On behalf of the Speaker, I present report No. 11 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business, private members' business and referral of bills to committees on Monday, 22 June 2026. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SELECTION COMMITTEE REPORT No. 11

Committee and delegation business and private Members' business

3 June 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chair Hon M Dick Speaker

Members Ms J Ryan MP (Chief Government Whip)

Mr C Caldwell MP (Chief Opposition Whip)

Ms M Aldred MP

Ms A Byrnes MP

Ms K Chaney

Ms L Chesters MP

Ms M Landry MP

Ms Z Mascarenhas MP

Ms T Roberts MP

Ms R Sharkie MP

Ms S Sitou MP

Mr B Small MP

Ms A Urquhart MP

Ms S Claydon MP, Deputy Speaker

This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives

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

1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 2 June 2026.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 2 June 2026, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 22 June 2026, as follows:

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MS PENFOLD: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, and for related purposes. (Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment Bill 2026)

(Notice given 31 March 2026.)

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

2 MS SPENDER: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, and for related purposes. (Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Supporting Small Businesses To Be Paid On Time) Bill 2026)

(Notice given 2 June 2026.)

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

3 MS STEGGALL: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums in respect of electoral communications, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) Bill 2026)

(Notice given 2 June 2026.)

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

4 MR ABDO: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the dignity of work is a foundational value for the Government;

(b) the Government is embarking on the biggest reforms to employment services in 30 years to overhaul the one-size-fits-all approach and help more Australians into jobs;

(c) all Australians that access these services should receive meaningful support to help them move towards suitable work; and

(d) reforming Australia's employment services system is critical to ensuring more Australians find and keep work; and

(2) acknowledges the Government's advocacy for an economically sustainable real wage increase for minimum wage and award-reliant workers.

(Notice given 2 June 2026.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Abdo 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

1 LIVING STANDARDS: Resumption of debate (from 25 May 2026) on the motion of Mr Caldwell—That this House:

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

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

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

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MS SITOU: To move—That this House:

(1) notes the latest bulk billing data for the March quarter 2025-26 shows bulk billing has increased in every state and territory;

(2) commends the Government's record $8.5 billion investment to strengthen Medicare with more bulk billing and doctors and nurses which is delivering free health care for Australians; and

(3) acknowledges there are now more than 3,800 bulk billing practices across the country, with over 1,400 of these switching from mixed billing thanks to the Government's investments.

(Notice given 28 May 2026.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Sitou 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

2 MR WILLCOX: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Australian manufacturing:

(i) has undergone significant transformation over the past few decades;

(ii) is a hub for research and development, capital investment and innovative businesses and products;

(iii) is our sixth largest industry, producing $137 billion of value-added output and employs 930,000 people;

(b) Australian manufacturers can design, produce, and scale high-tech, high-value goods using cutting-edge processes, a skilled workforce, and integrated supply chains but we must be focused on building an advanced manufacturing capability for our country;

(c) if we want a prosperous and secure Australia, we must prioritise domestic production and unleash our own energy resources to reduce the crippling energy costs and provide the reliable, firm base load power that our manufacturers need to be competitive; and

(d) the fight to save Australian manufacturing and reclaim our national sovereignty must enable our local industries to challenge the policies that have left our country vulnerable to foreign imports and skyrocketing costs; and   .

(2) acknowledges that:

(a) regional industry is not seeking a handout, but a level playing field;

(b) without immediate policy intervention to address the energy disparity and the lack of import quality standards, the region risks permanent industrial decline; and

(c) Australia needs a National Import Quality Taskforce to stop sub-standard foreign dumping, offering royalty discounts for companies that procure 100 per cent Australian-made items, and overhauling the 'Australian Made' logo fees so local workshops are not charged a premium just to tell the world where their goods were built.

(Notice given 2 June 2026.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Willcox 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

3 MS SHARKIE: To move—That this House:

(1) recognises that:

(a) the Australian grape and wine sector is a major contributor to Australia's economy and to rural and regional communities;

(b) the wine industry contributes $51.3 billion to the Australian economy, providing more than 203,390 direct and indirect full and part-time jobs;

(c) Australia has 65 wine regions with more than 2,000 winemakers and more than 5,000 wine grape growers; and

(d) wine production is critical in many regional communities, supporting supply-chain businesses, tourism, hospitality and exports;

(2) acknowledges that:

(a) the wine industry is in structural distress;

(b) in 2024-25 production exceeded sales by 52 million litres;

(c) this imbalance is not temporary due to reductions in both domestic and global wine consumption, with the International Organisation of Wine confirming that global wine consumption has fallen to its lowest level since 1961;

(d) the global wine market is forecast to shrink by 8 per cent over the next five years, a decline equivalent to 1.5 billion litres of lost consumption, or more than four times Australia's annual production; and

(e) the global crisis is having local human consequences, for growers, winemakers, families and communities; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) support Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated in its $139.25 million proposal over three years to rationalise supply and restore viability of the industry;

(b) support a Wine Business Viability and Transition program to ensure orderly supply adjustment, reduce structural oversupply, and assist growers and winemakers who wish to transition from the sector to do so with dignity; and

(c) focus on growing demand and rebuilding markets.

(Notice given 2 June 2026.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Sharkie 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

4 MS BYRNES: To move—That this House:

(1) acknowledges that the Government has taken decisive action to support Australians into cheaper to run cars through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Act 2022 and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act 2024;

(2) notes that as a result:

(a) the share of new vehicles sold that are electric or plug-in hybrid has grown from under 2 per cent in April 2022 to 27.5 per cent in April 2026, equivalent to 515 Australians buying an electric vehicle (EV) every day, compared with just 29 a day four years ago;

(b) the total number of EV models available in Australia has nearly tripled over the past three and a half years, with models available under $40,000 growing from just 2 to more than 10;

(c) nearly half of all new light vehicles sold in April 2026 were electric, plug-in hybrid or hybrid, up from just one in ten in April 2022;

(3) welcomes the Government's commitment to build on this progress by reforming the fringe benefits tax exemption for electric vehicles, continuing to put cheaper to run cars within reach of more Australian families; and

(4) acknowledges that it is because the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard has succeeded in bringing more affordable EVs to market that the Government is now able to focus its EV tax cut on those affordable models.

(Notice given 12 May 2026.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Byrnes 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

5 MS ALDRED: To move—That this House notes that:

(1) superannuation belongs to Australians for their retirement, and as such death benefit and other payouts should be processed without delay by superannuation companies;

(2) in March last year, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) announced it was taking legal action against one of Australia's largest industry funds over delayed processing of nearly 7,000 death benefit claims, according to proceedings filed in the Federal Court;

(3) ASIC's media release said the superannuation giant was taking between 'four months and four years' to payout death benefits;

(4) back in 2023, complaints to the ombudsman about delays in releasing super to a surviving spouse or other beneficiaries more than tripled; and

(5) in January 2025, the Government announced plans to introduce mandatory service standards for superannuation funds, in response to a growing public backlash against the industry, particularly over its poor handling of death benefits, yet more than a year later, there has been no further progress.

(Notice given 2 June 2026.)

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

Speech time limits

Ms Aldred 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices—continued

6 MS MASCARENHAS: To move—That this House:

(1) commends the Government for its ongoing commitment to improving road safety for vulnerable road users and fostering more connected, liveable communities through continued investment in active transport infrastructure;

(2) notes that the 2026-27 budget delivers an additional $500 million for the Active Transport Fund, bringing the total investment in active transport infrastructure to $600 million, with $50 million to be made available each year for the next ten years to support the construction of new and upgraded walking and cycling infrastructure across Australia;

(3) acknowledges the success of the first round of the Active Transport Fund, which delivered $100 million for safer, connected and accessible transport infrastructure projects, including walking and cycling pathways in communities across the country;

(4) recognises that the first round of the fund supported 81 projects across all states and territories, helping local councils and state and territory governments improve active transport connections to schools, workplaces, services and recreational areas;

(5) further notes that projects funded through the Active Transport Fund improve road safety outcomes for vulnerable road users by separating cyclists and pedestrians from traffic and encouraging greater uptake of active transport; and

(6) highlights that the Active Transport Fund supports the Government's broader objectives of reducing transport emissions, improving public health outcomes, easing congestion and creating safer, more connected and sustainable urban and regional communities.

(Notice given 25 May 2026.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Mascarenhas 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

7 MR CONAGHAN: To move—That this House:

(1) notes the:

(a) Government's decisions in the 2026-27 budget which fail to adequately support Australia's veterans and their families; and

(b) introduction of a $5,000 cap on allied health services, which places significant limits on veterans' access to essential rehabilitation, mental health and ongoing care;

(2) acknowledges that many veterans rely on ongoing and specialised allied health support, and that imposing a cap on these services will place many veterans at risk of delaying treatment and worsening health outcomes;

(3) further notes with concern the lack of targeted funding and support for families of veterans, despite their critical role in caregiving, recovery and long-term wellbeing;

(4) recognises that veteran families often experience emotional, financial and social pressures which are not adequately addressed in the budget;

(5) condemns the defunding and discontinuation of veteran support and education programs, which have provided essential services including mental health support, transition programs, community connection and education programs; and

(6) calls on the Government to immediately scrap these decisions and commit to properly funding services and programs to ensure veterans and their families receive the support, respect and care they deserve.

(Notice given 2 June 2026.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Conaghan 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

1 AUSTRALIA-EUROPEAN UNION SECURITY AND DEFENCE PARTNERSHIP: Resumption of debate (from 25 May 2026) on the motion of Ms Clutterham—That this House:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices—continued

8 MR CHAFFEY: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that local government;

(a) is a critical tier of government in Australia that deserves the trust of the Government; and

(b) employs more than 213,000 local residents in communities throughout the 537 councils across the nation;

(2) acknowledge the Government's reannouncement of the 2022 election commitment to increase the roads to recovery funding program;

(3) recognise that most local councils throughout Australia:

(a) build and maintain tens of thousands of kilometres of local and regional roads;

(b) provide the sewer, water and waste services to communities;

(c) manage parks, gardens and sporting fields to communities;

(d) manage our libraries, halls, civic centres, galleries and cultural centres; and

(e) care for our lost animals, people and infrastructure;

(4) further recognise that local government;

(a) develop master planning in communities for residential growth;

(b) develop master planning in communities for industrial growth; and

(c) ensure the protection of the local environment;

(5) condemns the Government for defunding in the 2026-27 Budget such as;

(a) the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program (LRCI);

(b) the regional Precincts and Partnership Program (rPPP);

(c) the urban Precincts and Partnerships Program (uPPP); and

(d) cutting $41.7 million from the Fee-Free TAFE Skills Agreement; and

(6) strongly condemns the Government for cutting funding to local government.

(Notice given 2 June 2026.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Chaffey 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day—continued

2 HOUSING INVESTMENT: Resumption of debate (from 25 May 2026) on the motion of Mr Georganas—That this House notes that:

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

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

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

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

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices—continued

9 MS BELL: To move—That this House:

(1) notes the passing of former Member for Higgins, Dr Katrina "Katie" Allen, at the age of 59;

(2) acknowledges:

(a) Dr Allen's distinguished service to the Australian community as a paediatrician, medical researcher, professor, advocate and parliamentarian;

(b) her contribution to the House of Representatives from 2019 to 2022, where she served the people of Higgins with integrity, compassion and dedication;

(c) the respect she earned across the political spectrum for her decency, intellect, courage and willingness to advocate for her convictions; and

(d) her leadership in medical research, particularly in the fields of paediatric allergy and gastroenterology, and her lifelong commitment to improving the health and well being of Australian children and families; and

(3) expresses:

(a) its gratitude for her contribution to public life and to the advancement of women in leadership, medicine and politics; and

(b) its sincere condolences to her husband Malcolm, their children Monty, Jemima, Arabella and Archie, her granddaughter, her extended family, friends, former colleagues and all those whose lives she touched.

(Notice given 2 June 2026.)

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

Speech time limits

Ms Bell 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

THE HON D. M. DICK MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

3 June 2026

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The government's first term workplace reforms were the most significant since the Fair Work Act commenced almost 17 years ago.

These reforms have delivered on our objectives to promote job security and gender equality, get wages moving, improve safety, and address loopholes that have undermined fairness in the workplace.

With this bill today, we build on those reforms with a package of practical measures to further improve the operation of the workplace relations system and support more cooperative and productive workplaces.

These include amendments designed to:

I now turn to outline the measures in the bill in detail.

FWC workload measures

This bill includes six important administrative measures which will streamline the operations of the Fair Work Commission and assist it to manage its workload, without reducing protections for workers.

The commission plays a critical role as our national workplace relations tribunal, and the government is committed to ensuring that it continues to provide efficient dispute resolution services to workers and employers across Australia.

The first measure will remove the requirement to hold a formal hearing to determine whether or not an applicant in a general protections matter has or has not been dismissed. The amendment will allow the commission to simply conduct a conference to seek to resolve the dispute. This will save the time and resources of the commission, as well as the parties involved in the dispute.

Secondly, the bill will allow the president of the commission to delegate some functions to commission staff, including the power to issue certificates that provide that parties to a general protections dispute have made all reasonable attempts to resolve their dispute but were unsuccessful. These certificates allow such matters to proceed to consent arbitration or a court. The delegation power will ensure that the time of the president and commission staff can be more effectively used.

Thirdly, the bill will give the commission more discretion to determine matters 'on the papers', without the need for a formal hearing or conference, where it is appropriate to do so and the parties consent.

Fourthly, the bill will provide the commission with additional powers to more effectively deal with vexatious and frivolous applications, including by enabling the commission to make orders to prevent vexatious litigants from making further applications without permission.

Fifthly, the bill will allow the commission to dismiss unfair termination and unfair deactivation applications that are frivolous or vexatious or have no reasonable prospects of success.

Finally, the bill will streamline the process for obtaining supported bargaining authorisations from the Fair Work Commission. This is a practical measure that will reduce the administrative burden associated with applying for a supported bargaining authorisation, where there is an existing supported bargaining agreement and the new agreement covers the same or substantially the same group of employees and employers, and the application is made no earlier than three months before, and no later than two years after, the nominal expiry date of the earlier agreement. Under the provisions, employers can be removed from a further authorisation by the commission, both before and after an authorisation is made, where the commission is satisfied there has been a change in their circumstances.

Supporting g ood f aith b argaining

The government inherited a bargaining system that was not working effectively and had not worked effectively for a long time. It had got to the point where less than 15 per cent of employees were covered by a current federal enterprise agreement.

The government's first term reforms have reinvigorated the bargaining system, reducing barriers to bargaining to make it easier for employers and employees to negotiate agreements that meet their needs.

The result is we have seen record high numbers of employees covered by enterprise agreements delivering real wage increases for Australian workers, and productivity and flexibility improvements for employers.

The bill contains a measure designed to enable Commonwealth spending to encourage the use of good faith bargaining which supports secure jobs and fair conditions. The bill allows Commonwealth government spending to preference employers with enterprise agreements negotiated in good faith and genuinely agreed, where appropriate to do so.

Importantly, the bill does not impose any obligation on the Commonwealth to do this—how and when it would be appropriate to do so is being carefully considered as part of the development of the Secure Australian Jobs Code, which will sit alongside requirements to ensure value for money and high-quality, timely delivery.

All Commonwealth entities will continue to be bound by the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and Commonwealth grant guidelines.

Road transport measures

In 2024, the government introduced new protections in the Fair Work Commission for truckies and small road transport businesses from unfair contract terminations and unfair contract terms. Currently, access to these provisions is limited by a high-income threshold.

However, because of the high operating costs of road transport contractors to pay for fuel and maintain their vehicles, particularly for long-distance owner drivers, this threshold is not fit for purpose.

This change will enable the establishment of a separate, fit for purpose road transport contractor high-income threshold, which will allow these hardworking Australian truckies and small road transport businesses to access our protections against unfair termination and unfair contracts.

CFMEU a dministration measure

The Australian government took the strongest possible action by legislating for the appointment of an administrator to the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the groundbreaking work of outgoing administrator, Mr Mark Irving KC, and thank him sincerely on behalf of the government for his leadership and the unprecedented progress he has made in improving the culture of the construction industry and tackling criminality and corruption in the CFMEU.

This bill will give the administrator an appropriate timeframe to prepare and submit a biannual financial report to the minister, as required under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.

There is no change to the content or scope of the financial reporting requirements or the timing for the administrator's separate biannual report on the operation of the administration.

Measures supporting the operation of tripartite bodies

This government has provided strong support for cooperative and productive approaches to workplace relations, including through tripartite arrangements to bring employers, workers and government together.

One of those tripartite statutory advisory bodies is the NCIF. Its function is to provide advice to the Australian government in relation to work in the building and construction industry.

The bill makes minor updates to the ministerial membership of the NCIF and enables travel allowance for members of the NCIF who are not ministers to also be prescribed by reference to Remuneration Tribunal determinations.

The bill confirms that RTAG members can receive a travel allowance, in line with other consultative bodies, and clarifies the RTAG's members, chair and subcommittee members are not otherwise entitled to receive remuneration or allowances.

Conclusion

Of course, reform is never a set-and-forget job.

It requires ongoing stewardship and responsiveness.

Our landmark secure jobs, better pay and closing loopholes reforms laid the foundations, and this bill builds on and continues that work.

This bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring our workplace relations framework supports cooperative and productive workplaces—the kind of workplaces that work for businesses, workers and the broader economy.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 are significant. They mark the moment when this House will make a determination on the way in which our government collects revenue and the way in which we set up our tax system into the future for future generations. The changes that we are discussing as part of these bills are some of the most important considerations that this House has made in my time here as a member of parliament, and I am proud to support these bills, which will set up our tax system and our revenue collection for future generations—to make it fairer, to make it more appropriate and to make sure that hardworking Australians are not left with the growing burden of our tax revenue.

Member for Macnamara, apologies. I'm going to interrupt you so that I can make clear the question that you're speaking to. I promise I will not swallow up your time. The original question is that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hume moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words and the honourable member for Curtin moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hume be agreed to. I will enable the member for Macnamara to start his speech again, from the top.

The millions watching at home will be grateful, Deputy Speaker! Thank you very much. This is an important set of bills that will reform the way in which tax is collected in this country, to make it fairer and to make it better for future generations so that income does not continue to grow as the largest form of revenue in our budget, disproportionate to other forms of revenue. For people who are nurses, teachers, labourers or anyone who is working as part of the economy, the amount of tax they are paying versus the amount of tax that other forms of revenue for our budget is becoming disproportionately large. When you add the fact that, when inflation is high, the Reserve Bank adds interest rate rises, the same people are being hit over and over again with higher income taxes as well as higher interest rates. When you look at the sorts of things that government needs to expend in the growing expenditure over the forward estimates—we're talking about things like health, we're talking about things like aged care, we're talking about things like defence—more and more of it is relying on hard-working Australians, people who are earning a wage and contributing to our amazing country.

These bills are the most significant reforms to taxation that I have been a part of in this place. They are an important set of reforms that will set up our country and the budget for future generations. It will focus primarily on four key things: it will restore the original intent of the capital gains tax concession, it will overhaul the negative gearing regime, it introduces a new $250 working Australian tax offset, and it creates a new $1,000 instant tax deduction.

We are a country that is heavily reliant on income tax. It accounts for roughly 48 per cent of revenue in this budget, and that is more than company tax and the GST combined. As a share of revenue, personal income tax continues to climb while all other sources are projected to plateau or fall. The revenue, as I mentioned, of hard-working Australians, is what funds our world-class healthcare, our social security system and all of the other important work that our government funds, but it is just not tenable to continue taxing those hard-working Australians who are earning, via an income and earning via their work and via their labour, while also not addressing the income that people are receiving from assets in a similar way.

The biggest impact that the original capital gains discount has had has been on the housing market, so let's break down a few of the facts. In 1985, the Labor treasurer Paul Keating established the capital gains tax. The premise was simple: if you earn money through the sale of assets, you should pay tax, just as someone who earns money from their labour. It's a pretty simple proposition. Why should a cleaner, a teacher or a nurse be taxed on their income at the marginal tax rate while someone who was an investor or owns an asset pays far less or no tax at all? Keating's system used something called cost-base indexation, which calculates your income by taking the total increase of value of your asset and subtracting the part that could be attributed to inflation. In other words, you only pay tax on the income minus inflation.

In 1999 the Liberal treasurer, Peter Costello, abolished the cost-base indexation and replaced it with a 50 per cent discount on capital gains. This had two major impacts. The first one was on low-yield investments. On one hand, it actually disadvantaged investors in low-yield asset classes. The biggest one of them is apartments. Over two decades from 2002 to 2022, the average apartment appreciated in value by around 4.5 per cent per annum. Over that same period, inflation averaged at 2.8 per cent per annum. That means, if you bought an apartment in 2002 and sold it 20 years later, you would be taxed on 50 per cent of the gain, despite inflation accounting for more than 60 per cent of that gain. In other words, if you had an apartment, you'd be paying about 10 per cent of tax on income that you never really earned. Then there are high-yield investments. On the other hand, the 50 per cent concession created a huge incentive to invest in high-yield assets like houses with land. Over the same period, from 2002 to 2022, house prices appreciated by over six per cent per annum, more than double the inflation rate, meaning investors could bank real gains but only pay tax on a portion of those gains. The result has been so dramatic and, in many cases, catastrophic in our housing market.

In 1993, first home buyers accounted for a larger proportion of housing finance than investors by a margin of two per cent. There were more first home buyers than investors in 1993. By 2018, investors were beating first home buyers by over 25 per cent. Between 1993 and 2018, investors started to dwarf first home buyers. In the same period, homeownership among 25- to 34-year-old Australians fell from 61 per cent to just 43 per cent. We went from the majority of young, hardworking Australians seeking to get a mortgage being able to do so to less than half in just a couple of decades.

The capital gains taxes in the budget are really simple. As of 1 July 2027, the 50 per cent concession will once again be replaced with cost base indexation, but with one exemption. If you are willing to invest in the future of our country by building a new home, you can still choose to access the 50 per cent concession. There's no change to the tax treatment of the family home, which has always been exempt from the capital gains tax. There's no change to the tax treatment of inheritance. The bill does something very simple. It focuses and fixes a system that has completely warped our housing system, which we can no longer leave to future generations to fix. Make no mistake, any member who votes against this tax package will be saying very clearly to future generations that they are unwilling to turn around the homeownership rates in this country.

Our income tax system is based on a pretty simple principle as well. When you spend money on work or to earn money, you should only pay tax on the difference. That's why you can deduct travel, self-education, home office and other work related expenses from your taxable income each year. It makes pretty simple sense. The same applies to real estate. If you've mortgaged an investment property and you're paying monthly interest costs, you can deduct these costs from the rent that you earn. That's also a sensible proposition. However, here's where it gets tricky. Negative gearing is the idea that when monthly interest costs exceed rental earnings—meaning that you're making a loss overall—you can deduct that loss from other unrelated income. In other words, negative gearing has allowed investors to engage in unprofitable ventures they would otherwise not be able to afford simply because it reduces their tax bill. This also has a cumulative effect when combined with the CGT discount. That has resulted in first home buyers not being able to compete with investors.

This bill makes a pretty simple change. From 1 July 2027, you can no longer offset losses from rental properties purchased after budget day against other sources of income—again, with one exception. If you're willing to build a new home and help us build more homes for our country, then you can still negatively gear. It has been argued that negative gearing is essential to maintaining Australia's rental market, and that abolishing negative gearing will force landlords to sell their houses and drastically diminish the rental market. But this simply does not stack up. These changes aren't about getting rid of landlords. Every Australian who is currently negatively gearing will be able to continue to do so. As people pay off their mortgages and the costs of their homes, this will naturally tail off. The expenses that we make each year as part of the budget will be reduced from our negative gearing and capital gains discounts for housing.

I'm conscious that this House has a lot of other speakers that want to contribute to this debate, but let me say this. These decisions are not easy. Not only are the taxes that we have in this bill important for the budget to be able to afford all of the things that we want to be able to do to support Australians who are working hard; it also goes back to that very simple principle. Each and every one of us has people in our electorates that work hard, that work multiple jobs, that are struggling to get by and that are working to support their kids, their family and their community. They are forced to pay the marginal tax rate to live as part of our society. Yet there are other people who are able and who, perhaps because of the advantage of the way in which the economy was set up, were able to accumulate assets and are earning the same amount of money but paying far less tax. That's wrong.

While we absolutely need to work alongside businesses and small businesses, maintain the exemptions, listen to and consult and work with different sectors like the startup sector, my conscience is clear coming into this place. When we look at the data, when we look at the numbers, when we look at the fact that young people all around this country cannot afford to buy their own home—and when they talk about aspiration over there, they are not talking about the majority of young people who are currently locked out of the housing market. Those people are aspirational as well. So it's time we designed a tax system and a tax regime that don't lock them out of the housing market—the single most important asset for most Australians to retire safely. This is a Labor reform, one that we need to get done for the future of our country and for the future of those aspirational young people that I'm proud to represent.

I would note for the House the lack of enthusiasm from the other side talking about this Labor policy—a proud reform of Labor's with zero enthusiasm from those on the other side. They have to stand up and defend this policy that they know is an economy-wrecking policy. The member for Macnamara opposite had five years in Daniel Andrews's office as a senior adviser before coming to this place with no real-world experience when it comes to managing the economy. I mean, Dan Andrews isn't exactly the brains trust of the success of the Victorian economy, with the over $200 billion debt that he left behind—

It's better than the statue!

Yes—the bronze statue that everybody can bow at because he's left Victoria in such a great state! It's absolutely disgraceful. I would also say that the member opposite said that aspiration is wrong in his speech. I'd have to disagree with that because what we see after four years—almost five painful years—of a Labor government is Australia now living under the highest taxing government in our nation's history. Why does this government tax? It's because it's the only way they can keep spending and keep feeding the beast that is their spending addiction and that is putting our country in such a bad position economically.

Of course, these changes to the tax system will—well, who knows what it will do? It will certainly damage our economy. It will damage aspiration. It will damage the significant Australian value of 'if you have a go, you'll get a go'. At a time when Australians are struggling with the cost-of-living, Labor's answer is not relief. It's more taxes. It's more spending. It's more debt. We race towards $1.2 trillion in debt. That is going to cost the next generation $80,000 a minute in interest. How are they going to pay for that? Higher taxes—that's how they're going to pay for that.

This budget is built on broken promise. It's built on toxic taxes, lower living standards and fewer homes. It says it in the budget papers. Fewer homes as a consequence of these changes—35,000 fewer homes. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised on more than 50 occasions not to introduce these taxes. 'My bond is my word,' he said. 'For the 50th time, we are not going to change the rules.' Now here he is, changing his mind. What he said was untrue. What he said to the Australian people was deceitful, because Australians were told one thing, and this prime minister has delivered an entirely different thing. He does not have a mandate to deliver these tax changes.

I come back to my original point, which is, when Labor can't manage their own money, they come after yours. So what do they do? They tax, and they're starting with investment taxes, and what's going to be next? Is it going to be a tax on the family home? Is it going to be a tax on kids' piggy bank savings? Where is this government going to stop when they have to feed the beast with too much spending? What does too much spending do? When people spend too much money into the economy, what does it do? It pushes up CPI, otherwise known as inflation, which is galloping towards five per cent, and who pays when inflation is above the band of between two and three per cent? Who is it that pays? It's all Australians, including and especially young Australians, who have to pay more for their everyday groceries. Rents go up. We know that rents are also in the budget. They're going to go up. Yes, rents will go up and fewer houses will be built as consequences of these changes.

Currently, as your pay goes up with inflation, as I talked about, you can be pushed into higher tax brackets. That is called bracket creep, and that is where the government gets extra revenue from. The only winner is the government, who now take more from you every year without having to change the law. That is why the coalition wants to see tax thresholds indexed to inflation so that Australians can keep more of what they earn. Our plan fully protects 85 per cent of income earners, delivering relief of around $250 in the first year, up to $500 the next year, $750 the year after that and then $1,000 in year 4 back to you. This is this will be a permanent feature of the tax system.

With Labor's plan, they'll give you $250. Let's have a let's have a little think about what inflation—I talked about it galloping towards five per cent, at 4.6 at the moment. What is that going to look like in the following year? Let's just say inflation heads to five per cent, gets there and stays there. That means your $250 that you get every year is going to be worth five per cent less every year, whereas the coalition's policy of a tax-back guarantee will actually go up year on year. I think that is a much better option for the Australian public. What Labor are doing with these changes is sending a very clear message to Australians: work harder, save more, invest wisely, build a business, and the government will take a bigger share. That is the message.

These changes are a war on aspiration. They are an attack on aspirational Australians and on small businesses that are the engine room of our country, the engine room of the Gold Coast economy. Family businesses and those who often have mortgages on their homes to pay for their businesses are the people who work hard to employ other people. This is what they don't get on the other side. If you have fewer small businesses because they can't afford the wages, the electricity bill or their insurance bill, for example, what happens? Those businesses—newsflash for the other side—go broke. When they go broke, who misses out? The people who work for those businesses. What happens? Unemployment goes up, and that's what we're seeing happen with the unemployment rate. It's going up. These changes are an attack on small and family businesses. They're an attack on startups, who now have to pay a 30 per cent tax. They are an attack on investors and on first home buyers.

Let's not forget what will happen. Let's go back to the GFC. What happened during the GFC? The equity of millions of Americans' homes went down. The housing market went backwards. As a consequence, those people who didn't have enough equity in their home were in a position where their house was worth less than what they owed on it. This is what this government is risking for the next generation of Australians, those Australians who have recently bought into the property market. The value of their home is now at risk because of terrible management of the economy by this government. We'll see what happens when that is the position that those aspirational Australians, particularly young couples and young Australians new in the market, are going to face under this government's gross mishandling of the economy.

I want to talk about intergenerational fairness. Previous generations, including mine, were told to work hard, save and invest and you'll get ahead, and young Australians deserve the same opportunity. It's their right to have the same opportunity. Instead, Labor has now moved the goalpost. It's now harder to save for a deposit. It's harder to buy a home. It's harder to invest in shares and build wealth and start a business. It's not intergenerational fairness. It's intergenerational betrayal. There are a lot of young people who buy shares to then make a profit in order to save for a deposit for their home. They now have to pay 30 per cent tax on that windfall. There are a lot of young people who buy a home where they don't live so that they can actually have an investment. They pay rent and live close to mum and dad. On the Gold Coast, this is common. They might buy a home in the regions and rent it out, and that is no longer available to young people where they can buy an existing home and rent it out and have that as a tax deduction. We reject these toxic taxes, and what we will do is repeal them.

I want to talk about small business. Labor wants nearly half the reward of their work, despite taking none of the risk. Small business owners are not just building businesses; they're creating jobs, as I was talking about before. If you tax them, they will close. They are at breaking point right now, and they are so important to our national economy and the local economy, certainly on the Gold Coast and around the country. We want to support businesses, so what we will do if we should come to government is increase the instant asset write-off. We'll increase it to $50,000 a year and make it permanent. Under Labor, it's $20,000 a year. As I recall, when we moved an amendment in this place a few months ago to increase it to $30,000, Labor voted against it. So they want to be seen to be supporting small business, but it's not in their DNA like it is on this side of the House, where many of us, including me, had our first job in a small business. We understand how to run a small business. We've run small businesses. I had my own for 12 years, a consultancy. It's true. I worked as a sole trader. I understand what it is to fill in a BAS. I understand what it is to chase the next job. This is what holds our government up.

So what we want to do is make sure that we have tradies who can invest in their tools, farmers who can buy equipment up to $50,000, cafes upgrading their kitchens—if there are any left by the time this government is done—and small businesses who can invest with confidence. Ninety-eight per cent of Australian businesses are small businesses. When small businesses invest, they grow. When small businesses grow, Australia grows. If you tax something more, you'll get less of it, and this Labor government wants less small businesses in our nation.

I want to talk about debt. It's the next generation who are going to inherit this debt. It's heading towards $1.25 trillion, in fact, and, as I said before, that is going to cost you, as a young person, into the next generations $80,000 every minute just in interest alone. Today's debt is indeed tomorrow's taxes. Government spending does not create productivity or economic growth. It creates inflation that we will all, especially young people, have to pay into the future. We here in the coalition want to restore fiscal responsibility and to ensure real intergenerational fairness through our Future Generations Fund. By banking resource revenue, we can pay down debt and build national infrastructure without passing the burden onto future generations.

In terms of housing, Labor's brought in 1.5 million people while failing to build enough homes. Their own budget papers, as I said before, show 35,000 fewer homes under these tax changes—because, if you tax something, you'll get less of it. You take out the determination that people have to get ahead. If you tax it, it takes all the aspiration out of it. Before young Australians can buy a home, they rent, and Labor's own budget papers admit that rents will rise. Labor's making housing less affordable at every single stage.

What the coalition wants to do is restore common sense to housing and migration by making sure Australia only brings in as many people as it can house. It makes sense. It's just a commonsense approach. If we don't have enough houses for the people who are coming into our country—no matter where they're coming from—then it's not a good position for our country to be in. We need to be able to house our own population before we can house those people coming from other countries.

What we want to do is establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to unlock up to 400,000 homes. That's 400,000 homes with infrastructure—pipes, electricity and that sort of thing—so that we have more houses in the supply chain so that we can house more Australians. What that will look like is that the minister for housing will stand up and give a report on exactly how many houses have been built. There will be a tie to migration—immigration—to make sure that we can actually keep up with demand.

In closing, what I will say is that the Prime Minister said that there will be no more wedges when he came to this place. But he's actually a prevaricator, he's a fabricator, he's a fabulist, he's a mythomaniac and he is a gigantic fibber.

I support this ambitious, responsible and reforming budget. In his second reading speech, the Treasurer described this as 'the most important and ambitious budget in decades', one shaped by global uncertainty but grounded in confidence about Australia's future. That is the right starting point, because this budget is being delivered at a time when the world feels unstable. The global oil shock, rising costs and uncertainty abroad are putting pressure on households here at home. I know, from speaking to people at their doors in my electorate of Hasluck, that people can feel rattled. They are feeling uneasy. Some of them, understandably, are turning to extreme, unhelpful and policy-bereft parties for answers. As the Treasurer made clear, we did not choose these global challenges, but how we respond to them is within our control. This budget chooses to respond with resilience, with reform and, most importantly, with fairness. Nowhere is that more important than in communities all over Australia, like mine in Hasluck. At its heart, this is a Labor budget because it invests in the things that matter most to people's lives, starting with health care.

The Treasurer made clear that there is more Medicare in this budget, alongside record investments in hospitals and cheaper medicines. Behind those national figures are real stories in local communities. In Hasluck, families rely on our public hospital care and on the primary care that is close to home. When a parent in Ellenbrook needs urgent care for a sick child or when an older resident in Bassendean is managing a chronic condition, what matters is not abstract policy but whether they can see a doctor quickly, afford their medication and avoid a trip to an already crowded emergency department.

The continued rollout and permanent funding of Medicare urgent care clinics is making a real difference. I can now stand anywhere in my electorate and be less than half an hour from a Medicare urgent care clinic, with clinics at Rudloc Road in Morley, North Street in Midland and, now, on Coolamon Boulevard in Ellenbrook. These don't just take the pressure off the local emergency department in Midland; they give the people of Hasluck peace of mind and alternatives to assist them, their children and their loved ones quickly and safely.

The fact that the only card you need is your Medicare card means that no-one needs to worry about whether they can afford the health care they or their children need. Medicare is a legacy Labor program, an institution that embodies the Aussies' fair go in health. The Albanese government's investments in Medicare since 2022 have seen bulk-billing rates rise significantly across the country, and Hasluck is no exception. The national bulk-billing rate for the January-May quarter this year was 81.9 per cent, an increase of 4.6 per cent on the same period just a year ago. And what does this mean? It means that accessing the doctor is easier in a cost-of-living crisis, and it means that people in South Guildford and Brabham and Brigadoon who need to see a doctor are seeing a doctor, not putting it off because times are tight. This is not just a statistic. This is a policy success, and I commend the government and Minister Butler for their commitment and their delivery.

Another legacy Labor program is the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The PBS was a child of the Chifley government and part of that government's vision of a fairer society that has become a cornerstone of Australian universal health care. The Albanese government has directly reduced out-of-pocket healthcare costs for tens of thousands of people in Hasluck and for millions of Australians by implementing the largest cuts and reforms in the 78-year history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. When people in my electorate fill a prescription now, they find the maximum cost capped at $25. If they have a concession, then they find the maximum cost capped at $7.70, and that is now locked in until 2030. And most of them don't need to visit the doctor to get a script or the pharmacy to fill it as often as they did before, because we introduced 60-day scripts. My constituents and millions around the country are saving time, energy, money and bother because of that reform, which kicked in in 2023.

But remember the palaver from those opposite over that change. The coalition had been advised to bring in 60-day scripts in 2018, but the pharmacy industry got in their ear, and they folded. When we took up the recommendation, the Liberals and the Nationals saw an opportunity to score a few points. They wheeled out all sorts of reasons why the sun wouldn't shine in the morning if we made that change. They played to the gallery and they were wrong. Life went on, and, for millions of Australians—including, no doubt, some members opposite—life was changed for the better.

Cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing and Medicare urgent care clinics—all reducing costs, reducing stress and making people healthier right across Hasluck.

If there's one issue raised with me more than any other, it's housing. My electorate is quite unusual. I have one of the growth corridors that are really driving new investments in housing. People in Brabham, in Dayton and all the way through to Ellenbrook are generally in a lot of new housing estates, but there are a lot of other suburbs surrounding them—Aranda, Caversham and Beechboro—where there are more established homes, and people are struggling to afford to buy into those suburbs. Young people are wondering whether they will ever be able to afford a home in the communities that they grew up in.

The Treasurer did not shy away from this challenge. He described Australia's housing challenge as longstanding and acknowledged the pressures it is placing on young workers and families, and this budget responds with seriousness. It lifts total investment in housing to record levels, and focuses on increasing supply, because, without more homes, the problem does not get easier. This investment is enabling infrastructure. The roads, the power and the essential services are the very things that have enabled the growth corridor in my electorate of Hasluck to be so successful, particularly for the growing areas around Ellenbrook and the Swan valley, where new housing developments are dependent upon the infrastructure being put in place. The reforms to support first home buyers matter deeply because, for many people in Hasluck, the issue's not just saving the deposit; it is competing in a market that's been stacked against them. This budget begins to rebalance that. It does not promise an overnight fix, but it does take responsible steps to make housing more accessible, more affordable and more attainable over time.

