supply, thanks to this $11 million joint investment by the Albanese and Minns Labor governments.

The centre will work with industry and universities to develop a first-of-its-kind higher apprenticeship in construction, creating a new pathway that combines hands-on training with higher level qualifications. Over the next two years, the TAFE NSW Construction Centre of Excellence will deliver more than 20,000 enrolments across microskills and microcredentials via online and in-person training. The centre responds to industry demand for short, practical training that helps small and medium-sized construction businesses, like those throughout my electorate, so they can upskill their workforce and deliver quality housing right across the country.

The Kingswood TAFE marks the establishment of the 20th and final nationally networked TAFE centre of excellence under the National Skills Agreement, a landmark five-year agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, focused on building the skilled workforce to set Australia up for now and the future. This is Labor restoring TAFE, as we promised we would, and creating the workers who will continue to build new homes for Aussies to buy or rent.

The budget continues the important work we've done to secure Australia's fuel supply, which has come under such pressure as a result of the war in the Middle East. We're expanding the minimum stockholding obligation, with an additional 10 days supply for diesel, jet fuel and petrol. We're establishing the $3.2 billion government controlled Australian Fuel Security Reserve, which will hold around a billion litres of diesel and jet fuel to provide an additional buffer for any future crisis. Through these efforts, Australia will increase its diesel and jet fuel reserves to 50 days. We've also strengthened the fuel security services payment to protect the future of our two remaining refineries, and we've committed $10 million for feasibility studies into expanding our domestic refining capacity.

Since the budget, we've been able to announce a number of fuel deals, including 150 million litres, or 900,000 barrels, of additional diesel in three new shipments, through partnerships with Ampol, Viva and regional supplier IOR, and discussions between Australia and China helped to secure an extra three shipments of jet fuel, totalling more than 600,000 barrels, or about 100 million litres. This is all part of working with the industry to keep people and goods moving.

Securing more fertiliser is also part of the Albanese government's actions to help Australia's agriculture industry manage the impacts of the conflict in the Middle East. In Macquarie we have fruit growers and vegetable growers providing produce not just for local farmers markets and produce stores but for markets and customers further afield. Everyone knows how vital Hawkesbury-grown turf is for the backyards, footy fields and landscaping all around Sydney and beyond. Just this week, we made another announcement: around 80,000 tonnes of additional urea, now locked in through the government's $7.5 billion Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility. These sorts of shipments, arriving in Australia in coming weeks, give confidence to small businesses growing turf and vegetables in the Hawkesbury that they'll be able to keep doing what they do best.

Our efforts to help people with the cost of living, through this budget and previous ones, is seen starkly in health. This budget contains more work in the healthcare area—like making medicines cheaper by listing new and amended medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, including treatments for cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease and various cancers, with $5.9 billion provided over five years. An additional $25 billion over five years will strengthen our public hospitals. We're also securing the future of Medicare urgent care clinics, with $1.8 billion over five years, with ongoing secure funding.

The benefits of our investment in health care are being felt right across the electorate of Macquarie. We've increased bulk-billing rates so that more people in Macquarie are able to see a GP without any out-of-pocket costs. Prior to our reforms, it was pretty common for GPs to offer bulk-billing only for pensioners, kids and concession card holders across Macquarie. Being a fully bulk-billing practice was the exception rather than the rule. Since the Albanese Labor government's successive boosts to bulk-billing incentives, the data collected in March of this year showed that we now have nearly half of all GP practices across Macquarie bulk-billing every single one of their patients—every single one. From the top of the mountains down to the Nepean River and across to the Hawkesbury, we have 26 fully bulk-billing GP practices.

One of the reasons the improvements are happening is that we've grown the health workforce, with an extra 17,000 doctors joining the Australian health system in the last two years. That's more than at any other time in the last decade. We'll continue to give students more opportunities, and to train more doctors and nurses, with the largest GP training program in history and hundreds of scholarships for nurses and midwives to extend their skills and qualifications.

Now, there's always more to do. But these improvements are making a real difference.

Something else that I know is making a real difference in the Hawkesbury part of my electorate is the Windsor Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. This urgent care clinic, which I promised in the 2025 election, has already treated thousands of patients quickly and efficiently and saved people from presenting to Hawkesbury hospital.

Just this week, one of my staff heard from Bridget from Kurrajong, who said, 'Tell Susan I said thank you for the urgent care clinic.' Last month I received a more detailed letter from Stephen, who wrote to me about his treatment at the Windsor urgent care clinic. He said:

This is a genuinely outstanding initiative. Having used the clinic last Monday evening to treat a leg injury, I experienced first hand what an efficient, well run and highly valuable service it provides to the community.

The clinic was accessible, prompt, and professionally managed throughout.

Importantly, it delivered exactly what is needed in situations that require urgent attention without the necessity of attending a hospital emergency department.

He asked me to particularly acknowledge Dr Roy Mariathas, who treated him. Dr Mariathas is a constituent in my electorate. I'm very proud to have local doctors working in this new local facility.

Our decision to have ongoing funding to make sure these clinics remain a permanent part of the health system is another change from the Albanese Labor government to keep the cost of living under control but also to give people the best possible health care.

I would like to add some observations on a few different aspects of this budget that have great relevance and are also of great concern to the communities of central western New South Wales and Calare. Firstly, I was bitterly disappointed that there was nothing in the budget to help our businesses being smashed to pieces by the indefinite closure of the Great Western Highway. In question time, the Prime Minister has already conceded that the failure of the convict bridge at Victoria Pass was the fault of successive governments—that all governments have to share in the blame for this debacle. So, that being the case, it's the responsibility of his government to put down some serious money to help our businesses going broke because of government negligence.

About a week ago we had the announcement of a NSW government support package, which amounted to a one-off $10,000 payment for businesses only in the reasonably small Hartley area. Quite frankly, that announcement has been met with extreme disappointment right across the region, particularly in the areas most affected by this unbelievably negligent closure that is the fault of governments who have kicked this can down the road for many, many years.

When I spoke to business owners about it last week, they said $10,000 wouldn't even cover the wages bill for a week—or, in one case, a fuel bill. I was at one local business and, while I was waiting for the business owner to come, the employee said: 'You know what? I'm just very worried that I'm not even going to have a job in a week.' We've got business owners selling homes because of this closure. I think that if this were happening in a city seat, they'd be moving heaven and earth to help. But because it's out in the country, just 65 kays over the other side of the sandstone curtain, we're being ignored.

The business support package that the NSW government has put on offer does not even cover Lithgow. Lithgow businesses are going broke as well. Local residents aren't able to patronise their own businesses because they're too hard to get to; it's just gridlock. There are over 12,000 extra vehicle movements a day in Lithgow at the moment. It's hell.

I don't think the state and federal governments are doing enough. It's plain and simple: they're not doing enough. This was a glaring oversight in the federal budget. And it's very galling for our communities to think that, just over the eastern side of the sandstone curtain, they can open gleaming new expressways to the new Sydney airport. We can open multibillion dollar expressways up the North Coast and down the South Coast. But, when it comes to the western side of the Great Dividing Range or the sandstone curtain, they expect us to make do with a patch-up job of a bridge built by a convict chain gang in 1832. It is completely and utterly unacceptable. We are being treated as second-class citizens. No wonder there is such anger and resentment in regional communities at the moment, when we are being treated like this.

There was no plan or funding in the budget for further high-speed access in and out of the Central West. There's no plan. The New South Wales white paper on the Great Western Highway was a joke. There was nothing in there; it was empty. There are no ideas, no funding commitments—nothing. They knew that this convict bridge was going to fail, but they kicked the can down the road, chose to spend the money elsewhere and just thought, 'We'll monitor it until it fails.' Well, it's failed. They knew it was going to happen—total and utter negligence.

I was also very disappointed that the budget didn't deliver funding for any new veterans and families wellbeing centres. Working with our local veterans, we have submitted a proposal for stage 1 of a Central West veterans and families centre at Bathurst. There was no funding in the budget for it at all. Has our country not learned the tragic lessons from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide?

I have a lot of respect for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. He's been out to Bathurst and met with members of the Bathurst RSL sub-branch, so he knows the issues. He knows how much this means to our local veterans. The Bathurst RSL sub-branch is also willing to co-fund part of this veterans and families wellbeing centre—they're going to pay for some of it—but we just don't seem to be able to shake any money out of the federal government. I would like to meet with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs about it, and I would like him to meet with our local veterans, again, to explain to them what's going on with the funding here, because there can be no argument that our local veterans need this funding to support the growing cohort of veterans in our region. There's hardly any support for them west of the Great Dividing Range. Our veterans have put their lives and their welfare on the line for us, and that has been ignored and overlooked. It has to be the highest priority for our country and also our region. I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to have a look at what's happened with the funding for the veterans' and families' wellbeing hubs and to get some more funding going. They're not asking for much, but it needs to start.

In the federal budget, $6 million was allocated towards the construction of the Orange Planetarium and Conservatorium, including teaching spaces. While this is a positive outcome, it also comes with a warning: it is my hope that council uses this funding in a productive, open and transparent manner. In 2019, I secured $10 million to kickstart the new conservatorium, and there is nothing worse than seeing hard-won funding frittered away through mismanagement and defective work. We cannot have a repeat of the debacle that is the Orange Regional Sporting Precinct. I believe an independent inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of what's gone on there. I won't go into detail in this contribution, but I may well do so in a further contribution to this House. What is happening at the Orange Regional Sporting Precinct is not acceptable, and there needs to be some transparency and accountability with what's going on out at this Bloomfield project.

When it comes to changes to private health premiums, this budget hits older Australians and regional families. Coming right after the steep 4.41 per cent average premium hike on 1 April, the government has now quietly axed the extra age based rebate for seniors. Starting from April 2027, the enhanced rebate for over 65 will be slashed to a flat 24 per cent, treating retirees on fixed pensions the same as younger earners and directly hitting over three million older Australians. It will be a real kick for our fixed income seniors. While the government hides behind averages, a 4.41 per cent premium rise adds roughly $167 a year for individuals and $330 a year for families on gold cover, with some major funds hiking prices by up to six per cent. For our regional seniors who need comprehensive care, the data shows that gold policies often jump by 11 per cent to 12 per cent when insurers restructure. These are vulnerable people in our community who are now going to have to choose between buying groceries and keeping their health cover. If seniors are forced to drop their private health cover, it will have a massive impact on our hospital system, which is already overstretched.

Let's talk about the capital gains tax and changes to trusts and negative gearing. If government wanted to bring in changes to the tax system, it should have had the courage of its convictions and put it to the Australian people at a general election. It chose not to do that, and it's why people lose faith and trust in politics and government institutions and political parties—because governments aren't upfront and honest with them. There are changes also affecting the way that a lot of young people invest through crypto and exchange traded funds and microinvesting apps. All of these hit young people in significant measure, and these are the very people the government says that it is trying to help through its tax changes. Well, put them to the people. What could be more simple than that? Don't try to hide it as you run into an election and then hit everyone with it afterwards. This is a huge issue for people of all ages—not just young people, not just older people but all Australians.

