I have received a return of the writ which I issued on 1 April 2026 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Farrer in the state of New South Wales to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Hon. Sussan Ley. By the endorsement on the writ, it is certified that David Farley has been elected.
Mr David Farley made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring on Tuesday, 2 June and Wednesday, 3 June 2026:
(1) standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) being suspended for the sitting;
(2) at 8 pm, notwithstanding standing order 31, the adjournment debate being interrupted and government business have priority until;
(a) business concludes, if earlier than 10 pm; or
(b) 10 pm; or
(c) a later time specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm;
at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until the next sitting; and
(3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.
For the information of members, the purpose of this resolution is the taxation bills, which were introduced on Thursday of last week. I know there's a large number of members on my side of the House who want to speak on it and, I am told, one or two on the other side who are going to want to engage in this debate as well. We're hopeful that this means everybody who wants to participate will get the chance to be able to do so. The usual rules will apply. After 6.30 pm there will be no further divisions or quorum calls. Between 7.30 and 8 pm anyone who is scheduled to speak on the adjournment will still be able to deliver their five-minute speech, but after 8 pm we'll continue with the debate on the legislation. The intention of the government is that we would take the bills through in their final stages on Thursday morning.
I move:
That new paragraph (24) be inserted before paragraph (3) as follows: "questions on the second reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and of the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 not being put until such time as every government Member has spoken during the second reading debate".
There are a couple of reasons why we are doing this.
Honourable members interjecting—
I notice the laughing from those opposite, but we want to make sure that every single member on that side, on the government's side, comes in and absolutely owns this deceit. We want every single one of you to be able to come in and to be able to look the Australian people in the eye and say, 'We said one thing before the election, and we're doing the exact opposite now.' It is incredibly important that the Australian people know that those opposite have no respect for them whatsoever and that you were prepared to all go to the people in your electorates and say: 'We will not change capital gains tax. We will do nothing on negative gearing.' Yet here you are. You're going to do the complete opposite. Now, I thought we might be able to give those opposite a little bit of a hand in how to deal with the broken promises. Are you going to gag me? You're going to gag me!
Given that the Manager of Opposition business has convinced us all that we need to start speaking on this debate, I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be put.
The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.
I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Conaghan to be a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation and Science in place of Mr McCormack.
by leave—I move:
That Mr McCormack be discharged from the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation and Science and that, in his place, Mr Conaghan be appointed a member of the committee.
If anyone wishes to argue the relative merits, now is the appropriate time.
Question agreed to.
In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 May 2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 is returned to the House for further consideration. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ryan has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 May 2026, the bill stands referred to the Federation Chamber, and further consideration of the bill is made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I seek leave to move government amendments 1 and 2 on sheet EY102 and government amendments 2 and 3 on sheet VS117 as circulated together.
Leave granted.
I move the amendments:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Page 16 (after line 20), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 5 — Increasing the Medicare levy low-income thresholds
A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge Fringe Benefits) Act 1999
1 Paragraphs 15(1)(c) and 16(2)(c)
Omit "$27,222", substitute "$28,011".
Medicare Levy Act 1986
2 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of phase-in limit )
Omit "$53,775", substitute "$55,335".
3 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (c) of the definition of phase-in limit )
Omit "$34,027", substitute "$35,013".
4 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of threshold amount )
Omit "$43,020", substitute "$44,268".
5 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (c) of the definition of threshold amount )
Omit "$27,222", substitute "$28,011".
6 Subsection 8(5) (definition of family income threshold )
Omit "$45,907", substitute "$47,238".
7 Subsection 8(5) (definition of family income threshold )
Omit "$4,216", substitute "$4,338".
8 Subsections 8(6) and (7)
Omit "$45,907", substitute "$47,238".
9 Subsection 8(7)
Omit "$59,886", substitute "$61,623".
10 Paragraph 8D(3)(c)
Omit "$27,222", substitute "$28,011".
11 Subparagraph 8D(4)(a)(ii)
Omit "$27,222", substitute "$28,011".
12 Paragraph 8G(2)(c)
Omit "$27,222", substitute "$28,011".
13 Subparagraph 8G(3)(a)(ii)
Omit "$27,222", substitute "$28,011".
14 Application provision
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to assessments for the 2025-26 year of income and later years of income.
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(3) Page 16 (after line 20), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 6 — Pension supplement while overseas
Social Security Act 1991
1 Subsection 23(1) (definition of pension supplement amount )
After "the amount", insert "(if any)".
2 Point 1064-A1 (method statement, step 1A)
After "pension supplement", insert "(if any)".
3 Points 1064-BA1 and 1064-BA2
Repeal the points, substitute:
Pension supplement
1064-BA1 A pension supplement amount is to be added to the person's maximum basic rate if the person is residing in Australia and:
(a) is in Australia; or
(b) is temporarily absent from Australia and has been so for a continuous period not exceeding 12 weeks.
1064-BA2 The person's pension supplement amount is:
(a) if an election by the person under subsection 1061VA(1) is in force—the amount worked out under point 1064-BA4; and
(b) otherwise—the amount worked out under point 1064-BA3.
4 Point 1064-BA3 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Amount if no election in force
5 Point 1064-BA4 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Amount if election in force
6 Point 1064-BA5
Repeal the point.
7 Point 1065-A1 (method statement, step 2A)
After "pension supplement", insert "(if any)".
8 Points 1065-BA1 and 1065-BA2
Repeal the points, substitute:
Pension supplement
1065-BA1 A pension supplement amount is to be added to the person's maximum basic rate if the person is residing in Australia and:
(a) is in Australia; or
(b) is temporarily absent from Australia and has been so for a continuous period not exceeding 12 weeks.
1065-BA2 The person's pension supplement amount is:
(a) if an election by the person under subsection 1061VA(1) is in force—the amount worked out under point 1065-BA4; and
(b) otherwise—the amount worked out under point 1065-BA3.
9 Point 1065-BA3 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Amount if no election in force
10 Point 1065-BA4 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Amount if election in force
11 Point 1065-BA5
Repeal the point.
12 Paragraph 1067L-BA1(b)
Omit "6", substitute "12".
13 Paragraph 1068-BA1(b)
Omit "6", substitute "12".
14 Point 1068A-A1 (method statement, step 1A)
After "pension supplement", insert "(if any)".
15 Points 1068A-BA1 and 1068A-BA2
Repeal the points, substitute:
Pension supplement
1068A-BA1 A pension supplement amount is to be added to the person's maximum basic rate if the person is residing in Australia and:
(a) is in Australia; or
(b) is temporarily absent from Australia and has been so for a continuous period not exceeding 12 weeks.
1068A-BA2 The person's pension supplement amount is:
(a) if the person has reached pension age:
(i) if an election by the person under subsection 1061VA(1) is in force—the amount worked out under point 1068A-BA4; and
(ii) otherwise—the amount worked out under point 1068A-BA3; and
(b) if the person has not reached pension age—the amount worked out under point 1068A-BA5.
16 Point 1068A-BA3 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Amount if person of pension age and no election in force
17 Point 1068A-BA4 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Amount if person of pension age and election in force
18 Point 1068A-BA5 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Amount if person has not reached pension age
19 Point 1068A-BA5
Omit "If the person is not covered by point 1068A-BA2, the", substitute "The".
20 Paragraph 1068B-DA1(b)
Omit "6", substitute "12".
21 After section 1216
Insert:
1216A Rate of payment may be affected during absence from Australia
A reference in this Division to a person's right to continue to be paid a payment not being affected merely by the person's absence does not imply that the person's rate of payment cannot be affected because of the absence.
Note: A person's rate of payment is worked out in accordance with the relevant Rate Calculator in Chapter 3.
22 Subclause 146(4) (note 4) of Schedule 1A
Omit "6", substitute "12".
23 Subclause 146(4) (note 5) of Schedule 1A
Omit "6", substitute "12".
24 Subparagraph 147(1)(c)(ii) of Schedule 1A
Omit "6", substitute "12".
25 Subparagraph 147(2)(c)(ii) of Schedule 1A
Omit "6", substitute "12".
26 Subparagraph 147(3)(b)(ii) of Schedule 1A
Omit "6", substitute "12".
27 Subclause 147(3) of Schedule 1A (method statement)
At the end of the method statement, add:
Step 3. Subtract the amount of the person's pension supplement basic amount (disregarding subclause 149(4)) on the relevant day.
28 Subparagraph 147(4)(b)(ii) of Schedule 1A
Omit "6", substitute "12".
29 Subclause 147(4) of Schedule 1A (method statement)
At the end of the method statement, add:
Step 3. Subtract the amount of the person's pension supplement basic amount (disregarding subclause 149(4)) on the relevant day.
30 Subclause 149(4) of Schedule 1A
Omit "The", substitute "Subject to subclauses (4A) and (4B), the".
31 After subclause 149(4) of Schedule 1A
Insert:
(4A) If subclause 147(3) or (4) is relevant to the person on a relevant day, the social security law applies in relation to the person's pension as if each reference in the table in subsection 20A(5) to $507 were a reference to:
(a) that reference as modified by paragraph (4)(a) of this clause on the relevant day; less
(b) the amount subtracted under step 3 of the method statement in subclause 147(3) or (4) (as the case may be) on the relevant day.
(4B) If subclause 147(3) or (4) is relevant to the person on a relevant day, the social security law applies in relation to the person's pension as if each reference in the table in subsection 20A(5) to $423.80 were a reference to:
(a) that reference as modified by paragraph (4)(b) of this clause on the relevant day; less
(b) the amount subtracted under step 3 of the method statement in subclause 147(3) or (4) (as the case may be) on the relevant day.
32 Application provision
(1) In this item:
commencement day means the day on which this Schedule commences.
(2) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply to a person:
(a) who is absent or temporarily absent from Australia for a continuous period beginning on or after the commencement day; or
(b) who is not residing in Australia on or after the commencement day.
(3) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply to a person who is absent or temporarily absent from Australia for a continuous period:
(a) beginning before the commencement day; and
(b) ending on or after the commencement day;
in relation to the part of the period occurring on or after the commencement day.
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986
33 Subsection 5Q(1) (definition of pension supplement amount )
After "the amount", insert "(if any)".
34 Subparagraph 58A(7)(b)(ii)
Omit "6", substitute "12".
35 Subparagraph 58A(8)(b)(ii)
Omit "6", substitute "12".
36 After subsection 58K(1)
Insert:
(2) However, the reference in subsection (1) to a person's right to continue to be paid a pension or supplement not being affected by the fact that the person leaves Australia does not imply that the person's rate of payment cannot be affected because of the absence from Australia.
Note: A person's rate of payment is worked out in accordance with the Rate Calculator.
37 Subparagraph 60(1)(b)(ii)
Omit "6", substitute "12".
38 Subclause 30(4) of Schedule 5 (note 4)
Omit "6", substitute "12".
39 Subclause 30(4) of Schedule 5 (note 5)
Omit "6", substitute "12".
40 Subparagraph 31(1)(c)(ii) of Schedule 5
Omit "6", substitute "12".
41 Subparagraph 31(2)(c)(ii) of Schedule 5
Omit "6", substitute "12".
42 Subparagraph 31(3)(b)(ii) of Schedule 5
Omit "6", substitute "12".
43 Subclause 31(3) of Schedule 5 (method statement)
At the end of the method statement, add:
Step 3. Subtract the amount of the person's pension supplement basic amount (disregarding subclause 34(4)) on the relevant day.
44 Subparagraph 31(4)(b)(ii) of Schedule 5
Omit "6", substitute "12".
45 Subclause 31(4) of Schedule 5 (method statement)
At the end of the method statement, add:
Step 3. Subtract the amount of the person's pension supplement basic amount (disregarding subclause 34(4)) on the relevant day.
46 Subclause 34(4) of Schedule 5
Omit "This", substitute "Subject to subclauses (4A) and (4B), this".
47 After subclause 34(4) of Schedule 5
Insert:
(4A) If subclause 31(3) or (4) is relevant to the person on a relevant day, this Act applies in relation to the person's service pension or income support supplement as if each reference in the table in subsection 5GA(4) to $509.60 were a reference to:
(a) that reference as modified by paragraph (4)(a) of this clause on the relevant day; less
(b) the amount subtracted under step 3 of the method statement in subclause 31(3) or (4) (as the case may be) on the relevant day.
(4B) If subclause 31(3) or (4) is relevant to the person on a relevant day, this Act applies in relation to the person's service pension or income support supplement as if each reference in the table in subsection 5GA(4) to $426.40 were a reference to:
(a) that reference as modified by paragraph (4)(b) of this clause on the relevant day; less
(b) the amount subtracted under step 3 of the method statement in subclause 31(3) or (4) (as the case may be) on the relevant day.
48 Subpoint SCH6-A1(2) of Schedule 6 (method statement, step 1A)
After "pension supplement", insert "(if any)".
49 Subpoint SCH6-A1(3) of Schedule 6 (method statement, step 2A)
After "pension supplement", insert "(if any)".
50 Subpoint SCH6-A1(6) of Schedule 6 (method statement, step 1A)
After "pension supplement", insert "(if any)".
51 Subpoint SCH6-A1(8) of Schedule 6 (method statement, step 2)
After "pension supplement", insert "(if any)".
52 Subpoint SCH6-A1(9) of Schedule 6 (method statement, step 3)
After "pension supplement", insert "(if any)".
53 Points SCH6-BA1 and SCH6-BA2 of Schedule 6
Repeal the points, substitute:
Pension supplement
SCH6-BA1 A pension supplement amount is to be added to the person's maximum basic rate if the person is residing in Australia and:
(a) is in Australia; or
(b) is temporarily absent from Australia and has been so for a continuous period not exceeding 12 weeks.
SCH6-BA2 The person's pension supplement amount is:
(a) if an election by the person under subsection 60A(1) is in force—the amount worked out under point SCH6-BA4; and
(b) otherwise—the amount worked out under point SCH6-BA3.
54 Point SCH6-BA3 of Schedule 6 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Amount if no election in force
55 Point SCH6-BA4 of Schedule 6 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Amount if election in force
56 Point SCH6-BA5 of Schedule 6
Repeal the point.
57 Application provision
(1) In this item:
commencement day means the day on which this Schedule commences.
(2) The amendments of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 made by this Schedule apply to a person:
(a) who is absent or temporarily absent from Australia for a continuous period beginning on or after the commencement day; or
(b) who is not residing in Australia on or after the commencement day.
(3) The amendments of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 made by this Schedule apply to a person who is absent or temporarily absent from Australia for a continuous period:
(a) beginning before the commencement day; and
(b) ending on or after the commencement day;
in relation to the part of the period occurring on or after the commencement day.
Question agreed to.
I move an amendment to the long title of the bill, as contained in government amendment 1 on sheet VS117 as circulated:
(1) Title, page 1 (line 2), after "taxation,", insert "social security and veterans' affairs,".
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to with an amended title.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Prime Minister and this government have no mandate to raise taxes. Did they take these tax increases—these toxic taxes—to the last election? No, they didn't. Of course he didn't, because the Prime Minister didn't have the guts. He knew millions of Australians would have voted against higher taxes had he done so. He knew that millions of Australians would have given this government the boot if he had done so. So, instead, he misled Australians.
Prior to the last election, this prime minister ruled out any changes to negative gearing and a capital gains tax, in his own words, 50 times. He ruled out changes, and now this prime minister is imposing these toxic taxes on Australians against their will. I'll tell you what: it's arrogant—and Australians use colourful terms, adjectives, next to 'arrogant'. It's illiberal. It's a broken promise. And this prime minister stands condemned. This government stands condemned, too.
I say to the Prime Minister: call an election. Let the Australian people decide whether or not they want to see these tax increases. I know they don't. If you don't have the courage to call an election now, we will make the next election a referendum on these tax increases. One way or another, hardworking Australians will have their voices heard, and we will ensure that that is the case.
Time and time again, this prime minister and this government have broken faith with Australians. Time and time again they've betrayed Australians. He promised Australians they would be better off under his leadership, but they're not. Under Labor, Australia has experienced the biggest collapse in living standards of any developed country in the world. He promised Australians that their power bills would go down by $275. Not even close: we've seen bills soar by 40 per percent. He promised Australians they would have cheaper mortgages. No way: a typical mortgagee in this country is paying an extra $30,000 in after-tax income—with increasing taxes, of course, under this government—that they didn't have to find before Labor came to power.
And now he's pushing ahead with his toxic taxes and he has broken the mother of all promises that he made, in his own words, 50 times. Labor's budget reminds Australians that this prime minister's word is never his bond. He leads a government that misleads and deceives on a daily basis. It's a government that's tricky and sneaky, a government that says one thing and does another. This is a prime minister who has no reverence, no respect for the truth and certainly no respect for hardworking Australians. He is an oath breaker, and Australians know it.
Labor treats Australians like mugs. At the recent Victorian Labor Party Conference, the Prime Minister had the gall to describe his budget as 'pro-aspirational' and 'pro-supply'. I can understand that those behind me believe this is some kind of joke. But the government thinks it can get away with portraying its toxic tax grab as addressing intergenerational equity. Australians aren't falling for Labor's ruse. They know that beneath Labor's weasel words is a budget that is a massive con job.
Let's first consider Labor's changes to negative gearing. The government's own budget papers show that its changes will reduce housing supply by 35,000—page 158—which snuck through the 400 staffers that those opposite have. In the end, the Australian people will work out the truth that these negative gearing changes will reduce the supply of housing in this country—the very simple truth that, if you tax something more, you get less of it. It's pretty simple. This is a toxic tax on housing, and there will be fewer houses available for young Australians as a result of this tax.
Beyond the budget papers, we now have independent modelling that verifies the ramifications of this budget, and I thank Master Builders, the Property Council and the Real Estate Institute for the work they've done, which they released last Friday. Here's what it says: over a four-year period, new housing supply will fall by 8,700 and construction jobs by more than 3800, and rents will increase by $500 a year.
The Treasury secretary has also been surprisingly upfront—I would expect that of an honest public servant—about how the government's budget will reduce housing supply. Ms Jenny Wilkinson was speaking last week at an Australian Business Economists forum, and she said the changes were 'more about changing the distribution of housing ownership, rather than addressing sort of an overarching sense, supply'. She was honest about what was in the budget papers, page 158: it's going to reduce supply and increase rents. The government's own budget papers say this. Only in this government's world of Orwellian doublespeak can housing scarcity be dressed up, as they've attempted to do, as pro supply—Orwellian doublespeak.
Let's also consider the capital gains tax changes, the scrapping of the 50 per cent discount. This is again a toxic tax, pure and simple—a tax on savings, a tax on taking risks, a tax on having a go, a tax on some of the very hardest working Australians and a tax on Australians who are already doing it incredibly tough, who are working more hours for less as a result of an economy that is not working for some of the hardest working Australians. It's also a tax on every asset class: shares, crypto, ETFs, small businesses, farms and more. And who's being whacked by Labor's taxes? Young Australians—whacked. Australian trying to build a nest egg—whacked. Australian small business and family businesses—whacked. Australian startups—whacked. Australian farmers—whacked. Tax, tax, tax—that's what this government believes in. They are going after Australians' money—some of the hardest working Australians, who are putting that money aside for the future, investing in their businesses, their communities and their future.
The government's CGT changes will shut down growth-enabling investment, they will obliterate opportunity and they will kneecap so many Australians. It's no wonder that we see Australians expressing their frustration. Some are doing it in satirical ways, and every day there are new AI memes depicting the Prime Minister as a business co-owner, a co-founder who never puts his shoulder to the wheel.
An opposition member: Asleep at the desk.
Asleep at the desk. Of course, the Prime Minister dismisses these memes as misinformation and disinformation. He and his government dismiss Australians' concerns because they are clueless about the impact of these toxic taxes because they haven't worked in small businesses. They don't understand how it works. They haven't got a clue, and that's because so many in Labor's ranks not only have not worked in small business but don't like it. They don't like it, and there's a simple reason for that: they can't unionise it.
Labor's toxic taxes are a war on aspiration, an assault on aspiration, a war on the very essence of being Australian and a war on the soul of our nation. They're an attack on the wealth creation that benefits all of us, and they will crush reward for hard work and the spirit of reward for hard work that underpins our nation's success. And do you know what? Labor knows its budget is an aspiration killer, and that's why it's caving to carve-outs. That's why it's toying with compromises. Since the budget, there's been talk of a carve-outs for tech startups. But what about for other businesses? What about hairdressers, tradies and fitness instructors? Does the government consider such businesses unworthy of a carve-out?
With all this talk of compromises, the government has unleashed absolute confusion, and we don't have any information on where the government might go with this. Just as it did with the Voice referendum, the government is avoiding the details, because the details really matter on this one, because they are going to impact on people's lives. As far as the government is concerned, the details are an afterthought, and they're going to be left till after the legislation comes through. Frankly, the government has no idea what it's doing, and that's why we are not interested in carve-outs. We want these toxic taxes axed.
What is truly concerning about this legislation is the sheer power that it grants to the Treasury and the Treasurer, as I touched on a moment ago. If passed, these laws will permit an unprecedented level of ministerial discretion on tax decisions. As the Australian's Matthew Cranston pointed out, the Treasurer will be able to make no less than eight captain's calls on negative gearing and capital gains tax without bringing it through the parliament. Not only did they absolutely refuse to take these toxic taxes to the last election; they don't even want to take them to the parliament. They're going to leave it to the minister. He's going to make decisions for them.
The Treasurer will be able to determine whether a home is classified as a new build. We know how this government works. The truth is irrelevant as far as they are concerned. He will be able to exempt properties of his choosing from being negatively geared—up to him! He'll be able to stop investors. Given the leaks we've seen from those opposite, he's not going to want to talk to anyone else about it. That's clear. He'll be able to determine which assets should pay capital gains tax and which should be exempted. In effect, the Treasurer can decide what's going to be affected and, more importantly, who is going to be affected and who will not be. This is absolutely outrageous.
The Treasurer wants these sweeping powers because he hasn't thought through his tax changes or, if there's a stray chance that he has, he doesn't want any accountability for them. They'll avoid any accountability at all. Now, Jenny Wong from CPA Australia has said:
I have never seen this many determinations in one bill … which shows that it has been rushed.
… … …
And given ministerial determinations don't go through the same scrutiny, this leaves the door open for further changes and that means less certainty.
And, with less certainty, you get less investment, less increase in real wages, less productivity and less prosperity in this country—the exact opposite of what we need right now. Stuart Broadfoot from K&L Gates has said:
… they were not ready with the legislation, and not ready with the details, and they are trying to essentially ram through a system of legislation that hasn't had the required thought.
The one thought they've had is they need to make a tax grab. That is the very clear thought but not much beyond that other than a willingness to hurt some of the hardest working Australians. Barrister John de Wijn KC has said:
It shouldn't be left to minister discretion to work out how it's going to be applied—
well said!
The Treasurer is seeking other powers, too. This one's extraordinary. Through this legislation, he will have the discretion to reduce the government's $250 annual income tax cut where he sees fit. He can reduce it. It doesn't actually have to be $250. Now, we want more than $250. I'm going to come back to that! But he can actually reduce it. I mean, why would that be in there? I tell you what: nothing he says about why that's in there is credible, because you can't believe a word this treasurer or this prime minister says. This legislation is incomplete. It trashes transparency. It trashes accountability. It is a power grab and an overreach. It is an utter disgrace.
Let me be clear. Australians need relief from the economic disaster that has been wrought on this country and our economy. We support Labor's $250 annual income tax cut, but we want it to be bigger. We support Labor's $1,000 reduction for work related expenses. These cost-of-living measures could have passed parliament easily with our support. But tricky Labor has deliberately tied these measures to its toxic taxes. That's what it's done. It's using a single piece of legislation, an omnibus bill, for its tax cuts and tax increases, putting them both together so it can sneak them through. Labor could have put forward separate bills. It's very easy to do. There's absolutely nothing stopping it from doing that, other than trying to ram them through. It didn't separate them out. What Australians see is a bad-faith government playing a cynical political game, as it does every single day in this place.
In 2022, on the day he was sworn in, no less, the Prime Minister said, 'I look forward to heading to a government that doesn't seek to have wedges.' I think he was talking about potato wedges. He certainly didn't seem to be talking about 'wedgislation' like we're seeing right here, so maybe it was a joke. The truth is that we know this prime minister's word is never his bond—never! Ramming this 'wedgislation' through the parliament without sufficient scrutiny is an act of political bastardry and expediency. Labor is more interested in headlines than it is in helping Australians. That's the truth. And Australians know it.
Our resolve is clear. Labor's toxic taxes need to be axed. That's why we don't support Labor's legislation. We have proposed amendments. I'll come back to those. And should these toxic taxes pass the parliament with support from the Greens and Independents, our resolve is also clear. A coalition government under my leadership will repeal these toxic taxes with immediate effect.
There's a reason why the government is desperately trying and failing to depict its budget as pro aspiration. I find it hard to even say. It's just absolute nonsense. But there's a reason why they're going to extraordinary lengths to paint this shameless tax grab as the solution to intergenerational equity. The Albanese government has lost control of its spending. Government spending as a proportion of the economy is at a 40-year high outside of the pandemic. It's why we are about to cross the threshold of $1 trillion of debt. It's why inflation in our country remains stubborn and sticky. It's going up, not down. The Treasurer told us that he'd beaten inflation. The truth is that inflation had beaten this hapless Treasurer. The government now needs more than ever to take money from Australians to fund its spending addiction—and when Labor runs out of money, it comes after yours.
The Treasury secretary was upfront about this being a tax grab. At the Australian Business Economists forum last week, she also said:
Individuals are sensitive about paying additional tax—
she's right about that—
which is understandable. But revenue needs to be raised from somewhere …
She could have said that revenue needs to be raised from someone—just from people who don't vote for Labor is obviously the way they're thinking, or at least the way the government's thinking. Let me repeat that last part: revenue needs to be raised from somewhere. Without compunction, the Albanese government is coming after Australians' money however it possibly can.
There's no more harmful tax than Labor's inflation tax. The higher this Labor government’s homegrown inflation goes and the longer it lasts, the more this government takes from Australians. That's how it works. That suits Labor just fine—because the government's reckless and unrestrained spending requires more revenue. Labor's only too happy to see inflation push more Australians into higher tax brackets, so it can take more of their income as tax. That's what they're doing. Bracket creep is their best friend.
As I said, we support the government's $250 annual income tax cut. But here's what Labor is not telling Australians. If that were put in place tomorrow, it would be gone by Christmas because of inflation. That's what it does. It will be gone by Christmas. Here's the reality. Labor are stealing more money from Australians through inflation than they're giving back through their tax cut. That's how they work—give a little bit with one hand and take way more back with the other. That's how they're doing it. That is how Labor always like to do it. The Albanese government's not so dirty little secret is that it likes inflation because that way it gets more money for its spending.
A coalition government under my leadership will stop Labor's dishonest tax. In my budget-in-reply, I announced the coalition's policy to index income tax thresholds to inflation, and we call that the tax-back guarantee. Never again will the government be able to steal from Australians year after year via stealth, as this Labor government is doing. In simple terms, our policy will help protect Australians' incomes from inflation, that thief in the night. We will protect it in a way Labor never would. From 2028-29, we'll index the bottom two income tax thresholds to inflation, and that will fully protect 85 per cent of income earners. From 2031-32, we'll index the top two tax thresholds as well. Of course, that will protect all income earners from inflation.
Let me give you two examples of how this works in practice. Let's assume that inflation was at the Reserve Bank's target rate of 2½ per cent. It's a big assumption under this government; it won't be under our government.
It's double under these blokes!
It's double at the moment; that's right. Let's assume wages are growing by three per cent. Heather is a hairdresser earning $70,000 a year. Under Labor, her real wage gains will be completely taxed away—all gone. They're not getting real wage gains under this government. They're going backwards right now. But, under our tax-back guarantee, Heather will get a tax cut of about $250 in year 1, and that will rise to $1,000 in year 4. Paul the plumber is earning $140,000 a year, working incredibly hard. Under Labor, his real wage gains will be completely taxed away as well—all gone. Under our tax-back guarantee, Paul will get a tax cut of $250 in year 1 and $1,200 in year 4. In short, under our policy, Australians will get more each year. We will give Australians a bigger tax cut without the tax increases that are occurring under this government. Australians will be rewarded, keep more and get ahead, because that's what we believe in.
The Treasurer, of course, has given the game away. On Sunday, after budget week, the Treasurer was being interviewed by David Speers on Insiders. In that interview, the Treasurer said that our indexation policy will cost a quarter of a trillion dollars over the decade. Well, there's the rub, because that's the figure he wants to steal from Australians. That's his hidden tax. He admitted it. That's how much he wants to get. Of course, if he can get inflation up higher, he can take more. He'll keep trying to push it up, no doubt. But it will not happen on our watch. We will ensure Australians keep their money. Our policy is fair. It's simple and it's honest, unlike those opposite.
As I said, the coalition has proposed amendments to Labor's legislation. I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and:
(1) calls on the Government to immediately pass laws to end bracket creep and implement a Tax Back Guarantee, by indexing the personal income tax brackets to inflation starting with the first two tax brackets in 2028-29, and the remaining tax brackets from 2031-32; and
(2) notes this will deliver lower income taxes, permanently, to all Australians and ensure that income taxes cannot rise without the passage of new laws".
Our proposed amendments include the following. Labor's $250 annual income tax cut stays in the bill. We support it. We seek to retain schedule 3. Labor's $1,000 deduction for work related expenses also stays in the bill. We support that as well. We seek to retain schedule 4, but we oppose Labor's toxic taxes on Australians. We don't support Labor's changes to capital gains tax as contained in schedule 1. These changes punish aspiration, and the coalition therefore seeks the removal of schedule 1 from the bill. We also don't support Labor's changes to negative gearing in schedule 2. Their own budget papers explicitly admit that the combined impact of these taxes will reduce housing supply and push up rents. The coalition therefore seeks the removal of schedule 2 from the bill as well. Put simply, we support tax cuts. We oppose tax increases. It's that simple.
Here's what Australians need to know. If the Albanese government doesn't endorse our changes, it means two things: (1) Labor is for imposing higher aspiration-killing taxes on Australians, and (2) Labor is for inflation, pushing more Australians into higher tax brackets, paying more tax so it can have more of their income. The ball is in Labor's court. They have an opportunity here to support our proposal to protect Australians' incomes from inflation, to support our policy to end bracket creep, to support the coalition's determination to provide real, meaningful tax cuts to Australians, to support our plan for generational tax reform, to support our vision for a fairer, freer and better Australia and to restore Australians' standard of living and protect their way of life. We believe in aspiration. If Labor truly seek to preserve the reward for the hardworking spirit that makes our nation tick, they will support our amendments.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Debate interrupted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) government business order of the day No. 2, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 being debated in cognate with government business order of the day No. 3, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026; and
(2) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be put, as moved by the Leader of the House.
The question now is that the motion be agreed to
Australia has always been a country of aspiration and opportunity, a country that holds true to a simple promise. In decades past that promise was realised on the factory floors in Airport West and along the railway line that stretches from Kensington to Glenroy. It was the promise idealised by the migrant families who came with nothing but courage and built our north-western suburbs of Melbourne out of sheer hope and hard work. The promise was simple: if you work hard and if you do the right thing by your family and the community, then this country will give you a fair go back, a home, a sense of security, a life a little better than the one before. That is a promise I grew up believing in. It is a promise that the people of my community still believe in, even though, for too long now, many have watched it quietly slip out of reach for them while they hold up their end of the bargain.
Well, today, the Albanese Labor government restores its end of the bargain. This is the kind of reform that governments talk about and flinch from and that gets put in the too-hard basket election after election. But this Albanese Labor government is getting it done.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member will be heard in silence, just as the Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence.
What does restoring our end of the bargain look like? It's a tax cut for more than 13 million working Australians, it's 75,000 more Australians getting the keys to their own home and it's $3.5 billion in new tax relief flowing to the businesses and the startups, the dreamers and the doers who back themselves and build something. This is what being pro aspiration, pro worker and pro investment looks like.
Despite inheriting a decade of reckless economic management from those opposite, our government is doing all of this the responsible way. The revenue raised comes straight back to workers and businesses in the near term, and, together with the savings we've found, it leaves the budget stronger for the long term. Our government takes our duty to the next generation seriously, and we're doing it at the same time as we strengthen Medicare, secure our fuel supply and ease the cost of living. Good governments listen to their constituents and are not afraid to undertake the reforms the moment requires.
At the heart of these bills is an issue that has been 40 years in the making—40 years of a housing crisis quietly compounding until younger Australians found themselves left to carry the weight of decisions made long before they could vote. If we were to go back 40 years, the beautiful suburbs that make up my electorate—like Ascot Vale, Essendon, Moonee Ponds, Keilor East, Avondale Heights and Tullamarine—were not home to the wealthy. Many were not considered the leafy or trendy suburbs they are today. These are the suburbs that working people built, brick by brick, on the wages of hard work, suburbs that, at the time, were all many working families could afford. I want to be clear for those opposite: they are the suburbs that immigrants proudly helped build. For generations, a nurse, a teacher, a tradie, a retail worker could buy a modest home on one of these streets and raise their family there.
Now ask yourself, 'Can they today?' Can the young nurse finishing her shift at the Royal Children's Hospital afford a home in the suburb she grew up in? Can the apprentice in Keilor East doing everything right, saving every spare dollar, ever hope to outbid an investor buying their fifth property? For too many of them, the honest answer is no, and we should be frustrated about that.
I'm frustrated about that, because this didn't happen by accident. In 1999, Howard and Costello reached into the tax system and tilted the playing field. They handed out a 50 per cent capital gains discount not for building something but for buying an existing property and simply waiting for the price to climb, and climb it did, faster than wages, year after year, until an entire generation found the door to homeownership close in their face.
What did those opposite do when they had the chance to fix it? They did nothing. They did worse than nothing: they defended it. They continue still. Election after election, scare campaign after scare campaign, they choose their own interests over the aspirations of young Australians. Now, they've added the One Nation anti-immigration lines to their talking points. That is the distortion that has allowed the housing market to be tilted against younger Australians.
With these bills, we seek to level that playing field once again. From 1 July 2027, we replace the 50 per cent discount with a cost base indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax. In plain language, it means capital will be taxed on real gains, taking into account inflation. We are bringing the capital gains discount back to its original purpose. We are taking the taxpayers' thumb off the scale, and we are limiting negative gearing to residential property to new builds.
The scare campaign is already being rolled out by those opposite, and, of course, it's riddled with misinformation. Quite frankly, it's disappointing to see members opposite disregard facts in favour of their own political survival. What those opposite know and are just ignoring is that, if you already own an investment property, if you're already negatively gearing, nothing changes for you. The reforms are grandfathered—full stop.
From this point on, the incentive in our tax system will reward the people who help build the homes Australia needs while also building their own wealth. We're no longer accepting young people being outbid by investors who have taxpayer support on their side on the houses they already have. We have done this carefully. We've applied the changes across all asset classes so we don't fix one distortion and open up another.
We've kept every existing small-business capital gains concession in place, and, as the Treasurer's outlined, we're consulting further on startups and businesses with a low cost base. This is a reform delivered in tranches, exactly the way the GST was and exactly the way every economic reform in this country has been: methodical, responsible, built to last. Underneath all the mechanics, what we are trying to achieve is fairness, opportunity and hope.
It's 75,000 more Australians with the keys to their own front door. That's 75,000 more times that someone in a suburb like mine gets to stand in a backyard that is finally theirs. That's 75,000 more families with the stability and security that comes with owning your own home. That is what this is all about. That is the promise of a fair go made real.
We don't want to stop at the front door. We're backing the people walking through it, out to work, every morning. Schedule 3 of this bill creates the working Australians tax offset: a new, permanent $250 tax cut for 13.3 million Australians who earn their income through work. It's automatic. It lands in your tax return—no forms, no fuss—and it lifts the effective tax-free threshold for workers by nearly $1,800.
I love this measure and I'll tell you why. It is built on a belief that the Labor Party has always understood: for most people, and above all young people, your income comes from the work that you do, from turning up, working hard and having a go. Around two-thirds of Australians who benefit from these reforms are millennials and gen Z. Our Labor government is looking the next generation square in the eye and saying: 'We see how hard you're working. We know it is tough out there, and we are on your side.'
Alongside this, schedule 4 delivers the $1,000 instant tax deduction we promised to the Australian people at the last election. From next financial year, 6.2 million workers are better off, and the tax office tells us it will save Australians $380 million in compliance costs every year. This goes beyond just the deduction. It's the shoebox of receipts no longer needed. It's the dread of tax time gone. Whether you're a tradie with the tools, a teacher buying supplies or a hospo worker with real expenses above that threshold, you can still claim those items, as well as your union fees and other charitable donations. Put it all together with three rounds of tax cuts, and the average Australian worker is better off by almost $3,000 by 2028. Our government believes Australians should keep more of what they earn, and that is why we are embarking on these reforms.
I started talking about a promise: the promise that hard work earns a fair go. That promise was made throughout our community long before I was its member. For 25 years, that promise has been fraying. A generation has done everything we've asked of them. They've studied. They've worked. They've saved. They've built on our construction sites. They've taught in our classrooms. They've served as frontline workers. And they've watched the door close anyway. They deserved better—they still do—and we owe them more than just rhetoric. We owe them action.
Those opposite had their chance. In fact, they had multiple chances and they chose the status quo every single time. They choose cheap politics and their wealthy mates over the aspirations of young Australians trying to get ahead. That is their record, and no scare campaign can rewrite it. That is why our government is undertaking these reforms, which are different from what has come before. They are structural, permanent and truly generational, and that is why those opposite hate them. Labor is taking the thumb off the scale that has pressed down on young Australians for a quarter of a century and is putting fairness back at the centre of our tax system.
I know there are many in my community who have started to wonder whether the Aussie dream, which their parents fulfilled, has expired before their turn has come. Our government believes it hasn't. We have not given up on you, and, with these bills, we are proving that today. We are levelling the playing field for all Australians wanting to get ahead. We're giving Australians who thought they'd never have the chance to own their own home a fair crack. We're delivering more tax cuts for every worker. There are some who'd rather protect the status quo and stand in the way of aspiration. We won't. We're building a country where effort is rewarded and everyone gets a fair go. I commend the bills to the House.
There is delusion going on in this chamber, based on the speech just given by the member for Maribyrnong. I have never heard such a wilful disregard and contempt for the Australian people. We've heard it from the Treasurer and, now, from the member from Maribyrnong. And I'm quite sure the gaggle of members that follow will repeat those untruths. There were so many references to promises during that speech—'the promise we gave to the Australian people'—with an emotion and an enduring commitment. Have you been missing every day since the last budget, where the open deceit of the Australian community by the Prime Minister and Treasurer has been nakedly obvious to the Australian people? Your credibility has been shredded, destroyed. Nobody believes this bloke anymore—the idea that you have a prime minister whose starting position is 'my word is my bond' and then comes and betrays the Australian community with wilful disregard. I understand why he has to keep repeating the misinformation and the deceit to be able to maintain face. I do not understand, Member for Maribyrnong, why you're following up and backing it, why you're doubling down and attaching yourself to a sinking ship.
This bastard budget was built on broken promises. The idea that we are going to have members who are going to be complicit, who choose to sign up and stand by it—they will go down with the Titanic that is called the Albanese government. And they should be taken down, because there has never been a budget taken to the Australian community with, as we've seen, such open and flagrant disregard. We have a train wreck Treasurer who simply fails to understand the scale of what he is doing. He doesn't even understand his budget, and you can see this in the public conversation, right now, where he's constantly throwing out misinformation or wrong numbers. He's hiding behind his Treasury secretary as a form of interference.
Their own budget papers say that inflation is going to be 2.5 per cent, but, to justify their changes on capital gains tax, they're now saying it's going to be three per cent. No matter where you look, the Albanese government is betraying and deceiving the Australian people. And the Australian people are seeing right through it. That's why this government is in so much trouble, because Australians know that they have been betrayed. Australians who've worked hard, who've saved, who've sacrificed for the future and who've worked to make sure they put themselves in a position to be independent, despite the taxes of government, are now finding the government want to double their take but do none of the work. As I said in my National Press Club speech recently, the Prime Minister is to small businesses like the person in the group assignment who does none of the work but still wants the grade. This is the problem. The Australian people have seen through the fraudulence of this government and what they're seeking to betray.
You just need to look at their own budget papers, which actively say that the changes to taxes are going to increase the cost of rents. Young Australians, who we've heard so much about in the speeches from those opposite, are being betrayed by the Albanese government. And now we have additional, external research and modelling which shows that rents are going to continue to go up.
On top of that, the government's own budget papers say they're going to build fewer homes. What happens when you build fewer homes but you continue to overshoot migration targets? What happens, Member for Groom? House prices are going to become less affordable for Australians who simply want to get into the market and build their own life and their success.
These family savings taxes are a direct assault on the Australian people, and they must be stopped.
The debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing 43. The debate may be resumed a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I rise today to voice the disappointment of the Central West veteran community following the recent budget. The budget did not deliver any direct funding for any new veterans' and families' wellbeing centres, or hubs, across Australia, including in the Central West of our state.
Working with our local veterans, Bathurst RSL sub-branch submitted a comprehensive proposal for stage 1 of a Central West veterans' and families' wellbeing centre at Bathurst. Our local veterans stepped up. They did the work and they put forward a solution. The sub-branch even offered a site, a building and co-funding. Andrew Fletcher from the sub-branch did an extraordinary amount of work on the proposal. Yet the government has, to date, not supported these proactive efforts, leaving the fate of the project uncertain.
I know that Bathurst RSL sub-branch President Barry Parsons, vice presidents Darlene Macri and Norm Pattison, the committee members and the whole sub-branch are committed to making this veterans' centre a reality. We will not be giving up. The voices of our local veterans will be heard.
Our veterans have put their lives on the line for our nation. Their welfare and the welfare of their families should be an absolute priority. I call on the government to fund a veterans' and families' wellbeing centre at Bathurst, on the double. You will be hearing from us.
After that earlier earbashing, I'd like to talk about the storms that have been bashing WA. Over the weekend we had a severe, one-in-50-year weather event in Perth and in the south-west of WA. I was right there with them, experiencing the intense blackouts and the isolation that wild weather triggers in Bullwinkel.
I want to extend my deepest gratitude to the SES workers and all the emergency volunteers. They work tirelessly, around the clock, in dangerous conditions, to help keep Western Australians safe. Thank you.
This event underscores the reason the Albanese Labor government's $1.2 million investment into mobile phone resilience across the Perth Hills is so critical. We are delivering on my election commitment to protect our community and our communications when the power goes out and the storms hit. We're doing this by extending the battery back-up power at mobile phone stations, and installing up to 23 automatic transfer units for when the power does go out.
This is our commitment to resilience of communications—just as our budget 2026 is delivering a resilient economy and providing safer communities and levelling the playing field, particularly for first-time homebuyers. Labor is delivering.
For years, Australians have been told the same thing: renewable energy was the cheapest form of power. We were told that net zero would deliver lower electricity prices. And we were told that, if we just followed this net zero obsession, households and businesses would be better off.
But now, we have a remarkable admission—a remarkable admission from the CSIRO's own GenCost draft report. On page 55, it reads: 'decreasing emissions increases 2050 electricity costs'. Think about that. The government's chief scientific advisers are acknowledging what we all know: lower emissions come only with higher electricity costs. These aren't the words of the coalition or the coal industry. It's not an opinion piece. This is the CSIRO's own modelling. It's coming back on the Labor government, which has referred to this report over and over again.
For years, we've been told that lower emissions and lower electricity prices were one and the same. But now we see, from the CSIRO, that there is a trade-off.
Australians understand this. We understand that policy choices come with a cost. The issue isn't that there is a cost; the issue is that we've been told there wasn't a cost, and now the CSIRO is showing us the huge gap between Labor's ideology and reality—the gap between the slogans and the evidence, and the growing gap between what Australians have been promised and what they are paying each month in their power bills. You are not wrong if you think electricity prices are going up. It's because of this net zero obsession.
This Monday, 8 June, is a public holiday in New South Wales, which will mean a bit of well-earned time off for so many young workers across the state, and well-earned penalty rates for those that are working. And those that are working will know that they have an Albanese Labor government in Australia that is backing them and workers like them on penalty rates, backing them on pay rises and backing them on tax cuts.
They also have a Labor government that is backing them to get a home of their own. From reforming our tax system to give them a fairer crack at getting a roof over their heads to boosting supply through the Housing Australia Future Fund, we're helping young people into the market through the Help to Buy scheme and we're giving them opportunities through our five per cent deposits.
On the other side of the chamber we have a group of people that did not believe that we had an issue with housing. They didn't have a housing minister for most of the time they were in office. That is in stark contrast to what we have on this side of the House, where we are making once-in-a-generation reforms to our housing market to get young people into a home of their own. Those opposite voted against tax cuts for young working Australians. They haven't supported pay rises. This is a consistent measure of their support for young Australians, and it shows what they believe in.
They now have an opportunity to get behind our tax cuts for working Australians. They have an opportunity to show what side of history they want to be on, and that is an opportunity that they should not pass up. It is an opportunity to show that they support young people, like we on this side of the chamber do.
Older Australians should not be stuck on a months-long waiting list for Support at Home care that they've already been approved to receive, but right now that's exactly what's happening. In question time recently I raised the case of two constituents from Wodonga aged 85 and 90, who had done everything right. They were assessed and approved for home care and then told they would wait at least nine months for their funding to begin. Nine months for people in their mid-80s and 90s—that's not just a delay; it's the very real difference between staying safely at home and ending up in hospital or worse. I asked the minister about their case, and their funding is now on its way. I'm relieved they're finally getting support, but this exposes a broader systemic failure.
Just yesterday, media reporting revealed more than 100,000 people approved for home-care packages are still waiting, with delays stretching out seven to eight months. The government says it's serious about aged-care reform, but that means nothing if people can't access the care when they need it. Older Australians deserve dignity and timely support, especially for fundamental care like showering, getting dressed, mobility and eating. We need a system that works for everyone, not just for the people whose stories make it into question time.
I rise to acknowledge and celebrate Advanced Diversity Services' Eid al-Adha celebration on Sunday 31 May. I particularly want to acknowledge Dr Mona Qasim, a Palestinian refugee and neurosurgeon who is bringing together people who have fled Gaza and are now rebuilding their lives in this wonderful country. At the celebration I met a school principal who is now diligently learning English while teaching Arabic herself to our community here. Even after being forced from her home and her community, she is still teaching, leading and giving to others. We were also honoured to welcome His Excellency Dr Amjad Abu el Ezz, the ambassador of the State of Palestine to Australia and New Zealand. I also want to acknowledge Bayside Labor Councillor Soraya Kassim and our local public health network, who support Advanced Diversity Services to help make this community-building work possible.
At this event, I was very much humbled to be able to serve food and hear more about the lives of people who have so cruelly been forced to leave behind their community back home. No family should have to flee their home because of war, displacement and destruction. The sanctions Australia announced this week are part of condemning escalating settler violence against Palestinians. The killing must end. We must have lasting peace and a two-state solution.
Australians are doing it tough, and nowhere is that felt more clearly than in communities like Capricornia. Families, small businesses and workers are battling rising costs, higher interest rates and pressure on household budgets. I'm being contacted regularly by constituents who are deeply concerned about the cost of living. That is why Labor's push for new taxes on millions of Australians is so deeply concerning. At a time when people are trying to get ahead, this government is asking them to pay more.
On this side, we have a very different view. We believe Australians deserve relief, not more burden. We will axe Labor's toxic taxes and deliver bigger, automatic tax cuts to help with the cost of living. What does that mean in practice? It means putting more money back into the pockets of hardworking Australians every single year. It means ensuring that, as prices rise, people are not pushed into paying more tax when they are no better off. For regional communities like Capricornia, that matters. When costs go up, whether it's fuel, groceries or running a local business, people feel every dollar. When government policy makes it harder instead of easier, it puts real strain on regional economies. Our approach is simple: reward hard work, support local jobs and back small businesses so they can grow and employ more Australians. We want to see families able to get ahead, young people able to afford a house and communities able to thrive, not being held back by higher taxes and uncertainty. Australians deserve a government that understands the pressures they face and acts to ease them, not deepen them. That is exactly why we're committed to delivering.
The recent federal budget contained many measures directed at backing small business, including the hundreds that operate across my electorate of Sturt, stimulating our local economy and providing the goods, products and services our community needs. Under this budget, small businesses will benefit from loss carry-back provisions. Eligible businesses get this offset by choosing to carry back losses to earlier years in which there were income tax liabilities. This may result in a cash refund, a reduced tax liability or a reduction of a tax debt. Small businesses will also benefit from the $20,000 instant asset write-off. Small businesses with an aggregated turnover of less than $10 million can deduct the full cost of eligible depreciating assets costing less than 20 grand that are first used or installed ready for use in an income year. This is proposed on a per-asset basis, so small businesses can instantly write off multiple assets. In addition, small businesses will continue to benefit from the existing four CGT exemptions, which have a significant impact on exit from a business. Capital gains tax on exits has been the controversy, but the exemption regime will apply to 90 per cent of Australian small businesses, so don't listen to the noise. Get the facts, because when you do you will see that this budget contains many measures that back small business.
Labor is pushing one of the biggest tax increases in a single budget on Australians under the justification that they're somehow helping housing, but look at the numbers—$77 billion of increased revenue out of people's pockets and out of their savings and out of their investments into the government's coffers. What they're offering you as Australians is $250 back from them. That is a really insignificant amount given the $77 billion. But when you look at the housing argument—and we hear it from Labor members every single day—it also doesn't make sense. We've heard the Prime Minister now quote in this House several times the billionaire Harry Triguboff about how much he endorses the government's housing changes in an early rush of applications for new properties. He's now changed his tune today. The billionaire Harry Triguboff, whom the Prime Minister has quoted about 10 or 12 times as supportive, has now said he's worried that none of these new applicants are coming through and we could have a 40 per cent reduction in the property market. Did Labor model such a thing on stamp duties? Did they think about the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that they put onto the five per cent deposit scheme moving into negative equity? What will happen to one of these new people if they move into negative equity and they lose their jobs? What will Labor do? What will Labor do to protect them? Don't believe what Labor is spinning. Look at what they are doing. More taxes does not mean more prosperity.
We've delivered a budget that backs the hard work and aspiration of everyday Australians across the country and in my community of Menzies. We're cutting income taxes, putting over $2,800 a year back in the pocket of the average worker, a new $250 tax offset and a $1,000 instant deduction—real cost-of-living relief that will help people right now. We're delivering cheaper medicines. Urgent care clinics are here to stay. We're increasing bulk-billing. There were 19 bulk-billing clinics in my electorate at the end of last year; there are now 29.
We're levelling the playing field for first home buyers so they aren't priced out by property investors. We know the status quo is broken. We don't want a generation locked out of homeownership. We want every Australian to have the opportunity to own their own home.
We're backing 2.7 million small businesses—the engine room of my electorate in suburbs like Box Hill, Blackburn, Bulleen and Doncaster—with a $20,000 instant asset write-off. And we've done it responsibly, with $64 billion in savings, debt down and a budget $264 billion stronger than we inherited.
And this morning came more good news. The Fair Work Commission handed nearly three million workers a pay rise of 4.75 per cent, with those on the minimum wage receiving an increase of six per cent. We backed a real pay rise above inflation, and it is here. We're committed to helping Australians every day and building for tomorrow.
I rise to congratulate and thank the Crisafulli government, particularly water minister Ann Leahy, who has recently announced that she will review the water licence issued to a Chinese company to extract 96 megalitres of water a year to export back to China from a community just east of Warwick. The initial water licence was issued by the former Labor government for a housing development, but this company now wants to change the use of that water to bottle it and send it back to China. When the community and farmers of Southern Downs are going through and will continue to go through droughts, relying on aquifers to keep stock going, this is an abuse of what that water licence was originally issued for, and it should not be allowed.
I congratulate that Crisafulli government and the minister herself have listened to the Southern Downs Regional Council, who opposed any changes to that water licence so that it would only be used for primary production or domestic uses, which is what the licence was originally issued for. They have had the courage to listen to both the Southern Downs Regional Council and to me. Unfortunately, I have written to the agriculture minister, who also has the power to say that she would not issue an export permit for that water. I did that on 2 March and am yet to get a response back. This would send a strong message that Australian resources are for Australians.
Budgets are ultimately about choices. This budget makes a clear choice: it chooses workers, first home buyers and a tax system that rewards work, not just asset ownership. For too long, young Australians have been told to work hard, save hard and wait their turn. But, in communities like Moore, that turn has been pushed further and further away. A young couple in Kingsley working full time can now look at the suburb they grew up in and realise that the front door of homeownership is quietly closing in front of them. That is not aspiration; that is a system out of balance.
This bill cuts taxes for working Australians and delivers a $1,000 instant deduction for work related expenses. It also starts to fix the housing tax settings. Negative gearing will continue to support investment in new homes because supply matters. On capital gains tax, the government is returning to a fairer principle: tax real gains, not inflation. Indexation means investors are taxed on above-inflation profit, not paper gains. Existing investment decisions are protected.
So let us be clear: this is not a tax on inheritance. It is not a tax on the family home. And it is not the end of aspiration. It is a reform that says aspiration should belong to the workers and first home buyers too, not just those already holding the assets. That is a fair choice, and I support the budget.
I'd just like to take this opportunity to let some of the members across the aisle understand the human face of some of the people this budget is hurting. Recently I heard from Andrew. Andrew is a young family man in my seat of Cook. This is what he wrote:
My name's Andrew and I'm writing to you for help …
… … …
My wife's a nurse and I'm a teacher …
He says:
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 saving for a house, and my wife and I have been saving, investing, working hard to try and buy a home to call out own.
The hard part in the Labor government, without asking its 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 a home to call our own.
Please, please, please rectify this …
He is begging.
Did you correct him? Did you tell him the truth? Are you going to keep lying to him?
I did not correct him. The members on the other side might want Andrew to be corrected, but I'm here to stand up for Andrew. I'm not going to let the members on the other side shout across the aisle to me and tell me Andrew needs to be corrected. Andrew's begging for me to rectify this, and I will work my guts out to axe these toxic taxes so we rectify it, and I will not correct Andrew—
Member for Griffith.
Honourable members interjecting—
It was an unparliamentary comment. I ask the member for Sydney to withdraw.
I did not hear any comment.
Honourable members interjecting—
When you want to correct a parliamentary procedure, stick by ones yourself too, okay? Is there a matter to be withdrawn?
I withdraw.
Thank you for pleasing the House.
Yesterday, I was delighted to welcome the Treasurer back to Stones Corner on Brisbane's south side to see firsthand how a secure home can transform a person's life. The last time the Treasurer joined me at this site, sometime last year, it was still under construction. Today, it is home to 82 new social and affordable homes close to transport, jobs, health care and the essential services that people rely on. We were welcomed by Janice into her beautiful new home—her castle, as she proudly calls it. Janice's balcony is already filled with plants, and she has shared cuttings with her neighbours, bringing colour to their balconies as well. She's also made friends with the tradies working on a large construction project next door. When she notices they have not stopped for lunch, she boils eggs, makes sandwiches and calls them over for a feed. Now, when she sees them on the scaffolding, she calls out with a laugh, 'I can see you're not working.' That is what a secure home makes possible. It is more than a key in a door. It is safety, dignity and independence. It's the freedom to plant a garden, to make friends, to care for others and to feel that you truly belong. These are homes for people who need stability, homes for vulnerable at-risk Australians, homes for essential workers to help keep our communities running and homes that give people the foundation to look ahead with confidence. A secure home gives people more than shelter. It gives them the confidence to plan, the dignity to participate and the opportunity to thrive.
This is a tricky government that says one thing and does another. It might talk about lower taxes, but the reality is this budget is delivering $77 billion in higher taxes for the Australian people. They also talk about tax cuts, but they don't talk about when they let the low- and middle-income tax offset lapse, costing the Australian people $1,500. They took that $1,500 back from you. They then also wait for your wages to go up as you work harder, as you earn more money and as you pay more tax through bracket creep, and then they will give you a sprinkle of that back. You'll notice it with this announcement from the Treasurer. It follows his standard playbook. He announced that you'll get $250 back. He talked about it for the last two weeks. You'll receive that money in 12 months time. He'll keep talking about it for the next few weeks. That doesn't help you today. The reason he pushes it out for 12 months is you're paying for that yourself. Through earning more money, you're paying more tax. Inflation will mean you pay higher taxes. You'll pay more than $250 in extra tax through inflation under this government in the next 12 months. They'll give you a little bit back and then they'll pat you on the back. Watch them this week. Watch them talk about the tax cut that you'll get on 1 July. That was promised last year. This is what they do. They drip it out and drag it out. They're not giving the money back to you. They're taking more of your money and giving you a little bit back less.
This federal budget is about the aspiration of everyday working Aussies. If you are trying to get into your own home, this is a budget for you. If you're a worker, you're receiving your fifth tax cut under this government because we want you to earn more and to keep more of what you earn. If you're a young person, this is a government for you, supporting you with free TAFE and less HECS debt. If you're a small business trying to get ahead and make an investment, this budget is for you, with a permanent instant asset write-off to help you grow your business. This budget is about the aspiration of Australians trying to get ahead, and nowhere is that aspiration more important than in the housing market, where we have had so many young Australians who have had trouble getting into the housing market, often crowded out by professional property investors. Currently, negative gearing arrangements are grandfathered, and that will continue, but negative gearing remains for new builds, and that's great. That's great for supply. But the reforms in this budget will help young Australians by providing a fairer go at the Australian dream of homeownership. With our government's five per cent deposit scheme for first home buyers, more than 1,350 people in my electorate of Solomon have purchased their first home.
This prime minister thought he could wage a war on aspiration. He thought he could hit us with toxic new taxes and no-one would notice. Labor thought that families, small businesses, farmers and entrepreneurs, the forgotten people of Australia, would simply absorb another hit to their standard of living. Well, they won't—and we won't. We're going to stand in the way of this sneaky tax grab. We're going to fight these toxic taxes all the way to the next election. Our commitment to the Australian people is to axe these toxic taxes and build a stronger Australia. The coalition pledges a tax-back guarantee that protects Australians from inflation by giving them an automatic tax cut that gets bigger every year. We pledge to get migration under control and to build more homes. We will cap migration based on the number of houses built every year and invest $5 billion into roads, utilities and sewerage to get housing construction moving again. We pledge to abandon net zero and bring on cheap and reliable Aussie power. We pledge a sovereign wealth fund, where windfall profits from commodities like gas will be set aside for nation-building projects that benefit all Australians. We pledge to boost small business, allowing them to immediately write-off assets costing up to $50,000. We pledge to put Australians first by reserving welfare payments and NDIS for Australian citizens. We will build a stronger, more secure and prosperous Australia.
Labor's budget delivers for young people aspiring to own their first home. Labor's budget delivers for every working Australian through more tax cuts. This budget delivers $3½ billion worth of new spending to support small businesses. Lost in the flood of an openly exaggerated meme campaign are measures in this budget which back aspiration and back economic growth. I'm here to push back against that rubbish because this budget backs small businesses to grow. This budget makes the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent, providing certainty for small businesses to invest in growth. This budget delivers a permanent two-year loss carry-back for all companies up to $1 billion in turnover, as well as a new loss refundability scheme for small startups in their first two years, which will help with cash flow. This budget expands tax incentives for venture capital and reforms the research and development tax incentive to target startups as they grow. On top of that, the new $250 working Australian tax offset will benefit 1.5 million sole traders around the country. All these measures back small businesses. No AI memes, just facts. And whilst the Liberals and One Nation will team up to defend the status quo, Labor hears you when you tell us that things need to change and change for the better.
Something significant and something badly significant happened in this country two or three weeks ago when the Albanese government announced its budget and changed the risk-reward equation in this country. If you wanted to have a go, if you wanted to start your own business, if you wanted to put your own money on the line, if you wanted to hammer up a shingle or roll up a door and put your money and skills towards making money, there was a reward there. Now there's a big change! What happens now is that you take the risk and the Albanese Labor government takes the reward. That's what's happening now—and that is a disgrace! And why are they doing it? Because they don't understand it. None of them have ever taken that risk in private enterprise. We now have one of the highest capital gains tax rates in the world, and that's what is going to kill the entrepreneurial spirit in this country. We on this side understand it. We will reverse these changes. We will have the tax-back guarantee as well. There's one other thing that we all have to remember. There's one thing about not taking something to an election and then bringing these major tax increases to the public, but what is unforgivable is the deceit behind this. When you say you're not going to do it—you should all hang your heads in shame. You went to the last election deceiving the Australian public.
On this side of the chamber, we stand firmly with workers and their families. We back workers on the minimum wage and the modern award and welcome the decision by the Fair Work Commission to approve an increase to the minimum wage of 5.97 per cent to $26.44 an hour and a 4.75 per cent increase to the modern award from 1 July this year.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members statements has concluded.
I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Defence Industry will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week, the Treasury secretary defended Labor's toxic taxes by saying:
… revenue needs to be raised from somewhere …
Will the Prime Minister confirm that Australians will pay $77 billion more tax than they get back?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order, members on my left! We don't need the wows. We're going to allow everyone to be heard in silence. That includes the Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition, who's now asked his question.
I can certainly confirm that the legislation that has been debated before the parliament this week confirms that Labor is the party of aspiration. Labor is the party of homeownership. This legislation does two fundamental things.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order, members on my left, Member for Barker, Member for Groom! We are 30 seconds in. There is far too much noise. If this continues, I will be left with no other action early in question time to take action.
The first thing that it does is allow an opportunity for young people to get into homeownership. It rebalances the ledger so that young people have an opportunity. We saw that just on the weekend, where, in Bexley, a young couple with a baby bought their first home on Saturday. All three registered bidders for the auction of the two-bedroom garden villa took part, and all were first home buyers. In Melbourne in Maribyrnong, Lara Harris, the estate agent, said this: 'The buyers were a young couple from Southbank sick of apartment living who had once lived in the area and wanted to come back. The underbidders were also a young first home buyer couple. There are a lot of first home buyers in the market.' In Maroubra, Corinne Olsen, the estate agent, spoke about the young family who thought they'd been priced out of a beachside suburb. They won the keys to a three-bedroom house. Corinne Olsen, the estate agent, said, 'The winning family had been looking for a property around Mascot because they didn't think they could afford something close to the water.' There they are in South Sydney homeland.