Of course, the Liberals caused the unsustainable problems with capital gains tax and negative gearing, and there's no way in the world they were ever going to fix them. In the tradition of 'I'm alright, Jack', they would have let the situation continue until it broke irrevocably. But the Labor Party knows that good policy doesn't just happen. Good policy is built on principles, and it builds on its own success. When we on this side talk about a fair go, we mean a fair go for everyone, not just those born with a silver spoon in their mouths or those who manage to become best buddies with a billionaire. Because if we look at what we've achieved so far, which is a better deal for ordinary Australians in housing and health care, jobs and wages, and education, it is well worth while to ask how much of it would simply not exist under a coalition government run by the member for Hume and Senator Hanson, both of whom have opposed all of these policies and continue to oppose them. The Liberal-National-One Nation three-headed dog is no friend of Australian workers.

There's much more to talk about on education, jobs and skills, and training, because we've made so many more investments in fields where we've got pathways for paid placements through university. We've got free TAFE. We know that that is taking the pressure off homes where people are looking to upskill, re-skill or gain an education beyond school, which is now also fully resource funded. But I want to bring my thoughts to a conclusion around this. This is a budget that is shaped by difficult global circumstances but guided by clear values. It is about resilience in the face of uncertainty. It is about reform where reform is needed and it is about ensuring that fairness remains at the centre of our economic choices. For Hasluck, that means practical outcomes, better access to health care for families in Midland, Lockridge and Ellenbrook, stronger educational opportunities for students in our local schools, secure jobs and growing businesses in Hazelmere and Bayswater, and a more realistic pathway to homeownership for the next generation.

This is not a budget that chooses the easy path. As the Treasurer put it, it is about choosing the hard road of reforms while supporting Australians through difficult times. I commend the bill to the House.

I want to start out by shouting out some school students we have here watching. It's always exciting to see them here, because the decisions we make in this place very much impact the prospects and opportunities they will have in their life as they grow up. And while many young people too often think they're not interested in politics, I always remind them: if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. Decisions will be made that impact your life, and whether you like politics or not, it is in your life. We make the decisions and the laws that, ultimately, will shape their opportunities, and that is very relevant for the debate we have today in relation to these bills to give effect to the government's budget.

Some aspects I support, but for some I am really deeply frustrated that we are in the situation we're in. Australia needs serious tax reform. We need a system that is fairer and more efficient, that rewards work, that improves housing affordability, and that also supports productivity and ensures the burden of fiscal repair is shared fairly. But good reform is not just about the policy objective; it is also about the process, about how you get there and how you bring the community along, the consultation that you engage in with communities, with business, with all the sectors. Unfortunately, the process the government has followed here in this instance is just not good enough.

This is a substantial bill. It contains really important and significant reforms, some very much needed, but it also bundles together several very different measures, and measures that do not have social and social licence or support at this stage. Some have broad community support and clear policy rationales; others are complex, contentious and far-reaching, and the government still cannot articulate exactly what will be the unintended consequences, what will be the scale or the reach of these measures, who will be caught by them, where the carve-out will be, or what the definitions of who this applies to will be.

The government is asking this parliament to pass major economic reform without providing the modelling, the evidence, the consultation needed to understand its full impact, or the clear information about how small business will be defined, what carve-outs are going to be negotiated or who will be impacted in the end. That is not how you make significant tax reform that lasts or that has social licence and consensus. That's why it is so incredibly frustrating when I look at the debate in relation to this reform. I know major tax reform requires transparency and scrutiny. It requires courage and it requires bringing the community along. Instead, what the government has chosen to do is package housing reform, cost-of-living measures, capital gains tax changes, trust taxation and small-business impacts into one omnibus bill. From many members of government, we're hearing that the justifications for this are fairness and affordability of property. But this bill goes way beyond that, and the public isn't buying it. They're not accepting that this is just about making property and homeownership more achievable. That's why the course the government has chosen to take in relation to this is so incredibly frustrating.

In particular, as members in this place, we can't really do our job of scrutinising this legislation properly. The time for the debate in relation to this bill has been inadequate. The consultation and the refusal to have it properly investigated at committee are all major issues. There are some parts I very much support and welcome. Prior to the last election I went to my community supporting winding back capital gains when it came to property and investors. There was a strong case there. I was frustrated when the government and in fact the Prime Minister made repeated promises it wouldn't touch it, because ultimately these are areas that need changing. We have to pull the demand-side levers as well as the supply levers when it comes to property pricing.

Again, it just goes to show the political manoeuvring and the disappointment; you're bundling together all the various aspects of this legislation and these reforms on a vague promise: 'She'll be right. We will work out the details later; just trust us.' That's just not good enough for the majority of the Australian people. And it's not good enough for me, because I take seriously my responsibility to the people of Warringah to ensure that the legislation has the detail and that I have the details before me when I make a decision to support legislation or not.

So let's unpack what is in this legislation and why it's so frustrating, because there are clear groups that are frustrating. As I said, the detail we have so far is not good enough for me, but it's also not good enough for the majority of the people from Warringah who have contacted my office. There are clear groups of people really frustrated and disappointed with the government. They want change to capital gains tax in relation to property investors. They want affordability, so first home owners can have a fair shot and not compete with investors.

But they also want to have an opportunity for aspiration. They want an opportunity, after they have worked their day job, been paid their wages and contributed. If they are going to take risks, invest, try and raise our productivity and build a buffer through investment, shares, a small business or a startup, they want to know that those risks that they are prepared to take can be rewarded. Essentially what the government is saying is: 'We will put everyone on an equal par. It doesn't matter if you're just prepared to shop for a job or take risks and not be paid for years as you invest into an opportunity; you will all be treated the same way.' That is not how we grow productivity. That is not how we encourage investment. It is not how we are going to make the best of Australia going forward.

In relation to what the bill actually does, it has the four key elements of the government's tax reform package. Schedule 1, which is the most contentious, makes significant changes to capital gains tax arrangements. It replaces the existing 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with a return to cost-base indexation and introduces a 30 per cent minimum tax rate on real capital gains from 1 July 2027. I have serious concerns about the breadth of schedule 1, and I'll return to that. But I have to say up front that the whole indexation model is confusing. The public does not understand it, and you are not taking the community on board with you on that.

Schedule 2 limits negative gearing for residential property investments to new builds. This reform, I would argue, has broad community support. Under the current system, investors can deduct losses from property investments against their income while later benefiting from discounted capital gains. That combination has helped push prices up, and it made it harder for first home buyers to compete against property investors. Although, people who bought properties before May 2026 will keep the existing rules. It's been really clear with the community that they can essentially bank those profits, the gains they have made. It is simply setting a line in the sand to say that, moving forward, the opportunity for property investment will be and those advantages will be around new builds, which will then help boost supply. These are good things.

This part of the bill is targeted, as it applies to residential property. It maintains incentives for new housing supply, and, importantly, existing investment decisions are protected through those transitional arrangements. In simple terms, this does not abolish negative gearing entirely, it just redirects it away from established homes towards new housing supply. Schedule 3 introduces the working Australians tax offset, providing $250 for working Australian taxpayers. At a time when households are under enormous cost-of-living pressure, any additional support is welcome, but let's be honest: $250 a year, in a year's time, will not make a meaningful difference to many households facing rising mortgage repayments, rents, insurance, groceries, energy and healthcare costs right now.

Schedule 4 introduces a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses. This is a practical measure that will simplify tax time for some Australians, but, again, let's be clear: if you're already claiming deductions greater than $1,000, it's business as usual and the situation hasn't changed. This instant tax deduction allows eligible taxpayers to claim up to $1,000 of work related expenses without itemising and substantiating every claim, so, yes, this will reduce complexity. It's welcome. Workers with straightforward deductions should not have to navigate unnecessary administration, but, again, this has been packaged as some phenomenal cost-of-living relief, when, for many people, it will have little or no financial impact because this will all be in 12 months time.

More importantly, this bill provides no meaningful relief for those in our communities doing it the toughest. ACOSS has highlighted that more than four million people on the lowest incomes, including people receiving JobSeeker, pensioners and single parents without paid work, will not benefit from these tax measures. JobSeeker remains around $409 per week—less than half the minimum wage—while housing, food and essential costs continue to rise. I've raised this with the Treasurer.

The irony is that we are in the second year of the second term of a Labor government. The government has only raised JobSeeker once, in 2023. It was a minimal change with a promise of more to come, and, yet, here we are, three years later, with nothing in this budget for the most vulnerable. This is not just a welfare issue. It's a dignity issue and it's also a workforce participation issue. When people cannot afford to secure housing, transport, health care or basic necessities, it becomes harder, not easier, to get back into employment. A strong economy is one where everyone has the opportunity to participate. This bill does not meet that test.

The most significant part of this bill is schedule 1, which makes broad changes to capital gains tax arrangements. Currently, individuals, trusts and partnerships usually receive a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount if they hold an asset for more than 12 months. With this change, the discount would be replaced with a minimum 30 per cent tax rate indexed to inflation. The family home remains exempt from these changes, and so will new builds. I want to be very clear: I support reforming capital gains tax settings when it comes to investment property. For too long, Australia's housing system has been distorted by tax settings that favour those who already own assets over those trying to buy their first home.

In Warringah, I hear about it every day. Young people who grew up locally are wondering whether they will ever be able to afford to live in the community they call home. Parents and grandparents tell me they have benefited from rising property values, but they are deeply concerned about what this means for their children and grandchildren. Many people who have done well from the current system recognise it is no longer delivering fairness. The combination of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions has encouraged investment in existing housing rather than the new supply Australia desperately needs. Housing should ultimately be about creating a home, not simply a vehicle for investment or tax advantage.

I commend the government for being willing to tackle an area of reform that has been politically difficult for decades, but what you've done is bundle this with other issues that you don't have social licence for. Schedule 1 goes much further than just property, and that's where it falls apart. Schedule 1 extends these changes across shares, managed funds, ETFs, business equity, trusts and other capital assets. I've heard from young professionals, small-business owners, startups, founders and families who feel completely blindsided by these changes. One constituent told me she and her partner have done everything they were told to do. They've studied. They've worked hard. They've got big HECS debts. They've built careers. They've borrowed responsibility within their means. They have good incomes. But, between high housing costs, bills and everyday expenses, they still feel like they are barely getting ahead. That is their aspiration, which the government is whacking with this bill. They're not wealthy investors living off passive income; they're working Australians trying to build some financial security, a buffer. For many young Australians who cannot get into the property market, investing in shares, ETFs or startups has become one of the few pathways available to them to build that nest egg, that economic buffer.

The government says this is about intergenerational fairness. Well, intergenerational fairness is not achieved by making housing slightly fairer while reducing other pathways for young Australians to save, invest, build businesses and create financial security. We must be careful that, in trying to fix one unfairness, we're not creating another. If the target is speculative investment in existing housing, then target that. Do not drag productive investment, modest savings, employee equity and startup capital into the same net without clear evidence and information and modelling around unintended consequences. That is the central problem with this bill.

Small and medium businesses in Warringah have raised similar concerns. Shares, startups and business equity are not the same as passive property investment. For many entrepreneurs, early employees and investors, capital gains are the reward for taking risk, building a business, accepting lower wages and backing innovation. There can be years of no dividend from an investment, and the government now, by saying that it should all be treated in a flat way, is not recognising the risk and the years of delay that go into being an entrepreneur. These are not multinational corporations with large balance sheets. They are often local employers and family businesses who have spent decades building something. COSBOA have raised their concern around the definition of 'small business', and I hear from the government that there are negotiations. But, again, here we are being asked to vote on legislation when we don't know where it's actually going to land, who is going to be carved out or where the definition of 'small business' will be. There are so many issues, and then we have the impact on trusts. Some 370,000 small and family businesses operate through trusts, yet we don't have clear visibility.

There is not enough time to raise all the concerns with this bill, but I move the amendment as circulated in my name so that more investigation into this legislation can occur:

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

"notes that:

(1) the Government's capital gains tax reforms should be limited to investment property;

(2) proposed changes affecting business assets, shares, exchange traded funds and trusts should be referred to a parliamentary committee for proper scrutiny before proceeding;

(3) an inquiry should examine the potential unintended consequences of the proposed changes, including impacts on small business, young investors, productivity, risk-taking and household financial resilience; and

(4) the Government should consider targeted exemptions or thresholds for modest share investors, so younger Australians are not penalised for using shares and exchange traded funds to build financial security outside the property market".

( ):  Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Today I want to talk about ambition. I want to talk about the ambition of young people and of families not only in my electorate but across this nation. When you talk to young people and families—Australians—what they will tell you is that they are ambitious to own a home. What they will tell you is that they are ambitious to open the front door to that first house where they can plan their family, raise their young ones and set up for their future. What they are ambitious for is that great Australian dream of having the keys to a place that they can call their own, and can I say that on this side of the House we are ambitious for them and for that dream.

It's no secret that young people are facing many interconnected challenges as they build their careers, as they build their families and as they build their lives, from insecurity surrounding the rapidly changing job market to anxiety about climate change. Many young people describe their prospects as less certain and less secure—certainly in comparison to their parents at the same age. Young people aren't immune from cost-of-living pressures. They're forking out more for groceries, fuel and bills, making it harder to save for those big life steps like buying a home.

As we know, one of the biggest challenges facing this group is housing, whether it's renting or wanting to buy a home. Accessing a rental property can be tough, with high demand, low vacancy rates and increasing rental payments. But buying a home often isn't an option—often isn't seen as a possibility—and many young people end up staying at home with mum and dad for much longer. That's why this isn't a challenge just for young people; it's one for mums and dads who are worried that their kids will never achieve what they were able to.

House prices have risen so much faster than wages over recent years. Since 1999, house prices have grown at more than twice the pace of average full-time wages, and homeownership among those aged 25 to 34 dropped by seven percentage points in the first 20 years of this century. The Reserve Bank recently released research which indicated that, 25 years ago, people younger than 40 made up 35 per cent of property investors, and, by 2023, this had fallen by about 20 per cent, while investors over the age of 60 had increased dramatically, from 12 per cent in 2000 to 28 per cent by 2023.

These figures highlight that, for many young people, that great Australian dream of owning your own home feels exactly like that—a dream; a fantasy; something intangible. For many, it's certainly not a goal that's achievable in the short term, and, for many, not in the long term either. That is something that, in this country, must change. And that is what this bill is all about.

Let's be very frank: the current situation is a bleak outlook for many young Australians. But that's one of the reasons why I am so incredibly proud of this 2026-27 budget. This budget says: enough is enough. This budget says: enough of the intergenerational unfairness making it difficult for young people to get ahead financially and to get into the housing market.

I know it's resonating with young people on the south side of Brisbane in my electorate. Will, from Coopers Plains, told us:

I'm happy about the changes because it means that I will be competing less with investors when I buy my first home.

It means I'm able to get into the market sooner and have the same opportunities that my parents had …

Amity, from Moorooka, agreed. They said:

As a young person who is worried about affording to move out of my parents' house, affording rent let alone buying a house is a big worry for me. The changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will make owning my own home a possibility.

And Will and Amity are not alone. There are so many Wills and so many Amitys who are relying on these bills to make sure that that dream can be realised once again.

So let's talk a little bit more about these changes and how they're not only giving young people hope, but will lead to more homeownership. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 implement part of what is the most significant housing reform and investment in Australia in more than 25 years. Schedules 1 and 2 concern negative gearing and capital gains tax changes, and the reforms go to improving homeownership prospects for our young Australians. A key aspect is limiting negative gearing—a tax benefit that allows investors to offset property losses against their income—by making it apply to newly-built homes only. This change is intended to shift investor demand away from existing homes and towards new housing supply, increasing the number of dwellings available.

We've talked a lot about 40 years of not building enough supply. We've talked a lot about making sure that we're getting more tradespeople into trades: more chippies, more sparkies—more people who can build the homes of the future. We're investing in an ambitious target to build more homes and to build more social and affordable homes. This is another arrow in the quiver to make sure that we are driving supply in the housing market, because it means that, if you're trying to invest in yourself, when it comes to negative gearing, you're also investing in us: you're investing in your neighbours; you're investing in Will and Amity; you're investing in our nation—and that's what is important when it comes to supply.

The change is intended to shift that domestic demand away, and, by encouraging construction, the policy aims to ease competition between investors and first home buyers in the established housing market. We've already heard the stories. We've heard the stories of young people going to auctions. We've heard the stories of people being able to bid on their first home and get a bid through. It's got a real face, it's got a real impact, and it's already happening. Importantly, these changes are grandfathered, meaning that current investors can continue their existing arrangements, reducing disruption. The government is also reforming CGT by replacing that flat 50 per cent discount with a system based on indexing gains to inflation, alongside the minimum tax rate. This ensures that investors are taxed only in their real inflation adjusted gains, rather than paper profits. The reform is intended to return CGT to its original purpose and remove distortions that have encouraged speculative investment in property over assets.

By reducing those tax incentives that favour speculation and increasing incentives to build, the reforms are expected to improve housing supply and to improve affordability. Over time this is expected to support around 75,000 additional Australians entering homeownership. That's 75,000 real, everyday people who can get into that first home. Overall, the combined effect of these policies is to create a fairer and more balanced housing market, where investment contributes to increasing supply rather than making existing homes less affordable.

These bills also implement the working Australians tax offset and an instant $1,000 standard tax deduction through schedules 3 and 4. The WATO for individuals earning income from work will begin in the 2027-28 financial year. This offset will deliver a tax reduction to around 13.3 million working Australians, and it's a measure designed to help workers retain more earnings, to provide targeted cost-of-living relief and to encourage greater participation in our workforce. The $250 offset effectively increases the tax-free threshold for workers to $19,985, or up to $24,985 for those eligible for the low-income tax offset. Millennials and gen Z are expected to make up around two-thirds of those who benefit, making this a targeted initiative to support younger generations in getting ahead. Importantly, this is a permanent structural reform, not a temporary measure.

These reforms are designed to create a tax system that is more efficient, more equitable and easier to navigate, because, when a taxation system means that a nurse working shift work, a copper on the beat or a person looking after our youngest or our oldest Australians is paying more tax on their wages earned than someone earning from assets, it means the system is broken. This government and these bills are here to fix it.

No-one voted for these taxes. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised more than 50 times he would not introduce them, yet here we are. The Albanese Labor government's budget changes to the capital gains tax and negative gearing demonstrate their inclination to tax ambition first and justify later. This is a budget of broken promises that takes a wrecking ball to the Australian dream and pulls the ladder of opportunity up on the next generation. Labor is reaching deeper into the pockets of millions of hardworking Australians because it cannot manage the nation's finances. The Albanese Labor government has won an award for something, though. It is now the highest taxing government in Australian history. Well done!

The budget locks in $50 billion in higher taxes, and the Prime Minister has now confirmed $273 billion in taxes Australians never voted for. Debt is heading towards $1.25 trillion. The interest bill is running at around $80,000 a minute, and today's debt is tomorrow's tax bill, a bill handed to the next generation.

The Albanese Labor government is selling this as 'intergenerational fairness', as if it is something to be proud of. It's not intergenerational fairness; it is intergenerational fraud. There is nothing fair about making young Australians pay for the consequences of government failure. Every element of this package targets aspiration It targets Australians trying to get ahead—the self-starters, the risk-takers and the people building businesses, saving deposits and investing for the future. It's as if Labor thinks that we just 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 that and they were not elected. At the 2022 election they stayed quiet. The Prime Minister preached to all Australians that he was a man of his word, that his word was 'his bond' and that there were 'no taxes to see here'. At the 2025 election the Prime Minister repeated this promise more than 50 times and said that an Albanese Labor government would not impose changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. Fast forward to 2026 and the Prime Minister has done the unthinkable: he has gone back on his word. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer say that times have changed and they need to respond to a changing environment. That's wrong, Prime Minister. You were elected on a promise of no changes to CGT and no changes to negative gearing. Australians will not forget and they will take this as a stark reminder that your word and your bond mean absolutely nothing.

Australians instinctively understand something this government still refuses to learn. If you punish aspiration, people stop aspiring. And when you punish the people who build things—the people who 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.

As of 30 June 2025 there were more than 2.7 million actively trading businesses in Australia. This budget practically taunts them— work harder, risk more, build something extraordinary then pay for daring to dream. What does that do to confidence? What does that do to the apprentice told to dream big only to learn the system punishes dreamers. What does that do to the tradie who's put in a lifetime of work, ready to pass the tools on, only to find the finish line has been pushed further away? Australians aren't asking for special treatment; they're asking for a fair go.

Nowhere is Labor's assault on aspiration more obvious than in housing. The government's own budget papers show 35,000 fewer homes will be built. The Real Estate Institute of Australia's modelling lands in the same place: 33,000 fewer new builds. These two different sources tell one story—fewer homes, higher rents, deeper pain.

The Real Estate Institute of Australia has warned that Labor's CGT changes will worsen housing shortages and push rents even higher. New modelling from the REIA, Master Builders Australia and the Property Council shows the budget's housing measures would push rents up by $9 a week, a 350 per cent increase on the budget's own forecasts; reduce new housing supply by 8,700 homes; cut GDP by $864 million; and cost more than 3,800 construction jobs. When you tax something, you get less of it. That's Economics 101.

In Penrith city, 30.2 per cent of rental households were already paying $450 or more per week at the last census. The average rent is now $600. Regentville had 45 per cent of households paying more than a third of their income on rent. These aren't just numbers; they're people—the single mum working two jobs and watching half her pay disappear on her rent, the young couple delaying having a baby because they can't afford a bigger place, the pensioner skipping heat in winter to keep a roof overhead.

Mortgage stress is rising too. If the Reserve Bank were to lift the cash rate next week, 1.57 million mortgage holders would be pushed into the danger zone, an increase of 104,000. The share of mortgage holders at risk of mortgage stress would rise to 30.7 per cent, edging close to the GFC peak of 35.6 per cent. Casula in Western Sydney has the highest arrears. One in 40 mortgaged homeowners is falling behind. Cambridge Gardens in my electorate is not far behind that.

For young Australians trying to save a deposit, the picture is even bleaker. Labor's five per cent deposit scheme is supposed to help young people into homes sooner, yet families now fear that a single rate rise or even a modest downturn could push them into negative equity. With analysts warning of property dips of up to 10 per cent under this budget, that fear isn't hypothetical; it is a red flag waving furiously. According to the first home buyers dashboard, 2,912 homes have been purchased under the scheme. In my electorate, that's hundreds of families—many of them young, many of them first generation homeowners—now lying awake at night wondering whether the home they fought so hard to buy could be worth less than the debt attached to it.

For many Australians, property is their single biggest financial asset, and most investors are not wealthy—71 per cent own just one investment property; 19 per cent own two. They're everyday Australians trying to build a nest egg, so they don't end up on welfare in retirement, because not everyone understands crypto, not everyone plays the stock market. Many put their faith in something they do understand—bricks and mortar. A small unit in St Marys, an old townhouse in Emu Plains, a modest investment property in Werrington Downs is something solid, something they can touch. In Lindsay the latest available ATO data showed 5,511 people made a net rent profit, which is just 13.1 per cent of taxpayers in Lindsay, and almost 60 per cent made a net rent loss. In other words, 7.8 per cent of all taxpayers in Lindsay negatively geared a property. They are Australians who saved, sacrificed and planned for their future, and right now they feel like the one thing they built is being taken away from them.

According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, one-third of family businesses will pass to the next generation in the next five years, but Labor's CGT changes threaten to turn that handover into a financial ambush. The government insists small business is protected, but business groups warn 200,000 growing businesses could lose access to key concessions. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has urged the government to rethink its approach, arguing investment in business should never be penalised. At a recent small-business roundtable in Lindsay I heard the frustration and the anger firsthand. There was a real sense of deflation in the room, a feeling that, no matter how hard people work, the goalposts just keep being moved. A theme emerged: what's the point?

CGT was the proverbial bull in the China shop. Australians are being punished for inflation they did not create. Every time prices rise, the government takes a little more. Every time wages merely keep pace with inflation, the taxman reaches in as if Australians are suddenly richer, and they're not. Under Labor, bracket creep has become a stealth tax on aspiration—a quiet, relentless stealing of household budgets year after year without a single vote being cast.

The coalition will end it. We will introduce a tax-back guarantee, a safeguard to ensure Australians are never taxed more simply because prices have gone up. Under our plan, when inflation rises, tax thresholds will rise with it. Your pay packet will no longer be raided just because of the cost of living. From 2028 to 2029, we will index the bottom two income tax thresholds to inflation, protecting 85 per cent of income earners and delivering around $250 in the first year, growing to more than $1,000 by year four. From 2031 to 2032, we will index the top two thresholds as well, delivering immediate relief of $1,250 to $1,600. This is not a temporary fix. This is structural reform—true generational reform—that restores honesty to the tax system and fairness to the Australian worker. It is because Australians should not be punished for keeping up; they should be rewarded for getting ahead.

As if taxing aspiration in life weren't enough, Labor is now taxing aspiration in death too. The Albanese government hid a 30 per cent death tax in their budget papers like an Easter egg, deliberately buried, hoping no-one would find it. When the Prime Minister was asked in question time to rule out a death tax, he just wouldn't. We know why he couldn't rule it out—because he had already introduced one buried in the fine print he hoped Australians wouldn't read

This is a government that lied more than 50 times before the election about not introducing new taxes on homes, rentals, investments and family savings, and now it's been caught trying to sneak a death tax through on top of it all. The deception is breathtaking. The government calls this intergenerational fairness, but taxing what families pass on to the next generation is not fairness. This is a government inserting itself between grandparents and grandchildren and claiming a cut of a lifetime's worth of sacrifice and saving. The targets are not the wealthy with complex structures and expensive accountants. The targets are the families who saved and sacrificed to have something to pass on, not as a luxury but as an expression of what it means to love your kids. The Prime Minister is fuelling fights over Sunday roasts all over Australia between generations about what will be left and what the taxman has taken. That is not the Australia we want to build. That is the politics of resentment applied to the family dinner table.

Young Australians are already being kneecapped on their rent, on their deposit and on their investment returns, and they now face the prospect of getting nothing at the end of the family line either because the government will take its cut from trusts and estates. A government that taxes aspiration in life and taxes aspiration in death is not a government for the future.

The housing crisis cannot be separated from migration, because supply and demand cannot be separated from reality. Under Labor, Australia has taken 1.4 million people, the population of Adelaide, far more than the homes we have built. With 90,000 more people than planned arriving over the next two years, the government is stoking demand while choking supply. This is not sustainable. This is not responsible. This is certainly not fair on young Australians already struggling to find a place to live. Labor's approach is simple: bring in more people than we can house and then tax away the investment that builds homes.

The coalition will restore common sense. A coalition government will cap net overseas migration each year based on the number of new homes completed. Never again will a government be able to bring in more people than a housing market can support. In the early years, migration will need to be significantly below the cap to allow the housing market to catch up after Labor's record migration wave. We will also establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to unlock up to 400,000 homes by funding essential last-mile infrastructure like water, sewerage, power and access roads, and we will simplify the National Construction Code to cut up to $70,000 off the cost of a new home. This is how you fix a housing crisis. You build more homes, you match migration to capacity and you stop punishing the people who invest in supply.

A country cannot thrive when its government treats aspiration like a taxable offence. A nation cannot grow when its workers are punished for keeping up and when its dreamers are punished for daring to get ahead. Australians deserve a government that backs them, not one that punishes them for just doing their best and for having a dream and aspiration. I'm happy to promise that 50 times because, unlike the Prime Minister, I intend to keep my promise.

If you think about the times in your life that can be milestones for leaping into homeownership, it's getting a full-time job, partnering, starting a family. It's just not possible for the same decisions to be made by today's younger people as it was for my generation. Saving for a deposit takes longer, and we've seen that the price rises in housing mean that, in spite of hard work and saving, homeownership remains out of reach for so many. The data shows us that the likelihood of owning your own home in your 20s or 30s has fallen for each successive generation, and we on this side of the parliament don't believe that that is good enough.

The most recent data shows that just 55 per cent of millennials were homeowners compared with 62 per cent of gen X at the same age in 2006 and 66 per cent of boomers at the same age in 1991. The trajectory of renters is rising, and through the 2030s and 2050s that will continue unless something changes. Australia is moving from the norm of most people owning their own home by the time they retire to one where many will still have a mortgage or not have bought a home ever by that stage of life. That's the scale of the problem that we have in Australia. It's the problem we've been tackling ever since we came to government, after a decade of no action by those opposite.

We've recognised that in the first instance we needed to get supply happening. That meant training workers, and I'm so pleased to see the figures today showing that more than 25,000 Australians have already started an apprenticeship in housing construction in just 10 months, thanks to the Albanese Labor government's $10,000 Key Apprenticeship Program, which provides $10,000 in incentives to new tradies. That program is helping to build a pipeline of skilled tradies in the critically important housing construction sector, ensuring that there are more Australians building more homes in communities across the country, including mine. It's also tackling critical skills shortages that we were left with after the former coalition government left office with shortages at a 50-year high. We've also helped first home buyers with five per cent deposits and Help to Buy, and that has helped more than 1,350 people in Macquarie move from being a renter into their own home.

But what we've done so far is not enough, and I know my community expects me to keep finding solutions for the problems that we face. One of our stated aims in the budget we just brought down was to make it easier for you to buy your first home, and that's what this bill is: a recognition that, as a government, we will continue to do what's best to provide opportunities for secure housing for people. Secure housing is something I was able to do as a matter of course in my 20s, and I think younger generations deserve to be able to make the same choices.

We're reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions so that we level the playing field for first home buyers but grandfathering arrangements for some of the measures, to respect decisions that current investors have made. If you've already negatively geared or own an investment property, you can continue to do so. If investors still want to use negative gearing on additional property in the future, they can do so on new builds, so that their investment goes towards creating more housing supply—more homes for more people. We're replacing the 50 per cent discount with cost-base indexation for gains accrued after 1 July, with a 30 per cent minimum tax.

These changes fix the tax treatment of capital gains so that the system operates as originally intended and helps direct investment to where it's most productive. These changes mean that, in the future, investors aren't taxed on inflationary gains, only their real gains. This is about returning the capital gains tax discount to its original purpose and removing that big distortion introduced by Howard and Costello in 1999—interestingly, the point at which housing took off and housing prices rose dramatically, much faster than people's incomes rose. That was the root of the problem. That distortion, which coincided with house prices increasing much faster than wages, was because the playing field was changed. It was unlevelled, and our job is to level it back.

Property investors who buy new builds will be able to choose either the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount or indexation and the minimum tax when they sell the property. We're applying these changes to capital gains arrangements to all assets to ensure we're not introducing new distortions into the system. This is about reducing distortions, encouraging people to invest in the best possible place for them, and that is not just investing in the housing market through old houses but by building new ones.

If the opposition really cared about this issue, we would have seen it when they were in government, and, clearly, we didn't. But what I've heard in their speeches is very disturbing. They seem to pretend that there is no problem. But listen to the abject despair you hear from people in their 20s, 30s and even 40s, who are saying they do not feel they will ever have the chance to own their own home in spite of holding down good, full-time jobs and having saved. If they haven't heard that message then they are just not listening to young people. What's interesting is that I don't hear it just from young people. I hear it from their mums and dads. I hear it from their grandparents. That is our objective: to address a really fundamental issue and, over time, make it much easier for people to buy their own home.

There's been some comment about the data showing the numbers of people in various electorates who negative gear. I want to give a shout-out to people who have looked at the situation and said that, on balance, what we're doing is the right way ahead. There's Michelle and Andrew, who say: 'We don't have children ourselves, but we worry about all young people struggling to afford life, given the housing crisis, amongst other things. We'd like to say an enormous thankyou for the fantastic changes the Albanese government has made to ending the unfairness of capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing that favours investors over first home buyers.'

Amanda wrote to me that it's unfair to see our children unable to buy a house and watch the wealthy getting wealthier. She said: 'The government's doing the right thing. I'll forever blame John Howard for the mess he made of real estate in Australia.' And Kyle says: 'I'm writing to commend the government's steps in the federal budget to address longstanding distortions in the housing market. These policies have contributed to housing affordability challenges by disproportionately favouring speculative investment over access to secure housing.' This is the playing field that we are levelling.

If the opposition votes against this bill, that's what they're voting against: allowing more young people to get into housing at a reasonable age so that they have a chance of having it paid off by retirement. They're also voting against a tax cut for every working Australian, because the other key feature of this bill is its tax cut. From this next financial year, there's the new instant tax deduction of up to $1,000 every year, which will simplify work related expense deductions, delivering 6.2 million workers an average benefit of an extra $205 in that year. And I should point out that if you want to claim charitable donations, union and professional association membership fees, or other deductions they can still be claimed on top of the instant tax deduction. That's about making things simpler and fairer.

The following year we're introducing the Working Australians Tax Offset, the WATO, providing another ongoing annual tax cut for more than 13 million Australian workers. This measure comes in from 1 July next year and it will be paid automatically in workers' tax returns. The tax cut is on top of the three tax cuts that the government has already legislated. These flow through every tax bracket, meaning that every taxpayer receives these tax cuts. The measure recognises that for most Australians, particularly young people, income comes from work, and the tax system should reflect that. It's deliberately designed to support younger Australians and millennials, with gen Z expected to make up about two-thirds of the beneficiaries, and it is a really practical way to support that generation. This tax package is, across the board, pro-aspiration, pro-worker and pro-investment, and it means we are building a better, fairer, simpler tax system.

One of the all-time classic novels is by HG Wells. It's The Time Machine. He wrote it back in 1895. And I must say, too, that I love the movie, with Rod Taylor, of 1960, and I encourage all government members to watch it. It's got this classic scene. Obviously he's gone forward in time and the world is a different place, with all these humans dressed in white dresses—and the guys all looking great too!—and they're picking up fruit, and it looks like the most amazing utopian place ever.

Then all of a sudden he hears sirens coming from two large doors. The doors open up into a cave underground, and he's trying to stop all the humans from going in there, because obviously he's travelled in time and doesn't know what they're doing. This actually reminds me of Labor's caucus, when they're all just going in there aimlessly. What happens to the humans in the time machine is that they end up being taken prisoner and held as slaves by these underground creatures. Worse still, they end up getting eaten and destroyed. Can I just make the point to the Labor MPs that this is what you are doing now when you're following your prime minister into supporting all these changes, in particular when it comes to trusts and capital gains tax. You are just blindly following the leader, and your seats will be at risk because the devastation is so much so.

I've been here before in my own government side with a budget the community didn't like. Can I just say we spoke up at the time, and the budget was changed. The Labor members will not do that. If you're just going to blindly follow your leader and not listen to your business community and especially all those people who have set up trusts—in every single phone call, I speak to a business person. I ask, 'Have you got to trust?', and they say, 'Yes, I set up the trust was advised by my accountant.' I go back to my time as the minister when it came to multicultural affairs and the shadow minister. Every Indian accountant and every multicultural accountant I know always tells their clients, who, obviously normally due to language barriers, go to their person can also speak the mother tongue, especially if you've got connections overseas—they've advised them to set up trusts. If one of the family members is not working, you can divert the income to them.

Labor, as we know, has changed that, and it's been absolutely rushed through this week. They're going to be hit with a 30 per cent tax, and that is absolutely devastating. When it comes to the capital gains taxes too, no longer are you going to get the 50 per cent discount. I'm speaking to young—I listened to the Labor member before me saying how amazing it is and how it's going to help young people. Can I tell you now the young people I speak to who are trying to get in front have been investing in shares and using that as their home deposit. They're going to be hit in the future, and they're not going to get the same benefit as obviously the Prime Minister and people like myself have received. I've done negative gearing in the past. They're not actually giving the young people a break. You're actually giving them a huge burden, and it's going to really hurt them. The people who benefit the most from Labor's changes when it comes to the negative gearing—it's not going to be mum and dad who's going to say, 'Why don't we actually subdivide our little block and put a couple of townhouses on it?' In my electorate of La Trobe, it's the big land developers who may own 30 or 40 hectares. When they develop those, they're going to be selling those to two groups. It's going to be the investors in there fighting with the first home owners.

The other issue is areas—I've mentioned this before in the Dandenong Ranges—such as Cockatoo, Gembrook and Emerald, there are not many places for rent up there, and there's not much land for redevelopment. There's hardly a block up there that you can actually redevelop. We have green wedge zones, so the land's not there. All those young kids leaving school et cetera and who want to stay close to the parents—there are going to be no places to rent. They have to go down like 30 or 40 minutes away. That will be the closest we're going to actually see.

When we look at this budget, the projected decade of deficits is about $150 billion and gross debt $1.25 trillion. I was first elected under John Howard, and we actually had a final budget with Peter Costello. I think the surplus was like $97 billion. That's completely gone. Annual interest is over $42 billion each year, roughly $80,000 per minute. Higher taxes announced are about $50 billion in total, including $15 billion personal income tax. Government spending is the highest level in 40 years outside the pandemic.

Again, this is putting huge pressure on inflation, with everything going up. I know the Labor treasurer. I like the Treasurer, but he's got this wrong. He and the Prime Minister talk about it being because of the war in Iran and the fuel going up. Well, hang on. We had the highest inflation rates out of any Western economy even before that. The reason is that the government has spent so much money. This has put so much pressure on interest rates, and the Reserve Bank governor has had no discretion but to raise the rates. Also, in the government's own budget papers, it says there will be 35,000 fewer homes built.

And then I come to another one. This has really betrayed our seniors, who over the years have paid for their health insurance. You get the warning—'If you don't get health insurance, you'll be paying extra for your Medicare, and you'll be paying more for it.' So people have chosen to do the right thing. Labor has betrayed Australians that are 65-plus, who after a lifetime of paying health insurance premiums are being hit with major changes in Labor's budget. Labor is removing the private health rebate for people over 65, cutting support purely based on age and not their income. So you get to retirement, and you've been planning this for many years, and they just hit you in the guts. Scrapping the private health rebate means up to $807 extra a year for singles and $1,600 for couples. That's a lot of money if you're a pensioner or retired. Seniors already struggling with rising bills now face another financial hit. Thousands may drop their insurance entirely. Again, what does that mean? It means that for the younger generation their premiums go up. It's as simple as that. More seniors relying on public care means longer waits and more pressure on hospitals, as we know. Again, this hasn't been thought out.