There is real anger out there, including amongst the business community. They're very worried they're going to be hit with this new capital gains tax. They're asking, 'Well, what is the point in taking risks, what is the point in fostering enterprise, what is the point in employing people and what is the point in following your dreams and building something if the government is going to take almost half of it at the end of the day?' It's a great point. If we want businesses to drive the economy, and everyone says, 'Yes, small business is the engine room of the economy,' well, let's support them and give them some tax measures that actually support what they're doing rather than penalise what they're doing. It's a huge issue out there, and I don't think it's going to go away for the government. So I would urge the government to rethink what it's doing with its tax changes. There is widespread concern out there, and there will be a price to pay for this at the next election.

Another glaring omission from the budget was the failure to impose a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. Since 2022, this equates to $70 billion in lost revenue. Imagine how many great western highways we could have built with $70 million, how many convict bridges we could have replaced, how many business support packages we could have put out there for our struggling businesses being smashed to pieces by that closure? That's $17 billion a year, $2 million an hour and $577 per second. Why hasn't it happened so far? The answer is: follow the money. It's these big gas companies that are major donors to the major political parties. They're just buying influence. That's the cold, hard truth of the matter. That's why the major parties don't want to go here, because they're basically in league with these gas companies. This is not an issue of left versus right. This is an issue of national interest versus vested interests. It's the vested interests of the big gas companies, which are winning out at the moment, and we're forgoing revenue. We've got overseas countries making more out of our gas than we are. It's an outrage!

I would urge the government to bring in a gas export tax. I would also urge the government to be upfront and transparent about its dealings with the public. Regardless of what you think about these tax changes, if the government had wanted to bring them in, it should have had the integrity to go to the Australian people and ask for a mandate for them. It's very simple. I'm a crossbencher, but I have seen this happen before. When coalition governments broke promises, they were rightly condemned for it, including by those on the opposite side of the chamber. So you shouldn't expect anything different to happen to you. There is no mandate for this. For us, this budget was a budget of broken highways and broken promises—and you can't build public trust on broken promises, and you can't run a regional economy on broken highways.

This budget builds on the work of the Albanese Labor government, delivering more cost-of-living relief, stronger health care, more housing and greater opportunities for all Australians. While Australians are working hard, we know many are still doing it tough. This budget responds to that challenge. It delivers more tax cuts for every taxpayer, putting more money back into people's pockets when it matters most, benefiting millions of workers right across the country, including more than three million Queenslanders.

It keeps medicines cheaper. We know that PBS scripts are now costing just $25. That's making a difference not just for people in my community of Bonner but right across the country. People don't have to choose between whether or not they can receive lifesaving medication or can purchase their groceries that week. It makes Medicare urgent care clinics permanent. I now have not one but two Medicare urgent care clinics servicing my community of Bonner. The Carina-Carindale and Capalaba clinics have both seen over 8,000 people through their doors since they opened in December. And it builds on Labor's historic investment in women's health, making contraceptives cheaper, expanding menopause support and backing endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. There are now 33 right across the nation. The closest in Brisbane's south side is in Oxley, and that also is servicing my community of Bonner. This budget backs skills and opportunity through fee-free TAFE, supports apprentices, strengthens child care through Labor's three-day guarantee and continues making housing fairer for first home buyers. This is a budget helping Australians with the pressures they face today while building a stronger future for tomorrow.

When you work hard, save your money and do all the right things, you should have a fair shot at owning your first home, but for too many Australians homeownership feels out of reach, and that is exactly why the Albanese Labor government is taking sensible action to make housing fairer. We are backing first home buyers through the five per cent deposit scheme, helping more Australians buy a home sooner without the need for an enormous deposit. Over 500 people in my community of Bonner have already accessed the five cent deposits and are now in their very first home. And we are helping build the homes Australia needs. Recently, the Albanese Labor government announced support for more than 50,000 new homes in Queensland, including more than 20,000 that will be exclusively for first home buyers. That is helping to unlock housing supply and get people into their own homes sooner. We are also making sensible changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax arrangements to better support new housing supply and help level the playing field for first home buyers, because aspiration should not be reserved for those who already own property; it should be available for the next generation as well.

I want to share a story today of a local mum, Zoe, who shared with me exactly why Medicare urgent care clinics matter in her experience at one of our two clinics servicing my community of Bonner. Zoe said: 'Thank you so much, Kara, for your amazing service and amazing outcomes in such a short period of time. I'm so grateful for the urgent care clinic you made happen. My youngest son was very unwell on a Sunday in early March, and we could not get a GP appointment. I remembered seeing your post about urgent care clinics, so we presented there. We were taken care of by a wonderful nurse and GP and didn't have to wait more than an hour. We were then redirected to the children's hospital because our little one ended up having scarlet fever and required a hospital stay of three nights. But the ability to access the urgent care clinic was such a great relief to me, my sanity and the wellbeing of my youngest. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your hard work, dedication and getting things done have made a real, positive impact on your constituents and wider community.' Thank you, Zoe, for providing that feedback about our urgent care clinics. It is wonderful to see that they are now a permanent feature of our Medicare system.

Across the country, of course, these clinics have already seen more than three million presentations since opening in 2023, helping Australians get free urgent care when they need it most. As I said before, our local clinics have had over 8,000 people through the doors since December. This is also building on our agenda to strengthen Medicare with more bulk-billing GPs. In Queensland, the bulk-billing rate has now increased to 79.5 per cent. In Bonner, GP clinics that are bulk-billing have doubled. I'm really proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, delivering practical health care right across Bonner and of course across the country, because, when people need care, help of course should be there.

Good climate policy should not just be good for the planet; it should help families save money too. That's exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing with our Cheaper Home Batteries Program. Already over 3,000 home batteries have been installed across Bonner, helping local households cut energy bills by storing cheaper, cleaner power at home. For families doing it tough, lower power bills do matter, and practical action on climate matters too. For too long these conversations have been framed as an either/or, but the truth is that good policy can be both. It can help thousands with cost-of-living pressures while supporting cleaner, more reliable energy for the future. That is why Labor is backing these practical solutions that help families save money and strengthen Australia's energy system at the same time. In my community of Bonner, local families are already seeing the benefits. Climate action should not feel out of reach; it should feel practical. It should make life easier, and it should leave the next generation with a cleaner, stronger future.

Healthy men and boys are built in communities not in isolation. They are built through connection, positive role models, belonging and support. Recently, I had the privilege of hosting Assistant Minister for Social Services and Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence Ged Kearney and Special Envoy for Men's Health Dan Repacholi, as part of the National Healthy Men Community Conversations project. We began with a local roundtable bringing together service providers, community organisations and frontline workers to hear directly about the challenges facing men and boys in our community. Later, we were joined by over 100 community members at the Wynnum Manly & Districts Men's Shed for a broader conversation about what it means to support healthy men and boys. We spoke about the kind of community we want to build for men and boys—one where help seeking is encouraged, connection matters, respectful relationships are modelled and young boys grow up with positive role models around them.

We know many men are facing challenges, from loneliness and mental health struggles to social isolation and disconnection. Conversations like these encourage connection, support help seeking and, importantly, help shape future government policies and better programs to support men and boys. I'm so pleased that we were able to host the very first of these community conversations in my community in Bonner, and I know that the rest of Australia will benefit from these conversations as they travel right across the country. I also want to thank the Wynnum Manly & Districts Men's Shed for hosting us at their shed and for the delicious barbecue that included not just a sausage sizzle but also kebabs for a lovely surprise.

It is also National Reconciliation Week, and this year's theme, All In, is a reminder that reconciliation is not passive. It requires all of us to keep listening, learning and working towards meaningful change. But reconciliation is not only about reflection; it is also to be backed by action. This week, as Australians reflect on the truth of our history and on the ongoing impact on the stolen generations, the Albanese Labor government has announced an additional $2.6 million to support stolen generations survivors. This builds on the government's broader investment in the budget of $87 million to continue specialised support for stolen generations survivors and will support the important work of the Healing Foundation and Link-Up services—organisations that provide trauma informed, community led support to survivors and descendants while connecting and helping to reconnect families with culture, country and kin. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Bringing them home report next year, this investment recognises that healing is ongoing and that there is still more work to do, because reconciliation will not happen by itself, and it cannot solely rest on the shoulders of First Nations people, who have carried this work for far too long. Reconciliation requires all of us to be all in.

Heard, seen and believed—these three words should be the experience of every victim-survivor of domestic, family and intimate partner violence, yet, for many LGBTQIA+ Australians, it is not. Today marks LGBTQ+ Domestic Violence Awareness Day—a day that began here in Australia and is now recognised across the world. It was created to shine a light on violence and abuse occurring within LGBTQ+ communities, an issue that is often hidden from direct view. Research does show that more than 60 per cent of LGBTQ+ people will experience domestic, family or intimate partner violence in their lifetime, yet many victims-survivors remain invisible within our systems. LGBTQ people are less likely to identify abuse, less likely to seek support and less likely to report it. Many victims-survivors fear discrimination or not being believed or worry their experiences will be misunderstood, creating real barriers to reaching out for help or accessing mainstream services.

Today I was so proud to join the LGBTQ Domestic Violence Awareness Foundation, who work towards creating change for this community through practical tools, education and free resources, including their See, Hear, Believe campaign. They are helping workplaces, frontline services and communities to better recognise abuse and support victims-survivors. These resources are available for free through the foundation's website, helping more people to access support and information when they need it. No-one should feel invisible when seeking safety. Every person, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity, deserves to live free from violence, to be seen, to be heard and, of course, to be believed.

Today is also Public Education Day, an opportunity to recognise the incredible role our public schools play in communities like mine in Bonner and, of course, right across Australia. Schools are not just places of learning; they are places where young people build confidence, discover their strengths and shape their futures. That is why this budget delivers an additional $20 billion investment into our public schools. We are fixing the funding of our schools and tying it to real, practical reforms that will help students succeed. There are things like year 1 phonics and numeracy checks to make sure children are getting the foundational skills that they need earlier; small group tutoring to help students who fall behind catch up, keep up and finish school; and practical support to help teachers focus on what they do best—teaching.

Every parent wants their child to have the best start in life, and every child deserves the opportunity to succeed—no matter where they grow up or what challenges they face. When we invest in schools, we invest in opportunity. And when we invest in young Australians, we invest in the future of our country.

I also had the honour of hosting the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, in my community of Bonner. We visited Wynnum State High School and heard firsthand from students about their aspirations and, of course, the needs of the Wynnum State High School community. I want to thank the minister for his commitment to hearing firsthand from my community and for the additional $20 billion in this budget, which is a wonderful outcome and extremely welcomed by my community back home.

May is also Queensland Small Business Month, an opportunity to recognise the contribution small businesses make in my community of Bonner and right across the country. I've had the chance to visit so many businesses since I came into this role 12 months ago. From Edith Street Espresso in Wynnum to the IJ Group in Hemmant, these businesses reflect something really important about Bonner: local people creating jobs, backing their communities and, of course, growing our local economy. I know many small businesses are doing it tough, but that's why there is practical support in this budget for small businesses, with $3.5 billion in new business tax relief measures. That includes making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent, giving businesses more certainty to invest; around 830,000 Queensland businesses are eligible.