The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
On relevance. The question was about the $77 billion of additional taxation being imposed on Australians by this government.
The Prime Minister is talking about the tax policy that he was asked about. He's giving some examples. He was asked a specific question regarding the tax policy, so he'll need to make sure his answer is being directly relevant. He won't be able to stray into other topics because he wasn't asked about other topics. The Prime Minister is being directly relevant with the example that he's given regarding the tax take.
These tax changes are what are rebalancing the market so that young first home buyers can get a fair crack. The other thing that these tax cuts are doing.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The minister for infrastructure, I can barely hear.
It's her birthday, to be fair.
Birthday or not, all the rules apply. Prime Minister.
The other thing that the legislation is doing is giving Australians a tax cut. There are two further measures: the $1,000 automatic tax deduction and the working Australians tax offset. We on this side of the House stand for lower income taxes. On that side of the House, they stand for higher income taxes.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order!
What we saw on the weekend is that they've become what Australia doesn't need: just a cover band. We don't need a Tony Abbott cover band, a cheaper version. We had the real thing out there on Friday become national president. Then he did seven interviews yesterday, because he knows that this bloke just ain't up to the job!
Order! The member for Fisher interjected 10 times during that answer, so he's going to leave the chamber under 94(a). Having continual interjections in one answer is highly disorderly—and nonstop is not acceptable. Everyone gets a fair go, but you can't take the goodwill of the House for granted.
The member for Fisher then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How has the Albanese Labor government fought for higher wages, including for minimum wage and award-reliant workers, after a decade of wages being kept deliberately low?
I'd like to thank the member for Holt for that question but also for her lifetime advocacy in standing up for low-paid workers. I'm really pleased to inform the House today that the Fair Work Commission has awarded a 4.75 per cent wage increase for the 2.7 million modern-award-reliant workers in this country. This represents a real wage increase, supporting workers with cost of living. Many of these workers are low paid. They are predominantly women and work casually and in industries like retail, health care, accommodation and food services. It's been this government that's advocated for these workers, to the commission, for an economically sustainable real wage increase. We welcome the commission's decision as a win for working Australians.
Of course, in addition to the 4.75 per cent increase for our award-reliant workers, the commission has determined to lift the floor for our lowest paid workers, who rely on the national minimum wage, by delivering the lowest classifications a six per cent wage increase. This decision means that our lowest paid workers, who rely on the national minimum wage, will now earn over $1,000 a week. Since this Labor government came into office, the national minimum wage has increased by more than $12,000 per year. This translates to a 12 per cent real wage increase for Australia's lowest paid workers since we came to government.
Today's wage increase will deliver meaningful help with cost of living for Australia's lowest paid workers. And while this government backs pay rises for low-paid workers, those opposite have refused to do so. Shadow minister after shadow minister was out this morning doing the media rounds. They were asked time and time again if they would deliver or support or back a real wage increase, and none of them had the guts to just say 'yes'. This shouldn't be surprising, though; not once when they were in government did the coalition advocate for a real wage increase for Australian workers. For a decade, those opposite admitted it was a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture—to keep wages down. Of course, this side of the House supports wage increases. We also support tax cuts for Australians. It's only the Labor Party that's on the side of working Australians.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that Australians will pay $77 billion more tax than they get back?
I'll do my best to answer a question that didn't really make sense. It didn't really make sense. Then again, it doesn't make sense to oppose income tax cuts, but that is what they have done time after time after time. They oppose income tax cuts, and the other thing that they oppose is the real wage increases that the minister just spoke about—that 4.75 per cent increase in the minimum wage that brings the increases for those on minimum wages and awards to $12,000 since we came to office. We want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn, which is why consistently we have made submissions to the Fair Work Commission arguing for increases in real wages, something those opposite have never ever done.
The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
On relevance, the question was about Labor's $77 billion of tax increases.
Yes, the Prime Minister was asked a yes/no question about the $77 billion that the opposition is claiming the government is receiving back. I know you want a yes/no answer, but I can't make the Prime Minister do that. He wasn't asked about other policies than that one.
The question went to how much tax people pay and how much they get back. It worked; that's exactly what was asked.
It was!
Just acknowledging the frustration of the Leader of the Opposition, the words that you say into the microphone all form part of the question. When the words finish with 'and what they get back', then the full relationship is able to be answered and is relevant.
On the point of order, we want the Prime Minister to try and be relevant. It was a very tight question about $77 billion. Are you paying more taxes than $77 billion, yes or no? It's in your budget papers.
The question to the Prime Minister was 'will the Prime Minister confirm that Australians will pay $77 billion more tax than they get back?' It's a figure that he's given. I'll have to listen carefully to make sure he's talking about what—
Yes, thank you, Leader of the Opposition. We're dealing with this. It's a yes/no that you require. I can't get him to do that, but I can make sure he's being directly relevant to the tax question he was asked about that figure.
Honourable members interjecting—
We're just going to take the temperature down a little bit. There's far too much noise this week already. I want the House to settle, and we'll hear from the Prime Minister.
We on this side of the House, on Thursday, we'll be voting for income tax cuts. Those on that side will be only voting for higher income taxes, like they did before the last election, like they did when we changed stage 3 of the tax cuts. Consistently they have voted for higher taxes and lower wages for working Australians. We on this side of the House stand for working Australians. We stand for higher wages, for lower income taxes and for people to earn more and keep more of what they earn.
My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help workers earn more and keep more of what they earn? How does that compare to other approaches?
Thanks to the member for Sturt for her question but also for the very significant role that she plays in our team in her first term, representing a really beautiful part of Adelaide.
This is a really important week for our economy, with the national accounts coming out tomorrow. In the context of all of this global economic uncertainty, any growth will be welcome in those figures. Any through-the-year growth with a two in front of it would be a welcome outcome. We've got investment booming in the first quarter, we've got exports off quite substantially and we've got public demand making no contribution to growth in the first quarter. We know that already. We'll see the rest of the numbers tomorrow.
But this week is also very significant for a couple of other reasons. This week and this government are all about higher wages and lower taxes for workers and a fair go for first home buyers. In that context, as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said, we welcome the Fair Work Commission decision today. This is the pay rise that millions of Australian workers need and deserve. This is the sustainable real wage increase that the minister and I sought when we made the submission on behalf of the government. Because of this decision and because of this government, more Australians will be earning more and keeping more of what they earn. Because we're cutting income taxes five times in three different ways, the average worker will be better off by up to $2,800.
Opposition members interjecting—
I hear those opposite chirping away. They have not changed a bit since they said low wages were a deliberate design feature of their economic policy. They have not learned a thing since the last time the member for Hume told them to vote against tax cuts in this place. They don't support pay rises. They don't support tax cuts. They don't support first home buyers, and neither does the other part of the three-ring circus over there, the One Nation party. They always vote the way that Gina Rinehart tells them to and not the way that working Australians need them to in this parliament.
When the country is crying out for change, those opposite cling to a broken status quo which has been locking too many Australians out of housing for too long. When they see the legitimate concerns and pressures that people have around this country, they seek to benefit from that politically. We seek to address those legitimate concerns that people have, and that's what the budget is all about. When they look around the world at the social dislocation and political division in other countries, they want to replicate it here. We want to avoid it. Their strategy is to talk down the economy, to talk up division in our society and to vote against tax cuts and first home buyers. We'll learn more about our economy tomorrow in the national accounts, but we already know that this side supports workers and first home buyers, and that side does not.
Before I call the next question, I just want to do a few acknowledgements. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is His Excellency Mr Vijitha Herath, the Sri Lankan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism. Accompanying His Excellency is Her Excellency Yasoja Gunasekera, the High Commissioner of Sri Lanka to Australia.
Also, we are joined today by His Excellency Samheng Boros, the Minister attached to the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia. Welcome to question time.
I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Will Lauenstein, a proud Wuthathi man from Cape York who completed year 12 on an Australian Indigenous Education Foundation scholarship, joined the Australian Defence Force and was recently named the Royal Australian Air Force Aviator of the Year 2026. Welcome to Will.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. Regional communities host renewable energy projects critical to our energy transition, and they want better engagement from developers for the vital role they play. The minister has agreed to a national environmental standard on community engagement as part of reforms to the EPBC Act. It's been six months, and we've only seen drafts of two of the five standards. Minister, when will the remaining standards be released for public consultation?
I thank the member for Indi for the question and acknowledge her long-term engagement in community consultation generally and specifically with respect to EPBC reform, and I also acknowledge that she's raised this issue with me previously in this chamber.
At the end of last year we passed consequential changes to environmental law, but behind the environmental law a series of standards had to be established to effectively create the impact of those reforms. As the question referred to, there are new national environmental standards and supplementary guidelines to get the system up and running. The consultation period on the first standard, which is on matters of national environmental significance, has just closed.
That standard goes to the substance of the Samuel review in that it sets clear objectives and outcomes for protected matters, including prioritising mitigation. The second standard is the offset standard. That one is still open but closes soon. Regarding the standard that's raised in the question, as well as these standards being out for community consultation, community consultation itself will have a standard. And I'm advised that work on the standard is well progressed, and the government anticipates that it will be released for consultation in the coming weeks.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government making sure that Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn? How does the recent budget help to deliver aspiration for all, not just some? And what are the risks to this approach?
I thank the fantastic member for Bonner for the question, and I thank her for her strong advocacy on behalf of working people there in Brisbane. Today the Fair Work Commission has made this critical decision, which will assist three million workers by giving them a 4.75 per cent increase to the minimum wage. This makes lowest paid workers some $12,000 a year better off compared to when we took office in 2022, making a real difference for real people. This is delivering real change—in this case, a 12 per cent real wage increase over the time we have been in office. That stands in stark contrast to the risk of those opposite, who argue that having low wages was a key feature of their economic architecture.
For members on this side of the House, this is good news, because we want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn, with higher wages and lower income taxes, because our budget delivered another two income tax cuts for working Australians. This week, every Labor member in this House will vote to deliver them. This will take the number of tax cuts delivered by us in government to five—five income tax cuts, five consecutive increases to the minimum wage.
What do all those have in common? They were all good for working Australians, and they were all opposed by those opposite—every single measure. Those opposite argued against higher wages, against income tax cuts and against more young people getting a fair crack at getting into the housing market.
This is why Labor is the party of aspiration. We believe in aspiration for all, not just some. We believe that aspiration is about improving your lot in life, not just staying where you are; it is about not just entrenching privilege, but creating the opportunity for every Australian to be their best. It is the party that backs first home buyers to own their own home, the party that helps Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, because we want that aspiration to be available for all. We are delivering real change. Those opposite are just drifting back to the past. They've made Tony Abbott the president of the Liberal Party. He couldn't make it to two years as prime minister. That is their vision of looking towards the future.
My question is to the Treasurer. Over the last 12 months, the Albanese Labor government has taken $410 of extra tax from the average worker through bracket creep, and Labor will continue to rely on it year after year. Can the Treasurer confirm the working Australians tax offset will be chewed up by bracket creep within a year?
If anybody is looking for evidence that the member for Goldstein is not the sharpest tool in the shed, how about him asking about tax cuts on the day that their party room decided to vote against tax cuts for 13 million Australian workers?
Order! Member for Solomon.
Of all the things to ask us about today, maybe they could have waited for another day to ask us about bracket creep, when this side of the House, this week in the House of Representatives, will be returning bracket creep and that side of the House will be voting to keep bracket creep. It's almost as if somebody who writes these questions is deliberately setting him up, because, only a few hours ago in the coalition party room—that meeting of minds down that end of the building—they decided to repeat the same mistake that they made not that long ago: to vote against tax cuts for Australian working people. This side of the House will be voting for tax cuts, won't we? We'll be voting for tax cuts when the—
Order! The member for Solomon will leave the chamber under 94(a). Do not interject while people are approaching, and use correct titles in this House.
The member for Solomon then left the chamber.
Member for Goldstein, a point of order?
The question was specifically about whether the Treasurer could confirm the working Australians tax offset will be chewed up by bracket creep within a year. I know he enjoys spraying abuse—
Resume your seat. The Treasurer wasn't asked about the opposition or their policies, so I'm going to bring him back to the question. If he continues to talk about the opposition, he'll be sat down.
I was asked about the working Australians tax offset. We'll be voting for it, and they'll be voting against it. That's the decision that was taken today in their party room. Now, when it comes to returning bracket creep, this is a government which has returned bracket creep on five occasions, using three different mechanisms. In fact, there'll be another tax cut on 1 July, less than a month from now—the same tax cuts that they said they would repeal. The difference here is very clear: a Labor government led by this Prime Minister cutting income taxes—again and again and again—for millions of Australian workers, versus an opposition which votes against tax cuts for Australia's working people. The point that I'm making about the working Australians tax offset is that, because of our efforts, Australians will be getting another tax cut. If they had their way, Australians would be paying higher income taxes, not lower income taxes.
My question is to the Minister for Housing. Why are the Albanese Labor government's recent housing reforms so important for first home buyers, and there are any risks to this important work?
I thank the fantastic member for Macnamara for his question, and I want to acknowledge the particular leadership role that he's played in this discussion, in his role as special envoy for social housing and homelessness. He understands, as I do, that housing is about so much more than bricks and mortar. This is about security. It's about stability. It's about having the confidence to start a family and put down roots in a community. For too many Australians right around our country, our broken housing system has pushed these things out of reach.
Australians are working harder than ever. They're studying harder and they're saving harder, but a broken housing system will not reward their efforts. We believe it is time for change. We want a fairer system. We want a fairer system for first home buyers, to put them on a level playing field with investors and to back them in with our five per cent deposit program. We want a fairer system for workers, who need and deserve a pay rise, and we want a fairer system for taxpayers, who need and deserve the tax cut that our government is about to give them.
Now, those opposite do not support any of those things, and I want Australians who are watching at home to know something: we see the broken system and we see the pain that this is causing you. We are for change; these people are for the status quo. We stand up for opportunity; those opposite stand up for privilege.
If Robert Menzies were alive today, he would be absolutely horrified with what he would see on the other side of the chamber. He started a political party that was all about ordinary Australians having a stake in their own country. Yet in politics today it is Labor that is standing up for aspiration. It is Labor that is standing up for ordinary people, to have stability, certainty and control in their lives. When it comes to aspiration, our party has a pretty simple belief: we want Australians to get ahead and we want them to do it in a home of their own.
Our broken housing system is increasingly one where your chance of homeownership depends not on how hard you work but on the wealth you inherit from your parents. In our view, that is not Australia at its best, so we're making some hard decisions to change the system. We're cutting taxes, we're increasing wages and we're helping more Australians get into the dream of homeownership. Speaker, that's good for the people that you represent in this parliament and it's good for the people that I represent. And, on the Labor side of politics, we believe what's good for Australians is what's good for our country.
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that Labor's toxic tax bills grant him extraordinary powers to slash the $250 tax offset to zero whenever he likes, without taking it back to the parliament?
Mr Speaker, I wouldn't have given another question to the member for Goldstein either.
He did. I thank the honourable member for her question. When it comes to the tax arrangements in the legislation, what we are proposing is not different to what we've seen when it comes to other tax legislation. I know that there's been yet another beat up, today, about this from those who want the broken status quo in housing and tax to continue to lock young people out of housing. But the truth is—the fact is—that it's not unusual for tax laws to work this way or for definitions to be finalised by legislative instrument, which can be disallowed by the parliament.
I'll give you some examples. Under the Howard government there were the debt equity rules, subordinate rules overriding general allocation of debt or equity status. A similar example is superannuation valuation rules. Governments of both persuasions have done it this way. Foreign investment reform from Prime Minister Morrison left a lot of details and definitions to the subordinate laws. So it's not unusual for legislation to be progressed in this way.
I don't remember governments or treasurers of other political persuasions being subjected to the same sort of feedback about these standard arrangements. You had no problem with it when Mr Howard did it. You had no problem with it when Mr Morrison did it. This is the way that—
The member for Flinders on a point of order? Leader of the Opposition, one of the members of the House is on their feet. I'd ask you to assist the House just by not interjecting. Just as, when you're raising a point of order, everyone's silent, I'd like that courtesy for everyone, including the member for Flinders.
On relevance, I think what the Treasurer is trying to say is just yes.
Member for Flinders, that is not appropriate. That is an abuse of the standing orders. If that sort of behaviour continues, I'll be left with no other choice but to not take points of order. We can't have a situation where people jump up and not follow the standing orders, the traditions and the conventions of this House. I'm asking all members to uphold the traditions and conventions. So the member for Flinders is now warned.
The point I'm making is this: those opposite want to pretend that these are unusual arrangements. They're not. And the reason they want to pretend these are unusual arrangements is that they can't defend their actual position, which is to go to the wall for a broken status quo that locks too many Australians—particularly, too many young Australians—out of the housing market. We know that that's the outcome they seek. We know that they want young people locked out of housing. We know that they'll vote against tax cuts, and all of this pretending that these are somehow unusual arrangements is designed to avoid coming at the actual objectives of this legislation, which are to cut income taxes for workers, to make it easier for first home buyers in the system and to better align the tax treatment of income earned from working and income earned from assets.
When it comes to this particular definition, we made it very clear in the budget papers that investments in new dwellings will be exempt from these changes where the investment genuinely adds to housing supply. We made it clear what that would be. That's set out in the budget papers. The legislation provides for these details to be finalised in an instrument, which is a standard approach for these kinds of details in legislation like this.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's new tax reforms deliver a fairer and simpler tax system that supports workers, investments and younger Australians, and why has the government chosen this approach over any others?
I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. The member for Newcastle understands that Australia is built every day by people who get up early, work hard and contribute to their communities. In her electorate, that means workers keeping one of the busiest ports in the world open and running, nurses finishing night shifts, teachers shaping the next generation, truck drivers keeping our economy moving and families working hard for a better future. Our government believes that, if you contribute to this country, this country should work for you. Whether you were born here or came from overseas and chose Australia as your home, if you work hard, pay your taxes and do the right thing, you deserve a fair chance to get ahead.
Australians know that too many working people are doing everything right but finding it harder than ever to buy a home and build security for their families. Our tax package is about restoring the balance. The legislation being debated in the house today is pro-worker, pro-aspiration and pro-investment. Our budget puts working Australians first, because a home should not be out of reach for the people who keep this country running. We are fixing a system that has made it harder for younger Australians to buy a home and harder for working Australian families to get ahead. Our reforms will deliver a permanent $250 a year tax cut for 13.3 million workers through the new working Australian tax offset. This means that, when combined with our other tax cuts, an average Australian worker is expected to be up to $2,800 better off a year by 2028. That's more money in the pockets of families facing rising costs. Our changes to negative gearing and capital gains will also help. These are expected to support around 75,000 Australians into homeownership over the next decade. That's 75,000 individuals and families owning and not renting. That means more families with the security and dignity that comes with living in a home of your own. Our tax reforms are about building a stronger economy, rewarding contribution and ensuring the next generation is not locked out of opportunity.
Those on the other side of the chamber are the only people who fail to recognise there is a problem. They are obsessed with taking our country back to the Liberals' failed economic agenda of the 1990s and the disastrous Howard-Costello changes of 1999 that created deep structural flaws in our housing system which have shut too many Australian families out of the market, and they've not yet seen a tax cut or, indeed, a minimum wage rise, for that matter, that they're not opposed to. We are fixing the mistakes of the past, but those opposite can't seem to let them go. Our vision is for a tax system that rewards work and supports aspiration. We want more Australians to own their own home, and we want to put more money in their pockets, and that's exactly what this budget delivers.
My question is to the Minister for Housing. The government's toxic tax bills do not define what a new build is. If someone builds a new second dwelling on an existing title, is the whole title now considered a new dwelling?
I appreciate the question. A new dwelling is one that genuinely adds new to housing supply.
My question is for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government's plan for cheaper and cleaner energy delivering for Australian households and businesses?
Order! We'll start again. There's too much noise. I invite the House to settle without the ongoing commentary. Just as everyone is entitled to a fair go, the member for Melbourne will get a fair go.
Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government's plan for cleaner and cheaper energy delivering for Australian households and businesses? What policies would make energy more expensive?
I appreciate the question from the honourable member for Melbourne and, more importantly, I appreciate the pragmatic approach she brings to climate discussions in this House, calling for climate action, and the positive contribution she's made in her time in this House already. Last week, we saw signs of progress in the government's plans. On Tuesday, we saw the announcement from the energy regulator, under the legally obliged release of the default market offer, of significant reductions in energy bills across the relevant jurisdictions. That is required to be released under law unless the minister of the day signs a law to keep it secret—which I have never done and would never do but one of my predecessors once did just prior to an election.
What it showed was reductions in energy bills from a modest one per cent to up to 10.7 per cent for residences and up to 20.9 per cent for small businesses. We see this as good progress, reducing energy bills by spreading more of the cheapest form of energy through a commonsense plan to roll out renewables backed by batteries across the country. On Friday we saw—of interest to the honourable member—emissions fall as well. In 2025, electricity emissions were down four per cent, which is good progress. And emissions intensity in our energy system—that is, the amount of carbon produced per kilowatt—is the lowest it has ever been in our country under those figures.
This is very much a story of batteries, because we know that the impact on energy prices mainly comes from coal and gas, which is expensive, in the night-time. And what we're doing is transferring a lot of that cheap renewable energy from the middle of the day to the night through batteries. This is an Australian story and one that Australia can be proud of. The fact that Australians have installed 423,717 batteries since 1 July is a global story. That is 12 gigawatt hours worth of storage. In Australia we've seen 10 per cent of the world's battery capacity added in our country. Only two countries have added more battery capacity than Australia over the last 12 months, the United States and China, and in per capita terms Australia leads by a long way in terms of battery capacity. In fact, 30 gigawatt hours of household battery capacity were added in all of 2025, and we have added 12 gigawatt hours just since 1 July.
The honourable member asked me what would slow all this. A return to the policies of the past would slow all this. I'm always grateful to the shadow minister when he makes clear, as he did all last week, that he opposes a popular policy like Cheaper Home Batteries. He would prefer to go back to the UNGI scheme, which was the signature scheme of the Leader of the Opposition, Underwriting New Generation Investment. It should have been called 'Unfortunately no generation involved', because we have added 12 gigawatt hours but do you know how much the UNGI scheme added? Zero—not one kilowatt hour. That was one of their— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. Greg has motor neurone disease with an expected 12 months left to live. Greg is approved for a level 8 Support at Home package but was assessed by the department as medium priority and so is expected to wait for much of the rest of his life for his package to arrive. Contact with your ministerial office has been fruitless. Minister, what does it take for a dying person to actually get support at home?
I thank the member for Mayo for her question, I thank her for bringing Greg's case to the parliament, and I appreciate the engagement that her office regularly has with mine as we try to work through these issues for constituents, as I do with many members across the parliament. As the member for Mayo's question pertains to, our population is ageing very rapidly, and demand for care is growing very rapidly accordingly. In some cases, people such as Greg have gone through the assessment process and are still waiting to receive the care that they need.
Our government is responding to this challenge. As of 31 March, a record 364,723 older Australians have access to an ongoing Support at Home place, while 100,191 are still waiting for their approved level. That's why this financial year alone we're delivering 83,000 additional in-home care places, and we're not stopping there. This budget most recently outlined our plan to deliver another 32,000 places next financial year. These extra packages will continue taking pressure off the national priority system, getting more older people the care that they need more quickly. Once we've rolled out these additional places, by the end of 2026-27, 420,000 older Australians will have access to Support at Home. That will be almost three times the number of older Australians that were receiving care as compared with the Home Care Packages Program back in 2020.
Our significant investment in additional places is making a difference. Since Support at Home began on 1 November, wait times have come down across high, medium and standard priorities, and every person assessed as urgent continues to receive their funding within a month. Additionally, within the budget we outlined additional investment to ensure that the prioritisation mechanism within—
Order! The member for Mayo, on a point of order?
To the minister, I actually asked you about Greg, who has motor neurone disease, and he's dying and he can't get care.
The minister did address that part of the question, and I did hear him mention the person's name. If he has any more information regarding the individual case, he can do so, but he was asked about what it takes to get Support at Home. He is answering that part of the question and is being directly relevant. I can appreciate the seriousness of the question, and I'll ask the minister to continue.
I listened to the question very carefully, Member for Mayo, and I can assure you that I have the greatest personal sympathy for Greg and other people that are in the circumstances that he faces. That's why, through this budget, we've attributed some additional funding to look at the prioritisation mechanism of the national priority system to ensure that people get the care that they need. We will continue every single day to work hard to make sure that our aged-care system is fit for purpose and that it serves people just like Greg.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government's strategic fleet helping communities like mine access supplies during times of crisis?
I thank the member for Leichhardt for the question, and I want to acknowledge how closely felt it has been in his community. In times of emergency, too often we have seen regional and remote communities in Far North Queensland, in Western Australia and in the Northern Territory cut off. With roads and rail up north flooded, communities are often only accessible by sea. It's been a logistical challenge to make sure that those communities get the support and supplies that they need, often having to rely on foreign-flagged vessels and at times our fantastic Defence Force.
Last week, we eased that challenge. I was thrilled to be in Townsville on Friday to greet ANL Kokoda, our inaugural vessel in Australia's Maritime Strategic Fleet. This large cargo fleet, which is to be fully Australian flagged and Australian crewed, will strengthen our economic sovereignty and improve our national security. It will be there for Australians in times of need, whether that's natural disasters, supply chain disruptions or times of global uncertainty. It's a commitment we took to the Australian people, and we are delivering on it.
We are an island nation heavily reliant on ships for international trade. Despite this, our maritime industry has been declining for decades. The last few months have shown how critical it is that we invest in and rebuild our maritime sector. The ANL Kokoda will provide us with more options in times of crisis and in times of global uncertainty. It will also importantly provide a training ground for Australians who want to join the maritime industry with Australian wages and Australian conditions. On Friday I met Natalie, a young tug engineer, who spoke to me about the opportunities that this would open up for maritime workers like her. Alongside Natalie were members of the ANL executive team, representatives from the Maritime Union of Australia and the maritime industry all together championing the investment in maritime jobs and skills in something that government, unions and industry are absolutely united on.
We are continuing the work to secure the remaining two ships for the Strategic Fleet Pilot Program. We have also established the Maritime Skills and Training Initiative with successful applicants to be announced soon. We're cracking down on wage theft aboard foreign-flagged ships. We're working to promote an increase in Australian-flagged vessels through the coastal trading act review. We're committed to making sure that Australia has the sovereign capability in maritime. The strategic fleet is very much part of that, ensuring that we do have the opportunity for an Australian-flagged vessel, Australian crewed, to be able to help out in those times of emergency and in supply chain disruptions. It's only this side of government that is backing our maritime industry with our Australian strategic fleet. We're committed to revitalising the maritime industry and our sovereign capability in that regard.
My question is to the Minister for Housing. A secret internal RBA memo says that migration policy is a 'main way that the government influences the housing market'. This government has brought in a record 1.4 million migrants. So isn't it the truth that Labor's migration policies have made it harder—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Members on my right! Whatever's being said across the chamber will cease immediately. I don't know what was being said, but we're not going to have interjections. Just as the member for Melbourne was shown the respect, the member for McPherson is going to be given the same courtesy. I couldn't hear the question. If everyone can just control themselves while questions are being asked, on both sides, the House will benefit from that action. The member for McPherson will begin his question again.
My question is to the Minister for Housing. A secret internal RBA memo says that migration policy is a 'main way that the government influences the housing market'. This government has brought in a record 1.4 million migrants. So isn't it the truth that Labor's migration policies have made it harder for Australians, including new Australians, to afford a home?
I thank the member for McPherson for his question. It's actually a really important question, and I'm glad he's asked it of me. Migration is a piece of the puzzle here, and that is exactly why our government has acted to bring migration down. This is the detail that seems to get lost with those opposite: migration is now almost half what it reached after its post-COVID high.
Now, if I can say really respectfully to those opposite, the main game here is that we've got to build more homes for Australians. For forty years, our country has not been building enough homes. Those opposite can laugh and guffaw and play politics. Those opposite can laugh and guffaw all they like; I encourage them to do it. Opposition is a very frustrating time. I completely understand. But the truth is we've got to take this problem seriously, and the serious answer is that we've got to build, build, build. That is why our government has the boldest and most ambitious housing policy that a Commonwealth government has had for 70 years—$47 billion, and the main goal and the main game is building, building, building.
I say again, respectfully, to those opposite that it takes a little bit of moxie to be coming into this parliament and asking me, as housing minister, questions about the housing crisis that those opposite played a very significant hand in creating for our country.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Members on my left! The member was heard in silence to give him respect. I'm asking the same respect be shown to the minister as well. It's a two-way street.
There's a really simple and inarguable truth here. Had those opposite not sat on the Treasury benches for nine years doing absolutely nothing about this problem, we would be much better positioned to address it.
The minister will pause. Has the minister concluded her answer?
No.
Resume your seat for a second. We'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
It goes to relevance. This question didn't mention the opposition once. It was about the 1.4 million migrants you've let in. Can you bring the minister back to the question, please?
On the point of order, the total figure that they referred to, the biggest year that led to that figure, was entirely under their settings, and therefore—
The manager, on a point of order.
That is an abuse of standing orders. It's not true. You brought them all in!
Just as the member for Flinders abused the standing orders, both of you, then, just abused the standing orders. So if everyone can just follow the standing orders, we won't be put in that position. The manager was correct. The minister wasn't asked about the opposition's policies. She was asked about a figure and the impact that that has and regarding a memo that is floating around regarding that topic. So she won't be able to talk about the opposition's policies, because she wasn't asked about the opposition's policies.
This is an important piece of the puzzle. Again, I respect that you asked it, but, unfortunately, the member finds himself in a political party that played a significant role in bringing us to where we are today—and our government is actually standing up and doing something about it.
The minister was going close to defying the speaker then. Order! When I say to return to the question, that means return to the question.
My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government's free TAFE program backing Australians into the jobs we need? Is the future of free TAFE certain?
Thank you to my friend the member for Bean for his question. He's a huge supporter of the work this government, under this prime minister, is doing to ensure that Australians can get the skills they want so that we can do the jobs that we need. In particular, he's a big supporter of free TAFE, which has been life changing for hundreds of thousands of Australians. It's this government saying to Australians that it will back them to further their training in those critical industries where we need more workers.
A couple of weeks ago, I had the great honour of attending the graduation ceremony of Caitlin, who now has her Diploma of Nursing, thanks to the Albanese government's support of free TAFE. Caitlin's a legend. She's a single mum. She's a Navy veteran. For her, free TAFE meant that she could follow her dream of becoming a nurse. Caitlin said that getting that backing meant so much to her. She told me that free TAFE meant less stress on providing for her son's schooling and his after-school activities too. It means that she's been able to start her job at a hospital right here in Canberra, working with her brother, without a student debt. Caitlin's one of 245,000 free TAFE course completions. That's in just over three years of the program, and there are plenty more to come, as members opposite will be interested to hear. That's more nurses like Caitlin, more aged-care workers and more tradies to build homes for Australians—something we are passionate about on this side of the House. That is why the Albanese Labor government has made free TAFE permanent, because we want to ensure that every Australian can follow their dreams just like Caitlin did.
Sadly, however, we know that not everyone in this place supports free TAFE. Those opposite voted against making free TAFE permanent. The Liberals voted no to free TAFE. The Nationals voted no to free TAFE. One nation over there voted no to free TAFE. That's every one of the extreme right-wing parties in this place. And let me tell those opposite that Australians have noticed. When the leader that you axed said of free TAFE, 'If you don't pay for something, you don't value it,' not a single member opposite said anything. The silence was noticed. On silence, the current Leader of the Opposition hasn't used the word 'TAFE' in this place for more than a decade, not since his idol and his new boss, Tony Abbott, was prime minister. Australians know that only Labor stands with them to get the skills they want so that we can get the jobs we need done now and into the future. Labor delivered free TAFE and Labor will always stand up for free TAFE and for Australians like Caitlin getting the opportunities that come with it. Aspiration for all, not just for some.
My question is for the Minister for Communications. The Reverend Tim Costello today described gambling company inducements, such as bonus bets and boosted odds, as 'the most evil, predatory feature of the gambling industry'. The Murphy review recommended the immediate banning of all inducements and inducement advertising, but these recommendations are not included in your exposure draft bill. Will the Albanese government act to outlaw these inducements that drive problem gambling?
I thank the member for her question. Our significant reforms will minimise children's exposure to wagering advertising. They will break the link between sport and gambling, and they will reduce the saturation and the targeting of wagering advertising.
The response we tabled was at the first opportunity granted by the parliamentary guidelines. We tabled it through the usual way, and the action we are taking to protect Australians, particularly children and young people, from the harms of gambling was announced by the Prime Minister at the National Press Club.
We will deliver a significant package, as we announced there, with measures that will reduce the harm from gambling. The package has been carefully developed with harm minimisation at front of mind to stop the deluge of gambling advertising.
I'm raising a point of order on relevance. The question was specifically about inducements, and that is the question that I'm asking the minister to answer.
Yes, the question was 'will the Albanese government act to outlaw these inducements that drive problem—
An honourable member interjecting—
Whoever's interjecting while I'm dealing with a point of order can cease. The question also contained a statement by the Reverend Tim Costello and also information about the Murphy review recommendations regarding this topic. The minister was being directly relevant regarding that part of the question.
Just to the point of order, the question concludes with specific reference about what's included and not included in the exposure draft bills.
Yes, so the minister is being absolutely directly relevant to that part of the question. If she goes on to other topics, I will draw her back to the question. But at this time she's being directly relevant.
These reforms are important. The community expects to see them implemented in a timely manner. Stakeholders have been keen to see the detail of the legislation, the exposure draft. We've worked quickly to get that out for consultation. We've announced they'll start from 1 January next year, and we're working to pass that legislation in time for it to start.
The member referred to a particular quote about a particular recommendation, No. 31. We are addressing a significant package of measures across the report's recommendations to reduce harm from gambling. Apart from what I've already addressed, we're going to stop the deluge of gambling advertising; improve enforcement against illegal offshore gambling providers; and strengthen BetStop, the national self-exclusion register. We're going to enhance sport integrity and reduce financial crime risks, and we're going to address emerging online gambling products, including banning online keno, and cracking down on dodgy lotteries.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering life-changing cheaper medicines after a decade of cuts and neglect?
Thank you to the member for Banks not just for the question but for his terrific advocacy for a stronger Medicare in his community. I'm pleased to say the bulk-billing rate in his electorate is now just shy of 90 per cent after our record investment. I know he regularly plugs the benefits as well of cheaper medicines.
For 80 years, Australians have enjoyed the fruits of one of Labor's great legacies: the PBS, which gives them access to the world's best medicines at affordable prices. Since we were elected four years ago, we've made 450 new or amended listings to the PBS. Yesterday—just yesterday!—I was pleased to announce two new listings for blood cancer. We know, tragically, blood cancer kills more Australians than any other cancer type except lung, and one of those listings, Blincyto, is an amazing new immunotherapy that's going to give great new hope to blood cancer patients. Before yesterday, it would have cost them $230,000 for a course of treatment, but now it's available at just PBS prices. We also listed Calquence, a daily tablet for patients with a new diagnosis of particular forms of leukaemia or lymphoma.
Alona Robinson joined me yesterday at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, where she'd received Calquence on a clinical trial. She's a mum of four, a grandmum of two and happily in remission for more than five years. She told me how excited she was that others would now have access to this terrific life-saving medicine—we think about 1,200 others every single year. Before yesterday, they'd have been paying $7,000 a month for these tablets. Now they'll just pay PBS prices—and as you know, Mr Speaker, we've been making those PBS prices even cheaper every single year we've been in government. In the past four years, Australians have saved almost $3 billion in co-payments at the pharmacy counter. Pensioners and concession-card holders have received 90 million additional scripts completely free of charge, which previously they'd have had to pay for, and their maximum co-pay of $7.70 has been frozen for the rest of the decade. Patients without a concession card would have been paying, this year, more than $50 for PBS scripts if we hadn't acted. But, thanks to this government, they're now paying no more than $25 for their scripts—thanks to the latest cut we announced at the last election.
These policies are obviously terrific for household budgets at a time of real cost-of-living pressure, but they also mean that more Australians are now filling the scripts their doctors say are important for their health, building a healthier Australia.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 35 of 2025-26, entitled Administration of investigations in Defence: Department of Defence.
Document made a parliamentary paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government's transparency about the risks to the delivery of AUKUS and how Australia's national and security interests will be protected especially in light of recent changes to contract terms.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Australians are losing faith in AUKUS, if they ever had it. It is time for the government to be transparent on the risks to the delivery of AUKUS, how they are going to address them and how they're going to keep Australians safe. The government's first duty is to protect its people. Defence is one of the most important issues facing our country in this ever-changing world. The cornerstone of the Morrison government's, and now the Albanese government's, future defence strategy has been AUKUS.
I have real questions about whether the AUKUS nuclear submarine program is really, truly what Australia needs for its future, but, putting those concerns aside, having some submarines is better than having no submarines. But it seems that there is a significant danger that we will not have the submarines that we need, in terms of both the Virginia class submarines and the AUKUS class submarines, as well as capability gaps emerging in our Collins class submarines, which means that we may be significantly underprepared in this area. This is no way to run a defence force.
Let's look at the evidence. There are three key elements of the Australian submarine program: firstly, continuing the Collins class submarines over a period of time to bridge gaps; secondly, the purchasing of Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines before we get the AUKUS submarines; and, thirdly, the SSN-AUKUS submarines. Each of those three elements is currently experiencing significant problems.
Firstly, let's look at the Collins class submarines. The recent ANAO report was scathing about the current ability of the Collins class submarines extension-of-life program. There are real concerns about what we're going to get and our ability to deliver it and the costs of these.
Secondly, let's look at the Virginia class submarines. The USA is continuing to deliver submarines at around half the rate that is required for the President to be able to sign off that submarines given to Australia are not a reduction in the USA's own capabilities. The President has the ability not to fulfil the commitment to the Australian government, on the basis of that issue. But the USA is not producing submarines at the rate that means that the President can, in good faith, sign off on assigning Virginia class submarines to Australia.
Now—just over the weekend—the government has agreed with the US that we're not going to get one new Virginia class submarine; we're actually going to get three second-hand submarines. My question to the government is: if that was such a great idea and if that was such an important strategic pivot, why didn't you work this out three years ago? It's hard to believe that this is actually what Australia wants. It feels very much like we are being dictated terms by the US.
The US has undertaken the Colby review of the AUKUS arrangement. Apparently there are recommendations in the Colby review which do our alter our arrangements with the US. But we don't know, and the Australian parliament doesn't know, and certainly the Australian people don't know, what those recommendations are and how they affect AUKUS in this country.
Thirdly, let's move to the SSN-AUKUS boats. A recent UK parliamentary committee has warned that Britain risks being unable to meet its obligations under AUKUS because of the risk to the SSN-AUKUS boats.
The real question is on this. We have all the elements of the Australian submarine strategy at risk right now—all of them. We have had reassurances from the government, and from previous governments, that this is in Australia's interests and is setting us up for the future. All three elements are under significant strain right now.
It is time for the government to be honest about that—to be transparent about the risks and clear on how it is going to mitigate those risks. There are other options as to submarines. They are not that great that it is better to have them as submarines. But, given the real risks to the delivery timescales, as well as the delivery costs, of this program, it is up to the Australian government to be transparent and honest about this.
This is why you are seeing people like the former head of the Australian Defence Force, former Admiral Barrie, get behind a public inquiry into AUKUS, because there is so little faith amongst the public about AUKUS, on its original strategic intent but, absolutely, right now, on whether it can be delivered. It is up to the government to be transparent to the Australian people. There are problems there—we know that; we can read the news. It is time for the government to be honest about that and how it is going to keep Australians safe into the future.
I thank the member for Wentworth for putting this important issue on the agenda, because it does give me an opportunity to provide an update on the AUKUS submarine program, consistent with our approach of providing maximum transparency and accountability to the Australian people for what will be the largest and most complex industrial manufacturing program ever undertaken in our nation, and, importantly, the largest-ever capability uplift in the Australian Defence Force, to ensure that we keep Australians safe into the future.
We live in an era of increasingly contested space and less predictability in our region, the Indo-Pacific. The war in Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East and the use of coercive tactics have all put huge pressure on the international rules and norms that nations like Australia have relied upon in the past for our security and certainty. These norms and these rules are now under increasing threat. This was a point that was identified in the two defence strategic plans that have been outlined by our government since we came to office in 2024 and 2026. The National defence strategy confirms and reaffirms that Australia's security depends on strong partnerships and alliances and the importance of a strategy of denial to deter any aggression towards Australia into the future.
At the apex of that strategy, which our government has adopted based on the independent advice of the reviewers under the Defence strategic review, is the acquisition of nuclear-propelled conventionally armed submarines. That is the key to our strategy of deterrence within our region. This capability upgrade is required to meet the increased security challenge that our nation will face into the future. So our government has decided that we should acquire the best submarine capability possible to keep an island nation like Australia, which relies upon shipping for our commerce and international trade as an important part of our economy, safe into the future and, most importantly, to keep Australians safe. That has to be the No. 1 objective of any Australian government—to keep Australians safe. Delivering AUKUS will help us meet that commitment of keeping Australians safe. Nuclear-propelled conventionally armed submarines are the best capability possible for Australia to acquire. Nuclear propelled submarines have a longer range and endurance and greater stealth, which means that they can go undetected for longer periods of time than diesel electric submarines, which simply cannot match those same capabilities.
Now, to acquire this capability, the defence minister and the defence department have worked on a plan to acquire this technology as quickly as possible to ensure that there are no capability gaps on Collins class subs coming to the end of their life and when we acquire the nuclear propelled technology. That plan has been publicly announced; it's available for any Australian to see. It was announced by the Prime Minister in March 2023, with the American president and the UK prime minister, in San Diego, and it outlines our multiphase plan to acquire this technology into the future, the stages that we will undertake and how we will do it. It is all publicly released. In fact, it's available on the Australian Submarine Agency website.
The plan has begun. We've begun the phases of development and delivery of the AUKUS plan. Phase 1 is the Submarine Rotational Force-West. This is where we start to train with the United States Navy and the UK navy on familiarity with the technology that Australia will acquire in future years. This required some very large infrastructure upgrades to the base in the south of Perth at Garden Island. Those infrastructure upgrades have been completed. When I was the assistant defence minister and I had responsibility for the Defence estate, I visited Garden Island on many occasions to see that work being undertaken to ensure that we had the wharf space and that we had the facilities to cater for the Virginia class and Astute class submarines rotating through Australia and training with our Navy on a regular basis. That has been completed and those rotations are beginning to take place.
The second phase of the AUKUS optimal pathway is the purchase of three Virginia class submarines in the early 2030s. These will be sovereign Australian submarines commanded by the Royal Australian Navy. This program was approved, importantly, by the US Congress in December 2023. So Australia has the approval to acquire the Virginia class capability into the future. A further announcement was made about that on the weekend by the defence minister.
Finally, Phase 3 is Australia acquiring the capability to construct these important, most complex submarines, which will add to our sovereign manufacturing capability. When we talk about a Future Made in Australia, there is no greater example of a Future Made in Australia than our nation acquiring the capability and the means to manufacture our own conventionally armed nuclear-propelled submarines right here in Australia at the Osborne shipyards in Adelaide—a project that will create 20,000 jobs in numerous industries across our country, providing us with a great technology and capability uplift that we've never seen in our Defence Force in the past. We'll be able to build those submarines based on the UK Astute class design but incorporating the best technology that the US submarine technology agency has on offer. Work has already commenced on constructing that shipyard to ensure that we have that capability into the future.
All of this is backed and underpinned by an extension of the Collins class diesel-powered submarines that we have at the moment, and I can tell you that that work has commenced. I've been down to the Osborne shipyards, and I've seen firsthand the work that is commencing on the extension of the lifetime of the Collins class submarines, and they will extend well into the period in which we acquire the Virginia class American technology of the three submarines so that there is no capability gap that Australia has when it comes to our undersea capability and defending the Australian people should something go wrong.
Then, on the weekend, the defence minister, at the IISS Shangri-la Dialogue, again, with his UK and United States counterparts, announced the finalisation of the Submarine Rotational Force-West implementation arrangements, which are very important—again, another step in delivery of the project—and the type of Virginia class submarines that we will acquire three of in the early 2030s. They will be in-service submarines from the same block of manufacturing out of the shipyards in the United States.
This is the most sensible and indeed the optimal pathway that our nation should adopt to acquire this technology for a number of reasons. Firstly, it ensures consistency. That is important when it comes to training the Australian Defence Force to operate those submarines. If we have the same three block types of submarines then it ensures consistency in the training of our submariners to operate those submarines, and that is what we are going for—consistency to ensure that we can deliver the program. It also ensures maintenance consistency as well, and having the correct maintenance program to keep those submarines in the water for as long as possible will be important in reducing costs to the program. We'll be ensuring that we're not operating four different classes of submarines through the life of this project. We wouldn't have the Collins class and two types of Virginia classes before we acquired the SSN-AUKUS technology manufactured in Australia. Instead, we will have three classes—Collins, consistency when it comes to Virginia class and then our own manufacturing capability. I would point out that the Virginia class' in-service type is a massive upgrade in capability for Australia. We are still acquiring an upgrade in capability.
In terms of transparency, the Australian Submarine Agency publish a corporate plan, and they provide an annual report to the parliament that ensures the Australian people know about the decisions that we are making in respect of delivering that optimal pathway and ensuring, most importantly, the principal objective of this government, keeping the Australian people safe into the future.
I rise to speak on the member for Wentworth's matter of public importance, and I acknowledge the need for transparency across all areas of government, and this is particularly important when there are large amounts of taxpayer money being spent. However, I recognise that, in matters of defence and in the interests of diplomacy with our most important international partners, this is not always possible or indeed wise.
The AUKUS partnership will outlast current governments and administrations. History has shown that there are no greater partners or friends of Australia than the United Kingdom and the United States of America. As we've seen, elements of AUKUS will change. That is the reality. But we must hold the course. We no longer have the luxury of time to change our minds. The reality is we are the smallest of the three partners, and, while we disagree amongst ourselves, other nations are building capacity and readying themselves for potential conflict. If anything can be above politics in this place, let it be this because nothing is more important than defending our nation.
The benefits of AUKUS to my home state of South Australia are immense. AUKUS cements South Australia as the defence state. Australia's AUKUS submarines will be built in Adelaide, South Australia. And, at its peak, AUKUS will deliver 1,000 highly skilled jobs for South Australians. It's anticipated that there will be thousands more jobs in adjacent industries over the next two decades. We need advanced manufacturing in South Australia. We've watched it decline over the last 20 years, particularly with the closure of the Holden plant in 2017. That was a defining moment in my state.
Major defence projects are turning that decline around. The latest ABS data show South Australia has the highest concentration of defence employment of any Australian state, with six defence jobs per 1,000 people. South Australia is home to more than 400 businesses that provide goods and services directly to Defence and to deliver into the supply chains of contractors both in Australia and around the world. South Australia's defence industry contributes more than $2 billion of gross value to the state's economy, and that figure has doubled over the past five years. For my state of South Australia, this is indeed a critical industry.
Significant investments have been made in education, and this is really important to ensure our young people are job ready for the submarines that are coming. A $28 million National Security TAFE Centre of Excellence will be established at TAFE SA Regency Campus to support upskilling of the state's current and future technicians for AUKUS. There'll be five new technical colleges, with three more to be built, more than a thousand additional university places that are defence and STEM related and a new TAFE trades workshop in my electorate in Mount Barker, so that we can build the workforce of tradespeople needed to construct thousands of new homes each year to house our defence workforce.
AUKUS is the cornerstone of South Australia's future economic development. With the benefits of the Defence partnership and associated defence industry, it will be wide ranging, even having an impact in my electorate of Mayo. We have Aerotech at Brukunga. We have Zenith Custom Creations at Mount Barker. I've had a tour of both of those facilities, and they are extraordinary. We have Connexus, a specialist defence recruitment firm that operates a regional base on the South Coast of my electorate, at Middleton, and it offers opportunities to many ADF veterans who have come home to our region, are looking for employment and have enormous skills that we must tap into, ensuring that they have a great future career beyond Defence.
I'm hopeful that AUKUS will offer even more employment and business opportunities to my constituents in Mayo. It's hard to describe the scale of the opportunity that it offers South Australia. It will change our state for generations to come. I believe AUKUS is too big to fail, and it's too important for South Australia. And while I absolutely acknowledge the very important commentary made and this matter of public importance by the member for Wentworth, I can't understate how valuable AUKUS is to my state of South Australia and to our nation.
Our national defence strategy is clear: Australia faces its most challenging circumstances since the Second World War while remaining deeply connected to the global economy. In that environment, AUKUS is not optional; it is essential. But with that importance comes a clear responsibility to be transparent about the risks, honest about delivery challenges and unwavering in protecting Australia's national security interests.
The Albanese government has been up-front: AUKUS is a complex, multidecade endeavour. And of course there are risks, whether they relate to delivery timelines, industrial capacity or evolving program settings. It's a huge endeavour, and it's perfectly normal that there might be changes or bumps along the road. But what is also clear, and what this government has been clear about to the Australian people, is that at every single decision point the US government has demonstrated its support of AUKUS. It has demonstrated its support of its partnership with Australia.
The recent determination that Australia will receive three block IV Virginia class submarines instead of two block IV and one block VI has been painted as disastrous when it is not. It was another decision point where a decision was actively made to keep moving forward. It means that the Australian submariners who'll be crewing the three Block IV Virginia class submarines and the Australian workers, some of whom will be in Western Australia and South Australia, who will be maintaining the three Block IV Virginia class submarines will be crewing and maintaining one platform in this class, not two. This streamlines operations and maintenance and is more cost-effective for the Australian people at the same time as remaining fit for mission.
Despite the US actively deciding to continue to partner with us with respect to AUKUS at every single decision point, there are still those calling for us to pull out of the partnership because of the current approach of the US administration to foreign policy, which is not always what we are accustomed to. But I have two comments on this. Firstly, we need to look at our relationship with the US through the lens of ANZUS, which will shortly celebrate 75 years, on 1 September next year, and is a deep and sustainable alliance. We can't look at it through the lens of just one administration and the challenges that may present. Secondly, these challenges are a reason to pursue AUKUS, to obtain the sovereign capability we need in order to deter and defend with as much sovereign self-sufficiency as we can—Australian boats, Australian crews, Australia first.
We are shaping AUKUS to serve our national interest, including through stronger industrial safeguards, workforce development and ensuring that capability is delivered in a way that meets Australia's strategic needs. Nowhere is this clearer than in South Australia. AUKUS is the centrepiece of A Future Made in Australia, and South Australia sits at its heart. At Osborne, up to 4,000 Australian workers will design and build the submarine construction yard itself. At its peak, between 4,000 and 5,500 direct jobs will be created to build the nuclear powered submarines, right here in my state. Nationally, AUKUS will support around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years—secure, highly skilled, future-focused jobs. These are not abstract numbers. These are careers for electricians, engineers, fabricators, apprentices—young Australians who will build the most advanced fleet this country has ever operated.
And this is more than just submarines. Through AUKUS pillar 2 we are also investing in cutting-edge technologies. The first signature project developing advanced sensors and systems for uncrewed undersea vehicles demonstrates how Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States will collaborate to detect, deter and respond to threats to critical infrastructure, like undersea cables and pipelines. So AUKUS is not just a defence program; it's a generational opportunity about building capability, creating jobs and securing a future—one where our state, my state, is central to keeping Australians safe. That is what sovereign capability looks like. That is what self-sufficiency looks like. That is what a future made in Australia looks like.
Thank you to the member for Wentworth for raising this matter of public importance. We all agree that nothing is more important than having the real capacity to defend our nation. The AUKUS pact is the largest defence spending commitment since the Second World War, yet it has not received the level of scrutiny or open debate in this place that it warrants. It is estimated that the defence deal will cost Australia at least $370 billion. Under the initial AUKUS agreement, Australia was set to receive two used Virginia class nuclear powered submarines from the United States plus one new model as early as 2032. Yet, as we heard on the weekend, all three nuclear powered submarines that Australia will receive will now be second-hand.
While the government has described this decision as placing a premium on simplicity as opposed to being linked to production challenges in the US, this decision, like much of AUKUS, remains shrouded in secrecy. That secrecy has been a problem since the beginning. The 2021 announcement blindsided France and caused significant diplomatic fallout for Australia and the United States. That pattern has continued, leaving many more questions than answers. Defence experts and many in my community are asking: Can the submarines be delivered on time and on budget? Do we need nuclear submarines, or would conventional alternatives be more suitable to replace the Collins class fleet? How and where will nuclear waste be managed? And, perhaps most importantly, does this deal genuinely serve Australia's defence and strategic needs? The lack of transparency means the public may never get a clear answer.
Other countries have subjected AUKUS to scrutiny. The UK House of Commons defence committee has released its report on the AUKUS defence pact after a year-long review into the partnership. The Pentagon has also reviewed whether AUKUS aligns with the US president's America-first agenda. Australia has had no equivalent process. Instead, the government has established a new committee to monitor AUKUS's work, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, but much of its activity will be conducted in secret. Its membership is restricted to Labor and coalition MPs only, and it will only have limited ability to report publicly. This approach risks creating a small group of insiders with access to curated information who avoid public debate and scrutiny. In the absence of a government led inquiry, civil society has stepped in. An independent public inquiry supported by non-profit organisations and unions and chaired by former environment minister Peter Garrett will hold hearings and deliver a report later this year. This is good, but it should not be left to civil society to perform the scrutiny role of government.
There are also serious questions about the feasibility of the plan to arm Australia with nuclear powered submarines, particularly under the ambitious timelines outlined. The United States is—
It's secret technology, the best technology.
Can you please stop interrupting?
Keep going.
Yes, thank you.
Please.
The United States is already struggling to meet its own submarine production targets and faces a shortfall in its fleets. Critically, under US law, it cannot sell submarines to Australia if doing so undermines its own capability, yet Australia has already contributed billions to the US and UK industrial bases. This raises a deeper strategic issue. A core principle of national security is sovereignty—the ability to maintain and operate our own military capabilities. Under AUKUS, Australia is spending vast sums on assets over which it will not have full control while becoming more tightly bound to US strategic objectives. There are concerns that this could expose Australia to greater risk, including a potential conflict between major powers without any guarantee of US support.
There are also local impacts to consider, including proposals for defence industry expansion and nuclear infrastructure, particularly in places like Port Kembla. There is still no plan for nuclear waste. No site has been identified, despite a commitment from the defence minister in 2023 to outline a process for identifying waste sites within 12 months.
Australia must always take its national security seriously. In an increasingly uncertain strategic environment, it is both reasonable and necessary for governments to invest in defence capability and pursue strong international partnerships. Agreements like AUKUS reflect an effort to prepare for future challenges. (Time expired)
In my office hangs a quilt proudly crafted by Aussie Hero Quilts, and I just want to give a special shout-out to Jan-Maree and the team at Aussie Hero Quilts on 15 years of giving back to our veterans across this great country. It tells the story of my family, whose connection to military service stretches across generations. Woven through that quilt are reminders of Australians who served far from home, alongside men and women from nations that remain our closest partners today. My grandfather fought in Papua New Guinea during the Second World War, serving alongside American forces in defence of our freedom. My great-uncle fought in that same campaign but never returned home. His name is now etched into history at Lae War Cemetery. My great-uncle Doug flew missions over Europe as a tail gunner, fighting shoulder to shoulder with the British in the battle against Nazi Germany. Those stories are not unique. Across Australia, countless families carry memories of sacrifice and service. You see it in the RSLs in the cities and the humble cenotaphs in rural towns.
The relationship Australia shares with the United States and the United Kingdom was not built overnight and is not insignificant. Its foundations were laid over generations through shared sacrifice and commitment to preserving peace and stability. Today, AUKUS represents a continuation of that story, not a reflection on the past alone but a practical investment in the future that our nation wants to build. Much of the discussion surrounding AUKUS understandably focuses on Defence capability, yet limiting the conversation to the subtext of this MPI misses the broader significance of what AUKUS creates. At its core, AUKUS is helping position Australia to become a more capable, more skilled and more prosperous nation. The agreement is already driving investment into industries that will support economic growth for decades to come.
Advanced manufacturing, engineering, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence are no longer concepts reserved for research papers and university lecture theatres. They are becoming real industries that will employ Australians and create opportunities in communities across the country. Young Australians entering the workforce today will have access to career pathways that scarcely existed a generation ago. Students in STEM can see a future where their skills are developed and applied here at home. Tradespeople will play a central role in building and maintaining some of the most sophisticated industrial projects our nation has ever undertaken. Businesses large and small are positioning themselves to participate in supply chains that stretch across allied nations and connect Australian expertise to global markets.
Equally important is the contribution AUKUS makes to stability throughout our region. Across the Indo-Pacific, countries are seeking certainty at a time of growing strategic complexity, and Australia has always played a constructive role in supporting a stable and open region. Our partnerships with the United States and the United Kingdom strengthen our capacity to continue fulfilling that responsibility. Those partnerships are not only strengthening our national security but also creating enormous opportunities for Australian workers, apprentices and industries. South Australia will sit at the centre of this nation-building endeavour, with Australia's future conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines to be constructed at Osborne. The Albanese government has committed billions of dollars to transform the precinct into one of the most advanced shipbuilding hubs in the world. Construction of the new submarine construction yard and the Skills and Training Academy will support up to 4,000 jobs as the infrastructure required for this historic project takes shape. Once submarine production is under way, thousands more highly skilled workers will be needed, with between 4,000 and 5½ thousand direct shipyard jobs expected to be created.
Australian workers are already gaining the expertise needed for this task, with personnel from ASC undertaking specialised training at Pearl Harbour Naval Shipyard in the United States. Significant investment in surrounding infrastructure will ensure South Australia has the roads, services and facilities required to support this growing workforce. What we are witnessing is not simply a Defence project but a generational investment in Australian skills. Australian manufacturing and Australia's future prosperity. That is precisely what AUKUS seeks to achieve. It strengthens Australia's security.
Workers are gaining access to skills that will remain valuable for decades. Communities will benefit from investment that supports long-term economic growth. At the same time, our nation is contributing to a region that remains peaceful, stable and open. Right now we have a moment in time that is calling for a Team Australia effort. Everyone needs to get on board for the sake of the security of this country and our region. To those opposite, who brought this MPI up, maybe think a little bit harder next time.
I also thank the member for Wentworth for bringing this MPI on AUKUS. This is not a new concern for me. I have been calling for an urgent review of AUKUS and its benefits to our national interests since my first term. Hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars have been and will be sent offshore with no clear guarantee of delivery while raising taxes at home, letting domestic manufacturing collapse and cutting essential services like the NDIS in the name of financial sustainability. When the Treasurer handed down this budget, Australians were told to tighten their belts. We were told the NDIS needed to be reined in and that supports for people with disability needed to be cut back to keep the system sustainable. And yet in the very same budget this government locked us into one of the largest, most open-ended defence commitments in our history.
Consider the figures: $512.5 million for the Australian Submarine Agency this year, between $71 billion and $96 billion over the next decade, and up to $368 billion by the mid-2050s—$368 billion. And Australia does not have a single nuclear powered submarine to show for it. None. Not one. Let me put $368 billion into perspective. Spread across every person in this country, that is more than $13,000 each. For a four-person household in Fowler, that is over $50,000, close to three-quarters of what a typical household in my electorate earns in a whole year. A student finishing year 12 this year will not see the first Australian built submarine until they're well into their 30s and will still be paying for it in their 40s—if the subs arrive.
Consider what that money actually buys. Recent reports confirm that the first submarines Australia will receive under this $368 billion commitment will be second-hand: three used Virginia class boats, handed down from the United States Navy—not one of them new. The first is not expected until 2032 at the earliest, and, when they finally arrive in the 2030s, the capability can be questioned. Analysts warn that these older vessels are less capable than new ones, that the United States is keeping its best submarines for itself and that it is already struggling to build enough for its own fleet. So the people of Fowler are entitled to ask: how confident can we be that ours will arrive at all?
I ask this government directly: Where is the sustainability test for AUKUS? Why does fiscal discipline fall so heavily on a person with disability in Cabramatta and not on a $368 billion commitment with no guarantee of delivery? If this government can scrutinise disability support down to the dollar, it can scrutinise a $368 billion submarine deal.
In Fowler, families are frightened about these NDIS reforms. They include a 30 per cent cut to social and community participation supports—the funding that helps people with disability take part in daily life, stay connected and avoid isolation. In multicultural communities like mine, the impact will be even greater because participants already face language barriers, cultural barriers and the struggle to find culturally appropriate providers. I'm deeply concerned that the people pushed out first will be those who already find the system hardest to access.
This is not about saying defence does not matter; it does. But national security must serve the national interest, and that is measured not only by what we promise overseas; it is measured by what we build and sustain here at home. By the government's own figures, Australia has committed around $4.6 billion to the United States submarine industrial base and around $4.6 billion more to the United Kingdom, with a further $310 million paid just this February. That is close to A$9 billion flowing offshore, with no guarantee of a single submarine in return. Meanwhile, our manufacturers here at home are buckling under rising energy, labour, freight and insurance costs. So what does sovereign capability mean if we send billions overseas to build up the industries of other nations while failing to back the industries we need right here?
That is why scrutiny is essential. This government must explain whether AUKUS remains deliverable and how much of this money will actually build Australian capability and support Australian jobs. If AUKUS really serves our interests, it should withstand scrutiny. That is why I support the urgent need for this government to scrutinise Australia's ongoing AUKUS arrangements—to ensure they remain in Australia's best national and security interest.
It gives me great pleasure and pride to speak about AUKUS, which is a core pillar of this government's national security policy to protect our nation. When you look at AUKUS, the announcements that have been made and what's in store for the future, it is exactly the type of defence strategy that governments should be very proud of. AUKUS will shape and grow the economy for decades to come. It will increase economic complexity, with skilled jobs.
In South Australia, it is very much welcomed. It is welcomed because South Australia has a proud history of manufacturing. Right up until 2013, we were developing and producing cars, until they were ousted by the former government. So it was a welcome announcement to be told that we will make the submarines in South Australia. It will cost $2 billion in infrastructure alone for the submarine construction yard, which has started and will be completed at some point in the very near future. Four thousand people will be employed just to construct the construction yard, let alone the people that will be employed for cutting-edge, high-technology submarine building, including welders and a whole range of trades.