'My word is my bond'—I'll challenge any Labor MP to put that on their next brochure going out to their electorate. I just can't see it happening. That is a slogan that is never going to be used again in Australian history by any member of parliament or by any businessperson. There won't be anyone standing up and going, 'You know what? I promise you—my word is my bond,' because the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has completely destroyed that slogan.

The old rule was a 50 per cent discount on capital gains assets held for 12 months or more. The new rule is that those 50 per cent discounts will be replaced by inflation indexation plus 30 per cent minimum tax on gains applied from 2027. Again, for everyone who has been seeing their accountants for years and taken all this into account, it's going to change. This policy will raise taxes on ordinary Australians and reduce rental supply. Sellers will pay more tax under the new rules than under the old 50 per cent discount, obviously. Not just big investors but small landlords, retirees and long-term owners face higher tax bills. Some investors may sell or drop off buying established homes. I know this is what the government's tactic is. We want the investors to get out of the market, so in actual fact it actually allows the first home buyers to get in. But at the same time too, when it comes to rentals, you need the investors to be there. Most investors in this space are actually mum and dad investors. We're going to talk about the multicultural communities. A lot of these guys have negatively geared properties, and in the future they're not going to be going and buying another one.

At the same time, think about this. If I owned—which I don't—three or four negatively geared properties, even two negatively geared properties, do you think I'll be selling those at the moment? They're like gold dust now because they're going to get the benefit. So people will hold onto those existing ones, and they're not going to go and sell one to go and take the risk of buying an off-the-plan where potentially things can go wrong with builders. If they've got an existing dwelling which is doing well, why would you sell it to go invest elsewhere? So a lot of the investors are going to hold onto those properties. This is what's been told to me by people in the property industry.

Again, when it comes to the capital gains tax, I make the point that for young people in particular it's going to be tough on them when they've been putting money into shares and planning for their future. As I said, Labor is hitting those with deposits when it comes to home deposits and when it comes to shares. I know my electorate has taken up, like many around Australia, the five per cent deposit scheme. What I'm hearing now is that the house value has actually dropped. You can have a bank loan larger than the value of your property. Obviously, in ten years, property prices will increase. But what if that young person in five years time wants to move out and start a family et cetera? The Labor government is hoping that everything lines up for that young person. And if it goes wrong—and I think it's going to go terribly wrong—it's going to put a great burden on them financially.

The other thing which I and so many people are really annoyed about is the trust situation. I mentioned this before. When people go and see their accountant, they're advised, 'You know what, it could be a good idea, for younger people too, for one of the family members—it could be the husband, wife, partner or whoever—if you're not working, to set up a trust where you can distribute any gains.' And yes, of course, it's a way of—how should I say—not paying the tax you normally would. But now, as that money goes into the trust, they're going to be hit by a 30 per cent tax.

What I'm hearing at the moment is that everyone who's got these trusts is going to the accountant and asking what they need to do. And the accountants are at the moment saying, 'Hey, hopefully they will make some changes.' Obviously, it doesn't sound like they're going to. So they're paying the accountant a fee at the moment to get some advice to basically do nothing. Then, after this week, they're going to be paying the accountant for advice on: 'What do I need to do next? Do I need to set up a company? Do I need to get out of the trust?' Like 800,000 people's tax arrangements must change because of this measure. That's 800,000 people in Australia who, at the very worst, on advice from the accountant, will be changing plans which they've put into effect possibly 10 years ago, and they're leading up to retirement, and all these things are going to change.

And this budget is bad for young people. Young people don't feel helped by the budget. Many think they'll be worse off. Labor's changes close the pathway to buying a home and building wealth. Gen X and millennials feel forgotten too. New taxes and housing rules make buying and renting harder and more expensive. More homes won't appear as quickly as the government estimates. In actual fact—I'll go back to the budget papers—that reduction of 35,000 is promised by the government in its own budget papers. Small landlords will exit the system, and it's going to be a devastating time for investment.

An amount of times, the Prime Minister, prior to last election, said, 'My word is my bond.' But, again, on 9 April, when asked about changes to negative gearing and CGT—'How hard is it?' Condescendingly, that's what he says for the 50th time. Again, on 22 April, he said, 'I rule it out. There are no plans.' It was live TV. 'We won't cut the CGT.' In August 2025 he said, 'The only tax policy we implement is the one that we took to the election.' Well, obviously that hasn't happened.

I just finish off by saying, no-one will ever use 'my word is my bond' ever again in Australia, whether in politics or business. I challenge all the Labor members—I see the member for Bruce—to put that on your next brochure: 'My word is my bond.'

I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. The most common refrain that I have heard in my 13 months of being the member for Sturt and engaging my community is this. People say: 'Claire, you've got a majority. When are you going to do something with it?' And, by 'something', people don't mean just delivering the government's agenda. They mean doing something bold, like designing and implementing big and overdue reform. They say to me, 'If you won't do it now, you'll never do it.' They repeatedly ask, 'When are you going to do something?'

Well, the answer is now. We are doing something now. And the measures in this budget represent bold reform. Pursuing bold reform and making tough decisions is what you get from the progressive side of politics. This government is not afraid to make tough decisions, even when it knows that some Australians won't forgive us for it. Some people can't move past goalposts being changed. But, on the progressive side of politics, we recognise that sometimes they need to shift. When nurses, teachers, social workers and early childhood education workers can't afford to buy a house reasonably close to where they live, the goalposts need to shift. When first homebuyers are locked out of the housing market, over and over and over, the goalposts need to shift, because secure housing, for everyone, is everything.

Now, changes and big reform do stir emotions. They bring up genuine human concerns, like a fear of loss or a desire for fairness. And there are, of course, different and divergent beliefs about what fairness actually means and what makes a good and prosperous society. These are perfectly rational questions, and, with the handing down of this budget, we've seen different answers and different approaches to what fairness is and to what makes a good and prosperous society.

On the conservative side, the underlying concern is maintaining the status quo—the belief that sudden change and bold reform carry risks that are easy to underestimate and too hard to undo. Individuality forms the backbone of conservatism, and there are reasons why this must sometimes be prioritised. I believe in the rights of the individual and in personal accountability, and in the right of the individual to aspire to whatever it is they want to aspire to.

But I also believe that progressive politics and progressive policy have a different and important perspective to offer. Those on the conservative side consider that existing structures are always worth preserving, because they've worked for some in the past. Progressivism, on the other hand, examines existing structures and then reforms them—moves them forward. It recognises that what worked in the past does not necessarily work right now and will not necessarily work into the future.

So, in examining and reforming pre-existing structures, progressivism has the following at the front of its mind: justice; the belief in a level playing field; the recognition that inherited disadvantages are not a fiction—they are real—and that there is a responsibility to address them if a just society is to be achieved. Access to quality health care, quality education and secure long-term housing are rights, rather than privileges, for progressives; they are rights for everyone, not just for some. Cohesion, solidarity, fellowship, harmony—this is the underlying claim to progressivism: that we live in a community together and that we are therefore responsible, in a sense, for one another. This means an understanding that, when only some people have the opportunity to embrace aspiration, when only some people have the agency to pursue their aspirations as individuals, and when some people lose the birth lottery and are born into poverty, or sickness, or disability, or something else that prevents them not only from achieving their aspirations but even from starting, this does not reflect a good and prosperous society.

Now, by 'aspiration', I do not mean just becoming wealthy—although that is a perfectly legitimate aspiration. I'm referring to people who aspire to pay for health care; people who aspire to be able to afford to go to university or TAFE; people who aspire to get out of the cycle of renting and who aspire to buy a home. There are, of course, people in Australia who aspire to, and can, buy a third or fourth investment property—and more power to them; that is great. If you can do that, and become self-sufficient, then that is a good thing. But others can't even get off the ground.

So, for my country, I have many different aspirations. I aspire for people to get ahead, to buy property, to build and grow their superannuation, and to set up and then grow and sell businesses. I aspire for Australians who can become wealthy to become wealthy. But my aspiration in this sense is balanced against my aspiration for all Australians to be able to afford to see a doctor; to be able to afford to get a quality education that will set them up; to be able to buy a home of their own—not to create wealth, but to create security for themselves and their families.

So this budget is not a war on aspiration; it is an acknowledgement that aspiration takes many forms and that, in a good and prosperous society, everyone is entitled to aspiration and everyone must contribute to it. That's what this budget seeks to do, and I ask you, Deputy Speaker: Who will do this if this government doesn't? Who will bake in urgent care clinics and make them permanent if we don't? Who, if we don't, will invest in more bulk-billing so Australians who aspire to be able to afford to see a doctor can see a doctor? Who, if we don't, will recognise that housing is unaffordable for first home buyers and implement schemes like the five per cent deposit scheme at the same time as investing $2 billion in enabling works to facilitate the building of more houses? Who, if we don't, will implement free TAFE so Australians can obtain a qualification in a critical trade or area where there are skill shortages? Who will back low-paid workers again and again if we don't? Who, if we don't, will improve the tax incentives for venture capital investors to encourage more investment in Australian startups with growth potential and the flow of more capital into this country? Who, if we don't, will create a framework where 90 per cent of Australian small businesses qualify for an exemption from the capital gains tax? We know the only people who will pursue a just and fair transition to renewable energy and provide opportunities for individual households to obtain the benefit of this through the Cheaper Home Batteries Program are those in this government. Who will do it if we don't?

The budget facilitates these aspirations because it is bold. It is progressive. So, to those in my community who ask me, 'When is your government going to do something?' the answer is, 'Right now.' Examining existing structures and reforming them is what we are doing, and, in doing so, we understand that reforming pre-existing structures requires genuine and meaningful consultation with the business community, which is what we are doing. I again thank those small businesses that I represent in my community of Sturt, who engage with me so constructively on this issue. Being progressive means not standing still or staying the same. So when is this government going to do something? Now. I commend the bill to the House.

The four measures in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 prove that Labor is the party of aspiration. They prove that Labor is the party of fairness. Importantly, Labor is the party of homeownership and Labor is the party of lower income taxes for every working Australian. This bill, which every single Labor member of the House of Representatives is looking forward to voting for tomorrow, delivers a new $250 working Australians tax offset to over 13 million working Australians; a $1,000 instant tax deduction that will benefit around six million low- and middle-income Australians; and reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax that will rebalance the tax system and finally give young people a fair crack at homeownership.

This legislation also demonstrates that Labor is the party of reform. We're not in government just to occupy the space; we're here to get the big things done. At a time when Australians feel like the economy isn't working for them, our government is not going to waste a single moment defending a system that everyone knows is broken, nor are we going to sit back and wring our hands and hope that something will turn up. Instead, we take responsibility. We take action. We are delivering real change that makes a real difference, and that is what is at the centre of this legislation.

Four weeks from now, on 1 July, every single Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut. That will be the second round of tax cuts delivered by our Labor government, with a third round on the way for every taxpayer on 1 July next year. And we're not stopping there. This legislation delivers two more reductions in income tax—a total of five tax cuts for working Australians under our government, delivering a total saving of over $2,800 for average workers. It's fitting that we're legislating for these new tax cuts in a week that confirmed five consecutive increases in the minimum wage, every single one of them backed by our government with submissions to the Fair Work Commission.

Now, those things also have something in common, which is that all of our tax cuts have been opposed by those opposite—all five—and on no occasion in the history of the Liberal and National parties have they ever made a submission to the Fair Work Commission saying that real wages should be maintained, let alone increased—not once, not ever. We on this side of the House want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Those on the opposite side of the House now, with the three right-wing parties and their allies—we saw some of the commentary of the allies this morning—want people to earn less, and they oppose income tax cuts. Five tax cuts plus five wage increases equal millions of Australians benefiting directly from the policies that our government has put in place.

Our new $1,000 instant tax deduction is cost-of-living relief, but it's also economic reform because it means that everyone can opt for an automatic tax deduction of $1,000 on their work expenses—no research needed, no scrolling back through your online banking. Just tick the box and your tax return is ready to go, and you'll receive that deduction. This is a productivity measure that takes away the hassle of tracking your expenses, and it will mean that millions of people who work part time or work from home or don't have their own accountant don't pay more tax than they should. No-one will be worse off under this reform, but nearly six million taxpayers, overwhelmingly low- and middle-income earners and young Australians, will be better off.

The $250 working Australians tax offset is the first important step in rebalancing the tax system to better reward hard work. For too long, Australia has taxed income earnt through wages and work too heavily because we haven't had the balance right with income derived from assets. This legislation recognises a very simple fact—that the overwhelming majority of Australians earn their living by going to work. That's where the income comes from—teachers and nurses and cleaners, police officers, people in retail and hospitality. Millions of Australians who work their guts out to make ends meet and provide for their families have probably never even heard of a discretionary trust, and they will never have the means or the opportunity to use one to minimise the tax that they pay. This legislation makes our tax system work better for these 13 million Australians by returning more of the money that they earn.

At our campaign launch in Perth last year, I quoted from a report that the great Ben Chifley had commissioned as Minister for Post-War Reconstruction. That report said that housing was 'not only the need but the right of every citizen'. Eight decades separate our government from that one, but we are still the party of homeownership. Those values that led the Curtin and Chifley governments in postwar reconstruction—the values of resilience, of making things here in Australia, of aspiration for Australians, going forward—are very much what drive our Labor government. We also understand that when it comes to homeownership a secure roof over your head is a foundation—for better education for your children, for better health for yourself and your family, and for that security that comes from knowing you can have that certainty going forward.

It is also critical for the people we've met already who've benefited from our range of programs—$47 billion under the Homes for Australia Plan—whether it's those who've benefited from the Housing Australia Fund for social housing, those who've benefited from the Build to Rent scheme or Help to Buy, the shared equity scheme, or those who've benefited from our five per cent deposits, which is more than 250,000 Australians. Having that secure roof is also how they can plan to have a family, how couples can plan to get ahead in life.

We understand that our focus has been very much on boosting housing supply. That's why we've spent the past four years working to build more homes, and we've thrown everything at it. We're also throwing everything at the labour market, with free TAFE and $10,000 construction or electrical apprenticeships—all opposed by those opposite—and 100,000 new homes being set aside for first home buyers, the Housing Australia Future Fund. Not only have all these measures been opposed and delayed when they've been introduced into this parliament but also the current parliamentary opposition leader committed, in the budget reply, to getting rid of all those programs. Again, the party that didn't bother to have a housing minister for most of their time in government also still want to get rid of programs that are proving to be very successful.

We know that thousands of Australians have benefited from these programs, but we knew we needed to do more. Despite all those programs, we still were not doing enough, because too many young people will tell the story of turning up to an auction on a Saturday and simply being outbid by an investor, someone who has a partner at that auction—and that partner is every Australian taxpayer, because if an investor is in a bidding war at an auction they know that if they go the $20,000 more then that's money off their tax, if they're going to negatively gear that property. It's something that's not available to the first home buyer.

That's why the system has simply been working against them. The changes the Howard government made to capital gains tax in 1999 were meant to boost investment in the share market. Instead, they turbocharged property investment. Year after year, more and more young Australians were being locked out of the market by tax breaks that favoured property investors, widening the gap between the generations and eating away at aspiration. Since 1999, house prices have risen by more than 400 per cent, more than two times as fast as average incomes. In the same period, the rate of homeownership among Australians aged 25 to 34 has fallen by seven per cent.

We owe the next generation better than this, and that's what these reforms are about. These reforms are for young people who are working hard, are making sacrifices, are doing everything right but have spent years missing out at auctions. These changes are for young Australians who are this close to just giving up on buying a home altogether. We say to those young Australians: my government has got your back. We are on your side and we're going to bring the great Australian dream back within reach. Importantly, when it comes to negative gearing, that concession will still be available for new homes. So, if people want to invest in a property and negatively gear it, good on them. But, from now on, as well as building their own wealth and assets, they'll also be building the wealth and assets of our nation.

Part of what makes Australia the best country on earth is that, in Australia, aspiration isn't exclusive or narrow. It's not just people who are born wealthy. Every Australian aspires to a better life for themselves and importantly a better life for their children and grandchildren. It is not something you can only inherit; it is an opportunity that you can earn, a dream you can achieve with hard work and sacrifice. That is the Australian aspiration we're proud to be backing with these reforms—aspiration for all Australians, not just for some; a society and economy that's stronger and fairer, stronger because it is fairer; and a nation that is more resilient—because more Australians have a stake in the economy and a stake in the future. That's what drives our Labor government. That's the real change that we are delivering. That's why I'm proud to join with every single member of the Labor government in commending these bills to the House.

Debate interrupted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Wannon moving the following motion immediately:

That this House requires that 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 be put until such time as every government Member has spoken during the second reading debate.

If it's good enough for the Prime Minister to speak on his budget of broken promises, it's good enough for every single member here to do the same. Oh, you're going to gag again! What's the problem with your budget of broken promises? Why won't you—

I move:

That the question be now put.

Just before we get to that stage, the proper process will be followed. We need for Mr Tehan's motion to be seconded so that question can be put.

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I move:

That government business order of the day No. 1 be brought on immediately.

We're still technically in this business. You can't bring it on when we're dealing with this item, because we're in the middle of the bill. I'm going to state the question. Then, if the House wishes to be dealing with this item—that the question be put—that's what we'll have to deal with, if that's the will of the House, if that's what members wish to do.

Just so it's clear—

The motion has been moved for the suspension. It has been seconded. There is a live motion before the House. The manager is entitled to move the suspension at any time. So members know, the suspension is before the House because the manager would like to do something to interrupt the House. That's why he'll need an absolute majority for that to occur.

That's okay. It's now been formally seconded by the Chief Opposition Whip. So we're at that stage now where it's before the House.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Well, technically it goes—

Honourable members interjecting—

I'll ask the manager to resume his seat. I've explained to the House what's happened so everyone understands. I'll give the call to the minister if he wishes to take action.

Just so we understand and the minister understands, the Prime Minister was there to speak on it, so we want all of you to speak on it, because if it's good enough for the Prime Minister, we'd like all of you to be able to speak on it. We do. We want you on the record on this budget of broken promises.

You've made your point, and it's crystal clear before the House where we're at. I give the call to the assistant minister.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The question is the debate be adjourned.

What an absolute debacle. We just saw the Manager of Opposition Business come into this place and move a motion that compelled every senior minister, every member of Labor on the other side of the chamber, to speak to this bill—so that they owned it—and he was gagged. He was voted down. He was told that is not going to happen under a Labor government. I find that procedure in the House absolutely appalling. Nevertheless, I acknowledge and compliment the Manager of Opposition Business for the work that he has done.

I want to associate myself with this bill with my colleagues from the LNP—the Liberal-National Party—who have made contributions, and I want to be really clear, for the people of Australia, on what our position is when it comes to this bill. This bill has four schedules. The first schedule introduces changes to the capital gains tax regime. Schedule 2 introduces changes to the negative gearing regime. Schedule 3 introduces a working Australian tax offset. Schedule 4 introduces a $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses. The coalition oppose schedules 1 and 2, and we support schedule 3 and 4. The reason I'm coming in and I'm making sure that this is on the record—and I'm looking straight down the camera when I make these pledges—is that we will support schedules 3 and 4, the schedules that reward hardworking Australians. But what we cannot do is support the changes that were articulated to negative gearing and the capital gains regime.

They were not road tested with the Australian public. The way our system works, the way democracy works, is that you go to the Australian public at an election and you campaign on the issues that you believe in. You campaign to convince the Australian public that you have the greater policy platform. I share with those in the chamber that that courtesy was not extended to the Australian public on these measures. Previous Labor governments, such as under previous leader Bill Shorten, did that. They took these measures to the Australian public, and the Australian public overwhelmingly said, 'We do not support those measures,' and as a result his leadership finished. So the Australian public is right to be suspicious. The Australian public is right to be cautious about a leader who says, for the 50th time, 'We're not going to touch capital gains,' and then the government delivers a budget that does exactly that. That is deceitful. That is taking the Australian public for mugs.

My job here today as a member of the opposition is to get it on the record that we will support parts of this. The way we will support that is that, when it comes to voting on this bill, the Manager of Opposition Business will walk in and he will ask for the bill to be separated so we can vote with the government on schedules 3 and 4. But do you think they will support us? Do you think they will let us split the bill? That doesn't suit their clandestine ruse. They will not support that. The reason we want to split the bill is so that we can show our support to the Australian public and take these principles to an election.

I'm really concerned about the number of government members who have come in and spoken to their talking points but have mentioned nothing—I have heard zero—in the way of an apology to the Australian public for betraying their confidence—for saying one thing before an election and doing completely the opposite afterwards. We will hold this appalling government to account. Labor says that this is good policy. If they believe that it is good policy, that's great. That is within their right. That is within their purview. If it is so good, test it with the Australian public. Let them be the deciders of that. MPs gave lectures on ambition during this debate. None spoke of honesty. None spoke of transparency. None spoke of integrity.

I have heard the Treasurer and the Prime Minister during this debate and prior to it speak on these issues and acknowledge that there will be collateral damage. They know there will be political collateral damage as a result of what they are doing—the way they are handling this. I ponder what collateral damage looks like. What does political collateral damage look like? Is it the new members on that other side and those members on low margins that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are prepared, as collateral damage, to cluster up and lose because of the strong majority that the government has? Is the sense of hubris and arrogance now so awful on the other side of this parliament—it's shameful—that they are now openly talking about political collateral damage? I fear for our country.

It's not my intention to hold the House up. I didn't want to speak other than get on the record the coalition's support for schedule 3 and 4. What I will be doing is making sure that Australians in my electorate get extracts of our support for those schedules. Then I will cut, when we bring to the House for the bills to be separated, that those on the other side may or may not support it. My instinct is that they will not support the measures to separate the bills, but I would counsel those who, on the other side, are potentially political collateral damage that, if they want to save themselves, when we bring the motion to the House to separate the bill, they should consider supporting us and consider walking across the chamber and saying, 'If they're going to support parts of the bill that we like'—guess what? This has all being broadcasted. You're not going to be able to walk back on this. This coalition will keep hammering today the fact that you did not road test this with the Australian public and that you did not seek a mandate on these issues. In fact, it was quite the opposite. The government, the Treasurer, said, 'We're going to touch tax laws, we're not going to touch capital gains, and we're not going to touch negative gearing,' 50 times. 'How many times do I have to tell you?' were the words of the Prime Minister.

Every day between now and the next election, I will continue to remind the Australian public of the deceit of those on the other side and watch with anticipation how many frontbenchers, how many Labor ministers, refuse to come into this chamber and defend what is possibly one of Labor's most appalling policy positions. Watch how many of them refuse to put their name to this bill. I can already see the speaking list of those waiting to come into this chamber and speak. The speaking list on our side runs off the page. For government members, there are only a couple left. That was what the motion, moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, we just dealt with before was about,. It compelled government members to come in and put their name to this disgraceful piece of legislation. I will keep the fire on you because the people of my electorate of Wright, the great people of Queensland, deserve a better government than what they've got at the moment.

I'm really grateful for the chance to contribute to this debate, and I acknowledge other members who have had their say in the parliament. I'm really proud today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. This package of bills represents four of the key measures in the recent federal budget. The first is the working Australians tax offset, providing a new tax cut for every single one of Australia's 13 million workers. There are an instant tax deduction of $1,000, reforms to capital gains tax and reforms to limit negative gearing to new builds.

There is a lot about this bill that is technical in the operations of the tax system, and I don't want to focus my comments on that today. I actually want to talk to you, Speaker, about the deep meaning of what the parliament is debating at the moment. So much of the language that we use to talk about public policy in this chamber has this dryness and this sense of avoidance of any kind of emotion or meaning. As housing minister, I get to see what happens when housing goes wrong in our country. I get to see the pain, the distress, the discomfort and the incredible damage that this can do to the lives of people who are wound up in everything that is going wrong in our broken housing system. But I also get to see what happens when housing goes right—the transformative effect that stable housing has on Australian families, allowing them for the first time to be stable, to set down roots, to build a life in a new community and to know that no-one can move them on from something that is theirs. That deep meaning is why Australians, for almost our entire existence since the postwar period, have fought and aspired to homeownership.

But, whatever you may see about what's going on in our country today and whatever different views there may be around this chamber on what to do, we should all be able to agree on one thing, and that is that our country has a broken housing market. We have got homeownership rates falling through the floor for Australia's young people. Of course, this is not just about Australia's young people. We see more and more older Australians who are heading into retirement with a significant mortgage. All of us, if we're being really honest, can see in the parks and the streets of our own suburbs an increasing number of Australians who do not have a roof over their heads. Finally, we have a Commonwealth government that is standing up and saying that we are going to do something about this.

We're having our usual argy-bargy as we have in politics in the chamber, but outside the chamber Australians are having a very similar conversation across households in their lounge rooms and at their kitchen tables. They're talking about whether they will ever be able to buy a home of their own. They're sitting around a table and saying, 'How can we map our way out of this existence?' They're stuck in rental queues, paying too much of their income in rents and bouncing from short-term rental to short-term rental, all the while likely paying off someone else's mortgage rather than their own. We want to change the opportunity for Australians like that.

I want to tell you about Mika and Matt, who are a couple that I met pretty recently with the Prime Minister. We visited their home in Canberra, and they just recently bought into the market under the five per cent deposit scheme. We saw the transformative effect of having homeownership for this family. They are setting up a life together, a productive, beautiful life in our great country. They told me about the first night that they stayed in their new home. They had an experience that I want every Australian to experience. They sat on the floor in a home without chairs, and they ate pizza out of the box with their friends. What a beautiful moment for that family, and our government was so proud to have been part of making it happen for them. But we're not seeing enough Mikas and Matts, and I want to see more of them. Increasingly, Australians are seeing that future slipping out of their reach. For decades, homeownership rates have been falling but falling particularly quickly for those young people whom I am so concerned about.

The tax system is not the whole story when it comes to what's going on in housing, but it's certainly pretty relevant. If we look at what has happened to our housing market since the tax changes were made by John Howard and Peter Costello all the way back in 1999, house prices and incomes decoupled. We saw this huge growth start to emerge in our housing market, yet wages were not able to keep up. That was partly the effect of the tax changes that we are unwinding and revising today. If you've got any doubt about what's going on in housing today, I want you to remember this. We are at a point in our country today where the average time that it would take to save a 20 per cent deposit in your home city of Sydney, Deputy Speaker Freelander, is now up to 17 years. We cannot let this go on without intervention, and that is why our government is standing up and making this change.

No-one is suggesting that what's going on in housing happened in the last five years or indeed the last 10 years. This is a long-running, chronic problem for our country which has been building since, effectively, I was born. For too long, governments around our country have failed to ensure that enough homes get built. We've seen planning systems around the nation get more restrictive. We've seen infrastructure fail to keep pace. And, alongside all of those failures, we've seen a government that decided to tilt the housing market away from first home buyers and towards investors. Over time, Australia has allowed this tax system, which encouraged huge additional amounts of investments to flow straight into existing housing stock, to continue. When we look at where investors are investing in housing in Australia today, more than 80 per cent of their investments are in homes that have already been built. Explain to me the public policy reason for the tax system to support such a thing.

Of course, the results have been pretty predictable: more pressure on prices and fewer people being able to buy their first homes on a Saturday morning all around Australia. That's exactly why this bill is levelling the playing field for first home buyers in relation to investors. At a time when housing affordability around our country is under such tremendous pressure, we just can't sustain a system that actively tilts things away from first home buyers who desperately need our help.

The reforms in this budget will make our tax system better, fairer and simpler and deliver an Australian tax system that takes our intergenerational responsibilities seriously. By replacing the 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax with a cost base indexation system and by limiting future negative gearing to new homes, we're going to get an additional 75,000 Australian households out of the rental queue and into the property market. The reforms have been really carefully designed. Existing arrangements for current property investors will remain in place. If Australians out there want to invest in housing, they'll still be able to access these tax concessions, but we're changing the incentives. If you want to be a property investor, our government will back you in, but we want you to do something important for our country: build a new home. We want more Australians to own the home they live in, we want more homes built and we want first home buyers to have a fairer opportunity to compete.

These reforms of course form a part of what is easily the most ambitious Australian government agenda on housing that we've had for 70 years—the $47 billion Homes for Australia plan that is building more homes, making it better to rent and backing in first home buyers, just as an Australian government should. Part of this plan is our five per cent deposit program. In this budget we are not only levelling the playing field between investors and first home buyers; for the first time, we, the Australian government, are standing behind the first home buyer, backing them in and helping them into the market in exactly the way that we should.

We've seen new builds in Australia—new commencements—up 26 per cent on where they were last year, and you've heard me talk about those 55,000 desperately needed social and affordable homes. It's the most important thing the Commonwealth can do to address that rising homelessness that I've talked about.

We're working with states and territories to deliver a better deal for renters. This is an absolutely massive housing agenda, but, before this budget, we were not yet doing enough. We needed to fix the critical problem of what investors versus first home buyers are facing at auction. I honestly, truly believe—having been in this debate and looked at this problem over a long period of time—that doing nothing about this is not an option for our country. If we want housing to be fair for Australians, we have to make the changes that are in this bill before us.

We're having a really important debate in the parliament at the moment about aspiration, and I want to be really clear about where the government stands on this. There is no greater aspiration in this country than the aspiration to own your own home. For most Australian families, this is without question the most important financial decision that they will make in their lives. We will fight every day for Australians, to make sure that you get ahead and do it in a home that you own.

These reforms to our unbalanced tax system are about helping Australians build financial security for themselves and for their families. We don't have to look too far to find survey data telling us that there is a majority, in some cases, of young people around our country saying that they actually don't think that homeownership is ever going to happen for them in our country. If you want to talk about an aspiration killer, that's it—a broken housing market that tells the young people of this country: 'It doesn't matter what you do. It doesn't matter how much you save. It doesn't matter how hard you work and how hard you study. The thing that you want most will still be out of your reach because the housing system is broken.' That's what a lot of young people are looking up and seeing today, and that's what we are seeking to change here.

I think every member of parliament in this chamber knows about the housing difficulties faced by their constituents. I truly believe that, because you have to know; you don't have to be talking to a voter for very long before housing comes up. It might be housing for them. Very often, it's not for them but for someone they love—a young person in their life who they are desperately worried about. They wonder if they're ever going to have the opportunity to set down roots in this country. I want people to understand what's happening right now in the parliament—a Labor government that is seeking to change. We stand for change. We do not want this broken system to continue hurting Australians. Those opposite are making speeches about everything except the housing difficulties faced by Australians because they are out defending the status quo, and I do not understand how in good conscience you can do that given the pain that this is causing Australians today.

It is, of course, not just the tax changes that those opposite are opposed to. Their commitments basically amount to ripping up every single piece of the $47 billion program, which is helping Australians right now. They want to wind back the five per cent deposit program. They want to scrap Help to Buy, which is getting into the market 10,000 Australians who in all likelihood would have had no realistic chance of getting in there. They want to scrap the Commonwealth's building of homes for people who would otherwise be homeless. How could you do that in the middle of a housing crisis? On this side of the House, we refuse to sit on our hands. We're not going to ignore the hard decisions and the difficult problems our country faces—and, if we're looking for hard decisions and difficult problems, we don't have to go much further than housing.

I will say very quickly that I've spoken about my portfolio but I do want to touch on the tax reform that is in this, which is about benefiting Australian workers. This bill contains tax cuts for every single Australian worker, and we are so proud as a Labor government to be delivering that. When we look at what Australians are confronting right now, we see people who are working harder than ever and are struggling to get ahead. I want to say to Australians: we want you to get ahead and we want you to do it in a home of your own, and that's what this bill is all about.

The government tell us they are building an economy that works for all Australians where they can earn more and keep more of what they earn, but this is plainly not true. They are breaking the economy. They are hurting workers, families and businesses. It is plain to see Labor can't manage money, so they are coming after yours. Australians did not vote for these big new taxes. The Prime Minister promised before the last election that he would not introduce them. He said this on more than 50 occasions, but he broke every single one of those promises. He showed disregard for the people of this country.

This budget is designed to manage the decline of the economy. It is not designed to grow it. We now face a death tax. We now face a tax on family savings. We now face a tax on renters. We face a tax on first home buyers. We face a tax on young Australians who are just trying to get ahead. We face a tax on small business and startups, the engine room of our economy. This is a budget of broken promises. This budget breaks the Australian dream. It is an assault on aspiration. It pulls the ladder of opportunity up from young people before they get their foot on the rung. It does nothing to improve intergenerational inequality. It makes the problem worse. It is intergenerational fraud. I repeat: Labor cannot manage money, so they are coming after yours. It makes sense. On that side of the house, no-one has started a business, worked in the private sector or taken risks. They are all union hacks.

Order! I think that's unparliamentary.

I withdraw, Deputy Speaker.

Good. Thank you.

This budget is unravelling. Every week, another broken promise surfaces. A death tax is buried in the fine print. We see dodgy inflation data. We see a secret $200 billion income tax hike. The Treasurer cannot keep track of his own—let's call them 'porky pies'. His economic modelling has one setting: stroke inflation, tax inflation, spend inflation—wash, rinse repeat: stroke inflation, tax inflation, spend inflation. Australians—in particular, regional South Australians—are living with the consequences. We face the mainland's highest inflation. They feel it at the supermarket. They feel it on their mortgage. They feel it in their pay packet. They feel it in their power bill.

Deputy Speaker, you're going to get sick of this, but I will say it again: Labor can't manage money, so they're coming after yours. This is the highest taxing government in our history. The budget locks in $77 billion in higher taxes. The Prime Minister has confirmed $273 billion in taxes that Australians did not vote for.

Debt is heading to $1.25 trillion. The interest bill will be $80,000 a minute. That is 12 credit cards being issued per Australian, behind their backs. Today's debt is tomorrow's taxes. And the next generation is being handed the bill.

We will fight these taxes. If they become law under Labor, a coalition government will repeal them. We want lower taxes. We want lower inflation—indeed, we need lower inflation. We want an economy designed to back the self-starters of the nation, not put them in handcuffs. Under a coalition government, you work, you risk, you win. Under Labor, you work, you risk, you pay, because they can't manage money.

This budget is built on broken promises, higher taxes, lower living standards, and fewer homes. The government's own budget papers say that 30,000 fewer homes will be built as a direct consequence of these new taxes—those are their numbers, in black and white. When you tax something, you get less of it; it's economics 101. The more you tax housing investment, the less housing investment you get. But this government has decided that that is the price young Australians should pay instead.

Their budget narrative is built around 'intergenerational fairness'. But strip away the rhetoric and look at the budget papers: they confirm lower housing supply. If you combine that with the government's migration overshoot of 90,000 people, it can only mean higher demand. Lower supply plus higher demand equals higher prices—again, it's economics 101. That is not fairness; that is a housing disaster hiding behind a spin doctor's catchphrase.

The government is getting both supply and demand badly wrong. The government's push to increase borrowing capacity for first home buyers will again just push up prices and saddle young Australians with more debt.

And young Australians are also investors. Labor's Robin Hood narrative, that it is only taking money away from the billionaires, away from the greedy boomers, is pure-gold spin. Young Aussies are smart and are investing in ETFs, shares and crypto—although I don't think crypto is necessarily a good investment.

Thanks for the advice.

They are trying to bring forward the day they can own their own home and retire self-sufficiently in the future. This government has looked that ambition and aspiration right in the eye and said: 'You know what? We can tax that.' That is not a housing policy or an ambitious tax reform; that is betrayal. Again, they can't manage money, so they're coming after yours; it is that simple.

But it isn't just investors and young Australians feeling it from Labor. The government is coming for small businesses, staking a 47 per cent claim despite doing none of the work. Small businesses are the self-starters of our nation. They work weekends, they work nights, they sacrifice holidays—they do everything to put themselves in a position to get ahead. The government's answer to that sacrifice is to come along on the trip with them, all the way to the finish line, and then tax. The Treasurer is cranking up the tax rate on small businesses, when they go to sell. Unless his ambition is to keep small businesses small, to encourage failure, these measures do not come close to meeting the needs of small businesses across the country—indeed, quite the opposite.

The rules of the economy are rigged against the self-starters. The compliance burden of industrial relations law, tax law and regulatory law falls on small businesses with the same weight as it does on big businesses, but small businesses do not have the HR departments, the legal teams or the lobbyists. Labor can't manage money, so they're coming after yours, and they're coming after small businesses and start-ups.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. For many owners, it is their retirement savings. It is their family pride. It is the first job for kids in their community. The government is not just taxing a business; it is taxing a life's work, a legacy. The government also hid a 30 per cent death tax in their budget like a sneaky little Easter egg. It was hard to find, but it is there. It really is there, buried deep in the budget papers. They hoped no-one would find it, but, eventually, it did surface. The Prime Minister was asked in question time here in this place, on the record, to rule out a death tax. He would not. We know why. He could not rule it out, because he had already planned one, buried in the papers he would hoping no-one would read. Taxing what families pass on to the next generation is not fairness; it is the government inserting itself between grandparents and grandchildren, claiming a cut of a lifetime's worth of blood, sweat and tears. That is not tax reform—it is a midnight raid. They can't manage money, so they're coming after yours and your family's.

The coalition will fight these taxes. If they become law under Labor, a coalition government will repeal them. We will repeal the CGT changes and the death taxes hidden in the trust rules. When a government taxes something, you get less of it—less housing, less savings, less investment and less small business. We will back aspiration and reward hard work by scrapping these taxes. The self-starters built this country. Our message to those targeted by this budget is simple: we will back you to be the future. You work, you risk, you win.

The coalition's tax-back guarantee will index income tax thresholds to inflation. We are forced to live by our means—so should the government be. Australians will not be taxed more simply because prices have gone up. When you earn your money, risk your money and save you money, you get to keep it. From 2028-29 the coalition government will index the bottom two income tax thresholds to inflation. This will protect around 85 per cent of income earners and deliver relief of around $250 in year 1, growing to more than $1,000 by year 4. From 2031-32, the top two thresholds will also be indexed, protecting all taxpayers.