The member for Bonner has just updated the House, in terms of her time spent with small businesses across her electorate, and I commend her for doing that. Someone else in this place has been really busy with respect to small businesses too. He's been popping up in my feed—not once daily, but continuously. The Prime Minister seems to have visited almost every startup operating in Australia. I see him at plumbing businesses, at cafes and at tech startups; he has been a busy man. And he takes a selfie on every occasion—at least, that's what I used to think, but then my friends told me this was AI generated spoof, which I thought was funny.

In any event, I couldn't help but accept the invitation that the member for Bonner offered me at the end of that contribution, when she was talking about her time with small businesses. I can talk a little more about why it is that small businesses around the country are taking to social media to congratulate the Prime Minister for becoming part-owner, part-shareholder and part-director of their businesses; that's for later.

Overwhelmingly, Australians think our nation is headed in the wrong direction. I don't think anyone could argue with that. Now, it is the case that very many of them are struggling, and I see and feel that every day in my electorate. Imagine you are doing it tough, struggling to make ends meet, making the choice between heating or eating. You sit down on budget night, turn on the television and listen in to what the Treasurer has to offer—a budget that confirms record spending, the highest taxes a government has ever levied on the Australian people, a series of broken promises. But then comes the end of the speech.

Australians in their lounge rooms watching this coverage saw an Australian Labor Party stand up and cheer. Now, I've got to tell you, more than one of my constituents has spoken to me about how that really got under their goat. In fact, I've had people say to me, 'Tony, I'm a constituent of yours. I've never voted for you. I probably never will because I'm a rusted-on Labor voter, but it really stuck in my craw to watch the political class, the governing class of this country, cheer—cheer higher taxes, more spending, broken promises.' And that's why, when we read today Labor were expecting the fallout for this budget, I call BS. In any event, I'll speak to more of that in a minute.

I want to take this speech to the things that perhaps my electorate were desperate to see in the budget, but sadly didn't. Madam Deputy Speaker Payne, we share a constituency that includes wine grape producers. You would know, as I do, the industry is doing it tough. That is perhaps the understatement of the day in this building. I think the industry has done it tough for a very long time but is now at the point of catastrophe. What was needed was real support that could help structural reform for the wine industry, whether those are my producers in the Riverland, the Barossa, the Limestone Coast or, indeed, Deputy Speaker, yours in the Hunter. For years we have warned this government, the Australian Labor Party, or at least I have, that there was need for support. Peak industry body Australian Grape and Wine have been doing the same. We need targeted structural reform to assist this industry.

Global demand for wine is in significant decline. The industry is in structural oversupply. There was nothing in this budget to support struggling wine grape producers. But almost as if to kind of grab the knife and twist it, or to provide a kick in the guts on budget night, we read in the detail that the government has decided to phase out the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program. I don't know what message Australian wine grape producers can receive out of that other than the Australian government just doesn't care. You're producing red wine grapes at about $80 a tonne. You're getting paid about $80 a tonne but you've spent nearly $100 just to harvest them—no care, no support; in fact, the very modest offering of the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program is gone.

I'm also grateful for the member for Sturt, who's in the chamber. She, like me, would love to see heavy vehicles out of the suburbs of Adelaide. Adelaide now remains the last capital city in the country to have a major freight route through the middle of it. In my electorate, producers—primary producers principally—and indeed contractors who move goods drag their freight all the way up to the top of the Adelaide Hills. Under great stress they come down at a controlled speed, only to arrive and to be blessed by the suburbs of Adelaide. They're driving 60-tonne B-doubles along causeways that include many schools. They're traversing the electorates of the member for Sturt and others on the way to Port Adelaide. We have got to get those trucks out of those suburbs.

The way to do that is to build the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass. We can take trucks off at Monarto; we can send them along Sedan to Cambrai to bypass those towns. We can duplicate the Swanport Bridge. We can build the Truro bypass. I shouldn't get distracted, but I have been. The Truro bypass—that project that was ready to go, shovels in the ground, before the minister for infrastructure ordered a review. That review cancelled that project, crushing the work that had been done to get the project not just shovel ready but to have equipment there and ready to go. In any event, we have to build a bypass. There is nothing in this budget for that.

I was also surprised because when this side of the House were in government and when there were offerings in our budgets for transport infrastructure, we would hear criticism coming from SA Labor. I have heard nothing. I have heard no criticisms about—well, there have been criticisms on the front page of the Advertiser. There has been plenty of criticism, but we haven't seen the Premier or the Treasurer of South Australia stand up and call this out—perhaps because we won't have a South Australian election for a number of years hence. But the truth is we're not going to see the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass in this term of government. In fact, my prediction is we won't see it for a very long time, and certainly not the aspects of it that were ready to go. This budget confirms that.

Those opposite like to champion what is in the budget for health. I've been championing a headspace for the community of the Barossa for a very long time. I was hoping it might find its way into the budget, but nothing for a headspace in Barossa.

Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker Swanson, your electorate office, like mine, receives any number of complaints about mobile phone reception. In fact, it remains the No. 1 issue that constituents raise with my office. This budget cut $21.4 million from regional communications funding. The budget axed the Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia, including future rounds of the Mobile Black Spot Program, the Regional Connectivity Program, the On Farm Connectivity Program, disaster and communication resilience measures, the regional tech hubs and the National Audit of Mobile Coverage. Labor is treating regional Australians like second-class—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:48 to 12:00

Before we were rudely interrupted by the bells, I was bemoaning the silence that has emanated from the South Australian Labor government regarding the disappointment for South Australians with respect to this budget, particularly around infrastructure spending, which is something they've been quite muscular about in the past, particularly when there were coalition governments, but now there is silence. That does stand in contrast to criticisms that have been levelled at this budget by other Labor premiers, such as Premier Minns and his government in New South Wales and Premier Cook from your own state of Western Australia, Deputy Speaker Lawrence, but unfortunately in South Australia we have a Labor government that understands who their overlords are.

In any event, in the time I have remaining, I just want to talk about an alternative plan—the alternative plan—set out by the Leader of the Opposition on the Thursday following the budget in the budget-in-reply, the centrepiece of which of course is the tax-back guarantee. There's an infinite tax revenue glitch, if you like, here in Canberra. It's called bracket creep. Very few people perhaps fully understand it, and they certainly don't understand the scope of what it does. But, effectively, as inflation rages, wages try to keep pace with prices. People receive wage increases, but of course that puts them into higher and higher and higher tax brackets. Governments love bracket creep because it's the silent killer in the night. It's the silent hand that fills up government coffers. Well, we've said we'll end bracket creep. We will index income tax thresholds to inflation because that is the fair and appropriate thing to do, not these one-off handouts in terms of the working Australian tax offset. That's not the fair way of doing it. The fair way of doing it is to index income tax thresholds.

We've also indicated that we'll cap migration based on how many homes Australians build. It makes sense. You can only invite as many people to your country as you can appropriately house. On budget-in-reply night, we also squared it with the Australian people that—surprisingly to many, particularly in my electorate; there was an amazing amount of feedback about this—there are no less than 17 welfare payments that are made available to noncitizens in this country. To be clear and to avoid the scare campaign that is obviously emanating from places in this building, every single individual who is currently in the country will be grandfathered, but what we're messaging is that, if you want to come to Australia, then we as Australians will commit to you once you commit to us in the form of becoming citizens.

I think the element of this budget-in-reply speech which is perhaps not referred to enough is the future generations fund. I talked earlier about the revenue glitch that happens in this place in terms of bracket creep. There's another one. Treasury officials, reasonably and appropriately, take a very conservative approach when they're setting commodity prices in the budget. We wouldn't like to overestimate those things and be underwhelmed at the end of the financial year. But what happens, consistently, is that we realise commodity prices are much higher than those forecast in the budget papers. That revenue comes in, of course, in the form of higher company tax receipts.

Instead of squirrelling that money away to pay down debt or to build productive infrastructure—which are the two things that we will do with those windfall gains—those opposite have consistently spent all of those windfalls in the year in which they've been received. That's not how you build a nation. That's not how you pay down debt. That's how you end up with a budget which represents the highest spend and tax budget this nation has ever seen. At a time when Australians are doing it tough, those opposite celebrated on budget night—celebrated a budget of broken promises; a budget of higher taxes, with more spending and less to see for it.

There are three challenges facing the Australian economy: an unaffordable housing market; low productivity growth, that is hampering increases in living standards; and the demographic challenge associated with an ageing population. Our reforms in the budget, particularly to the taxation system, are aimed at curing these ills, ensuring that Australia is a productive, growing economy where living standards are increasing for all.

Our housing market is a market that is broken. When a nurse, a teacher, a police officer or an early-childhood educator is paying more tax than someone who is earning millions of dollars in buying and selling assets, then the system is broken. And that is exactly what is occurring at the moment.

Our taxation system does not incentivise productive work. It incentivises people owning and holding on to assets, and making windfalls from asset appreciation. That is the reason why we have low productivity growth in Australia and, potentially, lower living standards. So we are changing the system that is broken into one that supports hardworking Australians, not one that punishes them simply because they can't afford to buy investment assets. We want to see workers get a fair go from the taxation system, not to be punished the harder they work.

The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation are working together to oppose our reforms. They want to keep the broken system. They want to maintain the status quo—a system that is broken and that punishes hardworking Australians who are trying to get ahead, and yet, at the same time, is providing large tax concessions for people who are making millions from buying and selling assets. They want to prop up a system that is actually increasing wealth inequality in Australia and seeing workers and families being left behind.

We are determined to fix this broken system, to ensure that our taxation system supports workers who are trying to get ahead, rewards aspiration and ensures that aspiration isn't confined to people who can afford to buy investment properties, and to ensure that our tax system promotes productive work in our economy. How are we going to do this? Well, we're proposing to reform the taxation system so that it promotes productive work rather than concessions for people who are buying and selling assets. One way that we're going to achieve this is by reforming negative gearing in the property market.

Anyone who currently owns an investment property and who owned it up until the point of the budget night is not affected. So you don't need to be anxious based on the Liberals' mistruths. You need to make sure that you understand the facts. And the facts are that, if you had an investment property before budget night, you are not affected; you can continue to negatively gear your property. But, from budget night, there will be changes in respect of negative gearing. They are that, from 1 July 2027, negative gearing will still be available, but for new builds—off-the-plan developments that will add and encourage adding to the housing stock in Australia. So here we are changing the system so that it supports productive investment in our economy—namely, the construction of more homes for Australians and more building—rather than promoting people buying investment assets, sitting on them, selling them down the track and then getting a tax concession, in the form of a discount on the capital gains tax, to facilitate wealth generation.

That brings me to the second point of our reforms, and that is to capital gains tax. From 1 July 2027, we will reform the way that capital gains tax works. Instead of a 50 per cent discount on any gains, we will return to a cost base indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax rate. This will ensure that only real capital gains are subject to tax in the future. Again, there have been some mistruths that have been spread by the coalition, One Nation and others. Indeed, there's been a meme campaign going around, started by a fella called Frank Greeff, who last week admitted that the memes that he started weren't actually truthful. He said:

Not all businesses are going to be taxed at 47 per cent, that's correct.