When you think of AUKUS, it is a massive project. It's a nation-building project. It's a project that, of course, will have its hiccups along the way. When governments undertake projects as big as AUKUS, there'll always be hiccups along the way. We're dealing with unforeseen elements. We're dealing with things that are completely out of hand. But that's not to say that this will not get completed, and that's not to say that this will not benefit the economy. Most importantly, there's the strategic defence of our nation. It will strengthen the bilateral relationships and defence relationships with the United States and the UK, ensuring that we are protecting our nation and that the security of this nation is top-notch.
When I think of AUKUS, I think of the cutting-edge technology, research and development and the creation of jobs. There will be thousands of people working in the shipbuilding industry, whether it be submarines or manufacturing industries. That will feed into submarine production. We're talking generation after generation after generation of decent paid jobs for working Australians to continue that proud history of manufacturing in South Australia that we once had. Back then, it was car manufacturing. Many said that we couldn't build assembly lines in the thirties and forties, when General Motors was being developed. They're the same arguments we're having now. Yet automobile production produced a great economy for South Australia for 70, 80 years. AUKUS and shipbuilding and submarine building in South Australia will continue to give jobs to South Australians for generations to come. It will ensure that they're not just plain jobs but cutting-edge jobs, with training, technology and a whole range of other things that go with it.
One of our biggest problems will be finding workers. There are estimates that up to 20,000 will be required for the AUKUS build itself, plus the manufacturing that will be feeding into it. That's a pretty good problem to have if you're a government, I reckon. It could be, as we've seen in past history with different governments, the other way around, where you've got thousands out of work. This is a pretty good problem to have. Those who are not supporting it or who are perhaps having a go at AUKUS should have a good think about where this is taking us as a nation in terms of our defence, security, economic capabilities and the creation of jobs, which are so important to Australia and also for the strategic partnership with the United States and the UK in terms of defending our nation.
When you look at governments, what are we here for? No. 1, to provide security to the nation, to make the Australian public feel that they are secure at a time of need, when we're under threat; and No. 2, to keep an economy going with jobs for people to put bread and butter on the table. This is exactly what AUKUS is doing. It covers two areas, plus the research and development and the cutting-edge technology that will go into the future for many years to come.
This week, Defence Minister Marles announced a significant change to the AUKUS plan. Australia will now receive three second-hand Virginia class submarines—not the two used vessels and one new and more capable unit that we had previously agreed on. The defence minister is claiming this as a win, saying that it reduces complexity. He has claimed it won't materially change the overall cost of AUKUS. He's happy that we're paying just as much for less. We're being asked to accept that the most expensive defence procurement in Australian history will give us second-hand submarines. The new Virginia class subs are more capable and they are easier to maintain. They have a 33-year lifespan. We have no idea how much service life the third vessel that Australia is getting will have left.
Meanwhile, the US is not building submarines fast enough for its own navy, let alone ours. The US Navy has admitted that it will not reach a production rate of two Virginia class boats per year until 2032. Even that rate would be insufficient for it to supply Australia. The US Congressional Research Service has openly considered scenarios in which no Virginia class submarines are ever transferred to Australian command. The US Navy's own 30-year shipbuilding plan, released weeks ago, does not account for submarines built for AUKUS. In fact, the entire document mentions AUKUS only once, in a footnote. What the government has not said and what it consistently declines to acknowledge is that there are not just practical problems with the delivery of these submarines but legal ones too.
Under the United States federal law, the President of the United States must certify before any submarine transfer that its sale will not degrade American capacity and national security interests and that the US is making sufficient investments to meet both its own military requirements and its AUKUS commitments. If that certification cannot be made, no transfer can be made. There is no mechanism to compel the US to make that transfer, and there is no fallback.
In 2025, the United States undertook a review of the AUKUS arrangement. Elbridge Colby, who led that review, had previously raised concerns that the United States lacks the capacity to spare us warships. We don't know what that review concluded.
It's reported that by June 2027 we will have spent $11 billion on AUKUS. This is a program whose delivery is far from guaranteed and whose legal preconditions for delivery rest entirely on another government. If AUKUS were the NDIS, this government would by now have announced fundamental cuts in order to 'secure its future' so that it could grow in a more sustainable way.
I support the principle of AUKUS. The partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States is vitally important for our national security. Our strategic circumstances in the Indo-Pacific require significant investment in our defence capacity. But supporting the principle of AUKUS is not the same as unconditional acceptance. The change announced on Saturday represents a meaningful reduction in the capability and longevity of Australia's submarine fleet. Last April, I called for a parliamentary review of AUKUS. I'm glad to see that former Labor minister Peter Garrett is now independently undertaking one, but it's a national embarrassment that a former Labor minister is crowdfunding for an independent inquiry into AUKUS. It feels like it's only a matter of time before we find ourselves crowdfunding for the submarines themselves!
The biggest defence procurement in our history, spanning three decades and up to, or more than, $368 billion requires transparency from this government about timelines and risk and an honest accounting of what is being delivered and what is not. This government should commit to a full parliamentary review of pillar 1 of AUKUS—its delivery timeline, its costs, its risks and its strategic rationale—such is the basic obligation of oversight that this parliament owes to the Australian public on a commitment of this scale.
Peace and stability, technology sharing arrangements—yes, I am indeed talking about AUKUS. I thank the member for Wentworth for raising this matter. Scrutiny of a program that is this significant, a program that represents the single biggest industrial project in Australia's history, is exactly what this parliament is for, so I will be direct about where this project stands and what its delivering.
Australia is operating in the most complex and contested geopolitical environment since World War II. We all remember when Russia illegally and immorally invaded Ukraine. Australians felt the impact of that war. Then we saw the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the immense suffering. Every life matters—Palestinians and Israelis—in particular civilians, including women and children. Now we have the recent events in the Middle East that have disrupted global fuel supply chains and reminded us how much Australia depends on open sea lanes and stable trade routes. Peace and stability are good for humankind and are good for nations.
In that environment, AUKUS represents a fundamental shift in Australia's Defence capability—the single biggest increase in our military capability since the establishment of the Navy more than a century ago. I also think that it needs to be stressed that AUKUS is not an alliance; it's a technology-sharing partnership. This is about building our capability, from design to building to actually operating these submarines.
The question before us today is whether this government is fundamentally being transparent about the program that's being delivered. I will address this now. This government established the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence so that parliament can be briefed and scrutinised on classified Defence matters in a secure setting. Of course, the AUKUS program is subject to Senate estimates through the scrutiny process. This combination of transparency and accountability mechanisms has been built into the program from the start.
Now let me turn to the delivery, because the most substantive answer to these questions about transparency is the clear account of where this program stands. At HMAS Stirling, south of Perth, we have seen visits from nuclear powered submarines with increasing complexity in every maintenance package. In 2024, the USS Vermont arrived at Stirling and received a significant package of maintenance work carried out by Australian workers. Earlier this year HMS Anson, a UK Astute class submarine, docked at Stirling and received significant maintenance. Australian workers are maintaining allied nuclear powered submarines in Western Australia right now. This is a capability this country did not have four years ago.
The Submarine Rotational Force-West is on track to be stood up from the end of next year. From 2027, 500 direct jobs will support the sustainment of nuclear powered submarines at Stirling. The government is investing $8 billion to expand HMAS Stirling, creating around 3,000 direct construction and infrastructure jobs for Western Australians. At Henderson, $12 billion has been committed as the first major down payment on what will be a $25 billion Defence precinct, underpinning continuous naval shipbuilding in WA for decades to come. Western Australian companies, VEEM and Camco among them, have already qualified for AUKUS nuclear powered submarine supply chains under the Defence Industry Vendor Qualification Program. The Jobs for Subs program is recruiting and upskilling over 200 new entry-level positions through ASC.
Through the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Student Pathways program, Commonwealth supported places have been allocated as follows: 320 to Curtin University, 56 places to the University of Western Australia and 50 places to Murdoch University. This will be building a pipeline of skilled West Australians into this program that will be needed. Across the country, AUKUS will create around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years. Yes, it's very exciting! In WA, at Stirling and Henderson and across the supply chain, the Defence industry is on track to provide 10,000 jobs—the biggest diversification in WA ever.
The government must provide much more information and establish that AUKUS remains firmly in Australia's national interest. AUKUS is too significant, too costly and too consequential to be exempt from the regular parliamentary scrutiny and review. Supporting a strong Defence Force and capable submarine fleet does not mean abandoning scrutiny. Major strategic investments require ongoing oversight, transparency and accountability. The recent changes to the AUKUS pathway raised legitimate questions about cost, capability, delivery risk and whether Australians are receiving what was originally promised. Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment in decades. We need credible defence capabilities, strong alliances and long-term planning.
The very announcement of AUKUS and the lack of transparency from the start have been problematic. The Morrison government announced AUKUS and two days later the Labor opposition agreed to it—no debate, no scrutiny, no questions. Since then, there has been nothing but ongoing uncertainty in the face of substantial costs. AUKUS has the two pillars. Pillar 1 is the agreement between Australia, the US and the UK to acquire conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, while pillar 2 focuses on jointly developing advanced defence technologies, including AI, cyber, quantum, undersea systems and hypersonics.
Pillar 2 has been all but abandoned. There is no detail. This week, uncertainty around pillar 1 increased, while Australia is now expected to receive three second-hand US Virginia class submarines rather than at least one new vessel. Australia is now reportedly expected to receive only second-hand Virginia class submarines from the US, rather than developing the capability pathway many Australians understood was originally being pursued. For every MP here celebrating capability or production and construction in their local area, the question is: how much is that really going to happen?
Despite $2.76 billion to date having been paid to the US, there is also no guarantee Australia will receive these submarines on the proposed timeline, if the United States' production capacity does not increase, or on the necessary timeline for our defence capabilities. The US government undertook a review of AUKUS and its capability to deliver the submarines. Neither the review findings nor how the practical terms of the AUKUS agreement have changed have been made public. If the arrangements have shifted, parliament and the Australian people deserve to know the implications for cost, delivery, sovereignty and capability building. The UK has also undertaken parliamentary scrutiny of AUKUS, and that process identified significant risks. Australia should not be less rigorous than our partners in examining a commitment of this scale.
The recent budget also included a $50 billion increase over 10 years, or $14 billion over four years to the defence AUKUS budget, with little information or transparency about the cost blowouts or increases. Australians have the right to understand, in a tight budgeting environment, how we are simultaneously hearing discussions about tightening expenditure elsewhere, including in the NDIS, other areas and social programs, but there is no accountability against these increased costs for defence. The argument is not against defence spending; it's an argument around transparency, prioritisation and evidence based decision making.
The government's narrow focus on AUKUS continues a myopic approach to national security, treating military capability as the whole answer while neglecting the broader drivers of regional instability and climate risk. Climate resilience is a national security issue, yet it is all but ignored by both sides of parliament. Extreme weather is damaging infrastructure, disrupting supply chains and increasingly diverting defence personnel from core deployments into disaster response for communities. The UK recently released its national security assessment, which highlighted the increasing likelihood of collapse of vitally important natural systems, bringing mass migration, food shortages, price rises and global disorder, thereby threatening national security and prosperity. Yet, the Albanese government has not released the ONI report.
National security requires transparency and accountability. Supporting AUKUS does not mean accepting it on blind trust, and the Australian people do not do so. You do not have a clear social licence if we do not have accountability and transparency on how much is being spent and what will be delivered. What assurance will be given to the Australian people? If the US does not meet that building capacity, how will we meet Australia's capability needs in that environment? I call on the government to provide much more transparency and accountability around how those funds are found, what they are going to and what plan B is for our defence and security.
This discussion has now concluded.
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 30 December 2026.
In question time today, it became really clear that the government doesn't know its own budget. You can't believe it, but that is where we have ended up. The government does not know its own budget, so we need to refer the budget to the House Standing Committee on Economics for reporting back to this House.
I'll just give you a few examples. We asked the Prime Minister whether the budget increased taxes by $77 billion. He didn't know! And yet it's in his budget papers. We asked the Minister for Housing whether she could define a new dwelling. She couldn't define a new dwelling. This is why this must be sent to the economics committee for a hearing—it has to be. Last week we asked the Treasurer what was going to be carved out or what wasn't going to be carved out, and he could not answer. So it must be sent to the economics committee, because we need the government to understand its own budget. If it can't understand its own budget, what hope have the Australian people got of understanding it? Of course they can't do that. So we have to make sure that this goes to the economics committee.
The minister, just—
Do you have a point? I'm sorry—
Absolutely: I'm finding all the reasons why this must go to the economics committee. We even asked the Treasurer—and the Treasurer has got enormous power, given this budget, to be, basically, able to use his own pen to decide how much of a tax cut they're going to give Australians. Two hundred and fifty dollars is what the budget papers say. But, if he wants, the Treasurer can drop that figure down to zero—zilch; nothing. So this is why we need the economics committee to look at this. They have to look at this, because, if the government can't give a simple answer to the question of whether the Treasurer can take your tax cut away from you—from $250 down to zero—then, seriously, how can we trust the government on anything?
We've seen already that we can't trust them, sadly. So we have to make sure that the economics committee can fully look at this. We haven't even started yet on how you define a new dwelling. We asked that question of the minister today. And do you think the minister had any clue on how to define a new dwelling or not? No, she didn't. And this is quite complicated. If you don't know the answer to these simple questions then you have to be able to have them properly interrogated, and that is what we are seeking to do.
It is now three weeks—three weeks—after the budget was delivered, and we still do not know the answer to these questions and many, many more. What is now absolutely foolproof is that the government and the Treasurer and the Prime Minister made this budget up on the run.
I don't think ChatGPT was involved.
No, I don't even think ChatGPT was involved. I think they just made it up on the run. We've had the government's own officials state the real reasons they've done things in this budget: they wanted more revenue. They wanted more revenue, because the government can't stop spending. So we need to be able to ask those officials—to get them in and say: 'You've said that this was all about the government wanting more revenue. What is this going to mean? And what's the impact going to be on something like housing?'—because the budget papers show quite clearly that it's going to lead to less housing.
Thirty-five thousand in 10 years.
Yes—over 10 years, 35,000 fewer houses. Thanks, member for Riverina. He's got the detail of the budget. But the trouble is that the government doesn't know any of this. So that's why we want to make sure that it can go to an inquiry. We need an inquiry which will last a length of time, because there's so much detail the government doesn't know about its own budget that we've got to make sure that we can interrogate it.
What would be wrong with sending a budget that is going to put $77 billion worth of more taxes on the Australian people to an Economics Committee inquiry? I would have thought that that makes a lot of sense, because on this side—I don't know what the government thinks—we think $77 billion is a hell of a lot of money, especially when you're asking Australians to dip into their pockets and pay that $77 billion. We're already seeing that it's having an impact across the housing market. We're already seeing that it's having an impact across small business. I'm sure that even on that side the government members have seen those memes.
There's another question that we could ask in the Economics Committee inquiry: have you seen those memes, and do you think the Prime Minister wants to take 30 per cent of your business without even asking you about it?
Resume your seat. The minister has the call.
Oh, you're not gagging again! Seriously, this is just to send it to a committee!
I move:
That order of the day No. 2, government business, be called on immediately.
The question is that order of the day No. 2 be called on immediately.
It's so good to see all the Labor members in the chamber voting to make sure I can give this speech. I know the Treasurer himself has said he has come into this chamber to vote so that I can give this speech. On budget night, Australians who ordinarily may not pay much interest in politics or be interested in the budget, because they go, 'It's just the government managing its own finances,' got an earthquake. The self-starters and small businesses of the nation found out that they were being utterly betrayed by the Albanese government on so many levels.
The government has come along and broken promises to the Australian community which they took to the last election, from their family savings taxes to their death taxes, taxes on homes and taxes on rent. It doesn't matter what they are. The government is seeking to betray the Australian community in its higher taxing agenda. We hear from the members opposite, including the 'trainwreck Treasurer', about how good these new taxes are for the Australian community. Well, if that's true, have the courage to take it to an election, because we don't need a coward's castle of people putting policy after an election. It's time you actually own the consequences of it.
We heard the member for Maribyrnong before foolishly signing herself up to the Albanese Titanic, because she thinks somehow that this is going to be working for them. Well, as I've said before, it is a bastard budget of broken promises.
Member for Goldstein, we will withdraw that comment immediately.
On what grounds?
Unparliamentary language—and you know that full well. Withdraw, please.
I'll happily withdraw. But I've said it before: 50 times over, we had a prime minister who said that they would not introduce these taxes, and we had the deceit, dishonesty and misleading of the Australian people that have come from this prime minister. And now we have so many stories that have come through the Not the Tax We Voted For website that have told the stories of Australians and how they have been betrayed by this government and this budget. They know the full consequences of what this government is seeking to achieve. They know it's about taking from them and betraying their trust. And I can assure you: every single Labor member that goes to the next election is going to be tied to this trainwreck budget by this 'trainwreck Treasurer'.
There are four sections of this budget. The first one is the betrayal on capital gains tax. The second one is the betrayal on negative gearing. The third one is on the working Australians tax offset, and the fourth one is focused on their standard deduction for work related expenses. We absolutely oppose schedules 1 and 2, and we absolutely support schedules 3 and 4. But, of course, in their tricky, meanspirited way, just as they did before the last election, they're tying the two bits of the bill together to try and justify why they should be able to get away with it.
Well, the Australian people won't buy it. Just like they now see the deceit from the government, they will see the deceit through this legislation, because you just can't take this government seriously. You can't take this 'trainwreck Treasurer' seriously. He doesn't take the truth seriously. He doesn't take inflation seriously. And he certainly doesn't take interest rates seriously. We have the Treasurer, who continues to stoke an active inflation agenda, playing a game of interest rate chicken with the Reserve Bank governor. In the face of the problems that he's created, his only answer now is to crash the economy through higher taxes. Of course, this massive tax hike which is targeting Australians is going to be one that is going to hang as a millstone around their neck, because, while businesses are struggling to get ahead and while small businesses are struggling to pay wages and keep their doors open, the reality is the government is coming along and punching down on those businesses and making it harder for them to get ahead. It's not just in the costs they're imposing through higher taxes, but it is how they are acting every step of the way to stoke inflation, which is increasing business costs.
They have an active inflation agenda which involves stoking the inflation, taxing the inflation and spending the inflation then wash, rinse, repeat. The Treasurer might think it's funny to play a game of interest rate chicken with the Reserve Bank governor, but I can assure you the Australian people do not feel so. They know how bad inflation is because they're living with it, and they're living with higher interest rates as a consequence. What we hear instead—the government can't answer any questions.
We sat through question time, and the government couldn't answer what a new home was. The government couldn't answer the question of whether they had modelled how quickly inflation was going to take away their working Australian tax offset. They couldn't answer basic questions about their budget, but what they can do is throw around talking points thinking they can continue to perpetuate the deceit they are engaging on the Australian community. My favourite one is from the Treasurer, and he screams out, 'Anyone who disagrees with me must be talking down the economy.' Sorry, Treasurer, wake up. It's called the truth. You are running down the Australian economy. The Albanese government is running down the Australian economy, and now it is seeking to crash the economy, and this is a disaster, through their higher tax agenda targeting small businesses who are the most likely to employ and give people their first job and the most likely to be able to stand up and get ahead. His only answer is to punch down on those small businesses and the self-employed through this budget.
Despite everything this government are doing, they will not break the backs of the Australian people, and they most certainly will not break our backs. I can assure you, when Australians go to the next election, they will have an absolute choice between a government that is focused on growing the economy and giving Australians a chance to get ahead, empowering them through not just their own energy and aspiration but a sense of belief about what we can achieve together, or we can perpetuate the Albanese government, and we know full well where that is going to end, where renters pay more according to the government's own budget documents, where first home owners struggle to get ahead because the government is going to build 35,000 new homes while they continue to overreach on their migration targets so we have more people looking for fewer homes.
We can have a government that goes beyond the idea of simply being dependent on government or working for government or big business bureaucracies, because, in an environment of lower taxes backing self-starters and small businesses, they can get ahead. There is hope on the blue Liberal horizon. That starts with repealing these awful taxes that the government is putting forward. Whether it's their changes to capital gains tax, negative gearing or trusts, the direct assault on the self-starters of this country will end. We will make sure that those Australians who back themselves get ahead and it isn't simply if they cosy up to the Labor Party to be able to get ahead. Second, we're going to stop the Treasurer pouring debt petrol on the inflation fire. This treasurer is addicted to spending and cannot stop borrowing from tomorrow to pay for today, because he has no vision and no plan for the Australian economy. We're going to stop the Treasurer doing this and make sure that the budget is in a position where we can make sure that doesn't contribute to inflation.
Third, we're going to introduce our tax-back guarantee, which means we'll keep tax rates in check with inflation so the Treasury, the tax office and the Treasurer thieves can't steal wages by stealth. In addition to that, we're going to increase the instant asset write-off for small business to $50,000 and make it permanent. We can have a better future. We can have an Australia where those who work hard get ahead, where hard work pays off, where people feel respected and where they are in control of their lives. We can have an Australia where Australians who work hard, live out their dream and their aspiration through every stage of their life, from getting a good education to building their own effort, investing in their own future, buying a home, having a family and retiring with security.
But there's one sure-fire way we will not get this, which is the perpetuation of the Albanese government, because we have seen in this budget that they have declared open war on the aspirations of Australians. They have declared war on anybody who is saving to get themselves ahead and build a business.
We hear these cute little arguments about carve-outs or limitations or exemptions. But the only way you get those exemptions is if you age yourself out or if you're not as successful as you'd hoped you'd be. The reality of the government is that they actually want Australians to fail. They want limitations and shortcomings rather than success. If this government were seriously interested in boosting the aspirations of Australians, it would want them to do better than the exemptions under the small-business definition of the capital gains tax. They would want them looking to a blue liberal horizon with confidence and hope—unless, of course, you're a tech billionaire. Because the teals want to give an exemption to them, they're cosying up to the government and getting it.
I know most of this speech has been critical of the budget, but I'm sure, Deputy Speaker Claydon, you would remember, as I'm sure the member for Casey and the member for Cook do, and maybe even some of the Labor members remember, when the teals wanted a truth-in-political-advertising bill. Remember that?
Yes.
That involved telling the truth before an election. Yet somehow none of them seem even remotely interested in that, when, since the election, the Prime Minister has betrayed the Australian community and broken a series of promises. It's almost like they never really cared, just like they don't really care about integrity, because we have the member for Wentworth arguing for some of her biggest donors to have exemptions from the very capital gains taxes she advocated for. This is the deceit—the whole cabal of them working together to undermine Australian aspiration and Australians getting ahead, and they've been called out.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the income tax bill. We've just heard a diatribe of a half-a-trillion worth of unfunded commitments, which disqualifies the 'blue horizon'. I wonder whether he's ever looked at the result of the last election, the one before that or any polls since then—uncosted policies delivering much bigger deficits, higher debt and higher inflation. Of course, they're voting against the tax cuts that Australians will receive after what happens on Thursday.
I'm pleased to support this real reform from a reforming Labor government. Through this legislation, the Albanese Labor government are delivering a new $250 tax cut for every worker because help with the cost of living is our No. 1 priority. Combined with our previous personal tax cuts, it means $2,800, on average, back in the pockets of Australians from 2027-28. We're helping more Australians realise their dream of homeownership and supporting investments in innovation through a significant tax reform package, the most significant one we've seen in a quarter of a century. This package is pro aspiration, it is pro jobs, it is pro worker and it is pro homeownership. It's about helping workers, first home buyers and businesses like those in my community so that more people can earn more, keep more of what they earn, get in the housing market and get ahead.
I wonder why the tories over there, the Liberal and National parties, never want working-class people to get ahead. Every single time they've got an opportunity to vote for a bill that provides support for working people, they oppose it.
Before 1985 in this country we had no general taxation on capital gains. The Hawke and Keating government introduced a CGT to ensure arrangements couldn't be made to convert income into tax-free capital gains. It was prospective. Taxation was of course linked to inflation indexation. Contrary to what those opposite say, the biggest taxing government in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia was the Howard coalition government, and the biggest spending government was the Morrison coalition government. It goes against the narrative of those opposite—the reality of what happened.
Since the Howard government introduced the 50 per cent CGT discount for people who hold their assets for more than 12 months, it has been increasingly difficult for people to get into the housing market—if you're a young Australian trying to buy your first home. We've had 27 years of evidence and experience to know the Howard government got it wrong. John Howard and Peter Costello made a mistake in distorting investment and distorting the economy. We know that hundreds of thousands of working Australians don't know what it's like to live in their own home, because the conservative parties in this country never cease to kick down. They always want to help those on the up who are rich and powerful and wealthy, and they never want to support working and middle Australians. They do not believe that working-class people, fundamentally, should aspire to the dream of homeownership. Our government's listened, and we're acting on it. We cannot wait any longer. We have to build on what we've done in the past four years.
I would have more respect for those opposite if they had ever voted for one housing bill in our Homes for Australia plan— $47 billion to increase the supply of housing. But those opposite, the Liberal and National parties, couldn't be bothered to have a housing minister for most of their tenure—nearly 10 years on the treasury bench. On that front, we know supply is the main game. Those opposite fundamentally do not believe the Commonwealth government has a role in housing. They fundamentally do not believe it. If they had believed it, in that period of nearly 10 years they would have done something about it. Only hundreds of homes were built by them in those nearly 10 years—hundreds, not hundreds of thousands like we're supporting currently.
We know supply is the main game, as I say, but taxation is critical as well in terms of intergenerational equity, investment reorientation and equity between the efforts of labour and the efforts of capital and how they're taxed. Budget Paper No. 1, at page 142, makes it pretty clear, and I would encourage those opposite to have a bit of a look at the budget papers, not just look at the talking points. The budget papers make it very clear that people on average real incomes of about $800,000 per year during their peak earning years 'benefited from tax concessions worth more than $700,000 over their working life from a combination of the capital gains tax discount, negative gearing and discretionary trusts'. Budget Paper No. 1 says:
In many cases, these concessions mean that higher earning Australians can pay less tax than those with lower means, substantially undermining the progressivity of the tax system.
The progressive nature of our tax system is jeopardised by this. It goes on:
Without reform, the forgone revenue will continue to grow as the population ages, increasing pressure on the Budget to fund services Australians rely on and limiting the Government's ability to sustainably return bracket creep to Australian workers.
I'd encourage those opposite to read that budget paper, because it's crystal clear, then, that we need to do something about this.
This legislation is going to help 75,000 Australians, mainly young, realise the dream of homeownership over the next decade. There are new rounds of tax cuts for 13 million Australians, and we are making tax time simpler. And we are raising $40 billion over 10 years. This legislation is about cutting personal income taxes again and again and making it easier to buy a home, as well as better aligning the tax treatment of income from work with income from assets.
These bills deliver a number of things. One of these is a new working Australians tax offset, a WATO, to provide a permanent annual tax offset of up to $250 to every working Australian. The WATO will automatically reduce workers' tax liabilities on their income earned from working in the 2027-28 income year. The bills will introduce a $1,000 instant tax deduction from 2026-27 to allow workers to deduct up to $1,000 off their income tax without the frustration of receipt keeping, which I know really annoys people as they work. The bills replace the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with a new discount based on inflation for gains accrued from 1 July 2027. Investors in new builds will have a choice between the 50 per cent discount and the new arrangements. The bills will introduce a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent on real capital gains accrued from 1 July 2027. Recipients of certain income support, such as age pensions and JobSeeker, will be exempt from the minimum tax if those payments are received in the year in which the capital gains are realised. Those opposite never mention that. Finally, this legislation will limit negative gearing for residential properties to new builds from the 2027-28 income year. Arrangements will remain unchanged for all existing investments made before 7.30 pm on 12 May 2026.
The changes are prospective. Capital gains on existing investments that accrue prior to 1 July 2027 will retain access to the 50 per cent discount while capital gains which accrue from that date—from 1 July 2027—will be subject to the new inflation based discount and the minimum tax. This will ensure everyone pays their fair share of tax. Capital gains tax is paid on the same rate of taxation as an individual pays in the year of its realisation.
If you were to listen to those opposite, you'd think that everyone's paying the 47c in the dollar. It's completely untrue. Most people will pay 30c in the dollar in tax. That's the reality, and that's why the 30c in the dollar is mentioned again and again in relation to what we're doing in this budget and these bills. The new revenue raised will return to workers and businesses in the near term and, together with substantial expenditure savings, will improve the budget's sustainability over the medium term.
Despite what those opposite say, the budget bottom line is better by $45 billion over the forward estimates prior to MYEFO, and the deficit in 2026-27 is actually $7.8 billion less than we inherited when we came to power in May 2022. So, despite what they say—I read the commentary before—the reality in the budget papers actually shows that we are better off, and the government's saving money through what it's doing. The WATO and instant tax deduction build on already legislated tax cuts.
On Thursday, those opposite will have an opportunity to vote to give people tax cuts. Last term, they voted against tax cuts. They went to an election saying they were going to reverse them. Now, they say they're going to reverse them if they win next time. That blue horizon seems to be a long way off. For the party that say they're all in favour of tax cuts, their actions in this House—in this place—and in the Senate don't indicate they're actually in favour of tax cuts.
The combined benefit for someone in my electorate as a result of what we're doing is $2,816, and 80,000 taxpayers in my electorate of Blair will benefit from this cost-of-living tax relief. This is the first step in a significant transformation of the tax system, and it really improves it. We know from Treasury modelling that most young people, around 90 per cent, will benefit from the combined effect of these tax reforms before impacts on the housing market are taken into account. This shows that, had the changes been made decades before, those under 30 years of age would be much better off financially. We're going to really support younger people in particular and people getting into their first homes.
What's more, the modelling indicates that people with significant share investments won't pay substantially more tax and will be able to make healthy post-tax profits. That's what the modelling shows. In terms of the broader impacts, OECD research suggests there's no clear evidence these reforms will reduce investment and productivity in the economy. The prophets of doom over there seem very keen on saying that somehow capital gains tax will increase massively. According to Treasury analysis, a modest increase in capital gains tax will be 19.3 per cent to 21.4 per cent over 10 years.
This is good news, and it means that the market—I think—will start to moderate. From what I've seen of the auctions on the weekend and the news we're seeing, more first home buyers are in the market. That evidence on the weekend is very encouraging. Those prophets of doom opposite really are saying that our tax reforms will crash the housing market, but that's not the evidence so far, and I doubt that's what will happen.
We've maintained, in our budget papers and our commitment, the small-business CGT concessions. Small businesses with an aggregate turnover between $2 million and/or net assets less than $6 million will still be eligible for substantial discounts on capital gains tax, notwithstanding the introduction of a minimum 30 per cent rate on real gains. The main residence is still CGT exempt. The existing 60 per cent CGT discount for eligible affordable housing is still there.
Some of the clearance rates I referred to before show that tax changes are not the only factors that people think about when considering participating in auctions. Broader economic conditions are also at play. Frankly, we're making it easier—in this bill and the accompanying bill—for first home buyers in my community to get a crack at those auctions. That's a good thing, and that's what reform is all about.
In terms of the sequencing of reforms, these bills are the first tranche of legislation to implement the government's tax reform. Legislating significant reforms in tranches is a standard approach, and past reforms such as CGT, GST and other major changes have similarly been implemented in tranches. We seem to have endless numbers of tax law amendment bills, or TLABs, in this place. Tax law reform seems to be an endless thing that occupies the Treasury, this House and the Senate. The government is consulting with stakeholders in the areas of trusts—their nature and operation—and the treatment of capital gains tax for small and start-up businesses. Where appropriate, those details will be provided, following consultation, in legislation.
These changes build on our existing home reform to help level the playing field for homeowners. They've come about, very much, because of the Treasurer's national reform roundtable in August last year. There was a strong consensus on the need for intergenerational equity, especially in the tax system. I held my own Blair Economic Reform Roundtable with representatives from local businesses, unions, government agencies, community groups and experts. Housing and property tax reforms, along with faster environmental approvals for housing projects, were some of the big takeaways from that discussion. I know this is important.
I want to say this as I finish. I got an email from someone which, I think, sums it up very well. Howard from Ipswich said:
Thank you for the CGT, negative nearing and trusts changes in this year's budget. My wife and I bought our first home in—
Ipswich—
… last year, after years and years of watching the housing crisis worsen and knowing that our younger siblings and friends are being progressively locked out of home ownership. This budget has earnt so much goodwill from us. Every year previously that the housing crisis worsened, every year that housing values grew faster than our savings did, we became more jaded and more angry towards … major parties. This budget is the first sign for us in a long, long time that the government actually cares about fixing the problem. Please don't sell us out …
Howard, we will not sell you out. We will continue to support you and others who want to get into first homeownership.
There's a lot to talk about in this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, and the related bill. I'll go through why and how this bill is actually not going to help young people get into housing, the failures in the bill and also the plans that the coalition are putting forward.
But let's be very clear to start with. This legislation is built on broken promises. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and every member opposite promised their communities repeatedly that they would not change capital gains tax and they would not change negative gearing. They've all broken faith with their communities. It means that, going forward, it doesn't matter what they say. It's irrelevant, because no-one can trust any word that comes out of the mouth of any government minister or any backbencher. And that's the reality that they have to live with. It's interesting that they've decided, at a time where there is distrust in the political system, that the best way to earn trust is to break trust. But that, again, is a decision that they will all have to live with because the reality is these changes aren't actually about making housing easier. They are not about intergenerational equity or fairness. As I said, they will actually make the situation worse for young people.
The Treasury secretary, Jenny Wilkinson, let the cat out of the bag by accident, I assume, last week when she said, 'Revenue needs to be raised from somewhere.' And that is the reality of this broken promise by this government. It's about raising more revenue for their spending program. This government is taking $77 billion in increased revenue—that's taxes. That's more taxes on the Australian people—on mums and dads, on single parents, on families, on small-business owners, on community members doing their best, on 19- and 20-year-olds trying to get ahead. More taxes are coming for you under this government.
But, as a coalition, we want you to keep more of your money when you work hard and you get a pay increase or you work overtime. As you get paid more, you have to pay more tax through bracket creep. But the coalition has committed to indexing the tax rate to make sure that bracket creep does not happen. So every time you get a pay rise you will automatically get a tax cut.
There have been lots of questions and lots of talk about tests this week. Well, there's a test coming for those opposite, because an amendment to this legislation will put that tax-back guarantee to the vote this week, and every member opposite will have a choice. They talk about supporting workers. Well, if you want to support workers, you sustainably and systematically support them by indexing the tax brackets. Will they vote for lower taxes, or will they vote for higher taxes? We're about to find out from this government. That will make tangible differences, every time you get a pay rise—not waiting 12 months, begging the Treasurer, 'Please, Sir, I want some more; please give me a tax cut.' You'll get it no matter what. And it will force governments to be honest. It will force governments to either spend responsibly or, if they want to increase taxes, go to the Australian people and explain to them why they are increasing their taxes. No more smoke and mirrors from this government.
In addition, we'll have a future generations fund, which will make sure that, again, governments are held accountable and are honest. The trick this Treasurer likes to play when it comes to revenue is to set a price for commodities—and yes, rightly, it should be conservative—and then, when the price comes in higher and they collect more revenue, this Treasurer spends it all on his vanity projects, not in the best interests of the Australian people.
The coalition has said that, with our future generations fund, if there is an increase in the tax take because of commodity prices, 80 per cent, as a minimum, will be locked away to pay off debt to support the future generations of this country and to invest in nation-building infrastructure that will actually drive productivity and economic growth in this country. And of that investment in infrastructure, 25 per cent will go to the regions, because they represent 25 per cent of our country. They deserve their fair share. They also deliver so many benefits. They feed our country. They are a huge exporter in this country. So it's right that regional Australians get looked after.
That also will instil discipline in governments. They will not be able to just spend those revenue upgrades that they had nothing to do with. This Treasurer's books have looked better only because of bracket creep and commodity prices that he's had nothing to do with. And he's wasted it all. This will put fiscal discipline back into the budget.
But we will also make sure that we tie migration to housing, because housing is about supply and demand. The worst part about this legislation—and the member for Blair, who has now left the chamber, talked about the budget papers—is that the budget papers confirm that these tax changes will deliver 35,000 fewer houses for the Australian people. The government's own papers confirm that their changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will deliver fewer houses for the Australian people. Yet we have the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, the housing minister and the member for Blair saying—and those following will say the same thing—that it's all about supply. Well, these changes will make it worse.
We saw this week the RBA confirm, through a paper found through FOI that the government wanted hidden, that migration is a key part of housing prices. It also showed that in the first four years of this government they have failed the Australian people when it comes to housing. It's what we already know. It's what every Australian already knows. The question for the Minister for Housing is, what's next? The minister was shuffled out of Home Affairs because the minister failed, and is now in housing but clearly failed. So let's see where the minister is shuffled to next.
We also know that backing small business is so crucial, because small business is the engine room of the economy. Small business creates jobs. It helps families. It helps communities. I spend a lot of time at sporting clubs in my community. There are a lot of sponsorship signs on the sides of those grounds. They're small businesses, family businesses, in my community—not big businesses. That's why we will have the instant asset write-off increased to $50,000 and put in permanently so business has that certainty to invest, driving productivity and economic growth.
But when it comes to these capital gains taxes, it will cruel small businesses that want to get ahead, particularly start-ups. For start-ups, one of their ideas is that they want to sell. They want to get bought out. They are looking to increase significantly, and these tax changes will decimate founders and tech startups and small businesses. But it's not just the owners that will pay the price. Those young people that are working at a large corporate organisation or who straight out of university that don't want to start a business but want to work in a small business or a startup or take stock options—it's something I did when I left Mars and a corporate career to go to a tech startup.
Stock options mean you're taking generally less salary, but you're taking a part of that business, hoping that that business will continue to grow and be successful. But, under these changes, young people will be punished for joining startups and taking stock options. It's going to make it harder for founders to recruit talent. It already has made it harder, because founders are talking about young people rescinding offers and saying, 'No, I can't come and join you, because of the uncertainty of these capital gains tax changes.' That is impacting small businesses and the tech sector today. But there are also young people that took the risk five or six years ago. They started at a tech startup. They've been there for four or five years. They've built options. They are literally on the verge of listing and going public, and their hard work is about to pay off so they can get a deposit for their house. These changes have undermined all that hard work, because suddenly the tax has been changed for them.
We also know that we need to continue to support people. The process of how we do these complicated tax changes is important. This government are rushing this through, and they are going to try and play a political game here this week. The backbench are going to wave it through, because they're not allowed to have their own opinion. Otherwise, they get kicked out, like Senator Payman. But it's the Australian people and it's the community that really pay the price. I want to quote from John Kehoe, the economics editor at the AFR and a former Treasury official, about this process and about this prime minister. He said:
Costello and Keating were interested in the principles of good tax policy.
Chalmers and Anthony Albanese don't seem to care. It appears to be all about politics. They don't have the political skills, technical understanding or policy interest to explain complicated tax policies to voters like Costello and Keating did.
They are approaching the task like the student politicians they once were.
That sums up very well from former Treasury official John Kehoe, the economics editor—we also saw, last week in the Australian, that government backbenchers were confirming that they didn't understand the changes that were happening.
They themselves do not understand the tax changes that are happening. They're taking the word of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Good luck with that. What chance do business owners have? What chance do small businesses have to understand these changes, if government backbenchers are going to vote for them sight unseen, unknown? In their own words, they don't understand it. That's probably why they don't understand that it's going to make it worse—35,000 fewer houses will be built because of the changes to negative gearing and capital gains. As I said, these are the Treasury's own words. They're actually going to make this situation worse.
As a coalition, we know that supply is a key part of the housing challenge, and that's why we're investing and committing $5 billion to build that critical infrastructure that will get more houses into the system. It will get more houses built. It will actually make it easier for young people to get into a house. We have a lot of spin from this government. One of the lines they like to use is that they're consulting. We've had Premier Minns and Premier Cook, both Labor premiers, say that this budget needs to change and is wrong. The member for Parramatta, the member for Bennelong and the member for Chifley have all spoken out against these changes. They've forced the Prime Minister to admit that he's going to consult. However, we know that this is going to be a sham consultation, because the Treasurer himself confirmed it in his own speech where he literally contradicted himself when he gave his speech introducing the bill.
Let me explain to those business owners and small business owners that are hoping this government might listen—they're not listening. I'm going to quote the Treasurer:
Returning to indexation across all asset classes ensures investments are treated in a neutral way and that we don't create a new distortion.
There it is. The Treasurer confirmed that he does not want to make any changes. He does not want to create a new distortion. But look at the hide of this person! In the same speech, he contradicted himself. He said:
As outlined in the budget papers, the government is consulting with stakeholders on the treatment of capital gains of small and startup businesses …
Treasurer, you can't have it both ways. Either you're either having no distortions or you're consulting. Again, this treasurer either does not understand his own policy, his own economic plans, or is misleading the Australian people and small businesses and startups in this country. But we see it again in the fine print. In the same speech by this treasurer, he said:
Where appropriate, these details will be finalised in subsequent legislation following consultation.
'Where appropriate'—there's a fair chance that, after they rush this through, the Treasurer is not going to think any changes are appropriate and he's been misleading the business community, startups and his own backbench.
But, even then, can we really trust this treasurer? Can we trust this prime minister, a prime minister that said, 'My word is my bond'? He said that he wouldn't break faith with the Australian people. He has continued again and again, time after time, to break faith with the Australian people. The hubris, the arrogance and the disrespect to the Australian people are staggering. It will stain his legacy as a prime minister. It will stain the legacy of all those opposite that blatantly misled their communities at the last election and have blatantly walked into their caucus and sat quietly and followed orders from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. They've betrayed themselves. They've betrayed their communities. They've betrayed the Australian people. And, just like Icarus, when hubris catches you, you pay the price.
Budgets are ultimately about choices. They are choices about what we value, what we reward and what kind of economy we want to leave behind. This bill makes a clear choice. It backs workers. It backs first home buyers. It backs productive investment. It backs a tax system that is fairer, simpler and better aligned with the country Australia needs to be. I rise to support Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the related bill. This is a significant tax reform, but its purpose is practical. It cuts taxes for working Australians. It makes tax time simpler. It supports more Australians into homeownership. It begins to remove distortions in the tax system that have, over time, worked against fairness and productivity.
I speak in this debate as the member for Moore. Moore is one of the best places in Australia to raise a family. From Ocean Reef to Iluka, down through Mullaloo, Kallaroo, Hillarys, Sorrento and Duncraig and across to Joondalup, Woodvale, Padbury, Heathridge, Kingsley and Currambine, people work hard to build decent lives. They do not go looking for special treatment. They are looking for a fair go. They want to work, save, invest, raise their children, start businesses, retire with dignity and leave something behind for the people they love. That is aspiration, but aspiration needs a fair starting point. For too many people in my electorate, particularly younger working people and families trying to buy their first home, that starting point has moved further and further away. A young couple in Moore, both working full time, can look at the suburb they grew up in and realise they are not simply being asked to climb the property ladder. They are being asked to reach for a first rung that keeps moving. That is not a failure of effort. It is a system out of balance.
Before entering this place, I was a qualified electrician, and I worked on building sites across Perth and in the resources sector in the Pilbara and the Goldfields. I know what it means to buy tools, keep receipts, claim deductions and hope there is still something left after the bills are paid. I later worked as an industrial lawyer representing firefighters and electricians who were not asking for favours; they were asking for decent wages, secure jobs and a system that didn't quietly shift more and more of the burden onto people who work for a living.
I also come from a small business family. My parents ran pubs and run a small painting contractor business. So when small-businesses owners in Moore write to me about tax reform, I do not see a line in a spreadsheet; I see payroll, risk, family pressure, debt, long hours and the kind of unpaid work that rarely makes it into the economic commentary.
Since the budget, my office has heard from many constituents. I've heard from young people trying to save for a deposit. I've heard from parents worried their children will never be able to buy near the community where they grew up. I've heard from small-business owners concerned about capital gains tax, trusts, succession planning and the sale of businesses they have spent decades building. I've heard from retirees who are anxious because some of the claims being circulated online have been designed to frighten rather than inform.
Those concerns deserve to be heard properly. But hearing concerns does not mean defending every part of the status quo, because the status quo is not neutral. It is a set of policy choices. It is a set of tax rules. And, over time, those rules have increasingly rewarded passive asset ownership over work and investment in existing housing over investment in new supply. That is the problem that this bill begins to address.
This legislation contains four central measures. First, it introduces the working Australians tax offset. Second, it delivers a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses. Third, it reforms capital gains tax by returning to cost based indexation, with minimum tax on capital gains accruing after 1 July 2027. Fourth, it limits negative gearing for future residential property investment into new builds. These measures fit together. They cut taxes for workers. They make tax returns easier. They support homeownership. They direct investment toward new housing supply. And they begin to make the tax system more even handed between income earned from work and income earned from assets.
The working Australians tax offset is a tax cut for Australians who earn income from work. That matters for most Australians, for whom income does not come from complex structures or passive capital gains. It comes from shifts, rosters, apprenticeships, small businesses, classrooms, hospitals, workshops, building sites and offices. In Moore, it comes from nurses at the Joondalup health campuses, the teachers in our local schools, the tradies on site before sunrise, the retail and hospitality workers, the police officers, the aged-care workers, the small-business employees and the parents working hard to keep their household moving. This measure recognises that work should be rewarded. It is permanent tax relief for working Australians. It helps people keep more of what they earn. And it builds on the tax cuts this government has already delivered.
This bill also introduces a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses. That is a practical reform. Anyone who has ever lodged a tax return after buying tools, uniforms, safety gear, stationery, training materials or other work related items knows how quickly tax time becomes more complicated than it needs to be. For many workers, the question is not whether they have work related expenses; they do. The question is whether the paperwork, receipts and recordkeeping are worth the return. This measure makes the system simpler.
Workers with more than $1,000 in genuine work related expenses can still claim more. Charitable donations, union and professional association fees and other deductions can still be claimed on top. This is not taking anything away from workers with higher genuine deductions. It is saying that millions of Australians should not need to maintain a small forensic archive in the glove box just to lodge a tax return. That is sensible reform. It saves time, it lowers compliance costs, and it puts money back into workers pockets.
One of the most contested parts of this bill is the housing tax reform, and I want to deal with it directly. Supply remains essential. We need more homes, we need more affordable homes, and we need more diverse housing near transport, schools, shops, services and jobs. In Moore, we need housing options for young families, key workers, older Australians looking to downsize and people who want to stay connected to the community they know.
But supply cannot be the only answer, when the tax system continues to help investors to compete against first home buyers for homes that already exist. Negative gearing will continue to support investment in new homes, because supply matters. But we should direct that support to homes that add to supply, not to investors competing with the first home buyers for those existing houses. That is the principle. Existing investment decisions are protected. If someone already owns an investment property, or made an investment decision under the existing rules, they can continue under those rules. Nobody is having the rug pulled from under them. What changes is the direction of the incentive. Future support through negative gearing will be directed to new builds. That is fairer and a more productive use of the tax system. If the Commonwealth is going to support housing investment through tax settings, then that support should help create new homes.
On the capital gains tax, the government is returning to a fairer principle: tax real gains, not inflation. The current 50 per cent discount is blunt. It does not accurately measure inflation, and it can overcompensate some investors and undercompensate others. It also creates distortions in investment decisions. Cost base indexation is more coherent. It recognises that not every increase in the value of an asset is a real increase in wealth. If part of the gain is simply inflation, the tax system should recognise that. Under this reform, investors are taxed on real gains, not merely inflationary gains. That is not an attack on investment; it is a better way to tax investment.
Some people will pay more under the new arrangements; some may pay less. It will depend on the asset, the holding period, inflation and return. That is how proper tax design works. It does not treat every nominal gain as though it is the same. It looks more closely at the real economic position.
The capital gains changes apply across asset classes, because the government is not trying to create new distortion while fixing an old one. If we change the rules for one asset but not the other, capital would simply move towards the next tax advantage. That would not be reform; that would be administrative whack-a-mole. And the tax system already has enough moving parts. The objective is to make investment decisions more neutral. Investment should flow to where it earns the best real return, not to where the tax preference is the greatest.
I also want to address the concerns raised by small-business owners in Moore. The existing small-business capital gains tax concessions remain. That matters. Eligible small businesses can continue to access concessions that may reduce or eliminate capital gains tax when a business is sold. The local family business, the contractor who has built something from scratch, the small employer with staff to pay, the tradie who has spent decades building goodwill, the business owner who has put their house on the line to keep people employed—those people deserve certainty and respect. They should not be casually dragged into a scare campaign that pretends every small business will be hit the same way. That is not accurate. There will be, also, further consultation on more complex cases, including firms with low or zero cost bases, start-ups and small businesses. I welcome that.
Tax law is complex. Anyone who says otherwise has either never read it or has been unusually brave in public. Major reforms are often legislated in stages. That allows the core policy settings to be established, while the more technical issues are worked through properly. That is not a flaw; that is responsible lawmaking.
I also want to address the misinformation directly. This bill is not a tax on inheritance. It is not a tax on the family home. It is not the end of aspiration. It does not mean every Australian will pay more capital gains tax. It does not abolish investment. It does not punish work, enterprise or small business. It is a reform that says that the tax system should work in the interests of more Australians. It says that workers should keep more of what they earn. It says that first home buyers should have a fairer chance. It says that investment should be directed toward real economic value, including new housing supply. And it says that we should not keep leaving the hard problems for someone else to fix later.
Some constituents have raised another issue with me. They've said that these reforms were not all put to the electorate in this form. That concern should not be dismissed. Trust matters in public life. When people feel blindsided, we should listen. But government also has a responsibility to govern. Housing affordability has become one of the defining economic challenges of our time. Tax settings that may have seemed sustainable in one era can become unfair and distortionary in another. The responsible course is not to pretend the problem is smaller than it is. The responsible course of action is to act, explain, consult and be accountable for the decision. That is what I'm doing as the member for Moore. I'm not pretending every person in my electorate agrees with this bill. They do not. I'm not pretending that every concern is unreasonable. It is not. But I am saying the government's position is defensible, necessary and directed at a very real problem.
We cannot keep telling young Australians that homeownership is central to the Australian dream, while refusing to examine tax settings that make it harder for them to compete; we cannot keep saying we value work, while allowing the tax system to increasingly favour asset income over labour income; and we cannot keep saying we support housing supply, while providing the same tax advantage to the purchase of existing homes as to the construction of new ones.
This bill cuts taxes for workers; it simplifies tax time; it protects existing investment decisions; it directs negative gearing toward new housing supply; it taxes real capital gains, not inflation; it maintains existing small-business capital gains concessions; and it provides a framework for further consultation on complex issues. That is responsible reform.
There is always a reason to avoid tax reform. There is always a reason to wait. There is always another report, another scare campaign, another vested interest and another person insisting that the system is broken but their particular part of it must never be touched. But the workers carrying the tax burden have waited long enough. The first home buyers competing against tax preferred investment have waited long enough. The young families in Moore, looking at house prices and wondering whether the system still has a place for them, have waited long enough.
This bill will not solve every problem in the housing market or the tax system. No single bill could. But it makes a clear and necessary choice. It backs workers. It backs first home buyers. It backs new housing supply. It backs productive investment. It backs a fairer and simpler tax system. That is a fair choice, that is a Labor choice, and I commend the bill to the House.
This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, goes to the heart of what kind of country Australia wants to be. It also goes to the heart of who these two political parties are. From the Labor Party, what we have heard is that this is a bill to allow workers to keep more of what they earn. Nothing could be further from the truth. The next generation will be taxed far more than my generation ever has been. Every year, there is a tax increase under this Labor government through bracket creep tax. Every single year, inflation takes an increasing amount of taxes from Australian workers. They get poorer every single year, by design—through a built-in tax hike. Under the coalition, by abolishing Labor's bracket creep tax, we will give every taxpayer a tax cut every year for the rest of their lives.
In the Labor Party they believe in taxing and taking more of what you earn and redistributing it. Fundamentally, their party believe that that money is better in the government's pocket and not yours, and they know where to put it better than you do. And they're looking for increasing amounts. How much? There has been $77 billion of extra taxpayer revenue taken from households across Australia—ripped out of your bank accounts, ripped off your kitchen tables, ripped out of your small businesses and thrown here in Canberra, for the people in this parliament to decide where that money goes, not where you think it should go.
At the heart of the Liberal Party, we believe not only is that $77 billion more; we believe in putting another $22½ billion more in your pocket through giving you a tax cut every year for the rest of your life, because fundamentally we believe that that money is better decided and used by families, by working individuals and by businesses because you have earnt it. The government is not doing a good enough job with what it's already taking to warrant being given more.
Now, what's almost even worse is that no-one voted for these new taxes. Not only did they not vote for them; the Prime Minister himself promised on more than 50 separate occasions, actually looking at reporters with disdain and distaste when asked if he would touch CGT or negative gearing—condescendingly looking at reporters through the election campaign—saying, 'I could not be any clearer.' This is not just a white untruth; this is a bald-faced untruth.
Australians made their decisions in good faith. Families planned retirements in good faith. Young families planned saving for a deposit, buying a house and investing in ETFs in good faith. Small-business owners built their businesses in good faith. Property owners provided rentals in good faith. Then, after the election, the Prime Minister has pulled the rug out from under the feet of Australians and their businesses while breaking a promise he made no fewer than 50 times. If this was such a good idea, why was the Prime Minister not honest about it twelve months ago, on one of those 50 occasions? Why not even give us a hint that there may have been doubt there? I suppose he may have been worried about an election. Well, that's weak, and it's not truthful.
The Prime Minister might try and dress this up as fairness, but Australians are starting to understand and see it for what it really is: more tax on incomes, more tax on the next generation than there was on the last, more tax on housing, more tax on savings and more tax on investments. It's more tax on people who worked, saved and sacrificed and more tax on the very people who did exactly what governments told them to do: take responsibility, work hard, provide for themselves and their families and then not be a burden on others. At the very heart of this is an untruth said 50 times. I'm not sure how the Prime Minister can have the gall now to look the Australian public in the eyes knowing the heart of that untruth.
It's almost artistry by which he does it. And I admire great artists. Picasso was a great painter. Henry Moore was a great sculptor. But Anthony Albanese is a different kind of artist, if you know what I mean. He's an artist of untruths. Picasso had his blue period, his rose period and his Cubist period; Henry returned again and again to his reclining figures through his periods. Anthony Albanese had some interesting periods of his own. There was the early Sydney Uni period—the young artist flirting with Marxist ideas at Sydney Uni, trying to paint Gough Whitlam as anything other than an economic vandal. Then came his opposition period: broad brushstrokes, soft colours, very little detail and a fair amount of finger painting. He promised that mortgages would come down, power bills would be lower by $275 and life would be easier. Australians were invited to admire the picture long before they were asked to look at the fine print in the paint.
Then came his government period. Across this period the colours became a lot darker, the lines harsher and the artistry a little less truthful. Australians started paying more and getting less. It's more at the supermarket, more on your power bills, $32,000 more in mortgages and now up to $80 billion more in tax. This was when the Prime Minister created what he thought would be his great masterpiece and what he would be celebrated for: the CGT backflip and the broken promise on bracket creep. He thought Australia would stand back, clap and admire his pieces. He thought they'd applaud his CGT hike. But art, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, and the Australian public can spot a fake. They can spot a fake in this Prime Minister and his 50 broken promises. They can spot a fake masterpiece. The Prime Minister is out there selling it, carpet bagging from electorate to electorate to electorate. Where the Prime Minister sees a masterpiece with this CGT backflip, Australians see it for what it really is: vomit on a page. It's not art. It's not reform. It's dishonest economic vandalism.
I want to read a letter from a constituent in my electorate. They asked to remain anonymous when we reached out to them, and I will respect that. But their words deserve to be heard in this parliament because behind this bill are real Australians who have real anxiety and are in real distress. They wrote:
We are writing to you in a state of hopelessness and extreme distress. It's a feeling where you feel so trapped and overwhelmed because your future has been turned upside down.
My husband and I are "baby boomers". We are part of the group that is now hated, vilified and considered the cause of all of Australia's problems.
We didn't have superannuation until it became law on 1st July 1992. We were encouraged by our parents to work hard, be frugal with our lifestyle, save wages and buy property in order to secure your retirement. We followed that advice and worked six days a week. Sunday was for church, grocery shopping, housework and gardening. We didn't travel overseas, we rarely went out for dinner or had takeaway except on special occasions, we don't do social media or streaming, we don't have gym memberships. Our two cars today are still 1990 models.
When we got married we couldn't afford to buy a house in Sydney so we lived with my parents and saved our money. We ended up buying a block of land in Queensland and thought we would build a home there when we could afford it. As I said previously we worked hard and saved our money and ended up being able to afford a deposit on a house in Sydney and we eventually paid off our block of land. Around 15 years ago we bought a one bedroom unit in Sydney and eventually and paid that off.
We recently retired and were so proud of ourselves and happy that our parents would also be proud of us as we felt confident that we would be secure in our "senior" phase of life. Our plan was to sell our land so we could travel, buy a newer car (still second hand of course), help our families and ensure that we could afford to be self-sufficient and look after ourselves in our old age.
This dream and feeling of security came to a bitter end when the budget was released. We have been trying to sell our land for sometime now but due to escalating building costs, labour shortages etc, it's not selling anytime soon. We have never received any income on this land. We are now in a situation where we must sell by the end of June 2027 June otherwise we may as well give it away.
Why does this government keep lying and changing the goal posts and not be held accountable for its despicable decisions? They are ruining people's lives. This government is causing a cataclysmic divide between races, younger and older Australians, rich and poor, workers and retirees, overseas investors and Australian investors, "mum & dad" investors with large portfolios. We used to be a unified country.
… Who Is Championing Retirees? There is very much an ageist agenda occurring. Retirees are being targeted as well as the young….There seems to be so much emphasis on negative gearing but what about capital gains tax changes and the 30% minimum tax on the net capital gain? These are affecting cash-poor retirees, retirees in general and people still working who may be close to retirement. Does anyone in politics or the media champion us?
In addition to capital gains tax changes, the government's ageist agenda has also included:
1.A reduction in the higher rebate for seniors which has been justified on intergenerational equity grounds. How ridiculous! My husband and I paid more for private health insurance all our adult life, knowing that we were funding our parents, grandparents and older Australians and one day it would be our turn. Will "baby boomers" be blamed when the public hospital system implodes because we can no longer afford to pay for private health insurance? Does anyone in politics or the media champion us?
2.Optional Hotel and Enhanced Living Fees (HELF), charged by Australian aged care providers became subject to 10% GST on November 1, 2025. This was done very quietly by the government. Shame on you. I don't know how Labour ministers sleep at night. Does anyone in politics or the media champion us?
I do not want our names or emails identified, we want to remain anonymous. We do not want to be further vilified or considered selfish or the cause of all of Australia's problems. We just want to live out the rest of our life as we envisioned, not a burden on anyone else and self-sufficient. More importantly, we made many sacrifices in our life to now be forced to give our hard earned money away to the government to supposedly help young people. Why can't we choose which young people we would like to help i.e. family and friends. Why is it being taken from us?
I am just writing to you to ask does anyone in politics or in the media champion us?
Thank you for reading this email. Hope you can do something to help us in this situation.
This letter wasn't from a wealthy caricature. It's not from some political stereotype or a political hack; it's from Australians who worked hard, lived modestly, saved carefully and tried to provide for themselves. They didn't want to live off the government. They didn't want handouts. They're not asking for someone else to pay their way. They did what generation after generation of Australians were told to do: work—work harder than your peers—save, be careful, don't go on holidays, and leave yourself secure. Now Labor looks at that lifetime of sacrifice and sees a money pot to be raided. It's a moral failure at the centre of this bill. Labor is turning Australians against one another. They hurt retirees who planned under one set of rules and are now being punished under another.
You don't fix a housing crisis by building fewer homes—35,000 fewer, from Labor's own budget papers. You don't help renters by driving investors out of the rental market. Your own budget papers' analysis shows rents will go up. You don't help first home buyers by increasing rents on one side and taxing their invested deposits with new CGT on the other. This bill is being sold as fairness, but it's about betrayal. Before a young Australian buys their first home, they usually rent. If rents rise, it becomes harder to save. If their savings and investments are taxed harder—with, in some cases, CGT doubling—it becomes harder again to get that deposit. Labor's kneecapping younger Australians twice—once as renters and then as they save for their deposit. And then Labor has the audacity to tell this country and these young people it's about intergenerational fairness. It's not intergenerational fairness; it's intergenerational fraud. This doesn't help young people. Income tax is higher for them than it ever was for me, thanks to Labor's sneaky bracket creep. CGT is up, housing taxes are up and car taxes are up.
Small-business owners know this better than anyone. For many of them, their business isn't a job; it's a retirement plan and their family legacy—the result of years of risk, stress and sacrifice. Now these small-business owners are facing taxes of up to 47 per cent. Labor says: 'Don't worry. Don't stress. You don't understand it. Trust our modelling. Ninety per cent of you will be better off.' Well, where have we heard that before? I remember Chris Bowen and Prime Minister Albanese holding up the RepuTex modelling as the most comprehensive modelling of all time.
The member for McEwen on a point of order?
The member's been here long enough to know to refer to members by their correct titles. That's the third time he's done that.
The member for McEwen will resume his seat. I heard the member say 'Prime Minister Albanese'.
The Prime Minister and the energy minister. (Time expired)
I'm proud to rise in support of this landmark legislation that delivers the most significant overhaul of Australia's tax system in a quarter of a century—and a much-needed one. For my community of Canberra, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 is genuinely transformative, particularly for first home buyers. It's making our tax system work for the Australian public.
This legislation implements four key pillars of the government's tax reform package announced in the budget: a new working Australians tax offset, providing 13 million working Australians with tax cuts; a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses; fundamental reforms to capital gains tax; and reforms to limit negative gearing to new builds. Together, these measures will build a better, fairer, simpler tax system, reducing the tax burden for working people, helping more Australians into homeownership, delivering $3.5 billion in new measures to support businesses, including startups, and cutting compliance costs by $540 million each year. Treasury modelling released this week shows that the cumulative impact of these reforms would benefit around 90 per cent of young Australians and that, had these settings been in place since the year 2000, 90 per cent of Australians would have been better off by the time they turned 30.