The government's tax cuts will be wiped out by Christmas, owing to the inflation failures. Ours would not be. We will stop the cycle at the source. The coalition will restore normality to housing and migration. We will make sure Australia brings in only as many people as it can house. It's simple stuff. A coalition government will cap net overseas migration each year based on the number of new houses completed, not approved. Never again should a government bring in more people than a housing system can support.

A coalition will establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to unlock up to 400,000 homes. We will fund essential, last-mile infrastructure: water, sewerage, power and access roads. We will simplify the construction code, cutting up to $70,000 off the cost of a new home. The first home buyer deposit scheme will be reserved for Australians. Labor has allowed 50,000 non-citizens to access it—this ends under a coalition government. The coalition will make a $50,000 instant asset write-off permanent for any business with a turnover less than $10 million.

When a tradie buys a ute, they can do more jobs. They can take on an apprentice and they can grow. When a small business invests, it grows. When a small business grows, Australia grows. We are launching the Stand with Small campaign and consulting on a new Small Business Act. This is built around four pillars: a single definition for 'small business' across the Commonwealth, a right to be paid on time by government and big business, a right to be heard at the RBA, ASIC, ATO and Fair Work, and a right to bid on government procurement. We will realign the tax system to promote risk, reward ambition and back self-starters. We will protect Australians' way of life and restore their standards of living.

This government is breaking our economy. It promised to protect Australians but instead it has delivered a budget of broken promises, crushing inflation, and a relentless assault on aspiration. The truth is simple: Labor can't manage money, so it's coming after yours. From hidden death taxes and punishing grabs on family savings to attacking the young Australians desperately trying to get a foot on the property ladder, this is the highest taxing government in our history, and it is rigging the system against hard work. It is stifling our small businesses, the engine room of our nation, with impossible compliance burdens and a staggering 47 per cent claims on life's work. We will not let this stand. We believe in the fundamental promise: you work, you risk, you win.

I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. Like every budget, there will be measures that attract debate. There will be people who would have allocated funding differently, and there will be those who would have preferred the government to avoid difficult decisions altogether. But governing is about making choices. It's about balancing competing priorities, responding to the economic circumstances before us and making decisions that are in the long-term interests of the Australian people.

One of the great strengths of Australia has always been the belief that each generation should have the opportunity to do a little bit better than the last one. My parents generation generally assumed that, if you worked hard, saved consistently and acted responsibly, homeownership would eventually be within reach. That assumption is no longer shared by many young Australians. Increasingly, young people and Australians more broadly are questioning whether the economic system is still working for them, and they wonder whether the opportunities available to previous generations will still exist for them.

Governments cannot solve every challenge, but governments do have a responsibility to ensure that public policy does not make those challenges harder than they need to be. If we're serious about preserving the Australian dream, then we must be willing to examine whether existing policies are helping or hindering the next generation. When I look at the budget, what I see is a government attempting to deal with some of the biggest structural challenges facing our country: persistently weak productivity growth, housing affordability, cost-of-living pressures, an ageing population in need of services and the need to maintain sustainable public finances while continuing to invest in the services Australians rely on. These are not challenges that emerged overnight, nor are they challenges that can be solved with slogans, wishful thinking or short-term political fixes. They require serious policy responses and a willingness to confront issues that have too often been deferred.

For the people of Deakin, housing affordability remains one of the most significant concerns I hear about. In Deakin, I regularly meet with young professionals—nurses, teachers, tradies and small-business owners—who are doing everything society has asked of them. They're working hard. They're saving. They're making sacrifices. Yet many still feel as though the goalposts keep moving further away. They're not seeking special treatment. They're not asking for a free ride. What they want is a fair opportunity. They want confidence that their efforts will be rewarded, and they want confidence that owning a home is still achievable. They want confidence that, if they work hard and contribute to their community, then they can build a secure future for themselves and their families.

Those are reasonable aspirations. They are aspirations that transcend political allegiances, and they are aspirations that deserve the attention of this parliament. Families are worried about housing costs. Renters are concerned about the availability and affordability of rental accommodation. Parents worry what their children might face in the future ahead. We're seeing fewer younger couples having children, contributing to a fertility rate that is now below replacement levels. A growing body of research suggests this is not simply a reflection of changing preferences. Many Australians continue to express a desire to have children, but they face financial and practical barriers to doing so. Access to homeownership is increasingly recognised as one of those barriers, alongside childcare costs, cost-of-living pressures and broader economic insecurity.

The aspiration to get a good job, earn a good living, own a home and retire with financial security has been part of the Australian story for generations. Yet, for so many, that aspiration is becoming harder to achieve. That's why I find some of the criticism of these reforms unconvincing. We're told that any attempt to revisit longstanding tax concessions is somehow a war on aspiration. I reject that proposition. Aspiration is not a tax concession. Aspiration is not a legal structure. Aspiration is the belief that hard work, reasonable choices and effort should allow people to build a better life for themselves and their families.

The reason I support these reforms is not that I oppose investment success or wealth creation—quite the opposite. I want young Australians to believe that, if they study hard, work hard, save diligently and make responsible decisions, they can still buy a home, raise a family and build a secure future. That's what aspiration means to me. And, if we're honest with ourselves, that aspiration is becoming harder for too many Australians. The question before us is not whether Australians should be encouraged to invest, build wealth or start a business. They absolutely should. The question is whether every aspect of the current system continues to serve that purpose.

Over time, some tax settings have increasingly rewarded existing asset ownership, particularly housing, while making it harder for young Australians to enter the housing market for a home, to build wealth and to get ahead. They have also contributed to distortions in the way that capital is allocated across the economy, encouraging investment to flow disproportionately towards existing housing and asset appreciation, rather than towards new productive activity, innovation and business investment. The result is that investment decisions can become driven as much by tax treatment as by underlying economic value and long-term economic benefit.

If we're serious about aspiration, we should be asking whether the next generation has the same opportunities that previous generations enjoyed, not whether every tax concession should be preserved indefinitely. A ladder of opportunity only works if people can still reach the first rung. The truth is that preserving exactly the same rules does not necessarily preserve the same opportunities. Our obligation is not simply to defend arrangements that worked for some in the past; it is to ensure that opportunity remains available into the future.

That's why these housing reforms matter. They're expected to support an additional 75,000 Australians into homeownership over the coming decade. They complement the government's broader housing agenda, including an additional $2 billion investment in enabling infrastructure, to unlock up to 65,000 more homes, and the broader Homes for Australia plan, which now exceeds $47 billion. This is not about punishing investors. It is about restoring balance. It is about ensuring that aspiration is not reserved for those who already own assets but that it remains available to those trying to buy their first home.

Housing isn't simply a social issue. It is an economic issue, it is a productivity issue and it is increasingly becoming a national competitiveness issue. When workers cannot afford to live close to employment opportunities, businesses struggle to attract staff. When families are forced to spend an ever larger share of their income on housing, they have less capacity to invest in education, skills and entrepreneurship. When capital is disproportionately directed towards bidding up the price of existing assets rather than creating new productive assets, the entire economy becomes less dynamic. That is why housing reform and tax reform cannot be viewed in isolation. They form part of a broader effort to ensure that investment flows to where it generates the greatest economic value.

One of the most important challenges Australia faces today is productivity. For too long, productivity growth has been weaker than we need. That matters, of course. Over the long term, productivity is what drives wages growth and improvements in living standards. We cannot sustainably increase living standards simply by borrowing more, spending more and hoping conditions will improve. We need an economy that produces more value from the skills, effort and capital we already possess. That is why this bill matters. It is not simply about immediate tax relief. It is also a bill about strengthening the foundations for future prosperity.

Our tax reforms, the housing reforms, the investments in infrastructure and the measures to reduce compliance costs all contribute to that objective. They're designed to make our economy more efficient, more productive and more competitive, because ultimately the best form of cost-of-living relief is sustained growth in wages and living standards—and it was great to see another announcement yesterday, handed down by the Fair Work Commission, that there will be another real wage increase, which was of course supported by the government. It's also important to recognise that these reforms are being delivered in the context of responsible fiscal management.

Another important feature of these bills is the support they provide to working Australians. Millions of Australians earn their income through work. They get up early, they contribute to their communities, they pay their taxes and they deserve a tax system that recognises and rewards that contribution. That is why I welcome the introduction of the $250 Working Australians Tax Offset. This is a permanent measure that will provide additional tax relief to more than 13 million Australians who earn income from work. It recognises a simple principle: that Australians who work hard should be able to keep more of what they earn. Importantly, it is not just a one-off payment; it is a permanent structural improvement to the tax system. For younger Australians in particular, it sends an important message that work remains the primary pathway to opportunity and economic security.

We're also introducing a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses. That's a practical reform. It reduces paperwork. It will simplify tax time. It will save millions of Australians the burden of keeping receipts and navigating complex deduction rules—and I know it will keep the gloveboxes of many of my friends and family cleaner!

The bill complements the investments we're making through the budget as well, such as through health care. It makes Medicare stronger. It makes medicines more affordable. It supports public hospitals. It locks in Medicare urgent care clinics as a permanent part of Australia's health system. For families in Deakin and communities across Australia, access to affordable health care is not a luxury; it's a necessity. The budget also makes important investments in aged care. But it also requires reform and a long-term commitment to building the broader support infrastructure that older Australians and their families increasingly rely on. While important progress has been made, I will of course continue to harass the Minister for Aged Care, who sits in front of me in this chamber.

The budget also recognises the increasingly uncertain world in which we live. Australia faces a more complex strategic environment, and this requires continued investment in defence capability, national resilience and the security of our nation. Again, these are not optional expenditures; they are essential responsibilities of government. A strong economy requires a secure nation, and a secure nation requires a government that is willing to make long-term investments in Australia's defence and national capability.

This budget is about aspiration. It is about setting Australia up for future prosperity. It is about fairness. And it is about getting the balance right. I commend this bill to the House.

The previous speaker spoke to that great Australian promise that I think has probably existed since 1788: that each generation of Australians is able to pass down to their children a stronger and more prosperous nation. We've had our fair share of challenges in this country. We've been through world wars. We've been through depressions. We've been through gold rushes and we've been through economic collapses. But it has always been the experience in Australia that each generation can, despite those challenges, pass on to their children a stronger, more prosperous, better country and that each generation of Australians can expect, as the previous speaker said, that little bit more than what their parents were able to achieve.

But I think all members here, if they were honest with themselves, would appreciate that probably this is the first generation—certainly in my view—where we can't actually make that promise to our children. The aspiration of homeownership is beyond the reach of too many Australians. Economically, we don't have the same opportunities that I think previous generations had, and I fear that my nine-year-old and my six-year-old will not be able to enjoy the same economic opportunities we've been able to enjoy.

The question before the House, and probably more so in this bill than in any other legislation I've seen in my four years here, is: how do we actually deal with that? Do we start to rejig tax settings and decide on different ways to share the pie? Or do we try to actually grow the pie? Can we grow the Australian economy? Can we create more wealth here? Can we get to a point where Australia is charging ahead with so much prosperity that we are seeing more opportunity created?

I think that's where the fundamental difference is between both sides of this chamber. On my side we're of the view that we should be trying to supercharge small business in this country. We should be giving them more opportunity, more benefits, more capacity or more confidence to invest and create jobs and wealth. Unfortunately, what we see through these changes is the exact opposite, and we think this is completely the wrong direction.

Let me start by, firstly, making some comments on the broken promise that this bill represents. A lot has been made in this chamber, and outside it, of the very nature of the fact that the Prime Minister promised so many different times that these tax changes wouldn't be implemented. We remember the 2019 election, when these tax changes were a prominent part of the Labor government's election platform and they suffered a defeat. This is one of the main areas that people point to now and say that they lost the 2019 election because of these and other tax changes they were trying to implement. There is a distinct reason why so many frontbenchers, including the Prime Minister, were at pains to say in the lead-up to the last election, 'No, no, no—we wouldn't be possibly be bringing in changes to negative gearing or to CGT.' Well, here we are.

I think it's incredibly disappointing for the dignity of this House that we have such a blatant distance—I want to be careful with my language here, because I don't want to be unparliamentary—between what was said before the election and what's being implemented now. I don't think it reflects well on any of us. I pointed out the fact that I feel this is an assault to aspiration. At a point when we should be encouraging business growth, the ultimate outcome of these changes will be $77 billion in higher taxes. When those opposite talk about trying to implement very, very modest tax changes or very, very modest tax cuts through this bill, we need to point out that headline: $77 billion in higher taxes. The Prime Minister has also confirmed that we'll potentially see $273 billion in taxes that Australians didn't vote for over the next nine years.

In relation to the specific provisions within this bill, schedule 1 introduces changes to the CGT regime. The coalition opposes those. Schedule 2 introduces changes to the negative gearing regime, and the coalition opposes those as well. Schedule 3 introduces the working Australians tax offset. We support that. Schedule 4 introduces the $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses. That's another measure that we support. A lot has been said by previous speakers, and I won't dwell on the point that this bill has obviously been glued together in order to try to create a wedge. However, in its totality, we cannot support this bill because of the massive increases in taxes that we're going to see.

We're going to see a death tax. We're going to see taxes on family savings. We're going to see taxes on renters, first home buyers and young Australians trying to get ahead. We're going to see taxes on small businesses, startups and entrepreneurs—the people who are the very engine room of the Australian economy.

I want to speak on a couple of emails that I've received in my electorate office from local business owners on their response to this budget. I have an email from Nick. I won't mention Nick's business, but it is in a sector where Australia is not competing very well, and he's an individual who is creating employment in the Redlands in a very, very difficult industry. I'll read directly from it:

Quite simply, the changes to CGT and trusts will have a devastating impact to our business. All these years we have played by the rules, paid our taxes along the way and now the government wants to completely change the game, never mind the rules of the game. The change to trusts means that we now must consider possible changes to our corporate structure, but no matter what changes we make, the result will be higher taxes. It is completely unfair to introduce what is effectively double taxation on discretionary trusts. We are already being taxed at the company rate so why should distributions to a company be taxed a second time? It's not like multinational companies moving profits offshore to avoid tax—we have paid tax all these years, and we are in an extremely competitive industry where we cannot increase margins to adjust to this extra tax grab.

He goes on to say:

To put it bluntly, this budget has us seriously considering selling or even closing the business before June next year as there is no longer any reward for ingenuity, hard work, or effort.

I think that sums it up incredibly well.

I've also got a note here from Mark, who runs another business in my electorate that I won't name. He says:

Day in, day out, small business owners are the ones putting everything on the line. We're the ones taking risks, creating jobs, backing ourselves, and trying to build something meaningful not just for ourselves, but for our staff, our families, and the broader community.

…   …   …

When you start talking about changes to things like CGT and trust structures, it sends a pretty clear signal: that long-term effort, delayed gratification, and building something over time are no longer being encouraged but are instead being targeted.

That's always been my biggest concern when I go around my electorate. When I doorknock local businesses and I ask them about their outlook, I ask them, 'What's the next challenge for you guys?' Over the course of the last four years, I have gotten disheartening responses where people just tell me it's not worth the risk anymore. This just doubles down on that general sense of: 'Why am I taking these risks? Where's the reward? It's not worth it anymore.' That, of course, is terrible news for the Australian economy.

We'll put aside the business stuff for a moment. I want to talk about the impact on housing. The government's own budget papers say that this will produce 35,000 fewer homes. That'll be a direct consequence of these new taxes. So, when those opposite talk about wanting to ensure that first home buyers or aspirants can get their first step on that property ladder, I ask: can you explain to me the economics of the situation where if you have 35,000 fewer homes we're going to end up with more opportunity?

I'll also note that we had an interesting joint statement last Friday from the Property Council, the Real Estate Institute of Australia and Master Builders Australia. They've taken their own analysis of what the impact of these changes will mean for the sector that they represent. If I can be entirely honest, I think I've got more faith in their capacity to tell me the impact than I do in the government. They said:

… the Federal Budget will see new home construction go backwards, and higher than anticipated rental inflation.

Their modelling, which only goes for four years, says that the federal budget will cause new supply to fall by over 8,700 homes in that four-year period. Rents will increase $9 per week. There will be a reduction in the GDP of $864 million. On the day we're getting our national accounts figures, that should alarm everyone. They also say that construction jobs are to fall by 3,800. These do differ from Treasury's results, which are representing a more modest impact, but I think that that makes for quite sober reading.

Also, in the budget papers, it makes it clear we're not just going to get fewer homes. We're actually going to get higher rents. They acknowledge that in Budget Paper No. 1. To me, that isn't about intergenerational fairness. What that's actually doing is pulling up the ladder of opportunity for young Australians. It's not just about those young Australians who want to get their first step on the housing ladder. It's also about those Australians, and many of them aren't property moguls by any stretch of the imagination. When you look at the ATO lists of the occupations most likely to utilise negative gearing, right up the top there are police officers and nurses—the sort of people who we expect the Labor Party usually would advocate on behalf of. These are the people who are utilising this tax arrangement to try to do the right thing, build their wealth and set their family up for a position where they're going to have a comfortable retirement. Instead, all this does is bake in the advantage that those who've been able to utilise these arrangements have been able to enjoy for many decades and pulls the ladder up on that next generation of aspirational Australians.

People talk about the impact of negative gearing. Negative gearing has been part of our tax system for a very long time, long before we had a housing crisis. The problem is supply and the problem is demand. We've allowed too many people to come to this country without homes for them to live in, and that's why the coalition has adopted a policy that the opposition leader outlined in the budget-in-reply. We're going to peg those two figures together. We're only going to let in enough Australians to meet the—

If housing goes up, does migration go up too?

Well, we're going to allow demand to meet housing supply. And, of course, we're going to have to keep that significantly lower than that figure over that period of time because we've got so much to catch up. I'm interested in the interjections from the member for Forde, and I'm wondering whether he's actually made any attempts to sell the budget within his electorate, because I know that there are so many wonderful small businesses in his neck of the woods who would be very devastated about that. I wonder whether the member for Forde is one of those Labor backbenchers who's taken the opportunity to turn off all his comments on every social media post because he's so tired of the backlash that he's been receiving. It's very interesting.

I've talked about the migration figures, but, unfortunately, the budget also reveals that the government's going to overshoot their migration target by 90,000 people. That's nearly the size of a federal electorate. It's probably bigger than a federal electorate in Tasmania. That's a significant number of people, and you add that on top of the 1.4 million that were brought in in the first term of this government. The government talks about a narrative here on intergenerational fairness. Where's the intergenerational fairness in that?

Can I point out that debt is heading to $1.25 trillion. The interest bill on that is $80,000 a minute. To put that in the context of a household, can you imagine what Australia could be purchasing right now and what we could be investing in if we were saving on that interest bill? When the government's spending so much money—it's such an absolute state in the budget with running up so much debt and so much poor investment over that period of time—is there any wonder why they're having to increase taxes? When they run out of taxpayers' money, they need to get more of it, and that's exactly what these bills are entirely about. It's not about intergenerational fairness. It's about trying to fill the coffers of the government—very disappointing—at the cost of small businesses at the cost of those who are trying to do the right thing through a testamentary trust to try to ensure that the next generation are looked after. These measures that are part of the budget are an absolute attack on aspiration, and the coalition will not be supporting them.

Our communities succeed when hard work is rewarded. They succeed when a young person can build a future through their own effort, through buying their own home. They succeed when families can plan ahead with confidence, and they succeed when the opportunities available to one generation are passed on to the next. That's what this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, is all about. It's about ensuring that our tax system better reflects modern Australia, and that means fairly taxing income, whether it comes from wages, shares or sale of a property.

As our economy changes, as our communities grow and as new challenges emerge, government has a responsibility to ensure that the rules continue to serve the national interest. That's what this legislation is about. It is about backing working Australians with a fairer tax system, it's about strengthening the dream of homeownership, and it is about ensuring the opportunity remains within reach for future generations. That's why these reforms are so significant. They are also measured. Importantly, they are guided by a simple principle: Australians who earn their living through hard work should know that the system is working for them too.

Across my electorate of Corangamite in Victoria, I meet people who are contributing every day to the strength of our economy and our communities. They are nurses in Torquay, teachers in Leopold, tradies working across the Bellarine, hospitality workers on the Surf Coast and small business owners in Ocean Grove. They work hard, pay their taxes and contribute to the communities they call home. They want a tax system that recognises their contribution and they expect government to tackle long-term challenges rather than leave them to future generations to solve. The Albanese government recognises this. We are a reforming government and we are acting. That's what this bill is about.

A key part of our reforms includes additional tax relief for working Australians. The working Australians tax offset will provide a permanent tax offset of up to $250 each year for more than 13 million workers. That is practical support directed at people who earn their living through wages and salaries. It is support for the teacher helping students reach their potential. It is support for a nurse working the night shift. It is support for the small-business employee opening up early and locking up late. It is support for the apprentice learning a trade, and it comes on top of our $10,000 incentive for construction apprentices and our support for free TAFE. These reforms build on that work too, because we know that, for our young community members and for all working Australians, every dollar matters, skills matter and getting rewarding work matters. Our measures recognise that reality.

The bill introduces a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses, because we know—the Albanese government knows—that, for many Australians, tax time has become unnecessarily complicated. This reform simplifies the system while also delivering additional financial benefit. Around 6.2 million Australians are expected to benefit. More than half are women. More than a quarter are under the age of 30. Importantly, workers who incur work related expenses above $1,000 will still be able to claim those deductions under existing arrangements. This is about making the system simpler, fairer and easier to navigate. Together with the income tax cuts already delivered by the Albanese government, these measures provide meaningful and ongoing support to Australian workers.

But this legislation is about more than tax relief. It is about one of the defining challenges facing younger Australians today: housing affordability. Homeownership has always been about more than bricks and mortar. It is about security, stability and belonging. It is about having a place to raise a family, to build a future and to become part of a community. Across my electorate, housing is one of the issues people raise with me most often—young people in Torquay at the local farmers market, young families in Ocean Grove at the footy, and workers in Drysdale, Armstrong Creek and Clifton Springs. Many tell me the same thing: they are working hard, they are saving and they are making sacrifices, but homeownership feels further away than it should. That is why the Albanese government is continuing to take action. Our housing agenda remains firmly focused on increasing supply. We are investing in social housing, we are supporting affordable housing and we are working with states and territories to boost construction and unlock more homes.

But supply alone cannot be the whole answer. We also have a responsibility to ensure that our tax settings support the goal of homeownership rather than working against it. This legislation limits future negative gearing arrangements for residential property investments to new builds. Importantly, existing investments are grandfathered. Australians who have made decisions under the current rules will not be affected. Investors who purchase new housing that adds to supply will continue to have access to negative gearing. We are changing incentives so that tax concessions are directed towards increasing housing stock rather than intensifying competition for existing homes. That matters, and it makes absolute sense, because, if a tax concession exists, it should support outcomes that benefit the broader community. As Australians, we're all in it together. Treasury modelling indicates that these reforms will help about 75,000 additional Australians purchase a home over the coming decade. For many young Australians, that could make a profound difference. It could mean the difference between remaining locked out of the market and owning a home of their own.

On top of this, the bill also reforms capital gains tax. It is important that debate on this issue be grounded in the facts. The reforms return capital gains tax closer to its original intent. Rather than applying a flat discount, the new arrangements will allow investors to index the cost base of assets to inflation. In simple terms, people will pay tax on real gains rather than inflationary gains. That is a simple, sensible principle. It reflects economic reality, and it helps ensure a more efficient and more fair tax system. These changes apply prospectively, with capital gains accrued before July next year remaining unaffected. Additionally, family homes are unaffected, and there is no inheritance tax. Despite the misinformation we have heard in this debate today by those opposite, these facts remain unchanged.

Importantly, these reforms also recognise the role small businesses play in our economy. Across my electorate and the broader Geelong region, small businesses are central to local communities and the local economy. They employ local people. They sponsor local sporting clubs. They help create the vibrant towns and neighbourhoods that make our region such a great place to live. That is why the existing small business capital gains tax concessions remain in place. Eligible small businesses will continue to have access to concessions that can substantially reduce or eliminate capital gains tax when a business is sold.

Treasury modelling released this week shows that around 90 per cent of Australian small businesses will be covered by these concessional arrangements. That is an important point, because, while there has been a great deal of commentary, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of small businesses will continue to benefit from concessions under the law.

Every generation faces choices about the future it wants to build. Sometimes those choices require government to challenge long-established tax arrangements, and sometimes they require us to look beyond the immediate political debate and focus on the long-term national interest. That is what a reforming government looks like: making the hard decisions that will benefit our nation and Australians now and into the future.

This bill recognises that housing affordability matters. It recognises that workers deserve a tax system that supports them. And it recognises that intergenerational fairness should not be simply discussed; it should be acted upon. For too long, too many younger Australians have felt that the pathway to homeownership has become increasingly difficult. For too long, the tax system has not always reflected the balance we need between rewarding work and rewarding investment. This bill builds on our work to address those challenges through careful, considered reform—reform that cuts taxes for workers, reform that supports first business owners, reform that encourages investment in new housing supply and reform that helps ensure that the opportunities Australians value today remain available to the generations that will follow.

At its heart, this legislation is about fairness. It's about ensuring that hard work is rewarded. It is about ensuring that aspiration remains achievable. That's what matters to Australians, and it's what matters to the Albanese Labor government. In closing: this bill is about ensuring that Australia remains a nation where opportunity is broad, not narrow; where prosperity is shared, not concentrated; and where the promise of a fair go remains as strong for the next generation as it has for every generation before.

Today we've seen scenes of high farce and calamity right here in the House of Representatives. It seemed to us, on this side of the chamber, that the government MPs weren't very keen to publicly back this government's budget. So the member for Wannon helpfully wandered in here with a motion that would require each and every one of them to front up and put their support for these toxic taxes in Labor's budget of betrayal on the public record. Well, the government weren't having a bar of that, and, in seeking to gag the member for Wannon, the member for Perth moved the wrong motion, so we had scenes of absolute calamity in here—which I think reflects the government's handling of this budget.

We've heard a lot from government MPs today about sound economic principles and the need to undertake tax reform. If only those important economic principles and that dire need for tax reform had been apparent to them before the election, they might well have fronted up to the Australian people with their real plans to reach deep into the pockets of Australians and tax their aspiration.

Of course, there is one little word that we're not allowed to say in here when directed at the government. It starts with 'l' and ends with 'e', and I won't break the standing orders. So I spent some time researching some alternatives that we might use. For the benefit of my colleagues who no doubt are looking for an expansion of their lexicon to describe this budget, here are just a few: falsehood, fib, untruth, fabrication, falsity, a story, a tale, a myth, deceit, deception, dishonesty, distortion, misrepresentation, perjury—if we ever succeeded in putting this man on the stand—perfidy, fudging, spinning, misstating, baloney, hogwash, poppycock, claptrap, bunkum, bull, codswallop or, my favourite, porkies. There are some more colourful alternatives that the Labor MPs are currently reading on their social media posts right up until the moment that they turn the comments off. It seems to me that that is now the default position of each Labor MP in this place, such has been the backlash to this budget of betrayal.

Central to it is a claim by the Prime Minister that he is cutting taxes. He is cutting taxes for Australians, as he tells us. But the reality is that this budget includes sneaky, hidden and toxic taxes that mean that his is just a charade of appearing to give a little while taking a lot. We all know people like this—people who come to a barbecue with a sixpack; they'll drink 12 and take a carton home.

Australians can see right through this budget and the tax grabs that it contains. Indeed, the central fib of the budget is the notion that it rebalances our tax system away from salaries and incomes towards investments and asset ownership. But, in the Treasurer's own budget papers, in Budget Paper No. 1, on page 140, there's a neat little chart that shows the share of personal income tax increasing next year, the year after that and indeed every single year after that out until 2062. That is the central dishonesty of this budget being exposed on page 140 of Budget Paper No. 1. This is not tax reform. This is a tax grab by a government addicted to spending.

Apparently it is the fault of the capital gains tax reform in 1999 that the housing market is so unbalanced today. But, when you pause to think about that for a moment, the fact is that the current housing crisis has nothing to do with those reforms in 1999, because the Labor Party have been in government for a full 10 years of the period since, and it never occurred to them in any of those 10 years to take a plan to reform capital gains tax to an election. Well, actually, it did. A former leader of the opposition, Mr Shorten, did take a plan like that to an election, and he got flogged because Australians were not going to stand by and see taxes on aspiration—the very thing that underpins the prosperity of our nation being attacked in such a way. But here we are now with a government reeling from a housing crisis of its own making because it failed abjectly to control migration to this country at the same time as it layered red tape and regulation on the construction sector, seeing housing completions fall quarter on quarter for the last year in my great state of Western Australia. At the same time, they have blown every single budget estimate of net overseas migration to this country since they came to power. But the fact is that there are fewer homes being built today in Australia than when the government took over. Is that about to change? Well, it is. It's about to get worse. The budget papers also contain, on page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1, the admission that there will be 35,000 fewer dwellings built in this country as a result of the tax policy changes contained in it.

But this is not actually a revelation. Prior to the election, when Mr My Word Is My Bond, the Prime Minister, was denying strenuously at every opportunity that he would touch these taxes, he was quoted before that election saying that changes to negative gearing would do nothing to boost the supply of housing in this country. It seems to me he had quite the epiphany after the election, and it is simply because, addicted to spending as he is and his government is, this is a prime minister who has run out of money. That's why this is not a budget of tax reform. It is a budget of a tax raid. Unfortunately, the targets are those families who save and sacrifice, who invest and work hard, the very Australians that have built this country into the sort of place that it is today.

Rather than seeking to contain his spending to limit the growth of government and to empower the private sector to do what it does best in lifting living standards in this country, he has presided over the largest collapse in real living standards in the developed world. There is a reason that Australians feel poorer today when they leave a shop, a cafe or a local business than when the Prime Minister came to office, and that's because they are. Real GDP per capita has gone backwards since this government came to power.

I've noticed that government MPs are now plopping the word 'real' in front of lots of different things, but it doesn't change the simple economics that, when inflation is outpacing growth, people in this country are going backwards. That's why we will fight these toxic taxes tooth and nail. If they become law under this government, we will seek to repeal them when, inevitably, Australians boot them out of office. Further than that, we will stop this happening into the future with our plan to index income tax thresholds. Self-starters are what built this country, and an Australian government should always look them in the eye when seeking to take more of their hard earned money and fritter it away on whatever else they're spending.

This is a budget that also contains $18.2 billion in new spending for net zero, including more than $1 billion for green hydrogen, which, I note, even the most prominent mining billionaires in this country who have had quite the infatuation with green hydrogen for many years now have walked away from.

Amazing!

Amazing! Technology and economics always win. The ideology of this government is no match for the simple physics of the equation.

We are providing to Australians an alternative plan, and it's one that Angus Taylor, the Leader of the Opposition, set out in his budget reply. It is a tax back guarantee. This isn't a guarantee that's provided in exchange for a raid on Australians' pockets, like the Prime Minister, who, like I say, is a 'bring six, drink 12 and take a carton home' kind of guy. This is a policy that will permanently put a handbrake on the size of government in this country, such that any future government would need to explain to the Australian people before an election what their plans were in terms of taking more of their hard-earned. By limiting the thresholds to inflation, Australians will not be taxed simply because prices go up in this country.

The Treasurer belled the cat when he suggested that the true cost of our policy would be some quarter of a billion dollars over the next decade. What that really said to the Australian people was that he planned to sneakily steal $250 billion from the Australian people over the next decade without asking for it. From 2028-29, a coalition government will index the bottom two income tax thresholds to inflation, which will deliver $250 in tax relief in year 1 alone, growing to more than $1,000 a year by year 4. From then on, the top two tax thresholds would also be indexed. What's important about this is that it provides permanent and ongoing protection against inflation.

The reality is that Australia's lowest paid were yesterday awarded a 4.75 per cent pay increase by the Fair Work Commission—a commission which is touted as independent. And yet, every time it makes a decision that this government is seemingly keen to take credit for, the minister is out there spruiking his responsibility. It seems to me it's a bit like when the RBA was lowering interest rates in this country, and the Treasurer was all over it like a rash. But, as we enter the cycle of seemingly never-ending interest rate increases under this government—15 and counting—all of a sudden it's the big, bad RBA that's got nothing to do with the Treasurer.

Well, the bad news is that it's got everything to do with the Treasurer and his rampant spending. His own budget papers expose that the size of government will increase for the next couple of years and hit 27.1 per cent of GDP in this country. That is proof that this is a government addicted to spending and also that it is the highest taxing government in Australian history. That's why it's so important the coalition bring forward this alternative plan to limit the size of government—to limit the thief in the night that is inflation from stealing from Australians and allowing, aiding and abetting the Labor government stealing from Australians without asking for it and without being up front about how they intend to do it.

Of course, on the coalition side, our founder of the Liberal Party, Robert Menzies, was the first to articulate that we are the party of homeownership. We're not blaming tax settings for creating the problem. We're up front that it's Labor's failure to manage migration and its layering of red tape and regulation, which is crushing the completion of new housing in Australia, that are to blame. Frankly, you can't tackle the problem here without being up front and honest about what it actually is. So the coalition will cap net overseas migration depending on the number of new homes completed in Australia. It seems to me very, very self-evident that the capacity of a country to welcome new people to it is directly linked to the number of new houses being built, and that is why this is such a sensible reform.

Of course, we also committed to establishing a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to unlock some 400,000 new homes by connecting infrastructure like water, sewerage, power and access roads, which will get flat, zoned, structured and approved land developed into the lots that Australians need to buy in order to build the home of their dreams. That's significantly more than the Labor Party have promised, and indeed it includes a commitment for $1.5 billion to be quarantined for rural and regional Australia. That is so important to so many of us in this place, who see firsthand in our regional communities the impact that the Labor Party's failure to control migration in government is having.

Of course, I've said a lot in this place about the assaults on entrepreneurialism, reward for effort and incentive to strive that this budget and its toxic taxes include, not least of which is the impact that the junior mining sector could experience. That is because the small holes that mum and dad investors backed 20, 30 or 40 years ago have turned into the big holes that spit out cash today. That's what built this country, and that's why we will fight Labor's toxic taxes tooth and nail.

As the Treasurer said last week, this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, is part of the most ambitious tax reform package in a quarter of a century. It delivers on three key objectives: firstly, that we cut the taxes for every Australian worker even further; secondly, that we make it easier for people to buy their first home; and, thirdly, that it better aligns the tax treatment of income derived from labour and income derived from assets. Changes like these are important in ensuring that we support the opportunity of homeownership for every single Australian but also make the reform we need to set Australia up for the future.

I want to start by going through the bill in detail and clarifying some of the points that people in my electorate have asked me about since the budget. Schedule 1 of the bill legislates the changes to capital gains tax arrangements so that the system operates as it was originally intended and directs investment in the market to where it is most productive for our economy and our society. Importantly, the proposed changes are prospective, not retrospective. Any capital gains earnt before 1 July next year will still attract the 50 per cent discount, with the CGT changes only applied on gains accrued after that date. Most importantly though, the legislation keeps in place the complete exemption for the family home as well as the existing four small-business concessions, which the vast majority of small businesses are eligible for, allowing them to pay reduced or no capital gains tax if and when they choose to sell.

Schedule 2 of the bill legislates changes to negative gearing arrangements, limiting it to new builds. Again, importantly, residential properties held before 12 May 2026, including those under contract but not yet settled, will still be allowed to be negatively geared in the future. This ensures that investors that made investment decisions that affect their future based on the existing rules will not be penalised. The current tax settings have locked a generation out of homeownership, and these reforms will mean an additional 75,000 first home buyers entering the property market over the next decade and direct investment into new housing supply.

Schedule 3 of the bill legislates the $250 working Australians tax offset, reducing the tax bill of every Australian who derives their income from work, benefiting 13.3 million taxpayers. This is another tax cut delivered by this government. It is a permanent measure and a structural improvement to the tax system, which recognises that for most Australians, especially young people, their income is derived from work.

Finally, schedule 4 of the bill legislates the government's $1,000 instant tax deduction, implementing Labor's 2025 election commitment. The instant deduction will allow taxpayers with income from work to deduct $1,000 from their taxable income rather than claim individual expenses. The Tax Office estimates this change will save individuals $380 million in compliance costs each year, making tax time both simpler and cheaper, with the average worker receiving an additional $205 back in their pocket.

This government has already delivered tax cuts to every single taxpayer by bringing down rates and raising income thresholds. Another tax cut will commence in just 29 days and again on 1 July next year. As the Treasurer said last week when the bills were introduced, under this government, taxes have been cut five different times in three different ways. When you combine the existing tax cuts delivered or legislated with those detailed in this bill, the average Australian worker will be paying up to $2,816 less in tax in the 2027-28 financial year, as compared to 2023-24.

As many reviews and much analysis have shown, Australia is in need of tax reform. Australia has an ageing population. That much has been clear for some time. In 2018, the Bureau of Statistics published a projection that the population aged over 85 would double to more than a million over the following 25 years. I'm noting, of course, that we are eight years into that timeframe now. That same projection stated that, over the same time period, the number of people aged 65 and over would also nearly double to 6.7 million people by 2042.

Finally, the ABS also noted that the percentage of people outside the traditional working age range of 15 to 64 would increase to 58 per cent, a growth of more than 10 per cent. When looking at our tax system and government spending, this is incredibly important context. A growing proportion of our population have finished their working lives and are therefore no longer paying income tax, as they should and as they've earnt. Meanwhile, the demand for government services, in the form of aged care, aged pensions, Medicare and the PBS and other health services, will grow.

The task of serious tax reform that rebalances the tax burden away from income earnt from wages and labour towards wealth and assets is one that any government was going to have to confront sooner or later or otherwise risk eroding the budget so significantly in the long term that services Australians rightly expect would not be delivered. This government is working to deliver that rebalancing, making sure our economy is in the interest of more Australians, businesses and future generations, instead of leaving it to the next generation to fix in the name of political expediency. It does this while delivering targeted tax cuts and cost-of-living relief to 13.3 million hardworking Australian taxpayers.