He also said:

That's just kind of what the truth of social media and attention is like, unfortunately, the more nuance you have, the quicker someone will scroll past and not really care about what you're saying.

So here you have the bloke who initiated the memes campaign about capital gains tax changes, admitting that what he was putting out there was actually false and not truthful.

Here are the facts about the capital gains tax changes. Firstly, if you operate a company, there is no change. Companies never received the 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax. Companies have always paid capital gains tax on assets that are sold, at the corporate tax rate of 30 per cent or the small-business tax rate of 25 per cent. That will not change. There's no change for companies.

If you operate your small business as a partnership or a sole trader or maybe through a trust, there are small-business exemptions under the current capital gains tax regime. If you are a small business with a turnover of less than $2 million, there are substantial exemptions from capital gains tax and they will remain. There's the 15-year operating exemption; the 50 per cent active asset reduction exemption; the retirement exemption—upon retirement, up to $500,000 of the proceeds of the sale of the business is exempt from capital gains tax; and the rollover exemption—if you defer and reinvest in a replacement asset, you are exempt from capital gains tax.

The majority of businesses in Australia will not be affected by the change. In fact, we're actually doing more. We're introducing new measures to provide more support for small businesses in Australia. From 1 July 2026, a business will be able to carry back tax losses and offset them against tax paid up to two years earlier. There's been a lot of talk about start-ups. Here's a reform that's supporting start-ups: from 1 July 2028, start-up companies with turnover under $10 million that generate a tax loss in the first two years will be able to convert that loss into a refundable tax offset. Small businesses operating through discretionary trust, who may face a 30 per cent minimum tax, will be afforded rollover relief for three years, from 1 July 2027, to support small businesses that wish to restructure out of discretionary trusts.

Here you have the facts about the changes that we are making to capital gains tax and negative gearing. The changes are all aimed at ensuring that the taxation system works for working Australians who are trying to get ahead. They aim to encourage people to invest in productive assets, rather than simply sitting on assets, waiting for price appreciation, making windfall gains and getting a tax deduction.

The second area where we need to improve is productivity. We want a tax system that encourages people to work and to try and get ahead, not punishes them the more that they work and for the longer hours that they work. We want to make sure that the tax system supports people who work longer hours by providing them with incentives rather than providing incentives for people who are relying on asset price inflation and appreciation for gains. So we're reforming the capital gains tax, as I mentioned.

We're also introducing a 30 per cent tax on discretionary trusts from 1 July 2028. The tax will be paid by the trustee, and the beneficiary will receive a non-refundable credit, similar to franking credits, for tax already paid. This is to ensure that we're stopping people who can afford it shifting income to family members and others to reduce their marginal tax rates and avoid paying income tax. Someone may be able to transfer their income to their kids or their partner through a trust to avoid paying their income tax. Currently, that's not taxed. It's untaxed. The majority of people who own and operate these discretionary trusts are in the top 10 per cent of income earners in the country.

Again, there have been mistruths spread about this. I want to correct those mistruths. These are the facts. Disability trusts, testamentary trusts, deceased estates and charitable trusts will be exempt from the changes. There'll be no additional tax burden on those particular types of structures. That's clearly outlined on page 31 of Budget Paper No. 1.

We will also introduce other measures to improve productivity—removing 1,000 nuisance tariffs; the $20,000 instant asset write-off; faster environmental approvals; modernising the energy market; faster skills assessment, particularly for migrants; reforming the points test for migrants; and a permanent two-year-loss carryback for firms with up to $1 billion in turnover. So here we are reforming the system again so it promotes productivity and cures one of those ills that we have in our economy at the moment.

These reforms ensure that we can generate additional revenue and budget savings. The revenue will increase by $44 billion to 2028-29 since MYEFO. We're also ensuring that there are savings that are outlined in our budget through reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to the way private health insurance operates and to uncommitted funding across programs. In total, there's $63.8 billion in savings in this budget alone. That will take pressure off Australians because we will be able to return some of those savings to Australians in the form of returning bracket creep. That's in the form of the two tax cuts that are coming over the course of the next two years, the working Australians tax offset, the $1,000 deduction and being able to halve the fuel excise at the moment while Australians are facing increasing prices at the bowser. Because we're making those responsible decisions, because we're reforming our taxation system and because we've been able to find savings, we're able to return some of the bracket creep to Australians in the form of lower taxes and additional incentives in our taxation system.

I want to conclude with an overview of the budget position because I think some of this has been lost in the discussion that's been going on around tax reform. We've actually improved the budget bottom line as well in this budget. We'll run a deficit of $31 billion over 2026-27. But, importantly, the budget will be $44 billion better off over the forward estimates compared to MYEFO. That is because of responsible economic management, finding savings in the budget and returning most of those savings to the budget bottom line. There'll be $63 billion in savings and additional revenue that will go to ensuring a better budget position because of this government's responsible management. Gross and net debt will be lower compared to MYEFO under this budget.

I also want to finish with some international comparisons about our budget position. These are outlined on page 93 of Budget Paper No. 1. The deficit that Australia will run in 2027 will be 2.1 per cent of GDP. I want to provide you with an international comparison to see where Australia sits. Canada's deficit is 2.5 per cent of GDP. The UK's is 3.1 per cent of GDP. The euro area's is 3.4 per cent of GDP, and the United States's is 7.4 per cent of GDP. When you look at our budget deficit in the context of international comparisons, the Labor government is doing a sterling job in managing our nation's finances and ensuring that we're on a pathway back to surplus in accordance with the outlines that we've measured.

The gross debt position is also very interesting as well. If you look at our gross debt position as outlined in the budget—again, this is all outlined on page 93 of Budget Paper No. 1—our gross debt is 50 per cent of GDP in 2027. How do we compare to other nations? In the Euro area, gross debt is 85 per cent of GDP. In the UK, gross debt is 100 per cent of their GDP. In Canada, it's 110 per cent of their GDP. In the United States, a whopping 130 per cent of GDP is their gross debt position. When you look at those figures, you see what an excellent job the Albanese Labor government is doing in managing our nation's finances and ensuring that we are returning any savings and additional revenue in the budget to the people of Australia to reduce their tax burden.

This federal budget brought down by the Treasurer, the member for Rankin, will be remembered for all time as the broken promises budget, the low-incentive economy, or LIE, budget. This budget has let so many people down. Whether in the regions or indeed the cities, so many people feel so badly represented by this government of broken promises. I want to focus on the regions because that is where the resources that keep the lights on come from and that is where the agriculture that keeps the food on our tables and the fibre on our backs comes from. It is the regions which have been neglected, which have been deserted and which have been overlooked by this Labor government. This Labor government promised so much more when it first came to office in May 2022 and then, three years on, made a series of promises which have now been broken—a breach of faith with the electorate which placed its trust in the government.

We talk about trusts. We look at how many farmers have their arrangements and their farms wrapped up in trusts, which will now be raided and which will now be absolutely torn apart by this Labor government. When it comes to trusts, it comes to farming succession plans—farms which go from one generation to the next—and that is a breach of faith, when the government had said it wouldn't look at trusts and at changing the rules around them. There is also a breach of faith when it comes to the capital gains tax situation—something that the Prime Minister, quite angrily and quite vehemently at press conference after press conference, said he would not change, on around or more than 50 occasions. He was quite vociferous about this point, and, now, with the budget, he has turned his back on those people, those aspirational middle Australians.

I refer to a 1966 publication called Men of the Murray. It's a book written by Gordon Wentworth Broughton, who was born in Deniliquin in that southern Riverina country in 1888. It's a fascinating book. The author served Australia in both world wars. He is a fine Australian. In the frontispiece, the very first paragraph says:

How little we really know of other people's lives and their jobs becomes acutely obvious as we read this story, Men of the Murray.

It's fascinating to see. On page 199—when I picked this wonderful little publication up, it was the first page I opened—it states:

In the years before the creation of the immense storage at the Hume Reservoir, the Murray occasionally stopped running completely. Once was in 1914, and I saw it near Swan Hill in 1923, when we stepped across a trickle three feet wide and four inches deep, "flowing" from a stagnant pool held back by a clay bar.

The difficulty with the water situation is that much of the infrastructure around the Hume Dam, Burrinjuck and the great Snowy Hydro scheme—a scheme set up for irrigation not necessarily producing electricity—is now near a century old. You would think that a sensible, practical government with a vision to the future would be investing in water infrastructure. No, not this government. What this government wants to do is to buy water out of productive use, take it away from the farmers. Yes, it will compensate the irrigators for doing so, but in the process it will distort the water market. Who are left high and dry out of all this? Well, it's the baristas, it's the hairdressers, it's the motor mechanics in those river communities.

Student enrolment at Coleambally Central School in the past decade has almost halved. Hundreds of kids are now no longer being educated at Coleambally. Why? Because, people from that New South Wales irrigation community, which was set up for irrigators in the 1950s, have deserted the area, and why wouldn't they when we've got a government that doesn't believe in Australian made and grown food? Obviously they don't, because they continue to buy water out of the consumptive pool. Well, we will stop that.

Water for the environment is important. I'm the first to admit it, and the river communities will say that too. Without a healthy river system, they have nothing. But all this government believes in doing is buying more and more water out of the system. For what? Much of the policy will lead to some of those low-lying areas around those river communities being flooded. They can't push the water that they've bought out of the mouth of the Murray fast enough, and it is a concern.

Well, we have a better way. We have a much more improved way of dealing with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a plan to which I moved a disallowance motion in 2012. I have not changed my position from that day to this. The coalition's principles are that we will end further reductions to the amount of water available for farming jobs and productive use, targeting an increase in the amount of water set aside for farmers, towns and businesses to use in the consumptive pool to deliver a future for basin communities and reforming the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to return surplus water not required to meet priority outcomes to the temporary consumptive pool for farmers, towns and businesses to use, to lower prices. That's what it does. It distorts the water market.

Interestingly, the CEWH, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, holds 72 per cent of the available water in the Murray-Darling Basin—all but 28 per cent. It is the largest irrigator in the country, and it does not have to equate and be accountable for every single drop of water it uses. But our farmers do, and our farmers do because they pay for it, and they are held to strict requirements that the CEWH is not. I have nothing against Simon Banks and nothing against the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, but what they are doing needs to be held to account. At the moment I believe it is not so. There is a better way.

This government in this budget stole $191.6 million from pest eradication. When we talk about pest eradication, we talk about carp, which make up around 80 per cent of the biomass in the Murray-Darling system. We also talk about rabbits. They are infesting communities in my electorate. I visited the Junee cemetery the other day to take a look for myself, and many of the century-old headstones are in danger of toppling over because of the rabbits that are burrowing beneath. We're also talking about pigs: there are more pigs in Australia than there are humans. But the government is taking away the money to control these feral pests, including foxes and blackberries—you only need to talk to Carlie Porteous of the Murray Region Forestry Hub, in New South Wales, to know what a problem the infestation of blackberry is—and mice. I'm told we have a big problem with mice at the moment in Western Australia, and it's coming to an eastern state near you! What did we see last time there was a mouse plague? Well, we had the Greens running around saying—wait for this—that we should rehome these little rodents, rehome these furry little pets. The member for Bruce laughed. I'm not kidding! That's what they said. That is the Greens way of controlling mice. Of course, they were getting in grain bins. They were getting in the beds of farming children trying to sleep at night, and I'm not exaggerating. Then we have the Greens wanting to rehome the little critters. I mean, this is the Greens attitude. And when the Greens get anywhere near economic policy, you know you're in trouble. You know that anything that they say can't be held up as common sense.