Canberra is home to tens of thousands of working Australians: APS employees; nurses and midwives at the Canberra Hospital; teachers at our schools, tradies building our city; retail and hospitality workers; and the many small-business owners who are the backbone of our city. Every one of those workers deserves to keep more of what they earn. Schedule 3 of this bill introduces the $250 working Australians tax offset, a permanent structural tax cut for 13.3 million Australians who receive income from work, commencing from 1 July 2027. That includes approximately 6.3 million women. This is a lasting improvement to the architecture of our tax system. It will increase the effective tax-free threshold for working Australians by $1,785 to $19,885, or $24,985 for those also eligible for the low-income tax offset. When combined with our three previous rounds of tax cuts and the instant tax deduction, the average Australian worker will be almost $3,000 better off in 2028. Crucially, this measure is deliberately designed to support younger Australians. Millennials and gen Z are expected to make up around two-thirds of those who benefit. For many Canberrans who are early in their careers, renting in our city, paying off their HECS debt and trying to save a deposit, this is real and meaningful relief. This measure recognises the fundamental truth that, for most Australians, income comes from work. Our tax system should reflect and reward that.
Schedule 4 delivers on one of our key 2025 election commitments: a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses from the 2026-27 income year. Canberra workers spend money to do their jobs—on uniforms, tools, home office equipment, professional development and more. Every year, millions of Australians spend hours gathering receipts and filling in ATO forms to claim those costs back. That is time they could spend with their families or doing anything other than tax administration. The $1,000 instant deduction changes that. For 6.2 million workers in 2026-27, with an average tax saving of $205, this measure puts money back in pockets and takes the headache out of tax time. The ATO estimates it will save individuals $380 million in compliance costs every year. Importantly, workers with more than $1,000 in expenses can still claim the full amount. Charitable donations, union fees and professional association memberships remain fully claimable on top. This is a floor rather than a ceiling, and it makes the system simpler for everyone.
Of all the challenges facing young Canberrans, none are more acute than housing affordability. Canberra consistently ranks among the least affordable cities in Australia for first home buyers. The median house price has placed ownership out of reach for a generation of people who grew up here and want to build their lives here. The causes are many and complex, but our tax settings have been a significant part of the problem for too long. In 1999, the Howard government replaced capital gains tax indexation with a flat 50 per cent discount. The reporting of the Senate Select Committee on the Operation of the Capital Gains Discount this year found that this concession, in combination with negative gearing, has skewed housing ownership away from owner-occupiers towards investors. It has distorted investment decisions and encouraged speculative leverage into established properties, driving up prices at the expense of aspiring homeowners.
The evidence is damning: house prices have risen far faster than wages. The proportion of young Australians who own a home has collapsed. Canberrans who rent because they cannot afford to buy are doing so in a market shaped in part by tax settings that reward property investors over working families. Schedules 1 and 2 of this bill fix that, not by punishing investors but by redirecting the incentive structure towards new supply and away from established property speculation.
Schedule 2 limits negative gearing on residential property to new builds from 1 July 2027—the properties purchased after budget night. This is a sensible, targeted reform. If you already own an investment property or have already entered a contract, nothing changes. The government is fully grandfathering the existing arrangement for those who already made decisions based on current rules. There is no retrospective impact. For new investment, the message is clear. We want to incentivise building new homes, not bidding up the price of existing ones. Negative gearing will remain available for new builds. Commercial property and other asset classes like shares are unaffected. The modelling shows this reform, combined with the CGT changes, will support 75,000 more Australians into homeownership over the next decade. For Canberra, where the housing market has been particularly tight, this is a meaningful shift. More supply and less investor competition for established dwellings mean more opportunity for first home buyers in suburbs like Curtin, Narrabundah and Watson.
Schedule 1 replaces the 50 per cent CGT discount with cost base indexation for gains accrued from 1 July 2027, accompanied by a 30 per cent minimum tax on net capital gains. This reform returns the CGT system to what it was originally designed to do: tax real gains not inflationary gains. Under the new arrangement, investors will index the cost base of their assets in line with inflation. They will only pay tax on what they have genuinely earned above the rate of inflation. That is fairer. The 30 per cent minimum tax ensures that investors cannot simply defer capital gains to years when their income is low to minimise their effective tax rate. It ensures gains are taxed at a rate commensurate with what most workers face throughout their working lives. Importantly, no gains accrued before 1 July next year are affected. The 50 per cent discount will apply to all gains up to that date, using the asset's value at 1 July 2027 as the new cost base. There is no retrospective tax. These are changes to how future gains are treated.
Property investors who buy new builds will have the option to choose either the 50 per cent CGT discount or the new indexation and minimum tax arrangements when they sell, ensuring the reform continues to incentivise investment in new housing supply. Recipients of certain government payments, including the aged pension and JobSeeker, will be exempt from the minimum tax, protecting those on fixed or low incomes. The four existing small business CGT concessions are preserved in full. The vast majority of small businesses are eligible for these concessions, meaning they can pay reduced or no capital gains tax on the sale of their business. The government has also committed to further consultation on how the new arrangements apply to startups and small businesses with low cost bases, which is a recognition that these sectors need tailored treatment. For Canberra's substantial population of public servants and professionals who hold shares or investment properties as part of their long-term savings, it is worth noting modelling shows that, for someone who invested in the Australian share market over the past 10 or 20 years and received average returns, they would have done the same or better under the indexation system than under the 50 per cent discount.
This bill puts in place the core provisions that apply to the broadest range of taxpayers, providing certainty to individuals and market participants while the government continues consultation on more complex and specific issues. The new revenue raised will be returned to workers and businesses in the near term and, together with expenditure savings, will improve budget sustainability over the medium term. This is responsible reform. It's a rebalancing of a system that has, over decades, drifted away from its original purpose.
The coalition has chosen over the past few weeks to side with the status quo, with a tax system that has contributed to housing unaffordability for generations of Australians. It is a choice to protect the 1999 distortion rather than to fix it. It's a decision to keep more young Australians out of the housing market. It's a decision to back those with the most against the interests of those with the least. It's disappointing but not unsurprising. The Albanese Labor government is choosing differently. We are choosing to back working Australians over the tax advantages of the already wealthy. We are choosing to help young Australians into homeownership rather than entrench investor advantage. We are choosing to reform. For the people of Canberra—the young professionals sharing a house in Ainslie who can't save fast enough to keep up with rising prices, the nurse doing a double shift at North Canberra Hospital, the teacher spending their own money on classroom supplies or the small business owner who has worked their whole life to build something worth selling—this bill is about a tax system that finally works for them. It builds on everything this government has done—the stage 3 tax cuts, the cost-of-living relief and the housing investments. It is the next step in making our economy work in the interests of more Australians and in taking our intergenerational responsibilities seriously, rather than leaving these problems for the next generation to solve.
Let me take your mind back to just over a year ago on 3 May 2025. I don't know about you, but I remember organising a whole lot of volunteers to stand outside designated polling booths, holding material for members of the public to take, telling them what I, as the member for Mallee, had done and, importantly, was committing to do for them if the coalition were elected in the 2025 election. I'm just checking with the House, because, in many ways, it seems like the election never happened. As far as I remember, parties normally take policy positions to the election, and we all remember the Prime Minister swearing that there would be no changes to CGT, no changes to negative gearing and no changes to trusts.
When I look at the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, all of those promises are broken. Our Australian democracy relies on parties taking promises to the electorate and implementing them if they're elected, not talking a whole lot of baloney at the election and doing something else when they get a thumping majority.
This bill represents two things. Firstly, it represents the single biggest threat to our Australian democracy because it upends global precedent whereby the party that forms government does a whole range of things it swore it would do in the lead-up to the election. This bill turns 3 May 2025 election into a sham. Labor's election win was a hoax on the Australian people. In the spirit of Winston Churchill, I say that Labor has engaged in terminological inexactitude. They have put on a masterclass in 'factual Jim-nastics'.
We know that Bill Shorten's tax plans—actually taken to an election; credit to him for doing that, as John Howard did with the GST—were comprehensively rejected by the Australian people. Labor lost. So, instead, Labor spread a whole lot of fairy dust at last year's election while they secretly plotted to roll out the Bill Shorten tax agenda. The Treasurer shrugs and smirks and thinks the government can burn off some one-term Labor MPs, burn off some primary vote and do this dirty, dirty deed two years out from a federal election, taking the Australian public for mugs.
Labor thinks the Australian public won't remember this insult. Labor thinks they'll use the supposed rivers of revenue from these measures to advertise on social media and hire the influencers—just as they did in the budget lock-up—to gaslight Australians, saying, 'These broken tax promises are good for you and in your best interests.' It's absolute rubbish.
Secondly, this bill represents the Treasurer drawing to himself ever-increasing power and showing contempt for the parliament, as though the rest of us are just a rubber stamp. The bill contains so many elements for the Treasurer to later decide on at his whim. It makes me wonder whether his next budget saving is to shut down the parliament. Clearly, he doesn't think he needs us. It's little wonder current community sentiment on voting intention is 'a pox on all their houses'. The Albanese Labor government is trashing the reputation of this place and of members of parliament while burning trust on a bonfire of our democracy.
Parliament must reject these bills, and I make it very clear the coalition will be repealing these tax changes when we come to government. They are undemocratic, they are economically destructive and they are just plain wrong. Having run out of money, as the highest spending government in 40 years outside of a recession, Labor is coming after more of yours. Labor's core belief, in its socialist heart, is redistribution of wealth to those who didn't work to create it.
Peter, from south of Horsham in my electorate of Mallee, raises a perfectly valid question as a self-funded retiree. If he was to earn a salary, he would get the $18,400 tax-free threshold, but, by earning money from modest share investments, he will be up for paying a minimum of 30 per cent tax on the very first dollar he earns. There will be widows and widowers who were set up for their retirement, living very modestly indeed in self-funded retirement. They are the people we should be upholding for not being a burden on the taxpayer purse despite having every right to put their hand out for an age pension. Labor is targeting these same older men and women. They are to be taxed from the very first modest cent they rely on to survive. It is another disgrace. Little wonder the Treasurer is adding powers in this bill to have second thoughts—an oopsie, if you like. 'I hadn't thought of that, and, trust me, I'll take your earnings and tax them fairly.' I would strongly suggest that this is simply not true. The Albanese Labor government and their Treasurer are not worthy of anyone's trust.
Speaking of trust, in their politics of envy, Labor have long harboured their dream, their passionate desire, to crack open trusts and get at the money inside them. And here it is, in its gory detail, taxing trusts such as testamentary discretionary trusts. They are much more common than you might think, and underpin a great many small to medium family businesses—arguably, hundreds of thousands—including in my electorate.
Leader of The Nationals Matt Canavan and I met with Peter Knights, an accountant, in his Knights Norfolk accounting offices in St Arnaud this last month. Peter describes the taxes in this bill as 'underhanded' and 'a death tax'. Peter explains:
These assets were previously exempted and so from a family farming point of view, we have to make sure we can take assets through to the next generation, to those most capable of producing for the benefit of everyone else.
When times are tough, traditionally, family farms still show up, but corporate farming doesn't.
He continues:
So this is also now a productivity issue. If we put a tax barrier to those making the transfer of say, a farm, it puts that business at risk. This will put a lot of farms at risk and even food production at risk.
I've already had one family farmer say they'd scaled back their farming activity in recent years, due to Labor's attacks on the profitability of their farm, to what they now call a hobby farm. Now they aren't sure whether, with these new changes, it's worth farming at all.
Amid Treasury's fairytales and fantasy stories told in the budget papers on estimates and assumptions—under the thumb of the Treasurer—are unbelievable revenue projections from these tax measures. If you believe that revenue will materialise, you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. Cause and effect, basic physics and economics—the market will respond. Has the government modelled the rush to the age pension, part pension or full pension, to escape Labor's tax-grabbing clutches?
There is a Senate inquiry into this bill, reporting later this month. But, in Labor's contempt for debate and transparency and for this institution, they will no doubt seek to slam this bill through before we have the Senate report. As I said last sitting week, this is more than a lawyers' picnic; lawyers and accountants will be popping the bubbly at all the advice they will have to give, with more compliance and red tape for business. But, more seriously, lawyers and accountants will be feeling morally challenged because they will have farmers and small businesses coming to them saying, 'I can't afford to deal with this.'
The statistics show that, in my home state of Victoria, a huge number of regional small businesses are ready to close their doors. In fact, many in my electorate are closing or have closed. This bill is likely to be the last straw. Businesses will close. They'll just give up. Farmers will say, 'Maybe I will sell to the big corporate who wants my property, or take the money from the foreign owned energy company for wind turbines or solar panels, or take the money from the Victorian government for the transmission line and land access.' Do you now see the cunning masterfulness of this smirking treasurer? Put farmers and small businesses on the edge of the financial cliff so that they just jump into the manufactured ocean of government dependence.
Let's remember that as many as 25 per cent of Australians receive direct welfare payments, and 18 per cent of Australians work in the public sector. That's as much as 43 per cent of Australians that depend on government for their incomes. If you add in all the government subsidies, there would only be a small minority that receive no government payment at all. Yet these are the people Labor has gone after with this bill: the self-funded retirees and the small businesses built by hardworking Australians—families who have worked for generations for long hours to establish what they now have.
The bill confers sweeping powers on the Treasurer on CGT, negative gearing and the working Australians tax offset, where the Treasurer gets the final say.
As shadow minister for regional communications, I have to add that the communications minister has done this as well with the universal outdoor mobile obligation bill, or the UOMO bill—given herself powers to ultimately determine what's in or out, not the parliament. Labor are cunning with marketing, terrible in government. They're not just moving the goalposts; they're putting them on wheels for the Treasurer to move wide enough to ensure enough revenue is going through the big sticks.
These bills grant extraordinary discretionary powers to the Treasurer, perhaps unprecedented in their scale, for the Treasurer to decide so many aspects of these laws—I'm going to coin them collectively as 'Chalmerama', and you might imagine how you'd spell that: what is a 'new residential dwelling', the apportionment method for 'transitional gains', adding CGT asset classes for the 50 per cent discount and exemptions from income support payments from minimum tax. That's interesting given Peter from south of Horsham's concern. If he isn't on any form of income support payment, he'll pay the minimum tax on the first cent he relies on as a self-funded retiree. But, if he's on any support payment, say the bare minimum part pension, he's safe. What a mess!
Another one in the 'Chalmerama' is the exemptions from—
I ask the member to refer to people by their correct titles.
Another one in the Treasurer's portfolio of decision-making is the exemptions from quarantining for additional dwelling uses or their purposes, or their exclusions as residential dwelling, similarly additional business or enterprise exemptions, entity class exemptions.
But wait, there's more. The Treasurer is also giving himself power to set an alternative method for working out the maximum amount of the working Australians tax offset: the WATO. This is the wage offset of allegedly $250. But, remember, bracket creep will see the average worker pay $2,000 more annually, so that's as useful as Labor's $275 energy bill relief—which basically didn't happen—where your energy bill is now thousands of dollars higher. But the Treasurer wants to shift the goalposts on the WATO as well.
The coalition has promised with our tax back guarantee that we will index the tax brackets and halt bracket creep once and for all, putting more of what you earn in your pocket—a fixed change, not something up to the Treasurer of the day to determine. The Treasurer, today in question time, repeatedly said 'we're bringing back bracket creep' like it's a good thing. It is not. And, in case you missed it, we will repeal all the unmandated tax grabs in this bill. This is an attack on aspiration.
Even for their income tax deduction, announced well before the budget, of $1,000 annually without receipts, I hear that, on average, people might get $250 at best from that measure. It's little wonder the Treasurer wants easily movable goalposts, and it's little wonder small businesses are using AI to photoshop the Prime Minister in as their new 47 per cent business partner.
These are terrible, undemocratic bills that set a shocking historical precedent. The coalition opposes them. We support lower taxes for working Australians and will be making that point in this debate and at the next election.
I rise today to speak in support of these two important bills, which mark the first stage of the most significant transformation of the tax system in over a quarter of a century. These bills deliver on three key objectives: cutting taxes for every Australian worker, making it easier for people to buy their first home and better aligning the tax treatment of income associated with labour and income associated with assets.
The first bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, amends taxation legislation to replace the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for individuals, trusts and partnerships with cost based indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax rate on capital gains accruing from 1 July 2027; limit negative gearing for residential property investments to new builds from 1 July 2027; introduce the working Australians tax offset, a non-refundable tax offset for Australian residents who earn labour income; and introduce a $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses for Australian taxpayers. The second bill, the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, amends the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 to impose a minimum 30 per cent tax on capital gains that are realised on or after 1 July 2027.
The reforms contained in these two bills will build a better, fairer, simpler tax system by reducing the tax burden for over 13 million workers, supporting 75,000 more homeowners into the housing market and delivering $3.5 billion in new measures that lower taxes for businesses and startups. It's important to remind the House that the Albanese government has already delivered tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer by bringing rates down and pushing thresholds up from 1 July 2024. Another tax cut will come into effect from 1 July this year, which is only four weeks away, and a third tax cut will be introduced from 1 July next year.
This bill introduces two more tax-relief initiatives: the $250 working Australians tax offset and the $1,000 instant tax deduction for workers. Together, the Albanese government's five tax cuts mean the average Australian worker will receive a combined benefit of almost $3,000 in 2028. The coalition voted against our tax cuts last year, which perplexed millions of Australian taxpayers across the country. We urge them not to make the same mistake again, because what we are proposing is responsible tax relief targeted to working people. It will benefit teachers, nurses, tradies and other Australians who earn salaries and wages.
The $250 working Australians tax offset will be available for every working Australian taxpayer for income years starting on or after 1 July 2027. It will provide a benefit for over 13 million Australian workers, including over six million women. Importantly, this is not a temporary measure. It is a permanent structural improvement to the tax system that will help Australian workers keep more of what they earn, delivering targeted cost-of-living relief.
Our instant tax deduction, which delivers on a commitment we made before last year's election, will make life simpler for millions of time-poor workers and put cash into their pockets as well. Eligible individuals will be able to claim an instant tax deduction of up to $1,000 instead of claiming individual work-related expenses, saving time and money. The Australian Tax Office estimates this measure will save Australians $380 million in compliance costs each year. Over six million people will benefit—more than half of them women—with the average worker receiving an extra $205 at tax time.
It's important to note that taxpayers will still be able to claim more than $1,000 in work related deductions if they are entitled to, and they will still be able to claim non-work-related deductions on top of the instant $1,000 deduction. This includes charitable donations, superannuation contributions, union and professional association membership fees, and income protection, sickness and accident insurance premiums.
The second key objective of this legislation is to make it easier for people to buy their own home, because, for too long, too many Australians have been locked out of the housing market. I note that the previous speaker referred to 'the politics of envy' in relation to these measures and, can I say, the desire to own your own home has nothing to do with the politics of envy. To suggest that it does, I think, is an offensive statement.
The Albanese government's $47 billion investment in housing includes expanding the five per cent deposit scheme to all first homebuyers and introducing it earlier than originally scheduled. I'm delighted to say that more than 1,800 people in my electorate of Whitlam have been able to buy their first home thanks to Labor's expansion of this scheme in October last year. We launched the Help to Buy scheme for low- and middle-income earners, with 10,000 places available each year for the next four years. We're delivering 55,000 new social and affordable homes by mid 2029 through the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, our HAAF program, and the Social Housing Accelerator Program. We're extending the ban on foreign investors—investors buying existing homes—until mid 2029, helping more Australians into homes. And we're delivering the biggest back-to-back increase in Commonwealth Rent Assistance in more than 30 years, which benefits more than 9,000 people in my electorate who currently receive Commonwealth Rent Assistance.
Labor's primary focus, as we work hard to tackle the challenges associated with housing, continues to be on supply. That is why we are investing a further $2 billion in housing-enabling infrastructure to address one of the key barriers holding back more housing supply. This funding will establish a new local infrastructure fund as part of the Housing Support Program to unlock the enabling infrastructure needed to finish housing projects that otherwise wouldn't go ahead due to a lack of enabling infrastructure that includes roads, water, power and sewerage. This funding will be provided to local governments and state utility providers, with $500 million reserved for regional Australia.
As I mentioned, the Local Infrastructure Fund will support up to 65,000 additional homes over 10 years. However, supply cannot be our only focus, because our distorted tax system has resulted in property prices far outstripping wages growth, and the dream of homeownership has become increasingly out of reach, particularly for young people. One of the issues raised most often with me by people in my electorate since I became the member for Whitlam just over a year ago is the affordability of housing. This issue is not raised just by young people but also by parents and grandparents who are concerned for the future of their grandchildren and their children. There is widespread acceptance that Australia's housing market is not working. Young people on lower incomes are half as likely to own their own home than they were in the year I was born. Many young Australians are putting off having children because of housing insecurity.
We cannot accept this unfair status quo. That is why we are taking action to fix it. Our reforms to capital gains tax and negative gearing will help 75,000 more homeowners to enter the housing market over the next decade. From 1 July 2027, the 50 per cent capital gains discount will be replaced by cost based indexation for assets held for more than 12 months, with a 30 per cent minimum tax on net capital gains. These changes will apply to all CGT assets, including pre-1995 CGT assets held by individuals, trusts and partnerships. The changes will apply prospectively, with the 50 per cent discount applying to gains accruing up until 1 July 2027 and the indexation and the minimum tax used to calculate the CGT on gains accruing from 1 July 2027.
Under the changes that take effect from 1 July in 2027, investors will index the cost base of their assets in line with inflation, so they pay tax only on their real gains above inflation. The effective tax rate on capital gains will vary depending on an individual's marginal rate, their nominal returns and the inflation rate over the period the asset has been held. This means that not everyone will pay more tax under these changes. Some will pay less. It will depend on their circumstances.
A key change is that the introduction of the minimum tax reduces the benefit for taxpayers who defer capital gains realisation to years in which their marginal tax rates are low. It ensures their gains are subject to a tax rate closer to the rate that applied to them during their working life. Importantly, recipients of certain government payments, including the aged pension and JobSeeker, will be exempted from the minimum tax if they receive any of these payments in the financial year in which they realise the capital gain. 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 their property. The existing CGT discount of up to 60 per cent that applies to qualifying affordable housing will also be fully retained to preserve incentives to invest in those assets. I want to stress that the four existing small business CGT concessions will remain in place, allowing eligible small businesses to reduce or remove tax on any gains when they sell.
These reforms limit negative gearing for residential property investments to new builds and key government housing priorities. From 1 July 2027, losses related to existing residential investment properties purchased after 7:30 pm 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. Residential properties held on the date we announced these changes will be allowed to be negatively geared in future years until they are sold. This ensures that arrangements for taxpayers who have already made investment decisions based on the existing rules for negative gearing will not change. It's important to state that new builds can continue to be negatively geared after 1 July 2027, ensuring the benefits of negative gearing are directed to investments that support growth in Australia's housing stock. Negative gearing will continue to support 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.
I note these changes to negative gearing will only apply to residential property. Commercial property and other asset classes, including shares, will remain subject to existing arrangements. Further exemptions to the negative gearing changes will also be available for private investors who support government housing programs, for example through the provision of affordable housing. I note that, while these two bills put in place the main provisions of our tax reforms, the government will consult on the most complex policy issues, including the application of capital gains tax changes to small and start-up businesses.
These bills will reduce the tax burden for over 13 million workers, help 75,000 Australians realise the dream of homeownership, deliver $3.5 billion in new measures that lower taxes for businesses and start-ups, and reduce compliance costs by $540 million a year. These reforms will make our tax system better, fairer and simpler and make our economy and our tax system work in the interests of more Australians. They build on the tax reforms already delivered by the Albanese Labor government, consolidating our record of responsible economic management. Our tax reforms are pro aspiration, pro worker and pro investment. They are the right reforms even though they involve difficult decisions. They take our intergenerational responsibilities seriously and don't leave those problems for the next generation to fix. For all of these reasons, I commend these bills to the House.
I rise to speak on the government's proposed tax reforms, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. I want to start by commending the government for showing grit and determination to attempt something genuinely brave. Since the last election, many of us in this chamber have called on the government to use its mandate to do something courageous and meaningful. Real reform is hard. It's politically costly, and too often governments simply avoid trying. Whatever my reservations about the details of these tax changes—and I'll get to those reservations shortly—I commend the government for attempting to address the structural inequalities that have been embedded in our tax system for a generation.
These bills go to the heart of what kind of country we want to be. Who should bear the burden of tax? What kind of wealth building do we want to encourage, and what realistic chance do young Australians have to own their own home and to get ahead? These are serious questions, and I'm glad that the government is finally trying to answer them. But let me briefly explain what is in front of us, because the public debate has not always been clear.
The bill has four main elements. The one that has received the most attention is a change to the capital gains tax discount. Currently, you receive a 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax, and that's being replaced with the discount based on inflation, so you only pay tax on real above-inflation gains. Based on historical data, for some assets, like detached housing, that's likely to reduce your discount. But, for other assets, like some apartments or shares, your discount may actually increase. It depends, of course, on how much your capital gain is due to inflation or due to real gains. There will also be a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent on real capital gains.
The second element of this bill limits negative gearing on residential property. Investors who purchase existing properties will only be able to offset their rental losses against rental income, not against their wages or other income. Investors in new builds, however, retain the full negative gearing benefit. This design is clearly intended to tilt investment toward new housing supply, and, of course, I welcome that. The third element of the bill is a tax cut of $250 for working Australians, and the fourth is a $1,000 instant tax deduction, allowing you to claim up to $1,000 in work related expenses without having to keep all of those receipts.
I want to focus today on the CGT changes and negative gearing, because they are the most consequential for restoring fairness for Australian workers and for backing business to take risks, employ Australians and contribute to productivity. I'm constantly listening to people in my community in Bradfield speak about housing. The system just isn't working. I speak to young people who grew up on the North Shore but who simply cannot see a path to owning, let alone renting, a home there. I talk to parents who are watching their adult children move further and further away. I see a generation that has done everything right and is still shut out of the market and the opportunities that were afforded to their parents.
The capital gains tax discount, combined with negative gearing on investment properties, has contributed to this broken system by distorting the housing market. For decades, these tax arrangements have encouraged investors to treat property as an asset class. Over the years, we've learnt to accept this as normal, but it's not. People in other countries find our relationship with property, quite frankly, bizarre. This drive to treat property as a financial asset has been damaging. Since the capital gains tax discount was introduced in 1999, property prices growth has dramatically outpaced wages growth. Houses have become unaffordable to just too many people, and far too much money has been redirected from productive investments to sit passively in properties.
Doing nothing about these taxes would mean that we continue to face persistent and worsening problems of housing affordability and inadequate shelter. Doing something is necessary, and some of the government's changes will indeed help. By limiting negative gearing for existing investment properties while preserving the full benefit for new builds, the reform steers capital toward where it is actually needed—new housing supply. The CGT changes, when applied to property, are defensible on similar grounds. So, in relation to housing, I want to emphasise that change is welcome, and my electorate broadly supports this.
In a survey that I conducted earlier this year, people in my electorate overwhelmingly supported reforms to capital gains tax discount for housing, even if they themselves held investment properties. People recognise that change is needed for their children and grandchildren to live prosperous lives, and I share that support. But, alongside many colleagues on the crossbench, I have a number of reservations about the design of the government's proposed changes. I have concerns about the way that the government has conducted this process. Why? Because the government is trying to sell this as a housing policy, but it has extended CGT changes to every asset class, not just real estate but also shares like ETFs, bonds, larger small businesses and startup equity. The government's stated rationale is that it doesn't want to replace one distortion with another. Consistent tax treatments across asset classes is a legitimate policy goal, and I accept that in principle. But the case for extending these changes beyond property, at this time, has not been clearly made to the Australian public, and the result has been confusion and concern and, in some cases, anger.
I've had constituents contact my office who genuinely thought that the changes were only going to be about investment properties; they were blindsided when they realised their other investments were going to be affected too. The government hasn't communicated well enough on this. I've heard from self-funded retirees who are too old to be completely funded entirely through superannuation and who were intending to sell shares as a retirement strategy. I've heard from young people who are using ETFs to save. I've heard from small-business owners with no super who are planning on selling their business to fund their retirement. And I've heard from young parents who are banking on selling some shares to get through an extended parental-leave period. These plans are now all in doubt.
That's why I came out, right after the budget, to call for the government to ring-fence the reforms to residential property and to slow down on the other changes—to consult first, consult widely, and make sure other changes do not result in unintended consequences. I still hold that view now.
Then there are the concerns being raised by business. As someone with a background in venture capital, I see how these proposed reforms threaten to place a significant tax burden on this important part of the finance sector that takes risks and backs business. A VC fund will back 20 entrepreneurs with their ideas or business models, knowing that only one will likely net them any profits in five or 10 years time. The proposed tax changes mean that government will reap rewards when profit is made, but they leave all the downside risk with VC investors.
Now let's talk start-ups, particularly those without formal VC inputs—people who take a loan from the bank or from family or from friends. The sector has a unique relationship with risk and reward. Founders spend years building their companies, and, often, forgoing wages or super, in the hope that their risk-taking will yield long-term rewards. But the financial and time investments in these high-growth assets will be punished under the new scheme. This will likely disincentivise people from engaging in the years of hard work that go into start-ups, or it will push them to take their businesses elsewhere—overseas.
I surveyed constituents about this issue as well, and three in four people who responded supported a CGT carve-out for founders. They recognised that passive property gains and active business gains are different and that the government's tax reform should reflect this. These start-ups are not just the unicorns that we hear about in the news—the companies that will end up worth over a billion dollars. Those are rare. This is also about the far-more-numerous smaller start-ups, that you don't hear about but which also do such valuable work: driving innovation, employing talented people and making our economy more productive.
I'm particularly concerned about the climate tech sector. This is one of the most important emerging parts of our economy. Helping it grow will help us tackle the climate crisis and improve energy security, and make us more prosperous in the process. We're fortunate to have such a burgeoning climate tech sector: 800 companies employing 12,000 people, with world-class researchers and entrepreneurs working on all kinds of important issues, from energy storage to clean agriculture to industrial decarbonisation. Many of these companies manufacture products right here in Australia. And over 30 of these companies are on track to reach a $1 billion valuation in the next two years.
Now, the government claims to want to see this sector thrive, but its tax changes undercut that goal. These are companies like MCi Carbon, which decarbonises cement and steel production and turns CO2 emissions into valuable products; or Allume, which is helping residents in apartment blocks to install solar and electrify—companies doing innovative, valuable decarbonising work, towards an economy that is going to prosper, and unlocking economic opportunities.
Bradfield is home to many people working in and investing in climate tech. We want to see these companies stay in Australia; we don't want to see a brain drain. The government says that they want this too, which is why they've committed to consulting on possible exemptions for start-ups—and I welcome this. But it raises an important question: why the rush? The government's asking the parliament to pass a fundamental framework for this reform, while acknowledging that significant design questions remain unresolved. Why legislate the framework before these thorny issues are settled?
Despite all of the resources that it possesses, the government has chosen to develop something behind closed doors and spring it unexpectedly on voters who are expecting to see targeted changes to property taxes. This process just doesn't cut it. We saw another example of these rushed and opaque processes in the budget, with the government's announcement of separate tax reforms on foreign investors that would disproportionately affect the renewables industry—again, problems that could have been foreseen and resolved but were not, because the government didn't engage with the industry players before setting out legislation to make changes impacting those groups of people.
I support fellow crossbench member Allegra Spender's motion last week to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Economics for a report by the end of July. The government voted down this motion. I'm pleased to support amendments today which call on the government to limit CGT reforms to property, but the government will almost certainly vote those down too. A Senate committee is looking into these bills, but it'll only have a couple of weeks to do so. That's not enough time to properly scrutinise these reforms, nor is it enough time to build support amongst the public. Why not take the time to build genuine community understanding and support that would help ensure that any changes endure beyond this government?
I want to say again that I welcome the government's bravery, but I ask it not to rush. Consult properly and return to parliament later this year with reforms that have been properly scrutinised and designed, and take the time to explain to Australians clearly what these changes mean for their own financial lives. Take the time to consider people's views and genuinely listen. Continue to be brave, but have the humility to change the design of these reforms in order to mitigate unintended consequences.
I genuinely believe in the direction of this reform. If this bill were only about housing—if the negative gearing changes were paired with the CGT reform and ring-fenced to residential property—I would vote for it without hesitation. But that is not what is before us. What we have been presented with is a change that applies across all asset classes and is introduced ahead of consultations that the government acknowledges it still needs to conduct, and it's happening with design questions still unresolved and without the broader public having been brought along on the journey. I will, of course, hold the government to account on its ongoing consultations with the startup and small-business sector, and I will keep pushing for more information and clearer communication about the impact of these changes. I commend the government's appetite for reform, but just because a policy is courageous doesn't mean it has been well designed or that the process has been thoughtful or transparent. For those reasons, and with genuine regret given how much I support the housing elements, the tax deductions and the tax cuts of this bill, I will not be supporting this legislation today. I urge the government to take the time to get this right, because this cause is just too important to continue to get wrong.
No. 3 Melaleuca Avenue, North Bendigo—North Buderim. I'll say that again: No. 3 Melaleuca Avenue—m-e-l-a-l-e-u-c-a—North Buderim, for the benefit of Hansard. Why I know that so fluently as it rolls off my tongue is that that was my family home. That was what my parents built back when Bob Hawke was prime minister. Every home in that street was built about the same time. For $45,000, my family built a home in North Buderim, a suburb on the Sunshine Coast. When I look at photos online, it's still quite similar to what my family had. The pool is still there. It's still a three-bedroom. We turned the carport into a rumpus room for us kids because we didn't want to watch news every minute of the day, much to my father's disappointment. The garden's the same. I can remember planting the trees in the front yard and the garden that we had, with the two sheds out the back because my father was a mechanic and he liked to repair his own cars. That home today is valued at $1.2 million. My sisters and our friends at school could not afford to buy their family home. That is a property market on steroids.
In less than 35 years, our property prices are at a level we never would have imagined when we were kids. We are here today debating these reforms because the Australian dream for so many in our younger generation has been broken. At no time when we were kids, or when we finished high school or when we went to university, did we ever think that homeownership would not happen. If you worked hard and you saved, you could still live in the suburb where you grew up or another suburb.
These aren't just houses in Melaleuca Avenue, North Buderim, or any other house in North Buderim. This is the story of so many houses that were built in the late eighties and early nineties as Australia expanded. It is true of the story of homes in my electorate of Bendigo and all throughout regional Victoria and the outer metros. For example, a home on Honeysuckle Street, Bendigo, in 1982 was $6,200. That was the price back then to enter the market. In 1999, with some of the changes we're debating today, it was $79,900. Today it's valued at just under $700,000. That has been the progression of our housing market in a generation. That is why we need to step back and think about where it all went wrong.
I acknowledge that some have made a lot of money—and good on them. But to the ones who want to do what their parents did, here's a cautionary warning: it was a once off. Your family home that was $45,000 or that was $70,000 that your parents built and then sold for $1.2 million or thereabouts, if you bought that home for $1.2 million, you're not selling it for the same mark-up. That has happened in one generation. It's a once-off opportunity where people have made some money and have done quite well, but we need to talk about nation-building policy that helps everybody.
I have another example of a more recent time in Bendigo. In my time since being the federal member, this particular home on Sternberg Street in Bendigo was sold in 2013 for $285,000. That's reasonable a decade ago. Ten years later, in 2023, it sold for $1.1 million. That is a property market on steroids. How does somebody in Bendigo on an average income afford a home on an average street in a suburb in Bendigo? How does a first home buyer compete with a self-funded retiree for that home? It's a beautiful home. It's been renovated. The previous owners did a glorious job. But even they were surprised at the price tag and the windfall that they got. We're not saying that we're going to crash the prices back. That's not what we're saying at all. We're saying that we have to address the system that has enabled this to be, to create a fairer playing field for first home buyers.
These reforms before us are about helping workers, first home buyers and businesses so that more Australians can earn more, keep more of what they earn, get into the housing market and have the opportunity of the Australian dream and get ahead. We're changing it—except for the examples that I've established—to demonstrate that we need broad tax reform to make our tax system fairer. We need to look at how we can readdress the balance that income earned on investments is disproportionately seen more generously with tax concessions than the income you earn through your labour and hard work.
Currently, if you sell an asset you've owned for more than 12 months, like shares or an investment property, you pay the tax at the marginal tax rate on half of that profit. It's known as the 50 per cent capital gains tax. The discount is meant to compensate investors for inflation so that they only pay tax on real gains. Up until 1999 the indexation was applied to capital gains so that people only paid tax on their real gain, the part of the gain over and above inflation. In 1999, under Howard and Costello, the government replaced the inflation indexation with a 50 per cent discount, arguing it would be simpler to calculate. At the time, they thought that this would spur investment in shares and productive investments, but this was not true. As history now tells us, it encouraged more people to get into property. Shares declined and more people invested in property. And now we've seen the situation that we're in today. The examples that I shared are examples that all of us have.
What we're proposing is to level the playing field, to encourage and to support first home buyers. People will still have the opportunity, in regard to negative gearing, if they contribute to our property portfolio as a nation by investing in new builds. What we're proposing in this change means that, from 1 July 2027, we'll see future gains taxed adjusting for inflation—rather than a flat discount. This means that investors will only get taxed on the profits above the adjusted amount, going back to the system that existed from 1985 to 1999.
The additional 30 per cent minimum tax rate will be applied to the real capital gain. This is the same as the marginal tax rate that most Australians pay on their wages. That is the crux of this reform. Your gain—whether it be investment, property or wages that you've earned through your labour—should be taxed the same. That's what we're proposing here.
I should note—and this is a conversation that I've had with a lot of people in my electorate—that there is grandfathering involved in these changes. So if you owned a property before budget night, it won't change for you. This is about future gains and future properties. The reason why this is important to raise is that there is a lot of mis- and disinformation out there.
These aren't the only changes that are being put forward in this bill. The government's reform package before us today is also about building a better, fairer, simpler tax system by reducing the burden for income tax workers; 13 million across Australia will receive a further tax reduction. We are delivering to them the worker bonus, the working Australia tax offset, which is a new tax cut. We're delivering a $1,000 instant tax deduction, saving time and money for millions of workers when it comes to their tax time. These are ways that we are helping workers, particularly those on the lowest income, earn more and keep more of what they earn.
The proposal that's before us today is about correcting the impact of a legacy of Howard and Costello that they made in 1999. It's about restoring hope to a younger generation so that they may be able to one day own a home, to have that same opportunity that their grandparents had and that their parents may have had. We hope that they will have that.
The changes before us limit negative gearing to residential properties that are new builds. That is incredibly important for electorates like my electorate, where we do have the opportunity to build more homes in town through infill and more towns in our growing suburbs. That is why this announcement that has been made has been welcomed by the small businesses involved in construction in my electorate. They see any way to encourage people to invest in new builds as welcome. The government is grandfathering the change. So if you're already negative gearing or own an investment property, you can continue to do so. The changes are also affixed to the tax treatment on capital gains so that the system operates as it was originally intended and helps direct investment to where it is most productive. And I think that's what disappoints me the most about those opposite. Acknowledge a mistake was made. Go back to the original intent of the discount. It was about making sure that we directed investment towards investment that was the most productive. The changes that are before us are about the future. They're about encouraging investment. They're about encouraging investors to look at where we can be the most productive and grow our economy. The distortion that's happened with the coinciding of house prices increasing at a much faster rate than wages is a long story that started back in the late eighties, as I have suggested, which was super-turbocharged in 1999 to where we're at today.
I encourage those opposite to rethink their opposition to this and to join Labor in correcting the problem that was created by a previous generation of politicians. I encourage them to support the introduction of the $250 working Australian tax offset and to support our lowest income earners to receive a little bit of offset. For those who dismiss it, for someone in my electorate, that's their kid's school fees for a primary school. It could go towards swimming lessons. It knocks out one of those bills that they're struggling to pay. $250 can go a long way for a family on a small income. This will benefit 13.3 million Australians and disproportionately more women, because women earn lower incomes, and people living in regional areas who are also on low incomes. This is on top of the other tax cuts that we've already legislated. Combined, the average worker will be just under $3,000 a year better off by 2028, because of our Labor government and the changes. That $3,000 by 2028—it should be noted—has been opposed by the Liberals and Nationals every step of the way. This is real money back into the pockets of working Australians to help them pay bills. This is real cost-of-living relief to those who need it most.
These measures that are before us, as I have said, are about restoring fairness to our tax system. They're about correcting or giving opportunity to a next generation of first home buyers. These reforms are about helping workers, first home buyers and businesses so more Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn. They can get into the housing market. They might have the opportunity to live in the neighbourhood where they grew up or a new neighbourhood that they now call home, but it's about giving hope to the next generation and recognising that the income that they earn as a worker is taxed and valued the same as income that their landlord or the investor earns.
Before coming into this place, I made my living out of being a builder and a construction lawyer, so essentially I was involved in the building industry for 35-odd years before I came in here. I like to think I know a little bit about the building industry and how it operates. This bill, this budget, is going to be an absolute disaster for the Australian economy. It's going to be an absolute disaster for mums and dads. Over the weekend, I went home, and I had the Maleny Agricultural Show on Friday and Saturday. It was a beautiful couple of days, and I had so many people coming up to me and talking to me about how this budget was going to impact upon them personally. There was not one person spoke to me favourably about this budget, and there's a good reason for that. When we look at some of the changes that this bill seeks to introduce—I'll touch on the first one: negative gearing.
We've read this book before, and we know how it ends. In the 1980s, Paul Keating got rid of negative gearing. What happened to rental prices in Melbourne and Sydney? They absolutely skyrocketed. That so-called reform did not last two years before he had to capitulate on that. No-one, not one person on the other side—not even the Cabinet Secretary, with all of his brilliance as an economist—has been able to demonstrate to anyone in this country why what we will get today will be any different to what happened in the 1980s. They say that to keep doing what you've always been doing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. I think Einstein said that. But the reality is that we know how this is going to end. It's going to end in tears.
And, if rents go up, what is the one challenge that so many young people talk to us about when it comes to them buying a house? It's saving a deposit. It's a lot harder to save for your deposit if you're shelling out more money in rent. I've seen some suggestions from different economists that say that these changes will increase rents in Sydney by $160 a week and in Melbourne by $130 a week. They're talking about potentially up to 20 per cent increases in residential rents. When young people are finding it increasingly difficult to save for a deposit, I don't know how these changes are going to make it any easier for them to get into a house. This government has consistently said since the budget that this is all about 'intergenerational fairness'. Well, this has nothing to do with intergenerational fairness. This is a cash grab. The reality is that this government has run out of their money and now they are coming after everyday Australians for more of their money. This is the biggest attempt to redistribute wealth in this country that certainly I have seen in my very short lifetime.
Australians are angry, and they should be angry, because they weren't expecting this. They were told repeatedly by this prime minister and his frontbench that there were going to be no changes to housing tax, no changes to superannuation and no changes to trusts. They breached that when they tried to bring in their tax on unrealised capital gains on superannuation funds, and eventually the Treasurer backed down, because I think he was the only person in the world who thought it was a good idea. But then they continued. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer continued. Even before the 2022 election, they went to the election saying there'll be no changes—no changes to CGT, no changes to negative gearing, no changes to trusts and no changes to superannuation. They said that again in the lead-up to the 2025 election, repeatedly. The Prime Minister castigated a journalist in a presser at one stage saying: 'How many times have I got to say this—50 times? There'll be no changes.' And yet here we are, less than 12 months after the 2025 election, when they've won a thumping majority—an absolute thumping majority—by giving those representations.
The member for Fadden is a colleague of mine as a lawyer. We would call those misrepresentations—actionable misrepresentations. It's a fair enough position for the everyday Australian to rely upon a representation made by the government of the day that they will not change something. When the Prime Minister stands up, particularly when he says things like, 'My word is my bond. I'm not going to make these changes'—
A fraudulent misrepresentation.
Well, certainly a misrepresentation.
I took some time to look at alternative ways we could describe the changed position of the government on these tax policies. I'll run through them. You could be excused for using words like 'falsehood'. They were untruths. They were—I think this is generous—inaccuracies. It was a misrepresentation, a fabrication, a distortion, misinformation, an incorrect statement, a misstatement, deception, a misleading statement, a departure from the truth, not accurate, not correct, at odds with the facts, inconsistent with the truth, lacking accuracy, a contestable claim, a questionable assertion, a dishonest claim, a false assertion, a plainly untrue statement, a patent falsehood, a gross mischaracterisation, intentional distortion, reckless disregard for the truth, egregious inaccuracy and an extraordinary misstatement. It just doesn't stack up. It doesn't hold water. It's not supported by the facts. It's simply not true, demonstrably false, clearly inaccurate, factually wrong, widely contradicted, easily disproven, an unsustainable claim, a broken promise, a reversal of position, a contradiction of previous statements, a backflip, a complete departure from earlier commitments, a rewriting of history, a convenient reinterpretation and a failure to be upfront. Most importantly, it's a breach of trust.
Australians have a right to believe it when their Prime Minister stands up and says, 'I am not going to do X, Y and Z; I am not going to change the laws in relation to capital gains tax, negative gearing, the taxation of trusts or superannuation.' Australians have a reasonable expectation that those promises will be kept, and they were not. The Australians I spoke to at the Maleny Show are not just disappointed in this government; they are palpably ropeable. No-one voted for these toxic taxes. Bill Shorten at least had the courage to take these policies to a general election. This government, despite having made those representations that it would not make these changes, has done exactly that. I think Australians have every right to feel deceived.
The bill itself in schedule 1 introduces changes to the capital gains tax regime. Schedule 2 introduces changes to the negative gearing regime. Schedule 3 introduces the working Australians tax offset. Schedule 4 introduces the $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses. The coalition opposes schedules 1 and 2, and we will fight these steps every single step of the way. If this government had any sincerity, ethics or moral clarity whatsoever, it would split schedules 1 and 2 from schedules 3 and 4.
We would like to support schedules 3 and 4. We in the coalition believe in lower taxes. We don't believe in the government's $77 billion worth of additional taxes. The government and the Prime Minister crow about this working Australian tax offset that will provide $250 a year. But, in the same breath, they are taxing Australians $77 billion, and they're doing it under the guise, as I said, of so-called intergenerational fairness. But the Treasury's own documents reveal that these policies, if they become law, will result in 35,000 fewer homes over the next 10 years.
There's not one sector of the general community that benefits out of this budget. The older members of my community are up in arms because hidden in the bowels of the budget documents is this egregious provision which will rip away the concession for private health insurance holders once they turn 65. Now, Deputy Speaker Freelander, I'm not going to suggest that you're anywhere near that age group—
How kind of you!
but you and I both know that we were told when we were youngsters, 'Invest in private health insurance and look after yourself. The benefits will flow if you get sick. You get your choice of doctor. You can go to a private hospital. You don't have to go on a waiting list. You don't have to wait for years to get a knee replacement or a hip replacement.' I'm not wishing that on you, Deputy Speaker. But that's what we were promised. We were promised that those concessions for private health insurance would last into our later years, when we need it the most—and I'm getting there.
A lot of my constituents in Fisher—it's an old electorate—are getting there or they're already there, and they feel ripped off. A couple on gold private health insurance will be paying up to $1,600 a year extra in their premiums because of the decision by this government to rip away those concessions. Shame on this government. These are people at their most vulnerable, our aged—when they need private health insurance the most. These people have been paying premiums for decades, and now this government says, 'We're not going to worry about that anymore. We're just going to change that. If you can't come up with the money, you go onto the public health system.' Well, that'll work well for the states, won't it? That'll work well. It'll blow out waiting times.
People in Australia are very angry with this government, and they have every right to be.
I rise to speak on the Treasury and income tax bills. At the heart of these bills is fairness. It's about recognising that, while Australia has changed, too many parts of our tax system have not changed with it. It represents the first stage of the most significant package of tax reforms Australia has seen in a generation. These bills are making sure aspiration and opportunity are not reserved for a fortunate few but remain within reach for every Australian prepared to work hard and build a future.
These bills have three clear objectives: to deliver more tax relief for Australian workers, to make it easier for people to buy their first home and to better balance the way our tax system treats income earnt through work and income earnt through assets. It does this through four key reforms. There's a new $250 working Australians tax offset for more than 13 million Australians, and a $1,000 instant tax deduction to make tax time simpler and put more money back in workers' pockets because Labor wants you to earn more and keep more of what you earn. It also reforms future negative-gearing arrangements so they better support new housing supply from 1 July 2027, and it makes changes to capital gains tax that restore its original purpose, ensuring that Australians are taxed only on real gains rather than on both the real and inflation driven gains.
One of the clearest messages I hear in Bonner is that people want a system that rewards effort. People understand that success should be encouraged but also understand that fairness matters. They understand that, if working Australians feel like the system is stacked against them, confidence in the future begins to erode. That is why these bills deliver practical tax relief for workers, including the new working Australians tax offset of up to $250 each year for more than 13 million Australians. This includes many people working across Bonner, where there are more than 80,000 people employed. This is permanent tax relief directed at working people. It's not temporary support or a one-off payment. It's permanent relief. It will make a real difference to working Australians, including the nurse in Carindale working long shifts, the teacher in Tingalpa, the tradie in Murarrie travelling between jobs, the truck driver in Hemmant keeping goods moving and finally, down to the southern end of my electorate, the office worker in Mount Gravatt who might be trying to balance the rising costs of a mortgage or rent.
People who work hard deserve to earn more and keep more of what they earn. This government believes that, when it is responsible to do so, we should reduce the tax burden on working Australians. We have already delivered tax cuts to every Australian taxpayer by lowering rates and lifting thresholds, and the relief does not stop there. Another round of tax cuts will begin on 1 July, with further reductions commencing again the following year. Combined with the measures in these bills, the average Australian worker stands to receive up to $2,816 in tax relief by 2028. That is meaningful support.
These bills also introduce a $1,000 instant tax deduction for the 2026-27 income year. Tax law is not always exciting, but I think most Australians can agree that making tax time simpler is a good thing. Millions of Australians are currently keeping receipts, logging expenses and navigating complicated claims for relatively small deductions. Under these reforms, eligible workers will be able to claim a standard deduction instantly. It will be simple and straightforward, involve less paperwork and less complexity and, importantly, put money back in their pockets. For the average worker, that means hundreds of extra dollars at tax time. More than a quarter of those who benefit will be under the age of 30, and more than half of them will be women. For many people, that might mean helping cover school costs, paying a bill, buying groceries or simply taking some pressure off. For those with more than $1,000 in work related expenses, they can still claim those as they usually would. That includes things like charitable deductions, superannuation contributions and union and professional association fees. This reform is practical and reduces red tape.
These bills are also about one of the biggest challenges facing Australians today: housing affordability. Too many people feel locked out. Too many young Australians feel like homeownership has become something to aspire to rather than something realistically achievable. Too many families are worried about whether or not their children will have the same opportunities that they did. Labor does not simply accept that as the reality. Housing is not an abstract economic debate. It is fundamental and should not become a privilege reserved only for those already ahead.
There was a time when homeownership was simply what happened if you worked hard and saved. It was within reach, and it was expected, and governments at every level understood their role in keeping it that way by building homes, investing in communities and making sure that supply kept up with demand. Over the course of decades, governments retreated from building. At the same time, the rules around private construction became so layered and complex that getting a home built became an achievement in itself. Approvals slowed, land releases stalled, and the construction industry fell behind. The result was a system that made it harder and harder to build the homes Australians needed.
Then, in 1999, the Howard government introduced the capital gains tax discount, a decision that compounded every one of those supply failures. It was designed to drive investment into the share market. Instead, it made established residential property the most attractive, low-risk investment in the country, and investors flooded in. Today, more than 80 per cent of investor lending flows into existing homes rather than new construction. A generation ago, buying a home cost around three times what the average Australian earned in a year. Today, that ratio is more like eight times. That is the situation that Labor inherited, and that is what these bills begin to fix.
Under these bills, future negative gearing arrangements will focus on new builds. And I want to be really clear about what that means. Existing arrangements remain in place for current property owners. People who have made decisions under the current rules are protected. There is no retrospective change. But, for future investment, incentives will be targeted towards increasing housing supply because, if negative gearing is going to be supported through the tax system, it should support the building of more homes. It should help increase supply. It should help Australians compete for more housing, not simply compete harder against one another for the same housing stock. If we are serious about affordability, we have to be serious about building more homes.
While this government is focused on fixing the problem, the opposition have made a different choice. They have said that they will fight these reforms. They have been clear: if they win the next election, they will reverse them. Those opposite are not just opposing the solution; they are promising to recreate the problem. They would take taxpayer dollars and use them to subsidise property investors over first home buyers. They would wind back the five per cent deposit program, saying to the 515 people in my community of Bonner that they don't get to own their own home. They would scrap Help to Buy. They would slash social and affordable housing programs. They even want to scrap housing targets and the reform that sits underneath them. That is not an alternative; it is a step backwards, just like their appointment of Tony Abbott as president of the Liberal Party last week. They are not just determined to send their own party backwards; they want to send all of Australia backwards.
Despite what some headlines might suggest, many people in Bonner are telling me that they support reforms aimed at making the system fairer and helping young Australians get ahead. I heard from Lee in Carindale, who wrote to me saying:
Thanks for your action on housing in the recent Budget! Well done! Younger people I'm sure will be most appreciative.
Tony, another local resident, said:
Stick to your guns. This budget has taken the right path …
I think those comments reflect something important. People in my community understand that young Australians deserve a fair chance. They understand that, if we want the next generation to thrive, we cannot simply continue with settings that leave too many behind. They understand that reform is not always easy, but sometimes it is absolutely necessary.
These bills also reform capital gains tax by returning it closer to its original intent. Again, I want to speak plainly about what this means. There has been a lot of misinformation, and Australians deserve facts. Firstly, we are not introducing a tax on inheritances or inherited assets. That claim is simply false. Secondly, this reform ensures Australians are taxed on the real gains they make, not inflation driven growth. Under the reforms, the base cost of assets will be indexed. In simple terms, tax will better reflect actual profit. That is a sensible principle, and it is a fair principle. Importantly, many Australians may pay the same amount of tax or, in some cases, even less depending on circumstances such as inflation, rates of return and how long assets have been held.
These reforms also protect important concessions for small business, including capital gains tax concessions. In Bonner, we have more than 5,000 small businesses in our community, employing locals and supporting our local economy. These local businesses will benefit from the practical support this budget delivers, including $3.5 billion in new business tax relief and making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent. We are also making the two-year loss carry back permanent, supporting startups, delivering tax relief for sole traders and reducing red tape through a new 'tell us once' approach. Importantly, we are cutting regulatory costs across the economy by $10.2 billion and removing 497 nuisance tariffs to reduce compliance costs for business.
This morning the Fair Work Commission handed down its annual wage ruling, and it is good news for working Australians. From 1 July, the minimum wage rises by 5.97 per cent, to $26.44 an hour, and award rates rise by 4.75 per cent. Nearly three million Australians will see that reflected in their pay packet.
Who are those three million Australians? They are disproportionately women. More than half are casual employees. More than a third are low paid. They work in aged care, in child care, in retail, in hospitality. In Bonner, we have more than 1,200 people working in aged care and over a thousand working in the childcare sector. This will be a pay rise for them. These are the people who show up, who work hard and who keep this country running. For too long, their wages have not kept pace with the cost of living.
This government went to the Fair Work Commission and argued for an above-inflation pay rise for the lowest paid workers in this country, something that those opposite have never done. That is what we do as the Labor Party: we fight for those who need it most. And that runs through everything we are doing—a fairer tax system, more pathways into homeownership and wages that actually reflect the contribution working Australians make every single day.
This is the government that we are—a government that cuts taxes for workers, that makes tax time simpler, that fights for first home buyers, that invests in new homes and that goes to the Fair Work Commission and argues for the lowest paid workers to get a fair go. That is not about punishing success. It's not about politics. It's about something more important than that: it's about our core values and it's about making sure that in Australia, if you work hard, if you save and if you contribute, we want you to earn more and keep more of what you earn.
The people of Berowra are disappointed, deceived and angry about this government's unfair and dishonest tax policy. Let me state the central fact plainly. Labor took these taxes to the 2019 election and was defeated on them. Bill Shorten, the then Labor leader, was so confident of his success in that election he told Arnold Schwarzenegger he was going to be the next prime minister. But then people got a hold of this tax policy, and they saw what a dog of a policy it is. The present prime minister promised repeatedly on the record he would not introduce these taxes. When asked directly, he said:
Yes, how hard is it, for the 50th time?
More than 50 times he made the promise, and then he turned around and broke every single one of those commitments.
When John Howard changed a major tax policy, he took it to the people first. This prime minister is too scared to do that because he knows he would get the same answer that Labor got in 2019. Instead, he misled the Australian people and is now governing through the deception as if it never happened. The crime is never the problem; it's always the cover up.
The Australian people aren't fooled. There's a Billy Joel lyric that captures the mood—and, unlike my friend the shadow Treasurer, I'm not going to sing! He says: 'But I don't want some pretty face to tell me pretty lies. Honesty is such a lonely word and mostly what I need from you.' And that's the message the people of Berowra have for a prime minister who has deliberately deceived them.
The coalition opposes schedules 1 and 2, the CGT and negative gearing changes, and will fight these toxic taxes tooth and nail. And a coalition government will repeal them. This is the highest taxing government in Australia's history: $50 billion in higher taxes, $273 billion Australians didn't vote for. Debt is heading to $1.25 trillion. Today's debt is tomorrow's taxes, and the next generation is being handed the bill.
Strip away the rhetoric and what we have is a death tax, a tax on family savings, a tax on renters, a tax on first home buyers, a tax on small businesses and a tax on entrepreneurs—the engine room of the Australian economy. Labor can't manage money and they're coming after yours.
In the weeks since budget night I've listened to people who trusted this government to get the basics right: to ease the cost of living; to support those who plan carefully for the long term; and to provide incentives to take risks, to employ people and to get ahead. Their hopes have been dashed. What I heard from the detailed survey of nearly 2,000 in my community should trouble every member in this parliament. The government's own budget papers admit that their tax changes will result in 35,000 fewer homes being built over the next decade. That isn't our number; it's their number. When you tax something, you get less of it. That's not ideology; it's economics 101. The more you tax housing investment the less housing you get, and this government has decided that's the price young Australians should pay.
On rents, the government's own budget papers admit that its tax changes will increase rents. An independent economist suggests that rents could rise significantly in our major cities. Shane from Cherrybrook put it clearly. He said that, for younger Australians trying to buy their first home, non-property investment was one of the few remaining paths to building deposit wealth, but these tax changes have closed the door.
Phoebe is a public schoolteacher. She's not wealthy. She doesn't travel overseas for holidays. She's someone who made careful investment decisions under the existing rules. She wrote to me with a concern not for herself but for the next generation. She said that the two strategies so many people who want to save for a house are using—rent-vesting and shares—are no now so highly taxed they're barely worth pursuing. Phoebe made a further point that every housing economist already knows but that this government refuses to act on: We need more supply. We need more apartments genuinely designed for families, not studios and one-bedders. That's the path forward, not demand-side tinkering that inflates prices for the very buyers it claims to help.
Nicole, from Dural, asked a question, and I can't improve on it: how does penalising mum-and-dad investors who own one or two properties help younger people get into the market? And she raised the other side of the equation: fewer investment properties means fewer places for people to rent. This government can't simultaneously claim to be helping renters and have punishing policies that shrink the pool of rental housing available to them.'
Our community survey confirmed that this concern is broadly shared. Sixty-five per cent of respondents believe that Labor's proposed changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing will make it harder for Australians to invest, save and build for the future. FSC data confirms that aggressive investors, typically younger Australians aged around 35, will be hit hardest by the CGT changes. Young Australians with the most ambition have the biggest target on their backs.
Small business insolvencies are running at eight closures every business hour. The Treasurer is surveying the damage his own policies are causing and declaring victory. The government is coming for small business with a 47 per cent stake claim. They've done none of the work, taken none of the risk, but they want nearly half of the business. The Prime Minister is that person in every group assignment who never shows up but expects the same grade at the end. Small business isn't just the backbone of the economy. For many owners, it's their retirement savings, their family legacy and the first job for the kids in the community. The government isn't just taxing business; it's taxing a life's work.
Alan from Galston, with 36 years of lived experience, captured this. He and his wife started their business with one assumption: that they could one day sell it and retire. That's not greed; that's planning. This budget has shifted the ground beneath them at precisely the moment they were preparing to step off it. Robert from Pennant Hills puts it plainly: 'This budget is political spin. It adds complexity, does nothing for productivity and, above all, removes certainty, the lifeblood of business confidence. When a government sacrifices certainty for political positioning, it isn't managing the economy, it's gambling with it.'
The Albanese government has buried a 30 per cent death tax in these papers, deliberately hidden, hoping no-one would find it. The Prime Minister was asked questions directly in question time to rule out a death tax, and he wouldn't. We now know why. He couldn't rule it out because he'd already announced one. This is a government that told untruths more than 50 times before the election about not introducing new taxes on homes, on rentals, on investments and on family savings and then tried to sneak a death tax through on top of it all. The deception is breathtaking.
This government has tried to frame its trust tax as a technical question. It's not. It's a question of principle. It's a question of whether this government can be trusted to honour the assurances it gives to Australian families who are trying to do the right thing. Our survey put the question directly: do you support or oppose Labor's proposed minimum 30 per cent tax rate on discretionary trusts? Opposition won by a significant margin: 67 per cent. And when asked whether these proposed changes amount to a death tax by stealth, 65 per cent agreed. These are not the responses of tax avoiders; they're the responses of families who structured their affairs carefully, in good faith and under the rules as they existed.
I recently met with a family from my electorate who run a well-established local business. After our meeting, they followed up in writing. I want to bring their words into this chamber. They'd gone to their accountant, following the government's proposed changes. His advice was measured. Their current structure is as well-positioned as it can be, but distributing funds from these structures is now materially less tax-effective than it was. For a family business like theirs, that affects decisions around reinvestment, around remuneration and around the generational transition of the business that is actively, right now, underway. Think about what that means in practice: a family that has spent decades building something is now trying to pass it to the next generation, and, at precisely the moment that that transition is happening, the government is changing the rules.
Judy from North Epping said that these changes will negatively affect Australians who've worked hard all their lives to provide for their families and themselves in retirement—people who find the retirement they'd planned now made much harder by a government that has moved the goalposts. Nicole from Dural put a human face on what these structures actually are. She and her husband bought a property through their trust, so that their child—who has a disability and can never earn enough to keep up with the rent or mortgage—would have somewhere to live when they're gone. That's not a tax lurk; that's a parent's love, translated into a legal structure. And this government's changes effectively impose what Nicole rightly calls a death tax on that arrangement. I ask every government member to sit with that for a moment. Tony from Cherrybrook is equally clear: these changes are a breach of promise and will drive investment offshore. These families are not asking for a special exemption; they're asking to be heard. And I make that commitment every day—that I will hear them, I will stand up for them and I will take their concerns to this parliament.