Secondly, I want to reflect on the housing market and environment that first home buyers are currently having to operate in. In 1970, the median age of a first home buyer was around 25 years old. Today, it is around 35, and one in five first-home-buyer loans are now going to those aged over 40. First home buyers today are working hard and having to save for longer than ever. This is a challenge that many young people currently view as futile. As much as they want to own their own home, they feel like they will always be playing catch up to a market that is stacked against them.

The status quo in our housing market is broken. The policy mistakes made by the coalition 25 years ago were intended to encourage activity but instead turned existing housing stock into a speculative commodity, the price of which has been consistently driven upwards. In the process, first home buyers have had to go up against investors who know the strength of their hand, because the concessional tax treatment will help them to outbid others. The idea that government should go on ignoring the reality of this situation to preserve a status quo that is unproductive for our economy and unfair to the vast majority of Australians is what this government is confronting. Already, since the budget, the news that existing properties won't be eligible for negative gearing has had an impact. An auction for a unit in Mortdale in my great electorate of Banks is one example. It was bought by a first home buyer at an auction in which every bidder would be an owner-occupier. This is being seen all across our country.

In conclusion, this legislation confronts a generational change and a challenge. It corrects some of the imbalances in our housing market while protecting people who have made major decisions under the existing rules. Most importantly, it fronts up to the challenge that our changing and ageing demography presents us. Since the budget, I have received feedback from members of the community in my electorate of Banks, and I've endeavoured to speak directly to as many of these constituents as possible. Like any reforming policy, these changes have garnered considerable debate. This legislation is about recalibrating investment and supporting aspiration. It is saying that income from labour and income from assets should be taxed fairly, and it is saying to first home buyers and young Australians across our country, as well as renters, that their aspiration to own their own home is still worth having and that we will support you in that ambition.

Let's be clear with Australians about what this parliament is being asked to vote on. The coalition is being asked to vote against an income tax cut, not because we oppose tax relief for working Australians but because the government has deliberately wrapped modest tax relief inside a new bundle of toxic taxes on businesses, on retirees, on family savings, on renters, on first home buyers and on young Australians who are trying to get ahead. That's the choice that Labor have engineered. They've taken measures that the coalition supports and chained them to measures that we fundamentally oppose. They've put a tax cut in the same package as taxes that will make it harder to build wealth, to invest, to rent, to buy a home and to start and grow a business in this country. That's not good government. That's political blackmail.

This bill contains four key schedules. Schedule 1 changes the capital gains tax regime. Schedule 2 changes negative gearing. Schedule 3 introduces the working Australians tax offset. Schedule 4 introduces a $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses. The coalition supports schedules 3 and 4. We support tax relief for working Australians, we support making tax returns simpler and we support Australians keeping more of what they earn. But we oppose schedules 1 and 2 because they represent a direct attack on aspiration, on investment and on the Australian dream. What Labor has offered working Australians is a fraction of relief years from now—relief that will arrive after families have already been crushed by inflation, bracket creep, higher mortgages, higher rents and higher grocery bills. By the time many Australians actually see the benefit, it will have been eaten away by the very cost-of-living crisis that this government has helped create.

This government expects Australians to be grateful when it hands back a fraction of what it has already taken. The Prime Minister promised Australians again and again that he would not introduce these taxes. He promised there'd be no changes to negative gearing. He promised there'd be no changes to the capital gains tax. He said all of that before the election because he knew that the Australian people would not vote for it. And now here we are. This is a budget of broken promises. It's not intergenerational fairness. It's intergenerational fraud. It punishes people who did the right thing, who worked hard, saved carefully, invested modestly and tried to build something for themselves and for their families. It punishes the self-starters of this nation.

Margaret Thatcher once put it perfectly when she said of British Labour that they would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich. She understood that politics of envy does not create prosperity. It does not fund better services. It does not lift people up. It drags people down. What was true of British Labour then is true of what has become of the Australian Labor Party now. Those opposite do not ask how we make more Australians prosperous. They ask how can they punish those who are. They do not ask how to grow the economy. They ask how to carve it up. That is the ideology behind this bill.

Let me turn first to negative gearing. Labor is dressing up these changes as though they are designed to help young Australians and first home buyers. That is false. The reality is simple. When you tax housing investment, you get less housing investment. When you make it harder to provide rental homes, you reduce rental supply. When rental supply falls, rents rise. It's not complicated. It's not ideological. It is economics 101. Before a young Australian buys their first home, they rent. So, when Labor puts upward pressure on rents, it does not help young Australians. It hurts them before they even get to the starting line. A young person who's saving for a deposit is already being hit from every direction. They're paying more rent. They're paying more for groceries. They're paying more for electricity. They're paying more because inflation has run through the essentials of life. Now this government wants to reduce the number of rental homes that are available to them while they save. That's not fairness; that is betrayal. Labor says that these changes will level the playing field, but what they're actually doing is pitting investors against first home buyers. They're telling investors, 'If you want to retain the benefit of negative gearing, go and buy new properties.'

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

Si vis pacem, para bellum: if you want to have peace, prepare for war. That was by a bloke by the name of Flavius Vegetius Renatus, but you can just call him Vegetius; that's how he was known. Of course, that could have been said by Plato, by Thucydides, by Dwight Eisenhower or by Winston Churchill.

We have got to understand that the recent intimations from the Labor Party that they are going to get out of AUKUS are incredibly dangerous. I want to run some names past you: Senator Roger Wicker, Senator Jack Reed, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, former senator Jon Tester and Elbridge Colby. They also don't want Australia in AUKUS. I always thought there would be problems from them—problems from the United States—or problems from England. I didn't realise it was going to be problems from the Australian Labor Party. The division that they have now put out there about our position, which was supposed to be unanimous on AUKUS, is incredibly dangerous for us. AUKUS is not there, really, to look after a situation where a totalitarian regime is attacking the United Kingdom or the United States. It's there to protect us, and now we're the ones that are in the bill. The Prime Minister must come out today and unequivocally support this.

The Albanese government's focus on strengthening Medicare has delivered both the Palmerston Medicare Urgent Care Clinic and now the Darwin Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, the latter of which opened last week. No appointments are required to get the urgent non-emergency bulk billed care that you need when you need it. It's extended hours, seven days a week, and it's taking the pressure off both the Royal Darwin Hospital and the Palmerston Regional Hospital. The MUCC in Darwin has now seen over 300 patients in just over a week, 48 per cent under the age of 15. Thirty-three per cent came with acute injuries and 67 per cent with illness related presentations. Fifty-seven per cent of patients said they would have gone to the emergency department, the ED, if not for the urgent care clinic. The average time from entry to exit is just 28 minutes—so good service quickly when Territorians need it. We've seen increasing word of mouth in response to the old question, 'How did you hear about the service?' Two people specifically mentioned they had heard about it from me speaking right here, so I'm happy to hear that. Pathways are also in place, with Danila Dilba Health Service, for urgent care for First Nations community members. Culturally appropriate care is still available there, of course. We're also delivering increased parental leave, which will go up to 130 days from 1 July, and cheaper medicines, of course.

Labor's budget of broken promises delivers toxic taxes, destroys aspiration and saddles future generations with more debt and higher interest payments. Because this Labor government can't control its spending, Labor is coming after more of your money. Taxes will rise by around $280 billion under Labor—so much for Labor's promise of lower taxes! Under Labor, Australia's debt will hit $1.25 trillion, costing taxpayers $80,000 in interest payments every minute—so much for Labor's promise of paying down the debt! Labor preaches about intergenerational equity, but Labor is taxing away the incentives for young people to save and invest and saddling them with higher taxes from its failure to manage its own budget—so much for Labor's promise of helping the next generation! Labor's attack on older Australians by cutting the loading on the private health insurance rebate and its betrayal of veterans by capping their healthcare plans are absolutely disgraceful.

The coalition will fix Labor's mess. We'll ensure our migration program works for Australians and in the best interests of Australia's citizens, not in the best interests of Labor. We'll fix bracket creep and axe Labor's toxic tax hikes, saving people on houses. We'll take action to restore incentive, aspiration and prosperity for all Australians.

'Woo hoo!'—that is the feeling of riding a bike. And today is UN world bike day. I know that the member for Perth is a regular cyclist and has ridden across our magnificent Boorloo Bridge in Perth. Today is a day of celebrating the simplicity of riding a bike, and I can let people know that the community of Swan loves riding bikes, whether that's the mamils of South Perth commuting to work, or the parents of Vic Park riding their cargo bikes to do school drop-off, or whether it's kids from Beckenham playing on the BMX course. All people in my community love cycling. And, of course, we have the magnificent Boorloo Bridge.

But this is a government that doesn't just talk the talk or walk the walk, or ride the ride; we're actually putting money behind this. In Swan, in Cannington, we've provided funding from the Active Transport Fund to build an active transport footpath from the Cannington Leisureplex to the river. This goes past the Canning RSL. It also goes past Cannington Community College. This will be a great community asset. But in this budget we've also committed $500 million from the Active Transport Fund—that's $50 million over a 10-year period.

Cycling is great for your health. It's great for the environment. It's also great for your back pocket. This is about getting people cycling.

If you're one of the three million Australians with a HECS debt, the amount that you owe the government went up this week. Log into myGov and check.

Every year, HECS debts increase with indexation on 1 June. Here's the problem. Over the last 12 months, your employer withheld money from your salary to repay your HECS, but those repayments weren't deducted from your HECS balance before this year's indexation was applied. Actually, they won't be credited against your HECS balance until much later in the year. When you pay off your mortgage or your credit card, the bank cannot charge you interest on repayments that you have already made; that would be illegal. But when the government does it, it's fine and normal.

Parliamentary Budget Office analysis shows that moving the indexation date for HECS from 1 June to 1 November would save Australian graduates more than $3.2 billion over the next 10 years. That is $3.2 billion in stealth tax that the government should not be charging you.

That's why, later this month, I will introduce a private member's bill to correct unfair HECS debt indexation. If you, like me, want to fix HECS, go to my website and sign the petition.

We all know that the traffic on Bells Line of Road is significantly higher due to the closure of Victoria Pass, and people like Ursula, Alex and others have told me that it's being felt by local residents and businesses. I'm in constant discussion with the New South Wales Minister for Transport's office, passing on the feedback, so please keep letting me know what you're experiencing.

There are some changes coming. The New South Wales government and council have agreed to reopen a truck rest-stop, seven kilometres east of Bilpin, so that, when truckies need a break, they have a safe bay to park in and trucks are not impacting local businesses. Significant slope remediation works will also begin this month, to keep sections of the Bells Line of Road stable. These are urgent works and will be done over 10 weeks, 24 hours a day, with the road open at all times. You'll also see new speed limit restrictions, but I'm advised the aim is to minimise any delay to travel times, which are expected to increase by two minutes. I'm glad that some of our concerns are being addressed by these measures.

On top of this work, of course, the Albanese government is delivering $514 million on the new North Richmond bridge, construction of which will begin later this year, plus another $100 million for Bells Line of Road safety upgrades. This is a record investment in these roads to keep the Hawkesbury moving.

In his budget speech, the Treasurer said he was making the tax system 'fairer and stronger for workers, businesses, first home buyers and future generations'. He said that his government was embracing its intergenerational responsibilities. But the reality is very different. These are not reforms that expand opportunity. They are taxes that punish aspiration.

The Treasurer says he is helping young Australians into housing, yet many young people tell me these changes do exactly the opposite. Take Jordan, a 27-year-old in my electorate. Before the budget, Jordan had mortgage preapproval and was working towards buying her first home. After the government announced its changes to negative gearing, her mortgage broker informed her that her borrowing capacity had fallen by $200,000. In one budget, Labor has pushed the dream of homeownership further out of reach for a young Australian who did exactly what we tell people to do: work hard, save and plan for the future. Jordan told me she now struggles to see the point of working to save if she is effectively locked out of the same investment opportunities previous generations enjoyed.

That is the problem with these toxic taxes. They do not create opportunity; they take hope away. Treasurer, if your idea of intergenerational fairness is making it harder for young Australians to buy a home, then perhaps the problem is not the tax system. Perhaps it is your government's understanding of aspiration.

I rise to welcome the Fair Work Commission's decision to raise the national minimum wage and award wages. Awards are not an abstract part of our industrial system. They are the legal baseline. They set the minimum standards below which workers cannot fall. But in many industries workers are paid above the award through enterprise agreements. That is a good thing. It reflects the real value of their work.

The problem arises when those higher rates apply during employment, but redundancy entitlements are calculated by reference to a lower baseline rate in the enterprise agreement. A worker may be paid one rate every week on the job, but, when redundancy comes, that calculation can be based on a much lower rate, sometimes close to half of what they were actually earning. That is why the award increase matters.

When awards rise, they lift the legal floor. They help narrow the gap between minimum rates, agreement rates and the commercial rates that are actually paid in industry. As a former electrician and industrial lawyer, I've seen what that gap means in practice. It is not theoretical. It affects what workers take home when the job ends. This is in stark contrast to the Liberals' record. Work Choices was designed to weaken awards and reduce protections working people relied upon. And that is why those opposite do not support wage increases and award increases. Labor believes awards matter, minimum wages matter and redundancy entitlements matter. This decision strengthens the floor under working Australians, and I welcome it.

There's a fun game that we like to play late at night on this side of the chamber, which is called 'spot the ever-deleting comments feed on Labor backbench socials'. The backbench has been instructed this week by the Treasurer to go out and spruik the budget and to direct their taxpayer funded communication allowances to selling Labor's toxic taxes.

If you have time, I strongly recommend that you cast an eye over the commentary on so many of these posts, often in response to what appears to be a routine resembling a dancing girl warm-up or perhaps a game show host. Pick any backbencher—Bonner, Sturt, Barton. Here are a few comments from this morning:

Taxing you to prosperity! Moronic!

Another propagator sales job from the government—you've increased taxes … for everyone!

It's not helping young people.

This is socialism—keep spending so our standard of living will get worse.

Another set of Labor—

Oh, I can't use that word—

Don't be naive. Labor has locked in inter generational inequality by pulling the ladder up on the younger generations trying to get ahead and kept all the advantages for older generations.

If you believe in these policies will all Labor politicians volunteer to sacrifice their negative gearing or pay capital gains on their investment portfolios?

Labor—

word that cannot speak its name in this place—

x four.

Please explain to me how 15,400 of the places under the Australian Labor Party 5% deposit Home Guarantee Scheme went to non Australian residents?

How is that helping young Australians?

Well, it's a fair question. Anyway, Australia, go have a look now before the social media manager blasts the lot at 10 pm.

This week we have seen a win for three million Australian workers, a win for workers at the core of our communities. The Fair Work Commission has lifted the minimum wage by 4.75 per cent, which means that the minimum wage is now over $1,000 per week. This is real, meaningful change for the lowest paid workers in our communities and their families.

On this side of the House, we fought for this fairness. We fought for our community, for our retail workers, our receptionists and our care workers. But what about those on the opposite side of the House? They deliberately suppressed wages for a decade. They consistently refused to back minimum-wage cases and they refused to support fairer tax cuts for all working Australians. Australians saw through it last year, and they continue to see through it. With lower taxes and higher wages, we're backing workers and their families in the fight against the cost of living. We will always back our communities to earn more and keep more of what they earn.

'Yes. How hard is it? For the 50th time.' You remember—that's what the Prime Minister told Australians when asked if he would rule out changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. He also said:

The only tax policy we're implementing is the one we took to the election.

Now, he's saying:

Our changes are pro-aspiration and pro-supply …

There's a Jim Carrey movie about a smooth-talking lawyer who builds his career bending the truth until his son makes a birthday wish: for one day, he can only tell the truth. What's that movie called?

Liar Liar.

Yes!

Don't push it.

It's the word that has been banned in the chamber, times two. Imagine if that happened here. Then, Australians may have heard the Prime Minister say, 'Actually, millions of Australians trying to get ahead are about to be hit with no aspiration, anti-supply higher taxes.'

It's not people from the big end of town getting hit. It's a father of two from Glenmore Park who built a self-funded safety net now calling these taxes 'grossly unfair', saying they 'penalise a lifetime of full-time work and responsible self-reliance.' It's Peter, another hardworking taxpayer. He says:

PM, your CGT changes are a fraud—a radical ideology behind a housing smoke screen.

These are everyday Australians building a nest egg so they can stand on their own two feet.

The coalition backs aspiration. We will deliver real tax cuts for hardworking Australians who are constantly being squished by bracket creep, and I'm happy to say that 50 times.

For too long, the scales have been tilted against ordinary Australians. First home buyers have been locked out of the Australian dream, and, for too many young Australians, getting ahead has become harder than ever. That is why the recent budget changes are so important. The budget is not just about levelling the playing field for first home buyers. It is about building an aspirational Australia—an affordable Australia.

For too long, our tax settings have favoured the few and entrenched wealth in the top 0.6 per cent. Australia now has 178 billionaires—17 more than just a year ago. Meanwhile, nurses, teachers, students and everyday Australian workers are expected to pick up the tab. On this side of the House, we believe Australians should earn more and keep more of what they earn, and that is exactly what this budget delivers. In Dunkley, 1,837 first home buyers have purchased a home through the five per cent deposit scheme and we have 19 social homes under redevelopment. Minimum-wage workers are around $12,000 better off thanks to the government's support for higher wages.

We want to build an aspirational and affordable Australia. We recognise what those opposite fail to understand: the system has not been working for everyone.

I want hardworking Australians to take more home in their pay packet every fortnight. I want hardworking Australians to see every dollar in that pay packet go further. I want hardworking Australians to pay fewer of those dollars to Canberra to be spent by government, rather than by those Australians themselves. You see, the less money you pay in tax, the more you have to pay for things that you think are important.

It allows families to have that holiday they deserve. It allows families to live in the home they want to call their own. It allows families to pay for the kids to go to school, to go to camp, to play sports and do activities. Lower taxes allow families to plan for the future and build a nest egg for them and their loved ones. This is why the coalition talks about the need to restore the standard of living. It is why we are committing to axe Labor's toxic taxes, and it is why we are guaranteeing the Australian people that we will ensure personal income tax cuts are delivered.

I appreciate the opportunity here to answer a question I was asked by the member for Bowman when I was in here earlier, during the Treasury laws amendment bill debate. He asked me, 'Will the member for Forde be out there selling the budget?' I can tell you and those opposite you bet I will, absolutely. The clearer it becomes—I can't believe that they're making the same mistake again in opposing a tax cut. They're not only opposing a tax cut this time but also promising to take to the next election a policy of bringing in tax breaks for property investors. They've managed to somehow jump the shark and go even further. As people realise that the changes to capital gains tax and the changes to negative gearing are about levelling the playing field for first home buyers and restoring a bit of equity in the Australian community, they're going to be out there supporting a tax break for property investors. I can't wait for that debate!

The other thing that this debate has revealed is that we on this side are not going to cop the status quo anymore. We have tried as hard as we can to fix things, and it just hasn't worked enough. So we are going to throw everything at it to fix this problem. We go to the next election challenging the status quo. They go to the next election supporting the status quo. I know, looking at the electoral environment today, which side of that I would rather be on.

Through a budget built on broken promises and toxic taxes, Labor are pushing tax hikes onto millions of Australians, and they're doing it to pay for a spending addiction they can't control. The Treasurer has admitted that Australians will be whacked with around $280 billion more in taxes over the next decade, compared to under the coalition's tax plan. Think about that. Labor tout reform, but in truth they intend to trouser $280 billion more from the workers, families, farmers and small businesses. They'll take it in the form of a housing tax, a small and family business tax, a saving and investment tax and a secret death tax. And then, of course, there's their favourite, bracket creep—the silent tax, the sneaky tax, the automatic annual tax hike, the tax that punishes Australians because this government can't get a handle on inflation.

Australians know that they've got a prime minister who's not up to the job. They know Labor has lost control of the budget and that Labor has run out of money so it's coming after theirs. The coalition will take an axe to Labor's toxic taxes and will deliver real reform. Instead of being honest about its spending addiction, this government acts like an addict looking for another score. Sadly, for Australians that means they pay more because under Labor they always do.

First home buyers have been playing the housing hunger games, where only investors survive and thrive—first home buyers in the arena, armed with a deposit and hope, up against dozens of cashed-up investors. Only one house, one winner—until now. Over the last week I have spoken to many 'tributes' in my electorate of Dickson who say the game has finally changed in their favour. Our changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax incentives announced in the budget are already making a difference on the ground.

Katie and her partner have been trying to buy their first home in Petrie, in my electorate of Dickson, for six years. They have been outbid by investors year after year. Last weekend, Katie went to an open home. It was just her and her partner, no investors. She now feels they have a chance. Kathleen, a 65-year-old single mum from Arana Hills who has spent a year looking for a home, has been outbid many times. Finally, she had her offer accepted on the weekend. Now her daughter and her two grandchildren will move in with her, and she says she finally feels their future will be safe and secure. Our tax reforms finally changed the game. This budget is about levelling the playing field. The odds are finally in their favour.

We know the Prime Minister has a challenging relationship with the truth. When he comes to this dispatch box, he tries his best to persuade Australians that what they're experiencing isn't really happening. The problem is that the Australian people aren't buying it. The Australian people aren't quite as stupid as the Prime Minister thinks they are.

When I was back in the Redlands this weekend, I heard from local business owner Vijay, who told me about the impact that the CGT changes will directly have on his ability to expand and hire new staff. It's now no longer worth the risk. And I heard from the retired couple Glen and Margaret, who are two of 23,000 people within my electorate who'll be impacted by the government's reduction of the private health insurance rebate. They told me they can no longer justify the expense.

The Prime Minister is so out of touch with the outside world, so lost in the Canberra bubble, that those voices are entirely lost on him. But he's going to have to step up his efforts if he's going to outspend reality on this one. Perhaps the Prime Minister should ask the networks for another prime-time slot for him to deliver another patronising lecture. Why doesn't the Prime Minister invite Shaquille O'Neal to do a joint press conference to endorse his toxic taxes!

These taxes punish aspirations. The Australian people know that, and they want them axed. Prime Minister, will you listen to those voices from my community want these taxes axed?

I want to talk to you about the Australian value of a fair go. My family migrated here in 1968. We came here for the Australian dream: a decent crack at homeownership, public health, public education, a fair go and a good life. My grandfather worked at Holden, my father was an electrical draughtsman, and they bought into the Australian dream, literally.

Of course, in 1968, the average house cost between 2½ and four times the average wage, statistics this generation can only dream about. In 1999, when the Howard government introduced their catastrophic CGT and negative gearing changes, housing prices were still only three-to-four times the average wage, a small rise from 30 years earlier, when my family bought their house. It's been less than 30 years since, and they've shot up to anywhere between eight and 16 times the average wage—totally unaffordable for your average first home buyer.

This government is committed to giving our children and grandchildren a fair go and giving them a crack at the Australian dream again, a dream where they have a fair go at buying a house without having to compete against investors subsidised by the taxpayer. Whether you're the child of a factory worker or the child of a professional, a home to call your own in which to build memories and maybe start a family—that's Australian values. That's a fair go. That's a good life. And that's what this government is about.

Last night on level two in the parliament, there were two vastly different events. One was held in the Channel 9 studios, and it was a celebration of the Sydney Morning Herald's 195 years of publication. The Prime Minister gave a very good speech—he did. The Leader of the Opposition gave a far better one.

Indeed, about a few hundred metres along the corridors, something vastly different took place. It was the consideration in detail. As long as I've been here, ministers have turned up to the Federation Chamber to answer questions from both the government and the opposition. These are questions that people across Australia need to know the answers to: questions about the budget. And it's no wonder that ministers were absent from those discussions.

Have you ever had someone rep you?

No, never. I always turned up. I always did. But I'll take that, interjection, because you had ministers missing in action—from Defence and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They were not there to prepare to defend their own budget. They were not there to answer the questions that Australians are asking about the budget. Why are there $77 billion worth of tax hikes in this budget? Why is this budget hurting so many ordinary, everyday Australians? What have we got? ministers missing in action.

I rise to support the reforms contained in the budget. This budget is designed to deliver fairer outcomes for Australian workers and aspiring homeowners. This budget will build on the tax cuts we've already delivered and further reduce the tax burden for over 13 million workers. That's teachers, nurses, tradies, aged-care workers, disability support workers, early childhood educators and all Australians who work hard for their wages.

The coalition opposed our tax cuts last year, a move that was soundly rejected by millions of Australians across the country, and we urge those opposite not to make the same mistake again. This budget will make it easier for Australians to buy their own home. For too long too many Australians have been locked out of the housing market. The challenge of housing affordability is a massive issue in our community, and there is widespread acceptance that our housing market is not working, especially for young people aspiring to own their own home. We cannot accept the unfair status quo, which is effectively locking out an entire generation from ever owning their own home. That is why our government is taking action.

This budget will restore hope for thousands of people across the country that they might one day be able to afford their own home— (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Today we welcome the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands, Matthew Wale, to this place. Solomon Islands is a dear neighbour and an indispensable friend to Australia. What is the government doing to deepen this friendship and support the sovereignty of sovereign islands in the face of disruptions to peace in the Pacific?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed it was an absolute pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands, Matthew Wale, and his ministers to our nation's capital. I ask everyone to give them a welcome.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Our nation is very honoured that the Prime Minister has chosen Australia for his first overseas visit since taking office about two weeks ago. That decision reflects the history and the deep bonds of cooperation that have linked our two nations and our two peoples over decades. As Prime Minister Wale said earlier today, the resilience of our relationship is self-evident. It certainly is.

At the request of Solomon Islands, our two nations will commence negotiations on a new, comprehensive treaty underpinned by mutual trust, respect and open dialogue. This new treaty will help us confront global and regional challenges together as equal partners in the pursuit of peace across the Blue Pacific that we proudly share. Australia warmly welcomes Solomon Islands' signature to the Pacific Policing Initiative. The Prime Minister will visit the Pinkenba facility tomorrow and just see the work that the Australian Federal Police are doing, along with their police counterparts throughout the Pacific, on getting that common culture in policing throughout the Pacific, making the security of all of our nations in the Pacific family that much stronger. This is also about building our regional security. Australia and Solomon Islands, like so many in our Pacific family, recognise that peace and security in the Pacific must come from within the Pacific. That is a key distinction. I welcome the comments of the Prime Minister today in our one-on-one dialogue and our meeting with senior cabinet ministers. He'll meet the Leader of the Opposition later this afternoon and members of his team.

This is a very significant visit for Australia, indeed one of the most significant that we have had during my time as Prime Minister—that we could possibly have—because the Solomons are, of course, very close neighbours to us. We know there have been pressures on Solomon Islands and there have been bumps in the road. But this is an absolutely important journey that Prime Minister Wale and I have embarked upon today. He will be an honoured guest. Jodie and I will host Prime Minister Wale and Madam Wale this evening at the Lodge to further cement the personal relationship that we have.

At a time of global disruption, respectful engagement between equal partners looking to solve shared challenges and seize shared opportunities is more important than ever in education, in security, in tackling climate change, in economic resilience and in economic development, because it's through these relationships based in mutual trust, respect and dialogue that we will build and strengthen our shared future as members of the Pacific family and bring security and opportunity to our peoples.

I thank Prime Minister Wale for the invitation that I have, and I'm hoping to visit the Solomon Islands to reciprocate in a month's time. I look forward to us continuing to work together on this treaty, which will be very much in the interests of both of our nations.

on indulgence—Can I associate the opposition with the fine words of the Prime Minister. Prime Minister Wale, I welcome you, your wife and the Solomon Islands delegation on a cold and rainy day in Canberra. Next month, Solomon Islands celebrates 48 years of being an independent nation. Ahead of that anniversary, and on behalf of the federal opposition, I give my best wishes to you and the people of the Solomon Islands. In 1978, as your people ushered in nationhood, profound words were spoken by your first Prime Minister, Peter Kenilorea. He said:

Independence means having our own political freedom, our own status, our national identity, dignity, and self-respect as a nation.

Prime Minister Wale, Australia is unwavering in its support for Solomon Islands' sovereignty and freedom, particularly in an age of emboldened authoritarian regimes who respect neither freedom nor sovereignty. Solomon Islands will always have a friend in Australia, just as Australia will always have a friend in the Solomon Islands. I look forward to seeing the growing engagement between our police forces we've just heard about. I also welcome the news that Canberra and Honiara will begin negotiations on a new comprehensive treaty. You are a most welcome guest in our country and a dear friend.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Today's national accounts show that GDP per person went backwards in the March quarter for the 10th time out of 15 quarters under Labor. On Labor's watch, more than 1.4 million migrants have arrived in Australia. Prime Minister, why is out-of-control migration your only strategy to achieve economic growth?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. When I spoke with Prime Minister Wale earlier today, I said that our parliament can often be a bit robust. It began well, and it's headed downhill pretty quickly.

Like the Australian economy!

The Australian economy is growing. Fun fact—it grew by 0.3 per cent in the March quarter to be 2.5 per cent higher during the year under the circumstances of what is happening. In the March quarter, there was this event on 28 February. There was this little event that they say is an excuse. This is a mob who earlier on in 90-second statements also criticised the work that we had done on fuel security. There is no country you would rather be than Australia, particularly if you talk to people in our region about what is happening, countries in our region where they have compulsory public holidays once a week because there isn't enough fuel. What we have managed to do is secure more fuel in Australia than there was on 28 February. We've been able to do that in spite of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition actually ridiculed and criticised us for going to Singapore, for going to Brunei, for going to Malaysia—

The Prime Minister will pause for a moment, and I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

It goes to direct relevance. The question was about out-of-control migration and anaemic economic growth. Will you please come back to it?

The question also included the growth figures of today and then the question of immigration and why out-of-control migration is the only strategy to achieve growth. I think the Prime Minister is saying that is not accurate, so he is being directly relevant. It's a pretty broad question, covering a number of topics.

An opposition member interjecting

I take the interjection, which actually just said 'nothing about fuel security', as if what is happening in the global economy has nothing to do with an impact here. We have received 2.5 per cent annual growth, which under the circumstances of the pressures that are on—and the leader of the 'Liberal One National party' over there comes in here in spite of the fact that they know that the migration rate has fallen by 45 per cent. What they do is come in here, pretend that we're immune from a global impact of a global war order.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! There were way too many interjections during that, the member for Casey, the member for Bowman, the member for Barker, the member for Herbert. We're just going to reset. When the House comes to order—

When the member for Herbert ceases, we will hear the question.

My question is to the Minister for Pacific Island Affairs. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to deliver a safe, peaceful and prosperous Pacific?

I thank the member for his question and his passion for our relationships with the Pacific. We're committed to building relationships with the Pacific family. Australia's prosperity and security depend upon a safe and prosperous Pacific. We turn up, we listen, and we act on the priorities of our Pacific friends. That's why we're delighted to welcome Prime Minister Wale and his high-powered ministerial delegation to Australia. The fact that you chose Australia for your first international visit so recently after being appointed is a tremendous compliment to us, which we take seriously. We're inspired by your ambitious objectives for your people, and we're committed to working with you to achieve them.

We're delighted that we've agreed to reset the relationship through a comprehensive, strategic, transformative treaty. This will build on a base that's already very strong. In my numerous visits to Solomon Islands, I've been inspired by the love and affection our two peoples hold for each other. Fifty per cent of tourists to your wonderful country come from Australia. We're your largest export destination, and, through the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, over 12,000 Solomon Islanders have come to Australia. There are 5,000 right now filling critical labour shortages, sending back on average $1,500 per month to their families.

In a recent visit to Honiara, I met Jerrod and Joseph, two returned meatworkers who spent three years away from their families filling labour shortages in our abattoirs. They now had the skills and savings to set up businesses in the Solomon Islands, growing your economy. We're also privileged to be your largest development partner, acting on your priorities. I was delighted to open the $60 million National Transport Fund with Minister Ricky, an important innovation where we designated that every dollar had to go to a Solomon Islands company. That meant that you got the double dividend of both the infrastructure and the skills- and capacity-building to build your economy. I call on all development partners. If it's good enough to fund projects in the Pacific, it's good enough to trust Pacific companies and Pacific workers with that work.

I was also delighted to, through the leaders communique today, announce further support for your cyclone recovery, as well as 15 vocational scholarships. We're committed to working on your priorities, Prime Minister. So I say to you, Prime Minister Wale and your ministers: Tenkyu tumas for coming to Australia. Tenkyu tumas for your partnership. And to the wonderful people of the Solomon Islands: Tenkyu tumas for the affection you hold to Australia. Thank you.

My question is to the Treasurer. This week economist Richard Holden described Labor's CGT changes as 'a productivity-seeking missile that identifies the most dynamic, highest growth, job-creating businesses and taxes them at huge rates upon sale'. Today's national accounts show the sharpest fall in productivity in almost two years, with productivity down by more than five per cent on Labor's watch. Treasurer, why is Labor introducing a productivity tax during a productivity crisis?

I just said to the Deputy Prime Minister that I hope the shadow Treasurer asks me about productivity, and he has. There are three reasons I'm pleased he's asking me about productivity. The first reason is that the budget we handed down from this dispatch box a few weeks ago was more focused on the productivity challenge than were any of the budgets handed down by those opposite in the wasted decade of missed opportunities that preceded us. That's the first point.

The second point is that I'm told that the shadow Treasurer put out a press release today talking about productivity, and this is what he said about productivity. He said productivity is down by five percent since this government took office. So I checked out that number, and I'm pleased that I did. I want to tell the House why I'm pleased I checked out that number. It turns out that the five per cent number that the shadow Treasurer is using includes the March quarter of 2022. Now, we were elected in May of 2022, the first time. So I thought to myself, 'I wonder why he's including the March quarter of 2022 and pretending Labor was in office when the coalition was in office.' Let me tell you why he's doing that. It's because productivity in the March quarter of 2022 fell by 2.3 per cent, and that was the biggest fall in productivity in more than 40 years.

So it always pays to check the numbers. The shadow Treasurer got the fuel excise wrong, he got his fuel security policy wrong, he got the number of shareholders amongst young people wrong and he got the dual mandate for the Reserve Bank wrong—again and again and again.

The manager on a point of order?

On relevance: the question was, why are you putting in place a productivity tax during a productivity crisis?

Yes, that was the question, but the other issues I think the Treasurer is addressing are regarding the capital gains tax changes—the way they were described as a 'missile that identifies the most dynamic, highest growth, job-creating' and a whole lot of other things. He wasn't asked about the opposition, so I'm just going to make sure that the Treasurer is being directly relevant. He won't be able to talk about the opposition's policy, because he wasn't asked about the opposition's policy; he was asked about his policies. The Treasurer has the call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was asked about productivity and the performance of productivity in our economy, and I've explained why the number the shadow Treasurer used today is especially dishonest.

When it comes to the tax reforms in the budget, it takes a special kind of thinker to see a productivity challenge that has existed in our economy for decades and think the answer to that is to leave everything exactly as it is. When Howard and Costello made the big mistake at the turn of the century, they said that share investment would go up, and it went down. It turbocharged the challenges we have in our housing market. It locked generation after generation of young people out of housing. We're taking the difficult decisions to change that, and we've got a budget which is very focused on productivity as well.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Since coming to office, what progress has been made by the Albanese government to deliver Australia's future AUKUS submarines?

I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his service but also the contribution that his state is making to this great national endeavour.

AUKUS is happening. In 2021, AUKUS was first announced by the Morrison government, and I acknowledge the contribution of that government to bringing these three countries together. What was then an idea and a concept is today a great national project in full flight. On this day, there are 220 submariners working on Virginia class submarines serving in the US Navy. There are another 220 ASC workers at Pearl Harbor gaining invaluable experience in getting those same submarines out to sea. There are 100 workers building the Skills and Training Academy at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in Adelaide, another 900 working on the submarine construction yard at Osborne and another 250 building facilities at HMAS Stirling in preparation for the Submarine Rotational Force-West, which begins next year. In total, this is more than a thousand high-skilled, high-paid jobs right now—union jobs—providing income and livelihoods and supporting families, and we are not about to do anything which disrupts that. In just a few years, we will see 10,000 workers at Osborne and thousands more at Henderson, and these will be the largest and highest tech industrial facilities in our country.

Through AUKUS, the Royal Australian Navy will operate eight nuclear-powered submarines. That one of those—just one—is shifting from being a new Virginia to an in-service Virginia is a good deal. It provides consistency against a backdrop of complexity. This makes it just a little easier, and it is a good financial deal. To be frank, this is what we wanted from the start, and that this is now what is going to happen is a great outcome for Australia.

We are a three-ocean nation, and so building our submarine capability fundamentally builds our national sovereignty. Were we to lose that submarine capability, we would become more reliant, not less, on our alliance with the United States. The Albanese government is utterly committed to Australia being a submarine nation, and we are utterly committed to AUKUS and, through that, building a submarine capability which will keep Australians safe.

Before I call the member for Warringah, I'll just do some acknowledgements briefly. I'm pleased to welcome in the distinguished visitors gallery today Her Excellency Mrs Sarojini Seeneevassen, the High Commissioner of Mauritius to Australia, and Her Excellency Ms Doris Adzo Denyo Brese, the High Commissioner of the Republic of Ghana to Australia. I'm also pleased to acknowledge representatives of Local Government NSW, including president Councillor Darcy Byrne, the mayor of Inner West Council, and the chief executive, David Reynolds. Welcome to question time.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Prime Minister. In the 1980s, your Labor mentor Tom Uren fought to stop the Commonwealth from selling off HMAS Penguin at Balmoral. In 2021, you invoked Uren in parliament, saying that Sydney Harbour belongs to the nation and should stay in public hands. So why is your government now planning to sell off parts of HMAS Penguin at Middle Head, against community wishes, and will you commit to setting aside angophora remnant bushland for conservation and keeping historic buildings in public hands?

I thank the member for her question. Order the member for Mitchell. For too long, the question of Defence as a state has been ignored. It was certainly ignored by those opposite when they were in government. As a result, when we look through the Defence Strategic Review about the bases that we need, the focus is on creating much more capable northern bases which can project our Air Force further, but in the same breath it highlights the fact that, as the largest landowner in the country, Defence today is operating many properties which are costing, if not hundreds of thousands then hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain, yet those properties do nothing in terms of Australia's capability.