But it gets worse. In the appropriations that the government wants to put in place, there is not the infrastructure spending that we desperately need in regional Australia. The roads are crumbling. They are actually unsafe, and we've seen money stripped away from the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program—money for safer, better roads. Certainly in my electorate, I'm yet to see the $140 million promised by the member for Eden-Monaro before she entered parliament during the by-election. She is now the regional development minister. What I want to see from the member for Ballarat, who also happens to be the infrastructure minister, and what I want to see from the member for Eden-Monaro, who is the regional development minister, is for them to go in to the cabinet process and shake those city-centric frontbench members up and say, 'Where is the fairness for country Australia, for rural, regional and remote Australia?' Because it's not there at the moment, and it's their job to represent the people who send them to Canberra to do a job. If they don't do that, the city-centric frontbenchers will always ride roughshod over them. They will.

It doesn't matter what political persuasion the government is, the regional members have to stand up and defend the fairness of funding for country people, because, if we don't, who will? If we don't, no-one will, and that is the truth of the matter. At the moment the members for Ballarat and Eden-Monaro are failing in their jobs, failing in their duty, and regional Australia is suffering as a result. It's so sad and it's so wrong. When you look at the infrastructure spending, the Labor government will pat itself on the back and say, 'Well, the inflation rate is down.' Well, yes, it is, but only on the back of the fuel excise being halved, a provision which was demanded by the coalition opposition. It generally takes a whole lot of public outcry and the opposition standing up for what is right to get the government to do what's right for and on behalf of people in this country.

Then we see $21.4 million cut from regional communications funding—that is, mobile phone communication, mobile towers. I hear so often, to the point where I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing about it, about colour-coded spreadsheets. There were colour-coded spreadsheets when the coalition was dealing with infrastructure spending. But those colour-coded spreadsheets were there to make sure that there was fairness and equity across the board. We do also see colour-coded spreadsheets from Labor. But, the trouble is, they only have one crayon and it's red in colour. The round of mobile telecommunications infrastructure spending after the 2022 election was all red, all Labor. The only seats that gained better mobile coverage were those seats which happened to be represented by Labor members. This is so wrong.

We saw during our terms in government—those wonderful glory years of the coalition government, of the Nationals and Liberals running the show—fairness. We saw equity. I know because I was the person responsible for making sure that infrastructure was spent for regional people, not just regional people who happened to be in National Party seats, not just regional people who happened to reside in Liberal Party seats, but regional people, whether they were in a Labor-held seat or whether they had an Independent as their member. And that is the way it should be, because regional people keep the lights on. Regional people provide the hard work and the perspiration. They roll their sleeves up. They do the right thing so that we have our public schools and our public hospitals funded, and that is the right way. There are priorities. This Labor government has missed all of those priorities.

That's why I say that this budget is a budget of broken promises. This budget only provides for a low-incentive economy—the LIE budget that unfortunately the Treasurer will probably tell us we had to have. Well, we didn't have to have it. There is a better way. The better way is to make sure we put in water policies, housing policies, migration policies and farming and agriculture policies that will work for and on behalf of the national interest and protect those regional Australians who protect this country. I haven't even gotten to the veterans, who have been absolutely deserted by this government, but I will certainly have more to say about that in future speeches. We need to protect those who protect us.

I want to contrast the government's budget with the opposition's chaos and cuts. This is a responsible budget. It's focused on relief now, resilience for the country in the face of global shocks and reform to set us up for success in the future, particularly for the next generation. It's a tough environment globally and for many in Australia. The conflict in the Middle East is weighing heavily on our economy and compounding the cost-of-living pressures experienced by too many Australians. The budget is about delivering more cost-of-living help and building a more productive economy, a better tax system and a fairer housing market with a stronger and more sustainable budget.

I'll just summarise some of the ways the budget is helping with the cost of living. First is tax cuts. There are now five different ways that the Labor government is cutting income taxes. That contrasts with the Liberals, who took tax rises to the last election. Then they made the shadow treasurer, the bloke who was the genius mastermind of that little escapade, their leader. This budget sees rolling out legislated tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer this year and next year, delivering new and permanent income tax cuts for every Australian worker with the $250 working Australians tax offset, along with the $1,000 instant tax deduction for workers and small businesses.

The working Australian tax offset is really important to understand. Yes, I get it. It's only 250 bucks now, but what it does is set up an architecture in the tax system for the first time to be able to target tax cuts now and in the future to those who go to work for a living—a tax cut directed specifically at workers. It is part of the big overarching theme of more fairly balancing the taxation in this country between income earnt from work, from labour, and income earnt, quite legitimately, from other sources—investments and capital gains and so on.

We're increasing the Medicare low income thresholds, reforming the tax system to support 75,000 more homeowners into the housing market and investing an extra $2 billion for that enabling infrastructure to support up to 65,000 more homes to be built. Fundamentally, the housing crisis is a supply problem that's built up over generations. Australia has not been building enough houses. This takes the Homes for Australia plan to over $47 billion invested, as well as securing social housing for more than 4,000 eligible young people at risk of homelessness, with $59 million more for the states and territories. We're halving the fuel excise, reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months and doubling penalties for breaches of major consumer laws.

In health, we're making health care more accessible and affordable. A big one for our area—my and other electorates in south-east Melbourne—is making Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of Australia's health system and Medicare system. The clinics in Narre Warren and Dandenong will now be permanent, making medicines cheaper and making major investments in public hospitals. At the same time that we're making these critical investments in supporting people now, setting the country up with fuel security plans and made-in-Australia plans for resilience in the face of global shocks and helping the next generation get into the housing market—75,000 more Australians will be able to buy their own home with these changes—we're building a stronger budget with lower deficits and less debt to help take pressure off inflation and interest rates, therefore, and build our fiscal buffers during global uncertainty.

Strong fiscal discipline is even more important at a time of heightened global uncertainty, and that's exactly what this budget delivers. They don't like to hear it on the other side, but responsible economic and fiscal management has been a defining feature of this government in every budget. The truth is, from when the government was elected four years ago, debt is in a better place. It's lower, deficits are lower and the debt-to-GDP ratio is lower. The fact is—and you can see it in the budget papers in black and white—the budget is in far, far better shape than the mess that the Liberals left behind. Decisions in this budget mean that we are saving more than we're spending compared to the mid-year update just six months ago. The budget bottom line is $45 billion better off over the forwards compared to the mid-year update six months ago. This is more than a quarter of a trillion dollars better than what the coalition left behind.

I'd contrast that with the opposition leader's budget reply speech. It should have been delivered by Sussan Ley. They knifed her. She didn't even get a chance to deliver a budget reply speech. Instead, what we got was this weird, angry magic-pudding grab bag of uncosted thought bubbles and massive cuts outlined but with no costings and no detail. This, of course, was the genius mob, the Liberals, who took tax rises to the last election. In its own way it was as dystopian as Peter Dutton's last effort, but for a different reason. It wasn't designed to scare people before an election, which was his tactic. It was a blind-panic response and a flawed effort to out-Pauline Pauline. It was a giant dog whistle to One Nation.

On migration, it's a fact that the government inherited in 2022 a set of policies on migration that saw migration rise soon after that election to unsustainable highs. Some of that was because the borders reopened post COVID and people came in. Some of it was because we had the lowest average unemployment for 50 years and fewer people left because the labour market was so strong. But some of it was because of rorts in the migration system, and we've made tough decisions to tighten its integrity. Because of the government's work, net overseas migration has fallen by more than 45 per cent since the peak that we inherited soon after the election, and it will fall further.

But there was this giant dog whistle. I want to talk about this because it affects people in your electorate, Deputy Speaker Fernando, and in mine and right across the country. It was their plan to cut benefits from permanent residents of Australia. I'll quote the opposition leader:

Tonight, I announce that a coalition government will reserve the NDIS and 17 different welfare programs, including JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and the family tax benefit, for Australian citizens only, and save taxpayers billions.

There's no doubt that, instinctively, that is popular. The picture they're painting is of all these nasty migrants coming into the country to get benefits. Temporary residents of Australia do not get benefits, to be very clear. Let's understand the proposal of the Liberals to cut 17 payments from permanent residents of the country. That includes family payments, the age pension, youth allowance, parent payments and carers' payments. I quote the opposition leader:

… if you don't want to become a citizen, there's a price you pay for that.

Let's understand this. Who are the permanent residents of our country? Who are these noncitizens the Liberals want to go after? They're doctors, builders, nurses, teachers, aged-care workers, volunteers down at the footy club, your co-workers and valued community members. Overwhelmingly, these permanent residents of Australia have lived here for years or, in some cases, decades or just about their entire lives. They pay taxes—billions of dollars in taxes. They contribute to the country. There are over 150,000 of them. They're parents, partners and children of Australians. There are over 600,000 Kiwis who've been living in this country for years or decades, working and paying taxes. For all intents and purposes, they consider themselves Australian. As I said, many of these permanent residents are married to Australians. They're the children of Australians. They're the parents of Australian citizens. They live in the same households.

There are lots of reasons that people who are permanent residents have not become Australian citizens. They might be waiting for one more year till they're eligible. They might not have got around to it. Yes, there's a cohort there. There are also those who have the very difficult choice that, when they become a citizen, they'll lose their ancestral country citizenship. For most people in the modern world, they can become an Australian citizen and remain a citizen of another country, just like Australians can when they go to other countries and marry and fall in love. But there are many who can't. They have to make a choice. That choice means that they can no longer own their ancestral property. For example, in your home country of Sri Lanka, you have Singaporean-Chinese heritage, many family members consciously make a choice for decades that one half of the couple, the husband or the wife, will be an Australian citizen with the kids and the other will maintain an ancestral home country citizen, because that's how they can own their mum's property they might have owned for generations. That's so they can come and go efficiently to care for their ageing parents. That's so they can operate businesses that create jobs and national wealth in Australia. These are deliberate choices. But since this budget reply, the news has spread that the Liberals will take family payments and pensions away from permanent residents of Australia.

My office has had numerous inquiries in the last two weeks from people worried about their family situation. They've been asking about applying for Australian citizenship. I'm a minister in the Home Affairs department. We are prepared for a surge in citizenship applications now. If that's what people want to do, we'll meet that. I welcome permanent residents of the country applying for citizenship. Applying for citizenship is a welcome act of patriotism to me. It's not something to be made ever more difficult and demonised, as those opposite or many on their extreme fringe do. I want people to confirm their commitment to their country, the place that is already their home, and in often cases for decades. Deputy Speaker Fernando, you do citizenship ceremonies with me. One of the questions I often ask when we do a bit of a hands-up is: how long have you lived here? I find people who've lived here for 60, 65, 70 years—one bloke, after 72 years, finally got around to it. There was no reason. It took him a while to do the paperwork. There you go. They've paid taxes. They've worked here. They're good Australians in every other respect.