Nearly 2,000 residents, as I say, took time to complete the survey—a number that speaks about how much is truly at stake. The response has cut across all age groups, property owners and renters, business owners and employees. Of the 18 per cent who identified as small-business owners, almost all expressed serious concerns. Of the 66 per cent who own shares, the vast majority believe that their investments will be materially worse off. Of the 37 per cent who own investment properties, the message was the same. I should say again: Berowra is the electorate with the third-highest number of people in the country that have taken advantage of the negative gearing arrangements, in order for people to build wealth.
Our survey identified the groups most affected by these changes: family trusts, with 61 per cent of respondents; small businesses, at 51 per cent; property investors, at 60 per cent; retirees, at 44 per cent; and even young investors, at 42 per cent. These people are the backbone of communities like Berowra's.
But what stayed with me was not the statistics. It was the loss of confidence that hard work would be rewarded, that rules wouldn't change without warning and that government was competent at the basics. As one small-business owner wrote: 'I don't expect the government to solve all my problems. I just want them to stop making new ones.' A nurse who owns a home in Berowra Heights wrote to me: 'I did everything right. I worked hard, I saved, I bought a house. Now I feel like I'm going backwards.' And she isn't wrong. Frank from Normanhurst said it plainly. He said: 'This government is not just damaging household finances. It's damaging morale.' And that's why this set of tax laws that are before the parliament need to be opposed.
The people of Berowra deserve so much better. They deserve a government that understands that a discretionary trust is not a tax lurk; it's a legitimate structure for families like Nicole's to secure a child's future. It's a legitimate structure for Alan, who built a business over 36 years, on the promise he could retire from it; and for Judy from North Epping, who worked hard all her life, only to find the rules changed at the final hour. That's a betrayal of trust, and I won't let it go untested.
These people deserve a genuine housing plan—not tax changes that close investment pathways that first home buyers were using; not tax changes that drive up rents and deliver 35,000 fewer homes, by the government's own reckoning. They deserve a government that backs small business—one that understands, as Alan from Galston does, that building a business over decades and selling it to retire isn't greed; it's actually the Australian dream. They deserve the certainty that Robert from Pennant Hills identifies as the lifeblood of confidence. And they deserve a government that understands what Frank from Normanhurst, what Judy from North Epping, what Robert from Pennant Hills and what nearly 2,000 residents of my electorate took time to say: that confidence matters—that, when government keeps breaking the compact with the people who plan, who save and who build, the damage goes well beyond the hip pocket. It goes to the heart of what this country is supposed to be.
This is a series of bad-faith measures. They are an assault on aspiration. They pull up the ladder of opportunity from young Australians before they get the first foot on the rung. This isn't intergenerational fairness; it's intergenerational fraud.
Like many in this House, I believe in the skills and the talent of our young generation and in their power to shape our communities and society, and I believe it is our role to give them the skills, the opportunities and the networks to cross that bridge into their future. That's why my team and I, working with Fairfield City Council and Mayor Frank Carbone, with Nicolas Chambour from the NSW Department of Education's Educational Pathways Program and with Susanna Tieu, a careers adviser at Bonnyrigg High School, designed and delivered the inaugural Fowler Future Fest, a careers expo held at Fairfield Showground in the heart of Fowler, bringing together more than 80 stallholders and nearly 1,500 year 12 students for a day that excited them, connected them and inspired them about their future.
It was not a talk fest. It was practical, hands on and community driven. NIDA, the National Institute of Dramatic Art, was there, as was the Fashion Institute, the Housing Industry Association, Western Sydney University and many other universities, training providers, small businesses and not-for-profit organisations. Under one roof, our students could see real pathways into technology, the creative industries, the trades, health, business and community service. It was a memorable and very impactful day. Young people came up to me and thanked my team, the mayor and everyone who gave them this opportunity. One student told me that she could finally decide what subject to study and what to do at university. Another said our panel had inspired him to start his own business. Some left excited about the trades, others about a future in social work.
Many of these students are the first in their family to finish school, let alone to go to TAFE or university. They come from families working multiple jobs, squeezed by the cost of living and by housing stress. In a community where most families speak a language other than English at home, our young people carry the hopes of parents and grandparents who gave up everything for the chance this new generation holds. For once they could see themselves in the person standing in front of them in the hall, telling them that they could do this. That is what Fowler Future Fest was about—possibility, belonging and opportunity. It was the simple but powerful message that dreaming and achieving belongs to them too.
A day like this takes many hands and many hearts. I would like to also thank Louise Azzopardi and the Truckin' for Life crew for giving their time and their heart to our young people. I thank many of the local talent who sat on our panel and shared their own stories of struggle and success, including Deputy Mayor Kevin Lam; Ben Stewart, founder and CEO of Evolution Laser Clinic; Rich Tran from Ultrafade; Ronya Gilani of Rilanea; Krisha Valencia; Christian Barac; Anthony Nguyen; Jesse Sene-Lefao; MJ from Ministry Barbers; local artist Alicia Varas; George Kalisperis; Maryana Khoshaba; and Mustafa Al Jaboore. A special thanks to Cabra Bowls, Amazon and Rotary for donating prizes and giving their time on the day; to the local businesses and organisations that believed in Fowler Future Fest and showed up for our young people—Fred's One Stop Shop, Yanni Boutros of Al Basha Bakery, Street University, our Fairfield St John Ambulance volunteers, the Australian Defence Force, our local SES unit—and, most of all, to our teachers, who brought nearly 1,500 students to the showground that day and who, year after year, refuse to let our young people's potential go to waste. Thank you.
This is why we must ensure our system makes it easier for young people to aspire and succeed. The job-ready graduates scheme has loaded some of the heaviest student debts in the country onto the students who can least afford them. In a community like ours, that is not how you build aspiration; it's how you crush it. I will keep saying it in this place. Please reverse the Job-ready Graduates and invest properly in our young people, in traineeships and in infrastructure to make them reach for their dreams easier. Our young people in Fowler are job ready. It is time for this parliament to be future ready. We told them to dream big, and at Fowler Future Fest they did exactly that. Now it is up to us to make sure those dreams never turn into debt.
There has never been a more important time for building science capacity, and the Albanese Labor government is developing science capacity and expanding Australia's rare-earth processing capabilities in southern Sydney. I was proud to join the resources minister, the member for Brand, a few weeks ago to open new facilities at ANSTO in Lucas Heights that will help unlock new opportunities for our critical minerals industry, like processing clay hosted rare earth deposits and a new high-purity quartz production—a crucial input for semiconductors, solar panels, telecommunications and medical and defence equipment. These value-adding capabilities deliver practical solutions aligned with the federal government's Critical Minerals Strategy. This facility, right in the middle of Hughes, will be a source of new jobs, stronger industries and more resilient supply chains for our future.
While physical infrastructure and facilities are important, we need a skilled workforce with strong competencies in science, technology, engineering and mathematics to leverage the opportunities that lie beneath our feet. Our government understands how critical a skilled and confident workforce is to Australia's future prosperity, and that's why we're investing in fee-free TAFE and knocking down barriers that prevent young people getting the skills they need. It was fantastic to meet newly permanent apprentices at ANSTO a few weeks ago and celebrate their onboarding from agency contractors to full-time staff. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union have been working with ANSTO to bring new apprentices in house, providing stronger supports and removing a lack of certainty that prevented some apprentices from finishing their qualifications. Where apprentices were previously engaged through a group training organisation, they will now be directly employed by ANSTO. The first apprentice under this new model will graduate next month and has already secured a permanent role at ANSTO. This is a critical change that will help rebuild Australian skills in precision design and fabrication, stemming from right here in Hughes.
The science minister, Senator Ayres, and the member for Barton and I also had the opportunity to tour the workshop and see firsthand the world-class work these apprentices do that is so critical to Australian industry, manufacturing and medicine. I'd like to thank ANSTO and the AMWU team for having us along to these exciting facilities and to meet these talented apprentices starting work under this new model.
I was proud to attend some significant sporting events in our community in recent weeks, one of which was the annual Bosco FC versus Titans day on the 23 May 2026. The Titans are a team in the Sutherland Shire Football Association aimed at including kids with disabilities in mainstream sport and to have a lot of fun at the same time. The games have a similar format to Sutherland Shire football, with the younger players through to full-field for the senior teams. Bosco has been conducting an annual day playing the Titans since before my time playing for Bosco FC many years ago, and I can still remember the fun and unique experience that playing against the Titans brought. The rain held off for the most part, and the day was such an exciting, enjoyable and fulfilling one where all members of the football community could be celebrated in a fun and slightly competitive atmosphere.
Bosco teams put in a significant effort, but, unfortunately for Bosco, it wasn't their day, and the mighty Titans were able to maintain their hold on the cup for another year. It was a real privilege to be able to give out medals to the successful Titans and to congratulate them for their efforts. It was fantastic to hear some of the players speak at the presentation as very graceful winners. Thank you to Bosco FC president Tim Myers, vice president Jackie O'Riordan and Titans president George Lazarou and organiser Che Webster for putting this incredible event together and bringing so much value to not just members of the communities with disability but the broader sporting community in the Sutherland Shire.
A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of joining the Yarrawarrah Tigers at Tigertown as they hosted an A-grade clash against the reigning premiers, the Gymea Gorillas. The field was absolutely packed. Considering that this team is a brand new one in the first grade competition, after almost five decades, for the Yarrawarrah Tigers, I was astonished at how much the community turned out to support the local club. The Tigers have also done amazing work from going from having no female teams to having significant female representation. It was a potent reminder of how much clubs like these bring our communities together, and I'm so grateful to the committee, including Beth Barclay and Tyler Gibbons, for all the efforts put into getting this club to thrive. Our grassroots community sports clubs are such an important part of our community in the shire. Sporting culture goes far beyond the scoreboard. It's central to keeping our communities connected, and I'm so grateful for the tireless work of the volunteers who make our community stronger every single day.
The Albanese Labor government's negative gearing and capital gains tax changes demonstrate their inclination to tax ambition first and justify it later. Now Labor is once again reaching deeper into the pockets of millions of hardworking Australians. Australians deserve a tax system that rewards effort, encourages investment and supports people who want to build something for themselves and their families. That is why the coalition will take the axe to Labor's opportunity-crushing taxes. These are taxes on housing. These are taxes on savings. These are taxes on investments. These are taxes on small businesses. It's like Labor thinks Australians forget.
In 2019, Labor went to the Australian people with sweeping tax changes, slashing the capital gains tax discount and abolishing negative gearing. They expected applause. But Australians overwhelmingly rejected it, and they lost the election. At the 2025 election, the Prime Minister said more than 50 times that his government, the Albanese Labor government, would not impose changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. He said to Australians over and over again that his word is his bond. There would be no changes to CGT and no changes to negative gearing.
Fast forward to 2026, and the Prime Minister has done the unthinkable. We can no longer say the four-letter word in this chamber that describes people who do not tell the truth. You know what word I'm talking about. The media has been reporting it for weeks now. Well, I'm sorry, Prime Minister, but Australians did not elect you to break promises and just change your mind. They will remember this, and they will be very angry. Australians understand something the Albanese Labor government refuses to learn. If you punish aspiration, people stop aspiring. And when you punish the people who build things—wire our homes, pour our slabs, fix our pipes and train the next generation—you don't hurt the rich; you hollow out the backbone of communities like mine in Lindsay.
If the Reserve Bank lifts the cash rate next week, Roy Morgan reports that 1.57 million mortgage holders would be pushed into the danger zone of mortgage stress—an increase of 104,000. The share of mortgage holders at risk of mortgage stress would increase to 30.7 per cent in July. For context, the record high was 35.6 per cent during the GFC—the global financial crisis. As of 14 September 2025, Casula in Western Sydney had the highest proportion of arrears. About one in 40 mortgage homeowners are falling behind on repayments. Other higher arrear areas include Cambridge Gardens, in my own electorate of Lindsay.
The 2021 census showed Regentville had the highest proportion of households paying more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. In the City of Penrith, over 30 per cent of renting households were paying $450 or more a week back in 2021. The average rent is now $600. Behind those numbers is a very real person. I know this. This is my community. These are young people wanting to get ahead in life and pensioners who skip heating in winter so they can keep roofs over their heads. And there's another side of the story. There are the people who own one modest investment property. They're not moguls. They're not tycoons. They're just everyday Australians. Not everyone understands crypto. Not everyone plays the stock market. Most don't have a financial adviser on speed dial. These are the people who put their faith in something they do understand—bricks and mortar. A small unit in North Penrith. An old townhouse in St Marys. A modest investment property in Werrington Downs. Something solid. Something they can touch. They're not trying to get rich. They're just trying to take responsibility for their future. These are Australians who have saved, sacrificed and planned. But, right now, they feel the one thing they built so they could live comfortably in their retirement is being taken away from them.
This is why the coalition will introduce a tax-back guarantee—to end the inflation tax and to stop Australians being taxed more simply because prices have gone up. The principle is simple: when your wages rise just to keep up with inflation, you are not better off. But under the current tax system, you are taxed as if you are. That's unfair and dishonest. Under a coalition government, that will end. Under Labor, Australians work harder, pay more and fall behind. Under the coalition, Australians will be rewarded to keep more and to get ahead. If the Albanese government keeps treating aspiration like a taxable offence, eventually fewer Australians will bother trying to build anything at all.
I seek leave to table the Daily Mail article 'Why politicians are banned from calling Anthony Albanese a "liar" in parliament'.
Leave not granted.
In the last term of government, I was honoured to sit on the Select Committee on Workforce Australia Employment Services, chaired by my friend the member for Bruce. We heard some horrible stories. We heard about young mums being cut off from income support because they hadn't attended a playgroup because their baby was sick. We heard of people being cut off from income support because they didn't attend a mutual obligations appointment, even though the reason for non-attendance was that they were attending a job interview. We heard about people with master's degrees who'd written an entire thesis being sent for an intro to computer skills course coincidentally run by the same company as the Workforce Australia Employment Service.
We heard about people finding their own jobs but being required by their provider to sign it off so the provider could get paid for finding that job. We heard from employers being swamped by inappropriate job applications, which wasted their time and made recruitment more difficult, because jobseekers were desperately trying to keep up with the '20 job application per month' requirement. We also heard from Workforce Australia workers who had gone into the business because they wanted to help people but instead found themselves forced into a compliance role, having to make heartbreaking decisions about cutting people off from income support when they really wanted to give them a hand up, not a slap.
Part of the Australian dream—the Australian deal—is that people should be able to get ahead through work. They should be able to have a meaningful, well-paid, secure job, to build a life, to build a future and to build this country. For those who do not have work, for whatever reason, the government provides income support and assistance with finding a job. The Albanese Labor government is committed to facilitating meaningful work for all Australians. We want everyone to have the dignity of work. This is not the experience, however, of so many participants in the Workforce Australia system.
It failed to take into account the varied skills, experience and barriers to employment of individual jobseekers. It was unable to facilitate meaningful employment for its participants and instead became a compliance management outfit. As a result, one in five participants—140,000 Australians on Workforce Australia—have been unemployed for five years or more. Workforce Australia had not been meeting their needs or helping them address the barriers they have. It has not been helpful in finding meaningful employment for them, nor has it worked for employers who said they would never think of going to a Workforce Australia provider to find employees.
The Albanese Labor government is committing a once-in-a-generation overhaul of Workforce Australia to a system that will work for those experiencing unemployment and also for employers. I was thrilled to hear my friend the Minister for Employment and Workforce Relations announce the first tranche of changes from a one-size-fits-all to a three-stream service model so participants can receive the appropriate level of service depending on their needs.
Firstly, the digital stream will cater to those who require less intensive supports and only brief interventions, providing individualised resources, training and career mapping. This will suit people who, for instance, have been employed and maybe just lost their job but are likely to be able to find a job themselves with little assistance. The second stream will help participants who need a bit more assistance to build the skills and confidence that they need to return to work. This will include relevant mutual obligations, active job coaching, work-ready supports and in-demand jobs training aligned with the individual's employment goals. Stream three will provide the most intensive supports for participants who are experiencing significant and sometimes multiple barriers to employment, whether that be health, disability, discrimination, skills, literacy, caring duties or confidence. It will consider participants' experience, skills and barriers and tailor a program that is meaningful, practical and connected to the community. Mutual obligations will remain, but they will be purposeful and productive rather than pointless and punitive. Fundamentally, we will be asking: are the mutual obligations effective in helping this Australian move closer to finding a job?
These changes aim to provide effective and targeted assistance to Australians experiencing unemployment—help that is centred on the actual purpose of the whole scheme: to help Australians find a job—and they can't come soon enough.
The biggest tax hike in this year's budget isn't on billionaires. It's on ordinary Australians who have spent decades building assets and planning for their retirement so as not to be a burden on the state. For my constituents in Flinders, it's not that the Albanese government's budget misses the mark. It puts a target on the back of every single person who has worked hard, saved hard and planned for the future. And nowhere is that clearer than Labor's changes to capital gains tax.
A few weeks ago I sat at a community lunch next to a bloke who, together with his wife, had run first one, then two and then tens of cake shops across Melbourne before he retired and passed on the business to others. He said to me, 'If this budget's changes were made back then, all those 4 am mornings of baking cakes and biscuits would have been for nothing.' This is one of the many stories I have heard around my electorate. It's not just one family but generations of families who have built up a small business from scratch. And there are others who may have invested and developed property or managed to keep a family holiday home across generations despite ever increasing tax grabs from state Labor. Now there's this ultimate slap in the face: when you sell, Labor will not just be taking a slice of the pie; it'll be taking up to half.
Flinders will be one of the hardest hit electorates in the country. That's because we are a community of tradies, farmers, small-business owners and retirees who have spent years building something from scratch and paying all our taxes. According to analysis from the ATO and the Treasury, more than $300 million in capital gains tax discounts are claimed by Flinders residents. That's the 12th highest rate anywhere in the country. And it's not because we're a community of millionaires but because we're a community of investors, business owners and retirees.
On average, in my electorate, we are both poorer and older than the average Victorian, but we are also spectacularly self-reliant. When people retire, they downsize. They pass the business they've spent 30 years building onto the next owner. And that's exactly, now, when Labor will pounce.
It's not just the older generations who've been hit by Labor's war on aspiration and wealth. When governments make it harder to build up savings and value, easier to tax success and less attractive to invest, they send a message to the next generation: your ambition is my revenue source. Last week I received a letter from a couple at the other end of their aspiration journey. It reads:
My wife and I are in our early 30s and live in Somers. We are exactly the kind of people who thought we were doing the right thing financially.
Instead of buying multiple investment properties, we spent years saving carefully and investing into ETFs and shares. Our goal was simple: to slowly build enough wealth over decades to eventually fund our own retirement and reduce reliance on the pension system.
Like many Australians, we used a family trust structure for flexibility and long-term planning. We always understood that we would pay tax on gains when assets were eventually sold, but that those gains would flow through and be taxed at our marginal rates.
Under the proposed minimum 30% CGT and trust changes, that entire plan effectively stops making sense.
It feels incredibly discouraging for younger Australians who followed the advice we were always given: work hard, save consistently, invest responsibly and try to become self-sufficient.
The emotional impact of these changes has honestly been significant. It feels like the rules are being rewritten midway through the game, and that younger Australians are being locked out of the same opportunities previous generations had to build long-term financial security.
New Zealand is after all only a short plane ride away, and we'd have visas instantly, and could have our tax residency changed pretty quickly.
It makes sense for us to just pay off our mortgage, and then move there before accumulating large gains that the ATO will tax to oblivion.
I run a business remotely, and so could work from anywhere. So frankly, leaving Australia would be very easy. I know many Australians are feeling similarly, especially entrepreneurs who fear a massive CGT bill when they sell.
With a more mobile and globalised business world, it's easier than ever for us to lose our capital and, importantly, our talent to other countries. Labor and their friends on the crossbench like to talk about fairness and intergenerational inequity, but, when they call for the CGT discount to be wound back, they're actually calling for higher taxes on thousands of people on the Mornington Peninsula—hardworking, independent minded people who now wonder what value we, as Australians, put on a life of sacrifice.
It is a great honour to represent the largest Iranian community in Australia in my electorate of Menzies. They are our business owners, colleagues, artists, volunteers and friends and our children's classmates, giving so much of themselves and their rich culture to our country.
It has been a difficult year for our Iranian community. The conflict in the Middle East has caused further fear and uncertainty for loved ones and compatriots but also hope that the Islamic Republic regime in Iran may be weakening. This comes after the brutal crackdown against protesters by the regime earlier this year, which saw tens of thousands of Iranians killed and terrible human rights abuses—all of this amongst a communications blackout that heightened that fear and uncertainty. It is not only the last 12 months, though, that have been difficult but 47 years of trauma caused by the Islamic Republic regime. The communications blackout has lifted in recent days, which has allowed further reports to come out of the horrific actions of the regime both during the protests earlier this year and under the cover of the current conflict, where the regime has continued to carry out executions and arrests of those it deems dissidents.
Local people have also expressed to me fears of supporters of the regime operating here in Australia. Small-business owners and their families in my electorate who have displayed the Lion and Sun flag have reported being targeted for violence and abuse. I want to assure those people that these concerns are treated incredibly seriously, and I will continue to raise them at the highest levels.
I want to particularly thank the Iranian community in my local area, who have taken the time to meet with me and members of the government to help us better understand how we can support them. I'm incredibly grateful to House of Persia in Doncaster for bringing together community leaders and hosting the Minister for Home Affairs, as well as the member for Deakin and me, for important and honest conversations. Thank you to president Frank Parvizian and the entire committee at House of Persia for the work you do supporting our community. I want to acknowledge local business owner Shahrzad Shirkhanzadeh and Dr Minoo Ghamari for taking time to talk to me about their concerns and how the Australian government can better support Iranian Australians. I'd also like to thank the Australian Iranian Society of Victoria for their ongoing engagement and for holding their Nowruz celebration at Victoria's Parliament House a couple of months ago to mark the new year and share the beauty of Persian culture through a tradition that is over 3,000 years old. Thank you to Afrooz, Kam, Houra and all those involved at AISOV for your tireless work and advocacy. I'm grateful to the Manningham Baha'i community for meeting to raise their concerns regarding the ongoing oppression of the people of their faith, particularly prisoners on death row being subject to torture and even mock executions.
Another troubling discourse that our Iranian community have had to deal with is, unfortunately, the statement by the opposition leader suggesting Iran is a bad country. Such reductive language is not fitting for someone who seeks to lead this country. I know that Iran is a great country and a great civilisation with a great people and a terrible, oppressive, murderous government in the Islamic Republic regime.
I know some people will be hoping for an end to the war in Iran, but I also know that many Iranian Australians do not want a return to the status quo. They will be hoping for change. I know that many people in my community have expressed strong support for Reza Pahlavi. I believe that Iran's political future should be determined by the Iranian people. I stand with all Iranians across society in their fight against oppression. Our government has recently announced additional sanctions and travel bans, bringing the total to over 230 sanctions against individuals and entities linked with the regime and the IRGC. This is on top of expelling the Iranian ambassador and listing the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism. This is stronger action than any previous government has taken.
To the Iranian people in my electorate: I want to thank you for your continued engagement, for your contribution to our community and for your strength and resilience at this incredibly difficult time. The Albanese government and I as your local member will continue to call out the actions of the Islamic Republic regime and will continue to stand with the brave people of Iran and with all Iranian Australians.
I love this country. I love what it means to be Australian. I love what it meant to me, when I was playing overseas, to hear the anthem and see the flag. I love driving up to this place in the morning, seeing Parliament House—the flag twice as large as a double-decker bus. I love coming into this place because of the opportunities that it provides and the opportunities that it affords us. In this place I sit next to a boilermaker who also happens to be a five-time Olympian. That's crazy. I see around me people from all different walks of life: social workers, sparkies, doctors, lawyers, teachers.
My parents were teachers. In 1981, just before I turned two, they bought their first house—they built their first house. My sister came home to that house. My first pet, a rabbit creatively named Rabbit, also came to that house, allegedly because my parents were too poor to afford birthday presents that year. But they built him a hutch. It wasn't very good, and Rabbit promptly ran away. Rabbit was replaced by other pets: Boy George, the border collie-Scotch collie cross; Sally, the labrador; Icky the cat; Deefa the cat; and Riva the cat.
Memories were created in that house. Like I said, my sister came home there. The place where I fell through the roof and then blamed it on the cat remains unfixed. The thump of the basketballs that I used to play with as a child reverberate through that home. They are still there. My posters are still on the wall—Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Dennis Rodman. Stickers populate the door. They should probably paint that; they have not. And now, because my parents are still in their own home, more memories have been created: my daughters squealing when the timed sprinklers went on and surprised them when they were three and five years old; my nephews going there as babies—hearing that newborn baby cry in the house; Christmases, with the smell of the pine tree cut down from out the front.
Those memories belong in that house and they belong to those people, because memories are more than just a single point in time. They grow and are added to, and they imbue the area in which they were made. That is not a house, to paraphrase The Castle; it's a home. It's my parents' home and it's been their home for 46 years, and everything that comes with it belongs to them.
I didn't have that opportunity. I rented a lot. I moved around a lot. The formative memories of my children playing monsters in the backyard—that backyard belongs to someone else. Making a fort in a living room to watch TV at night—that living room belongs to someone else. My daughters falling asleep on my lap because it's past their bedtime but I've let them watch Finding Nemo one more time—that different living room again belongs to someone else. I have those memories, but they are not refreshed every day, like my mother's memory is refreshed every day when she walks past my room and when she walks past the old toy box. That is something that I don't have, and it is something that I hope my children get to have. Should my daughters choose to have children, I want them to come home to their house, to grow up in their house, with their backyard, and that the little funerals that you have for pets as a child are able to be remembered, that all of those little things that go into the woodwork and seep into the carpet, and the smells, the sounds and the creaks all remind them every day of the life they have built in their home. That's what this is all about: levelling the playing field, giving people the opportunity to develop that life that my parents have loved and enjoyed, the one that I slightly missed out on, the one that I want my daughters to have.
That's why this is so important: 75,000 houses. And we're seeing that investment right now: $140 million for trunk infrastructure just south of Cairns, where 13,000 homes will one day be built, where Christmases will happen, where grandparents will meet their grandchildren for the first time. The best and the worst of life will happen there, but you'll have that sanctum, that protection, that part of Australia that makes it yours—your own home.
The status quo was no longer working. That should not be a debate. That is a fact. We know it to be a fact because we keep hearing about first home buyers, young people priced out of the market, giving up hope, believing that they are never, ever going to achieve the great Australian dream, that they're not going to have the Hills hoist in the backyard, that they're not going to be able to play cricket with the kids, because it's going to be somebody else's. Don't you want to give that back? Don't you want to give young Australians that opportunity? Don't you want to present them with that pride that they'll get from having their own home?
It takes courage to make changes. This government is showing that courage—the courage to reach our hands out and say: 'We hear you. We understand. And the playing field will be levelled.' We want people to build homes. We want people to invest in property, but to make that a new property, to add to the supply. You can negatively gear. You can use the same CGT. You just have to build a new home. As I said, there are about to be 13,000 of them, just south of Cairns, 5,000 reserved for first home buyers and 8.000 for investors, if you want them. This is going to mean that Australia is given back to everybody, that everyone gets that chance, everyone gets that opportunity, because it's really only opportunity that we are fighting for. What you do with that opportunity is up to you, but you need to be able to reach it, and for too long it was slipping out of grasp, further and further away.
Prior to these changes, it could take up to 20 years to save for a deposit. If you start seriously saving for a deposit at 25 and nothing goes wrong, you'll be fractionally younger than I am now when you get your first home deposit. That's crazy. My parents had paid off their house by the time I was 15—it's a great house—and then they got to get on with the rest of their lives. They could salary sacrifice to ensure that their super was large enough that they could enjoy retirement. They're not going to be paying off a house until they're 65 or 70 years old. They got to live the best versions of themselves, and they got to do that because they were able to buy a house when they were young and it was affordable. This government wants that for everybody.
But there's more than that. We're reducing the tax burden for more than 13 million workers. That's five tax cuts that this Anthony Albanese Labor government has put in—five, not just a slightly-above-mediocre boy band from the early 2000s but a ringing endorsement of the faith we have in Australian workers that they deserve to keep more of what they earn in their pocket to be what they want to be, to spend how they want to spend. And they want to spend on housing. That is overwhelmingly what we're told, every single day, at every doorknock, at every phone bank, in every community office. And I know I'm not speaking just for myself but for right across the country: 'You've got to do something about the housing. I'm concerned about my children. I'm concerned about my grandchildren. It doesn't seem fair. How are they ever going to get their foot in the door?'
We are creating those spaces. We are creating that opportunity. There is no greater purpose of a government than to create opportunity for the next generation. It is our absolute responsibility in this place to find a way to get that hope back, because hope drives aspiration, aspiration drives wealth and all of that is interconnected, intertwined. We've snatched away, over successive governments, over many decades, that spark of hope—that part that says, 'This is mine.' Ownership is important. Place is important. Sense of belonging is important. And that can occur through homeownership. People will have children. People will create memories. It is everything that the Australian dream suggests.
This is not an easy change. We acknowledge that, but it had to be done. The time had expired on locking out the younger generation. Jokes about avocado and toast do not cut it. The only thing that makes a difference is presenting that chance. Five per cent deposits are a huge part of that. The raft of cost-of-living measures that have been rolled out and opposed by those opposite make a difference. You chip away at the boulder to make it more liftable, to make it more achievable.
This is something that I will remember being a part of. This is the day that this House and this government get a chance to let young people back into the game, give them the hope that we had and give them the opportunity that we've enjoyed to hopefully have a rabbit hutch that the rabbit cannot run away from. These make a difference. We make a difference.
By opposing these measures, you oppose the tax cuts. By opposing these measures, you oppose opportunity. It means that we're not listening. If you stand against young people trying to get in their first homes, after every community office you've done, every phone bank you've done and every meeting you've had where someone has sat down and said, 'The answer is housing,' it means you've failed.
I will not leave here having failed. I will leave here knowing that my children have an opportunity to own their own home—that my grandchildren will create memories in a place that is theirs and that they will not be moved around from place to place. I lived in five different homes in two years because I was renting. That was hard for my girls. It was hard for us to create memories. I don't want that for them. I don't want that for anybody. I want everyone to be secure and safe in their own home. That is what this budget has always been about: delivering the great Australian dream.
I rise today to speak on tax reform. For families and small businesses in Capricornia, this is not an abstract debate in Canberra; it's about whether people who work hard can get ahead, whether a pay rise still means something at the kitchen table and whether regional Australians are rewarded for effort or punished for it.
Across Central Queensland, people are doing everything right, but they feel like they are running harder just to stand still. This is the reality of Labor's economy, and that is why this debate matters. In Rockhampton, Yeppoon, Emu Park, Sarina, Mirani, Moranbah and Dysart, people are not asking for more spin. They are asking for relief. They are asking why every time they get ahead a little, Canberra reaches further into their pockets. They ask why families who save are treated as a revenue source, why renters are hit with higher costs, why first home buyers are being priced out and why small businesses are expected to carry more of the load. Labor's answer is always the same: more tax, more complexity and more excuses. The coalition's answer is different. We believe that people who work hard, save hard and take risks should be backed, not bled dry. Bracket creep is one of the clearest examples. Australians understand it because they live it. Inflation pushes wages up on paper. Workers move into a higher tax bracket, and the government takes a bigger slice, even though their buying power has barely improved. It is a quiet tax hike built into the system, and Labor relies on it. Labor says it wants to help with the cost of living, while benefiting when inflation drags workers into higher tax over time. This is not fairness. It is government balancing its books on the backs of people trying to keep up.
The coalition's approach is the opposite. We believe the tax system should reward work not punish it. That is why the coalition's tax-back guarantee would index income tax thresholds to inflation so Australians are not taxed more simply because prices have gone up. It is a structural reform not a temporary patch. It would protect around 85 per cent of income earners from 2028-29, with a relief of about $250 in year 1, growing to more than $1,000 a year by year 4, before extending to all taxpayers. Labor's model said government should quietly benefit when workers are dragged into higher tax brackets. The coalition's model says that, if Australians earn more because prices have risen, they should keep more of what they earn.
This is the difference between a government that manages decline and an opposition that wants to restore reward for effort. Let us be clear. The bill includes the working Australians tax offset and the $1,000 standard deduction. The coalition supports those measures, but they sit beside a much bigger agenda of higher taxes on savings, investment and enterprise. Schedule 1 changes capital gains tax. Schedule 2 changes negative gearing, and buried in the broader agenda is a tax hit on family savings and discretionary trusts. This is Labor's pattern: give a little with one hand and take much more with the other. Labor offers a headline-friendly offset while designing a tax system that reaches deeper into people's futures. The coalition will support genuine relief, but we will not pretend these small sweeteners cancel out the wider assault on aspiration.
This is the fundamental difference between Labor and the coalition. Labor sees the economy from the top down—more tax, more redistribution and more dependence on government. The coalition sees it from the ground up, built by workers, families, investors, small business owners and self-starters who take risks and create opportunity. Labor's instinct is to tax the very behaviour Australia needs more of savings, investing, building and backing yourself. The coalition's instinct is to remove barriers, reward effort and create the conditions for growth. Labor manages decline. The coalition backs aspiration.
For the people I represent in Capricornia, that difference is not theoretical. It is the worker in a mining camp doing overtime and seeing more of it disappear. It's the nurse or aged-care worker picking up extra shifts because the bills do not stop. It is a tradie paying more for fuel, materials and insurance. It is the cafe owner on the Capricornia coast working weekends just to keep the doors open. It's the family in Rockhampton looking at a pay rise and realising it still will not stretch far enough, because groceries, power, rent and mortgage repayments have all gone up. Labor's answer is more intervention and more tax. The coalition's answer is to restore the confidence that work will pay, saving will matter and enterprise will be worth the risk.
The contrast is just as stark on housing. Labor says its tax changes are about fairness and first home buyers, but the government's own material points in the opposite direction—fewer incentives to invest, lower confidence and fewer homes. When you tax something, you get less of it. If you tax housing investment more heavily, you get less housing investment. Restrict negative gearing and change the capital gains rules at the same time, and you do not create affordability. You shake confidence, reduce supply and tighten the market. Labor recalls that reform. In reality, it is a wrecking ball through the very investment that helps deliver rental stock and new housing. The coalition's position is straightforward. We oppose the capital gains tax changes and the negative gearing changes. If these measures become law under Labor, a coalition government will repeal them.
Repeal is only part of the answer. We also need common sense on housing and migration, investment in enabling infrastructure and a clear focus on supply rather than punishment. When governments get housing policy wrong, renters and young Australians cop it first. Labor talks about intergenerational fairness, but young people are being hit from every angle. They rent for longer, face higher rents when investment leaves the market, and then cop a bigger tax hit when they try to build a deposit. That is not fairness; that is intergenerational betrayal.
The same contrast runs through small business policy. Across Capricornia, small businesses are under enormous pressure. They are battling higher insurance, freight wages, rent, power bills and input costs, and many are still rebuilding confidence after years of strain. But Labor still sees a chance to take more. These tax changes reach into the retirement plans, succession plans and investment decisions of the people who have done the hard work, taken the risks and employed local people. In regional Australia, a small business is often a family's life savings. It's their retirement plan. It's their legacy. It's the first job for young people in the community. Labor says the government is entitled to a bigger stake of that.
The coalition says a life's work should be respected, not raided. The coalition's alternative is to back the self-starters, not punish them with lower, simpler and more predictable tax settings. That includes making the $50,000 instant asset write-off permanent for eligible small businesses so that when a tradie buys a ute, a cafe upgrades equipment or a contractor invests in tools, they can grow with confidence. It also means backing startups and entrepreneurs rather than treating them as an easy source of revenue in an economy increasingly shaped by technology and innovation. Australia should be attracting ambitious founders and skilled workers, not driving them offshore by taxing risk and claiming the upside.
The coalition wants an economy that rewards initiative. Labor is building one that punishes it. At its core, this debate is about what kind of country we want to be—one where government sees every pay rise, every investment gain, every family asset and every small business success as another opportunity to tax; or one that still believes in aspiration, reward for effort and the idea that, if you work hard, save, invest and build something, you should be able to get ahead. Labor's approach is built on broken promises, higher taxes and the belief that government should always take more. The coalition's alternative is lower taxes, lower inflation, and an economy designed to back the self-starters of this nation, not kneecap them.
We will fight these toxic taxes tooth and nail. We support relief where it's genuine, but we reject the broader tax raid on families, renters, first home buyers, small businesses and young Australians. In Capricornia, people do not want carve-outs for bad policy. They want a government that trusts them, backs them and gets out of their way. The people of Central Queensland know the value of hard work, self-reliance and backing yourself. They deserve a tax system and an economy that reflects those values, and the coalition will always stand for an Australia where effort is rewarded, aspiration is encouraged, and the next generation is given more opportunity, not less.
I rise today to speak in strong support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. This legislation represents one of the most significant and forward-looking tax reform packages in more than a generation. At its heart, it's about building a tax system and an economy that works in the interests of more Australians. It's about fairness, aspiration and responsibility. It's about ensuring that we look to the future and that we're not leaving difficult structural problems for the next generation to fix.
The Albanese Labor government is delivering a new round of tax cuts, helping more Australians achieve the dream of homeownership and supporting investment and innovation. This package is pro-worker, pro-investment, and pro-aspiration. It is designed with a clear purpose to make the system simpler, fairer and more sustainable. Through these reforms, we are reducing the tax burden for 13 million workers. We're supporting around 75,000 more Australians into homeownership. We're delivering $3.5 billion in new measures to support businesses and startups and cutting compliance costs by around $540 million every year. This legislation builds on our government's record of responsible economic management. It ensures that the revenue raised is returned to workers and businesses in the near term while improving the sustainability of the budget over the medium term. These reforms are sensible, thoughtful, balanced and necessary. They address the distortions that have built up over decades while supporting growth and opportunity across the economy.
I want to turn to schedules 1 and 2 of the legislation—reforms to negative gearing and the capital gains tax. These are important changes as they go to one of the most pressing challenges that we face as a nation—housing affordability. For too long, the current tax settings have locked out many Australians from owning their own home, particularly young Australians. The existing system has incentivised investment in established properties, and that investment is over the new housing supply, so it's contributed to rising prices and reduced accessibility. This legislation addresses that. It limits negative gearing for residential properties to only new builds for properties purchased after budget night, with changes taking effect from 1 July 2027. Importantly, these changes are grandfathered, meaning that Australians who currently own investment properties or negatively gear will not be affected. This is a targeted reform. It does not punish existing investors. Instead, it redirects future investors with future incentives in new builds. It encourages investment where it is most needed, and we all know that is in new housing supply. By doing so, it is expected to support around 75,000 Australians into homeownership over the next decade. This is about opening the door to homeownership for more Australians.
Alongside this, the legislation reforms capital gains tax arrangements. From 1 July 2027, we are replacing the blanket 50 per cent discount with a system of cost base indexation paired with a 30 per cent minimum tax. This is a sensible and measured reform. It restores the system to its original intent, ensuring that investors are taxed on real gains and not inflationary gains. It also reduces the distortion in investment decisions. Under the current settings, investments have been skewed towards assets that benefit most from tax concessions, particularly established housing, and these distortions have had wide-ranging consequences for both housing affordability and economic efficiency. By applying these reforms consistently across asset classes, we avoid creating new distortions. We are creating a more neutral system, one that directs investment towards where it earns the best real return, not the greatest tax advantage. Importantly, these changes preserve existing small business capital gains tax concessions. The vast majority of small businesses will continue to benefit from reduced or zero capital gains tax when they sell. We are also consulting carefully on how these reforms will apply to startups and businesses with low or zero cost bases, because we recognise the important role that they play in our economy. These changes strike the right balance. They improve fairness, support housing supply and enhance productivity.
I now turn to schedule 3, the introduction of the working Australians tax offset. This is a new, permanent structural improvement to our tax system. From the 2027-28 income year, it will provide a $250 tax offset to Australians that are earning income from work. More than 13 million Australian workers will benefit. This is a straightforward measure with a powerful impact. It recognises a simple truth: for most Australians, particularly young Australians, income comes from work, and the tax system should reflect that. It will effectively increase the tax-free threshold for workers, boosting it to nearly $20,000, or close to $25,000 for those eligible for the low-income tax offset. Combined with our previous tax cuts and other measures in this package, this will benefit the average worker by almost $3,000 by 2028. This is real cost of living relief. It helps workers keep more of what they earn, it encourages workforce participation and it supports aspiration, because people should be rewarded for their efforts.
Importantly, this measure is not temporary. It is a permanent improvement to the structure of the tax system. It is particularly significant for younger Australians. Millennials and gen Zs are expected to make up around two-thirds of the beneficiaries. This is a practical way of giving back to the next generation, helping them to get ahead, save and build for their future.
Schedule 4 of the legislation introduces another practical and impactful reform: a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses. This measure delivers on our election commitment to make tax simpler, faster and fairer. Each year, millions of Australians spend time and money gathering receipts and navigating complex rules to claim work related deductions. These reforms cut through that complexity. Workers will be able to claim an automatic $1,000 deduction—no paperwork required. For those with higher expenses, the option remains to claim actual costs. This measure is expected to deliver, to around 6.2 million workers in the first year, an average tax saving of around $205. It comes with another important benefit: it reduces compliance costs by an estimated $380 million annually. That is time and money that is back in the pockets of Australians. It is a reform that recognises the value of people's time and makes everyday interactions with the tax system easier and more efficient.
These measures do not stand alone. They form part of our broader strategy to strengthen the economy, improve productivity and ensure long-term fiscal sustainability. We are delivering these reforms whilst managing the budget responsibly, making substantial expenditure savings, strengthening Medicare, securing our fuel supplies and providing cost-of-living relief to Australians. We are also supporting investment through a broader productivity agenda, by cutting red tape and reducing regulatory costs by more than $10 billion per year.
Responsible economic management is about making choices, and it's about balancing support today with sustainability tomorrow. This legislation reflects that balance. At its core, this tax-reform package is about intergenerational fairness. For too long, structural issues in our tax system have been allowed to persist—issues that distort markets, entrench inequality and place increasing pressure on younger Australians. This government is taking those challenges very seriously. We are not deferring them. We are addressing them. We are ensuring that our tax system is fit for purpose, not just for today but for decades ahead. We are creating a system that supports aspiration, rewards work and directs investment to where it is most productive. We are doing so in a measured and responsible way, providing certainty through staged implementation and ongoing consultation on the more complex elements. This approach reflects best practice.
This legislation represents meaningful reform. It delivers tax relief to millions of workers. It supports more Australians into homeownership. It encourages investment where it is most needed. And it simplifies the tax system and reduces compliance costs. It does all this while strengthening the sustainability of our budget and economy. This is what responsible government looks like. This is what reform in the national interest looks like. These reforms are the reforms that make our economy work better for more Australians. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. These two bills do four things. They reform capital gains tax, replacing the 50 per cent CGT discount with cost base indexation and introducing a 30 per cent minimum tax, which will apply from 1 July 2027. They limit negative gearing for residential property to new builds from July 2027, grandfathering existing investments. They introduce the working Australian tax offset, which will provide all working Australians with $250 a year from 1 July 2027, and they provide a $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses for all wage earners.
I support 3½ out of these four measures. I've called for reforms to tax concessions granted to property investors since I was elected in 2022. I've called for income tax cuts, but I do not support the proposed CGT reforms beyond property. I want to support this bill, but I cannot in its current form. It's vital that we get these bills right. If this reform is rushed or legislated with known design flaws, it will make the next round of reform harder. It will hand ammunition to those who want to wind it back. Reforms that aren't properly debated and don't carry public legitimacy tend not to survive.
There's a lot of good in this package. I support limiting negative gearing changes to new builds to incentivise housing supply. This addresses a structural distortion that economists and housing researchers have consistently identified. For too long, these settings have tilted the playing field in favour of investors and against first home buyers, subsidising those who already own property at the expense of those trying to get their foot in the door. This reform corrects that. It's prospective and it grandfathers existing investments. Some might say the grandfathering is too generous, but, given that more than half of investment properties are only negatively geared for four to five years, it will taper off.
I support the CGT changes as they apply to housing. That is the decision to retain the 50 per cent CGT discount for investment in new residential builds, while replacing the discount with an indexed model so only real gains are taxed for existing residential property. This is the right companion measure to the negative gearing changes. Together they address the same underlying distortion—tax settings that have channelled investment into existing housing at the expense of new supply and first home buyers.
The CGT discount, in the context of residential property, has not been building broad prosperity; it's been concentrating advantage among high-income investors at the expense of those trying to buy their first home. More than 80 per cent of the benefit of the current CGT discount goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners, and it's right to correct that specific distortion. I think that there's community support for reforming negative gearing and CGT for property. There's a broad consensus that we need to move away from being a country where housing is an investment to accumulate wealth and towards a country where housing is available and affordable for everyone.
In two community consultations over the last two years, I've found that those in my community of Curtin who've participated are strongly supportive of reforming these tax concessions for housing, despite being amongst some of the greatest beneficiaries of the current system. This is why I've fought for reform to the tax concessions for housing investors and why I'm so pleased to see this reflected in the budget and in these bills.
I support the working Australian tax offset. To be clear, at $250 a year, it doesn't come close to addressing bracket creep—the steady, invisible process by which inflation pushes wage earners into higher marginal tax rates year after year—but it moves in the right direction, towards reducing income taxes, and workers will welcome it. It should go further, but it's directionally correct.
I support the $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses. It reduces the compliance burden for millions of Australians, frees up ATO audit resources and is the kind of sensible simplification that should have happened years ago. But I cannot support these bills in their current form, because the government has chosen to extend the CGT reforms beyond housing to all other assets like businesses and shares. Changes to the CGT regime for housing have been socialised. I and others have been talking about this for years, and most of the concerned feedback I've had from constituents since the budget has not been about housing; the case has been made. But the case has not been made for changes to CGT for other asset classes. The government argues that this is needed to create an even taxation landscape. I understand and support this aim in principle. Ideally, investment decisions are made because of economic factors, not tax regimes. There is always a risk that we replace one tax distortion with another. But the tax landscape already has a range of distortions, including for new properties and small businesses, and most are there for a reason.
I support the changes announced in the budget to support small businesses—the loss carry back and loss refundability and instant asset write-off—which will help small businesses with cash flow in the early years, and I back the industry proposal to increase the turnover threshold for small businesses. But I share the concern of my constituent Angus. He told me:
my concern is the breadth of the application. Extending CGT changes to shares, private businesses and other productive assets risks penalising exactly the behaviour we should be encouraging: Australians taking genuine economic risk to build something.
At a time when productivity is a huge concern, we must drive more investment in productive, high-growth assets—ambitious businesses and startups—and risk-taking that can deliver returns for the economy. With the proposed indexing model for CGT, lower growth assets will be relatively more attractive than higher growth assets. That will not incentivise behaviours that contribute to getting us out of our productivity rut. Is this a distortion? Well, maybe it is, but it could also be called a lever to encourage the type of investment we need to protect our future prosperity.
If we were seeing significant cuts to personal income tax, there would be more of a case for extending this CGT reform to other asset classes. We do need to shift more tax burden from workers to wealth over the long term. Passive wealth should not be taxed more favourably than the income of working Australians. But the WATO is hardly a meaningful reduction in the personal tax burden. The government has hinted at future tax cuts, but a future promise is not reasonable justification to pass flawed legislation today.
The best way to shift some of the tax burden from active to passive income would be through the proper indexation of tax brackets, something I've argued for since I was elected in 2022. It's not coherent to index capital gains while simultaneously allowing bracket creep to push wage earners into higher marginal rates year after year through the same inflationary mechanism. Both problems have the same cause. A comprehensive approach to tax reform would address both. I've raised this with the Treasurer, but this principle has not been addressed in these bills.
I move:
That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"does not decline to give the bill a second reading but:
(1) notes that:
(a) while there is community support for reforming the capital gains tax (CGT) discount for property, the Government has not made a strong case as to why the reforms should extend beyond property to other assets;
(b) the proposed CGT reforms beyond property will discourage investment in the most productive and high-growth assets, like successful start-ups, businesses and shares; and
(c) while the Government's aim to build an even tax landscape is sensible, it must not come at the cost of a productive and dynamic economy, nor our ecosystem of start-ups and small businesses; and
(2) calls on the government to restrict the CGT reforms to property, or, at minimum, ensure there is a comprehensive public consultation and inquiry process to assess the impacts of the broader CGT reforms on our economy, productivity and business community".
This amendment limits the indexing approach to the CGT discount to housing so the current CGT discount settings remain in relation to other investment classes. With this amendment, I believe the government will have a mandate to make a difficult long-term change that's needed to level the playing field on housing without a broad range of unintended consequences, particularly for productivity.
Yes, there may be some complexities. I can see that residential properties might be purchased through a company structure to circumvent the CGT changes for housing. There will always be loopholes that need to be addressed, but it would be better to deal with those loopholes head on than to create a huge raft of new problems.
If the government is not yet in a position to agree to this amendment, then the least it could do is to slow the process down to understand the implications of these broad CGT changes. There's been very little consideration of reforming CGT beyond property, either in the community or amongst economists and civil society. The media have reported that the decision to extend the CGT reforms beyond property was made on the basis of Treasury advice less than one month before the budget. There's a short Senate inquiry, but legislation of this significance warrants a far more public and rigorous process. Twenty-five days from referral to report will not be enough time to receive meaningful public submissions, conduct expert hearings, examine the interaction effects with superannuation and business investment or probe the unanswered design questions that the government itself has acknowledged remain open.
Compare this to the 1999 CGT reforms, which were reforms of comparable significance. That process involved an independent review body, in the Ralph review; two public discussion papers; more than 300 public submissions; seminars in every state capital; 31 focus groups; draft legislation released for consultation; and then a Senate committee inquiry on top of all that. From establishment to legislation, the process ran approximately 12 to 14 months, not 25 days. Good process is not procedural tidiness. It's how you build the public legitimacy that makes reform durable. It's how you surface unintended consequences before they're locked into law. It's how the government gets the opportunity to justify the choices it's making. This reform needs that justification.
The government seems to think that crashing through is the best approach—that consultation will just give the haters time to build their campaigns—but this is the hard work of developing policy: actually listening and recognising that you might not always have the right answers upfront and that legislation can always be improved. We used to have a process of green papers and white papers, where governments opened up discussion by publicly identifying an issue, signalled their approach, published exposure drafts, listened to feedback, made improvements and then passed legislation. Now it seems to be legislation by stealth.
It takes confidence to genuinely seek feedback, and there are lots of unanswered questions. What will these changes mean for ordinary Australians building wealth through the share market? The only analysis that exists has come from industry bodies with an obvious interest in the outcome. Does the 30 per cent minimum tax, combined with indexation, produce fair outcomes across different asset classes and different investor profiles? Should capital losses be indexed to inflation? These are questions that need to be answered, and a 25-day inquiry will not be sufficient.
There are particularly difficult questions about the impact of these reforms on startups and high-growth assets. The government has acknowledged that there's a problem here but is asking the House to wave through this legislation and trust it to sort it out later. Unfortunately, that trust has not been earned. The proposed CGT reforms will have the most immediate and material impact on startups. These businesses will be taxed on almost all their gains because the inflationary proportion of their gain is calculated on a very low base. Australia cannot afford to discourage the investment that drives innovation and jobs. Early-stage high-growth businesses must not become collateral damage in a reform aimed at a very different problem.
I've pressed the government on this since budget night, writing to the Treasurer and raising it directly in this House at the first opportunity and on several occasions. The Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer are consulting on a carve-out for early-stage businesses, and I welcome that, but commitments are not legislation. The bills before us today contain no carve-outs for founders, investors or early employees with near-zero cost bases. They contain no mechanism for spreading gains over multiple years. The government is consulting, but there is no answer yet, and the 25-day Senate inquiry will close before that consultation is complete. Asking parliament to pass these bills now on the promise that the hard design questions will be resolved later is asking us to legislate to create a known problem and fix it afterwards. On a question with this much consequence for Australia's innovation economy and our productivity challenge, that's not good enough. The government should not bring a bill to the House that it knows requires immediate amendment.
I came to this parliament calling for exactly the kind of housing tax reform contained in this package. I welcome it. I support the negative gearing changes. I support the WATO as a first step towards reducing the tax burden on working Australians. I support the standard deduction, but I cannot support the extension of CGT changes beyond housing at this point. If the government wants to undertake tax reform that will last, it must build the case for it through a proper consultation process. It recognises that carve-outs are needed for startups. Eligibility will be complicated. The case has been made for CGT reform on housing, but beyond that the case has not been made. The easiest carve-out at this stage would be for all non-housing assets, and the best way to build the public's trust that this is part of a plan to ensure our tax system is fit for purpose in the longer term would be to include meaningful personal income tax cuts in this package, not $250 per person with ministerial discretion.
We need to take the time and get it right, otherwise future tax reform will only be harder.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
For too long, Australia's tax system has more generously rewarded wealth than work. For too long a nurse working nights, a teacher buying classroom supplies, a tradie leaving home before dawn or a retail worker struggling with rising rents have paid a greater share of their income in tax than people making large gains from property and passive investments. That's simply not fair. Right now, it's also simply too tough to get into the housing market—ask Angus and Nick from my electorate.
It's so different to when I grew up. Dad was the only wage earner, yet he and mum could afford to buy a house for us kids—eight kids and a few foster kids. It was a small worker's cottage, but it was my security and my home. It was where I painted walls when mum and dad were out, where we shared the yard with the dogs Benji and Tina and even played cricket with a few neighbours, breaking a few windows in the process.
But the Albanese government is making some big changes. We've delivered tax cuts for all working Australians and we're now taking steps towards building a fairer economy, one where hard work is rewarded and where the dream of homeownership is not permanently pushed out of reach for our younger generation. Every Australian taxpayer will pay less, with the greatest proportional benefits flowing to low- and middle-income earners.
By reducing tax rates in the lowest brackets, Labor has recognised a simple truth: when ordinary Australians are doing it tough, governments should help put more money into their back pockets. The working Australians tax offset, one item in this bill, will provide a permanent tax offset for up to $250 every year for over 13 million Australians from the 2027-28 financial year.
This bill also delivers on our commitment to introduce a $1,000 instant tax deduction from the 2026-27 year. Workers can still claim other non-work related deductions such as charitable donations or super contributions, union and professional association membership fees et cetera. This is designed to help make the tax system simpler for millions of workers.
This is responsible tax relief targeted at working people. It represents the most meaningful permanent increase to effective tax-free threshold since Labor last increased it more than a decade ago. 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 will be under the age of 30 and more than half of them will be women.
This Labor government is 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 a few weeks, and another 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 $2,800 in 2028. This isn't small bickies. It's almost $3,000—over a month of the average rent in Brisbane.
In my first speech to this House, I spoke of one of the biggest challenges facing leaders right now being intergenerational inequality, especially in housing. Every one of us in this chamber should be motivated to provide at least the same opportunities and aspirations to the younger generations as we had, to deliver fairness and the dream of owning your own home. That's what these bills are about. I talk to so many people across the Brisbane community: parents, students, young professionals and many more, and all want to see a better future for themselves, the next generation. But what I also hear is, 'We are working hard, it's tough to get ahead, and the system is not working for us.' And they're right. The status quo is not working, especially regarding the big Australian dream to own your own home.
Australia cannot solve the cost-of-living crisis or the housing crisis without addressing the way our tax system has deliberately encouraged investment to flow into existing assets rather than towards productive economic activity. For decades, generous capital gains tax concessions have distorted wealth creation and investment. We've heard it in this House. The current system allows investors to receive a 50 per cent discount on capital gains regardless of whether those gains come from genuine economic growth or are simply arising because asset prices have risen due to inflation.
Labor's reforms seek to restore the original principle: tax real gains, not inflationary gains. Under the model, capital gains will be adjusted for inflation, rather than adopting a blanket discount. This is not radical. This is common sense. If a worker pays taxes on their wages earned through effort and productivity, why should someone else who is making a financial gain from appreciating assets receive a larger tax preference? Labor's reforms are about balance. They are about ensuring that the tax system serves the entire nation, not just those fortunate enough to already own multiple investment assets.
The proposed changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing are also, though, about housing affordability. Right now it's too hard for many Australians to get into the housing market and get ahead. As I said, I hear this daily from young people, mums, dads and grandparents. House prices have risen by 400 per cent over the last two decades or so. They've gone from four to eight times people's income over the past 20 years, and ownership is down by seven per cent for young people. In Brisbane alone, the median house price has risen by $173,500 in 12 months. That's almost three times the average Queenslander's take-home pay. So it's no surprise that just 44 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 34 own a home of their own.
Our reforms are designed to help level the playing field for first home buyers and encourage investment flows to where it's most productive, including new housing supply. There are so many stories of young people lining up to buy their first home only to be pushed out by investors that have a tax advantage on their side. Where's the fairness in that? Labor is seeking to redirect investment towards new housing construction rather than speculative bidding wars over existing homes. By encouraging investment in new builds, these reforms can support housing supply while easing pressure on first home buyers.
Critics may say that these reforms will punish success. They don't. On this side of the House we do believe that success should be rewarded, that entrepreneurs should be rewarded, that small businesses should be rewarded, that people who take risks and create jobs should be rewarded. These changes still reward success, but not at a rate that far outstrips those who get a pay packet every week and not at the expense of rewarding productive investment.
The Barefoot Investor has offered some commentary on the reforms, saying, 'The system lets wealthy families with good accountants pay less tax than nurses and tradies.' To me, that just doesn't pass the pub test. Dr Tom Hird, an economist and founder of CEG Asia-Pacific, said in a recent article:
Of course, business owners take risks. I did. Businesses fail, clients disappear, employees have to be paid before owners are paid.
But risk is not a magic word that justifies any level of tax concession. The question is not whether the tax system should have concessions for entrepreneurs that salaried employees don't receive. I happen to think that it should. But does 12 to 20 per cent tax on $1 million strike the right balance?
If you think 30 per cent is closer to the right balance then you should be applauding the government's budget
Deputy Speaker, you would also have seen many posts going around the internet saying that with these changes the government is becoming a lazy partner in business. But ask a simple question: compared with who? Compared with a nurse or an engineer, whose income is taxed before it even hits their bank account, or compared with their own employees, many of whom will pay more tax than the business owner? The truth is that people like Dr Tim Hird have done very well out of the current system. As he said:
We have played by the rules. But we should not confuse playing by the rules with the rules being economically sensible—let alone fair.
This is sensible commentary from those who understand that these changes are fundamentally about fairness.
We are presenting the elements in these bills together not just because they're related, but because one part helps fund the other. Changes to capital gains and negative gearing will help pay for the tax cuts for all Australian workers.
This is the first tranche of legislation. There'll be more on specific implementation details in other parts of our tax-reform package. Legislating significant reforms in tranches is a standard approach, consistent with how other governments have undertaken tax reform, and it's appropriate to ensure core policy features that apply broadly to most taxpayers are in place first. As outlined in the budget, the government is consulting with stakeholders on the treatment of capital gains of small and start-up businesses, where indexation is applied to a low or zero cost base.
A modern economy grows when capital flows into businesses, innovation, manufacturing, renewable energy, technology and housing construction, not when tax settings overwhelmingly favour the accumulation of existing assets. These reforms are really about intergenerational fairness. Many Australians are working harder than ever, studying longer than previous generations and carry larger debts, yet they feel further away from the dream of owning their own home—further away than their parents ever did. There's a reason for this. The current system is skewed against everyday workers: bankers, electricians, plumbers, cleaners, nurses, teachers and more. And what the government can do is to be brave—take brave steps to fix what is broken and make the system fairer.
By opposing these reforms, those opposite want to keep down younger Australians trying to get ahead. They will continue locking them out of the housing market. They're okay with a system that unfairly favours the wealthy over mums, dads, students and others who work hard every day just to make ends meet. They show their true colours by voting against our cost-of-living measures, including our tax cuts. They have said, over and over, that they will vote against these reforms and that, if the reforms get passed by parliament, they will repeal them, should they end up in government. This is astounding, not just because of the increased cost to taxpayers but because their now shadow treasurer actually understands this. He admitted in his book that the current CGT concessions are entrenching wealth and exacerbating intergenerational inequality, and the tax discounts on assets tend to favour well-off and established interests against those trying to get ahead.
I want to say to young people across Australia and in the Brisbane electorate: We get that the system is broken. We could have done the easy thing, and just kept going on with the same old same old. But we, this Labor government, want to support you, to give you the best opportunities in life—to give you a fair crack. That's the Australian way. And we will always fight for you.
A fair tax system is not one where everybody pays the same amount. A fair tax system is one where everyone contributes according to their capacity and where opportunity is not determined by whether your parents owned a property before the boom. It's one that rewards effort as much as wealth, and that's not the case now.
Labor's vision is straightforward: tax relief for working Australians, support for first home buyers, investment in housing supply and an economy that works not only for those who already have assets but those who are aspirational, who are still striving to build a future, because the strength of Australia has never come from the privileged few; it has always come from ordinary working people. And that's who these reforms are designed to support.
As leaders, we have a responsibility to ensure the next generation can live a life that they're proud of—that they can build a life they aspire to. But it requires us, as a government, to set the building blocks for opportunity—the same opportunities as, or better than, we had. This budget lays down the foundations to deliver just that. It's about building aspiration. It's a budget about hope. It's a budget providing an ability to build a safe and stable home and a community for people across my electorate and across Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. These bills break faith and break promises that the Albanese Labor government made to the Australian people. The 2026 budget increases taxes, increases debt, and makes life harder for Australian households and certainly harder for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people tell me that the biggest problem in their lives is the cost-of-living crisis. It's at the top of their list of concerns. This budget spends more, taxes more and borrows more, adding to inflationary pressure and making it even harder for households to make ends meet and for businesses to balance their books.