We hear guffawing from those opposite, and we hear it because in their nine years in government they rotated defence ministers through the portfolio so quickly that they could never get around to the business of actually managing defence, and they left this as an untouched—

Order, the Minister for Pacific Island Affairs will cease interjecting. I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

It goes to relevance, Speaker. There was nothing about the opposition in this question. It was about remnant vegetation and your fire sale.

The manager will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister won't be able to talk about opposition policies or any previous opposition, because he was asked about the government's plans that they are undertaking, which you're responsible for. Do not stray into those territories anymore. The manager is correct—

Order! The member for Canning will leave the chamber under 94(a). I didn't hear what he said, but it's interrupting when I'm dealing with your Manager of Opposition Business, ruling in his favour, and he wants to then heckle him. I don't know why that's happening, but anyway, if everyone can show a bit of respect and courtesy to each other, we'll deal with one thing at a time, instead of this constant bickering and yelling over each other. It's unbecoming, and I won't have it in the House. The Deputy Prime Minister will return to his question.

I can understand the opposition's sensitivity, because, for nine long years they squibbed the issue and they're squibbing it now. HMAS Penguin

No, the Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. I know what you're going to say. Deputy Prime Minister, I just told you not to do that, and I told you not to mention the opposition. You're defying me. If you do it again, I will sit you down. Return to the question or resume your seat. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Dealing with the estate is business which is long overdue in terms of managing Defence policy. As a government we are tackling difficult issues. We are working with communities around Australia who are proximate to each of these estates, each of these Defence properties, each of these bases, including HMAS Penguin, and we are absolutely committed to working through with the community on what is the future use of HMAS Penguin. We have been doing that from the moment that we did the Defence Estate Audit and had an examination as to whether each of these properties had a role to play in our Defence Force, and, if not, what role they could otherwise play.

As I assume the member may know, the process that we have announced is that these properties will be transferred from the Department of Defence to the Department of Finance relatively quickly over the next couple of years, but from there the process of disposing of the properties will take as long as it does. That means that there will be adequate time in which to engage with communities to deal with questions such as the one that the honourable member has raised. We certainly are very willing to work through those issues with the honourable member along with the Assistant Minister for Defence, the member for Wills, who has carriage of this, to make sure that as we manage the future of HMAS Penguin, be inside Defence or beyond, it is a future which has the best outcome for the community in your electorate.

My question is to the Treasurer. What does today's national accounts data tell us about the resilience of Australia's economy, and how does the government's economic agenda compare to other approaches?

I thank the member for McEwen for his question and also for being an absolute champion of the working people in his communities in and around Melbourne and the outer suburbs. Today's national accounts, as the PM said, showed that the Australian economy grew 0.3 per cent in the March quarter and 2½ per cent through the year. This is a very solid outcome in the circumstances. We have our fair share of challenges in our economy, but we've also got sturdy foundations as well. This is the equal fastest annual growth in almost three years—

The member for Page is warned. The member for Page is just interjecting way too much. For the remainder of question time, I want you to assist the House. Control yourself. Do not interject any more.

These national accounts show how resilient our economy is at a time of very substantial global economic volatility. But the biggest story from these national accounts was the contribution made by the private sector and, particularly, business investment. Private sector investment in our economy is booming in these March national accounts. Economic growth was driven by strong growth in business investment, solid consumption and ongoing growth in dwelling investment as well. Those opposite haven't mentioned any of that, because they're determined to talk the Australian economy down and the Australian people down, but these are the facts in today's national accounts.

The biggest contributor to growth was business investment. It's the fastest quarterly growth in nearly a decade and a half. New business investment grew 5.7 per cent. It's more than 10 per cent higher through the year. It made a big contribution to quarterly growth as well. The outlook for investment is encouraging. The capex survey last week upgraded the level of nominal spending in investment to around $200 billion each year, when that capex number came in six times higher than expected. Most importantly, as a share of our economy, business investment is now 12.9 per cent. It was 11.3 per cent when we came to office. Annualised average new business investment is growing at 5.2 per cent under this Labor government. It was going backwards by an average of 1.3 per cent under those opposite. When it comes to these numbers, the pick-up in the private economy is the most important part of the story, and our budget, whether it's the productivity package or our focus on resilience and reform, is all about responding to these challenges and also making the most of our opportunities at a time of considerable uncertainty in the world.

There will always be those who want to talk down the Australian economy and the Australian people for partisan political purposes, and I can hear those opposite chirping away, outing themselves as the guilty party when it comes to talking down the Australian economy. Their strategy is to talk down our economy, to talk up division in our society and to vote against tax cuts and a fair go for first home buyers. This side of the House is cutting taxes, boosting wages and making the housing market fairer for first home buyers. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised Australians they would be better off. Today's national accounts show living standards going backwards. Since Labor came to office, Australians have experienced the sharpest fall in living standards in the developed world. When will the Prime Minister admit his economic strategy has failed Australians?

We see a global crisis as an opportunity to talk Australia up. They see it as an opportunity to talk Australia down. We have growth today of 2.5 per cent, which is higher than a majority of the OECD. The Liberal-One-Nationals over there say it's the worst in the world in the world—

Worst in the developed—

The OECD, mate—the OECD is the developed world.

Order. Order! Members on my left.

That's what it stands for. The OECD—it's this little body based in Paris. Now, we are growing faster than most of the developed world.

Your immigration certainly is!

Order. The Leader of the Opposition is just going to cease interjection.

We have Temu Abbott over here, trying to press buttons and divide Australia, as they always do, when the fact is: as a result of this week, we have an economy that's growing. We have private sector investment which is growing substantially and driving that economy. We have higher wages, as a result of the 4.7 per cent—something that those opposite, those in the Liberal One National coalition of the three parties, speak about: they speak about battlers, from time to time, but give a battler a wage increase and they hate it.

Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?

Speaker—

The manager, on a point of order?

On relevance, Speaker: this question didn't ask anything about the opposition. It was about falling living standards, that are far—

Honourable members interjecting—

And I think that's the bit the Prime Minister is disagreeing with, in his answer, regarding the question. He is entitled to disagree with the question—as every prime minister and minister has done, certainly since I've been in the parliament, so he's not breaking ground there. Let's listen to the Prime Minister, because the Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence, so I think it will be in the best interests of the House if everyone just calms down and listens to the Prime Minister.

When it comes to living standards, there are two issues we've seen this week: a 4.7 per cent increase for those people on the minimum wage, taking it, for the first time, to above a thousand dollars. They say, 'What's that got to do with living standards?'—people's wages; people earning more!

'Wages have got nothing to do with it'!

Those opposite—we know it's a long time since they saw a minimum wage! And tax cuts, which they're going to vote against on Thursday—

Honourable members interjecting—

Alright. Now the House has come to order, we'll hear from the honourable member for Blair.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government helping more Australians into homeownership, and what results are we seeing from the five per cent deposit scheme? Why is this approach more beneficial than other approaches to housing?

I thank the member for Blair for his question. Not only is he a superb representative of his local community, but, in part because of his advocacy, we have now supported 5,000 of his constituents into homeownership through the five per cent deposit program.

Now, there is no greater aspiration in the life of most Australian families than getting into a home of their own, and there is no shortage of aspiration coming from young Australians. The problem is opportunity. Young Australians want to buy a home; they want security; they want stability; they want a home to build their future. What they need and deserve is a fair chance and a government that will back them in, and that's what they're getting from us. This is exactly what our Homes for Australia plan provides.

Under the five per cent deposit scheme, more than 250,000 Australians have bought a home of their own. Together, those Australians have avoided more than $2.3 billion in lenders mortgage insurance. About 60 per cent of the people who enter this scheme actually come in with a deposit that's larger than five per cent. Nearly 70 per cent are ahead on their mortgage repayments, and one in four of these scheme participants have built up so much equity in their home they've transitioned off the scheme altogether.

The Commonwealth Bank recently confirmed that participants in the scheme are outperforming their broader mortgage books when it comes to repayments. How good is that? What it shows us is that, when you give young people around this country an opportunity, they grab it with both hands. That's because young people were never the problem here. They needed a chance. They needed the government to back them in, and that's exactly what we're doing. Our five per cent deposit program is helping Australians get to auction sooner, and the changes in our budget will make sure they have a fair shot when they get there.

I'm asked about alternative approaches. The three right-wing parties, One Nation and their poor tribute acts, do have very different views about how to manage housing. Instead of trying to help, those opposite spend their time talking down the 250,000 Australians who have used this scheme. We've heard the Liberals call it a gimmick, we've heard the Nationals call it a scam and we've heard One Nation call it socialism. I don't know how you call 250,000 Australians in homeownership socialism, but there you have it. You can't back first home buyers and then critique and belittle the choices that they make. We are incredibly proud to have helped more than a quarter of a million people around our country realise the dream of homeownership, and there'll be more where that came from.

Minister for Social Services, I'm not—

It's okay, Member for Lindsay. I heard it. That's why I cautioned her, okay?

After that entrance, my question is to the Minister for Sport. There are over 70,000 community sporting clubs across Australia, many of which rely on donations from trusts. How many community sporting clubs will now feel the brunt of Labor's minimum 30 per cent tax on trusts?

Order! No, we're not having that sort of interjection. The member for McEwen will leave the chamber under 94(a). We're not having that.

The member for McEwen then left the chamber.

I've made it crystal clear that, when people are asking questions, it is not the time to interject. Trust me, if I can hear you from there, it's pretty loud. Out of respect for the member for Moncrieff, we're going to hear her question. We'll hear it in silence, and we'll show everyone the same level of respect.

My question is to the Minister for Sport. There are over 70,000 community sporting clubs across Australia, many of which rely on donations from trusts. How many community sporting clubs will now feel the brunt of Labor's minimum 30 per cent tax on trusts?

I'm just raising a point of order on the direction of the question. My understanding from Practice is that, when a question goes to an actual different portfolio area to the minister who would be responsible for the policy involved, whoever is the most relevant person to the particular question is the person who should stand. There's a principle in Practice. I wasn't able to grab the book out in time, but this is starting to happen a number of times in question time, so—

The member for Moncrieff can resume her seat. Order! The transfer of questions has always been a principle, yes, and that's applied a number of times in this parliament and the last parliament as well.

It was asked to the Minister for Sport because it was around the 70,000 community sporting clubs.

Yes, I understand, and it is the Practice which allows the transfer of questions to ministers. That's always been a standing arrangement of the House. That is able to happen. I appreciate the member has asked her question. Now the Treasurer will answer the question.

As those opposite are aware, charitable trusts are exempt from the minimum, and there are other exemptions as well. When it comes to fixed trusts, for example, they are exempt, and there are other kinds of exemptions and concessions built into the proposal that we put in the budget. As always when it comes to tax reform of this kind, the final implementation details are subject to the usual kind of consultation.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! Before I call the member for Canberra, we're just going to allow the House to come to order. Just for all members' benefit, the way that question was handled was from Practice, page 549, about the transfer. Manager of Opposition Business, just so that you're aware, it's page 549 of Practice.

My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government's Key Apprenticeship Program supporting more tradies to build more homes, and what has been the response to the program?

Thank you to my friend the member for Canberra for her question. Like everyone on this side of the House, she understands just how critical it is that we pull on the full range of levers to ensure that more homes are being built for Australians. This morning, the member for Canberra and I were with the Minister for Housing in the northern suburbs of Canberra to meet Caitlin. Caitlin is an electrician, and she's a small-business owner. Caitlin this year has taken on an apprentice, an amazing young woman called Poppy. Poppy's just 16, but she always knew that she wanted to undertake a trade. Caitlin and Poppy are both benefiting from the Albanese government's Key Apprenticeship Program: $10,000 for an apprentice, paid in instalments, backing apprentices like Poppy to start and, most importantly, to finish their apprenticeship. Caitlin benefits too, because she's amongst the thousands of small-business owners backed by an employer incentive as well.

We now have 25,000 new housing construction apprentices who've signed up to the Key Apprenticeship Program in just the first 10 months. That's 25,000 Australian apprentices who we are backing to build more homes in every corner of this country, including 9,300 more chippies, 5,300 more plumbers and 4,800 more sparkies like Poppy—and the member for Moore as well. More are signing up every week. We are providing targeted support through this program to businesses like Caitlin's to take on apprentices and to apprentices just like Poppy to become qualified tradies. On this side of the House, in the Albanese Labor government, we're helping Australians get trained to build more homes—building homes, not hamburgers, as was the case under the former government's BAC and CAC schemes.

The Leader of the Opposition has a lot to say when it comes to talking Australians down and seeking to divide—

The minister will pause. The member for Riverina on a point of order?

The member for Canberra's question was admirably tight, and he wasn't asked about opposition policies. He wasn't asked about the opposition. He was just asked about Labor's own policies.

Honourable members interjecting—

Alright. I'll deal with this. The minister was asked about what has been the response to the program, so I assume he's going to talk about what the opposition's response to the program was. So he is—

Order! The Leader of the Opposition can please just assist the House and me at the moment while I deal with this matter. The minister was being relevant because he was asked about what's the response, and he's going to tell the House what the response was.

I was telling the House about Caitlin's response and Poppy's response and the response of 25,000 Australians. Your response, Leader of the Opposition, is always to talk Australians down and always to divide communities. You can't even say the word 'TAFE'. You don't support free TAFE, which has seen 742,000 enrolments in just the three years. But tell us, Leader of the Opposition: do you support the Key Apprenticeship Program and what it is delivering to Australian apprentices, or do you agree with your shadow minister, who said the program is 'wrong' and 'throwing good money after bad money'? Small businesses and Australians deserve to know. The Albanese government backs small businesses, and we back apprentices like Poppy, whereas all of the right-wing parties over there are always talking Australians down while we're backing Australians to get a trade to build more homes for Australians.

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Australia's not-for-profits' donors trusts, including non-government schools and churches, will now be impacted by Labor's minimum 30 per cent tax on trusts. How much do not-for-profits stand to lose from the effects of Labor's toxic taxes?

I thank the honourable member for the question. I reiterate the points the Treasurer made: that there are a number of very clear exemptions when it comes to trusts from the policies that have been announced—charitable trusts and fixed trusts. And I undertake that the policy we are putting forward in this budget is to better align taxation arrangements for those who receive income from work as opposed to those who receive income from capital and from trusts. That is something that has been called for for a long time.

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting working Australians after a decade of wages being kept deliberately low?

I'd like to thank the member for Werriwa for her question and for her longstanding advocacy for getting better pay and conditions for workers in this country. Since coming to government, Labor has been focused on helping Australian workers earn more and keep more of what they earn, from enshrining penalty rates into law to our same job, same pay reforms, we back fair pay for workers. This government has advocated each and every year to the Fair Work Commission to boost the wages of our low-paid workers, and just yesterday the Fair Work Commission handed down its decision to award a 4.75 per cent wage increase for modern award reliant workers in Australia.

In their decision they also recognised that the lowest-paid workers relying on the national minimum wage needed additional support and awarded those workers a six per cent pay increase. These workers will now be earning more than $1,000 a week. This decision represents a real wage increase, providing real cost-of-living relief for retail workers like Janita. Janita welcomed the decision yesterday and said that this pay rise would 'definitely help us get ahead'. It will make a difference for support workers like Lika, who said that this pay rise was a win and will assist her and her coworkers with everyday costs. And it will help youth workers like Jordan, who said that these extra dollars mean 'I can spend more time with my family'. This government welcomes the Fair Work decision, because workers like Janita, Lika, Jordan and millions of others deserve a pay increase.

We all know that when those opposite were in government they never once advocated to the commission for a real wage increase, and of course they kept wages deliberately low as part of their economic architecture. You would have thought that, even in opposition, they had learnt their lesson, but they haven't changed their approach. Indeed, Senator Hume made the opposition's position very clear when she said that, if the Fair Work decision comes down at a rate that's higher than inflation, that would be the worst thing for Australians. Even yesterday in her media release about the decision she failed to back this pay increase for hardworking Australians. When the coalition fails to back workers like Janita, Lika and Jordan, it is our Labor government that has their back. These workers deserve a pay increase and they deserve a government that backs them.

I'm pleased to acknowledge in the House today, as the guests of the member for Braddon, Phil and Vicki Purnell.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Prime Minister. According to Oxfam, over the last year 17 more billionaires have been added to Australia's billionaires list, now at 178. Do you think that this time next year there should be fewer or more Australian billionaires?

I've got some difficulties with that question, because it's asking for an opinion, and you can't ask a minister regarding their opinions. Otherwise we would be here all day, if that was the case. I just remind all members that they can't ask ministers or prime ministers for opinions, and it's not the responsibility of the PM. So we'll have to be lenient with this one, and the Prime Minister will get some latitude in answering this question, as a result of the way it was asked.

I thank the member for Ryan for her interesting question. I will make some comments about aspiration. What I want is for people to be as successful as possible. For most people, overwhelmingly, that's not about whether there are more billionaires or not. It's about whether they get a roof over their head that they own. Most Australians don't aspire to be billionaires. What they do aspire to is to live a life of comfort; to be able to retire with decent superannuation, which is why we're putting that in place; and to be able to get health care through Medicare if they get sick or their kids get sick.

One of the great things about this country is that, when Kerry Packer had a heart attack, he ended up at my local hospital—Royal Prince Alfred Hospital—and he got the same care in the emergency department as my mum, the invalid pensioner, did when she passed away having gone through the same level of care that Kerry Packer got at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. That's what they aspire to. They aspire to make the most of themselves, and that's why we're investing in early childhood education. That's why fair and full funding began this year for every student in every public school, as well as in every private school across Australia. They aspire to make sure that they are able to live a life that is free from conflict, which is why we work in the international community to build relations in our region. It's why Australia is a voice for multilateralism and those institutions that we think are important.

I got a question earlier on about living standards and the quality of life that people have. Just a few fun facts—living standards were up over the last year on the annual basis. Living standards were falling 1.5 per cent in the quarter before we came to office—1.5 per cent in just one quarter. The latest OECD data shows that living standards are growing almost three times the OECD average of advanced economies. My government is absolutely committed to a better quality of life for Australians, which is why, when we've had to make difficult decisions on where income tax cuts will be targeted, we've targeted it at low- and middle-income earners. It's why we support the minimum wage increases that were granted by the Fair Work Commission. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to strengthen paid parental leave, and what are the risks?

I want to thank the marvellous member for Bass for her question. I know that she is a great supporter of paid parental leave because of the terrific use her constituents have made of it. Before the Rudd and Gillard governments, Australia was one of the very few advanced economies that didn't have a paid parental leave scheme. Labor introduced paid parental leave, and Labor continues to build on and expand paid parental leave. People who use paid parental leave will get more time. From 1 July this year, we're going to the full six months of paid parental leave. They'll get more money.

We've been increasing the amount that they receive, and, thanks to yesterday's minimum wage announcement, families will now receive almost $30,000 across their paid parental leave. They're almost $16,000 better off since just August 2022 with the election of the Albanese Labor government. Families will also receive more flexibility. Parents will be able to take more time off together, and more people will be eligible as the thresholds continue to increase. Around 180,000 families every year are benefiting, and, when they get back to work, mums and dads will find cheaper child care as well.

Those opposite have always been deeply divided about supporting hardworking Australians. We had former treasurer Joe Hockey saying that mums were double dippers. He said that on Mother's Day, you'll remember. Former prime minister Scott Morrison called them rorters. The member for Goldstein said: 'It's not my choice that women have children. It's genetic.' Now, the Leader of the Opposition wants to strip paid parental leave from hardworking Australian families who are permanent residents.

At the last election I met a lovely family in Parramatta. The mum was a junior doctor at a hospital. The dad had a small business. They'd migrated from India. They were permanent residents. They were on track for citizenship. I don't know why the Leader of the Opposition thinks this family doesn't deserve to benefit from paid parental leave after six years of paying taxes.

They're not on a unity ticket on this. They're not on a unity ticket. Senator Andrew McLachlan says, 'There does not appear to be any clear reasoning why hardworking, taxpaying noncitizens should be treated differently.' It's up to the Leader of the Opposition to explain why he thinks they should be. On this side of the House, we are very clear: cheaper child care, higher wages and lower taxes for working mums, flexibility at work, a lower gender pay gap. And we're for more and better paid parental leave.

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. Older Australians are dying on the waiting list for Support at Home packages. Does the minister take any responsibility for the more than 4,800 older Australians who were deemed eligible for support but died in the past 12 months waiting to receive appropriate home care?

I thank the member for Gippsland for his question. He engages regularly with my office in advocacy around members across his community and their access to aged care. It is always incredibly distressing for families and, of course, for the community more broadly when people pass away—or indeed die—in circumstances where they aren't provided appropriate care. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety examined these issues in great detail and provided recommendations that provided a pathway to the bipartisan approach that this parliament has taken to improving the way that we provide care both in a residential setting and, of course, in regards to the new Support at Home program that was passed through this parliament in the Aged Care Act and began on 1 November.

There is more work to be done. There's no doubt about that. But we are seeing unprecedented demand for aged-care services. I've discussed that many times in this parliament. We released a report on Sunday that showed that waiting times to access home care under the Support at Home program are decreasing across the board. This is a significant step forward and cause for optimism about the way that this is heading. Again, our government is utterly committed to ensuring that every older Australian can get the high-quality, dignified aged care that they deserve. We will continue to work day in and day out to make sure that those waiting times continue to come down and that we get the care to people that they deserve.

My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to protect children from the dangers of online harm?

I thank the member for Dunkley for her question and for her advocacy for her powerful local organisation SmackTalk. The Albanese government is taking world-leading action to protect Australians from online harm, especially children and young people, who are the most vulnerable. Our social media minimum age law has so far seen the accounts of five million under-16s removed, deactivated or restricted. We are already seeing the green shoots of what the world looks like for young people without the pervasive and persistent pull of social media. They are playing more sport, they are reading more books and they are reconnecting with their friends and their families in real life.

eSafety is actively investigating potential noncompliance by Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. If eSafety finds these platforms have systemically failed to uphold their legal obligations, I expect the eSafety Commissioner to throw the book at them in court, because the Albanese government is on the side of parents and kids, not of platforms. That is why we quadrupled funding to our independent regulator and why we are introducing a digital duty of care.

The Albanese government's digital duty of care will change the foundation of Australia's online safety laws. It will recognise that big tech have the technology, have the resources and have the responsibility to manage harms before they occur, rather than solely relying on individuals to report harmful material post exposure, and they will have to ensure the safety of the features they choose to adopt, like AI and like algorithms. The digital duty of care will empower eSafety to react twice as quickly to cyberabuse and to compel more transparency from tech companies, to keep Australians safe online. We have a long-term view and a strategy to ensure that safety is built into online products and is not an afterthought.

As Catherine West wrote in the Australian, all parliamentarians across every party should support the digital duty of care with 'the same multipartisan resolve that delivered Australia's landmark social media ban'. She wrote:

This is not a political question. It is not an issue that should be bargained or traded or compromised. It is a question about what kind of society we are.

The Albanese government have got the backs of Australian families against big tech, and we will not back down.

My question is to the Minister for Resources. Minister, in the 1990s, whistleblower Jim Leggate blew the lid on non-remediated mine sites and foretold of an eventual cost in the billions of dollars. He was vilified dreadfully but vindicated ultimately. Minister, in a 2023 CSIRO report, you noted that 240 mines will close by 2040 at an annual cost of $4 billion to $8 billion. Can you assure us that companies have provided for this expenditure and that taxpayers won't be left to pick up the tab?

I thank the member for Clark for his question. The state and territory governments regulate much of the mining rehabilitation around the country, and they are responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements indeed exist but also are met by mine owners. So governments in all of our states and in the Northern Territory require mining companies to plan for closure from the outset and to back those plans with financial assurances, including the payment of bonds and other similar schemes. There are, however, legacy mines around the country that came into existence before the structured and very essential important assurances I've just mentioned and the overall regulation of mining activity. The states and the Northern Territory manage those legacy mines and their remediation and rehabilitation.

While Commonwealth taxpayers do not foot the bill, the Commonwealth does support responsible mine rehabilitation in a number of ways, but, very importantly, through the ongoing funding for investment in the Cooperative Research Centre for Transformations in Mining Economies, CRC TiME. The report that you referenced was a joint effort between the CSIRO and CRC TiME. CRC TiME is the world's only dedicated research body examining the social, economic, cultural and environmental impacts of mine closure, as well as delving into how you do effectively rehabilitate a mine. I want to take this opportunity to thank the CEO, Dr Guy Boggs, and his team and the 75 partners in that CRC for their efforts in addressing the challenges of mine remediation. That includes those state and territory participants that I mentioned earlier, and their responsibilities—and that is how they are seeking to meet those responsibilities.

Rehabilitation has changed a lot. As of recently, Geoscience Australia has an atlas of mine waste that seeks to unlock value in previously mined and underused rock to boost our global position as a clean energy powerhouse. At Collie in my home state of Western Australia, Lake Kepwari, a former coal mine, is now a lake enjoyed by many in the community. And Iluka's Eneabba Operations show how large mineral sands projects can be returned to really great biodiversity. But equally, in the south-west, we see how mineral sands are returned to agricultural land. There are also new technologies, really importantly, that that repurpose mine infrastructure—for example, proposals such as Green Gravity in the member for Cunningham's electorate, which uses disused coal mine shafts to store and dispatch renewable gravitational energy.

These are really important projects. There is a lot of work to do on rehabilitation. Taxpayers are not footing the bill. The state and territory governments are primarily responsible for making sure that that rehabilitation happens, but we support them as we can.

My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and the Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real outcomes for regional Australia? What other approaches to the regions is the government being asked to consider?

I want to thank the member for Gilmore. As my electorate neighbour, I know how fierce she is when it comes to advocating for her local communities. The Albanese Labor government is delivering real outcomes for regional Australia, investing in the infrastructure that our communities need to prosper and delivering it through transparent grant programs—transparency that is not colour coded. But more on that later.

Our Growing Regions Fund is already delivering real results on the ground for regional communities all over the country, thanks to almost $600 million in funding. And I was pleased to recently hear Cassowary Coast Regional Council Mayor Teresa Millwood talk about the revitalisation of the Mission Beach town centre in Queensland, made possible by $8 million in Growing Regions funding. And she said: 'This is going to breathe new life into Mission Beach. It's already happening. We've got people constructing new accommodation around the village green, and I've spoken to business owners, and they tell me that this is just what this place needed, and we must thank the Australian government and the Queensland government, because without their support this would not have happened.'

Through our budget, we're investing a further $750 million for future rounds of Growing Regions and Thriving Suburbs community infrastructure programs, and that's on top of the projects we're already supporting across the country through our $400 million Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program. They're practical, community driven projects that create jobs, grow local economies and strengthen regional resilience.

Just last month, I announced $48 million for 12 new projects across regional, rural and remote Australia, like Wynyard in Tassie, where more than $9.5 million is transforming Big hART artisan precinct into a hub featuring workshops, a greenhouse, cultural spaces and purpose built infrastructure to support regional enterprise growth. Producer Dudley Billing said: 'This funding gives our community a chance to lean into its strengths. The trades that build our region can carry it forward, hand built, handmade, ultralocal and built to last. That's the artisan precinct.'

These projects show what is possible when governments partner with local communities. But our grants programs are assessed based on merit and transparency. And how does this compare to other approaches?

Opposition members interjecting—

I hear a lot of chirping over there, so maybe if they listen up, they might learn a few things—because, last time they were in government, they used regional grants money as their own personal election war chest. They gave out $261 million of their $272 million Regional Growth Fund to coalition held seats, with $248 million of that funding allocated just before the 2019 election. That's what it's like under them: pork-barrelling on an industrial scale. But not under this government, because on this side of the House, we're a party for all the regions, not some of them.

The member for Riverina will sit. Nice try.

It's not the most unpleasant way he's been sat down, after what happened to him at the club!

Opposition members interjecting—

He was defending me! No, he did well. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. I also ask that Michael McCormack be given question No. 1 tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), I ask that you write to the Minister for Housing seeking reasons for the delay in answering question in writing number 156, which appeared on the Notice Paper more than 60 days ago.

I shall do so as the standing orders permit.

Does the member for Goldstein claim to have been misrepresented?

I do.

You may proceed.

During an answer in question time, the Treasurer made a claim that I was referring to data from the March 2022 quarter. In fact, according to my press release, it was in the context of data during the June 2022 quarter. I ask that he returned to the parliament and explain why he has misled the House. I'm happy to table also a copy of the data and my press release.

Leave not granted. The discussion is now concluded.

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

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

The need for a tax back guarantee.

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—

What do you call someone who raids your wallet, then gives it back and says that you should say thank you for the privilege? The answer is the Albanese government, because what we've seen in the last budget is a government that has broken a series of promises to the Australian community about the taxes that they 'would not introduce'. They got over an election. They got over the need for a democratic test to be held to account, and they've turned around and betrayed the Australian community. When they've done that, they've turned around and said to the Australian people, 'You should thank us for giving us for giving back some of your income tax,' completely deceiving and ignoring the fact that they are actively inflating out any income tax that is offered.

We saw this at the last election, where they offered tax cuts. They were legislated but had been annihilated within six months from the Treasurer's active inflation agenda. We're seeing exactly the same thing in the bills before the parliament right now. They like to boast that they're somehow cutting income taxes. They come into this chamber and say the Australian people and all the members in the chamber should vote with them. But the real truth is they're going to be wiped out by inflation.

We on this side of the House understand the silent thief that is inflation—how it corrodes living standards, how it destroys the effort and the savings of the middle class and how those who work hard to get ahead and save their money are attacked by it. That's one of the critical reasons that this government's economic policy approach is wrong. We've seen in the national accounts today that inflation is part of a persistent problem corroding living standards. While the government likes to boast about what they're achieving in terms of nominal wages, the truth is that real wages are going backwards under this government. There's only one way to fix it, and that is to turn around and stop inflation and to put the handbrake on governments using income tax as a silent method to raise more revenue and take advantage of inflation.

We call it bracket creep. Call it whatever you want. It is inflation that simply corrodes real wages and justifies taking more income tax from the Australian people. That's why the Leader of the Opposition, in his budget reply speech correctly said we will introduce a tax back guarantee. The tax back guarantee turns around to Australians and says, 'If you vote for us, every year, if inflation increases, we will make sure that money is returned to your hip pocket.'

We won't turn around and use the silent thief of inflation to take away your income. That's what the Albanese government is doing. They like to crow. They like to claim. They like to smug the idea that they can take away more of Australia's income while saying they're going to hand it back to the Australian people through modest tax cuts. The truth is they're just acting in a silent-thief-like manner towards Australia's income. Our tax back guarantee is focused on making sure that every year we give a pathway for Australians who experience inflation to get more of their income back and we don't use the income tax system as a silent thief to take away. We'll do it by making sure that every year, as inflation data comes out, it will be returned in your annual tax return. It will be a conscious choice.

This matters because we know, based on the reputation of the Albanese government, they say one thing before an election and they do something different after. Every single year, the tax back guarantee will be put to the test. When we're in government and when Labor's in government, and they will have to choose whether they continue to support returning the money of Australian people back to the Australian people. Now what do you think is going to happen? Do you think that every year Labor is going to turn around and support returning more money to the hip pockets of Australian people taken by inflation? We know the history on this, which is that, when the Labor government runs out of money, they come after yours.

I think it was the member for Wannon or the member for Gippsland who just said they can't stop their spending addiction. They have an economic model, and it's based on stoking the inflation. It's based on then taxing the inflation. And then it's about spending the inflation. Wash, rinse, repeat. No matter what happens, they always find a way to inflate the economy and corrode living standards so long as it means more of the hardworking income of Australians is taxed out of existence and back into the hands of the government to fill their spending addiction.

We don't believe in that vision for the future. We don't believe in a vision for Australia where people apply their hard work and effort, where hard work is put in to build out the betterment of a business, a community or of course the foundations of a country just to be taxed away by a Labor government. We believe in an Australia where money belongs in your hip pocket if you've earned it. We believe in an Australia where hard work pays off, where people have control of their own lives and where they're respected. We believe in an Australia where people will work hard and they will be able to keep their money and, if inflation comes along as a silent thief, we will return that money to the Australian people. We want to empower families. We want their freedom to choose. We want them to be able to decide how to grow the opportunity for themselves and their families and their communities and we want particularly to back small business, because the inflation crisis is not just one for small, for families and households; it's one for small business.

I know it falls on deaf ears on the other side of this chamber. I know so many Labor members simply cannot comprehend what it is like to back yourself, to invest in your future, to employ Australians and to be able to dare big dreams. It's why the Prime Minister during question time couldn't answer whether he wanted more Australians to be successful next year than were this year. We back Australians to get ahead. We believe that, when Australian families are doing well, the nation is doing well. We don't believe that, when Canberra is doing well, Australian people are doing well. It's the other way around. Particularly for the self-starters of this country, particularly those who backed themselves in small business—we have your back every step of the way.

The one thing we will stress is you need hope right now. We need hope. We know, after the latest budget, that all the government is seeking to do is suffocate and punch down on people in small business in the most disgraceful way. The Labor government's legacy already is record small-business insolvencies. Think about that—a record number of livelihoods, a record number of Australians who've backed themselves to get ahead, a record number of those who are employing people in communities who have had record insolvencies under this government. It is not something to be proud of, but they are suffering under the punitive measures of inflation and the cost-of-small-business crisis, which is leading them to an environment where they are looking desperately gasping for air to get ahead. I was recently in the Goldstein electorate in a local cafe down in Black Rock, and that was the message. And anywhere any of the members on this side of the chamber go, they hear the same stories—small businesses desperate to get ahead. They're often paying their staff before themselves, paying their suppliers before themselves and wondering whether it's worth going on.

We know Labor doesn't care about small businesses, and we know that they don't care if they collapse. They just want to triumphant of big capital, big unions and big business, and they can just sit on top of a big government and pull the levers and dictate the terms. But we don't believe in an Australia like that. We believe in one where people work hard and keep their money. If they back themselves, if they create a small business, if they seek out growth and opportunity and if they work hard, they should be able to get ahead, and their money is their money. We don't want it any more than is necessary to secure the nation and to ensure that we give the next generation of Australians their best chance.

That is not the approach of the current government, and you see this in their approach in taxation. They spend to inflate the economy. They then tax it. They then spend it again and continue to repeat the cycle. And the consequence now—and it's plain to see—is that Australians are having their incomes eaten away and their real wages eaten away by bracket creep. We need to make sure that a tax-back guarantee is legislated that empowers Australians to keep their money. A tax-back guarantee exists so that, when the government over taxes, it goes back into the hip pockets of Australians so they can be control of their destinies, their futures, their families and their communities and build the strength and opportunity that this great country can deliver. And it's only with the tax-back guarantee under a Taylor government that we will build the strength of Australia.

Deputy Speaker Claydon, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Go straight to the matter of misrepresentation.

The Minister for Social Services sought to misrepresent the coalition's commitment to restrict welfare to Australian citizens only, during question time.

Is it to you personally? It's got to be your personal—can you just repeat that?

The Minister for Social Services sought to misrepresent the coalition's commitment to restrict—

No. It's got to be you.

She sought to misrepresent my position on our commitment to restrict welfare to Australian citizens only.

No. This is a policy matter that you're debating—

She misrepresented me during question time.

I don't believe this is a misrepresentation of you as a person.

It was absolutely a misrepresentation. She misrepresented my position.

You did not read something about your position. You just read to me 'misrepresenting the opposition'.

It was my position. She misrepresented me.

Go straight to that point please.

The minister sought to misrepresent my commitment to restrict welfare to Australian citizens only. Under my plan, access to 17 welfare benefits, as well as—

Don't go into the argument. You've claimed to be misrepresented on that point. I've heard that now.

I haven't actually had a chance to explain it, Deputy Speaker Claydon.

Opposition members interjecting—

Would you all like to have a say about this? You're not actually helping your leader at the moment.

A bit of respect.

A bit of respect would be good.

Are you suggesting I'm not respecting your position?

I was talking to the member opposite.

Let's get back to your personal explanation and do away with all the commentary from everybody else. That would be very helpful.

If I may state the position and why it was a misrepresentation, it was a misrepresentation because, under the coalition's plan, my plan, access to 17 welfare benefits as well as future eligibility for the NDIS will be limited to Australian citizens from 1 July 2018 but existing recipients are grandfathered. We're not going to take away any welfare entitlements for someone who is already here. This is about sending a message to future migrants. Don't come to Australia if you want to be on welfare.

The point is made now; you've absolutely made the point. That personal explanation was on indulgence. We are now going back to the business before the House, the matter of public importance.

Australians deserve a fair and responsible tax system. They don't want slogans dressed up as guarantees.

The shadow treasurer talked about history. Well, let's go back in history to other slogans that this sounds very similar to. Remember 'back in black'? Remember that? I wonder if they've got their mugs already on order. If those opposite want to talk about tax, then Australians deserve to hear the full story. They talked about history. Let's go back in history. It was the opposition that wanted to roll back our tax cuts for every single Australian, particularly those on lower and middle incomes. They voted against tax cuts for all of those Australians. Not only did they want Australians to pay more tax, but they wanted to take away the tax breaks that we had already given them. Those opposite want Australians to forget that when they were in government wages were deliberately kept low. Suddenly they're pretending they're the friends of workers, when they deliberately kept wages low. Productivity stagnated and living standards went backwards under them, and working people fell further and further behind.

Today the shadow treasurer tried to blame the government for the massive productivity fail in 2022, when they were in government. That was hilarious. Thank goodness the Treasurer is on the money. Do not mess with Dr Jim Chalmers! They want all Australians to forget that they left office with a trillion dollars of debt, ingrained deficits, inflation with a six in front of it and real wages going backwards. And now, after all that, they want Australians to trust them again on tax. Let me tell you the coalition likes to talk about taxpayers. But we on this side—Labor—talk about workers and people getting up early, finishing late, juggling bills, raising children, caring for family members and just doing their best to get ahead.

As a former nurse and a trade unionist, I have spent my life standing alongside those workers—aged-care workers finishing a night shift, childcare educators helping parents get to work, disability support workers or retail workers, cleaners, truck drivers, tradies. These are the people who keep our communities running and who ask for nothing more than a fair go.