As Home Affairs is prepared for a surge in citizenship applications, I've heard from New Zealanders, from Kiwis, and, frankly, I can't tell them not to apply for citizenship. I'd encourage them to apply for citizenship. And, frankly, in many respects, they'd be mad not to. If the Liberal Party wants to come after their family payments and their pensions, then, yes, it's a very rational thing to get on the website and apply for citizenship. If Australians of Indian heritage want to apply for citizenship because they're eligible, they're paying tax, they're contributing and their kids are Australian citizens, then that's a difficult choice because it means they can no longer travel to and from their home country, their ancestral country, as easily to see parents and family. But that's a choice I think tens of thousands of people will make in the coming months to make sure they're safe.

I read the words that the Liberal opposition leader said in his budget reply speech—not the spin and the clean-up they're trying to put out there. I'd also observe that there are no costings to this policy. There's no detail. It's a dog whistle to One Nation and a thought bubble. To be very clear, there are already 10-year waiting periods for a non-citizen or a citizen to collect an Australian pension when you move here. There are already waiting periods of many, many years before you're eligible for any of these things. Overwhelmingly, permanent residents aren't even eligible for the first few years, and they can become citizens. There are not billions of dollars of savings in this. That's why they won't put out a costed policy. This is a giant dog whistle.

But if Australians of Chinese heritage are worried about losing their family payments and their pensions, then, yes, apply for citizenship. Frankly, that's what we're expecting to happen. The first Sri Lankan born member of the Australian parliament grew up in my electorate. Deputy Speaker Fernando, you taught yourself English. I know your story. If your community and your aunties and uncles are worried about losing their benefits when they've paid taxes in Australia for decades, then, yes, they'd be mad not to apply for citizenship. And, frankly, I think that's what's going to happen in the coming weeks and months. Any permanent resident of Australia eligible to apply for citizenship would be mad not to consider applying now to protect themselves and their family.

I'll finish on this point. Permanent residents have often spent decades in Australia paying taxes and making contributions. They're part of every facet of Australian life. Many of them are just our future citizens. The idea that you take family payments away from a family when the kids are Australian citizens is just ridiculous. It pushes children into poverty.

An honourable member interjecting—

Well, they might say it's grandfathered. That's what they said when they had to clean up this mess. That's not what was said in the budget reply speech. The other thing I would observe is that, let's pretend what you say is true—and I don't believe it—you haven't put a single costed policy out. The way the citizenship law works is that there will continue to be thousands of families in this country with Australian citizen children and permanent resident parents. That's how the citizenship law works. For years and decades into the future, there will be Australian citizen kids, often with permanent resident parents, and the Liberal Party will be saying, 'No, no, you're an Australian citizen kid, but we're going to take your family payments away and push your family into poverty.' Have they really thought this through? What about the Australian citizens who are in exactly the same situation overseas, living in New Zealand, living in other countries? Are you now going to say to other countries 'come after Australian citizens and muck up their families'?

This is a giant dog whistle to One Nation, because of their blind panic and their strategic mistake in thinking they can out Pauline Pauline. That's what this dystopian budget reply was about. It's not about modern Australia. It's not about supporting families who pay tax. It's a giant panicked dog whistle to One Nation.

The theme of this budget is deceit, deceit and deceit. That is the whole theme of the budget. Why do I say that? Because, when you are doing radical reform of the tax system—and this is a radical reform of the tax system, what the Labor government are doing—you never do it as a matter of course through a budget; you always take radical reform like this to an election. Historically, that's how it's always been done. With respect, that's what Bill Shorten attempted to do. Bill Shorten attempted to do what this government is now doing in this budget. Bill Shorten at least had the credibility to take the reforms that this government are now doing to an election. And, in the 2019 election, the Australian public had the opportunity to have their say on that, and they said no by voting against the then Bill Shorten Labor opposition.

What this government has done is deceitful. It's disrespectful of the Australian people and is almost dismissive of our parliamentary democracy. Why do I say that? Not only did they not get the mandate from the Australian people by taking it to an election—it actually gets worse than that. Not only did they not take it to an election, like Bill Shorten tried to; what they also did, which is an insult to the Australian public—and shame on every member of the government for it; shame on every single member of the Labor caucus for it!—is they actually said at the last election that they weren't going to do this. Infamously, the Prime Minister was asked 52 times if he was going to make these changes to negative gearing, if he was going to make these changes to the capital gains tax and trust, and over 50 times before the election he said no.

There are two very distinct things here: (1) they didn't take it to the Australian public to vote on, like Bill Shorten did in 2019 and got rejected, and (2), worse than that, they actually said they wouldn't do it. Shame on every member of the Labor caucus who voted for this and put this through. They have basically deceived the Australian public. They were deceptive in their language before the last election, and they deceived the voters of Australia. Shame on every single member of the Labor caucus for doing that.

The other thing that's been interesting is that, in reaction to this budget, there's been an organic uprising from small businesses in Australia and the mum-and-dad investors of Australia across social media and many other platforms. It's been an organic uprising led by them. I raised this in the House of Representatives yesterday in an MPI. What I think one of the main major problems the Labor Party have, especially the leadership of the Labor Party—being the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—is that they have no real-world example. It's actually embarrassing, I think, to the Labor Party and to this government that both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are bubble boys. They have never worked outside of politics. They've never worked outside of a Labor minister's office or this chamber. That's embarrassing, and it shows they have no real-world example.

From memory, I think the Prime Minister's first job was with Tom Uren, a Labor minister. Then, he worked for the General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party in Sussex Street. Then he worked, I think, for Bob Carr, and then he became a Labor MP. He has no real-world example. Does he know what it's like to open a small business? Does he know what it's like to work in a small business? Let alone does he know what it's like to work in private enterprise in any structure? No.

I thought I might get a bit more encouragement from the Treasurer having some real-world, practical economic, financial experience. As the Treasurer, you would hope he would have that. But, no. He went from Wayne Swan's office, I think, to Kim Beazley's office to Morris Iemma's office and then back to Wayne Swan's office—God help us! That demonstrates the hubris and arrogance of the leadership of the Labor government and the bubble that they operate in, where they have no practical, real-world example, as the Prime Minister and Treasurer of this country. So there are two things.

This has been deceitful to the Australian public not just because they said they didn't take it to the election but because they were deceiving and misleading the Australian public before the last election in actually ruling it out. Shame on them! Not only is it the three tax increases—the capital gains tax, the changes to negative gearing and the changes to trusts—which they were deceptive about, which they misled the Australian public on and which they didn't give the Australian public the opportunity to vote on or talk about, but the other issues too.

As an aside, I make the point that, while the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have no idea about and have never stepped in a private enterprise as an employee, let alone owned or operated one in their lives, two state premiers seem to have a little bit more connection with their communities. Chris Minns and Premier Cook in Western Australia are also saying that this government's lost the plot on this stuff. They're saying that. That's not me. I give credit to some Labor MPs who have had real-world experience. The member for Parramatta has done very well in private enterprise. He's been a staffer as well, but at least he stepped out into private enterprise. He's made comments about the inappropriateness of this.

I also read out a number of quotes from business people yesterday. Forty under 40 leaders have said that this will crush ambition. We've had people like the starter of Boost Juice and many others saying it. Australia was built on a fair go, and we all know this. If you had a go, you had the opportunity to do well. That's what's been the successful culture of this country. But not our socialist Labor prime minister and our Labor socialist treasurer.

They don't get it. When you work in private enterprise, when you have to make money not only to fund your salary but to fund other people's salaries, there is something cellular that happens to you. You understand the importance of private enterprise and the importance of building something. You understand that. When all you've done is operate within this building, or with people who work in this building, it's just theoretical. As the Prime Minister said, the most important thing he does in this building is fight Tories. He's actually said that. That's not my quote. That's his. It's all just politics. It's all just the art of what this building is about. It's not about the real world. It's not about private enterprise. It's not about people trying to build this country, build the economy of this country and, importantly, employ people.

I reiterate that this Labor government did not take this to the last election like Bill Shorten did in 2019, when it was rejected. Worse than that, he actually ruled it out. I think there's an important message for the Greens here too. The Greens, at least, admit to their socialism and their crazy left-wing ideas. I respect that. They don't pretend to be something they're not, like the Labor Party does. I also put the challenge out to the Greens. The only people who can leverage the government into doing something here is the Greens in the Senate. I made the point with one of the Greens senators this morning on an interview panel we were both on. Are they going to support this? They might agree with the policy, but do they support the fact that the Labor Prime Minister was deceptive to the Australian people at the last election, because he didn't take these policies to the election? His worst deception was that he actually denied he was going to do this. So the Greens have a question here too. Are they going to support deception? Forget the policy for a second. Are they going to support the deception of this Labor prime minister and this Labor government?

I encourage all the Labor caucus members who are in here to stand up to this. You might agree with the policy. I respect the fact that you might agree with it. I disagree with it. I think it will kill private enterprise. I encourage the Labor caucus members in this chamber to go to the leadership of your party and at least question whether it was appropriate to be deceptive with this. Was it appropriate that, 12 months ago, we, as a political party, as the government of this country, deceived the Australian people? Dave Hughes has gone public. He said he voted for you lot in the election last year. He is saying that you do not have the mandate for this. And you don't have the mandate. If you think you have the mandate, look at how you important you think democracy is and how important you think elections are. If you're going to bring important legislation—this is not just normal budget appropriation stuff. This is radical reform to the tax system. That's when you take that to an election first because of the ramifications it will have. I say shame on every Labor MP who's going to vote for this.

Debate adjourned.

In recent months, my office has had an influx of emails, phone calls and visits from constituents who are deeply worried about the future of the NDIS—parents asking if their children will lose therapy, carers asking if supports they rely on will disappear, providers asking how they can keep delivering services when the rules keep changing and the details remain unclear. That is why I held an urgent NDIS forum in Fowler with registered providers first so they—not the government, not the bureaucracy—could tell me what these proposed changes really mean on the ground. What I heard was not comfort; it was concern and, in many cases, fear. Providers and workers told me they worry the reforms will make the system more distant, more automated and harder for culturally and linguistically diverse communities to navigate.

One community advocate shared a story that stays with me. She described physically driving a mother to multiple childcare centres across our community. At each centre the answer was the same: 'We don't have the resources. We can't support a child with additional needs.' That mother did everything right. She turned up, she asked for help and she was turned away with no place for her child, no support and no clear pathway forward. This is just one of the many examples that tell the story of what happens when systems are under strain and children with disability become someone else's problem.

Now, I want to be fair about what the government is trying to do. The NDIS has grown significantly, with around 750,000 participants today, which is projected to fall to around 600,000 by 2030 under the new functional capacity framework. I understand why that conversation needs to happen. A scheme of this scale must be sustainable and must reach those it was designed for—people living with permanent and significant disabilities. I support crackdowns on fraud. I support stronger protection for participants. Expanding mandatory registration for providers and establishing a robust payment integrity system are important and overdue steps. But sustainable reform and compassionate design are not mutually exclusive, and right now the community is not seeing both. When I asked people at the forum what worried them most, it was not the payments or paperwork. The providers shared that parents were concerned about their children's future—whether they would still have the support to go to school, to make friends, to learn and grow and to one day stand on their own two feet and contribute to this country we all call home.