This budget is a direct attack on aspiration for older Australians who are being punished for working hard and saving for their retirement, for business owners who take on the risk of investing in themselves and creating jobs only to now have the Albanese government claim a bigger slice of their capital, and for younger Australians who are being denied the same incentives to save and invest that their parents enjoyed. The hypocrisy and dishonesty of this Albanese Labor government—which promised more than 50 times there would be no changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing—is absolutely staggering. If the government had the guts and the courage of its convictions, it would have taken these broken promises to an election. But it certainly lacks both guts and conviction.
These broken promises, disguised as intergenerational equality, mean that those who are investing in the share market to save for their first home will pay higher taxes and be worse off. Treasury modelling indicates that Labor's changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax could result in 35,000 fewer homes being built over the next decade. What a shocker! Restricting negative gearing to new builds only while grandfathering negative gearing on existing properties denies many Australians the opportunity to build their own wealth and blocks them from the opportunities that our very own prime minister has enjoyed to build his substantial portfolio of assets.
If this government were serious about helping generations to come, it would restrain its spending and not leave them to inherit Labor's $1.25 trillion debt bomb, costing $80,000 in interest every minute. With two million migrants coming into the country over Labor's term, if the government were serious about addressing intergenerational equity and improving housing and rental affordability for Australians, it would cut immigration and implement an immigration policy that worked for Australian citizens, not the Labor Party's political interests.
The income tax cuts announced in last year's budget will take effect this year, but with inflation running at 2.4 per cent, energy bills soaring by 39 per cent and bracket creep costing households $2,000 a year since Labor came to office, their value has been completely eroded. It's the same with the working Australians tax offset in this bill. By the time it comes into effect, in the 2027-28 financial year, any benefit will be completely gone. If the government were serious about tackling cost-of-living relief and bracket creep, it would adopt the coalition's plan of indexing tax rates instead of increasing taxes by a whopping $273 billion over nine years. The new minimum 30 per cent tax on discretionary trusts punishes the families, farmers and small businesses that use these structures for succession and estate planning, and the future tax on testamentary trusts amounts to a death tax, plain and simple.
I'm hearing from small-business owners across Wide Bay who are also outraged by the capital gains tax—an attack on enterprise and aspiration—contained in this so-called budget. One business owner told me that he's worked hard and taken risks to get ahead in life, and now that effort is going to be taxed into oblivion by this Albanese Labor government. He pays company tax, tax on wage earnings and payroll tax, and a further tax on dividends if he's fortunate enough to make a profit. The final death knell for his aspiration is the tax on his trust when he distributes his earnings. He said, 'If the government was so concerned for the state of the budget and the country, why hasn't it reined in its own spending and handouts?' It's a legitimate question: why hasn't this government been prudent in the way that it spends and manages our taxpayer dollars? There have been 15 interest rate rises since Labor was elected in 2022, and the cost of living has skyrocketed. Hardworking Australians are being expected to cut their personal spending, but this Labor government keeps on spending. The number of staffers in the Prime Minister's office has increased by 16 per cent. The number of public servants has increased by 26 per cent.
Under Labor, even the basics have become unaffordable for many Australians. Households are paying more for electricity. A loaf of bread costs 22 per cent more than it did before this government was elected. Milk costs 23 per cent more, tea and coffee are up by 19 per cent, fruit is up by 18 per cent and home insurance is up by a whopping 40 per cent. The $1,000 instant tax deduction for taxpayers contained in this bill won't even begin to cover the rising costs of groceries, fuel and mortgage repayments.
The 2026 budget removes incentives for saving. It's an attack on aspiration. It sets Australians up for intergenerational warfare. It holds everyone back and leaves everyone behind, and it breaks faith with the Australian people.
I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026—which I learned today is affectionately known as TLAB—and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. In doing so, I acknowledge the work of my neighbour the Treasurer, the member for Rankin, who has led the Labor government's economic team to deliver a truly Labor budget and a budget which is aimed well and truly at the people that that the Treasurer and I represent in Logan and the people that that you represent as well, Deputy Speaker Claydon. It is a budget which speaks absolutely to the aspiration of working-class people, who have for too long seen their wages go backwards, their taxes go up, and the great Australian dream of owning their own home disappear under, effectively, 30 years of coalition government.
In fact, I think what this budget does more than any single act of this government is really demonstrate that at the heart of the philosophy of this government sits a rejection of the status quo. The public has had enough. The public is not going to put up with a broken system anymore, and it takes a government with guts to do something about it. I think the philosophy of this government was summed up in two things that the Prime Minister said recently. One was 'nobody held back and nobody left behind', but the other thing that he said, which really struck a chord with me—and he said it much more eloquently than I'm going to be able to say it—was: If you come across a broken system, what do you do? Do you just throw your hands up in the air and say, 'I wish I could do something about it, but I'm only the Prime Minister'? I think it is exactly that sort of attitude that Paul Keating used to describe when he talked about the coalition as presiding over the Rip Van Winkle years, where the country just goes to sleep but slowly falls apart as the rest of the world leaves us behind. It takes a Labor government to really implement Labor values, which are about improving the economic conditions of working-class Australians.
The thing that I also note about this budget is that it is very much where tax policy and housing policy come together. It is absolutely a statement of the blindingly obvious to say that. The two bills here really deal with housing and taxation, particularly the relationship between housing and taxation. The measures in these bills are not going to solve the housing problem on their own. That is going to be solved through the implementation of the most ambitious housing program that we have seen for generations—a $47-or-so billion investment to fix public housing, to create the infrastructure needed to build housing and to encourage incentives for first home buyers, such as a five per cent deposit. It is measures contained within the whole of government's housing policy, which is designed to deal with the supply problem, which will ultimately fix the housing problems. But they will mean nothing if all we are doing is creating supply for investors to just buy up existing homes.
Long before I got elected to this place, long before I even thought about running in the 2022 election, housing had very much been my No. 1 priority. I believe strongly that there is no greater productivity measure that a government can take than to provide affordable housing. That's why I think in postwar Australia what we saw was an investment in public housing from both Labor and Liberal governments, I've got to say. Both Labor and Liberal governments believed that by investing in public housing, not just for the people that were desperately in need of housing but for workers, we were able to keep the cost of living down. We were able to keep rents down. As a result, we were able to keep the pressure off wages, and that actually helped business as well. You saw car workers and railway workers and teachers and police officers and aged-care workers all living in public housing because it was actually part of the economic design of our system that you had public housing in order to keep the pressure off wages and to help business. That's one of the reasons we had a strong manufacturing industry. If you look at the suburb of Elizabeth, public housing is built around the old Holden plant there because it was absolutely part of the charter of the South Australian Housing Trust to aid in the economic development of the state.
We have seen over the last 30 years a complete rejection of those old Liberal Party values and a rejection of those Labor Party values. We saw it under the Howard government, and it even further decelerated under the Abbott, Morrison and Turnbull governments, where they built something like 373 houses over the 10 years that they were in government. We saw—surprise, surprise!—a housing crisis 30 years later. So, while the measures in these bills will not go immediately towards fixing the central problem for first home buyers today, which is that wages have not kept up with housing, it sits within the government's wider housing strategy, and, frankly, it sits within the government's wider philosophy of just not accepting a broken status quo. Look at health care, where the government, through one policy alone, tripled the bulk-billing rate, which more than doubled the number of bulk-billing clinics in Forde overnight back in November. It enacted a policy to keep the cost of medicines down, with PBS medicines at $25. I learned today that, had that policy not been in place, people would be paying $50 for those medicines. It takes tough decisions. This money really just doesn't come from anywhere. This money has been directed to the priorities of this Labor government, but it's meant that we have needed to make tough decisions in the process. And so it is that the measures around negative gearing and around the capital gains tax are designed to attack that particular problem where housing has become an investment vehicle rather than a family home, as we've seen since the capital gains tax discount at 50 per cent flat came in.
We've seen values of housing rise of multiples of about four or five times the median wage to eight to 10 times the median wage. It has become absolutely impossible for people to think about buying a home anymore. What we've seen as a result is homeownership rates, which were, for decades, steady around that 72 to 73 per cent of the population, fall to around 66 per cent of the population today. When you look at that age cohort between 25 and 45, they have gone completely off a cliff. It is not good enough. We know it in our electorate. People are hurting. I think the Prime Minister really summed it up well the other day when he said, 'It's hard to buy a house,' and there was an interjector from the other side who said, 'It's getting harder,' and the Prime Minister seized on that and said, 'Yes, it is getting harder.' There is a recognition in this government that the status quo is broken. We know it in our communities. You know it when you look at the numbers. You know it when you sit down, like I did over the weekend, with a 65-year-old woman whose lease is about to run out in three months time and who is desperate to find somewhere for her and her 13-year-old dog to go and live. It's broken when you look at the numbers. It's broken when you talk to talk to people. The underlying philosophy of this government is 'no more'. The status quo is not good enough.
These measures deal with the taxation treatments around housing as an investment, but they also deal with the other part of that problem—rising house prices compared to median wages, which is take-home pay. Today, we've seen, again, because of this government supporting a rises for minimum wages, take-home pay increase by 4.75 per cent for minimum-wage earners, which means, that since this government came to power, wages have gone up by $12,000 a year for minimum-income workers. That is a 12 per cent real wage increase. On top of that, it is not just how much people are earning but how much people are able to pocket. Once the measures contained in this bill that build on the tax cuts over the last few years are in place, the average worker's income tax cut will be about $2,816 compared to 2023.
We are doing two things. We are trying to take the heat out of the housing market. As the Prime Minister says, we expect prices to continue to rise but at a moderate level. At the same time, we are dealing with the other part of that equation—how much workers take home in their pocket. In some ways, the argument has been settled around housing, and it is very difficult now to hear cogent arguments from the other side about housing. They generally leave that alone, which I think is interesting for them, because they're creating a long-term problem for themselves again.
There are many reasons, including the good policies that we had, but the one mistake that the other side made was when the now opposition leader said that they would repeal our tax cut on the eve of the election. That was the moment where I actually thought: 'You know what? I've got a chance in Forde.' I just thought it was political as well as economic craziness to take that policy to the election. I credit that as the single biggest mistake they made on the other side. I can't believe it. Not only are they prepared to make that mistake again by not supporting the tax cuts in this legislation—are they seriously going to go to the next election promising to give tax breaks to property investors?
I'm not sure they've really thought that through. In two years time, are all of the people, all of the first home buyers who are already starting to be advantaged by this policy—all of the people that can actually start to see this dream becoming a reality again—really going to vote for a party that is promising to bring in tax breaks for property investors? I don't know. I don't know. I hope so, because I think it's going to cost them a lot of votes. I hope so, I guess, for my benefit—not to be selfish. I implore them not to, for the sake of the community.
You hear them talking about other things, like the member for Wide Bay mentioning that this is going to hurt people that are saving up, using shares as a strategy to save a deposit for a house, because a house is unaffordable for them, so shares become the only strategy. The irony in that is obvious to me, so I don't know why those on the other side keep bringing that up. The irony is that house prices have got so out of control that the only way that you can use the 10 grand that you might have disposable, which you can't now invest in a house deposit—you say you have to put it in shares. That irony is obviously missed on them, but the economics is also missed on them. It's a fact they don't like to talk about, but, if you look at the last 20 years, if you retrospectively applied a system of indexation, most people would have actually done the same or better out of an index system.
I urge people to support this. I urge the opposition to have another think about this. I would hope that all their shenanigans in trying to refer it to a committee is because they haven't properly settled on a position, but, when they do, I urge them and the others in the House to support this bill.
I rise this evening to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. It is in these pieces of legislation that Labor squarely attacks regional West Australians, small businesses, small-business owners, farmers, and younger and older residents. The coalition absolutely opposes the adjustments to the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing contained within these bills.
These pieces of legislation mark the end of aspiration in Australia and trust in government. Not one Australian voted for Labor's toxic taxes at the last election. Prior to the last election, the Prime Minister told us in his own words more than 50 times that there would be no change to capital gains tax or negative gearing. Is there anything this Labor government is not taxing? There is a death tax, a tax on family savings and a tax on renters. There is a tax on first home buyers and young Australians just trying to get ahead. That's on top of taxes on small businesses, startups and entrepreneurs—truly unforgivable.
The coalition has consistently said that if you tax something more, you get less of it. But don't trust me—Labor's own budget papers say that there will be 35,000 fewer homes delivered because of these new taxes. The Commonwealth Bank's chief economist says that these changes will raise government revenue but will not build more homes. How can Labor claim that this budget is about young Australians when all it delivers is a lower supply of houses, higher prices, higher rents and higher taxes on their deposit and investments? That is not helping first home buyers. That's kneecapping them.
The Financial Services Council data confirms that aggressive investors, typically Australians aged around 35, will be the hardest hit by these capital gains tax changes—not the ultra wealthy, as our Prime Minister wants us to believe, just ambitious young Australians. Gen Z and millennials are investing more than three times the share of their income than baby boomers. The government's response to this ambition: just tax it!
We've heard all of the contributions here today. But, no matter how much spin we hear from the other side of the chamber—that this budget is all for young people, young Australians—the facts, in their own budget papers, and from experts right across the country, tell the true story: that this budget is about limiting opportunity, not about increasing opportunity.
Small businesses now have a new 47-per-cent co-owner: the Albanese government. The government has taken on none of the risks and it will not work one day in these businesses, but now it wants nearly half of the business at the time the business is sold. Why would any Australian now start a new business when the government acts as a silent partner from day one? The young plumber or chippie or hairdresser or gym operator or yoga athlete—just trying to build wealth beyond a day-to-day income, and to get their business to a point of selling in the future—is now being cut down for just having a go. For many business owners, it's their retirement savings and their family legacy. And they're the first employer of many young people in our regional communities. Everyday Australians must start somewhere, and often, particularly in regional seats like Durack, they start working in a small or a family business. Now Labor are trying to take that start away.
Farmers—well, they're becoming Labor's No. 1 target. Labor views farmers as their personal cash-grab. Labor bowed to the Greens and the inner-city voters in ending live export—and we all remember that and those dark days. They provided inadequate compensation—still ongoing, by the way—wrapped it in red tape, and watched as the industry tanked. Now the future of WA's agricultural industry is at risk because of Labor's toxic taxes. The last thing our country needs—and I repeat: the last thing our country needs—is to make it harder for the next generation of farmers to stay on the land. We're talking about feeding our country—food, and fibre, for our country.
If hitting small business, farmers and young Australians wasn't bad enough, hidden away in the budget papers, hoping no-one would see it, was a 30 per cent death tax. The Prime Minister was asked in question time, in front of the Australian people, if he would rule out a death tax. He wouldn't rule it out, and now we know why—because it had already been announced; it was already hidden in the budget papers.
So you've got to ask yourself: how low can this Prime Minister go? Honestly! He fails to tell the truth to the Australian people during an election campaign; he attacks aspiration; and now he wants to insert himself into families' inheritance. By the way, the Prime Minister was asked, only the other day in Canberra, whether the family home was going to be the next capital gains tax victim. Well, he refused to answer that question, so I'll leave it up to those listening, playing along at home, as to what they make of that. Why wouldn't he just count that out and say, 'Of course the family home is not going to be the next victim of capital gains tax'? But I smell a rat.
This budget is not intergenerational fairness, as those opposite would have us believe. It is causing intergenerational war, fuelling fights at the dinner table between generations about what will be left and what the government will pocket.
Older Australians—well, they can't escape the Prime Minister's cash grab. Labor will hit them with higher costs for private health insurance. Nearly a quarter of residents in Durack will be directly affected by these changes. Regional Australians are already facing limited healthcare services, longer wait times and fewer specialist options. Yet Labor has shamefully prioritised politics over practical support, imposing increases of up to 21 per cent on essential healthcare cover for older Australians by reducing the tax rebate. The government has ignored a simple reality. Older Australians rely on health care more frequently than younger Australians.
At a stage of life when affordable and reliable access to health care matters most, Labor is forcing our older Australians—our senior Australians—to pay more. This is unforgivable. Older Australians on fixed pensions are telling me it is becoming nearly impossible to keep their private health insurance while managing the rising cost of living. Many are being forced to choose between keeping their insurance and paying for essentials like heating and groceries. There is a consistent theme in this budget. Labor simply does not care for Australians. They do not want you to get ahead. They do not want to support you. They only want to cut you down and tax you more. For what? It's purely to help feed an overspending government that has been reckless with our economy.
The coalition supports the introduction of the working Australian tax offset and the $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses. We support an annual offset of up to $250 for all Australians. But the coalition is more ambitious. The coalition wants to give Australians a greater tax cut—one that is not wiped out by Christmas. We call on the Albanese government to agree to our proposed amendment. Why not? You want to give Australians more of a tax cut. Here's a chance to show that you really do believe in tax cuts for all Australians. Under our tax-back guarantee, the coalition will index income tax thresholds to inflation so that Australians are not taxed simply because prices have gone up. We believe that when you earn your money, risk your money and save your money, you should get to keep it.
From 2028-29, a coalition government will index the bottom two income tax thresholds to inflation, delivering relief of around $250 in year 1, growing to $1,000 a year by year 4. Now that is generational tax reform. A coalition government will repeal Labor's toxic taxes. The capital gains tax changes, negative gearing changes and the hidden death tax will all be gone. The more you tax, the less you get—less housing, less saving, less investment, less small business. We will always back aspiration and reward for hard work, starting with the scrapping of these taxes.
The coalition has always prioritised homeownership and wants to put it back at the centre of Australian values. We will restore common sense to migration and housing by only bringing in as many people as we can house. A coalition government will cap net overseas migration each year based on how many new homes are completed. Never again will we have a migration program that brings in more people than what our housing can support. It simply doesn't make sense.
The coalition values the contribution of migrants. Of course we do. Everybody in this House values the contribution of migrants. We've all come from somewhere else. But without a secure home to come to, it cannot be a great start to a life in Australia for new migrants. The key to getting more people into a home is more supply. That is why we will establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to unlock up to 400,000 homes, funding critical last-mile infrastructure such as water, sewerage, power and access to roads. The National Construction Code will be simplified, ending red tape, making it easier—not harder, easier—for building companies to build more homes and cutting the cost of a first home by up to $70,000.
The coalition will always back small businesses and startups. We see the value of small business and want to help small businesses grow, not stall. We will make the $50,000 instant asset write-off permanent for any business with a turnover of less than $10 million. When a small business invests, it grows. And when a small business grows—well, Australia grows with it.
The difference between the coalition and Labor is clear. While Labor wants to move Australia away from being an ambitious nation, we want more ambition. We want young Australians to be able to get ahead, small businesses to grow and older Australians to have the support they need and deserve after a lifetime of hard work. We believe that, if you work hard, you should keep more of what you earn. That is why we will repeal Labor's taxes and give all Australians a fair tax system. I thank the House.
These tax reform bills—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026—are about reasserting Australian values and the Australian dream—an Australian dream that was conceivable for our parents and grandparents and which is now almost impossibly out of reach for our children and grandchildren. It isn't just a question of equity; it's about resetting standards and rebuilding foundations so all Australians have the opportunity to achieve the best of what this wonderful country promises if they work hard enough and dream big enough. It's about restoring a fair go.
I am the beneficiary of a fair go, a promise that was offered to my family and me all those years ago when we migrated to Australia as part of the wave of ten-pound Poms seeking better opportunity and a better life. We were economic migrants. I am the product of tradespeople and factory workers. My grandfather worked in the Holden factory in Elizabeth, north of Adelaide. My father was an electrical draughtsman for Simpson-Pope, a whitegoods manufacturer. By the fact of their own sheer hard work, they were able to buy a home and raise a family in the comfort of that home. Of course, when we migrated to Australia in 1968, the average cost of a house was about 2½ to four times the average wage, statistics that my children and grandchildren and their generations can only dream of. That I am able to stand here before you today is testament to the boundless opportunities that this country can afford for all Australians. To deny young Australians today—our children and grandchildren—these opportunities would not only be unfair; it would be un-Australian and giving up on the Australian dream.
The Albanese Labor government is committed to giving every Australian, young and old, a fair go. This budget is about giving every Australian a fair go—a fair go at homeownership and a fair go at working hard, earning a fair wage and getting ahead. These bills seek to restore the Australian dream, to make it an unquestioned truth that an Australian who works hard will be able to get ahead no matter where they start—the children of factory workers or the children of professionals. It should be available to us all.
There are four major planks in this tranche of the tax reform package: the working Australians tax offset for over 13 million working Australians; an instant $1,000 tax deduction; reforms to CGT, capital gains tax, to return the cost base indexation with a 30 per cent minimum tax; and reforms to limit negative gearing to new builds. These measures will make our tax system fairer, simpler and stronger and will benefit, in particular, low- and middle-income earners. This will benefit young Australians looking to get a leg-up in the housing market; it will continue our support for investment and innovation; it will provide for tax relief and tax reforms that actually work for Australians and businesses and not against them; and, because of the Albanese Labor government's responsible economic management, it will mean an improved budget bottom line that is sustainable into the future. This budget will make the biggest changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing in decades, because the reality is that massive changes are needed to reform an entrenched tax structure that has disadvantaged everyday Australians looking to get their foot in the door of buying their own home. The Albanese Labor government is prepared to take up the challenge because it is an urgent and pressing challenge.
In 1999, when the Howard government made the catastrophic changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax—changes that turned housing from being a home, a fundamental part of the Australian dream, to being an investment vehicle and that drove investors away from shares and other productive investments that build the country and into established housing, beginning the upward spiral of housing prices—the average house cost around three to four times the average wage, a tiny increase from the cost 30 years earlier in 1968, when my family arrived and bought a house. In 2026, less than 30 years on, it is now 10 to 16 times the average wage. The increase in house prices has massively outstripped the increase in wages. The average age of a first home buyer late last century was somewhere in their mid-20s. Today, the average age of a first homebuyer is in their mid-30s because it takes so much longer to save a deposit, and the downstream effect is that they're also likely, therefore, to delay starting a family and settling down.
A major cause of this asymmetry is the capital gains tax rule that Howard introduced in 1999. Howard's 50 per cent discount on CGT was intended to boost investment in shares. Instead, investors gravitated away from shares and towards low-risk, high-yield established properties. What this means is that more than $80 million of investment lending has been directed towards established homes. Investors have monopolised the established housing market, outcompeting first home buyers because of their taxpayer subsidies—that's subsidies that you and I, Mr Speaker, are subsidising—all of which has been further compounded by dramatic declines in new house builds.
Before 1999, Australians paid the difference between the purchase price and selling price of their asset, adjusted for inflation. Now we are returning to cost base indexation for CGT, which will be paid on real gains with a 30 per cent minimum tax rate, the marginal tax rate that most Australians pay on their income, because it's unfair and morally unsustainable that Australians should be paying more on their labour income, their wages, than investors pay on income generated from other assets. Why would we tax wages earned by workers, the people we want to continue to build our country, more harshly than other forms of income? How is that fair? How is that the Australian dream?
These changes will also prevent investors from delaying their capital gain to when they can exploit a low marginal tax rate. Under these new arrangements, all Australians will be obligated to pay their fair share when they make a capital gain. Exemptions will apply to those on means tested income support, including those on JobSeeker and age pensions.
The Albanese Labor government's reforms to capital gains tax will smooth out the distortion in the tax system that has allowed house price increases to massively outpace wages. The changes will also apply to all asset types, whereas previously the privileging of one asset type over another resulted in another wrinkle in the tax system. These changes will mean a redirection of investment spread across all asset classes, like units and shares, not just existing properties. Investors who have a stake in new builds can choose the tax arrangement that is more favourable to them: the 50 per cent discount or the new cost base indexation with 30 per cent minimum tax.
These tax reform bills will also limit negative gearing to new builds. Again, investors are overwhelmingly attracted to established properties because they're able to claim generous deductions for losses with negative gearing from day one. That's at the expense of the taxpayer, who is obligated to step in and reimburse the loss. And it's not been an uncommon scenario today—or at least a few weeks ago, before the budget—that everyday Australians at auctions would find themselves competing against investors who could outbid them. Because the investors have had the capital and money to spare, because they could invest in something, they could pay more than its value knowing they would make a loss—thanks to the taxpayer. We want people to invest in things that will actually build income, not make a loss. This simply isn't fair.
We are hearing from first home buyers that already, since the budget, they're able to buy a property at a fair price—now only competing with other first home buyers and not having to compete with investors, who can pay inflated taxpayer subsidised prices. Under these new arrangements, if investors currently have a property negatively geared, the previous tax arrangements under which they made their investment will continue to apply. I know this grandparenting is controversial in some quarters, but the rationale is that people who made valid investment decisions under the old regime shouldn't have the goalposts moved on them.
In the future, negative gearing for new investments will only be available for new builds, supporting an increase to the housing supply, something that this country desperately needs. The Howard-era changes apparently intended to achieve this but failed miserably. The old capital gains tax and negative gearing models have allowed investors to disproportionately buy established housing relative to other assets while leaving everyday Australians looking to get into the housing market by the wayside.
This government's reforms, broadly supported by independent economists, will spur investment in new builds while minimising the tax incentive that has favoured established property. All together, we predict that these reforms will increase housing supply by 30,000 over the next decade and get 75,000 more homeowners into the housing market. The reforms are about levelling the playing field, and they're about giving every Australian a fair go.
These bills will also facilitate another round of Labor tax cuts, allowing Australians to get ahead to make the most of the fair go with their own hard-earned wages. We want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Australian workers should not be disadvantaged by their wages income relative to income generated from other sources, such as investments. We have a shortage of workers in this country. Every business I speak to tells me how desperate they are for skilled labour and how they could expand and grow if only they could find more workers. So we want to incentivise workers to work and to earn more.
It's the Albanese Labor government that is intent on ensuring that Australians keep more of what they earn. Working Australians will receive a tax offset of up to $250 on their income, helping over 13 million hardworking Australians, including approximately six million women. This will effectively see the tax-free threshold increase for workers by $1,785 to $19,985 or, for workers eligible for the low-income tax offset, $24,985. There will also be a $1,000 instant tax deduction. Rather than claiming on work related expenses, Australians can now choose to claim an instant tax deduction directly on their income without having to keep receipts. Over six million workers—notably, low- and middle-income workers—will benefit from this deduction, with an average saving of around $205. Next month, 14 million Australians will get a tax cut of up to $268, and this will benefit around one million taxpayers in my home state of South Australia.
Speaker, I know you've been following along very closely, and you would have noted that I started by talking about four planks, and now I've now introduced a fifth. The fifth is in fact the new tax cut next month, which of course was locked in under the government's previous term. The next one is 1 July next year. Then we have tax changes to make housing more affordable, a $250 workers tax offset and a $1,000 instant tax deduction. All in all, the average worker will benefit by nearly $3,000.
These tax cuts are about giving all Australians a fair go, and that includes young Australians, who are overwhelmingly but not exclusively the aspiring first home buyers. Sixty per cent of the recipients in next month's tax cuts are the over eight million gen Z and millennials, the workers we need to build our shared future. Ninety per cent of young Australians will be better off because of these tax cuts.
The Albanese Labor government is in the business of giving all Australians a fair go. We're in the business of ensuring that Australians who work hard are able to get ahead—an essential value, the Australian dream. We're in the business of making the Australian dream a reality again—a reality that was generously afforded to my family and me as migrants to this country all those decades ago. We came here for a better life. We bought into the Australian dream: a home of our own; public education; public health; good, secure, well-paid work; and a fair go. At the heart of the Australian dream is the opportunity for all Australians to afford their own home—a home in which to feel safe and secure, a home in which to create memories, a home in which to raise a family.
The government's changes to capital gains tax, negative gearing and the suite of tax cuts will mean that a fair go will no longer be the mirage of times gone past. It will be reality again—something to aspire to, something real and tangible to work towards—because Australia, if nothing else, is defined by the fair go, and who are we as a country if we're no longer able to meet that promise. I commend the bills to the House.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I give the call to the honourable member for Groom.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you very much, Speaker. I rise with great joy and enthusiasm this evening to speak on these tax reform bills. From listening to the debate so far, I'm reminded of the old adage that the power to tax is the power to destroy. This comes from the 1819 Supreme Court of the US finding in McCulloch v Maryland. At that time, the states were trying to destroy the federation's ability to produce banknotes. This was the second Bank of the United States. When a government decides to destroy something, when it decides to bring something down, the most powerful tool it has is taxes.
So we have this adage, which in the US context speaks to the issue of states' rights and that contest between the state and federal government, but in the broader context we talk about it in regard to how a government can apply its taxation settings and the careful balance that every government must find in using taxation settings to generate some sort of societal good to shape the economy around the needs of those who are most vulnerable or to provide opportunity for areas in growth which the government wants the nation to build towards. That must be balanced with the power of taxation to disincentivise investment. When done to a certain extent, to its fullest extent, the outcome is the death of a certain industry. That's what that comes to.
I'm reminded of that when I hear my colleagues use the line, 'When you tax something, you get less of it.' That's just a modern way of saying the same thing. When you tax something, you get less of it. In the budget and the bill that we're speaking to tonight, we see a perfect example of that played out. I can remember very clearly reading page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1 with great surprise that that budget paper would include in it the explicit line that the result of applying these taxation settings as proposed in this bill would be 35,000 fewer houses built by the private sector. That is a perfect example of taxation settings being deployed—no doubt with good intentions. There is no doubt that the societal benefit that they sought to deploy was there. But the consequence is clearly a downward pressure on economic activity—in this case, in the housing sector.
The fact that that particular detail was included in the budget papers was rather extraordinary because it really does just lay bare the biggest counterargument to every speech we've heard so far on this debate—that these taxation settings are driving down the number of houses that will be built by the private sector. The only way possible the government comes up with offsetting that is that we'll build houses ourselves. We'll fund social housing. Well, where is that going to be paid from? From taxes collected by Australians, which means that taxation revenue that would have been used for other things—hospitals, roads, schools and who knows what other good things—will now have to be deployed into the housing sector to make up for the 35,000 fewer homes that will be built as a direct result of these taxation settings.
The worst bit about this isn't the outcome. The worst bit is that we all knew this was what was going to happen. It's exactly what happened in New Zealand when they did the same thing. As soon as you remove these, there will be a downward pressure. We will see less investment in the housing sector. When you tax something, you get less of it. So we will see less investment in the housing sector. We'll see fewer homes built by the private sector—35,000 fewer homes is the estimation of the government themselves, of Treasury. The number from Treasury is 35,000 fewer homes. That's what this is doing. It's as simple as that. In assessing the outcome of these bills, of these taxation changes, we will have fewer homes.
If the societal benefit were to produce fewer homes, sure. The societal benefit put forward by the government was intergenerational fairness—that we would create more opportunity for the next generation. Well, we're not doing that. It's clearly failing the very test the government set out. This does not provide more fairness for the younger generation. This does not create greater opportunity to enter into the housing market for the younger generation. What it does is reduce the number of houses that will be built. Very simply, when you reduce supply and maintain demand, the price will go up. That is what will happen. That is basic economics. We've seen that time and time again.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at 22:00
The grievance I want noted today is the continual encroachment of socialism into the private assets of people on the land. It is done by caveat upon caveat and under the mask of things such as the EPBC Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. What we are seeing in the most recent iteration of this is that not only have we lost the value of our assets, without payment to the state, but now the EPBC Act puts on further regulations that diminish the value of our assets without any payment to ourselves.
To give you an example, we were of the belief that if you paid off a free title asset over generations that free title actually meant something. It meant that you had the minimum of encumbrances on that asset. You could do with it as you wished as long as it was not obviously blatantly obscene such as—I don't know—killing koalas or something like that. Everybody abided by that. It wasn't an issue. If you go out to the country now, or get away from the city, you will overwhelmingly see forests. You'll see wildlife. You'll see all the things of nature that were there close to settlement in 1770. But the government believes that that was not enough.
I believe that what sits behind this is not an issue about environmentalism. It's an issue about socialism—that, piece by piece, authority over your land is divested from you and vested into the state without payment. One of the peculiarities at the moment is that we were able to clear for fence lines. If we put in a fence line—which we do all the time for better management of country, to actually exclude sometimes stock from areas that might be of greater natural worth—you could take the D6 dozer through, clear your line and put up your fence. You can't have fences under trees because, obviously, branches fall down and smash the fence. Unless you're there every day, it becomes a continual process. It's just a very inefficient way and the wrong way to do it.
But now they're saying that maybe that's not the case and that federal laws will come into place. Even though you're abiding by state laws, you mightn't be abiding by federal laws. However, they gave us the guarantee at the start—Senator Watt did—that this would not be the case. Now we're seeing that the authority of the department, the officers of the department, are basically saying: 'The minister is not correct. We can come onto your place and fine you.' In some instances, it would be quite serious. In some instances, you may go to jail.
To show you how perverse this is, on a block that was owned by me and my wife, we were given colour codes. You could deal with blue without having to ask permission. With yellow, you had to get permission before you could do it, but you could then continue on with what you were doing. With orange, it was highly unlikely that they'd ever give permission. With purple, it's like you go straight to jail. The only part you could deal with without asking for permission was the blue section of your place. When I got the map of our property, the only section that was blue was my lawn. Outside my lawn, I would have to get permission for anything that I do. The whole tenor of that asset had changed. No-one had paid us for it. No-one had offered any compensation for it. No-one actually even gave a clear explanation about what it was about. This is perverse.
We try to put it into a metaphorical form so that people in a town can understand it. If I were to turn up to a house and say: 'Look, from this point forward, you're not allowed in the second bedroom. You can only go into the lounge room if you've got written permission, and the bathroom can only be used for two days in the week.' You'd say: 'Well, why don't you just buy my house? You've completely destroyed the value of my asset.' And they say, 'No, this is on an environmental basis.' You look at it and say, 'No, what you're actually doing is straight out socialism.' This creates the grievance.
So many people now in regional areas feel that the government is blind to their issues and that ownership is now beholden to a person in a faraway town called Canberra, who's never been a farmer and has no understanding about the sacrifice that's made over generations to pay for an asset. Yet they seem to have more power than the person who actually paid the asset off. In fact, their power is backed up by law. In fact, if required, it's backed up by the police. In fact, if it has to, it can get you sent to jail. This is one of the mechanisms that is stirring people up. They're so angry.
We are seeing the EPBC Act come into place, divesting us of our assets, making us, basically, at risk of a criminal act on our own land that's been owned by our families. One of the perversions of this is that a group of people who don't have to abide by this are the intermittent power precincts, the swindle factories. They don't have to abide by it. They do as they like: turn up, strip country, knock over all the trees. It's changed now, but, at the start, for koalas—blunt force trauma if they were injured when the intermittent power precincts knocked over a tree. We would go to jail for that, but they don't. This is the hypocrisy of it. There are two completely different standards.
Apparently the intermittent power precincts are to help the environment. You will never get greater damage to the environment than what you see under the auspices of the creation of intermittent power precincts, and why is it done? It's done so a select coterie can become exceptionally wealthy through capacity investment schemes. That's what underpins it. On the coast it's reef legislation, and for areas out west if you don't have a control of regrowth—with things such as butterbush and walga—you actually turn areas into an environmental desert because nothing exists under those trees. In our areas we have a thing called invasive cypress pine. If you can't touch it and if it just grows up, nothing grows under it. There is no wildlife, there are no kangaroos, and there are no wallabies. There's nothing. There are no koalas—nothing. It's a change to the whole dynamic of the ecosystem, which was never there before. We're seeing that as part of the process as well.
So what are we going to do in Australia to try and turn the ratchet—not keep it where it is—from the left back to the right to reinstall private ownership as a primary part of your freedoms in Australia so that, when you own a land freehold, it means you actually own it freehold. It is not a case of you being some sort of tenant on a bureaucrat from Canberra's property. It is actually your place. When are we going to realise that the management of so much of this land over so many generations has left in a form where—if you're going to bring these regulations in now, why do you think the families never destroyed it beforehand? Because they didn't want to. They didn't want to, but now they feel that they are compelled to comply rather than work with their better angels. These people were never, ever going to destroy what they take as so important as part of their lives.
Every Monday morning, I go to the top of the hill behind my house to do Sunrise for Channel 7. One of the reasons I do that is to show the Australian people that overwhelmingly the countryside is not desecrated. There's the bush, there are the fields, and there are the creeks. It is there. We have managed it. We have looked after it. But what's happening to us now is not about environmentalism; it's about socialism. There's disdain for a certain group of people, where a person can own a private asset and can, at a later stage of their life, from their endeavours, hand that private asset over to other members of their family for them to be the beneficiary of generations of work. I commend this grievance to the chamber.
I rise in this grievance debate to address the demise of Australia's second-oldest political party, the National Party of Australia. It's indeed a sad day when the party of Tim Fischer, Doug Anthony and John Anderson is reduced to desperately chasing votes from One Nation. Before the rise of One Nation both the Liberals and Nationals were focused on traditional, conservative values while being economically responsible and supporting our democratic institutions. While Labor and I, many times in this place, strongly disagreed with many coalition policies there was still a broad bipartisan respect for parliamentary standards, multiculturalism and Australia's postwar consensus that social cohesion and economic opportunity should go hand in hand.
Coalition leaders of previous decades understood that leadership requires responsibility and restraint, and while political contests were robust they were not driven by the kind of grievance politics, divisive rhetoric and culture-war campaigning that has increasingly emerged with the coalition's attempts to court voters drawn towards One Nation's agenda. Australians deserve much better than this. They deserve leaders who stand up for working people, not politicians who wrap themselves in the flag whilst voting against the interests of the very Australians they claim to represent. That's why today we must talk plainly about One Nation, because behind the slogans, outrage, fear campaigns and divisions there is a very clear pattern in a voting record that consistently undermines workers rights, workplace safety and the wages and conditions that Australian families rely on.
And what should concern every Australian even more is that the coalition are increasingly chasing One Nation down that very path. Instead of rejecting extremism and division, the coalition have chosen imitation. They see One Nation's rhetoric as a political strategy to copy rather than as a dangerous force to confront. In doing so, they are abandoning the mainstream values that generations of Australians built this country on, values of fairness, decency, solidarity and the belief that every worker deserves dignity and protection on the job.
Let us remember what the Albanese Labor government believes. We believe a person who goes to work deserves to come home safely. We believe workers deserve secure jobs, fair pay, penalty rates, sick leave and protection from exploitation. We believe unions are not the enemy; they are the reason Australians have weekends, annual leave, superannuation, workplace safety laws and decent wages. In contrast, again and again One Nation has voted against those very important protections.
When legislation has come before this parliament to strengthen workplace rights, improve industrial protections or support workers against wage theft and exploitation, One Nation have sided with the big end of town rather than ordinary Australians. They have attacked unions while saying very little about corporate wage theft. They have criticised workplace regulation while workers continue to die on construction sites, in warehouses, on farms and in factories. And they have opposed reforms designed to improve job security and strengthen collective bargaining. But Australians know better than that. We know prosperity is built from the middle out, not from the top down.
One Nation likes to portray itself as the party of battlers, but voting records matter more than slogans. When workers needed stronger protections against insecure work, where was One Nation then? When Australians fought for fair wage increases, where was One Nation then? When Labor moved to strengthen industrial relations protections and close loopholes that allowed labour hire exploitation and the undercutting of wages, where was One Nation then? They were standing against working Australians.
And now the coalition is walking down exactly the same road. We're seeing a coalition opposition that increasingly borrows not just the language of One Nation, but it's political strategy. That is a strategy aimed at dividing Australians, creating scapegoats, attacking institutions, undermining trust and stirring cultural resentment. Instead of talking about wages, it is talking about fear. Instead of talking about productivity, it talks about culture wars. Instead of talking about housing affordability and health care and cost-of-living relief, it copies the outrage machine. Why? Because it thinks it is politically easier.
Whenever conservative parties run out of ideas, they turn to division. That's the oldest political trick in the book: keep ordinary people fighting each other so that nobody notices who is really benefiting. Well, Labor reject all of those kinds of politics. We believe Australians are stronger when we are united. And we know the real pressures on working families are not caused by the kinds of culture war distractions promoted by One Nation. They are caused by stagnant wages, insecure jobs, housing stress, rising costs and years of neglect from the conservative governments.
I would like to speak specifically about workplace safety. Every Australian worker has a right to return home safely at the end of the day. That should not be controversial. But workplace safety laws exist for a reason, because history teaches us what happens when profit is placed ahead of people. Every protection in our workplace was won because workers fought hard for it. None of these protections were handed down voluntarily by corporations. They were fought for.
Let's put the slogans to one side and look at One Nation's real agenda, revealed in their parliamentary voting history. One Nation have voted no to the right to disconnect; no to same job, same pay; no to making industrial manslaughter a crime; no to making it easier for casuals to become permanent; no to better rights for gig economy workers; no to better rights to keep transport workers safe; no to more rights for workplace delegates; and no to banning pay secrecy. And the list goes on. The One Nation voting list goes on. This is a party that has repeatedly voted against measures designed to strengthen workers rights, lift wages and improve job security across the economy.
Every time parties like One Nation attack workplace protections, they weaken the systems that save lives. And the coalition's increasing alignment with One Nation rhetoric puts those protections at even greater risk. The coalition now faces a choice. Will they remain a party of mainstream economic responsibility and democratic stability, or will they continue chasing the politics of grievance and divisions? Australians are noticing the shift. They see coalition figures amplifying conspiracy theories. They see attacks on multiculturalism and migration. They see inflammatory rhetoric designed to create anger rather than solutions, and they see an opposition increasingly willing to legitimise One Nation's worldview in pursuit of votes. That is not leadership. That is political opportunism. And that political opportunism comes at a cost because every time mainstream parties legitimise extremism, they drag public debate further away from practical solutions.
Australians do not need more outrage politics. They need secure jobs, affordable housing, reliable health care and quality education. They need energy policies that create jobs while addressing climate change and they need workplaces where people are safe and treated fairly. Labor will always stand up for workers. We're proud of that tradition. We're proud to be the party that introduced Medicare, mandated employer funded superannuation and delivered paid parental leave. We're proud to be the party that supports collective bargaining and stronger workplace rights. And we're proud to stand against those who seek to divide Australians for their own political gain.
The measure of a political movement is not the anger it can generate. It's whether people's lives are better because of it. When Australians look at One Nation's record on workers' rights, workplace safety and economic fairness, they will see a movement that talks tough but votes against those very interests of ordinary working people time and time again. When they see the coalition increasingly borrowing from that agenda, Australians will rightly ask, 'Who is actually standing up for workers?' Well, the answer to that is very simple, and it is Labor. Labor is the only party that consistently stands up for workers' rights. We always have been and we always will be. We're committed to ensuring that Australians can access the services that they need. That was seen in the budget that we brought down. The budget particularly strengthened Medicare, a vital issue within the community, because Labor's focus is all about delivering for Australians.
The Nationals and the Liberals are all about dividing Australians and following One Nation and copying One Nation. But we in the Albanese Labor government remain firmly focused on delivering for Australians. Whether it's tax reform, whether it's housing affordability, whether it's strengthening Medicare, our focus is on Australians and what they need, not the divisive politics, particularly that which we see from the National Party as they chase One Nation down that road. We will remain committed to listening and talking to Australians and delivering for them, particularly when it comes to cost of living relief because we know that people are doing it tough. That's why the measures in our latest budget were specifically designed to address many of those issues, particularly the tax reform around capital gains tax and negative gearing. The changes that were made were well overdue. We need to help people get into their first home. At the same time, we continue to keep delivering assistance for education, for Medicare, for all of those cost-of-living measures that Australians rely on. It's only Labor that can deliver for Australians, and only Labor that can deliver for working Australians.
A hospice delivers a special kind of care: end of life care. A hospice provides an environment that feels like home with a focus on dignity, comfort and compassion. This is something everyone deserves. But today I deliver deeply concerning news to parliament that the Fraser Coast Hospice is entering administration. In a statement issued last Friday, the Fraser Coast Hospice Association Board advised that:
following extensive consideration and ongoing engagement with key stakeholders and funding bodies, the organisation has resolved to appoint an Independent Administrator, with the appointment anticipated to occur on Wednesday 10 June 2026.
It went on to state that the decision not been made lightly but that a funding shortfall above half a million dollars each year was making it almost impossible to keep operating.
Since this announcement, through the local media in Hinkler, on social platforms, at a chamber of commerce dinner and in plenty of correspondence to my electorate offices in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, it has been extremely heartening to see the immense community support in fighting for the future of this hospice. Not just since Friday but ever since its inception in October 2021, I've heard many stories from local families who have directly benefited from the hospice.
Barbara told me that her late husband, John, stayed at the hospice in the days before he died in 2024. John had fought prostate cancer for 15 years. Barbara said that, in his final days at the Fraser Coast Hospice, he was treated with dignity and care and was bathed and shaved each day. There was space for all the family to visit and for Barbara to stay with him when she pleased. The family played his favourite music and shared stories of beautiful memories. The family pets were even welcome to provide company and comfort. Barbara recalls, as the end was near, John was free of pain and did not suffer, thanks to the expertise of the nurses and doctors at the Fraser Coast Hospice.
Barbara tells me that something must be done to retain this important service, not just in the short term but for years to come. Only last week, here in this place, I pledged my support for this very hospice. Last month I toured the facility and had a barbecue with the hardworking volunteers. I also attended a fundraiser, where the call went out for more corporate support. Unfortunately, despite all efforts, the funding shortfall has been too much. It would be so sad for my community if this hospice couldn't be saved. Like Barbara, I am hopeful the administrator will find a way to address current funding challenges and provide confidence around future sustainability.
I commend the CEO and board of the Fraser Coast Hospice for their transparency and compassionate leadership throughout this transition. My thoughts are with the staff and volunteers who have dedicated so much energy towards the success of the hospice. Local representatives from all three levels of government will continue to work hard together, and we are committed to exploring all possible solutions. I note that it was a federal coalition government, through the Hinkler Regional Deal, that provided $7.6 million for construction and initial operational funding for this six-bed hospice, but now we must do everything in our power to ensure that this hospice keeps on providing specialist palliative care, as it has done for hundreds of Fraser Coast families.
In April I met with Lou and Karen from Palliative Care Queensland. I committed my support to do all I can to advocate for improving access and equity of palliative care services, to strengthen the workforce and to find better ways to fund local hospice and community care services. The situation with the Fraser Coast Hospice demonstrates how the current model needs to improve. The news of the Fraser Coast Hospice comes at a time when, in the northern part of my electorate, a separate community hospice group has been busily planning to establish a hospice in Bundaberg, but now they, too, are asking big questions. Given our ageing population, where will the funds for this kind of care come from in the future, and why hasn't more been done in forward planning?
Hinkler is the third-oldest electorate in the country, with an average age of 49. Almost 40 per cent of my electorate is living with one or more long-term health setbacks. That's the top ranking in Australia. My community is calling for a fair go, not just when it comes to end-of-life care but for those entering retirement, a period of what should be the golden years. Over-65s are being absolutely forgotten by this Labor government. In my electorate, around 26,300 seniors faced the prospect of private health insurance bills rising more than $800 per year for singles and more than $1,600 per couple. This is because of Labor's decision to scrap the private health insurance rebate for over-65s. It will leave many older Australians with a difficult choice: cut spending on other essentials, downgrade their cover or drop it all together. I've spoken to many people in Hinkler who have worked hard, saved carefully and paid for private health insurance for much of their lives, something that should be praised and encouraged. If people drop private health insurance, it puts more pressure on the public system, which impacts everyone. Broken promises and toxic taxes are not in any way helping the people of Hinkler.
From private health cover concerns, I step into the aged-care crisis. Hundreds—that's right, hundreds—in Hinkler alone are on waiting lists to enter the aged-care system, but the system is broken. Take the Support at Home options, for example. It's one thing to get assessed—that could take months. Once approved, you might get reassessed and then wait even longer to start receiving services. Then there's the cost. The feedback I'm receiving is that it's simply not making sense. When you can no longer look after yourself at home, you have to make the tough decision to enter an aged-care facility, but there are now waiting lists to get on the waiting lists. Where are the beds?
I told this place six months ago that the demand for beds in Hinkler was dangerously high and rising. Aged-care facilities are being knocked back for new beds. In the country town of Childers, Forest View Care provides residential care. Three times they've applied for more beds and more support through the federal government process, only to be told: 'Sorry, nothing this time. But, please, keep trying.'
There are dementia patients taking up public hospital beds while waiting for permanent aged-care spaces. How could Hinkler not be high on the aged-care priority list for more beds when our statistics show otherwise? It just doesn't add up. The government's refusal to accept responsibility is even more concerning, given that Labor's own aged-care failures are driving much of the pressure on hospitals. The current system isn't working. The government must change and adapt. Locals and pioneers of Hinkler are the reason we live in such a great place. They shouldn't be told to move away from their home, away from their family and away from their support just because we can't find them a bed.
The federal government is failing stranded Australians. You wouldn't believe it, but this Labor government continues to fail our veterans too. Why won't this government reverse the decision to cap veterans' allied health services? Veterans in Bundaberg held a peaceful protest at ANZAC Park on Friday, urging the government to remove the uncertainty and reverse the decision to impose the $5,000 annual cap. More than 80 veterans and their partners have already signed a petition against this cruel cap. Veterans should not be asked to bear the cost of Labor's budget repair. The result will be veterans going without treatment, their conditions worsening and the commitments falling back on their families and household budgets.
The elderly in their encore years, the vets who fought for our freedom, the ones who want to live their final days in dignity—these are the ones who've paid a lifetime of taxes and made sacrifices all along the way. They deserve a fair go, not broken promises, not barriers, not more burdens—a fair go.
I recently had the pleasure of hosting the very first Holt Local Business Excellence Awards. Small businesses are the heartbeat of Holt. Whether it's a cafe, a trade business, a professional service, a family business or a new startup, these are the people who take risks, create local jobs, support families and keep our suburbs running. Importantly, the night was also about recognising the support networks behind them—the partners who help after hours, the kids who spend weekends at the shop, and the staff who become like family.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 13:02 to 13:15
Before the suspension, I was saying that I recently had the pleasure of hosting the very first Holt Local Business Excellence Awards. Small businesses are the heartbeat of Holt. Whether it's a cafe, a trade business, a professional service, a family business or a new start up, these are the people who take risks, create local jobs, support families and keep our suburbs running. Importantly, the night was also about recognising the support networks behind them—the partners who help after hours, the kids who spend weekends at the shop and the staff who become like family.
I know things are hard right now. Costs are rising and global pressures are being felt here at home. Many small businesses are feeling that same pressure every day. That is exactly why supporting our small businesses is so important. Australia's 2.7 million small businesses are the backbone of our economy and, in this federal budget, the government is backing small businesses with $3.5 billion in new business tax relief. We are making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent, giving small businesses more certainty when investing in new equipment, tools and technology. We are also introducing a permanent two-year loss carryback, helping businesses bounce back faster and withstand unexpected economic volatility. For start ups and innovators, we are introducing loss refundability to help new businesses grow in their first two years. And, for our 1.5 million sole traders, we are introducing a $250 tax offset to directly lower your tax burden.
These measures are about backing the people who back our community. That same spirit is what the Holt Local Business Excellence Awards were all about—recognising the local businesses that go above and beyond for our community. I want to congratulate our five outstanding award winners. Brian's Gourmet Meats in Lyndhurst was awarded for community contribution. It is a much-loved Lyndhurst butcher known for quality meat, gluten-free prepared meals and friendly local service. They are also a business that gives back, supporting the community through their weekly community barbecue with the local church. Businesses like this are a part of everyday life in our suburbs, supporting local families and contributing to the community around them.
Taste of Bharat in Cranbourne received the new business award. It is a fantastic Indian restaurant on High Street in Cranbourne and it has quickly become a local favourite. Varsha Hair and Beauty in Hampton Park was recognised for great customer service. It consistently provides exceptional hair and beauty services, making our local community look and feel their absolute best. Red Earth Flowers was awarded for innovation and sustainability. It is a vibrant local florist with decades of floral expertise. They create beautiful arrangements for every occasion, from weddings to celebrations and moments of sympathy and care. Finally, Spin A Yarn, a beautiful local cafe and yarn store in Cranbourne West run by two inspiring mothers, received the women in business award. It has become a warm and creative space where people can enjoy a coffee, connect with others and share the love of craft. It also happens to be located right next door to my electorate office.
To every business that was nominated: congratulations. Being nominated means someone in our community saw your hard work and believed it deserved recognition. That in itself is something to be incredibly proud of. I also want to thank every local who took time to put a nomination forward. As the federal member for Holt, I will always back our local businesses and stand up for them here in Canberra, because when small businesses do well our Holt community thrives.
From the small businesses that keep our suburbs moving to the volunteers who quietly strengthen our community, Holt is full of people who give so much to others. I visited Casey Manor aged care to celebrate National Volunteer Week. Casey Manor is a 45-bed aged-care home that provides care, support and connection for older members of our local community. I had previously visited Casey Manor during the Melbourne Cup and the warmth of the residents and staff left a lasting impression on me, so I genuinely was delighted to return for a special morning tea to recognise the eight incredible volunteers who give their time, compassion and energy to enrich the lives of residents every single day. Aged-care volunteers are often the quiet heroes of our community. They provide companionship, a listening ear, support with activities and countless moments of joy. I want to thank the entire Casey Manor team for inviting me, and I look forward to visiting again.
National Volunteer Week was also a great opportunity to recognise the remarkable work of volunteers and volunteer based organisation across the electorate of Holt. Whether you serve in aged care, community support, sporting clubs, charities, emergency services, multicultural organisations or local groups, your dedication and selflessness do not go unnoticed. Thank you for everything you do.
That brings me to a fantastic event that took place in my electorate, one that focused on helping young Australians better understand our democracy. For the very first time, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. Milton Dick MP, visited Holt to deliver an informative and interactive parliamentary education session to children from the BAPS community in Cranbourne. It was wonderful to see young people so engaged as they learnt about our parliament. The Speaker spoke to them about his role in the chair and how debates are conducted and how we, as members, make decisions and represent our local communities.
Civics education is incredibly important. Sessions like this make parliament feel accessible to young Australians. When children understand how our democracy works, they're more likely to feel connected to it and confident that their voices truly matter. I want to thank the Speaker for taking time to visit Holt and for engaging so warmly with our local youth. I also want to thank the BAPS community in Cranbourne for hosting this wonderful session and the vital role they continue to play in bringing together our community through faith, service and culture.
Back in April, we had a joint media release from the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business announcing with much fanfare that small businesses under stress because of the fuel crisis would be shown leniency from the Australian Taxation Office. Admittedly, a lot of these announcements shifted the responsibility to industry bodies and regulatory bodies to action, but the media release did say that the ATO would play a role in facilitating leniency and compassion to stressed small businesses. It is not what the sentiment is on the ground. This is not the case. Bookkeepers in my electorate are at the coalface of small-business sentiment. They prepare the invoices, they've got real-time understanding of the P&Ls of many small businesses and they know the debtors-and-creditors lists like the backs of their hands. They know what is going on. A local bookkeeper said to me over the weekend:
Small business are hurting. The official figures might not show it yet, but we are living in a recession and have been since Labor took power. Most of my clients are feeling the stress and have had enough.
Small businesses are looking to sell. They have resolved that, if they can't sell before the lease on their shop or factory is due for renewal, they won't be signing a new lease. Instead, they'll be looking, in many cases, to close their business or move it online permanently, operating from a shed or from home. You can think of a florist in a town who's already had to put off her staff because customers are being more careful with their discretionary spending.
The economic stress that we're seeing around Australia is being felt in every country town and regional town. More than ever, clients of bookkeepers are requesting payment plans from the ATO to spread their BAS payments, due to bill shock. In one instance, a dairy farmer in my electorate, wanting to amend their payment plan with the ATO, was knocked back because 'struggling with cash flow' was not a good-enough reason. Well, I say to the ATO: that's not good enough, and it goes against the fanfare of the government's media release only a month or so ago. The ATO's message is that they will be lenient on small business, but the lived experience of struggling small businesses, certainly in my electorate, is that they are being anything but.
Payday super starts on 1 July, and many small businesses are not prepared, not because they don't know it's coming but because their cash flow is already seriously impacted and they are in dire straits. In Victoria, on many metrics, it's worse than it is in other states across Australia. The Victorian Labor government, who cannot control their spending, are raking in money through the punitive payroll tax and land tax on top of rising energy costs. I always say that payroll tax is a tax on jobs, and it's why businesses are really struggling.
There's a genuine fear that many large international employers in Victoria will close their operations and move either interstate or offshore completely. That's not helping Australian workers. It's not helping small businesses who rely on those larger organisations for contracts. It's hurting our entire economy. I want to say to the cafe owners, the mechanics, the farmers and the retail shop owners in my electorate: I'm there for you. The coalition is there for you, and we will stand up against state and federal Labor governments trying to punish you.
I want to speak again about the West Gippsland Hospital. In October 2022, then premier Daniel Andrews pledged up to $675 million for a new West Gippsland hospital, telling our community the project had been 'costed, planned and funded'. Construction was meant to start in 2024. Patients were supposed to be in the new hospital by 2029. Four years on, not even a single brick has been laid. The latest state budget delivered only a fraction of the original commitment, with no funds to start construction. That is an absolute broken promise.
A new West Gippsland hospital should be a tertiary hospital. It should be a teaching hospital—I believe that passionately—and that means the federal government should be looking to have a conversation with the state government on block funding. I'd be very interested to know if any request from the Victorian state government has been made. I think I know the answer.
Drouin is the fastest-growing town in West Gippsland, and Weebar Road is a classic example of infrastructure not keeping pace with population growth. I'm passionate about getting this fixed. My state colleague Wayne Farnham and I are doing everything we can to get this funded, and we won't stop until it's delivered.
I'd like to talk about sovereign capability in this country. A case in point this week is an article by Matthew Knott in the Age about the import of Russian hardwood timber via third-party countries to help circumvent the high tariffs put in place following the invasion of Ukraine. You might ask why we need to import hardwood timber when we've got an abundance of hardwood forests here, right across Australia, particularly in my home state of Victoria. The Victorian Labor government is the answer. They've effectively shut the native timber industry in my state.
We're talking about timber that on an 80-year rotation is harvested and replanted. In Victoria, you're talking about six per cent of the entire forest estate, so when you're looking at harvesting that it's really one-eightieth of six per cent. Timber is the ultimate renewable because it can be replanted. With significant housing targets, we need timber as an available, renewable and sustainable resource for home builds. So, in the infinite wisdom of the Victorian government, they haven't just killed off jobs; they've limited supply, they've brought in blood timber and they've jeopardised our sovereign capability.
Fertiliser is another example. We could've been making more of it in Victoria. The Latrobe Valley has got the largest single deposit of brown coal in the Southern Hemisphere, and that coal-to-fertiliser project that was proposed is now up and running in New Zealand. It's a terrible indictment on Australia's sovereign investment reputation and it's a shocking outcome for regional jobs.
On the topic of sovereign capability, I want to raise the issue of the continued encroachment upon prime agricultural farmland from renewable energy projects that should not be in those spaces. Community members in these areas have no issue with renewable energy technology on the whole, but they do have an issue with the complete lack of social licence and the further encroachment on prime agricultural farmland. It's a real issue in Victoria. The Australian Dairy Farmers, the peak body, have warned about the overlap of these projects. There's about 1.8 million hectares zoned for these projects in Victoria.
Food security is national security, and in places like West Gippsland, where you've got prime horticultural and dairy country, that should be preserved for those purposes. Ben Bennett from Australian Dairy Farmers says:
Dairy country is not easily replaced. Australia already has comparatively limited areas capable of supporting intensive food production systems such as dairy …
He went on to say:
Once productive farming systems are fragmented or permanently changed, rebuilding that productive capacity elsewhere is extremely difficult.
Making that land available that is special and unique for intensive agriculture is important. I think we should be having a national conversation about this because, as I said, food security is national security. A number of constituents have raised this with me and have asked for assistance and representation. Again, I'll be working with Wayne Farnham, the member for Narracan, and standing up for our local community.
Another point I wish to make briefly is about the mandatory minimum payout terms for superannuation death benefits, because some superannuation giants are taking the absolute micky. I've worked with a number of constituents to help get them their money. It's their money. It's not the superannuation giants' money to muck around with and keep.
Many of these constituents are older women, having gone through the profound grief of losing their spouse, that are put through every obfuscating obstacle to get what is theirs. ASIC, the regulator, says that payments should be made 'as soon as practicable'. In other words, there is no mandatory minimum timeframe on which death benefits can be paid out. A few years ago there was a light handed, industry led code of conduct implemented. It was around the time when complaints to the ombudsman tripled, and we're not talking about a couple of cases. Over 4,000 Australians are waiting up to four years to access their own money.
The government said they'd look at the issue of mandatory minimum timeframes on death benefit payouts. That was nearly 1½ years ago. It must act. The evidence is overwhelming. ASIC's claims handling review has released a landmark report that says that 78 per cent of reviewed death benefit claim files were delayed by processing issues. That is not good enough.
Under current superannuation law, a fund may be required to pay death benefits to a person who used family and domestic violence against the deceased. That is desperately cruel, it is wrong, it is unfair, and I say from this federal parliament that needs to change. Lucas Baird, in the Australian Financial Review, has shone a light on the super sector, and I commend that. But I want to say to the government: we've well and truly waited enough; it is time to get on with it.
There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13:34 to 16:00
I recently had the pleasure of attending the Brian Dorey OAM Capricorn Coast Aquatic Centre and visiting Koorana Crocodile Farm on the Capricorn Coast. They are very different places, but both show exactly what makes our region so special. When we support local tourism and community infrastructure, we create opportunities for local jobs, bring people together and make Capricornia an even better place to live and visit.
The opening of the Brian Dorey OAM Capricorn Coast Aquatic Centre was a really proud moment for our community. With $13 million in Commonwealth funding, this project has delivered a new 50-metre heated pool, modern facilities, better accessibility, upgraded filtration, shade areas and community spaces for locals to enjoy. It is an investment in water safety, health and recreation and will benefit local families, schools, sporting groups and visitors for years to come. It's the sort of community facility that becomes part of everyday life, where kids learn to swim, clubs train and families come together. It is very fitting that the centre is named after Brian Dorey OAM, whose contribution to local sport and recreation has left such a strong legacy on the Capricorn Coast. It's wonderful to see that legacy honoured in a facility that will serve the community well into the future.
I really enjoyed my visit to Koorana Crocodile Farm. Established in 1981 by John and Lillian Lever and now run with their son Adam, it is one of those truly unique local attractions that we are so lucky to have on the Capricorn Coast. From the up close encounters to the passionate knowledge of the team, Koorana is the kind of place that leaves a real impression and shows off the best of our region. I had my grandson with me on the day, and while he was a little unsure about holding a baby croc at first, he soon found his courage and absolutely loved it. That is what makes places like Koorana so special. During COVID, I was proud to support the farm through its adopt-a-croc program, and it was lovely to be back to see Mason and Maggie, the crocodiles I sponsored during that time.