The difference between this side of the House and those opposite is simple. When we see cost-of-living pressures, we act. When we see wages falling behind, we fight for workers' wage rises—unlike those opposite. When we see families under pressure, we provide responsible relief that helps people right now while supporting our economy for the future. They voted against every single cost-of-living measure that we introduced, and they have the gall to stand here now and say, 'Aww, we care about workers.' Well, Australians see right through it. Here they go again.

Our budget, the recent budget, supports everyday Australians, and they're going to vote against it. We will deliver targeted cost-of-living relief, invest in essential services and continue the economic progress that Australians have worked so hard to achieve. And nowhere is that clearer than in our record for Australian workers.

Yesterday the Fair Work Commission handed down the 2026 annual wage review decision, which increased modern award wages by 4.75 per cent and the national minimum wage by six per cent from 1 July this year. That means the national minimum wage will increase to above $1,000 per week for the very first time. That represents a real wage increase, supporting workers with the cost of living. With this decision, the national minimum wage will have increased by more than $12,000 per year since Labor came to government. The Albanese Labor government is proud to have backed these pay rises. We'll always advocate for economically substantial wage increases. This is a win for working Australians.

In Cooper, my electorate, I hear from workers who are feeling the pressure of rising costs. For many of them, I have no doubt that yesterday's decision means a little more breathing room at the kitchen table and a little less anxiety when bills arrive.

We are delivering permanent, sustainable tax relief. We are providing a new round of tax cuts through the $250 working Australians tax offset and a $1,000 instant tax deduction. With our previous tax reforms, we're cutting income taxes five times in five different ways, putting nearly $3,000 a year back into the pockets of a worker on average earnings by 2028.

On top of tax relief, we're helping workers and families manage everyday costs by cutting tax on fuel by more than half, reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero and giving the ACCC stronger powers to crack down on price gouging, scams and unfair trading practices. We are doubling maximum penalties to $100 million and providing almost $68 million to strengthen enforcement. Unlike those opposite, we match our words with action. The coalition spent the last parliament opposing sensible and responsible cost-of-living relief while taking higher taxes to the last election. Workers know this. They won't forget this. If you want to talk about history, talk about that.

If those opposite want to talk about tax, then let's talk about who the tax system is working for because, for too long, Australians who work for a living have watched the system reward wealth more generously than work. The vast majority of Australians get up every day, go to work, earn a wage and pay tax. They work hard, they pay their taxes and they expect a fair go, and that's exactly who the budget delivers for. We're taking the next step towards a fairer, more sustainable system. The reality is that the current system makes it easier to buy your 10th home than your first, and that is not fair for young Australians. It's not fair for renters. It's not sustainable for the future of our country, and those opposite do not care.

House prices have increased by around 400 per cent over the past two decades. They've gone from around four times incomes to eight times incomes, and home ownership among young Australians has fallen dramatically. I regularly hear from young people who have studied hard, worked hard and saved hard but still wonder if they will ever own a home. They're asking for a fair go, and the Albanese Labor government has listened. That's why we are reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax to help more Australians buy a new home. We're encouraging investment in new housing supply and helping fund tax cuts for workers to make the system fairer and more sustainable. It's all about backing the Australian ambition of owning your own home.

If investors want to continue accessing negative gearing concessions, they can. In the future, those concessions would be directed towards new homes that add to housing supply. Right now, around 83 per cent of investor loans are going into existing properties, not encouraging the building of new homes. Those opposite say they care about supply. Well, this is supply. Vote for our bill. It is about directing investment towards building homes rather than simply bidding up the price of existing ones. Limiting negative gearing to new builds means these concessions will continue to be available to people who legitimately want to build wealth, but only where they are helping to build the homes that Australia needs.

We're reforming capital gains tax. We are replacing the current 50 per cent discount with inflation adjusted indexation, and we're introducing a minimum tax on realised gains because only real gains should be taxed. That's fair. The treatment of existing investments will not be affected by the changes to negative gearing, and the reforms to capital gains tax will only apply to future gains. It is careful and responsible reform, and it is necessary. We are listening to young Australians locked out of the housing market. The dream of homeownership is disappearing for a generation. Those of us on this side of the house will not stand by and let that happen. They will.

These reforms are expected to help around 75,000 additional Australians buy a home over the next decade. They sit alongside our bold and ambitious housing agenda, where 250,000 people have been helped into their own homes already. This is what responsible governments do. When those opposite come into this chamber demanding a so-called 'tax-back guarantee', Australians are entitled to ask: 'Is that all they've got? Who will this benefit?' They are quite right to be suspicious, because their track record on workers' welfare is rotten. Workers and Australians know that. The answer is simple. The beneficiaries of our policies are clear—workers and first home buyers—with more homes; higher wages; stronger Medicare; free TAFE; and a tax system that rewards effort, aspiration and productive investment.

There is a need for a tax back guarantee. This is so very important. What we've seen in recent times is people's real wages falling and people's standard of living declining. It is so sad when Mr and Mrs Average, ordinary everyday Australians, simply can't afford the bills. They're grappling with the prospect of heating their homes or eating; they have to make that choice. They've got families and they've got bills to meet as far as children are concerned—school fees, sporting, dancing and those sorts of activities. They're saying to their kids, 'Well, we just simply can't get you to the sorts of things that you enjoy this weekend because we can't afford it'.

The state of homelessness in this country is very sad. It's real and it has to be addressed. The budget, handed down a few weeks ago, has 35,000 fewer homes being built over the next decade. That is not a budget that is going to bring hope and aspiration to those seeking to put a roof over their head. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The budget brought a sledgehammer down on aspiration, particularly for the over-65s with their private health insurance rebate. Changes in that regard are going to force older Australians to use public hospitals when they are at a stage of their life when they're needing more health care, not less. That's going to mean a cost shift to state public hospitals.

In the budget we also saw so many things that are not going to help regional Australia, such as a lack of infrastructure spend, such as the Inland Rail only going to Parkes and such as the $191.6 million cut to feral pest programs. We've already got a rabbit infestation in Western Australia. We've got foxes running out of control in country areas. Carp are 80 per cent of the biomass of the Murray-Darling system. And this government has slashed feral pest programs.

The Leader of the Opposition, in his budget-in-reply speech, on 14 May, set out a clear direction, a vision for this nation, with a tax back guarantee. What he said on that night was that from 2028-29 we—that's the coalition—in government will index the bottom two income tax thresholds to inflation. What he said was that this will fully protect 85 per cent of income earners, with relief of around $250 in year 1 for a typical worker and growing to more than $1,000 a year in year 4. In year 1, you'll get $250, comparable to the tax relief that this government is promising, growing to $1,000 a year in year 4. From 2031-32, the coalition will index the top two tax thresholds as well. That will fully protect all income earners from inflation.

Inflation is rampant at the moment. You spike inflation with lower productivity. With the results that we saw in the gross domestic product today, business confidence is low, and this budget had nothing in there for those hardworking, low-earning, risk-taking small businesses that provide most of the employment in this country.

What we're proposing is generational tax reform. What we're proposing is fair, is simple and is something that those opposite don't ever do: it's trustworthy; it's honest. It will back Australians to work hard, to take those risks that I mentioned before, for small businesses, which are hurting so much at the moment. It will force government to respect people's money, because I don't think at the moment, with the budget that was just handed down, there is respect for people's money—$77 billion of more taxes in the budget. It is just going to hurt Middle Australia in particular. It is going to hurt those people who want to invest, those people who want to aspire to something better and those people who simply want to put a roof over their heads and make ends meet.

The shadow Treasurer has come into this place with his insane and irresponsible tax policy, and it comes with a massive price tag. It would be about $273 billion over the next nine years—big figure. It's no wonder that those opposite racked up a trillion dollars of Liberal debt over a decade when they were in government. What's even more amateur, and demonstrative of the ineptitude of those opposite, is that they haven't explained how on earth they would pay for it. Where will those cuts be to realise required offsets? The shadow Treasurer has been silent on this. It's absolutely crickets on that. But we know what the Leader of the Opposition is up to. He wants to rip benefits off taxpaying permanent residents, and that is shameful.

This MPI gives those on this side, the Albanese Labor government, the opportunity to elaborate on how we are responsibly reducing taxes for working Australians and giving more Australians a chance to realise the dream of homeownership, earn more but, importantly, keep more of what they earn. Those opposite should get on board and back tax cuts for working Australians.

This Labor government is rolling out tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer this year and next year and delivering new and permanent income tax cuts for every Australian worker through the $250 working Australians tax offset along with the $1,000 instant tax deduction. In just weeks from now—from 1 July, which happens to be Territory Day—130,000 Territory taxpayers will receive another tax cut on top of the tax relief this government has already delivered.

We're helping more people into homeownership as well. We're reforming the tax system to support 75,000 more homeowners into the housing market and investing an extra $2 billion—with a 'b'—for enabling infrastructure to support up to 65,000 more homes and taking our Homes for Australia plan to over $47 billion. We are also helping to secure social housing for more than 4,000 eligible young people at risk of homelessness, with $59.4 million for the states and territories. I again call on the NT government to engage with the HAFF and in particular stage 3. Territorians are taking up in big numbers the five per cent deposit scheme. Already, 1,350 in Darwin and Palmerston have got on board that five per cent deposit scheme. We have recently increased that to include properties of up to $750,00 in the greater Darwin area.

But our government is doing more. Better services like urgent care clinics are providing free health services when they're urgently needed by Territorians. Palmerston has been one of the best performing urgent care clinics in the country. We've recently opened in Darwin, and I want to acknowledge the health minister—who's in the chamber with us—for his support of Territorians. We've seen a massive uplift in the bulk-billing available to Territorians right across the Territory.

We are making health care more affordable and more accessible, including making Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent feature of Australia's health system. We're also making medicines cheaper and making major record investments in our public hospitals. We also had the Deputy Prime Minister up in Darwin recently for the opening of the Darwin urgent care clinic. That's been really supported as well. We've already seen many hundreds of people, in just the first week alone of the Darwin urgent care clinic's opening, receive care for free when they need it. That's taking pressure off Royal Darwin Hospital, which is fantastic as well. At the same time, we're building a stronger budget with lower deficits and less debt, which is helping to take the pressure off inflation and build our fiscal buffers during this period of global uncertainty.

I wouldn't expect those opposite to consider any of that, because they are quite incapable of understanding their own history, so here's a quick history lesson. The then prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, introduced income tax indexation in the 1976 budget reforms as a major economic reform to address bracket creep, and I'll continue this later on.

That was a really quick history lesson from the member for Solomon, but I thank him nonetheless! I've heard Labor member after Labor member say they're cutting income taxes, and I don't know whether it's that they're deliberately misleading or they just don't understand how their sneaky bracket creep tax works. Every single year, as inflation goes up, the people watching this at home will pay more and more in income tax because the tax brackets aren't inflated by what that inflation goes up by. Thirty years ago, the top marginal tax rate was $180,000. Had we inflated that tax rate up till today with inflation every day, the top tax rate would be $257,000. Instead, it's down at $190,000. So those opposite are doing a tax increase on every Australian worker every single year. They're increasing your taxes. This is what the coalition has said that we will do about it: we will give every Australian worker a tax decrease every year for the rest of their lives.

They come in here and say, 'We love workers.' Well, why are we increasing their taxes every single year with a sneaky bracket creep tax? Why can't we be honest about that? Even this one-off tax cut will be eaten up in just six months of Labor's sneaky bracket creep tax. This is what this government is doing. They're giving you a little with one hand but taking far more with the other.

Members have heard me talk about the real struggles going on in the seat of Cook. If they're happening in the seat of Cook, they're happening right over the rest of Australia. I've met with the St Vincent de Paul team. They're telling me about people sharing housing and about kids sleeping on floors with no mattress and them giving them blankets. I've spoken about a single mother who I've met who's lost her house and her housing deposit, in absolute tears, because they don't have enough money to actually service their mortgage, let alone pay for school fees or buy food. These are real people I am meeting every day in my electorate. These are the people we want to give a tax cut to every year for the rest of their lives.

They say they're reducing taxes, but what's happening in this actual budget? Taxes are increasing by $80 billion. This is the highest-taxing budget ever in the history of the country. We are taking more money from hardworking Australians and hardworking businesses than we have ever done in the history of this country.

On how bracket creep is working, just to give a couple more figures, today income tax is about 12 per cent of GDP, of everything the economy produces. Through Labor's sneaky bracket creep tax, over the next decade it'll climb from 12 per cent to 15 per cent. We're going to take a greater share of income tax than has ever been taken in the history of this country. Australians are on track to pay more in income tax than they ever have before in the entire history of the country. So how can members say out of one side of their mouth that they want to protect workers and they want to give them more money when we're going to have income tax higher than it ever has been in the history of the entire country? Out of all the parliaments we've had in 200 years of this country, we're going to have this government drag us into the highest tax on income. That's what workers earn—income. If we really care about workers, if we genuinely cared about workers, you would join the coalition in indexing the tax brackets, ending bracket creep and giving more money back into workers' pockets.

Right now, we're all getting stories. Every member in this parliament is getting stories from people who can't afford things. I recently had to send a constituent to Wesley Mission to pay their electricity bill—a pensioner who risked having their electricity cut off. But instead we're gaslit and told it's a tax cut. Well, it's not a tax cut. It's $80 billion of theft—theft from Australians, theft from Australian businesses—and Australians will be poorer for it—so much poorer. I'd ask the Labor government to join us in what we need to do. Actually, let's really cut taxes. If you really care about it, join us and index tax brackets. Let's give more workers more of what they deserve.

It's pretty rich hearing from the member for Cook talking about workers and honesty. Having listened to the good history lesson that we heard from the member for Solomon, I think it's important to have a little bit of a history lesson for the member for Cook on the matter of working people, because he is part of a party that decided that a deliberate design feature of their policy would be to keep wages low. He is part of a coalition that includes a party that decided, in my home state of Queensland, to dismantle the workplace health and safety laws of our state. He is part of a party that thought that same job, same pay wasn't worth their vote. So, when we talk about working people in this nation, you've got to have a good, hard look at yourself, mate.

Do you know what Australians really want? Australians want a tax cut.

Member for Cook! I won't ask again.

Do you know what Australians really want? Australians want affordable health care. Do you know what Australians really want? Australians want a place to call their own. They want a place to call home. We hear all of this bluster, puffery and pantomime from those sitting opposite.

If you can't stop your interjections, you should leave.

It is deliberately designed to obfuscate the truth, and the truth is this: this is an opposition who voted against tax cuts last time. This Thursday, we will find out whether they will vote against tax cuts again. The truth is that this is an opposition who, when it comes to health care, tried to dismantle bulk-billing by introducing a co-payment. The truth is that this is an opposition who, when it comes to housing, not only did not have a housing minister for the majority of the time it was in government but failed to muster up a single social home in two terms. When we talk about this MPI, there is certainly a guarantee, and the guarantee is this: that, if the coalition were in government, Australians would be worse off.

I think it's worth taking a look back at tax and housing and what's happened through the history of this country. In 1999, we saw the coalition impose a 50 per cent discount on taxable capital gains. What did this result in? It resulted in a reduction in investment in the share market, it resulted in insatiable investment in property and it distorted the housing market in a way that has seen people who want to get into their first home locked out. When you couple that with 40 years of not building enough supply and with not having a housing minister, what you find is a recipe for the death of the great Australian dream. Not content with contributing to this problem, they now seek to block its solution. When a nurse—like the member for Bullwinkel, who is sitting right next to me—going to work and working shift work to look after our families, a teacher going to educate the next generation of young Australians or a chippy building the homes that we need to make sure we can get more people into housing is taxed at a higher rate than people holding assets, that is a problem, and it's a problem that this government believes we should do something about.

Deputy Speaker, do you know what is so disingenuous and dastardly about this MPI in particular? It is that the member for Goldstein knows that this taxation system is broken when it comes to housing, because he said:

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

Young people who want that great Australian dream of a house to live in, a door to open, a place to call their own and to plan their family in—young people, in my electorate, cannot live in the opposition's rhetoric. Young people, who are facing cost-of-living pressures, cannot pay their bills with the opposition's bombast. And the only people who share their aspirations of homeownership—

You'll get a turn in a minute, Member for Durack.

are sitting on this side of the chamber right now.

Now the member for Durack has the call.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the call. I do rise to speak on the MPI moved by the shadow treasurer today. This certainly is a matter of public importance to all Australians.

Since the Albanese government came to power, four long years ago, Australia's economy has gone backwards. And let me tell you: everyday Australians have been the ones feeling the brunt of this. Living standards have fallen, energy prices are rising, inflation is out of control and interest rates continue to rise—all of this because of Labor Party policies. The simple fact is: Labor does not care for Australians. They can try and spin it as much as they like, and promise the world to all of us—all Australians. But the fact is that they simply do not care.

Labor's inflation is like that thief in the night, stealing from Australians. It's impossible for them to escape it, whether it's at the supermarket, or in their mortgage, or in their tax bill through bracket creep. And does the government want to do anything about it? Well, no—no, the government does not, because, when Labor runs out of money, we know—the choir sings—they come after yours.

On this side of the House, we want Australians to keep more of what they earn—a very simple proposition. This will be done through our tax back guarantee. Income tax thresholds will be indexed to inflation, ensuring Australians are not taxed more just because of price rises. Now this is proper generational and right tax reform: automatic tax cuts, that get bigger every year, to help with the cost of living. So what are we talking about? For a typical worker it's a tax cut of $250 in the first year, $500 in the second, $750 in the third and $1,000 in the fourth, protecting all taxpayers by 2031-32.

The Albanese government's tax cuts? Well, they'll be wiped out by Christmas, because of their active inflation agenda.

The coalition has always been the party of lower taxes, less red tape and, quite frankly, just better economic management. We have a clear plan to fund this tax back guarantee: ending Labor's corporate welfare, ending Labor's climate and housing bureaucracy and limiting future access to welfare and the NDIS to Australian citizens.

Prime Minister, you cannot ignore what Australians are saying. Your budget—well, it's a shambles. And young Australians? They hate it. You don't understand them. They are ambitious. And they will punish you. Don't just go about putting up TikTok posts, talking them down and telling them what to think and what to feel—that's not going to save you from the wrath of young entrepreneurs, investors and workers, because they know their own mind and they know what they're seeing over there. They know exactly what they're seeing.

But it's not just young people. Senior Australians hate it as well. Maybe that's because, for their private health cover, the tax rebate will be decreased, and they know the only reason Labor is doing that is because Labor has made an assessment: 'Oh, you know what? Those people over 65—they're not going to be around long. But, by the way, they don't vote for us anyway.' It is very, very cynical. And guess what? Older Australians, senior Australians, have seen right through the Labor government.

We know that small business owners are fearing for their future. Regional Western Australians feel attacked—just think about our farmers. And no-one is buying the spin that you are putting out there. So it is all a shambles. People can see it for what it is: a shameless tax grab, with no return for everyday Australians.

Labor, through their broken-promise taxes on housing, small business and savings, will raise a whopping $80 billion more in taxes. Just think of that: $80 billion more, from Australians. Why does Labor need so much tax? Why do they need to tax Australians so much? It's because they can't control their spending and they think they can win votes by spending in certain places. It is incredibly cynical. And the Prime Minister, he wants to keep himself in the Lodge. We know that's just shameless. If the Prime Minister is serious about making life better for Australians, he should instead be focusing on repealing his toxic taxes, repealing his changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax, and ending his death tax. The Prime Minister should be backing small business by making the $50,000 instant asset write-off permanent for any small business with a turnover of less than $10 million.

The coalition will back us everyday Australians every day. We know what Labor does.

We welcome this MPI from the member for Goldstein and from those opposite to talk about tax, because we're the party of lower taxes. We took lower taxes to the last election. Those opposite opposed them and those opposite are going to oppose our tax cuts again this time. We're cutting income taxes five times. In the last term, our stage 3 tax cuts provided tax cuts for all Australians and, importantly, they preserved our progressive tax system against those opposite, who sought to flatten the tax system so that those on lower incomes and those on higher incomes were taxed at the same rate. Our stage 3 tax cuts particularly benefited low- and middle-income earners, those who need relief from cost-of-living pressures the most.

We're also providing a tax cut at the end of this financial year in just a few weeks—again, a tax cut that was opposed by those opposite—and we'll provide a tax cut at the end of the next financial year. Thanks to this budget, we'll also have the $1,000 instant tax deduction. For those workers in our electorate, they won't have to collect piles of receipts in order to claim that deduction. We know that there's too much life admin for everybody, particularly for busy working families who've got kids to look after, who have to pay the bills, and who've got to run their kids around to school sport in between their busy jobs. They don't have time to collect all this paperwork, and so this instant tax deduction is especially going to benefit those hardworking taxpayers and hardworking families in the low- and middle-income bracket. It'll save people time. It'll also save public administration. It will provide real cost-of-living relief for people who need it most.

We'll have the $250 working Australians tax offset, a permanent targeted tax cut that will benefit 13 million workers, and systemic change that will address bracket creep and will mean that the total amount of our tax cuts for the average worker will benefit them $2,800 in a year. That is going to make a real difference for households that we know are having a hard time, that we know are struggling with cost-of-living pressures thanks to things like international inflation pressures, the war in the Middle East—which those opposite often like to deny is having effects at the bowser and having flow-on effects throughout the supply chain. This will mean that those families will have real cost-of-living relief. Those households will have real cost-of-living relief.

We want a system where work is not taxed at a higher rate than wealth, where a nurse or a teacher or someone working in retail or hospitality—the hardworking people in our electorates—are not paying a higher rate of tax than somebody who's receiving income that's achieved through passive means in things like shares and property investment. This is part of the big reforming budget. We have structural issues within our economy. We have an ageing population, we have a shrinking workforce, and we want to make sure that those hardworking Australians can continue to get ahead. An increasing proportion of that tax burden is falling on working Australians. That's not a trajectory that we want to allow to continue, just like we don't want to continue on the trajectory of decreasing home ownership rates. That's something that this budget addresses as well.

We want all Australians to be rewarded for their hard work and their aspiration, with the opportunity to buy a home of their own. We want them to be able to have a level playing field when they go to an auction with property investors. We're already seeing stories of first home buyers being able to go to auctions and now not being outbid by property investors. First home owners can go and get a key for the first home that they're going to own and be able to put down roots. They're going to be able to work on their home, to put down roots in the community, to plan for the future and plan for their families and to send their kids to local schools without thinking that they might have to move to another suburb if their landlord decides, 'No, I'm going to sell up' or 'I'm going to put a family member in the house.'

It's really important that all Australians have the ability to aspire to homeownership, because it's an essential part of the social contract: that governments can promise people hope for the future and a secure future. Homeownership is an essential part of that. We've seen that there's growing wealth disparity in Australia. Again, the ability for people to own their own home is a really important part of addressing that. When 50 per cent capital gains tax discount was introduced in 1999, it distorted the housing market, and this budget fixes that.

The coalition supports the decision by the Fair Work Commission to increase the minimum wage by 4.75 per cent. We want people to take home more pay. We want to see them rewarded for their work. And for those opposite to suggest otherwise is a gross distortion of the truth. That is nothing new from them in this House.

But we need to look at the reality behind those numbers. The commission noted that while last year gave us a wage increase, inflation has opened up that gap again. Let me be clear: the wage gap is a result of Labor failing to control inflation. Under this government, wages have gone backwards by three per cent since they took office. Labor's budget forecasts show that wages will continue to fall. We want all wages to rise. But living standards improve only if we lower inflation and increase the size of the economy. There is no comfort in a wage increase if inflation just eats it away before the money hits the bank account. The best way to improve living standards is to get inflation down, lift productivity and support businesses so they can employ more people.

If you run a small business you know how hard it is. You want to hire, but you just cannot afford it. We saw the labour force data last week. Almost 700,000 Australians are unemployed. It is critical that Labor drops its taxes on businesses and tackles inflation. When businesses struggle with costs and taxes they create fewer jobs. They offer fewer opportunities for people looking for work. Wage increases mean nothing to Australian families if you don't have a job in the first place.

This government has pushed an agenda that means households go backwards. Labor is taking money from Australians through inflation. They take it at the supermarket, they take it on your mortgage and they take it silently every year through bracket creep. They did not pass laws to do this. Australians do not notice it until they look in their bank accounts. The inflation tax must end. This is why we announced our tax-back guarantee. We are forced to live within our means. So should the government. The tax-back guarantee is an automatic tax cut. It gets bigger every year, to help with the cost of living. It protects wages by indexing income tax thresholds to inflation. This means you do not get taxed more simply because prices have gone up and government cannot control its spending. We believe that when you earn money, risk your money and save your money you get to keep it. From the year 2028 a coalition government will index the bottom two thresholds to inflation. This will protect around 85 per cent of income earners. It will deliver relief of around $250 in year 1, growing to more than $1,000 in year 4. From the year 2031 we will index the top two thresholds as well. This will protect all taxpayers. Because of inflation, the tax cuts from Labor will be wiped out by Christmas. Ours will not. We will stop this cycle at the source.

Any government that wants to tax people more should have the courage and the conviction to take that to an election. Instead, Labor use inflation to do the work for them. They let prices rise, they push wages into higher brackets and they take the cash. It is simply not fair. Families sit around the kitchen table trying to make the math work, but the maths ain't mathing. The maths ain't mathing, especially when the government starts taking a bigger slice of an ever-shrinking pie. But we have a plan to fix this. I want to give people hope. I want to reward effort. We want an economy that works for you and works to restore our way of life.

I note that the member for Durack said that she's been speaking to young people in her community. I'm just not sure who they are, because the young people in my community are saying something very different. They are saying that they are doing everything that we ask of them—that they are saving and they are making careful choices about their future. For so many of them, they aspire to have a place of their own, somewhere to raise a family, put down roots and build a life. But that hope is becoming harder to realise. Rents are absorbing more of their income. House prices have moved further out of reach. All the while, young people are just working harder and harder and unable to get a foothold. When the system gives greater advantage to someone buying their 10th home than it does to someone buying their first, we need to be prepared to ask whether it is still delivering a fair go.

It would be easier to do nothing. Labor is choosing a fairer path, one that backs work, supports new homes and gives younger Australians a better opportunity to build secure lives in the communities they call home. For young people across Griffith, and across the country, the Australian dream cannot be blocked by a system that undermines them. It will always be harder, but we are choosing to direct investment towards building new homes.

The time for this discussion has 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.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 6 of 2026.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

It's fabulous to have so many people in the House to receive this report. I am pleased to table report 6 of 2026 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

In this report, the committee considered 10 new bills and 161 new legislative instruments. It has commented on 12 pieces of legislation, and concluded its examination of one legislative instrument.

In this report, the committee commented on the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. Among other things, this bill would:

The measures in this bill would engage and limit various rights, including the rights of a person with disability; the rights to privacy, equality and non-discrimination, liberty, health and freedom of expression; as well as the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment. The committee is seeking further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of measures in the bill with these rights.

The committee has also concluded its consideration of the Customs (Deployment of Approved Firearms and Other Approved Items of Personal Defence Equipment) Directions 2026. This instrument sets out the directions to customs officers for the use, issue, storage and management of approved firearms and other approved items of personal defence equipment. The committee considers that, while there are some safeguards regulating the use of force by customs officers, it is not clear that these are adequate, further noting the requirements under international human rights law that the use of potentially lethal force should be a last resort. The committee considers that the broad authorisations for customs officers to use firearms may not be sufficiently circumscribed. The committee has recommended the instrument be amended to include overarching principles on the use of force by customs officers.

I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. With these comments, I commend the committee's scrutiny report 6 of 2026 to the House.

Labor are telling investors, 'If you want to retain the benefit of negative gearing, go and buy new properties,' and at the same time state governments across the country are encouraging first home buyers into those same new properties through stamp duty concessions and first home buyer grants. So investors and first home buyers are being pushed into the same segment of the market at the same time. They will compete against each other for the same limited supply, which means that prices will be bid up, builders will face more pressure, and young Australians will again be told to run faster on a treadmill that Labor has made steeper.

Many of these state based schemes are operated by Labor governments. So how can the Prime Minister not understand that his federal tax changes will collide directly with state based concessions and grants? Either they do not understand the market they're regulating, or they understand it and are proceeding anyway. Neither explanation should give Australians any comfort.

This government is creating a generation of permanent renters. Labor should have learned this lesson before because, in the 1980s under Treasurer Paul Keating, Labor tried to quarantine negative gearing, and it was reversed. Why? It was because the pressure on rental markets became impossible to ignore. History has already issued this warning. The Treasurer should have listened to it, but this treasurer does not learn from history. He tries to rewrite it. There's also a deep hypocrisy at the heart of this debate, because 20 out of the 22 members of the Prime Minister's own frontbench and the Prime Minister have used negative gearing to secure their own futures. They operated lawfully under the rules of the time. They made choices that many Australians have made to invest, to take on risk and to try to build financial security.

Now, we don't criticise them for that. But this legislation protects the right of the Prime Minister and his cabinet to continue to negatively gear their properties into their future. So Australians are entitled to ask these questions: Why is it good enough for Labor ministers to use these rules to continue to build their wealth for themselves but apparently too generous for future generations? Why is it acceptable for those opposite to climb the ladder and then pull it up behind them? Those are the real questions here.

The second major problem is capital gains tax. Schedule 1 makes sweeping changes to the CGT regime. It replaces the 50 per cent CGT discount with cost base indexation and introduces a 30 per cent minimum tax on capital gains for many Australians, including founders, small-business owners and investors. At the top marginal rate, this means the tax man can claim nearly half of the gain. The government did not take the risk. The government did not work the weekends. They did not sign the lease, put the family home on the line, hire the first employee, go without holidays, miss birthdays or lie awake at night wondering whether the business would survive. But, when it finally works, Labor is turning up with its hand out. That is what this bill says to the self-starters of Australia. You risk it, we'll take it.

A well-known local brewery in my electorate wrote to me this week, saying:

I can't sit and watch this pass without putting something on the record, so I've put pen to paper.

The sale of a business is not a windfall—it is a long, illiquid reinvestment program that finally crystallises at sale. Privately-held capital-intensive businesses are, by definition, the ones with physical footprints in Australia. They occupy industrial land. They employ tradespeople, machine operators, drivers, warehouse staff, and apprentices. They buy inputs from Australian agriculture. They contribute to the productive capacity of regional and outer-metropolitan economies. They create value differently from purely digital or services businesses.

These businesses already face globally uncompetitive energy, labour, freight, and compliance costs. Margins are thin, returns are slow, and capital is patient by necessity. Policy settings that further reduce the after-tax return on productive reinvestment risk discouraging the long-term capital commitment these businesses require.

In practice, many successful capital-intensive businesses are likely to exceed the small business CGT concession thresholds early in their growth journey as physical infrastructure and equipment are accumulated.

The 50% CGT discount has been, for this category, the only recognition mechanism actually available. Its removal would materially reduce the only recognition the tax system currently provides for the long-duration, illiquid, reinvestment-heavy nature of these businesses.

But, as always with this treasurer, the devil is in the detail. The Treasurer wants the parliament to pass the laws first and then trust him to sort out the details, including carve-outs later. That's not good enough, because Australians have learned the hard way that when Labor says, 'Trust us,' they should check their wallet. This is a government that's been consistent with only one thing—being elastic with the truth. It said one thing before the election, and it's doing the opposite after. The Treasurer can dress it up in whatever language he likes, but Australians can see what's happening here. Labor has spent too much, taxed too much and borrowed too much, and now it wants the people who work, save and invest to foot the bill. This is not the Australia my parents believed in when they taught me that if you want something you work for it, if you drop something you pick it up and if you're blessed with opportunity you make the most of it. That is the Australia I love, and that is the Australia that those on this side of the chamber love—an Australia where effort is rewarded, an Australia where government lifts people up, not locks them in.

I say this directly to the Prime Minister. I love this country. I love it for what it has given my family, and I love it for the promise it has carried for generations. I love it because here, more than almost anywhere else on Earth, people have been able to make something of themselves through effort, through sacrifice and through belief. But that promise is not automatic. That promise must be protected. That promise must be renewed, and it must be defended against governments that think that prosperity is something to be managed, divided and taxed rather than created, earned and shared. What has made Australia great is not envy. It's not resentment, and it's not the politics of dragging one person down and calling it fairness for another. What has made Australia great is a culture of reward for work and reward for effort. It's the belief that tomorrow can be better than today if we work for it. It's the belief that a person should be able to start with little, build something, own something and leave something better for their children. Our tax system should reflect that.

This bill moves us in the opposite direction, and the coalition will not support that. We won't support that because the people that we represent—the individuals, the small businesses, the mums and dads, the investors, the families, the first home buyers and the renters—expect better of us, and they expect better of this government. The coalition supports tax relief, and we have said that consistently. We support simpler tax returns, and we support working Australians keeping more of what they earn, but we won't be bullied into supporting Labor's toxic taxes.

The day after the budget was delivered, the coalition vowed to axe Labor's toxic taxes and vote them down, and that's exactly what we will do. If these bills become law under this Labor government, a coalition government will repeal Labor's toxic taxes, because Australians deserve better than a government that breaks promises and that punishes aspiration and then calls it fairness. They deserve a government that backs them. That is the clear message and the consistent message that I receive from people across my electorate when I engage with them back home on the southern Gold Coast. Australians deserve a government that backs them. They deserve an Australia where the ladder of opportunity is not pulled up but strengthened for the next generation. That is exactly what those on this side of the House will fight for. That is exactly what we will do. We will repeal these taxes. That is exactly what we on this side of the parliament have committed to do. We oppose Labor's toxic taxes, and we resent this government for putting them through and dressing them up as something that, quite frankly, they are not.

I rise today in support of these tax reforms and in support of something that Australians have been crying out for many years for: a tax system that is fairer and simpler and that better reflects the reality of modern life. When Australians talk to me, they talk about trying to save for a first home. They talk about juggling the rising costs. They talk about wanting to get ahead with hard work, and they talk about wanting a system that rewards effort. At its core, that is what this package is about. It's about making our economy work for more Australians. It is about ensuring that aspiration is rewarded. It is about helping young Australians believe that homeownership is still within their reach, and it's about ensuring that our tax system encourages productive investment rather than simply rewarding those who are best able to navigate a complicated set of rules.

Deputy Speaker Boyce, I represent many hardworking families, and I'm sure yourself and a lot of people in this House do as well. Some are nurses finishing night shift at St George Hospital in my local area. Some are teachers helping educate the next generation at Undercliffe Public School to McCallum Hill Public School to all the way to Carlton South Public School. There are tradies that are waking up very early. There are small-business owners wondering whether they can afford to hire more waitstaff at their local cafe, and many are young people who are doing everything they can right now but still feel like the dream of owning a home keeps moving further and further away.

Let me tell you about someone I will call Sarah. Sarah's 29 years old. She works full time. She pays her taxes. She contributes a lot to the community. Every fortnight, she puts money aside for a home deposit. But every time she gets closer to her saving goals, house prices seem to jump again. She watches properties being purchased by investors who already own multiple homes. She wonders whether she will ever have a place of her own. Australians, like Sarah, are not looking for a handout. They are looking for a fair shot. That is exactly why these reforms matter. For too long, our tax system has contained distortions that have encouraged investment to flow into established housing rather than into increasing housing supply, and, for too long, tax settings have contributed to a situation where many younger Australians feel locked out of the market. Since 1999, house prices have risen over 400 per cent—more than twice as fast as the average income. These reforms begin to address that challenge. By pegging negative gearing for future purchases to new builds, we are simply sending a signal that, if investors want a tax concession, we want that investment to help create new housing supply—more homes, more construction and more opportunities for Australians looking to buy their first home.

Importantly, these changes are grandfathered. Australians who already own investment properties will not be affected. The rules people relied upon when making decisions remain in place. But, going forward, investment incentives will be better aligned with Australia's housing needs. That is sensible reform. It is a balanced reform and it is a reform designed to help an estimated 75,000 more Australians become homeowners over the next decade.

There's another important reform before us today, and that is capital gains tax. Now, I know those three words are unlikely to set social media alight unless you're the opposition, who like to cook up a bit of a scare tactic. But no-one's rushing home to discuss CGT over dinner. But the principle behind these reforms is actually very straightforward. People should pay tax on genuine gains. Imagine someone buys an asset and holds it for many years; part of that increase in value may simply reflect inflation. Under these reforms, investors will be taxed more accurately, for their real gains rather than inflationary gains. This is about restoring fairness and economic efficiency. It is also about reducing distortions and it's about encouraging investment to flow towards more productive use, because, when investment decisions are driven by tax loopholes rather than economic merit, the whole economy becomes less productive, and, when productivity suffers, living standards suffer. That is why these reforms matter not only for today's taxpayers but also for future generations.

There's another group that deserves recognition in this debate, and that is workers—the people who get up every day, go to work and keep our economy moving. The working Australians tax offset recognises a simple truth: for most Australians, income comes from work. It comes from effort. It comes from showing up. It comes from contributing. And workers deserve to keep more of what they earn. The new working Australians tax offset will provide tax relief to more than 13 million Australians. That means more money in household budgets—more money for groceries, more money for school expenses, more money for family holidays, more money to save and more capacity to get ahead.

For younger Australians especially, this matters enormously. Many millennials and gen Z face challenges that previous generations never experienced to the same extent—higher housing costs, higher rents, greater financial uncertainty. The cost of building a life has increased, and these reforms recognise that reality. They provide practical support while strengthening incentives to participate in the workforce.

Perhaps one of the most popular reforms in this package may be also one of the simplest, and that's the $1,000 instant tax deduction. I suspect many Australians know exactly what it feels like at tax time—the frantic search through drawers, the mysterious shoebox full of receipts, the desperate attempt to remember whether a particular purchase happened in that financial period or the previous one, the endless scanning of emails and the detective work wrapped around that that is required to reconstruct a year's worth of expenses. It's hardly anyone's favourite annual tradition. I can certainly say that for myself. But millions of Australians currently spend hours gathering documents to claim relatively modest work related expenses. Many pay accountants, many spend significant time navigating the system and others simply give up and miss out altogether. This reform changes that. A worker with modest work related expenses will be able to claim $1,000 of instant deduction without needing to track every small purchase. It means less paperwork, less stress, less complexity and more time spent doing things they actually enjoy. The Australian Taxation Office estimates this measure alone will save Australians hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance costs every year. Think about that. It's not because we are changing tax rates but because we are reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. Sometimes the best reform is not adding something new. Sometimes it's just making life simpler.