The NDIS at its best is a bridge that gives children with disability the chance to be fully part of our community. When families cannot see what is on the other side of that bridge, that is when fear takes hold. The providers at my forum told me that they have no clear explanation of how the new functional capacity framework will work, how it will account for language and cultural barriers or how it will treat people who cannot articulate their needs in polished, clinical English. For a community like Fowler, where the majority of people do not speak English at home, that is not a small oversight. It is a structural risk built into the design. During the budget handed down just weeks ago, most of the rhetoric around the NDIS centred on savings—this measure, that cut. But behind every number is a family trying to work out whether their child will still have support next year. So when I hear that this reform is about securing the NDIS for future generations, I want to be persuaded. I want to support changes that protect the scheme, stamp out exploitation and ensure every dollar reaches people who genuinely need it. But I will not support changes that risk pushing my community back into the shadows, especially when they have already taken time to come to see me, to email me and to tell me they are afraid. I urge the government to go on the ground, sit in the same room that I sat in, listen to the same voices and then design reform that those voices can actually trust.

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

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I would like to acknowledge and celebrate National Volunteer Week, a time to recognise the extraordinary contribution of volunteers across our nation—and, in particular, the remarkable volunteers in my electorate of Pearce.

Volunteers are the backbone of our communities. They are the quiet achievers who give their time, energy and compassion without expectation of reward. Whether it's supporting local schools, sporting clubs, community groups, emergency services or looking out for neighbours doing it tough, their contribution is immeasurable. In Pearce, we are incredibly fortunate to have such a strong culture of volunteering. Every day, I see firsthand the impact these individuals and groups have in building stronger, more connected communities.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the recent applicants of the federal government volunteer grants across Pearce. These grants recognise not only the importance of volunteering but also help equip local organisations with the resources they need to continue their invaluable work. To all the grant applicants—thank you and best of luck with your progress. Your dedication inspires us all, and your work makes a real and lasting difference in the lives of others.

Recently, I had the pleasure of hosting members of several school parents and citizens associations at my office. It was a fantastic opportunity to sit down, listen and hear directly about the challenges and successes within our local school communities. Our P&C volunteers are an incredible force. They work tirelessly behind the scenes—organising events, fundraising, advocating for students and supporting teachers and staff. Their commitment ensures that our schools are not just places of learning, but thriving community hubs. I would like to acknowledge their ongoing efforts and thank them for the time and passion they bring to their roles.

As part of recognising the importance of volunteers, my office recently conducted a community volunteer survey to better understand the experiences, challenges and motivations of those who give their time so generously. The feedback we received was both insightful and inspiring. Volunteers spoke about the deep sense of connection and purpose they gain through their work, as well as the importance of feeling supported and valued.

One community member shared, 'The longer I have been a volunteer, I now realise how much benefit I get physically, emotionally and psychologically from being able to contribute in such a meaningful way.' Another volunteer told us: 'By volunteering, I am passing on to my own children the message that life is more than just money. When we give to others without expecting anything in exchange, life will give back in good vibes.' And perhaps most powerfully, we heard: 'In local sporting clubs especially, volunteers help provide young people with a safe place to belong, positive role models and opportunities they may not otherwise have. Sometimes it is not just about football—it is about giving kids confidence, routine, support and people who genuinely care about them.'

These voices remind us that volunteering is not just about giving—it is also about belonging. It strengthens social bonds, builds resilience and creates a sense of shared purpose that benefits everyone. But we also heard clearly that volunteers face challenges—whether it's time constraints, rising costs or the need for greater recognition and support. It is important that we continue to listen and respond to these concerns, ensuring that volunteering remains accessible and sustainable for future generations.

During National Volunteer Week, and indeed every week, we are reminded that the strength of our communities is because of the willingness of individuals to step up and support one another. To every volunteer in Pearce: thank you. Thank you for your generosity, your compassion and your unwavering commitment to making our community a better place. Your efforts do not go unnoticed, and they are deeply appreciated.

I am proud to represent a community that embodies the true spirit of volunteering, and I look forward to continuing to support and celebrate your work. On a personal note, I would like to send huge hugs to one of Pearce's busiest volunteers, Julie O'Tremba, and wish her a speedy recovery—get well soon, Julie!

I rise today to recognise Small Business Month, and to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution that small and family businesses make right across Capricornia. In regional Australia, small businesses are the backbone of our communities. They keep towns strong, connected and resilient.

I've had the privilege of meeting many hardworking small-business owners across Capricornia, and I regularly share their stories with the community. In Rockhampton, I've visited cafes, florists, retailers doing everything they can to keep their doors open despite rising costs. Many tell me they are working longer hours for small margins, but they remain committed to their customers. In Yeppoon, I've met tourism operators, restaurants and retailers along the foreshore facing year-round pressure while still employing locals and welcoming visitors to our region.

Across Capricornia, tradies, mechanics and service providers have told me strong demand is being tempered by workforce shortages and rising material costs. In Sarina I have spent time with longstanding family businesses that have served their communities for decades and remain trusted pillars of their towns. I've also met agriculture service businesses that support our farmers every day and help underpin one of our region's most important industries.

What all these businesses have in common is resilience, but they are under growing pressure from every direction. When you spend a dollar locally, it flows through the whole community, supporting wages, apprentices, suppliers, sporting clubs and community events. That is why shopping local matters, especially now. Choosing your local butcher, baker, cafe, mechanic or tradie over a multinational or online giant can make a real difference to whether that business keeps employing local people and investing in our towns.

I have also seen how much these businesses give back through junior sport, fundraisers, local shows and community events. That contribution is vital to the social fabric of Capricornia. Small businesses shape the identity of Capricornia through hard work, local knowledge and genuine relationships. But right now, many of them are being squeezed by a perfect storm of rising costs, weak consumer confidence and workforce pressures. Power bills are up, insurance premiums are climbing, rents are rising and the cost of stock, freight and raw materials continues to bite. For operators in hospitality, retail, agriculture and the trades every increase eats into an already thin margin. Many are trying not to pass these costs on, because their customers are doing it tough as well.

In regional areas like Capricornia, those pressures are even greater. Distance means higher transport costs. Freight delays can leave shelves short or jobs unfinished. And housing shortages make it harder to attract and retain workers. When severe weather hits, the recovery burden can be immediate and overwhelming. And then there is the workforce challenge. Business owners tell me they cannot always find the staff they need, whether that is apprentices, hospitality workers, qualified tradespeople or experienced admin staff, many are filling the gaps themselves. They're working earlier, staying later and carrying extra stress just to keep the doors open. Many owners are also dealing with complex regulation, higher borrowing costs and soft consumer confidence. When families cut back, small businesses feel it immediately. That makes it harder to plan, invest, expand or take on another employee. That is why Small Business Month is so important. It is a time to recognise the contribution, but it should also be a reminder that they need practical support from government and continued backing from the community.

Government must do its part by reducing red tape, easing compliance burdens, improving access to skilled workers and ensuring small businesses are not punished by rising taxes and costs they cannot absorb. But every one of us has a role to play as well. Every time we choose to shop local, recommend a local business or use a local tradie, we help protect jobs and keep our communities strong. If we want our towns to thrive, we must stand with the people who take the risk, employ local workers and invest in our communities every single day. During Queensland Small Business Month, I encourage everyone across Capricornia and Australia to back local businesses, because they have always backed us. When small business succeeds, Capricornia succeeds.

Last week was Australian Made Week. Labor governments have been backing Aussie made goods for decades. Forty years since the famous green and gold Australian made logo was commissioned by the Hawke government in 1986, the Albanese Labor government is continuing to support the important work of backing Australian made products. Our government is supporting Australian businesses and manufacturers to make more things here through our Future Made in Australia agenda and our industry policy settings. This is what strengthening our sovereign capability is all about. I'm proud of the businesses in my electorate and across Australia who proudly showcase the iconic green and gold logo on their products.

There's been a lot of discussion this week about the economy as we go through the budget process. Today, I want to speak about a key part of the local economy in my electorate: our manufacturing sector. Australian Made Week is an important opportunity to recognise the contribution local manufacturers make to our economy, to our communities and to the kind of Australia we want to back in and see. Australians support policies that back making things here. They care about the people who make them and they care about supporting local jobs and skills. Communities like mine who were built on manufacturing understand that this is how we create opportunity, and the circumstances thrown at us by an increasingly uncertain and volatile world show us the importance of strengthening Australia's sovereign capability and protecting our supply chains.

For much of the last three decades, Australia's economic direction has been heavily influenced by reactionary Liberal governments whose approach centred on the belief that our economy should rely primarily on exporting raw materials, no value add, and sustained attacks on our industrial capacity, all driven by the belief that Australia should be nothing more than a quarry. Communities like mine understand the importance of governments working alongside industry and workers to help build local capability, support secure jobs and invest in areas that strengthen our economy into the future. Backing Australian manufacturing is central to delivering the sorts of outcomes Labor governments have always believed in—secure, well-paying jobs that give people stability, dignity and long-term career opportunities; and strong local industry that makes Australia self-reliant, secure and fair.

There is no reason why Australian made products cannot compete with the very best in the world. We have the skills, the talent, the innovation and the workforce to build products that can succeed in markets both here and abroad. There is no reason why more Australian manufacturers cannot become recognised household names and businesses that support local jobs and showcase Australian quality and ingenuity on the global stage. For communities like mine, which have seen significant changes to local manufacturing, support for industry remains incredibly important. That is why continued investment in manufacturing matters—to ensure that Australian manufacturing continues to play an important and central role in our nation's economy. It is about the products that carry the green and gold logo, but it's also about the families who can work towards homeownership through secure employment, young people who are able to gain skills and move into meaningful work and an economy that gives people the opportunity to aspire with real social and economic mobility.

I do want to also take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the industry, innovation and science committee for coming to my community for local site visits as part of our inquiry into the Australian tyre industry. This included Tyrecycle in Somerton, who do great work when it comes to recycling used tyres by using advanced shredding equipment to break down tyres into manageable pieces which can be repurposed into high-value materials for construction and industrial use, such as tyre derived fuel, rubber crumb and durable infill for roads. We also took the opportunity to visit ELT Recycling, a tyre-processing facility in Campbellfield which specialises in taking in used tyres and processing them to export-grade-quality tyre derived fuel.

If we want a stronger, more resilient economy, we need to continue backing the people, the communities and the businesses who make things here. On the back of Australian Made Week, make sure you buy Australian made and support Aussie businesses here.

Today, outside, on the lawns of parliament, Australians gathered—Persian Australians. There were mothers and fathers, students, retired people and professionals, people who love this country and who fear for their family still in Iran. They stood together to demand Australia act, and today I am rising to make sure their voice is heard in this chamber.