Whether it's a fantastic new aquatic centre for local families or a unique tourism experience like Koorana, these places are incredibly important to our region. They support local jobs, bring visitors to the area and showcase the very best of Central Queensland. They give local families even more reasons to stay, spend and enjoy everything our region has to offer. I will always back investments and local attractions that help our communities grow and thrive. I encourage everyone to get out, support local and enjoy everything the Capricorn Coast has to offer.
The On Statenborough retirement village at Leabrook in my electorate of Sturt is not your ordinary retirement village, as I found out when I visited the village to speak to the residents as part of a Q&A session. The session took place courtesy of what is known as the Coopers Club, which is the social group at On Statenborough. Called the Coopers Club because it occupies the historic former site of the world famous Coopers Brewery, the club features not only a fully licensed clubhouse offering bistro dining, Friday night happy hours and social events in a space that honours its heritage but also kind, community minded, highly intelligent and politically engaged residents.
My attendance at the Q&A session was hugely enjoyable, with questions covering a broad range of topics, including housing, the environment, water, the role of personal accountability, social cohesion, AUKUS and foreign affairs. Led by June Genders, president, and Ann Jensen, secretary, the Q&A session was an opportunity not only for the residents to discuss with me issues that are important to them but for me to meet and mingle with them over a glass of wine. I learned that the village is home to former doctors, academics, engineers, public servants, mothers and fathers, many of whom are now grandparents or great grandparents approaching well over 90 years of age. These residents continue to dedicate their lives to their community and family, and this ongoing dedication is something to be cherished, recognised and celebrated.
A few weeks ago I had the honour of attending the Campbelltown Art show in my electorate of Sturt, which is run in partnership between the Campbelltown City Council and Campbelltown Rotary Club. Beautiful and diverse art was on display, ranging from pottery, sculptures, photography, oils and watercolours. Many of the pieces had a red 'sold' sticker on them, underscoring the importance and popularity of art in our community. I presented the Youth Artist Award to Millie, a 14-year-old student from Saint Ignatius' College at Athelstone. Millie, who was accompanied by her very proud parents, loves art and paints as much as she can, using her bedroom as her studio. Her winning piece, called Lorikeet, was bright and colourful, with texture and movement reflected in the delicate feathers of the bird.
The Campbelltown art show also featured spectacular artworks by Matt Cooper, an Iwaidja artist from the Cobourg Peninsula in West Arnhem who is currently based in the Adelaide Hills. Matt's art, which he produces under the banner of Saltwater Stories, focuses on connecting to country and culture, producing flowing, calming works that tell stories of land and sea. His work is truly beautiful, and I hope to maybe one day have a piece hanging on a wall in my house. Thanks must go to curator Sue Eliseo; the Campbelltown City Council, particularly Mayor Jill Whittaker; and Gail Casey, the President of the Rotary Club of Campbelltown, for creating such a beautiful event.
South Australia's History Festival has just wrapped up a month of events celebrating people, places and stories that have shaped our state. This year's theme was 'connections', exploring links between generations, communities and experiences. More than 550 events were held across South Australia, including many throughout Mayo, bringing local history to life through walking tours, exhibitions, discussions and unique heritage pieces. I attended the Our Daily Bread exhibition at Mount Torrens. Many people don't know Mount Torrens is the only heritage listed township in the Adelaide Hills council area. It captured the town's baking and milling heritage through photographs and memorabilia—including the most extraordinary collection of rolling pins I've ever seen—and milling heritage. The exhibition highlighted how Mount Torrens flour mill, founded in 1853, and Sumner's Bakery, opened in 1903, helped shape both the local economy and identity of the community itself. More than 170 years later, many of the original buildings still stand, and these buildings are more than historic structures. They are reminders of the hard work and community spirit that helped shape Mount Torrens and continues to do so today.
I then attended the Secrets of the Strathalbyn Clock Tower at St Andrew's Uniting Church, in Strathalbyn in the Adelaide Hills. It opened in 1849. It's the oldest surviving Presbyterian church building in South Australia and a reminder of the region's early settlement and prosperity. The clock tower records generations who have passed through the district. For more than 130 years, visitors have left their names and dates etched into the tower's internal timbers—they think there are around 2,000 names—creating a timeline of local lives and stories. Among those inscriptions are the names and enlistment numbers of three local young men who were light horsemen who served in World War I. There was a veteran from the Boer War with their name and there were many young men who went off to serve in World War II. These are connections to the sacrifices made by earlier generations. Community fundraising is underway to help restore the clock tower and preserve these important pieces of local history for future generations, and I'm very keen to work with the Strathalbyn community and particularly the committee to see how we can maybe connect to some Department of Veterans' Affairs grants to try and preserve these names, this social history that's so important to all of us.
South Australia's History Festival is a fantastic celebration of our heritage and how it connects us to our communities, and the events at Strathalbyn and Mount Torrens were excellent reminders that local history remains very much alive today.
Health is not only the bedrock of individual wellbeing; it defines the quality of life within our families and across our communities. I know it matters enormously to the people I represent. I've often said that the most important things are the things we share, and that's because those common features of Australian life are the manifestation of our principled commitment to fairness, fair pay and working conditions, a first-rate public education system, the protection of our environment, the social safety net, and community infrastructure and facilities. Needless to say, a high-quality public health system is right at the top of that list. That's why Labor fought to create Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, both of which are distinctive features of our way of life in Australia, just as Labor created the age pension, compulsory superannuation, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the national broadband network. Keeping our public health system strong and effective has to be a perpetual focus of good government, because the needs of our system change as Australians live longer and as we embrace new diagnostic and treatment technologies. That's why the Albanese government has done what Labor governments always do—make our health system stronger and more responsive to the needs of the Australian community.
That's why we've made the biggest investment in Medicare in a generation, lifting bulk-billed GP care to 90 per cent by 2030, including through the creation of new dedicated bulk-billing clinics like the ones that have opened this year in my community in Jandakot and Hamilton Hill. That's why we'll shortly complete the delivery of 137 Medicare urgent care clinics, including the clinic in Beeliar that has been one of the most effective in the country. That's why we've delivered a new women's health package with new endo and pelvic pain clinics and a long belated focus on perimenopause and menopause. And it's why we've reached a new agreement with the states and territories to provide an additional $25 billion to fund public hospitals.
My family has had an unusual six months, with three separate hospitalisations. My mum had a major cerebral haemorrhage last November and, as a result, spent time at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, then at Fiona Stanley Hospital and finally with the amazing crew at Freo hospital in January. My daughter was hospitalised with a heart condition, and last month my dad was hospitalised after a fall. I am incredibly grateful for our public hospital system. I want to express my family's gratitude for the expertise and phenomenal care of doctors and nurses and technicians and orderlies and cleaners and a range of other support staff provided. It is, of course, life-saving and life-restoring work of these people who contribute to our health, and it's also a labour of love. It's a service that any Australian can access, without concern for their financial circumstances, with their Medicare card. That is not the case in a vast majority of other countries. It's a special feature of Australian life that Labor fought to achieve and that the Albanese government is working to keep strong.
Despite being talked about for more than 40 years, plans to build a bypass on the Princes Highway around Traralgon have stalled due to a lack of action by the Labor Party at both the state and federal levels. Today I'll be submitting a petition to the federal parliament, which has been signed by more than 1,300 Gippslanders who want less talk and more action on this project.
At the 2025 federal election, the coalition promised to provide $5 million to work with the Victorian government to finalise the design, approvals and costings of the proposed Traralgon bypass. Without a final design, we can't move to costings and construction work. The Labor Party isn't interested, despite the social, economic and environmental benefits the bypass would bring. As the petition notes, in 2009, the Latrobe Planning Scheme formalised a route for a proposed Traralgon bypass on the highway. Regional Roads Victoria undertook a planning study for the bypass on behalf of Victorian government between 2017 and 2018. The project is supported by local councils right across my electorate. Providing a Traralgon bypass would reduce congestion, improve safety and productivity, increase liveability for locals and boost the visitor economy in Gippsland.
I've written to the state government, yet again, to encourage the Labor Party to act. They need to act first, before the Commonwealth will take any action on this project. According to the Transport Victoria website, it has undertaken studies, including extensive transport modelling to understand the likely impact of a bypass on local roads now and into the future. They also claim to have engaged with key stakeholders, including local government, businesses, the freight industry, landowners and the community to understand the current issues with the Traralgon road network and the likely benefits and impacts of building a bypass. They also claim to have reached 88,000 people through various engagement measures, but they've never released a report. Instead, we hear excuses and platitudes about the final route requiring more information due to the existence of the Loy Yang mine. I've spoken to the mine operators, and that is complete and utter bureaucratic bulldust.
Nothing is getting any cheaper in Victoria while waiting for this Labor government to build anything. Obviously any proposal to build the bypass at some stage in the future will require a significant financial contribution by the Commonwealth government. We need more information. There are now 15 intersections involving roundabouts and traffic lights to get through Traralgon, and it takes somewhere between 15 and 20 minutes and much longer during peak times. Building the bypass would also create much needed jobs during the construction phase which is envisaged.
Now the full highway duplication to Sale has been completed primarily through the 80 per cent funding provided by the former coalition government, the next road transport infrastructure project in our region is to bypass Traralgon for the reasons I've described. As the freight volume grows, it's becoming an increasing a point of delay and is also having impacts on the amenity of Traralgon and the safety of local residents.
Finally, there are potential disaster benefits associated with a well-designed bypass. A study undertaken by the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority in 2016 recommended the construction of a retarding basin upstream, where the proposed bypass is planned, would also form part of a crucial element in mitigating floods which can emanate from the Traralgon Creek. The time for action is now.
There are now thirty-seven 100 per cent bulk-billing clinics in the electorate of Bendigo. It is a huge achievement and something that I'm very proud that our government has delivered. To put that into context, prior to the 2022 election and Labor forming government, there was just one in the entire electorate of Bendigo that was still bulk-billing. As I stand here today, there are now 37, with the majority of people in the Bendigo electorate being able to access bulk-billing.
One of the clinics that I recently visited is the Bendigo Doctors medical centre. It is conveniently located at the Bendigo Marketplace, which is our main shopping centre in Bendigo and in the region. It too is a 100 per cent bulk-billing medical practice. It's unique for two reasons. First, it is open seven days a week. We are seeing our bulk-billing incentives encouraging doctors. The numbers stack up for them to open on Saturdays and Sundays, taking the pressure off our ED department and our urgent care centre. What also makes this clinic unique is, four years ago, it did not exist. Four years ago, before Labor was elected and formed government and changed the rules and invested in Medicare, this clinic, which is delivering bulk-billing services seven days a week, did not exist.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:16 to 16:29
On 27 April I was proud to stand alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Industry, the honourable Pat Conroy, to announce that the Albanese Labor government will be investing a further $750 million into building more Bushmasters in Bendigo for the Australian Defence Force.
Built in Bendigo by Thales Australia, Bushmasters are an iconic Australian vehicle that deliver world-leading protection for the Australian Defence Force. We've all heard the stories from returned soldiers and Australian veterans that speak volumes to the importance of this vehicle, its unique design and how it saves lives. But this contract is more than just building vehicles that the Australian Army need; this contract also secures the workforce at the site for at least the next seven years, as well as the jobs that are in the supply chain.
The contract to build 268 new Bushmasters at the Bendigo facility will allow the site the opportunity for the first time in decades to invest in the next generation. There are already plans to recruit and train the next generation of apprenticeships at this site. This is what Labor governments do. We invest in jobs, we invest in people and we invest in defence manufacturing, not just in Bendigo but throughout Australia.
Men's Health Week is later this month, with the same theme of 'see your GP', which is an important message to a group of Australians who statistically ignore their health concerns. On the whole, men don't book their regular check-ups; instead they opt for 'she'll be right mate'. This has got to change, but tragically in regional areas 'see your GP' is becoming impossible.
This week a 45-year-old constituent who lives in Port Macquarie contacted me. He went to book a check-up with his regular GP and was told that the books were closed. When he said, 'I'm an existing patient,' he was told that because he hadn't been there for the past two years he'd been removed. It's a rule that has been brought in due to rampant demand. He tried another four centres only to get the same story. He finally found an available appointment with a doctor he'd never seen before, but to get that slot he needed to wait for two weeks, and he eventually gave up. This was in Port Macquarie, which is an attractive regional city, yet we can't attract enough GPs. We urgently need fairer distribution of skilled migrants, better incentives for our young people to become GPs and better motivators for GPs to train in regional areas.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to James Thomas Dunn, who tragically and suddenly passed away on 12 May at the age of 54. James was a husband to Pauline and a father to James Jr and Georgia, who he loved dearly. He was incredibly proud of their achievements and always spoke of their times together and their latest holidays. He left little doubt in anyone's mind that his family came above all. His love and his respect were also always on display for his mum, Catherine, and dad, Jim.
James was also a giant in the business community. At the time of his passing, James was the managing director of Expressway Spares, which was started in 1964 by James's grandfather, and now employs several hundred people in regional Australia. As a reflection of the man he was, James knew the names of every single employee and treated them as family. To his mates, James was a character. He was always laughing, having a joke or wearing his notorious fluoro speedos on Lighthouse Beach on Christmas Day, and he was always there to lend a hand or lend an ear. Our thoughts go to James's family, friends and colleagues at Expressway Spares. James's funeral yesterday made me want to do better and be better like James. He will be missed. Vale James Dunn.
The Albanese Labor government wants to help more young people realise their dream of homeownership, and I'd certainly like to see more people in my electorate—individuals, couples and young families in Lake Macquarie and on the Central Coast—get ahead. We know it's tough right now. That's why this government is delivering on our commitment to help more people with the costs of renting and buying a home. We need to act and change the system. We know that house prices have risen 400 per cent over the last two decades, twice as fast as income. Home ownership is down seven percentage points for young people. It's why housing was a key feature of the budget we handed down in May this year.
Labor is taking decisive action to boost housing supply, make our tax system fairer to help more people into home ownership, build on our work over the last four years to deliver more houses and provide rent relief to those doing it tough. When you work hard and save, you should be able to buy your first home. Saving a deposit is just a first hurdle for new homebuyers. By introducing a fairer tax system, combined with our five per cent deposit program, we're helping more people in my electorate—in fact, across the country—buy their first home.
Since we came to government, 1,261 people in Shortland have bought their first home thanks to Labor's five per cent deposit scheme, and I look forward to seeing this number grow. Nationally, we're investing a further $2 billion to see more homes delivered more quickly. This includes helping fund the infrastructure needed to get them built—like water, power and roads—cutting red tape, speeding up housing approvals and boosting the skilled construction workforce.
But right now, first home buyers are being priced out of the market by property investors backed by tax breaks. We're levelling the playing field for first home buyers with a fairer tax system. We're banning foreign investors from buying existing homes until the middle of 2029. And we're returning to indexing capital gains for established dwellings, and redirecting investment into new builds.
We're also delivering more social and affordable homes in Shortland through the Social Housing Accelerator program and we're helping more people to rent. We've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by 50 per cent since 2022. This means almost 11,000 people in my electorate are benefiting from this rental support, and we're continuing to work with our state counterparts to strengthen rental protections and expand long-term rental supply.
All of these measures combine to present a responsible and, yes, ambitious package to solve the current housing challenge. We're investing in the future of young people throughout the country, but especially in Lake Macquarie and on the Central Coast, so they can fulfil their rightful aspiration to own their own home.
Earlier this year in my electorate, we recognised an important milestone. It was the 40th anniversary of Generations in Jazz. It's a festival that takes place in my electorate every year, and it has, in fact, taken place every year since 1987. It has developed into the nation's premier youth music event, bringing together thousands of talented young musicians from across Australia and New Zealand.
Each year, more than 5,000 students travel to the Limestone Coast to perform, to compete, to learn and to share their passion for jazz. For one weekend, Mount Gambier and surrounds become a national meeting place for young people who are united by their creativity, their discipline and, most importantly, their love for that best of music styles—jazz. These students have the opportunity to perform before leading industry professionals, attend workshops with world-class musicians and develop skills that will stay with them for a lifetime. It's band camp, but better. Many participants and scholarship winners have gone on to successful careers in music. Just as importantly, countless young people leave the festival with greater confidence, new friendships and unforgettable memories.
This festival is a tremendous boost for Mount Gambier and surrounds. It fills our streets, accommodation providers, restaurants and local businesses with visitors from all quarters of the country. It showcases the very best of regional Australia and demonstrates what can be achieved when a community comes together to support young people in the arts. And undoubtedly the highlight each year is on the Saturday evening when 6,000 excited students listen to a world-class jazz concert housed in the largest tent erected in the Southern Hemisphere.
I also wish to recognise the volunteers who go above and beyond in my electorate, having recently acknowledge them during National Volunteer Week. This year, through my Barker Volunteer Awards program, an extraordinary 139 volunteers were nominated by their peers, their friends, their colleagues and community organisations. These nominations came from right across the electorate, highlighting the incredible depth of generosity that exists throughout Barker. Whether it's supporting sporting clubs, emergency services, schools, charities, aged-care services, community groups or local events, volunteers are the backbone of all regional communities. They give of their time freely, often without seeking recognition, simply because they care about helping others and making their communities better places to live, work and raise a family. Every one of those 139 nominees represents countless hours of service and dedication. Every nomination tells a story of kindness, leadership and community spirit. Thank you again to every single volunteer who gives up their time in my electorate in support of others.
I rise today to talk about the important investments in infrastructure that the Albanese Labor government is making in Tasmania and particularly in my electorate—over $2 billion statewide. Today, I want to focus on three particular ones in my electorate.
We have allocated more than $60 million to deliver the Algona Road separated interchange and duplication of the Kingston Bypass from Algona Road to the Huon Highway in Kingborough. This area of Kingston Bypass and the roundabout there is known as 'the fork in the road', and it's certainly one of the more difficult roundabouts in southern Tasmania. Certainly, the Algona Road upgrades, I know, will be welcomed by lots down in that part of my electorate, and it will see the construction of a roundabout at the intersection the Algona Road and Channel Highway and, as I said, the duplication of the Kingston Bypass.
Of course, I was the local member when we delivered the first tranche of the Kingston Bypass, and it was very pleasing to deliver that and to be able to deliver this duplication, particularly as the town of Kingston and the Kingborough region is growing at a fast pace. Certainly, we want to see more homes in that area, and whole new subdivisions continue to be opened up in that area. I know it will be greatly received by the local community.
One of the other upgrades is the South Arm Highway Upgrade that will deliver much needed duplication and the intersection there near the Lauderdale Primary School where the South Arm Highway and Acton Road intersect. Certainly, hearing from the local community for many years now, it's terrific to be able to be part of a government that will deliver—from the federal government's perspective—funding for this notorious intersection, and I certainly look forward to the Tasmanian state government delivering on this important commitment.
We're also, of course, investing and continue to invest in the Mornington roundabout. This has been ongoing for some time. I first committed to it two elections ago, and it's great to see the Tasmanian state government finally getting on with the job there and the council as well. I know that there's been some discussion and to-and-fro between the current city council and, indeed, the Tasmanian state government. I've said repeatedly to the Tasmanian minister that I will continue to advocate and continue to remind them that they need to get on with building. There is work on the on-off ramps into Rosny, which will take some pressure off the Mornington roundabout and then work will deal with the intersection of the Mornington roundabout.
As I said, this has been going on for many years now, and, frankly, the state government and the council need to move faster. I'm getting incredibly frustrated, as are local residents. This roundabout is absolutely diabolical, and this intersection is known as one of the worst in Tasmania between these two major highways. Certainly, we want to see these safety upgrades. Sadly, we have had motorists have accidents and die in this area, so it does need to be done, and the Tasmanian state government really do need to get on with it. I look forward to being part of a government that actually delivers on this with the Tasmanian state government.
The Australian public are now aware that they are being fleeced by their government to the tune of $77 billion in new taxes. But the moral case that the government has been making is that this is somehow 'pro-aspiration' or that the taxes are for the benefit of ordinary people. Nothing could be further from the truth when we look at the example of testamentary trusts and the actions of the government in imposing a 30 per cent tax of testamentary trusts. Sometimes people confuse these trusts with other forms of trusts, but a testamentary trust is obviously something that lays dormant until a person dies and the executor sets up the trust after the person's death. They are primarily used by and advantage low-income people, and the changes that the government is proposing to tax these trusts threaten vulnerable people, children, people with disability, women and haven't taken into account the issues.
You get some odd looks and some faces from people over there, but let me tell you a little about testamentary trusts and some of the problems that the government is creating here. They are not exclusive vehicles. You cannot introduce new assets into these trusts; they are very different from family trusts. The government was saying that discretionary trusts are no longer available and that they have to be fixed, and that isn't taking into account the law that fixed trusts, under the tax commissioner's rulings, will be in family law proceedings. So if a man dies and their female spouse inherits all of them under a testamentary trust, under the government's changes a fixed trust would be included in new divorce and family law proceedings, whereas a discretionary trust cannot be. This is critically misunderstood by this government, and we have a lot of female members from the other side here. They should be paying attention to this.
The beneficiaries of testamentary trust in Australia to people earning less than $45,000 from other sources—these people stand to lose access to the tax free threshold and the lower marginal rates that you get from the current arrangements. This means groups like—let's go through this again—widows, who will be primarily women because women live longer than men; orphans, both single and double orphans; minors raised by grandparents; retirees; and a lot of disabled people who now being looked after by testamentary trusts because, as we know, the NDIS cuts out. The government has no plans to include older people or older people with disability into these NDIS arrangements.
I think the government needs to look at this. When they say rich people are going to suffer and ordinary people are going to benefit, nothing could be further from the truth when you look at testamentary trusts. In fact, the changes that the government is making across the board are blanket, typical socialist policy. 'We're just going to give everybody more tax. We don't care about the diversity of actual economic life.' Testamentary trusts are a prime example of the vulnerable using financial mechanisms available in incentives to make sure they look after vulnerable people. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister said—newsflash for the members opposite—he's going to exclude vulnerable people. Vulnerable people need to be excluded, and testamentary trusts need to be excluded from this budget.
For decades, people across Torquay and the Surf Coast in my electorate of Corangamite have dreamt about an aquatic and recreation centre that would meet the needs of a growing community. Today that dream is about to become a reality. Construction of the Wurdi Baierr Aquatic and Recreation Centre is now at a significant milestone, with all three indoor pools—a 25-metre pool, a learn-to-swim pool and a warm water pool—now fully tiled. At 75 per cent complete, we remain on track to open the doors of this amazing facility next year.
This achievement is about much more than bricks, tiles and concrete. It is accumulation of generations of community advocacy. The campaign for a pool in Torquay stretches back to the 1950s and 60s, when local groups first began lobbying for swimming facilities. In the decades that followed, there were communities working on committees, feasibility studies, public meetings, petitions and consultations. Again and again, local people made the case that their growing communities deserved a facility where people could learn to swim, stay safe in the water, rehabilitate from injury, improve their health and wellbeing and come together. The game changer came when the Surf Coast Shire councillors voted to reserve land for a pool right in the heart of Torquay's civic precinct. As a councillor at the time, this was a pivotal moment led by former councillors Deane Webster and Rose Hodge. It was the catalyst to significant federal and state funding. That funding will soon deliver a 25-metre pool, gymnasium, warm water pool for rehab, learn to swim, allied health suites, sauna and spa and a splash park.
This investment matters. It will leave a lasting legacy for rapidly growing townships like Torquay, Armstrong Creek, Grovedale and many coastal communities, and, when the doors open in 2027, families will swim in these pools, children will learn vital water safety skills, older residents will participate in warm water exercise programs and community members of all ages and abilities will enjoy the benefits of a modern recreation facility. Few in the community may know the full history of how this project came to be, but they will be the beneficiaries. I thank all those who spent decades advocating for this centre, and I look forward to seeing the Wurdi Baierr Aquatic and Recreation Centre open its doors and serve the Surf Coast community for many generations to come.
I'd like to acknowledge the Cronulla RSL club and the Cronulla RSL sub-branch for organising War Animal Day. It's a commemorative service that honours the animals that have served alongside Australians in conflicts. I want to particularly thank Bradley Bishop, the acting CEO of Cronulla RSL; John Brown, the president of Cronulla RSL; and Cory Rinaldi, the president of Cronulla RSL sub-branch for their commitment to ensuring this important act of remembrance continues.
The story of service is not only a human one. Throughout history, animals have supported our defence forces in very extraordinary ways. They also provide companionship and comfort to some of the most difficult conditions imaginable, and after the fact. Recently I met with Manic, a Belgian Malinois who served in the commando regiment in the Special Operations Command. Manic had returned to Australia after serving in Afghanistan with a commando and had been discharged. The commando was looking after this animal, and it was more than an animal to him. It was a partner. It had been in Afghanistan saving people's lives.
I was very disappointed to learn that Manic's veterinary bills are not covered, nor are those of any service animal that is discharged. Yes, we look after the veterans, but we do not look after their animals. There are only a few animals that are discharged, and the cost is left to our veterans to keep them serviced and in good health. I'll be writing to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to fix this injustice, not only for the animals but for the commandos who served alongside them.
I'd also like to recognise an outstanding member of the Cook community, Vishnesh Naikar, from the Woolworths Caringbah Customer Fulfilment Centre. Vish recently received the Woolworths Customer Fulfilment Centre Site Leader of the Year 2025 award. That was across all of New South Wales. It's a significant achievement that recognises the exceptional leadership of Vish and also how well the Caringbah Woolworths has done. Congratulations, Caringbah Woolworths. To Vish and the entire team at Caringbah: your work matters, your leadership matters and your contribution to our community matters.
Finally, I want to acknowledge a wonderful group from Cronulla, the Oak Park Jellybeans. This group of women meet at sunrise for swims at Oak Park rock pool, showing the best of our local way of life: friendship, resilience, good humour and community spirit. Their story recently reached a much wider audience through social media, after Mia Ross began sharing videos of the group's winter swimming adventures with her grandmother Robyn Winton. What started as a local ritual has become something that many people are connected with. It's a reminder that community is often built by simple, joyful moments. Congratulations to these women.
Today marks World Eating Disorders Action Day, and this year's theme is 'Stop stigma. Start care. Together'. More than 1.1 million Australians experience an eating disorder each year, and more than one in 10 will experience one in their lifetime—our neighbours, friends and loved ones. In Queensland the past decade has seen a near threefold increase in people accessing eating disorder related health services and a fivefold increase in outpatient contacts, reflecting growing community need.
Based in South Brisbane, in my community of Griffith, Eating Disorders Queensland provides therapy, peer support and connection for people in recovery and their carers and loved ones across the state. Recently I met with their CEO, Belinda, to hear about her team's extraordinary work and the importance of sustainable, community based support. Belinda's message was clear: early intervention is the best care. Belinda shared with me the story of a 62-year-old woman supported through the Eating Disorders Queensland bITE early intervention program. This story shows how long people can live with distress before finding that care.
This lady's challenges with food began when she was just 19 years old. In the early 1980s, surrounded by harmful expectations about weight and appearance, she developed bulimia after experiencing judgement about her body, including being told to lose weight before beginning a course to become a waitress. For the first time, changing her body brought praise and a sense of acceptance. Even happy memories became tied to the message that she was more worthy when she looked a certain way. Decades later, during a period of severe mental illness, she began experiencing binge eating. As her mental and physical health declined, she felt trapped, using food to punish herself.
For years, she did not seek support. It was only when a psychologist recognised that her eating behaviour may be connected to a deeper distress that she found Eating Disorders Queensland. Through bITE, she was connected with a care navigator, a practitioner and lived-experience workers. She came to understand that she is not alone, that eating disorders can affect anyone in any body and that recovery is possible. She said that without the opportunity to be accepted into the program she probably would not be here. In her words, the support gave her the 'mental strength to keep going'. She said:
It changed my desire to live in this world, and be understood and heard, helped me to understand that the correlation with food and mental health is real.
If I have not had the opportunity to come and being accepted into this the program, I probably would not be here.
It gave me mental strength to keep moving forward and not giving up on myself.
That is the power of compassionate community-based care. Eating disorders do not have one face, one age, one gender or one body type, yet too many people are still held back by cost, stigma, shame or the belief that they are not sick enough to deserve help. I am proud that the Albanese Labor government's latest budget commits a further $4.4 million to extend support for people living with eating disorders and their families, and $600,000 for a national platform bringing together prevention and treatment resources and standards.
I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate two competitors from the Grafton Athletics Club and their recent success at the Australian Athletics Championships held in Sydney. William Tait, who competed in the 400-metres hurdles, finished second, with a qualifying time of 52.38 seconds, which achieved the world junior standard. He now holds the second-fastest under-20s time in Australia. William has now been selected to represent Australia in the 400-metres hurdles at the World Athletics under-20s championships in Oregon, USA, this August. Congratulations, William. And Annika Swift made the 100- and 200-metres finals at the championships. Annika also ran the anchor leg in the 4 x 100-metres mixed state relay team and powered the team home to win gold and secure the Australian title. Congratulations to Annika.
I'd like to congratulate 15-year-old Ayla Kowalczyk from Wollongbar on her selection in the Australian Commonwealth Games parasports program to compete in long jump at Glasgow. Earlier this year, Ayla competed at the Australian Athletics Junior Championships, where she broke the Australian under-15s long jump record, finding herself in Australia's top rankings and named an Australian champion. Ayla is coached by her father, Zenon, and represents Ballina Allstar Athletics and the North Coast Academy of Sport. Ayla was named the 2025 NCAS athlete of the year after breaking national records and achieving multiple personal bests throughout the year. She's dreaming big for the 2028 and 2032 Paralympics. I wish her every success in Glasgow, and I know her family are very proud.
I'd like to congratulate the Bonalbo CWA on its 100th birthday, to be celebrated this month. The branch held its first meeting on 26 June 1926, with the goal of establishing a local hospital, which opened in 1930 on the current Bonalbo MPS site. The Bonalbo CWA Younger Set, formed in 1933, raised funds to furnish a hospital ward and later built the Bonalbo CWA rest rooms, which opened in 1938. Although the CWA later gave up the building, it was repurchased in 2024 and will be restored, bringing the organisation back to its original home. Today the branch is led by President Helen Tart; Vice President Judy Spargo; secretary, Helen Negus; treasurer, Ivy Hsieh; cookery officer, Veronica Moore; and publicity officer, Sharon Tucker. I congratulate all past and present members on this remarkable milestone and thank them for their service to the Bonalbo community.
For longer than I can remember, the Henzell Street Quilters have been the very fabric of the Petrie community, creating intricate, colourful and creative quilts. Last Friday I got to pop into their quilt show at the Redcliffe Showgrounds, and I saw some of the most beautiful quilts I've ever seen. I'm going to say it: they're the best in the country. They showcased dozens of quilts, from outback landscapes and traditional designs to a flat cat quilt, which was my personal favourite. I want to thank the president, Chris, for sharing her story about what inspired her in creating that particular quilt. They also had creative stalls, raffles—plenty of inspiration. I want to thank Kathleen, the manager, who got the team together and put on this fantastic event. A lot of work goes into creating these wonderful community events, and I just want to shout them out for that.
One thing I particularly want to shout out is their community corner, where they make incredible quilts and donate them into the community where needed. One particular group they donate to, which got me in my heartstrings, was Chameleon Housing. Chameleon Housing provides housing for young people who need it. They might be going into that housing with just the clothes on their back or the belongings in their backpack, and these quilts feel like a hug from Nan. They get to hold that. I remember the quilt my nan gave me. Every time I get to put it on, I remember her and the great things that she did. So I just want to thank them for their incredible work.
On a heavier note, last week I attended the 18th annual Moreton Bay Says No To Violence march in Redcliffe. I was able to stand shoulder to shoulder with advocates, victim-survivors, police officers and community members who care. We got to hear from some incredible speakers, such as Holly from the Centre against Domestic Abuse, Kate Crowley-Smith from Broken to Brilliant, Ruby Allen from Kids of Purple, and the students from the Deception Bay Flexible School. Their speeches were absolutely touching. It reminds us that domestic violence is still prevalent in our communities. Every person who dies is one person too many, but every person who faces death, who lives in fear in their homes, is also one person too many.
I got to stand up there and speak about my experience in domestic and family violence and how it is completely unacceptable. I'll always stand up for my community, I'll always call out injustice and violence, and I'll always say no to violence. It is completely unacceptable. It's great that our government has been able to acknowledge that some of our systems, such as the child support system, have actually been used to facilitate harm. The reforms in that space are so paramount, and I thank the Minister for Social Services, Tanya Plibersek, for her work in that space.
I recently attended Have Your Say Day. This is a fabulous youth-led initiative that gives young people across the northern beaches a platform whereby they can engage directly with their elected leaders and community members on the issues that are affecting them. This year, students from nine high schools presented key concerns raised in a survey of more than 2,300 students aged between 17 and 24. Their top three issues were transport, mental health and the environment.
Students Ava, Georgia, Lily and Maya from Stella Maris said young people on the northern beaches are stressed about basic travel. In a survey, one 23-year-old said that her daily commute takes at least 1½ hours each way because of congestion, bus delays or cancellations, leaving little time for family, health or other aspects of life, and many arrive late for school for similar reasons. The students proposed solutions such as expanding bus routes and increasing their frequency, integrating student IDs into the Opal app and creating a subsidised pathway for people to obtain a bus driver's licence through TAFE to address the driver shortage. These are practical ideas that deserve consideration.
Cooper and Grace from Davidson High School spoke about youth addiction, including to vaping, illicit drugs and alcohol. They said addiction often develops gradually, shaping how young people cope, think and live. They argued that the problem is not so much a lack of services but a lack of awareness, education and open conversations. Too many young people suffer in silence because they do not know where to turn or fear being judged. They called for stronger education in the PDHPE classes, community information nights, workshops and social media campaigns to reduce stigma and help families access support.
Then Flynn and Mira, students from Narrabeen Sports High School, highlighted the levels of microplastics in our local dunes and waterways. Dee Why Lagoon is one of the 10 most polluted waterways on the New South Wales coast. They called for sustainability activities to be more collaborative and visible in youth spaces so that young people have the opportunity to participate in environmental initiatives both in school life and in the community, making them accessible, socially ingrained and part of everyday life.
Sadly, in this short speech I cannot talk about all the speeches that were made, but I want to thank all those who participated so thoughtfully in Have Your Say Day. I learnt a lot, and this initiative illustrates that, as Isaac from the Northern Beaches Secondary College's Cromer campus said, this is how we can 'build a future where young people are consistently included in decision-making, equipped with the skills to participate and given genuine opportunities to have their voices heard'.
I want to celebrate an extraordinary milestone: 140 years of Business Hunter. Since 1886, Business Hunter has been the driving force for industry, enterprise and economic growth across our region. From supporting local manufacturers and small businesses to advocating for major infrastructure and investment, Business Hunter has helped shape Newcastle and the Hunter into the thriving, dynamic region we know today. Over 140 years, our economy has evolved dramatically. Industries have changed, communities have grown and new challenges have emerged. But, through it all, Business Hunter has remained a steadfast voice for local businesses and local jobs.
The Hunter has long been a region defined by hard work, innovation and resilience. Whether it's our world-class port, growing clean energy industries, university, tourism sector or small businesses on local main streets, Business Hunter has championed the people and industries that keep our region strong. Importantly, this anniversary is a chance not only to reflect on the past but also to look to the future. The Hunter is helping to lead Australia's economic transformation, and organisations like Business Hunter will continue to play a vital role in ensuring our region seizes every opportunity ahead. I congratulate Business Hunter on this remarkable achievement and thank all those past and present who have contributed to its enduring success over the past 140 years.
I want to congratulate Newcastle Pride on two outstanding achievements that showcase the strength, creativity and inclusivity of our city. Recently, Newcastle Pride was awarded Best Event or Festival by the Newcastle Tourism Industry Group, a well-deserved recognition for an event that has become a vibrant celebration of diversity, community and belonging in our region. Adding to this success, Newcastle Pride was also named runner up for Most Fabulous Stall at Sydney Mardi Gras Fair day, one of the biggest and most iconic celebrations of the LGBTQIA+ pride in the country. These achievements are a testament to the dedication of volunteers, organisers, performers and community members who work tirelessly to make Newcastle Pride such a welcoming and joyful event.
Newcastle Pride is much more than a festival. It's a celebration of visibility, acceptance and equality. It sends a powerful message that Newcastle is a city where everyone deserves to feel safe, respected and proud to be themselves. Events like Newcastle Pride also play an important role in supporting local tourism, hospitality and small businesses, bringing people together from across the region and indeed across Australia. To everyone involved with Newcastle Pride, thank you for helping make our city more inclusive, more compassionate and definitely more colourful.
I want to recognise two amazing local Berowra heroes in what, for parliamentary purposes, we might call the S-box rally. It involves driving a car worth less than $1,500, covering 4,000 kilometres. Murray Oakley and Phil Fairhall are volunteers with the Hornsby SES and are taking on this challenge to raise funds for cancer research and support services for Australians affected by cancer. Recently, while doorknocking in Berowra, I had the opportunity to meet Murray and Phil and hear about their mission. Competing under the name Floodwits, a nod to their flood rescue work with the SES, they will drive a 2008 Volvo XC70 from Port Douglas to Melbourne in seven days from 11 July.
Murray has lived in our electorate for more than 30 years, and he's raised his children in Berowra, while Phil moved up from Canberra five years ago. Murray's been involved with the Hornsby SES for 23 years. He's currently the operations field officer, but he's had many roles over the years, including rescue officer, deputy unit commander, and team leader. Phil's been involved with the Hornsby SES for about five years. They've worked together on many flood rescues.
Anyone who's owned an older Volvo may tell you they're built to last, but getting one that's worth less than $1,500 to complete that journey is a leap of faith that would test even the most optimistic mechanic. They were very grateful that Repco Hornsby sold them their S-box for a dollar after hearing it was to be used for a charity rally. They have put the finishing touches together, including a mandatory UHF radio, which they'll use to communicate with their team along the journey.
Importantly, Murray and Phil are aiming to raise more than $10,000 for the Cancer Council and have already raised more than $6½ thousand dollars towards that goal. Like so many Australians, they've seen firsthand the impact that cancer can have on families. They've lost loved ones, supported friends through treatment and know that almost every Australian family has a cancer story. As SES volunteers, they've spent years helping communities during floods and emergencies across New South Wales, including deployments to the Hawkesbury, Forbes and Coonabarabran. The rally is simply another example of that same spirit of service.
I also want to acknowledge the local businesses and community members who are supporting their efforts, including Repco Hornsby, Claire Burrows, Daniel Brown, Thea Bloomfield, Clementine Leedham, Ian Friery, Nicole Mulgrove and Jacaline Reilly. Their support highlights the strong community spirit behind this important cause. Along the route, Murray and Phil will visit regional communities, helping to raise awareness and supporting the small towns that welcome participants on their journey.
Murray and Phil represent the very best of the Berowra community. Whether helping people through floods or raising funds to fight cancer, they continue to put others first. I want to wish them and their families every success on their journey and thank them and everyone who's supporting them by making a difference to all Australians who are affected by cancer.
If you've ever enjoyed a fresh oyster at a Brisbane restaurant, there is a good chance that that shell ended up at OzFish, helping restore the reef in Moreton Bay in my electorate of Bonner. Recently, the Minister for the Environment and Water, Murray Watt, joined me at OzFish to mark the delivery of Labor's $1.5 million commitment to support oyster reef restoration in Moreton Bay. For communities across Bonner, Moreton Bay is more than a beautiful backdrop; it is where locals fish, kayak, boat and spend time with family and friends. It is also a vital natural environment that our community values deeply. OzFish is taking recycled oyster shells, placing them in specially designed baskets and returning them to Moreton Bay to rebuild natural reef habitats. These oysters are very hard workers. A single oyster can filter more than 150 litres of water every single day, improving water quality, supporting marine life and helping create healthier ecosystems right across the bay. The project is also creating opportunities for local volunteers to get involved in protecting and restoring our waterways. I want to thank OzFish and the volunteers for the incredible work that they do. This is what practical environmental action can look like, thanks to the Albanese Labor government.
It was a privilege to recently welcome almost a hundred of our newest Australians at a citizenship ceremony hosted by Kairali Brisbane at the Mount Gravatt Showgrounds. It was a celebration of belonging, community and new beginnings. There is something incredibly special about witnessing people officially become Australian citizens, taking the pledge surrounded by family and community after what has often been a long journey to call this country home. Becoming an Australian citizen is about more than paperwork; it is about belonging, it's about becoming part of our community and it's about helping shape the future of the country that we all share together. Australia's strength has always been its diversity—people who bring their cultures, languages, stories and experiences and help build the social fabric of our community.
In Bonner, we are incredibly fortunate to have such a vibrant multicultural community. That is I why want to highlight an incredible opportunity for our local multicultural organisations. The Albanese Labor government is investing up to $41.6 million through the infrastructure grants for multicultural communities program, so I encourage all of our multicultural communities to look at the grants portal and get involved in this wonderful opportunity. Grants from $20,000 right through to $1.5 million are available to support our multicultural communities locally.
In accordance with standing order 103, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
Before the Federation Chamber considers the first portfolio, I would like to remind all members of the purpose of the consideration in detail stage and outline the way that it is expected to proceed. On Thursday 28 May, the House agreed to a resolution setting the order and timing for the consideration of portfolios. Consideration in detail is a debate, and the call will be alternated between government and non-government members, as always. Even though this debate sometimes takes the format of questions and answers, this is not question time.
Ministers and government backbench members will both be considered as speakers for the government's turn and should bear this in mind when they seek the call. Members are required to be relevant to the portfolio being examined, but there is no requirement for direct relevance to any questions asked. Each minister and member will have up to five minutes to speak each time they are called, but they may wish to speak for a shorter time. Ministers may wish to speak first and make an introductory statement when debate on their portfolio begins, but that is a matter for them to decide. The terms of the resolution provide dates and times after which the questions on each portfolio will be put if debate does not conclude earlier. To avoid confusion when these times are reached, a member who is speaking will be allowed to continue their remarks, but chairs are obligated to put the question immediately at the conclusion of that member's speech, and no further debate will be permitted. Finally, I remind advisers to members and ministers that the roped off gallery areas may be accessed through the doors adjacent to the galleries only, not through the doors reserved for members, and they must not intrude onto the floor of the Federation Chamber at any time or seek the attention of a member or minister by calling out.
Education Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $2,799,424,000
In 14 years of teaching, I never once met a child who dreamed of failing. I never met a student who wanted to struggle with reading or a young person who genuinely aspired to be unemployed. I met students with enormous potential, and here is the truth I witnessed in every classroom I've ever stood in: talent is universal, but opportunity is not. I've always believed that education is one of the most powerful things the government can invest in but, for too long, governments have treated education as a collection of separate systems—child care over there, schools over here, TAFE somewhere else if it's being supported at all and universities somewhere else again.
What I'm proud of is that this government has taken a different approach. We've recognised that education is not something that happens for a few years at the beginning of a person's life. Education is a lifelong journey. For perhaps the first time in Australia's history, we're investing right across that journey, and that's a big reform agenda. It is ambitious. We know that some of the most important learning a child will ever do happens in the first five years. They are absolutely integral. That's why we're building a universal early education system. Through our three-day guarantee, every child can access three days of subsidised early childhood education and care every week. A local Bass family recently told me that this policy has saved them hundreds of dollars a week. That is the difference that affordable childcare can make. We've also invested in the workforce through a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators, and we're strengthening safety and accountability across the sector.
But that opportunity cannot stop when that kid leaves child care and first walks through the school gates, so we're delivering the biggest new investment in Australian public education ever. For too long public schools were left short of the funding they needed. I remember working in Ramingining, a remote community in Arnhem Land, during a period when remote public schools were losing funding dramatically. I bought puzzles. I bought learning resources to help fill the classroom. But it was not just those hands-on manipulatives and resources that teachers desperately needed. It was the assistant teachers who spoke Yolngu Matha and helped us to better support our students and understand them. It was access to psychologists, speech and occupational therapists so we could actually meet those needs. It was funding for breakfast, recess and lunch. It was staff to prepare those meals. It was being able to fly in an electrician and a plumber when things broke down, because, even though our principal tried her very best, you can't solve every infrastructure problem in a remote community with a wrench and a determined attitude.
None of these are luxuries. They're the basic building blocks of a quality education, and that's what this money is actually for. It's not just a line in a budget. It's the assistant teacher who can speak a child's language, the therapist who can support a child who's falling behind and that meal that can help a kid focus in class. This is why our Better and Fairer Schools Agreement matters. Nationally, it's an additional $20 billion for public schools over the next decade.
The same principle will be applied beyond school. We know that too many Australians have often been told that university was available to them but they graduated carrying a debt that continued to grow year after year. We've taken action on that. More than 20 per cent has been taken off our debt, which has benefited 10,500 people in Bass, which is huge. We've made the repayments fairer and we're supporting students undertaking placements in teaching nursing, midwifery and social work through the prac placement. I had people actually choosing between completing their study and paying the bills, and that's not OK.
We have not forgotten regional Australia. We've not forgotten regional students. Challenge has never been the problem for them; it's been access, distance and cost. That's why the study hubs are being bringing tertiary education closer to where people live. We're investing in those regional pathways. This semester our government has started end-to-end medical training right in the heart of Launceston for the first time ever, and I've met some of the students undertaking this course. One conversation has stayed with me. A student told me that if this opportunity did not exist in Launceston, they never would have applied to study medicine. They didn't lack the ambition, they didn't lack the ability, it was simply that they couldn't afford to leave home. So think about that. That's a future doctor, a talented young person with skills and determination who will serve our community long term who we could have lost due to geography and cost. Instead, they're studying medicine in Northern Tasmania, and they want to stay there. We are making sure an individual's future is determined by their potential and not their postcode. A person's ambition should not be limited by cost or by lack of educational opportunities, because when we invest in education we invest in people. And when we invest in people, we're investing in Australia's future.
This is a budget of broken promises and broken dreams. For the last six months the government has been congratulating itself for reaching a schools funding agreement with every state, but in Victoria the spin doesn't match the facts. This government has been constantly gaslighting.
When the Prime Minister stood up in March last year and said every jurisdiction was on track to receive an increase in school funding and to receive the full school resourcing standard, it simply wasn't true. The proof is publicly available. To get an increase in funding, what you need is a document called a bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and the relevant state. In March last year, there was no bilateral agreement with Western Australia and there was no bilateral agreement with Victoria. It was a falsehood. And, as of today, there is still no plan for an increase in Victoria. The best they can manage is a stopgap with no increases that terminates at the end of this year. You can't believe the Albanese government on taxes, and you can't believe them on school funding either.
Thanks to the Allan and Albanese Labor governments, Victorian government schools have the lowest funding of any state in the entire country. Compared to New South Wales in this year alone, Victorian high schools and public schools are short-changed by $860 per student for every single one of the 667,000 Victorian public school students. Compared to South Australia, it's $900 less per student. And compared to Tasmania, it's $1,740 less per student. Maybe if Labor hadn't funded $15 billion of taxpayers money to the crooks and crims at the CFMEU, kids in Victoria would have a better chance for an education, but it's now Victoria's school children who suffer the consequences. So my questions to the minister are: Are you going to sign a bilateral agreement on school funding with the Allan government? What date will it be signed? Why have you left such an agreement until the eve of the Victorian election? And given the state of the Victorian Labor budget and the fact there is no specific allocation for this funding in the federal budget, don't the Victorian public have a right to be cynical about any agreement that is signed between the Albanese and Allan Labor governments?
This budget sets up a non-government-school funding cliff beyond 2029. For the millions of Australians who send their children to Catholic and independent schools, who have made genuine financial sacrifices, they deserve certainty beyond the forward estimates, and yet there is none. The non-government sector now educates 40 per cent of Australian students. According to an analysis by the AEC Group, independent schools save the Australian taxpayer an estimated $12½ billion in expenditure through recurrent education and capital costs.
Under Labor, education costs have risen by 21 per cent. The government has failed to keep downward pressure on the drivers that increase out-of-pocket expenses for families—energy prices, insurance premiums, land and capital costs, regulatory complexity, taxes and all the other things that make it more expensive to deliver a high-quality education that parents ultimately pay for. In government schools, increased costs are borne by the taxpayer, but in non-government schools those increased costs are borne by parents in higher fees.
This government sees independent schools as elite. We know differently. We know independent schools educate more than 22,000 Aboriginal students, more than 187,000 students with disability and keep fees, on average, across the sector at just $6,060 a year. And yet this budget provides no guarantee, no commitment, no clarity about what will happen after 2029. School funding decisions should not punish parents for exercising choice. They should support affordability, protect diversity and make sure funding follows the student. So, Minister, will you guarantee that non-government schools will receive funding that supports parental choice and ongoing affordability beyond 2029?
The third area I want to talk about is the $2.2 billion research funding cut, which is short-changing our researchers at a critical time. This budget rips $2.2 billion out of research over the next 10 years, through cuts to Australia's Economic Accelerator. That's devastating for our universities, but, worse, it's part of a pattern. In 2023 Labor ripped $46.2 million out of the accelerator through a cash grab hidden in MYEFO. In 2025 they did it again, taking a further $76 million from research. Now they're taking a further $800 million over the forwards and $2.2 billion over the decade. On top of that, the government has abolished the Trailblazer Universities Program. That was worth $86 million this year, intended to fast-track research and boost commercialisation. And they've taken $67 million out of the National Environmental Science Program.
Research drives innovation, which drives productivity, and we desperately need productivity at this time. Just today, we've seen reports of Australian universities slipping in world rankings. We now have no universities in the top 50 in the world. My final question is: Minister, why are you ripping $2.2 billion out of research at this absolutely critical time for Australia?
I rise to support a budget that continues the Albanese Labor government's work to build a better and fairer education system. From early childhood education right through to schools, TAFE and university, this budget is about opening doors for opportunity.
When I was asked to run for the seat of Melbourne, I said yes because as a foster carer I met too many children who, through no fault of their own, had faced unbelievable challenges. I wanted to step up and do everything I could to help ensure every child gets the best possible start in life, and I know education is the key. It opens doors, builds confidence, sparks curiosity and creates opportunity. It gives children the tools to thrive and backs the teachers and educators who work every day to help young Australians reach their full potential.
I believe every child deserves a chance to dream big, succeed and build a bright future, and a strong education is where that journey begins. That is the goal of this budget—a quality, affordable and safe early childhood education and care system, full and fair funding for public schools and a fairer higher education system, including cutting student debt by 20 per cent and making repayments fairer.
In early childhood education and care we are delivering real reform. Our cheaper child care policy is already providing cost-of-living relief for more than one million Australian families. We have also replaced the activity test with the three-day guarantee, making sure every child can access at least three days of subsidised early education and care per week. The government is also backing early childhood educators, with a 15 per cent pay rise tied to limits on fee increases for families. We are strengthening safety through a $226 million child safety package, including mandatory child safety training, a national early childhood worker register and more unannounced compliance visits, with stronger powers to cut funding from services that are not meeting safety standards. Affordable, safe, high-quality—this is the early education system this government is building.
In schools, the Albanese Labor government is delivering full and fair funding for public schools. When we came to government, no public school outside the ACT was fully funded. That was not good enough, so this government is fixing it. Through the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, we are putting every public school on a pathway to full funding. That means an additional $20 billion for public schools over the next 10 years and $50 billion in the decade after that. For Victorian public schools, it means an extra $3.5 billion over the next 10 years. That funding is tied to reforms that matter in classrooms: more individualised support, more mental health support and more support to attract and retain teachers. That is what full and fair funding will do. It will help students catch up, keep up and finish school. It will back the teachers doing the work. It will strengthen the schools at the heart of our community and in higher education.
This government is delivering reform that matters. Melbourne has the highest number of people with student loans of any electorate in the country. Around 36,000 people in Melbourne are carrying student loan debt. That is why the government's 20 per cent student debt cut matters. The first bill passed by this parliament wiped more than $16 billion in student debt for more than 3.2 million Australians, and we have made repayments fairer.
For someone earning $70,000, repayments will fall from $1,750 a year to about $450. That's about $1,300 less each year. It is also why the Commonwealth prac payment matters. It supports about 68,000 eligible teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students while they complete compulsory placements. Because education should open doors, not push people to breaking point. This budget delivers a better and fairer education system. From early learning to public schools, to TAFE and universities, it's a system that gives children the best start, that opens the door for opportunity and that backs students, teachers, educators and families. That is what Labor governments do, and I am proud to support this budget.
I rise to speak on the government's 2026-27 budget and what it means for education, which is the foundation of productivity, opportunity and long-term prosperity in this country. For all the slogans about fairness and opportunity, what this budget delivers is not real reform but restraint on aspiration. That's clear in many aspects of the budget, but it's clear in education as well. The government has framed this budget as one that builds a better, fairer and more equitable education system. But when you look beyond the rhetoric you see a patchwork of modest initiatives, increased regulation and missed opportunities for real reform. It's not transformational; it's a holding pattern.
Let me start with schools. There are some targeted investments—in STEM programs, student wellbeing and support for disadvantaged students in particular—but alongside that we see a strong emphasis on compliance and integrity measures that ensure funding is monitored and enforced more tightly. Accountability matters, and every dollar should be spent well, but schools across regional Australia are telling us something different. They don't need more bureaucracy; they need more support. Principals and teachers are already under enormous pressure, and this budget risks adding to that burden without addressing the core issues of workforce shortages, classroom disruption and declining student outcomes. Also, where is the finalised agreement between the federal government and the Victorian government that delivers full funding? What's the roadblock? The federal government might have a better government to deal with earlier next year.
On early childhood, the government continues its push towards a more universal system, with additional inclusion, funding and workforce measures, and that direction is important. We support access and participation, but we also support parental choice, and again this budget lacks a defining reform. It continues some of the trends that are underway, but rather than delivering a clear step change in affordability, workforce and sustainability it delivers more of the same, and in too many areas in regional Australia there is still no child care available. But it's in higher education where the government's lack of ambition is most evident. Stakeholders across the sector expected real reform, in particular, following the universities accord. Instead what we got was continuity, and the sector is telling us that funding and policy settings are simply not keeping pace with expectations or economic need. Universities are being asked to do more with tighter margins under growing regulatory pressure.
At the same time we're seeing increasing oversight, more powers for regulators, new levies to fund oversight bodies and growing compliance requirements on institution. There are more rules and more scrutiny, but there's not enough support. I ask this question, and the member for Berowra mentioned it in his contribution: are our universities going forward or backward? In skills, productivity and economy, the government tells us that productivity is a defining challenge for the Australian economy, and they are right. But productivity starts with skills, and it starts with education. While this budget includes measures to support skills recognition and workforce participation, it stops short of making the level of investment needed to drive long-term economic growth. The sector itself has made this clear. If we want a more productive economy we should invest more, not less, in the institutions that build it, and those institutions need to be better. We need quality, not just free quantity.
What ties this together is a simple point. At a time when classrooms are under pressure, teachers are leaving the profession, universities are struggling with funding certainty and regional students face persistent barriers, the government chose to manage the system rather than fix it. Education should be at the centre of any serious plan for Australia's future. It should be focused on long-term outcomes, not short-term savings. If we are serious about fairness and if we are serious about opportunity not just for the young people in this country but for the country's economic future itself and if we are serious about productivity then we cannot afford to underinvest in education.
Education changes lives every single day. It enables people from all walks of society to live the lives that they want and follow the dreams that can seem unthinkable without it. In my community in southern Sydney, we see it changing lives each day—not just in English and maths but across a wide range of areas important to development of young lives. At the end of last year, I had the opportunity to see Alfords Point Public School perform Seussical. Not just the music class but the whole school, from kindergarten to six, were involved in performing this amazing piece. It's an opportunity they wouldn't have had without access to the incredible public schools we have in southern Sydney.
We know that education is changing lives each day in southern Sydney for the better, and that's why this government is ensuring that education in my community is secured for the future. Almost one in two young people have a university degree today, but not everywhere—not in our outer suburbs. For those living in the outskirts of Sydney, university can feel like something that happens somewhere else. It's how I felt when I finished year 12 as well, and I was very fortunate to have been able to attend a university campus in my community, the southern Sydney, now Sutherland, campus of the University of Wollongong. For me, access to that campus was life changing. I used to walk to university at the time, when I didn't have access to a car and couldn't drive. It took me about an hour and a half. It was a great way to start the day, and I'd catch the bus home.
This life-changing access is why Minister Clare and I opened the Macquarie Fields university suburban study hub last year. It was to bring university closer to the young people in our community, because access to education can only change lives if it's accessible. We know that suburban university study hubs make university more accessible. The evidence is they increase the number of people going to uni in areas where they're established. We are now putting these university study hubs in places like Macquarie Fields, bringing university closer to where people live.
Just this week, Minister Clare and I got to meet some of the young people of south-western Sydney for whom we're building these opportunities. We got to see up close Ingleburn High's implementation of the explicit direct instruction framework, which means they clearly tell students what they are learning, why it is important and how to do it step by step. Explicit teaching helps students understand new ideas by breaking them into smaller parts. We got to see students going from broad concept to complex themes in only a few minutes, after repetition and checking for understanding before moving on. It's learning that is student centred and practical delivered at an educational institution that is committed to equity, inclusivity and access and supportive of diverse learning styles and needs.
Incredible education facilities like this are why the 2026-27 budget is delivering full and fair funding for public schools, with an additional $20 billion in funding over the next 10 years and $50 billion in the decade after that. It's part of our continuation of the government's significant reform agenda, which also includes building a quality, affordable and safe early childhood education and care system; cutting student debt by 20 per cent for three million Australians; and making the repayment system fairer.
We're also delivering vital school infrastructure upgrades, including approximately $1.7 million in my electorate of Hughes. That includes $1.5 million to upgrade the school hall at James Meehan High School in Macquarie Fields and $30,000 for building upgrades to support the school breakfast club at Sackville Street Public School. We on this side believe not only that education should be accessible where you live but that it shouldn't put you into lifelong debt. There are 18,226 HELP debtors in Hughes, with about 589 individuals with VET student loans. That's why we've cut student debt by 20 per cent. Our government not only believes in the power of education but we're also acting on it because we believe that young people should be given opportunities to shine and to thrive no matter where they live.
I begin by thanking the incredible educators, carers, centre directors and all of the support staff working in early childhood education and care across Australia because the work that you do is invaluable. Every day, you help educate and nurture our youngest, littlest learners, preparing them for school, for learning and, of course, for life. You also provide the support that enables parents to participate in the workforce and support their families. Thank you for the enormous contribution that you make to our communities.
This budget was Labor's chance to show Australian families they understood the pressure that they are under—and, bah bow, they failed. The Prime Minister repeatedly told Australians that universal child care would be his 'defining reform'. Remember, 'My word is my bond.' He said it during the election campaign, he said it in the leader's debates, and he staked his place in history on it. But, if this budget is the result, Australian families, I think, deserve a full refund. Parents have now been warned of substantial increases in out-of-pocket childcare costs due to expired fee caps, unfunded educator wage increases—I'll get back to that—and Labor's broader cost-of-living crisis.
Early childhood educators deserve to be fairly paid, but, after Labor failed to provide ongoing funding certainty following previous wage increases, providers are now facing permanent cost pressures. At the same time, federal fee caps that limited how much centres could increase fees by are, well, expiring. It was a booby trap that Labor set for us, but they're in government again now, and they have to deal with it, allowing providers to raise their base rates.
Now, families are being left to pick up the bill. This is gross mismanagement in the early childhood education and care sector by the Labor government. Since Labor was elected, Australians have suffered the biggest fall in living standards of any comparable developed nation according to the OECD data. The data does not lie. This country has gone backwards by at least 10 per cent. It is not childcare costs hurting families, it is everything: gas is up by 41 per cent; electricity, 37 per cent; insurance, 42 per cent; rents, 23 per cent; food, 17 per cent; and health, 17 per cent. Families are under pressure. This government just doesn't get it; they just keep spending. Childcare costs are up 14 per cent since Labor came to power. Child care is not cheaper, Mr Albanese. The latest ABS data shows that childcare costs rose 9.1 per cent in the past year alone, almost double the rate of inflation. Don't listen when you hear that child care is cheaper, because you know, as a parent, that it's not. The Prime Minister promised cheaper child care, instead, families are paying more than ever.
This is the cost of Labor. If you vote for them once—maybe you voted for them twice—you're going to pay for it for 10 or 20 years. That's what happens, and you're feeling it in grocery runs, in power bills and in every time a family drops their child at care and wonders how they're going to make it work. Why do almost 40 per cent of childcare services now charge above the hourly rate cap, Minister for Education? When do the families pay the full difference out of pocket? Labor's failure costs families dearly. The average full-time childcare place costs around $36,000 a year before the subsidy. It's comparable to elite private school fees. Meanwhile, the childcare subsidy is projected to reach more than $21 billion by 2029-30, which is up from $15.76 billion just last year.
Billions are flowing into a system still failing on affordability, still failing on flexibility, and, in too many parts of regional Australia, failing on accessibility. Costs are up, the subsidy bill is up—
Government members interjecting—
I'll take that interjection—that little giggle—from over there because this is not funny for regional families. It is a system in serious trouble, and Labor has failed on the worker retention payment because that allowed that to fall off a cliff. Special accounts payments sit at $1.08 billion in 2026-27. They're nothing across the forward estimates. I see members are turning their backs and looking the other way because they're so embarrassed that they've messed it up for Australian families. It is Australian families who will pay the price for Labor's gross mismanagement of the early childhood education and care sector. Either way, families pay.
This debate is about a fundamental difference in values. Labor believes that the government knows best, that big, unionised labour workforces are the answer to Australia's woes and that out-of-control spending is the answer to Labor staying in government. Well, they're wrong, and we reject that entirely.
Seven out of 10 for performance art. There were a few questions I was actually looking forward to responding to, but unfortunately the opposition chose to call a bunch of silly divisions and has eaten into the time, so we've run out of time.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
It has never been more important to do two things: ensure that the brave men and women of our defence force are properly equipped and ensure that Australia's strategy of denial is more than just words—that it's actioned for the good of the Australian people and their long-term sustainable safety and security.