They came with serious concerns about the promotion of radical Islamist ideology on Australian soil, about the intimidation of the Australian Iranian community, about foreign interference in our democratic institutions and about the threat extremism poses to our social cohesion and our public safety. These aren't fringe concerns. These are people who know what it is for their families to live under authoritarian rule.

I'm proud to represent the third-largest Persian community in Australia. For a decade I've stood with Persian Australians who've left Iran because a criminal regime has made their lives a living hell. I've called out the regime's abuses of the Baha'i people, its persecution of women and minorities, its human rights violations and its terrorist proxy funding around the world. I called for the expulsion of the Iranian ambassador years before the government took action, and I called for the IRGC to be listed as a terrorist organisation long before this government had to do so. At every turn, we've had to drag the government kicking and screaming, and I'm here today because, again, the situation demands action.

I want to raise a specific matter that constituents and community representatives have brought to my attention. It's an outrage that goes to the heart of why there are people out the front of our building today. In April this year, the Iranian embassy in Canberra used its official Telegram channel to promote a website called Janfada.net. Janfada means 'sacrificing life'. It's language rooted in jihadist martyrdom ideology. This isn't a cultural platform; it's a recruitment site, operating under the command of the IRGC, targeting men and women as young as 12, urging them to engage in jihad against Australia, the United States and Israel.

The IRGC is now a listed terrorist organisation in this country. Involvement with it can carry a 25-year prison sentence, and yet the Iranian embassy—on our soil, in our nation's capital, sheltered by diplomatic status—is using official channels to recruit Australians into that organisation. That's not diplomacy; that is the abuse of every diplomatic privilege this country has extended to that mission.

Community representatives have asked the government to direct ASIO and the AFP to investigate the embassy's promotion of this recruitment platform. They have asked for protection for Iranian Australians at risk, and they've asked for accountability over the embassy's operations. I'm putting the government on notice: I will keep pressing these concerns directly. I will not let them rest.

It's not a new problem, this inaction; it's a pattern. In February 2023, as the shadow attorney-general at the time, I stood in the parliament and called for the IRGC to be listed as a terrorist organisation. I offered coalition support at that time for any legislation needed, and it took two years for the government to act. It took two regime-coordinated attacks on Australians on our own soil before the government finally acted. That's not leadership; that is being dragged kicking and screaming to do what the situation demands.

I'm also ashamed, as an Australian, that even as the human rights abuses mounted, Labor luminaries like Bob Carr were lining up for happy snaps with Iran's ambassador. A values-based foreign policy has to mean something. Iran doesn't deserve any seat at the diplomatic table, and no Australian government should allow diplomatic premises to be used as a base for terror recruitment. I will never forget a constituent bringing a leather-bound phone-book-sized document to my office, once, with the names and photos of people who had been murdered and disappeared by this regime. It is those people who I think about every time I speak on this issue.

The protests that swept through Iran, from late 2025 into this year, were met with murderous force. More than 60,000 were killed and over 100,000 were arrested. That's bigger than the size of an Australian electorate. The regime shut down the internet and opened fire on the crowds. Those outside the parliament today told those stories of fear because they know what it is, being in Australia, to live in an open society. The concerns they raised about social cohesion, democratic values and community safety are matters of national importance, and they need more attention.

That's why I believe it is time that Australia should invite Reza Pahlavi to visit our country. He's spent decades advocating for a free, secular and democratic Iran. He has immense credibility with the Persian diaspora and among those who study this region. He's a person who Australians—in particular, people in this parliament and in our communities—need to hear. His voice would strengthen our national conversation about what a free Iran could look like and what role we in Australia could play in supporting that vision. I hope that we bring him here to hear his voice.

I rise to acknowledge a very special former assistant principal and teacher in my community on the New South Wales Central Coast, Mrs Louise Duck. Mrs Duck taught across New South Wales classrooms for the past 34 years, having started her career in the country at Cootamundra before accepting a position at Avoca Beach Public School in 1992. From that time, Mrs Duck quickly became a much-loved and appreciated member of the school community in Avoca Beach. At the end of 2025, Mrs Duck retired and is now enjoying a slower paced lifestyle on the Central Coast. Here is an excerpt from a beautiful message from the current school principal, Mr Thomas. He recently said this of Mrs Duck's time at Avoca Beach Public School:

For over three decades, Mrs Duck has given her heart, her energy and her extraordinary skill to generations of students. Her classroom has always been a place filled with warmth, curiosity, creativity and care. Thousands of children have learned, grown and found confidence under her guidance and many still speak fondly of the impact she had on their lives.

Mrs Duck has been much more than a teacher. She has been a mentor, a colleague, a friend and an integral part of the fabric of our school. Her commitment to our community, her unwavering kindness and her passion for helping young people succeed have left a legacy that will continue long after she steps out of the classroom.

So, on behalf of the entire Central Coast, I thank Mrs Duck for her service to our community and public education, and I wish her all the best in her retirement.

I also rise to acknowledge a recently retired schoolteacher, Mrs Christine Ryan, formerly of St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School in Woy Woy. Mrs Ryan taught at several schools during her tremendous career, which spanned a period of three decades and included schools in Europe and the United Kingdom. Mrs Ryan grew up in Sydney, achieving a Bachelor of Teaching at the University of Technology in Sydney in 1993, after which she taught at a number of schools across the city. After spending time in the UK and Europe, along with her husband, they resettled and worked in Darwin. Eventually the couple set down roots on the Central Coast in 2005. Mrs Ryan taught at St Patrick's Catholic Primary School in East Gosford, before starting work at St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School in 2022. Former principal Mrs Davies has perfectly captured Mrs Ryan's teaching ethos via the following words:

Teaching has never been just a job for Chrissy; it is a calling to nurture young minds, balance enduring principles with evolving research, and ensure every child feels safe, seen and valued. The trust families place in her has always been both a profound responsibility and a joy.

What teaching gives Chrissy is immeasurable: the joy of watching students grow in confidence and curiosity, sharing in their learning moments, and continuing to learn herself. Even after decades in the classroom, she remains committed to innovation while holding fast to compassion, respect, and human connection. Teaching has given Chrissy a life of purpose, growth, and community, and she is deeply grateful for the opportunity to continue learning and giving back.

Today I also rise to congratulate the Gosford Water Polo club and its men's and women's teams that have both won their respective finals at the New South Wales senior country championships in Albury, which took place on 23 and 25 January. This is now the third consecutive year that the Gosford Water Polo club has achieved this result. No other club has been able to win this many finals in the history of the competition.

I congratulate the following team members for their tremendous camaraderie and sporting success. In the men's team, we have Jai McNamara, Lachlan Walter, Max Elliott, Luke Hughes, Luke Stimson, Reef Potter, Declan Walsh, Owen Nash, Connor Bradshaw, Sandor Torok, Taine Beavis and Josh Pethers. In the women's team we have Jackie Morrison, Emily Grellman, Makala Kricak, Lauren Nugent, Rosie Stimson, Ellie Stimson, Harlei Kricak, Zoe Stimson, Taylah Tracey and Claudia Nugent.

Again, congratulations to both teams. I'm sure that you will all have celebrated this phenomenal outcome in true style. A special shout-out to all the behind-the-scenes club officials who work incredibly hard to support players pull off these wins too. So go Gosford Water Polo club!

Two urgent care clinics have opened in the electorate of Robertson, three across the Central Coast region, including a state based urgent care clinic at the Long Jetty Hospital, seeing thousands of patients and taking the pressure off our emergency departments right across our region. These Medicare urgent care clinics are for if you're too sick for the GP, but not sick enough for the emergency department. Finally, under this Albanese Labor government, you have somewhere to go that's bulk-billed for adults and children.

I rise today to speak about how the Albanese government is delivering for my community of Menzies. Unfortunately, parts of my community have been taken for granted for too long because Menzies was a safe Liberal seat. This led to underinvestment in public transport and underinvestment in local community groups and businesses. Having grown up in the area, in Doncaster, and raised my family in Donvale, I understand this underinvestment all too well. Since having had the great privilege of being elected last year, I've spoken to so many community groups and people who've been calling out for better infrastructure and support for local services and projects. That's why I've been working hard every single day to deliver for the community that put me here.

Today, I want to speak about two things that are going to make a real difference for locals in my community of Menzies: the Albanese government's investment in the Suburban Rail Loop and the community grants. The Suburban Rail Loop East is one of the most significant infrastructure investments in Melbourne's history. It will fundamentally reshape how people move across our city, and make sure that people can get home sooner and with more options. It will connect communities that have long been underserviced by public transport. It will ease congestion, reduce emissions and create tens of thousands of jobs. The Albanese Labor government is investing an additional $3.8 billion towards the SRL East as part of the 2020 627 federal budget, bringing its total federal funding commitment to $6 billion. Box Hill will become a major part of the SRL hub—better connections, more economic opportunities, more choices in where people live and work.

Education is particularly important for people in my electorate. We're lucky to have a lot of wonderful schools, our public schools are some of the best in Victoria, and SRL will mean that young people will be better able to access universities like Deakin and Monash in Clayton. That is what long-term planning looks like, and that is what delivery looks like for Melbourne's east.

But infrastructure is only part of the picture, because, while we build the train lines, we'll also be building the social fabric, the organisations and the people that hold our community together. That is exactly what the SRL community grants program is doing. I'm proud to acknowledge every organisation that has received funding through this program, because each grant tells a story about what our community is and what it can become. In sport, the Blackburn Bowls Club will receive $80,000 for a new synthetic playing surface. Box Hill Indoor Sports will receive $61,000 for multipurpose indoor courts. The Box Hill United Pythagoras Soccer Club will receive $59,000 for training equipment. Surrey Hills Cricket Club will receive over $39,000 to honour 136 years of history while preparing for the next generation. The Laburnum Cricket Club will receive over $43,000 for a digital scoreboard. The NYP Dragons Water Polo Club will receive over $13,000 to run a junior invitational series along the SRL corridor, getting children aged eight to 13 involved in sport, building friendships and connecting communities. For Tennis ATC in Mont Albert North, three grants totalling over $176,000 will resurface courts, upgrade lighting and renovate the clubrooms.

In disability inclusion, Alkira Disability Services, who I was fortunate to visit recently, will receive over $75,000 to explore transforming their Thurston Street site into a purpose-designed community hub, co-designed with people with disabilities and with their families, and it will also receive over $31,000 for accessibility improvements at AlkiraBiz Cafe, where people with disabilities build hospitality skills and confidence.

Our multicultural community is also reflected across these grants. The Asian Business Association of Whitehorse received $60,000 for the Bloom and Nourish wellbeing program, targeting social isolation. The Australian reading club received $70,000 for a year-long multicultural and intergenerational reading program. The Melbourne Hua Yu Home, the Melbourne Chinese opera, the Whitehorse Chinese Senior 'You Yi' Friendship Association, the Youth of Zhangzhou Association Victoria and the Seniors Happy Life Club each received grants to celebrate culture, reduce isolation and build belonging across our community.

Health is a key focus in Melbourne's east, with Eastern Health receiving $75,000 for a First Nations health education hub. In business, the Whitehorse Business Group will receive $75,000 as well for a business forum and jobs expo.

Question agreed to.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:30