Defence is focused on a number of things. First and foremost, it is increasing efforts to develop greater self-reliance over the longer term so that we can more ably and independently deter our adversaries—a strategy of denial. We are prioritising capability acquisition and then sustainment plans to deliver this strategy of denial. Ghost Bat, Ghost Shark, Mogami class frigates, landing craft heavy, landing craft medium, Virginia class nuclear propelled submarines and SSN-AUKUS boats—this will all strengthen our national security and our sovereign defence industrial base, the heart of which is in my great state of South Australia, and build stronger, more diverse international industrial partnerships.
We are increasing coordination with our regional partners to promote regional stability and to collectively deter actions against our interests and against the interests in our region. We have done this in spades—Indonesia, Fiji, Tonga and Papua New Guinea—and we have built on the relationships that we've established in the region during the fuel security crisis that has been experienced due to the conflict in the Middle East.
Through the 2026 Integrated Investment Program, our government is investing almost half a billion dollars over the decade to deliver accelerated capability for the integrated, focused force that we need. This includes a larger and more lethal navy with more surface ships and conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines. We are a maritime continent; it is absolutely imperative that our maritime capability reflects this, not only from a defend-and-deter perspective but to protect our valuable trade and supply chain routes, to protect undersea cables, to protect the Australian people and to protect our economy. We're also developing an air force that can provide air support for integrated operations, strengthening cyber capabilities to protect networks and systems, and we are enhancing our space capability—space being the fifth defence domain to provide space-based situational awareness and communication capabilities.
Why are we doing this? We are in a changing world, with liberal democracies under significant pressure. It is more important than ever that we have a properly thought out strategy of denial that promotes Australian security and regional stability, and we are doing this in partnership with our friends around the region. We have a down payment of $3.5 billion at the Osborne Naval Shipyard, in my home state of South Australia. That is a $3.5 billion down payment for the enabling works that will facilitate the record amount of infrastructure that will need to be built to facilitate the build of the SSN-AUKUS. I have been out to the shipyard and can attest firsthand to the incredible amount of work that is going on at the Osborne shipyard and also to the dedication and commitment of the men and women who are building that infrastructure.
There is also a $12 billion down payment at Henderson in Western Australia to help us forge ahead with our strategy of denial. I had the privilege recently of spending a week on HMAS Stirling meeting some of the incredible men and women who will be operating the capability that we are investing in as part of Australia's strategy to defend and deter—our strategy of denial—including Captain Amy Braun of the new ship Eyre; submariners John Lee, Justin Cloney and Byron Williamson; future submariner Dave Court; and MLO Gagan Singh. That is why we invest. We invest because these men and women are putting their hands up to defend our country, and they are doing excellent work on HMAS Stirling. That is why we invest and we will continue to invest in the interests of the Australian people.
I have every respect for those members opposite—the member for Sturt, the member for Gilmore, the member for Swan and the member for Spence, who is actually a veteran of three years as Australian Army reservist, Puckapunyal, and I certainly thank you for your service, Member for Spence. But this is about consideration in detail for the Defence portfolio. The member for Sturt didn't ask a question, but, if she had, there's no minister here to answer any such questions. I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence is not in the parliament today, but the Minister for Veterans' Affairs certainly is and so is the Minister for Defence Industry. Why are they not in this chamber, respecting the process and the protocols long held and answering questions that the opposition rightly asks?
And there are a lot of questions to be asked in the Defence portfolio in the veterans' affairs space. Our veterans at the moment have white hot anger. They have white-hot anger about the cap on allied health services—a $5,000 cap on those services which were once uncapped. The veterans are going to be consulted, or so the government tells us. They're going to be asked about what they feel and the changes that they might think are necessary before the allied health cap comes into place on 1 July 2027. But we know that this government whitewashes everyone who questions the veracity of its policies, we know that this was a budget of broken promises and we know that the veterans who do put forward quite reasonable suggestions as to what changes should be made won't be listened to, because that is the Labor way. That's Labor's view of consultation, but it's far short of what is needed. At the moment, these services which provide essential health care for our veterans, for those men and women who gave their all, who put their lives and bodies on the line for our nation, for our people, so that we could be safe and secure and protected and sleep at night—when they hang their military uniform up, when it comes time to have their backs, what does the government do? It ignores them. It turns its back on those who protected us, those who served us, those to whom we should say, 'Thank you for your service' but instead say, 'We're putting a cap on your allied health services.'
What will the government do about this? I genuinely ask the minister in absentia. Are you going to legitimately and rightly do a backflip on this particular question as you have done with the Invictus Games funding, as you have done with the medallic recognition late last year—the moratorium that you and your department and your government placed on this. The veterans' affairs minister also should do a backflip as he did with Doug and Kaye Baird's travel entitlements—$3,000. I mean, it's loose change when it comes to the multibillion dollar veterans spend—a multibillion dollar veterans spend which is justified. But this is not justified. This $748 million saving is cruel. It's mean spirited and it's wrong. Is the minister going to review his decision to cut veterans' affairs departmental staff by 111? We know that when there are public servants shed, they are the public servants we should have on the frontline taking calls, taking inquiries and doing the right thing by our veterans who did the right thing by us.
Unfortunately, our veterans are being ignored. Unfortunately, those veterans, who now want to see a psychologist and who now need the services that were once uncapped, are now going to be capped at $5,000 per year. It's simply not good enough, Minister, and what, Minister, are you doing to rectify this error? What, Minister, are you doing to rectify taking away more than 100 public service jobs in the Department of Veterans' Affairs? You have plenty to say about it in question time. You have plenty to say about it elsewhere. Why aren't you here, Minister to answer the coalition's very justified questions on behalf of the veterans of Australia, who feel very hurt and very betrayed right now.
We are living through a period of genuine global uncertainty. The conflict in the Middle East has disrupted global fuel supply chains. The pace of military change in our region is unlike anything we've seen in recent times. As a trading nation surrounded by oceans, Australia's security is inseparable from our ability to keep sea lanes open and supply chains stable. This budget meets that moment. The 2026 National Defence Strategy sets out what is required: a more self-reliant Australia, a stronger sovereign defence industrial base, better national preparedness and deeper cooperation with allies and partners. The total funding in the defence portfolio reaches $887 billion through to 2035-36. This is not just expenditure. It's investment in jobs, the industries and the capabilities that will underpin Australia's security for decades.
But what does that monumental investment look like on the ground? My home of Western Australia is a great example. Henderson is the centrepiece of Australia's naval shipbuilding future in the west. The $12 billion committed to the Henderson defence precinct is a significant down payment on what will be continuous naval shipbuilding capability in Western Australia for generations to come. That funding underpins the construction of the army's landing craft, the domestic build of Australia's future general purpose frigates subject to the successful consolidation of facilities for surface combat sustainment, contingency docking for our future nuclear-powered submarine fleet from the early 2030s and depot level maintenance including graving docks. Over the next two decades, tens of billions of dollars will flow into defence capabilities in Western Australia, supporting 10,000 well-paid, high skilled jobs, and the work being done at Henderson is not just about submarines. It's also about the foundation for the next generation of Australia's surface fleet.
The Australian Albanese government has selected the Japanese upgrade of Mogami class frigates as the preferred platform for the Navy's future fleet of 11 general purpose frigates. The first three vessels will be built in Japan, but the remaining frigates will be built in Western Australia once the successful consolidation of Henderson is complete. These ships will help secure our maritime trade routes and Australia's northern approaches.
Now to AUKUS and what it means for Western Australian workers. Up to $8 billion is being invested to upgrade HMAS Stirling and the support of the implementation of the Submarine Rotational Force-West, creating around 3,000 direct jobs. It's great to hear that the member for Sturt has visited the HMAS Stirling very recently. The upgrades include wharf upgrades, operational maintenance and infrastructure support to increase port visits by the UK and the US. The jobs for subs program is recruiting and upskilling over 200 new entry level positions for graduates, apprentices and trainees in engineering and fabrication trades through the Australian Submarine Corporation. Australian businesses are already entering the global supply chain. The government has announced a pilot program with Huntington Ingalls Industries, the largest military shipbuilder in the United States, to help Australian companies qualify for the Virginia class submarine supply chain. Less than six months later, 2022 Australian companies have progressed in the accreditation pipeline. Eight have already been fully qualified to supply components into that supply chain.
More than 4,000 Commonwealth supported places have been allocated across 16 universities for the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Student Pathways program from 2024 to 2027. In my electorate of Swan, we have Curtin University, which has 320 places, with a further 56 at the University of Western Australia and another 50 at Murdoch University. For those that want to build their skills through a trade, the Shipbuilding Employment Pathways program offers a four-year paid apprenticeship. This is a direct pathway for the nuclear-powered submarines and naval shipbuilding workforce that has a nationally recognised qualification at the end of it, because the best way to build a skilled workforce is to build those people right now. This is the biggest diversification in WA's economy for a very long time.
I was very fortunate, when I was elected, to come in when the coalition was in government, and I want to say that, when we did consideration in detail, the ministers showed up every time. When the member for Durack was the minister for defence industry, she came in here, sat down, took notes and would stand up and answer the questions. The member for the Riverina has also, as a minister, come in here and taken notes, because this is important. This is the time, during the consideration in detail, when the opposition gets to ask the minister questions. I'm extremely saddened to see not any of the defence portfolio or the Minister for Veterans' Affairs show up for this important time. It is disrespectful for the brave men and women who wear the uniform to have this contempt by this Labor government. We hear all the time that we face the most challenging, strategic, dynamic and dangerous time that we've ever faced, yet we can't get a minister to show up to consideration in detail. This is the worst I've ever seen it, and this Labor government should absolutely be ashamed of themselves.
We've heard the minister, when in opposition, want to talk about 'name all these projects that aren't running through' or 'name this stuff that you're not going to continue with', but, under this defence minister and this Labor defence team, all we've heard is: 'Well, that's commercial in confidence. We can't talk about the cuts or the chaos. We're happy to go get a photo op.' What we haven't seen is any follow-up, and that is not good enough when we're talking about the defence of our nation.
On top of the cuts and on top of the deferrals, we've already seen the fourth squadron of the F-35s, the infantry fighting vehicles that should be rolled out now, cut from 450 to 129. The self-propelled howitzers, the Hunter class frigates, military satellites, integrated air and missile defence—that's not trimming around the edges. That's hollowing out the capability. This minister needs to be honest with the Australian people and with the parliament and provide certainty of our defence industry and of our brave men and women who serve this nation and tell the parliament what defence capabilities will be cut, because lost capability, lost time and a defence force being stretched thinner is a more dangerous world.
At the same time, the government claims they are spending 2.8 per cent of GDP on defence, but it's buried in the fine print, in a single line, that that is not true. This Labor government is eroding the Defence Force capability and the trust that the Australian people should have in them. We get told by experts and by this government. They say that the threat is urgent and is at our doorstep, but this Labor government and its funding is acting like it isn't. It's not just future capability at risk. It's our sustainment. It's our personnel.
People are getting out at a higher rate because of the lack of certainty. We're not fit to fight. We can't fight today because, every time there is funding allocated, it is stripped away or hidden in the fine print. Somehow veterans' welfare and services are wrapped up into the defence budget that says that this is now exceeding the 2.8 per cent of GDP, which is clearly not true.
There is no decision about what's happening for the east coast submarine base for AUKUS. Just $30 million has been allocated to kickstart a $12 billion project. It doesn't match the scale. This government needs to answer questions. We need to back private capital to deliver defence projects. What happens if the investments don't come through from the government? The government is banking on private capital to deliver key defence projects. What happens if they don't come to the table? Does the government step up or does Defence take another hit?
This government has a lot of answers, but the ministers can't even be bothered to rock up. I've got pages and pages of questions. But, if the minister can't be bothered rocking up, the opposition will stand here and ask him and it'll just go off into the ether. I am disgusted by how this government is behaving when it comes to defence. The minister should be in here talking about what they're doing, what's been in their budget, so we can ask the questions and get the answers on behalf of the Australian Defence Force. Shame on this Labor government. You're not fit to lead.
I'd like to start by thanking the member for Riverina for his kind acknowledgement earlier. I also acknowledge the member for Herbert and his service to this fine country and also yourself, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, for your service.
In a world that is becoming more uncertain and less predictable, Australians expect their government to ensure our Defence Force has the people, equipment and capabilities needed to keep our nation safe. That is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is delivering. After years of chaos and dysfunction under those opposite, including 24 different ministers across the Defence portfolio in less than a decade, this government has provided the leadership and long-term planning our national security demands.
The 2026 National Defence Strategy and the 2026 Integrated Investment Program set out a clear vision for Australia's future security. They recognise the need for greater self-reliance, a stronger sovereign defence industry, improved national resilience and deeper partnerships with our allies and partners. Most importantly, they back those objectives with funding. The 2026 Integrated Investment Program includes an additional $14 billion over the next four years and $53 billion over the decade. Since coming to office, the Albanese government has increased defence spending by $30 billion across the forward estimates and $117 billion over the next decade. These investments are not just about keeping Australians safe; they are about creating highly skilled Australian jobs and supporting a future made in Australia.
A key part of that work is AUKUS. AUKUS represents one of the most significant strategic and industrial undertakings in our nation's history. It is helping deliver the next generation of submarine capability while creating opportunities for Australian workers, manufacturers and businesses to participate in global defence supply chains.
Already, South Australian manufacturer and northern suburbs local Century Engineering has become the first South Australian company to receive a purchase order from the United States under the program. That is a tangible example of how AUKUS is creating opportunities for local industry, developing supply chains and helping build sovereign capability here at home. We want Australian businesses to play a central role in this once-in-a-generation investment, ensuring the economic benefits are felt not just in Defence precincts but across communities throughout the country.
In South Australia, the $200 million Deep Maintenance and Modification Facility is strengthening our sovereign capability while supporting hundreds of local jobs. Right next door, at the RAAF Base Edinburgh defence precinct, almost $312 million has been invested to upgrade critical infrastructure and sustain Defence operations into the future. Through investments like these, the Albanese Labor government is ensuring Australia remains secure, resilient and prepared for the challenges ahead while creating the skilled jobs and industrial capability our nation will rely on for decades to come.
Just as this government is investing in the capabilities, infrastructure and workforce needed to keep Australia secure into the future, we are equally committed to supporting the people who have worn our nation's uniform. A strong defence force is measured not only by the equipment it operates or the ships and aircraft it acquires but also by how well we care for serving personnel, veterans and their families before, during and after their service to our country. Supporting our veterans is one of the most important responsibilities of government, and the Albanese Labor government is backing that responsibility with real investment and real reform.
When we came to office, the Department of Veterans' Affairs had been left underfunded and underresourced, with almost 42,000 new claims sitting untouched and veterans waiting far too long for the support they deserved. By properly funding DVA and increasing staffing, this government has cleared that inherited backlog and ensured new claims are now being looked at within 14 days of submission. The investment has been substantial, with $37.9 billion spent on veteran compensation and treatment during our first three years in government.
But this is about more than funding alone. The Albanese government is delivering once-in-a-generation reforms to simplify veterans' entitlements, implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and build a system that is easy to navigate and faster to access. In the 2026 budget, more than $770 million was committed to implementing royal commission recommendations, including the largest increase in allied health funding for veterans in two decades. These changes will improve access to physiotherapy, psychology and other critical services while reducing unnecessary red tape and making it easier for veterans to receive the care they need.
I rise during the consideration in detail of the defence portfolio appropriations to address what is arguably the first responsibility of any federal government: the defence of our nation. Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment since the end of the Second World War. The Defence Strategic Review made that clear. It warned that the assumptions which have underpinned our security for decades can no longer be taken for granted. It warned that the prospect of major conflict in our region can no longer be dismissed. It warned that Australia faces a far more uncertain and dangerous future.
Against that backdrop, Australians expect honesty from government. That is why serious questions must be asked about this budget and the government's claims about defence spending. Despite the warnings of the Defence Strategic Review, defence spending remains around two per cent of GDP under the government's current funding profile. At a time when the strategic environment is deteriorating, Australians are entitled to ask whether that is enough. Recent reports have suggested that the government's headline defence spending figures include items such as military superannuation, veterans' income support payments and funding for agencies outside core defence capability expenditure.
Australians strongly support our veterans and those who have served our nation. They should. But Australians are entitled to know whether the government is inflating defence spending figures while the capabilities needed to defend Australia today continue to face delays and deferrals. The question is not how large a headline figure can be constructed. The question is whether the Australian Defence Force is becoming more capable. The question is whether our defence personnel are getting the equipment, resources and support they need. The question is whether Australia's deterrent capability is strengthening at the pace demanded by our strategic circumstances.
I want to be clear: I support AUKUS, and the coalition supports AUKUS. The coalition has committed to lifting defence spending to at least three per cent of GDP. We believe Australia's strategic circumstances demand it. We support AUKUS, but we also recognise that submarines alone are not a defence strategy. Australia needs stronger capability across the board. We must have military precision in our defence procurement. The development of a sovereign nuclear-powered submarine capability is one of the most significant defence investments in our nation's history. But the Albanese government must do better than force Defence to choose between AUKUS and capability, because we need both.
We will need nuclear-powered submarines in the decades ahead, but we also need a defence force today that is fully equipped, properly resourced and ready to respond to the strategic risks identified by the Defence Strategic Review. Yet concerns continue to be raised that projects critical to Australia's immediate capability have been delayed, reduced or reprioritised while funding is increasingly concentrated on the AUKUS pathway. The challenge for government is not simply to fund AUKUS; the challenge is ensuring that AUKUS does not come at the expense of other critical capabilities that strengthen deterrence before the first submarine enters service. That includes guided-weapons production. It includes autonomous systems. It includes cyber capability. It includes logistics, sustainment and force readiness. And it includes ensuring that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have access to the equipment and resources necessary to meet their extraordinarily high standards of service.
The government frequently speaks about a future Defence Force, yet the difference between two per cent of GDP and 3 per cent of GDP is not simply an accounting exercise; it represents additional investment in capabilities that strengthen deterrence now, not just decades into the future. So my question to the minister is this: if the government genuinely accepts the finding of the Defence Strategic Review that Australia faces its most dangerous strategic environment in decades, why does this budget ask the Australian Defence Force to wait years for much of the capability it needs, and how can the government assure defence personnel and the Australian people that the defence of our nation is being strengthened now, rather than simply promised for the future?
I rise to speak on the appropriation bill, what this budget means for Australia's defence capability—and I'm pleased to be joined by the Minister for Defence Industry and my other defence colleagues this evening—and what it means not only for the Hunter region but for the thousands of defence personnel, veterans and defence industry workers who call my electorate home. When we discuss defence spending in this place, we are talking about much more than figures on a page or equipment needed to defend a country; we're talking about men and women who serve our nation, the families who support them and the communities who help deliver the capabilities Australia needs to remain safe and secure in an increasingly uncertain world.
Our people are our most sophisticated and valuable capability. Unlike the member for Herbert, who most disingenuously just said in this place that we are 'not fit to fight'—I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. I say we have never been recruiting better and we are retaining more people in our great Australian Defence Force. They are most certainly fit to fight and defend their nation, as they do most professionally.
In my electorate, that story begins at RAAF Base Williamtown. Williamtown is one of Australia's most significant defence bases and is home to around 3,500 defence personnel. It is a critical capability, it is a hub for Australian defence, it is the premier F-35 base and it is also the proud home of Australia's E-7A Wedgetail, which is an aircraft that has earned an international reputation for excellence and demonstrated its value in operations both at home and abroad. Today, around 85 Australian Defence Force personnel are serving in the United Arab Emirates on that Wedgetail aircraft deployed to the region. Those personnel represent the very best of Australia. Their service reminds us that defence capability is ultimately about people, dedicated Australians, prepared to serve their country wherever and whenever they are called upon. And, while we recognise those serving overseas and around the country, we also recognise the partners, the children and the families here at home who carry their own burden of service and sacrifice while they wait for their loved ones to return safely. I give a big shout-out to all the kids at Wirreanda. It is the place across Australia where we have the most defence children at a public primary school.
Australia's security can no longer be taken for granted. Strategic competition in our region is increasing, global instability continues to create uncertainty and nations around the world are investing heavily in their defence capabilities. That is why this budget continues the government's commitment to ensuring Australia has the capabilities, workforce and industrial capacity needed to protect our national interest now and into the future. The government's National Defence Strategy provides a clear plan to ensure Australian defence is equipped, trained and supported to deter, protect Australia's interests and respond when required. In recognition of these challenges, our government is providing an additional $14 billion over the next four years and an additional $53 billion over the decade through defence funding, estate modernisation and other investments. Since coming to office, the Albanese government has increased defence spending by $30 billion over the forward estimates and around $117 billion over the decade. These are substantial investments because Australia faces a more complex security environment than at any other time in recent decades. But these investments are not only about defence capability; they are about jobs, they're about industry, they are about our own sovereignty and they are about economic opportunity in communities like mine and further afield.
One of the most significant examples of this is taking shape right now at Newcastle Airport. The Newcastle Airport defence and aerospace precinct is rapidly becoming one of Australia's most important centres for sovereign defence manufacturing. The Albanese government has committed up to $850 million in partnership with Kongsberg Australia to manufacture and sustain naval strike missiles and joint strike missiles in the Hunter. Construction of the new facility is well advanced and nearing completion. This project is exactly what a future made in Australia looks like. It means advanced manufacturing jobs in our regions, Australian workers building critical defence capability here at home and a stronger, more self-reliant Australia.
This budget commits Australia to record levels of defence expenditure, including an additional $14 billion over four years and some $53 billion over the decade. Defence spending will reach more than $425 billion over 10 years. Accountability in defence spending must also include accountability in decisions by Defence, especially around its decisions on critical capabilities and managing defence assets.
This is a live issue in Warringah, where Defence proposes to partially divest HMAS Penguin. Following its Defence estate audit, the government has determined that some capabilities of HMAS Penguin are critical and will remain onsite, including the clearance divers unit and the underwater medical unit. However, the government has also determined that other capabilities are noncritical and may be relocated, which has led to the proposed partial divestment of parts of the site, including the remnant bushland.
Along with my community, I strongly oppose this decision to partially divest HMAS Penguin. I've submitted freedom-of-information requests to seek the evidence behind this proposal, including the cost-benefit assessment used to justify relocating so-called noncritical capabilities and partially divesting the site. To date, there has been no clear explanation of what is proposed to be divested. Is it the remnant bushland? Is it parts of the built environment? What buildings would be affected, what are their maintenance costs, and what assessment has been done to ensure they do not fall into disrepair?
My questions to the minister are: Will the government release the cost-benefit analysis behind the proposed relocation of noncritical capabilities and partial divestment of HMAS Penguin? Will the government release the environmental, cultural, heritage and capability assessments underpinning this decision? Will the minister clearly identify which parts of HMAS Penguin are proposed for partial divestment, including whether remnant bushland or significant buildings are included? Will the minister guarantee that public interest will be prioritised, that the remnant bushland will be protected for conservation and that any buildings will not be sold for private commercial development? Will the minister guarantee my community that this important public asset will not simply be sold off into private ownership?
The UK intelligence agencies recently released a report that found all critical ecosystems were on a pathway to collapse. Will the Australian government release a declassified version of the Office of National Intelligence's climate risk assessment and properly recognise climate change as a core national security threat? Will Defence release any advice in relation to national security and capability assessment that it has provided the government in relation to climate risk and its impact on our national security?
National security does not begin and end with military spending. The government continues to take a myopic view of security by committing hundreds of billions to defence while leaving climate resilience severely underfunded. Security experts consistently identify climate change as one of the greatest threats to Australia's long-term stability. The government's own national climate risk assessment highlighted the seriousness of the risks we face, yet just $117 million was allocated to climate adaptation and disaster resilience, with most of it going to emergency response. Climate resilience is a national security issue, and, if we fail to invest now, Australians will pay far more later and will not be safe—no matter how many submarines you buy.
Finally, as discussed during the MPI today, Australians are entitled to much more clarity when it comes to the AUKUS agreement. The public has no confidence that there is going to be any value for money to the Australian people. Despite billions of dollars being transferred, as yet there is no guarantee that anything will be delivered to the Australian people. So I again ask the government: Will the government provide full transparency on any changes to the AUKUS pathway, including cost, delivery risk and sovereignty implications? What guarantee can the government provide that Australia will not face a submarine capability gap after the Collins class submarines retire in 2040, particularly if US shipbuilding capacity does not increase or a future US administration decides not to transfer the promised submarines? With more than $10 billion transferred to date, and much more being committed into the future, the Australian public deserves to know what guarantees Defence and the Australian government can provide that the capability will be available.
I'm proud and privileged to sum up consideration in detail for the defence portfolio estimates. It goes to competing choices of governments, whether to support national security and support defending the nation or whether to support dry media releases and rhetoric.
What we saw from the coalition was a raft of talking points with no substance, which, to be fair to them, they are consistent in. In government it was all about talking points and media releases, and in opposition that's all they are. The truth is that the coalition has always been weak on national security—whether it was bringing us into the second Iraq war on a lie, whether it was bringing us into Vietnam on a lie, whether it was Bob Menzies arguing for appeasement of Nazi Germany not in 1933, not in 1935, but 10 days after Hitler invaded Poland; Bob Menzies argued to do a peace deal with Nazi Germany—and it always will be. This is the quality of the Liberal and National parties on national security. Big on chest thumping, weak on delivery, weak on actually protecting Australia.
We saw that the last time they were in government as well. For all their talk about 'muscling up' and the 'drums of war', what did they produce in terms of increased defence funding? In 2016 they announced a $30 billion increase over a decade—$30 billion. Two years later, they cut $20 billion of the $30 billion. Again, more talk. On GWEO—guided weapons and explosive ordnance—a lot of talk. What did they produce? Two media releases. That is literally all they produced on guided weapons when they were in power for that long 9½ years. For AUKUS, we had a press conference and nothing else. They are big on talk; hopeless on delivery.
In contrast, the Albanese Labor government is committing the resources to defend this nation. Over the last two national defence strategies, we have increased defence funding by $117 billion above the trajectory we inherited—importantly, $30 billion over the forward estimates. This year's budget alone saw a $53 billion increase over the decade. This means, when compared to the trajectory we inherited, we're seeing an average year-on-year increase in the Defence budget of 7.6 per cent per annum each year. This is driving investments across all of the domains of the ADF. This myth out there that AUKUS is gobbling up everything is just not substantiated by the facts.
An opposition member interjecting
I hear the interjection from one of the 3,000 defence industry ministers the last government had. Defence ministers lasted shorter than goldfish under the last government.
Let's look at the facts for funding. Increases in LAND funding by 34 per cent. Investment in the Air Force increases by 24 per cent. Maritime above the water—so non-submarines—increases by 11 per cent. Investment in GWEO is doubled to $36 billion. We are more than doubling funding for counterdrone defences. Drone manufacturing is up 50 per cent. Missile defence is a 66 per cent increase in funding, including increasing active missile defence by an order of five times. So we're funding not just AUKUS, we're funding air, LAND, sea, missile production, counterdrone production, drone production and missile defence because this government is committed to defending this nation.
Acquisition funding increases in the four years from $21 billion to $27 billion. I heard the member for Herbert talking about sustainment—again, not based in facts. This year we will spend $18.8 billion on sustainment. Over the forward estimates alone, it grows to $24.4 billion, a one-third increase in sustainment funding in four years alone. We're driving the biggest increase in peacetime funding for the defence Force. We're seeing equipment coming with speedy delivery of things like Ghost Shark, the fastest acquisition of a major capability in recent history. The Mogami class is going to be very fast as well. At the same time, we're growing the Australian defence industry. Employment in manufacturing in the Australian defence industry grew by 11 per cent in the last year alone. So we're growing jobs, we're growing capability for the ADF and we're driving the resources that the ADF needs to defend this country.
What we see from the opposition is chest-beating. They're always proud to talk about it, always proud to be in shots with people in uniform, but, when it comes to backing up the ADF with the resources they need to defend this country, they go missing in action just like Bob Menzies always was.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Health, Disability and Ageing Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $64,077,874,000
To every person on the NDIS and people with disabilities across our country: I just want to let you know that the two ministers for the NDIS are not here to listen to this speech and answer questions. They've sent in their assistant minister. Right now, people with disability who rely on the NDIS are terrified about what their future holds. Just last week I heard from a man who's been in a wheelchair for 27 years—
Government members interjecting—
Those opposite are interjecting. They might like to listen to this story about this man in a wheelchair who's been there for 27 years. He has an acquired brain injury and very limited movement in his arms and needs 24/7 care, yet he's fighting for his slashed supports to be reinstated. He's been told his plan is in the implementation stage and it can't be internally reviewed until that process is complete. When he spoke up about his unsafe wheelchair tyres, do you know what the planner said? 'Use the wheelchair less.' This is what participants on the NDIS are dealing with today, and, if this is what's happening today, before the Albanese Labor government's changes happen, is it any wonder they are scared?
Senate documents released last week now reveal the changes proposed by the government to the eligibility rules will result in around 346,000 fewer people on the NDIS by 2031. Of that number, 240,000 people are already receiving support through the NDIS and will be moved off the scheme. This is a far cry from the 160,000 fewer participants Minister Butler has allowed the media narrative to run on, and only after pressure by the parliament to provide modelling has the Albanese government provided the sparsest three A4 pages. The changes proposed by the government are significant, and three pages of data hardly constitutes providing the economic modelling or being transparent about where the $185 billion in savings will come from. If this is the extent of the modelling the government has undertaken, it is no wonder the disability community are concerned.
Minister Butler, who is not here, where will the 346,000 people who will no longer be supported by the NDIS go? This is the question I and my team are being asked each and every day by participants and their families, who are scared of what their future will look like. And I've got no answers for them, because the Albanese government doesn't know.
State and territory ministers have the same questions, and they are pushing back. The New South Wales Labor premier, Chris Minns, says:
… we can't provide equivalent care in the state system, and it's not because we're mean or stingy, or we're trying to push people away. It's because we're flat out providing basic health care in our schools and our hospitals.
The South Australian premier said their health system 'doesn't have the capacity to take on an additional burden'. Burden? These are the words being used to describe people with disability. These words are a dismissal of people's needs and take us back to dark times where people felt unsafe, unheard and unseen—a time before the NDIS was established.
While the Albanese Labor government has spent the last few months shuffling numbers on a spreadsheet to try and make their near-trillion-dollar deficit look more manageable, they have failed to consult with the disability community or state governments about how and where people will be supported moving forward. Hot tip, Minister: good governments consult before, not after, the fact, and good governments do the hard work before they announce changes that will have far-reaching consequences for vulnerable people.
There is no denying that the NDIS has grown far beyond what was originally expected 13 years ago. A scheme designed to support 410,000 Australians is now supporting 760,000. A scheme originally expected to cost $13.6 billion is now approaching $50 billion a year and growing. We need to be honest about that, but this is now the Albanese government's third attempt to rein in spending. They promised growth would be reduced to eight per cent—they failed. Then it was five per cent—they failed. Now it is two per cent, and growth is currently sitting at over 10 per cent. Whilst addressing growth is necessary, so too is addressing the rampant fraud. So I want to ask the minister: when will you provide the disability community with the answers they are so desperately seeking, and what are you going to do to address the rampant fraud through the system? The NDIS must be there for Australians with significant and permanent disability, exactly as it was intended. But the Albanese government has left the disability community fearful, while criminals are ripping off the NDIS and getting off scot-free.
For far too long, women's health was overlooked and underfunded. There was a government—a 9½-year-long government—that failed in exactly this place. I stand tonight to applaud this budget, because too many women struggled to access affordable treatment, too many conditions were poorly understood and too many women were told to simply live with the pain. This was despite women from the former government raising issues about pelvic pain and endometriosis. But there was never a program or funding to follow until Labor came to government and we made women's health a priority. That commitment is reflected in our landmark women's health package, representing an investment of almost $800 million to deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for women and girls across Australia. We are building, budget to budget, in this space.
These reforms, importantly, are already making a difference. Since the package was introduced, more than 700,000 women have accessed cheaper PBS prescriptions. Women are paying less for contraceptives, menopausal hormone therapies and treatments for conditions such as endometriosis. This government delivered the first new contraceptive pill listed on the PBS in more than 30 years and the first new menopausal hormone therapies listed in over 20 years. These are reforms women had been waiting decades to see, and it took a majority-female government to deliver on them. For women living with endometriosis, the impact has been significant. More than 7,000 women have accessed around 30,000 PBS scripts for endometriosis treatments, saving an estimated $5.7 million.
But improving women's health is about more than cheaper medicines; it's also about ensuring women can access the care and support they need through a stronger Medicare system. Already, more than 71,000 women have accessed Medicare-funded menopause health assessments. This is breakthrough stuff. We've introduced new Medicare items and increased rebates for gynaecological care, making specialist treatment more affordable and accessible. Around 430,000 additional services have been delivered for women experiencing endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, chronic pelvic pain and other gynaecological conditions. We've also made it easier and cheaper to access long-acting reversible contraception, including IUDs and contraceptive implants.
Importantly, this government, under Minister Butler, Assistant Minister White, Assistant Minister McBride and Assistant Minister Cooper in the last term have established a national network of endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. Recently, we announced an additional 11 clinics across Australia, including one in the heart of my community, in Werribee. This brings the total number of clinics nationwide to 33.
I've had the Prime Minister visit and I've had Assistant Minister White visit our local clinic. During both visits, we heard from clinicians who spoke directly about the differences these services are making. What impressed me most about those conversations was hearing that it is actually building the entire GP network's understanding and capacity to treat and support women in these spaces. I know that the clinic in my community is, as we speak, reaching out to GPs in my community to include them in these networks. This is, powerfully, going to change health treatment for women across our country, not just in these clinics.
For too many women, years of pain were dismissed. Too often, women were told their symptoms were normal or that they simply had to live with them. These clinics provide understanding, support and a pathway to diagnosis—and, more importantly, treatment. We cannot underestimate the economic impact of the pain that these women suffer from and the lack of treatment compounding that. This is what happens when women's health is treated as a national priority. It means cheaper medicines, it means a stronger Medicare and it means better access to specialist care.
These reforms sit alongside our broader investments in Medicare, including in Lalor—the over 35,000 visits to our Medicare urgent care clinic. This budget is making Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent feature of our health system. We've also doubled the number of fully bulk-billed clinics to 41 clinics across Lalor so locals can see a GP for free as long as they have their Medicare card. Our cheaper-medicines policies have saved locals in Lalor $13 million on over 2.1 million scripts. (Time expired)
Regional health equity is just not front of mind for this Labor government. Unsurprisingly, there were no significant new measures for regional health in the 2026-27 budget. This government continues to invest in its pet projects that are not fit for purpose in the regions, like urgent care clinics. Urgent care clinics are city-centric with large throughput models as their basis and very expensive at $216 per visit, compared to just $42.85 for a level B GP consultation. They also take GPs away from regional clinics into urgent care clinics. It makes no sense. It is not increasing the workforce. It is not solving the actual problems that we have.
On that note, where is the mapping to demonstrate the government's claim that, soon, four out of five Australians will live within 20 minutes drive of a Medicare urgent care clinic? Where is the map—
of approximately 5.6 million Australians not able to access a UCC? Member for Durack, I hear what you're saying, and it is very true across Mallee, bar one town.
In this budget, public hospital funding was increased by $25 billion over five years. How much of that will go to the regions? I'd love to know, and that is my question to the minister, but I doubt that there will be an equitable share for the 25 per cent of people who live out in the regions. Hospitals in the regions continue to struggle to recruit and retain the medical, nursing and allied health workforce they need to provide care close to home. This frequently results in rural people travelling vast distances to access care in cities or large regional centres. Yet state based travel reimbursement schemes like the Victorian Patient Transport Assistance Scheme, VPTAS, have for many years been criticised for being woefully inadequate in their support of rural patients travelling to access care. And guess what the Victorian Labor government have done to that scheme. They've cut it again. So, for the people who live six hours away by road: 'Well, too bad! If you're 80 and you're sick, you're just going to have to get in a car and travel along those awfully bumpy roads to get to Melbourne to get the care.' It is an outrage that the Labor government does not give any respect or dignity to those who live in the regions—and it is on repeat.
Labor is all talk and no action when it comes to delivering outcomes for regional Australians. The National Health Reform Agreement's addendum 'Schedule F—better health equity for rural and remote communities' is a first. It is a step in the right direction, but if the government is serious about improving health equity for rural, regional and remote Australians why doesn't the new agreement include clear KPIs to that effect? So much for transparency!
How does the government intend to measure performance against the high-level commitments and principles contained in schedule F, if at all? Does anyone really think that the states and territories will deliver just because there are a few principles included in a document? I don't think so. Not only are there no performance measures; there is no funding attached to the schedule. Truly, it makes my head hurt. It actually makes my heart hurt for all the people who live in regional and rural Australia and who are being done over by Labor governments who do not give a rat's for their existence, their wellbeing, their health and their quality of life. It is honestly outrageous, and this schedule is another virtue signal.
One hundred additional Commonwealth supported places were allocated in last year's budget to train doctors, with the intention to increase the likelihood that graduates will work in primary care in rural, regional and underserved metropolitan areas in particular, yet there was no tangible objective mechanism to ensure universities recruited rural students or programs to align with the evidence base and deliver end-to-end training in truly rural locations. In the same vein, the 2025-26 budget expanded GP training, and while the data shows that GPs are in shorter supply in rural and remote, MM 5 to 7, areas—shock horror!—no training places were allocated to the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine. What is that about?
I rise today to speak about aged care, but more importantly about dignity. We don't see aged care as just a line in a budget; we see it as being about people. It's about the person who has lived in the same home for 40 years and who wants to stay there a little longer. It's about the daughter trying to organise care for her mum while watching someone she loves become more vulnerable. It's about the aged-care worker who notices when something's not quite right and offers comfort in moments of real vulnerability. Across Bass, families, carers, older Australians and aged-care workers continuously tell me the same thing. They want older people to be safe, respected and supported where and when they need it. That's not too much to ask. It's the most basic promise we should make as a country.
For too long, Australia's aged-care system did not live up to that promise. It was criminally neglected. Too many families experienced long waits, too many older Australians did not get support early enough, and too many workers carried a system that did not actually value them. That's why this reform really matters. Our government, the Albanese Labor government, has made aged-care reform a priority. We're investing $3.7 billion to deliver more aged-care beds, more home-care support and better care. It's not just a box-ticking exercise. We know that there is much more work to do, but we are working on it. In Bass, it's the access that matters in particular. It matters whether there's a suitable place close to home, it matters whether a family can visit without driving for hours, and it matters whether someone can stay connected to their community and the people that they love.
This investment is reaching Bass directly. At Respect Group's Fred French facility in Launceston we've invested $2.84 million to convert an unused wing into an 11-bed memory support unit, at Calvary Sandhill in Launceston we're investing $1.75 million to create a 12-bed memory support unit, and at Southern Cross Care in Low Head—a stunning location—we are investing $666,000 to refurbish four unused staff villas, which will bring those spaces back into service. These are not infrastructure projects to me; these are rooms where families will visit, they're places where people with complex needs will receive more appropriate care, and they're practical investments in dignity, safety and comfort. Too many families know the heartbreak of dementia. They know how hard it can be to keep someone safe and they know that love alone is not always enough. Families need specialist care. They need services that understand dementia and respond with patience, with skill and with compassion. I look forward to those rooms opening in the very near future.
When we look at aged care, we know it's not just about residential care. For many older Australians, the strongest wish is simple: they want to stay at home, in their own bed, in their own chair, in their own garden, with their own community. We're working towards making that more realistic. From 1 October, our personal care services will be fully funded by the Commonwealth for people who need that support. These are not luxuries, and we know this; they're basic human needs. They go directly to dignity. The new Aged Care Act places the rights of older Australians at the very centre of that system. We've strengthened the quality standards and transparency. We've ensured there are more nurses in aged-care homes, increased the care minutes and backed aged-care workers with significant pay rises. It's the aged-care workers who do essential work, and for far too long that work was very much undervalued. They were overlooked. They were poorly treated.
There is so much more that we need to do, but we're working on it now. No-one pretends that the aged-care system can be fixed overnight, but we should recognise that progress is being made. We have more beds, more home care, more dementia support, more nurses, better pay for workers and real investments, particularly for my electorate of Bass. Every Australian deserves to feel safe, supported and respected. Every family deserves confidence that their loved one is receiving high-quality care. Every aged-care worker deserves to be valued. That is what the people of Bass deserve, and that is absolutely what we are working towards.
As the shadow assistant minister for the NDIS and for mental health, my phone has certainly been running hot over recent weeks, with a lot of stakeholders in both areas who are deeply disappointed with the government's budget.
After denying reality on the NDIS for many years, in this budget Labor have finally recognised that the NDIS is not sustainable on its current growth trajectory. The coalition is prepared to work constructively with the government in relation to the NDIS reforms that have been built into the forward appropriations of this budget, but I am highly sceptical of the Labor government's capacity to truly deliver the reform that the scheme needs.
In the last quarterly report, scheme growth was up from 10.3 per cent to 11.3 per cent. It's getting worse as we go along. That's despite the fact that at the start of this financial year the government was aiming for a growth trajectory of eight per cent, which then became five per cent and is now sitting at two per cent. While they've been setting all these targets, it's actually been growing in the wrong direction.
They're failing to land many of the reforms that they had promised previously that were going to bring the scheme under control. They've delayed the implementation of the ICANN tool. No stakeholders know anything about the Thriving Kids initiative, which is supposed to kick off in October. The shadow minister for the NDIS touched on the massive fraud issues that we're seeing across the system, and the government's inability to deal with those issues.
Many of the reforms that the government is now proposing are things that the coalition has been supporting for years, including functional assessments, stronger registration and digital payment controls. These are all measures that the Labor government, in opposition, previously opposed. Our concern is that Labor is rushing cuts and eligibility tightening, while the real integrity reforms that we want to see in the scheme are going to be delayed for years and probably won't be fully implemented beyond the forwards of this budget.
I note that neither of the NDIS ministers are present here today, but I have several questions. Will the government detail how the projected $37.8 billion reduction in NDIS payments growth will be achieved? What specific assumptions are being made regarding participant numbers, plan growth, eligibility changes, foundational supports and fraud savings? When last in government, the coalition was ready to launch a new digital payment system. It was something that the former minister, Bill Shorten, threw straight in the bin. Is the government using that as a basis for the design of the new digital payment system? How was the $300-plus million price tag on this initiative estimated? Given the change to functional assessments, how will the government define which children will be eligible for Thriving Kids support and what thresholds or assessment tools will be used? Will access to Thriving Kids access be based on functional assessments or on diagnosis? With the October start date just around the corner, what is the specific design of the Thriving Kids initiative, and how will there be uniform implementation of services across each of the state jurisdictions? What specific services and supports will be delivered under the $3 billion Foundational Supports program outside the NDIS? How will they differ from existing NDIS funded supports, and how much of this funding is being directed towards the Thriving Kids initiative? These are the questions that stakeholders are asking, and I hope the government members are nimble enough to try to provide some level of answer tonight.
In relation to mental health, this budget does not inspire confidence about the government's ambition for mental health reform. At a time when the sector is putting all hopes on the next national mental health and suicide prevention agreement, the budget papers are remarkably thin and only give more uncertainty. Only 12 months of extension of funding has been committed for the agreement. The government claims negotiations are ongoing, but there is no clear funding envelope in the forwards for the agreement to continue, let alone be expanded. That is concerning because demand for mental health services is, of course, rising. Providers are under pressure and too many Australians are still missing out on critical psychosocial supports. The last thing that anybody wants is vulnerable Australians falling through the cracks during periods of major system change. That's the worst possible time for them to get the settings wrong. The sector deserves far more certainty than what is being delivered through this budget.
In relation to mental health, these are answers that the sector and I are both crying out for. Given that many of the sector are pinning their hopes on a new, more ambitious agreement, why is the government not anticipating any new funding for the next years of the agreement? Does the absence of funding beyond 2026-27 indicate the government has no ambition for a new mental health and suicide prevention agreement?
When I was 21, I was playing in South Carolina. I went baseline on a guy, took off and went to dunk on him. He grabbed my shoulder and tore it right through, shredded my labrum and took out a couple of tendons. I was out of the game for nine months. I needed a full reconstruction. I went to sleep thinking I was getting a scope, and I woke up—
And you thought parliament was dangerous!
Parliament's very dangerous, Bas. I woke up and a bit of my career had disappeared. The scary thing was not the injury. The scary thing was not the rehab. The scary thing was not being unable to lift a one pound weight. The scary thing was the bill—hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Putting me to sleep and waking me up alone cost my university $120,000. If I had been forced to pay for that, if my parents had been forced to pay for that, we would still be paying it off today. There is zero chance of us being able to clear that debt. I was lucky because I was injured in the course of fulfilling my duties to my school.
Last week, I had to get some more scans done, this time in Cairns. Don't let this fool you. I'm being held together by hope and duct tape. It was free, completely bulk-billed. The follow-up consultation was completely bulk-billed, and that is the pride of Australia. There is a reason that the Medicare card is green and gold. It's because of who we are—
An honourable member interjecting—
I can show you them if you like. My back's out. It's a complete mess.
This isn't the place for a discussion across the floor of the chamber.
But the bulk-billing is what has made Australia great. Because if you don't have your health, you don't have anything. This $8.5 billion investment in bulk-billing has made bulk-billing more accessible for people right across the country, including 53 fully bulk-billed GP clinics in my electorate of Leichhardt, including Cooktown. It is very regional and very remote, but a lovely part of the world. It used to be mixed billing. Now it is bulk-billing.
The reason for that is this investment in the medical community committing to bulk-billing. They understand that they won't be sought after or have their rebates frozen time after time, effectively creating a pay cut, making it harder and harder for them to deliver for the communities that they love. Don't make any mistake about this—the medical community loves the communities they serve. They work long hours. The rural GP is a place of pride. It is something that people talk to. They become a leader within their community. And the work that this government has done, this Albanese Labor government, in restoring Medicare and bringing Medicare back has allowed those doctors to restore their place of pride within that community and to offer free, Medicare bulk-billed medical appointments. Not everybody can afford a gap, and your health is what is the most important.
In an electorate such as mine, there are some lower socioeconomic areas. They shouldn't have to compromise. They shouldn't have to look at themselves and ask: 'Do I go to the doctor this week or do I get food for the kids? Do I pay the school fees or the electricity bill? Do I make sure that my medicine is taken up?' If you have a chronic illness or a mental health illness and you need that medicine on a monthly basis, we're here to help. The PBS change freezes things at 2004 levels—after my shoulder reconstruction, I was back in the league by then—and makes life easier. It gives people dignity. It lets them know that Australia cares for them.
Every single bulk-billing patient is us telling the nation that we care for you, that we care for your health, that we care for your family. We want to make sure that you get to be the very best version of yourself, because that's what Medicare can mean. It can mean the difference between an undiagnosed mental health illness that drags you into the dirt or living your best life. It can stop bronchitis becoming pneumonia and then becoming something much, much worse. It means that we have the security and safety of knowing that our children will get the medical attention they need and they deserve.
This $8.5 billion is the best investment we have ever made. It's an investment in Australia; it's an investment in our future; it's an investment in our children. I am so very proud to be part of a government that has delivered this for the nation.
I am grateful for the opportunity speak in consideration in detail stage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, specifically regarding the health, disability and ageing portfolio. Today I would like to focus particularly on health expenditure.
The aim of this funding, as Budget Paper No. 4 states, is to:
Better equip Australia to meet current and future health needs … through … evidence-based health policies; improved access to … health care; … protecting the health and safety of the … community
I welcome the much needed investments in the budget for public hospitals, for cheaper medicines, for urgent care clinics and for health and medical research. But in this budget there is also a missed opportunity to invest in common sense, evidence based prevention policies that would improve the health and wellbeing of Australians, save lives, reduce pressure on hospitals and generate billions in savings.
Australia is still fundamentally a treatment focused system. Most health funding is spent after people get sick. Hospitals and Medicare dominate spending, while prevention remains only a fraction of total health expenditure. Yet every dollar invested in prevention yields $14.30 in healthcare savings and broader economic benefits. Despite this, Australia only invests around two per cent of its health budget in prevention, significantly less than comparable countries like the UK and Canada. And we know the consequences. Around 6.4 million hospitalisations each year, or 55 per cent of total, are due to chronic diseases—costing about $82 billion annually. Half of these are preventable. It is estimated that lost labour force participation from chronic disease will cost the economy more than $67 billion by 2030.
Commonwealth health spending is projected to rise from 4.2 per cent of GDP in 2022-23 to 6.2 per cent in 2062-63, so why are we not seriously investing in chronic disease prevention measures? Modelling from 2018 suggests that banning junk food advertising on TV between 6 am and 9.30 pm could generate $778 million in healthcare savings over the lifetime of the 2010 Australian population. The Australian Medical Association's modelling suggests a 20 per cent reformulation levy on sugar-sweetened beverages could raise $4 billion over four years. This could be invested into preventative health or other government services like education or disability supports.
The UK introduced their so-called industry levy on sugar-sweetened beverages in 2018, and, importantly, the revenue raised from that levy goes to fund school sports programs. Australia is lagging behind on these policies. More than 130 countries around the world have adopted levies on sugar sweetened beverages, and over 40 countries already regulate junk food advertising. As a result, these countries are seeing improved public health, including reduced obesity rates and decreased hospital visits.
A well-designed gambling profits levy would also generate billions from the large profits of the gambling industry. Remember, the Murphy report recommended that we view the harms coming from gambling as a public health issue. These funds could be directed into public health campaigns, community support services, mental health care and addiction treatment.
Reforming the wine equalisation tax into a volumetric tax model is sound tax policy that could reduce alcohol related harm. The Productivity Commission has called for a national prevention and early intervention framework. Its chair called for this budget to commit $1.5 billion in evidence-backed preventive interventions, alongside a national partnership agreement to support intergovernmental collaboration.
Too often, prevention misses out because budget and political cycles favour short-term pay-offs over long-term gains, but the stark reality is this: we cannot fund our way out of the growing demand without preventing illness in the first place. So I asked the minister: if prevention saves lives, reduces hospitalisation and delivers strong returns, when will the government adopt these revenue-generating and budget-saving measures, and will the government commit to a dedicated national prevention and early intervention framework?
I couldn't be prouder to stand here in this chamber to speak to the work the Albanese Labor government is doing to improve access to health care for Australians right across the country. I stand here today for one reason, and that is that Labor has always fought and will always fight for accessible health care.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was first introduced by the Chifley Labor government in 1948, introducing a revolutionary principle to Australia—that no Australian should go without necessary treatment because of cost. In 2013 the Gillard Labor government introduced the NDIS, a generation-shaping reform to support Australians living with significant disability, and their carers and families. In 1984 the Hawke Labor government established our universal healthcare scheme, Medicare. It's one of the reasons I joined the Australian Labor Party as a teenager. And today the Albanese Labor government has made record investments in Medicare, because we know that access to affordable health care is in the interests of every single Australian.
For my community, I know this is making a real difference to people's lives. I represent Melbourne's western suburbs, where you'll find some of the fastest growing communities in Australia. There are more than 50,000 families across the electorate, and new ones are being created every single day. As families move in and build their futures, there's an increasing need for accessible healthcare services.
Families deserve regular access to a GP appointment, and not one that costs so much it turns people away. That's why I'm so proud of our Medicare bulk-billing clinics. I'm so excited to report that in my community there are now 24 Medicare bulk-billing practices, up from 13 before our bulk-billing changes were introduced. That means that at 75 per cent of clinics in my electorate of Gorton you can see a doctor for free—75 per cent! This is all thanks to Labor's record investment in Medicare. It really does make a difference for busy families juggling supermarket shops, energy bills and rent or mortgage payments.
Access to affordable, quality health care takes a huge load off the household budget and improves health outcomes for our community. That's why we've made medicines cheaper, capping the cost of PBS listed medicines at just $25. In my electorate of Gorton, that's a total saving of more than $9.1 million. It's why we've doubled the number of medicines now available for a 60-day prescription, as well, and why we've introduced more medicines to the PBS, including new contraceptives.
We know that women's health care matters and women deserve to have their health prioritised by their own government—something those opposite have not done before. We've added the first new contraceptive pills to the PBS in 30 years, and we've introduced first new menopause treatments to the PBS in 20 years. We're ensuring better access to IUDs and birth control implants as well. This comes along with our commitment to open 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics right across the country, including one near my community, in Werribee. Thanks to these initiatives, Australian women and their families will save thousands of dollars on health related costs across their lifetime.
Also, I couldn't be prouder than to be one of the youngest members of the House of Representatives, representing an electorate made up of young people. The median age in my electorate is 35 years old, just a little bit older than me. Our younger generations face unique pressures that our parents' generation did not experience, including increased rates of mental health issues. Access to mental health services is an issue raised regularly with me by locals, and it's why we've launched our Medicare Mental Health Check In. This free service connects you with professional mental health support over the phone.
For many in my community, a free service like this is a lifeline, and it's guided by the same principle that underlies every one of our government decisions on health. Health care should be there when Aussies need it, regardless of your postcode or your bank balance. It's guided Labor governments for generations, and it continues to guide the decisions of the Albanese Labor government today, because we know that quality, accessible health care is not a privilege. It's a right for every Australian.
Those members opposite talk about being the doyens of health care and about providing health services to Australians. There's one thing in the budget that I think I really need to point out to them. I'm very pleased that the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care is here, but I am very disappointed that the her boss, the Minister for Health and Ageing, is not, because one of the challenges that arose out of this budget was a ripping away of the private health insurance concessions for the over-65s.
Now, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, you're probably of a pretty similar vintage to me. You were told by successive governments: 'Before you turn 30, get private health insurance. You'll get it at a concessional rate, provided you do it before you're 30. Pay your premiums. You'll have access to a cheaper form of private health insurance. You'll have the ability to choose your doctor, go to a private hospital and, effectively, be treated much more quickly than you would through the public system.' And we relied on that representation—on successive representations from successive governments. Relying on those representations was not an unreasonable expectation of the Australian people. Yet deep within the bowels of these budget documents lies the ripping away of these concessions for the over-65s.
I put out a petition a couple of weeks ago. More than 6,000 people have signed this petition. I was at the Maleny show on the weekend. People were coming up to me and complaining bitterly about the budget in general, but older people were talking to me about the ripping away of these concessions, because it's just blatantly unfair. It is a breach of trust from this government. The whole budget is a breach of trust from this government, but if we're now talking about health related matters, it is specifically a breach of trust about how people chose to care for and invested in caring for their own private health needs.
And it was an investment, because we—'we' being the older generation, and I suppose I'm in those ranks now—made that decision decades ago and paid premiums for decades based on the assumption that future governments would abide by that decision. Now this Albanese Labor government has ripped that away from older people. You might say, and I've heard members opposite say, 'Oh, it's only a couple of hundred dollars.' No, that's not right. If you are a couple and you happen to be on the gold standard of private health insurance, it's about $1,630 extra that these people have to find. When they're on fixed incomes, it's really hard to find an extra $1,600 a year for your private health insurance. It's really hard—
An honourable member: You can shop around.
I'll take the interjection from those opposite saying 'shop around'. We have a situation where small private hospitals, particularly in rural and regional Australia, are saying, 'If these changes are brought in'—they're already doing it tough, some of these smaller private hospitals—'and we see an exodus of people leaving private health insurance once they're over 65, it will make our business models financially unviable.' That means job losses; it means a lack of access to health care rather than better access to health care like those members opposite so often tell us that they're so good at. I don't understand it. No-one has been able to explain to me why this magic age of over 65 is a trigger. Why is it that when you need private health insurance the most, as you get older and more frail, that this government is ripping away the access to private health insurance? Prime Minister, why are you doing it? (Time expired)
I would like to address a couple of things there immediately. I have five minutes to be able to talk about the government's record on health, but it's almost impossible. But I would just like to say a couple of things there. One is that the government is investing $25 billion extra in public hospitals to take the pressure off the public hospital system. The speaker before me mentioned a figure of $1,600. If you're paying $100 for a shower when you're on an aged care package, which is what some people are doing at the moment, it takes 16 showers for that $1,600 bucks to be used up. And so the government's decision to move showers from independent living into clinical care will actually save an enormous amount of money for not just pensioners but also self-funded retirees who desperately need that clinical care.
That's because it is the Labor Party and only the Labor Party and this government that really has the values which Australian people want, which is why they consistently vote for parties that that defend that defend Medicare. It is inherent in the values of the Labor Party and inherent in the values of this government. And there are two things I'd like to say on that. One is no matter how hard workers fight on the shop floor for wages and conditions, which is something that they can achieve, there are some things that you need control of the government in order to be able to deliver for your community, and having control of the government to deliver good, affordable healthcare is one of those things. The other thing I would say is that the philosophy of the Albanese government really, I think, is summed up by two things I've heard the Prime Minister say recently. One is that nobody is left behind and nobody is held back. But he also said, a lot more eloquently than I'm going to say now, 'When you come across a problem in policy, do you just throw your hands up and say, "There's nothing I can do about it? I'm only the Prime Minister."'
And so I think it is in healthcare, in aged care and in disability care that we see a government that is prepared to make the tough decisions but makes them through Labor values, which are about making sure that our community is looked after and always kept front in mind. The decision was a tough one. It cost a lot of money to fix bulk-billing. But I have never, in all the time that I've been a participant or an observer of Australian politics, seen a policy have such an immediate and positive impact as the tripling of the bulk-billing rates for doctors who bulk-bill. Overnight in November in the electorate I represent, Forde, the number of bulk-billing clinics more than doubled from nine to 21. It is something which is on top of a commitment to provide cheaper medicines. It is something that is on a commitment to spend more money for the PBS to fund all of the medicines which the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee suggests need to be funded. These are tough decisions that the government needs to make to be able to afford these things which benefit the whole community.
Of course, it's not just in healthcare. As I said, it is in aged care and disability care as well. We have in aged care one of the biggest demographic problems that an Australian society has ever faced. I don't know the numbers exactly, but these are the rough approximates to make the point. Something like 10,000 people turned 80 in 2010. This year, something like 90,000 people are turning 80, and we're going to have that number again and again and again over the next 15 years or so. This is a cohort of people that have worked hard for this country and that deserve to have good, decent aged care. I think that, with the decisions that the government has taken to see those waiting lists starting to come down in terms of assessments and the waiting lists coming down in terms of packages being funded, we are seeing some real progress there—again, founded in Labor values.
Finally, on disability, yet again, it took a Labor government to introduce the NDIS, and it's going to take a Labor government to fix it, because all of those problems that we saw exist in 2018 as the NDIS began to grow scaled up with the NDIS as the NDIS scaled up in itself. Problems that could have been dealt with easily in 2018 have been left to this government to deal with now, where they going to cause much more anxiety in the community than they would have if they were dealt with at the time. Again, it takes a Labor government to make tough decisions. But, with a Labor heart, they are decisions which are grounded in what's best for the community, and I think that the government's record on health is an excellent one.
I thank the actually quite eloquent member for Forde for their contribution.
When we came to government in 2022, we had a situation where it had never been harder or more expensive to find a doctor. Bulk-billing was in freefall after a decade of cuts and neglect, and that's why strengthening Medicare was such a key focus for our government.
Today, we've heard members opposite give an impression that they don't support Labor's investment in the Medicare urgent care clinic network. It's staggering to hear this, given how successful and how important they've been, but also not surprising to notice their lack of enthusiasm when you look at their history and realise that it shouldn't be difficult for us to understand why they're coming at it the way they are. When this coalition were in government, they froze the Medicare rebate for several years, ripping billions of dollars from primary health care, and proposed a co-payment to go and see your GP. That was under former prime minister Tony Abbott, the same person the Liberal Party has now appointed as their president. If that doesn't speak to their priorities, then I don't know what does.
Then, of course, we had a period during the last election where, certainly in my electorate, the candidate for the Liberal Party couldn't say whether Medicare urgent care clinics would remain open, let alone remain free. Those opposite don't value Medicare. They never have. They don't understand the importance of access to affordable health care. The Labor Party does. We build it. We invest in strengthening Medicare, and what we have been able to deliver for Australians has made their lives easier.
More than three million Australians have been able to visit a Medicare urgent care clinic, getting free access to urgent care. We've seen a significant increase in the number of bulk-billing GP practices right around the country. There are over 3,800 GP practices that have now moved to fully bulk-billing, and that number continues to grow every week. On 1 November last year, 1,400 of those 3,800 were mixed billing, so we have seen a significant number of them move to fully bulk-billing, and that is improving access to health care not just in metro and urban areas but in our regions and in our rural communities. We know that what this means now is that approximately 97 per cent of the population are within a 20-minute drive of a bulk-billing practice. This is helping more Australians afford the health care that they deserve. We've also seen improvements in people being able to access cheaper medicines, with millions of Australians being able to access medicines capped at $7.70 if you hold a concession card or $25 for other medicines listed on the PBS.
We've also invested in the workforce. We value our staff and those who contribute to the Australian health sector. We've invested over $662 million, and that workforce package is supporting people right across regional parts of our country to participate in GP training. By 2028 we will fund 2,000 new GP trainees every year, and we are delivering these courses from regional universities. In my own home state of Tasmania, you can now do end-to-end training at campuses in Burnie, Hobart and Launceston, and that is really important for us to be able to grow our own workforce and for them to remain working in our regional communities in particular.
I'm also really proud of the work we've done in women's health. This has been a significant commitment—nearly $800 million—that has supported women right around our country to be able to afford the medicines that previously were not listed on the PBS and to be able to access the care they need through our endometriosis and persistent pelvic pain clinics. All 33 of those clinics that we promised are now open. We've also been able to launch a menopause and perimenopause public awareness campaign, which is destigmatising a thing that happens to every single Australian woman and is improving access to good, accurate information about where they can access the help that they need. We are investing in aged care by providing dignity to older Australians and making sure that they are able to access the care that they need as they get older in their own community. The funding of $3 billion that we've provided in this budget is on top of other commitments that we've made in previous budgets.
There has also been a significant investment in reforming the NDIS. We know that the system has not been working for Australians, and that is why we are working very hard to improve it to make sure that it is, and that it remains, one of Australia's greatest human rights achievements. It is great reform, and we are committed to strengthening it to make sure that Australians who rely on it can continue to access it. The budget investment that we have been able to deliver in health for our community is good not only for the individual Australians who rely on it but for our entire economy. It improves access to participation, and I feel very proud to be part of a government that values health in the way that ours does.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Ordered that consideration in detail of the bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:27