These reforms are also important because they demonstrate that economic responsibility and fairness can go hand in hand. This is often a false choice presented in public debate. Some say we must choose between helping households and maintaining financial responsibility. Others suggest reform is simply too difficult. But good governments do not avoid difficult decisions. Good governments confront them. The Albanese government is undertaking these reforms while also strengthening Medicare, helping with cost-of-living pressures, investing in housing, supporting businesses and maintaining responsible budget management. That matters, because tax reform should never be viewed in isolation. Tax reform is about the kind of country we want to build. Do we want a system that rewards effort? Do we want a system that encourages productive investment? Do we want a system that supports homeownership? I believe that Australians, unless they're the opposition—those who are laughing across the chamber—would answer yes to all of those questions. That is precisely why these reforms deserve support.

Every generation inherits challenges. The question is whether we choose to tackle them or not. Housing affordability is one of those challenges. Productivity is one of those challenges. Intergenerational fairness is one of those challenges. We could leave those problems for someone else. We could leave them for future governments. We could leave them for future taxpayers. But that would not be leadership, because leadership means making decisions today that improve opportunities tomorrow. Leadership is about making hard decisions, not just taking the most popular approach. That is what this package seeks to do. It supports workers, it supports aspiring homeowners, it supports productive investment, it supports businesses and it supports a stronger economy.

It was early March 1983 that I remember having my very first political reflection. I was sitting on the floor at home, half listening to the chatter on the television as my mum intently watched the 1983 election results rolling in. I was 10 and in grade 6, much like the kids up there with the Parliamentary Education Office watching us today. That night, Bob Hawke was elected Prime Minister. My mum loved Hawkie. A lifetime Liberal voter, she loved his larrikin style, his call-it-as-he-thinks bluntness, his carousing, his former drinking, his brilliance and his wit. She'd read Blanche's book about him the year before. So I couldn't really understand why Mum looked so worried that night, and I asked if she was okay. She looked at me nervously and said, 'Yeah, I'm okay, but this will make it harder for me to send you to school.'

I panicked a bit. You see, my school wasn't just a good school; it was my second parent. It was the place that didn't forget to pick me up, the place that always turned up to the school fair and made it to all the sporting carnivals. I would have loved it if mum could have been at the fair, if Mum could have come to the sporting carnival. I would have loved it if she'd been able to remember to pick me up, like, just once—ever. But Mum was usually somewhere else, working her guts out—not to be rich but to be purposeful and to make sure she could keep sending me to a good school. Mum had purpose and Mum had grit. And when, as a surly teenager a few years later, I complained about my indecision about what to do in life, I said, 'But Mum, what job can you really say has objective worth, purpose beyond the self, and leaves a lasting benefit for others?' Mum quietly replied, 'I save lives'—Mum, one; Zoe, zero.

But that 1983 election night taught me all I needed to know about the relationship between hard work, sacrifice, deferred gratification—and taxation. At that time, Mum was paying the top marginal tax rate of 60c in the dollar. To be fair, Prime Minister Keating went on to drop that rate to 49c in 1985. But, in what you might now recognise as a Peter-for-Paul move, he introduced the capital gains tax at the same time. At the time, the Labor government thought about making that new capital gains tax retrospective, but when it was finally implemented, after much public outcry, it was on a prospective basis.

That change was sufficiently hard-hitting to smash Mum's weekend passion and her second job running a small nursery in the Dandenong Hills, where she would spend all weekend, her hands in the dirt, growing daffodils in the luscious red ground and huge orchids in a nearby glasshouse. She would cuddle the flowers on Sundays and sell them to flower shops on Mondays before she started her hospital rounds visiting all her patients. But CGT crushed Mum's second job and the dream that gave her so much joy, because, for Mum, plants and flowers, soil and growth made up for the patients with lung cancer she couldn't always save.

So on budget night this year I sat here and remembered 1983 and what it might mean for the thousands—indeed the hundreds of thousands, if not millions—of Australians who were learning what this budget was going to do to their hope, their aspiration, their passion, their planning, their sacrifice, their deferred gratification, their pride and their sense of purpose.

In handing down his budget on 12 May, the Treasurer engaged in his usual barrage of 'Liberal light' language: responsible economic management, aspiration and opportunity. He's always talking about a resilient economy. It doesn't feel very resilient today. Even today, in question time, my colleagues will remember that he actually said that private sector investment in our economy is booming. He actually said that. But, behind the smooth-talking treasurer, the truth was there for all Australians to see and, now, feel: when Labor runs out of money, they come after yours. And come after yours, by golly, they are—$77 billion worth of pursuit from your hard work and, most egregiously, from the pockets of the people of the Mornington Peninsula who I represent here.

The Mornington Peninsula is made up of a lot of people just like my mum. They work their backsides off. They might build a business. We've got more than 16,000 small businesses in Flinders. They save for their retirement. They might invest in a single investment property, and, by golly, they take responsibility for their own health care. Their reward from this Labor 'true believer' budget is more tax, a whole lot more tax—$77 billion more worth of tax.

This budget hits Flinders harder than most electorates in Australia because of who we are. We are small-business owners. We are tradies. We are self-funded retirees. We are among the millions of Australians who have spent decades working, saving and planning for their future and who are determined not to be a burden on the public purse. This budget punishes all of them.

Let's start with Labor's changes to capital gains tax. Labor can call it reform, but Australians know it for exactly what it is: an impost on aspiration. It is a tax impost that will hit hard in my electorate. Australians who hold an asset for more than 12 months currently receive a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount—a change to the original version of the CGT of Paul Keating, the Treasurer's idol. The discount of 50 per cent was introduced by John Howard and Peter Costello in 1999. Today, Labor wants to fundamentally change that.

The consequences for my electorate will be particularly severe. According to data and analysis by the ATO, Treasury and the ABS, Flinders ranks 12th out of all 150 electorates for the value of the capital gains tax discount currently received by residents. The average CGT discount benefit per taxpayer in Flinders is $3,148. Collectively, residents of my electorate receive almost $305 million in CGT discount benefits every year.

Flinders is also an older electorate, with a median age of 48 years compared with 38 years across Victoria—a full decade's difference—meaning my constituents are closer to the age at which they will retire and hand their businesses over to the next generation of owners. At this stage, their succession plans and their retirement plans are real, and my constituents are counting on them. This budget throws all that planning and sacrifice into the wind.

Flinders also has a lower occupancy of premises. At the last census, 30 per cent of our dwellings were recorded as unoccupied—nearly three times the Victorian average. Many of these are holiday homes and have been held by families for generations. Many will have accumulated substantial capital gains over time. Some will even have been acquired before Labor's introduction of CGT in 1985. Under Labor's changes, when those properties are eventually sold, families will face dramatically larger tax bills than they were expecting, not because they suddenly became cashed up overnight but because Labor has decided that decades of saving and sacrifice deserve to be taxed more heavily.

Then there are our tradies and our small businesses. Flinders has significantly more tradespeople and owner-operators than any other Victorian electorate. Nearly 18 per cent of workers in Flinders are technicians and trades workers, compared with just 12.6 per cent across Victoria. My people are plumbers, electricians and builders. They get up before sunrise, they work hard through the week and, often on the weekends, they work on their own homes, renovations or extensions. Labor's changes mean many of those Australians could pay twice as much tax when they eventually sell their businesses that they have worked their entire lives to create. This isn't fairness. It is a penalty for success, and it sends a very dangerous message: work hard, save hard, invest wisely, build something of value, and Labor will now snatch a bigger slice when you're done.

The economic consequences extend far beyond individual taxpayers. I recently spent some time with David Livingstone watching the Somerville Eagles play at their run-down pavilion. David is the chairperson of the Somerville Business Group, but he is also a former CPA who has spent more than 30 years helping local businesses navigate Australia's ever more complex tax system. David told me what he has seen amongst our small-business community in Somerville—that our small business owners in Somie routinely work 60 to 80 hours a week with no overtime, no penalty rates, sometimes no holidays, no long-service leave and none of the protections that many employees take for granted. He said that many owners mortgage their own homes, take significant commercial risks and, of course, create jobs for others. David asked a simple question:

Where is the reward after many years of hard work if it is going to be taxed at the same level as wages income?

Another constituent, Leo from Mornington, told me:

Let me add my concern also as a self funded retiree … who have a small parcel of shares purchased under an employee share scheme when I was still working.

I like to sell some shares each year to help with life's unexpected expenses, and so long as the sale value is less than twice the minimum taxable amount, I don't have to pay any tax.

I have several work colleagues with much larger parcels of shares that were part of their salary packages, and like me they expected to be able to supplement their self funded pensions tax free for many years to come. All of a sudden those plans will cost 30% off the sale.

As well as the cruel and petty removal of the private health discount for over 65's, the blanket 30% CGT tax on low income retiree share trades, is a double whack at our cost of living.

Within this budget there is another measure that will hit Flinders harder than almost any electorate in Australia. Labor has decided to abolish the additional private health insurance rebate available to older Australians. Again, in my electorate of Flinders nearly one in three residents are aged over 65. That's almost double the national average. There are more than 33,500 private health insurance holders aged over 65 in my electorate; that's the third-highest figure of any electorate. Some will pay up to $640 more every year just to maintain the cover they already have. My constituents are in shock. Their private health insurance gives them a sense of safety as well as comfort. They will have choice and not be a burden on the state. A few minutes ago, Jan Heraty wrote on my Facebook feed:

We have had private health insurance since we arrived in Australia in 1968. Our monthly premiums are now $235.01 each. That is a lot to pay out of our pension, but we cannot afford to be without it, as our health is not the best. We will have to wait and see what our premiums will be, and then decide if we have to go back on the public system.

There are 1.4 million Australians right now having exactly this conversation. Private health insurance has supported more than 41,000 hospitalisations for older Australians in Flinders. Every one of those hospitalisations treated through the private system is one fewer patient taking up a space in the public system. Yet Labor's response is to make private health insurance more expensive and to increase pressure on public hospitals that are already struggling—like the Rosebud Hospital, which state Labor has ignored for years. The people affected are not wealthy elites. They are Australians who have worked, saved, paid taxes and planned responsibly—people who have done exactly what governments have encouraged them to do for decades.

What makes this budget particularly frustrating is that these measures are entirely unnecessary. Australians were promised no new taxes. The coalition has made its position very clear. We support tax relief for working Australians, we support the working Australians tax offset and we support genuine cost-of-living relief. But we do not support Labor's tax hikes on capital gains, negative gearing, housing trusts and small businesses. We do not support the abolition of the additional rebate offered to seniors over 65 who have taken out private health insurance. We have moved amendments to remove Labor's capital gains tax and negative gearing changes entirely while allowing tax relief measures to proceed. In other words, Australians can and should have the tax cuts without the tax hikes. Labor simply refuses to allow it.

The coalition has also proposed a better long-term solution: a tax-back guarantee, a simple principle that says that Australians should not pay higher taxes simply because inflation pushes them into higher tax brackets.

Under our proposal, income tax thresholds would be indexed to inflation. Bracket creep would no longer silently increase tax burdens year after year, and Australians would receive automatic tax relief at the cost of living rises. For a typical worker, that means tax cuts of around $250 in the first year, $500 in the second year, $750 in the third year and around $1,000 in the fourth year. That is genuine tax reform, and, unlike Labor's approach, it doesn't require punishing investors, retirees, small businesses and future generations.

Ultimately, this budget reveals something deeper about Labor's philosophy. Labor sees investment as a revenue source. The coalition sees investment as the engine of economic growth. Labor sees aspiration as something to tax. The coalition sees aspiration as something to encourage. And nowhere is the contrast more obvious than in Flinders, an electorate built by small-business owners, tradies and retirees who have saved and planned. It was built by Australians who believe that hard work should be rewarded, not punished. The people of Flinders understand a simple truth: you cannot tax your way to prosperity. You cannot build economic growth by discouraging investment. This budget asks Australians to believe otherwise, but the people of Flinders know that government should stand behind Australians who work hard and plan ahead, not treat them as a convenient source of additional revenue.

And for those reasons, I oppose these measures. I oppose Labor's capital gains tax increases. I oppose Labor's attack on older Australians' private health insurance. And I support the coalition's alternative: lower taxes, stronger incentives to invest, genuine cost-of-living relief and a fair go for Aussies trying to get ahead.

I rise to speak in very strong support for the original bill that is before this House, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill of 2026. Whilst not surprised, I'm really disappointed to learn that the opposition members will oppose these measures. But, then again, there's probably not a single, solid reform piece of work that's required a lot of heavy lifting in this country that the opposition hasn't opposed, whether it was Medicare, superannuation, establishing free TAFE in more recent years, a national Maritime Strategic Fleet or minimum wage increases. These are all significant reforms undertaken by Labor governments, who are always prepared to stand up and do the heavy lifting, when those opposite want to go, 'Stop; the status quo is good enough,' we say, 'There's always room for improvement.'

When the people in Australia hear the words 'tax reform', it's probably fair to say that they're not generally thinking about the intricacies of legislation or technical settings here. They want something much simpler. They ask themselves: 'Will this make life fairer? Will this help people who work hard? Will it give Australians a better chance to get ahead?' And that's what this bill is all about. It's about tax cuts for working Australians, it's about making tax time simpler, and it's about helping more people buy their first home. And it's about making our tax system fairer so that work income is treated the same as asset income and the Australian dream of homeownership is not just being pushed further and further out to reach.

The first thing this bill does is cut taxes for workers and introduce a new working Australians tax offset of up to $250 a year. Unlike a tax deduction, which lowers your taxable income, an offset directly reduces the amount of tax you owe. If you're eligible, you will receive the full $250 value to either reduce your tax bill or increase your tax refund. It applies to Australians who earn income through their jobs or as sole traders. According to Treasury, about 97 per cent of working Australians will receive the full $250 tax offset, and that means more money back for people who earn wages, salaries and income from their work. It is for Australians who earn their income through work, whether they are nurses, teachers, firies, retail workers, the aged-care workers or small-business owners. That is on top of the tax cuts Labor has already delivered. Taken together, our tax cuts mean the average working Australian will receive around $2,800 back in their pocket. Trust me—the Australian people are going to welcome that.

This bill also introduces a $1,000 instant tax deduction for workers—no receipts required. It's a recognition of genuine work expenses that many people put their hands in their own pockets to fill right now. If you need more than $1,000 you are going to need to provide receipts and proof, but we recognise that this $1,000 instant tax deduction for workers will be a great relief and free up a lot of resources within the ATO.

At the moment, many workers have to keep receipts for their uniforms, for equipment they buy, for countless small work-related expenses. It's a real headache for a lot of workers. They don't bother claiming for things that they are perfectly entitled to claim for, either because they haven't kept the receipt or because they don't want to spend their time trying to work all that out at tax time. We know that, and this bill makes that a whole lot simpler.

From the 2026-27 financial year, eligible workers will be able to claim an instant deduction of up to $1,000 for work related expenses without having to go through the receipt-by-receipt process. As I said, it doesn't mean that people who have more than $1,000 in expenses lose out. They can still claim more than $1,000 if they have the records to support it. I think most Australian people will think that is a genuinely good reform measure. It doesn't stop people from claiming other tax deductions, of course, like donations to charitable organisations, union fees, professional association fees, income protection insurance or superannuation contributions. It's a practical reform that makes tax time simpler for working Australians, and that's a good thing.

Then there's housing. This is the part of the bill that many people in my community care deeply about, because housing is not an abstract policy debate. It's about security. It's about stability. For many women, it's about safety. It's about whether Australians believe that if they work hard, and save hard, they can buy a home of their own. For generations, Australians believed that that dream was achievable, and today too many people feel it is slipping away.

Young people should not be told that the only way to get into the housing market is to have wealthy parents. People in their 30s and 40s should not feel like they have failed because the market has moved faster than wages ever could. First home buyers should not be turning up to auction after auction—those terrible stories you hear all the time—only to be outbid by investors who have a sneaky little silent partner with them at those auctions called every single Australian taxpayer. They have tax advantages that those first home buyers do not have.

That is the reality that too many Australians are facing, and for too long those housing settings have favoured investors purchasing existing homes over first home buyers trying desperately to enter the market. For too long, governments have looked at the problem and decided reform was too hard. Not this government. The reality is, too many Australians are doing everything right and still find homeownership completely out of their reach.

This bill starts to address that. It reforms negative gearing so that, from 1 July 2027, negative gearing for new residential property investment is focused on new builds. If tax concessions are going to support property investment, they should help add to the housing supply in this nation. They should help build more homes. They should not simply encourage investors to compete with first home buyers for the same established homes that already exist.

Existing investors are protected. Properties already held before budget night are not affected in the same way. Going forward, the system will be better targeted. That is fair. It is fair to existing investors who made decisions under the current rules. It's fair to the first home buyers who deserve a better chance.

This bill also reforms the capital gains tax. It replaces the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with a system that indexes the cost base for inflation, so tax applies to real gains and not inflation. And that's an important principle. People should not be taxed on inflation. But, at the same time, our tax system should not give a better deal to wealth from assets than it gives to income earned from work.

This is about getting the balance right. It's about recognising that income earned through work matters. It's about ensuring that our tax system does not continue to reward settings that are locking too many Australians out of homeownership.

While some commentators have criticised this reform, I know that it is not the view of everyone in my community. I know that because constituents are reaching out to me directly to tell me what these changes could mean for them. One constituent wrote to me just this weekend. He said he is 34, lives in Hamilton, has a great job and has significant savings, but property investors continue to outbid him at auctions. He said this budget is the first he has seen that seriously offers him a chance to ever own his own home. And that is what this reform is about; it's about people who are doing the right thing and simply want a fair chance.

Another constituent wrote to me to say they never thought they would see a government finally address the impact of negative gearing on access to homeownership for younger generations and for older Australians who had not yet purchased a property. They wrote:

I am so excited and proud to be Australian.

Yes, reform is hard.

Yes, there will be scare campaigns.

Yes, there will be people who defend the current system because the current system works very well for them.

But leadership is not about protecting every part of the status quo.

Leadership is about seeing what is wrong and having the courage to fix it.

One constituent put it well when they wrote to me after the budget:

Some months ago, there was widespread appreciation of the need to address generational inequity. That conviction is still there, I'm sure. If not now, when can you make a start on reform?

'If not now, when?' Well, I agree, and this government is totally in agreeance with you, and we say: the time to act is now. We act in a serious, responsible and practical way to address these gross inequities.

I know there are many folk wishing to speak to this bill tonight—and I can understand why, because this bill is part of a much bigger budget story that is great news in terms of tackling some of those very, very stubborn issues in Australia where reform is desperately required. It's what Labor governments are elected to do. We're there to make life fairer, to back working people, and to make sure aspiration and opportunity belong to every Australian, not just those who already have wealth behind them.

This bill cuts taxes for workers. It simplifies tax time. It helps first home buyers. It makes our tax system fairer. And it takes an important step towards restoring the Australian dream of homeownership and providing a fair go. I commend the bill, unamended, to the House.

I must say at the outset, Australians just want their country back. When you go out and talk to people in our communities, they are angry; they are frustrated. They've been left behind by a prime minister who promised to govern for all Australians, and left behind by a prime minister who said, infamously: 'My word is my bond.' That is what the Prime Minister told the Australian people.

In this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, we see exactly what this Prime Minister's promises are worth, because, after four years of the Albanese government, Australians are worse off, and our country is heading in the wrong direction. The most recent Mood of the Nation study found that 66 per cent of Australians believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. And that has all been on Prime Minister Albanese's watch.

Who could blame people for not feeling confident about the future of our nation when they see a bill like this before the House today? They've experienced a declining standard of living. Australians have seen 15 interest rate rises under this government. The average mortgage holder is now paying more than $25,000 extra in interest payments since the Albanese government came to power in 2022. They may have turned on the TV on budget night hoping for just a little bit of good news, hoping that maybe this federal budget would help them out, and what they found out is that they had been misled and deceived completely by this prime minister in the lead-up to the 2025 election.

Call me old-fashioned, because, in the seven elections I've contested, what's occurred is that the Labor Party puts forward policies, the Liberals and Nationals put forward, policies, the Greens put forward policies, and then the Australian people vote on it. They get to make a decision. That's called old-fashioned democracy. But what this prime minister has done with this bill, with this deception, with this absolute deceit to the Australian people, has thrown democracy out the window, and the only plan they have for the Australian people is higher taxes.

What I've got to say will come as a shock to the members opposite who have been in here today in 90-second statements and who also spoke on this bill. They've got up and they've said just how good the budget is and how good these changes are going to be. If it's so good for Australians, why wouldn't you want Australians to vote for it? Member for Dobell, if it were so good, why didn't you go to the election and say, 'This is my plan: increase capital gains tax and destroy the negative gearing system. Vote for me'? Why not take it to the Australian people? But, no, they didn't do that. They didn't do that at all. They whispered amongst themselves about 'when we get elected, we'll do something else' and 'when we get elected, let's see what we can get through the parliament' and 'don't tell those mugs out in the public called the Australian people' and 'don't possibly let them vote on our policies'. That is exactly what they've done. They've snuck into government on a foundation of deceit, deception and trickery, so much so that this is an illegitimate government. This government is based on a fundamental deceit and misleading of the Australian people because they did not have the guts or the strength of their convictions to say: 'These are our policies. We want to declare war on aspiration, and you should vote for us.' If they were so confident about these policies, then the member for Dobell and every other member in this place would have campaigned on these policies, but not one of them did. The Prime Minister told us in his own press conference: 'I've answered that question more than 50 times. There will be no changes to negative gearing, no changes to capital gains tax.' Old honest member for Grayndler said, 'I won't change those things,' and what's he done? Walked in here with the Treasurer and committed the greatest deception that I've seen in my 18 years in this place, because, at every other election that I've been to, the members opposite have had the guts to put their policies before the Australian people. Remember, in 2019, the changes we're debating now were the policy positions of the former member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten. These were his policies. The member for McMahon very helpfully said, 'If you don't like our policies, don't vote for us.' There you go. The Australian people, given the choice on these policies, on this legislation, voted against them in 2019, but yet we're here today confirming Labor's great deceit. This is a government which is elected on broken promises and on trickery.

The Prime Minister, in his own words, in his own words, acknowledged the absolute folly of his position after the federal election in May last year. The Prime Minister said:

We have a mandate for what we took to the Australian people. That is our mandate.

Think about that. That is a direct quote from the Prime Minister in May last year. The Prime Minister, in his own words, admitted that he doesn't have a mandate for this broken promise and the higher taxes he announced in the federal budget.

I'm glad to see the member for Spence is here, because I'm sure the member for Spence is going to stand up and say: 'Actually, I campaigned strongly on this. I campaigned on these capital gains tax reforms. I campaigned on this negative gearing. I campaigned on this attack on trust, because I'm an honest member for Spence.' That's what the member for Spence is going to say. He's going to say, 'I campaigned on all these things, and I'm very proud of my decision to do so.' I'll wait to hear him say that, because he'll be the first member opposite that did campaign on it. But I don't think he'll say that, member for Nicholls. If this prime minister sets a standard where he can't just be honest with the Australian people, why would we expect his caucus to be honest? This is a prime minister who has set the standard saying, 'We have a mandate for what we took to the Australian people. That is our mandate,' and he has no mandate for the changes before the House today.

The Prime Minister also told Australians:

My word is my bond. … I believe that when you go to an election and you make commitments, you should stick to them.

Wow. That sounds a lot like democracy. That sounds a lot like what I talked about a couple of minutes ago. In all the elections I've contested, members of Labor, Liberals, Nationals and Greens put forward their policies, and the Australian people voted. The Prime Minister said:

My word is my bond. … I believe that when you go to an election and you make commitments, you should stick to them.

He also said:

I will lead a government that keeps its promises.

Why would any single Australian in the lead-up to the next election believe a single word this prime minister or this treasurer says when they say, 'We rule out death taxes,' or, 'We rule out some other tax'? They've broken their promises so fundamentally with the Australian people that the biggest deficit in Australia is not in the budget; it's the deficit of trust between the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Australian people. Why would anyone believe a word these people say when they've fundamentally broken the contract between the people of Australia and their elected representatives? If you can't believe a candidate—in this case, the leader of the country—who said, 'I've told you 50 times. I won't be changing that,' and if you can't believe a commitment as blatant as that, what can you believe from the Australian Labor Party? What single promise at the next election can you believe from the Australian Labor Party?

The political trickery in this bill is very well understood. There are a couple of elements in this bill that the coalition would be very happy to vote for, but, by forcing the parliament to consider the bill in its entirety, we cannot condemn Australians to this deceit and deception. This is just more political trickery by a Labor Party to try and force unrelated issues together to try and somehow wedge the coalition into a position. They think they're going to make some political hay in the future, because, with this prime minister, it's always about the political tricks, about the deceit, about the tactics in this place and nothing about the Australian people, where there is a fundamental breach of trust being committed, which this prime minister will never live down.

On this side of the House—and it was pointed out during the budget-in-reply speech by the opposition leader—We have a better plan, a better way to restore aspiration to the Australian people. The opposition leader, in his budget-in-reply speech, explained how the coalition would help everyday Australians deal with the insidious impact of inflation and bracket creep. We want to restore aspiration and force Canberra to live within its means, rather than raid the pockets of hard-working Australians through bracket creep. Bracket creep is a hidden tax which increases when inflation increases. Wage growth just pushes your income into a higher tax bracket, and you're no better off at the end of the day anyway. Even though your real purchasing power hasn't changed, a larger portion of your money actually goes to the government, and Canberra celebrates. It means that the government takes more tax every year from everyday Australians without needing to change the laws.

The coalition, if elected at the next election, will introduce a new tax-back guarantee, and this will index tax thresholds to inflation so Australians keep more of what they earn. It will deliver relief of around $250 in the first year and more than $1,000 per year by year four. It means no more yearly inflation tax rises. This is real tax reform. We're going to take the novel approach of having a policy position, taking it to the Australian people, giving them a vote and letting them decide what they think is in the best interest of the Australian nation, rather than the approach adopted by the member for Grayndler and the Treasurer of deceit, deception and trickery to try to win government.

The position taken by the coalition has been well received by the Business Council chief executive, Bran Black. He said:

Indexing tax brackets is good reform and will help ensure workers are not paying higher tax rates simply because of inflation and wage growth.

Respected economist Saul Eslake said that the indexation of tax brackets and resulting automatic tax reductions stopped government's using the cash to sweeten voters at election time. He said:

It makes governments honest and stops them being able to offer tax reductions before the next election.

That goes to the core of the bill before the chamber today. What a novel idea making governments honest is!

The Labor Party has demonstrated since the election and, most recently, through the budget and the bill before the chamber today that its only plan for regional Australia is to tax them more. The overwhelming majority of those opposite have never actually run a small business, and it shows in this policy before the chamber. I acknowledge, member for Nicholls, that they may not have visited too many family owned enterprises, but they've certainly done a picket line out the front of quite a lot of them themselves. They've picketed lots of small businesses, but have they actually run a small business? No, not many of them at all have any direct experience when it comes to small business, and it's demonstrated by the measures in the budget.

What Australians are telling me is that they're actually sick of business as usual in Canberra, and they're sick of Labor's broken promises. It's tough out there right now for farmers, for our small-business people and for Australian families. What does the Prime Minister do as Australians are feeling the pinch of cost-of-living pressures and a reduced standard of living? Well, the Prime Minister decides he will make it more difficult for Australians to build their own wealth, get ahead and maybe transfer their business or farm to the next generation. The capital gains tax changes in this legislation, presented to the parliament without any mandate by those opposite, make it more costly and complicated for older farmers seeking to manage their succession planning with their children. We on this side of the House want to see more farming families. We want to see more family owned farms and properties on the land, providing the food and fibre our nation needs. But these changes inevitably will lead to more corporate farms, and our farmers are justifiably worried about the changes to the capital gains tax arrangements.

The minister was asked about this in question time, and she clearly doesn't understand her own government's changes, which represent a broken promise to all Australian farmers. The Victorian Farmers Federation has publicly warned that more than 50 per cent of farmers will not receive a CGT concession and will pay massively higher tax bills when transferring farm ownership to their children. Their fear is that some farmers will have to sell off some of their land just to pay the capital gains tax bill created by this government. We have the National Farmers' Federation raising similar concerns, and we don't have any answer from the minister about whether the 85,000 Australian farmers will be worse off under the government's broken promise on capital gains tax. The minister just constantly dodges the question. We want to know if there has been any modelling. If the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry wasn't consulted, how does the government even know what the impact will be?

Our farmers are world class for a good reason. They're world class at managing risk. They can manage the risk of seasonal conditions. They can manage the risk of commodity prices. More recently, they've had to manage the risk of fuel and fertiliser price increases. But how does any farming family manage the risk of a lying Labor Party? How is it possible to manage that risk? The coalition will oppose these bills, and the coalition will fight for small-business owners, for our farming families and for everyday Australians who are trying to get ahead through their own hard work and through preparing for their own retirement. What we will never do is go to an election based on a fundamental deceit and trickery, like this prime minister has done. Australia is worth fighting for, and we are up for the challenge. If you believe in these policies, take them to election and give the Australian people a chance to vote.

I rise today to speak on a budget that takes aim at one of the greatest economic and social challenges of our generation. I want to stand here in this place and say without hesitation that I want as many people as possible in Bennelong to have a chance at buying their first home, because that should be the baseline promise of a great Australian life. The Australian dream was built on this deal. If you work hard, if you save your money and if you contribute to your community, then a home of your own should be within reach. It's what I was able to achieve, what my parents were able to achieve and what their parents before them as well achieved.

But, ever since John Howard and Peter Costello set our economy on a different path, that deal has been shattered for too many young people in Bennelong and across the country. An entire generation of Australians have been competing in a system that has been rigged against them. Whether they're looking for a home to own or just trying to find an affordable place to rent, young people in particular—this generation that has missed out—know that the system simply isn't working. Not only have successive state and federal governments not built enough homes for the past 40 years but the entire system has been rigged against young people since that mistake was made in 1999.

We see the consequences of that every single day. We see it in skyrocketing rents. We see it in the heartbreaking rise in homelessness. We see it in the plummeting rates of homeownership. And we see it in the eyes of families in my electorate of Bennelong who are doing everything right but are still finding themselves locked out. It's all there in the numbers. In 1999 the average cost of a first home in this country was between 5.5 and 5.7 times the average salary. That was achievable. It required effort, but it was within the realm of reality. Fast-forward to today. The national median house value has skyrocketed to a staggering 15.1 times the average full-time salary. Even a typical small unit, the traditional entry point for a young couple, now costs about 8.1 times that salary.

Bringing it closer to home, in Bennelong—in Ryde, which is right in the middle of my electorate—in 1999 the median price of a detached house was $115,000. Today the median house price stands at an unbelievable $2.43 million. How can we look the next generation in the eye and tell them, 'Just save harder,' when the goalposts haven't just been moved but have been launched into another stratosphere? My community had told me time and time again that the status quo isn't working and that this Labor government needed to do something to change it. That's why, at this budget, we've taken the difficult but necessary decision to fix the Howard and Costello mistake of 1999. We're here to fix that error and to address the deep structural inequality in how different forms of income are taxed so that every working Australian can benefit.

Those opposite, and plenty in the media, will say we aren't doing enough on supply. But, again, the facts speak for themselves. This budget builds on what has already been the most ambitious housing agenda since World War II. Our Homes for Australia plan is now more than $47 billion, and we're incredibly proud of our achievements so far and the progress that is being made. The Housing Australia Future Fund is delivering more than 200 affordable and social units in Bennelong. The five per cent first home deposit guarantee is unlocking more than 1,000 people in my electorate to buy their first home. Our Build to Rent reforms will see more than a thousand Build to Rent units coming into Bennelong alone, let alone across the country. And of course there is our agreement with the states and territories to build more homes through the National Housing Accord.

This budget goes further. We are putting an extra $2 billion into enabling infrastructure through the Local Infrastructure Fund, because you can't build homes without the basics. You need the footpath, the pipes and the power. This $2 billion will unlock up to 65,000 new homes across the country, and we're cutting red tape to get it done. To access this fund, states and territories must take decisive action to speed up planning approvals.

We're also looking after those at the very sharpest end of this crisis, not ignoring them anymore. We're investing $59.4 million for states and territories to secure social housing for more than 4,000 eligible young people at risk of homelessness. And I commend the Special Envoy for Social Housing and Homelessness, the member for Macnamara, for all his work in this field.

But while building supply is vital and while supply, supply, supply has been at the forefront of our housing agenda, it had become abundantly clear to me and to members of my community that more was required in order to level the playing field. We had to look at the tax distortions that had been actively shutting people out from owning their first home. For decades, our tax system has rewarded investors for simply swapping existing properties back and forth, driving up prices without adding a single room to our housing stock. This policy mistake, made by John Howard and Peter Costello, was designed to get more people to invest in the share market. Instead, it left existing housing stock as the most lucrative of investments, distorting the market and shutting out a generation from homeownership.

To address this, we are limiting negative gearing for residential property investments to new builds only. This is something even the former treasurer of this country, Joe Hockey, supports, except that he said that on his way out. He said that in his valedictory. This is a government that recognises that this policy position needs to change, and we've got the guts to change it. Negative gearing will remain fully available for newly built homes, for certain government supported housing programs and for existing investors under strict grandfathering rules. If you want to invest in property, we want you to channel your investments into creating new supply because that's good for you and it's also good for the country. Encouraging the construction of new homes is an important policy position we need to get to.

The second lever of change is, of course, changes to the capital gains tax. When the modern CGT discount was introduced by the Howard government in 1999, it completely distorted the market. By offering this blunt blanket 50 per cent discount on nominal capital gains, it made speculating on property far more financially attractive than investing in other, productive assets. It created an intersection between the housing market and the tax system that slammed the door shut on a generation of young Australians. Our goal here in these reforms is to neutralise these distortions and, importantly, not introduce new ones but bring a fairer, more neutral treatment for capital gains.

First, we're introducing a new capital gains discount model based on indexation. Instead of that blunt 50 per cent discount on nominal gains, an asset's original cost base will be adjusted upward for inflation using CPI. This is important because it means that you will only pay CGT on your real gains, not your nominal gains. In high-inflation environments, like the one we're in right now, this calculation may actually leave many investors with a lower capital gains taxable amount than before. In fact, if the asset growth is less than twice the rate of inflation, then the taxable amount is most likely to be less than under the current system.

Secondly, we're implementing a 30 per cent capital gains minimum tax rate. This baseline rate will apply to net capital gains after inflation is factored in. But, crucially, we've protected vulnerable Australians. There are explicit exemptions for income support recipients, age pensioners and super funds. This important change is about levelling the playing field between those who earn their income primarily via wage and those who earn it via other legitimate means. It is a really important reform that has long been talked about.

Of course, there are smooth transitional arrangements, as any good government would do. For assets that are already owned, the 50 per cent discount will still apply for growth accrued up to 1 July 2027. From then on, any capital growth, if there is any, will apply under the new system. To keep our focus squarely on supply, investors in eligible new builds will also retain the choice of having that 50 per cent capital gains discount on nominal gains or the new model.

We know that there are many factors driving up prices in the Australian housing market, but we also know that the status quo cannot remain. This is what just shocks me about the response from the opposition, where they've openly said they're going to vote down this important bill, which includes tax cuts and helping people to get into their first home. We know that the status quo isn't working. It's not working for productivity. It's not working to get more people into homes. It's not working for working Australians, who bear the burden of the tax take of the Commonwealth. These reforms will give 75,000 first home buyers their entry into owning their own home and will help reverse a decade of decline in homeownership rates. Other reforms will balance the burden currently on the back of Australian wage earners across the country.

This budget is about two things. It's about coming to terms with the errors of the past. It's about listening to young Australians and working with them to set up an Australia with a fairer future. It takes political courage to fix the structural errors of the past. While others sit here to defend a broken status quo, my electorate has told me again and again that the status quo is broken and that things need to change. To me, this budget represents a positive line in the sand. This is the change our economy needs, the change our budget needs. We're doing this at the right time for the right reasons, and I commend this bill to the House.

I'd like to reflect for a minute or two on what makes us proud to be Australians. We're all here in this place, proud to be Australians—or we wouldn't be here—representing families, business owners, investors, the elderly and the generation who will themselves sit here in these seats one day. So what is it that we are here protecting and supporting? What is it that we are here to look at and that says 'this is what being Australian is all about'? Let's look at some of our favourite films, our favourite days, our favourite cultural moments and our favourite traditions. I'm thinking of Gallipoli, Breaker Morant, Australia Day, Anzac Day, Phar Lap, St Mary MacKillop and even Don Bradman. They show us that Australians admire bravery. We admire and strive towards hard work, mateship and integrity. We admire honesty.

It is those values that are under attack here today in this House. First and foremost is honesty and integrity. We have learnt not to listen when the Prime Minister announces he has made things clear. He made things clear ahead of the election when he declared that there would be no new taxes. He made things clear just long enough to be elected, and then suddenly there emerged a whole new kind of clarity. We cannot trust the government that has been elected. A promise made to get through the door is not worth anything if it's not kept.

Having ditched our Australian values of honesty and integrity, this government has moved on to take a kick at other national values. Let's talk about hard work. There's a letter in my office from an 83-year-old woman from Dubbo. Nearly half a century ago this woman and her husband bought a property near Brewarrina. Their three children came home on the school bus to work in the shearing shed and to lend a hand on the farm. The five of them worked hard, and, as most of us know, there's very little time for luxury when you work on the land. The couple, who are now elderly, live in Dubbo, but the dad still works on the farm that his worked for 48 years. This hard work is now being paid back with uncertainty and with the prospect of tax gouging under changes to the capital gains tax regime as part of this bill.

Farmers who have stepped into the boots of their parents and worked the entirety of their lives on the land have been taxed every step of the way, and it's not as easy to make a quid on the land as you'd think. Farmers in my electorate of Parkes and across the country have been left wondering what this means for them. The National Farmers' Federation have raised alarm that these reforms, unintentionally or otherwise, will have a deep impact on farms and on farmers. I'll quote from the National Farmers' Federation president Hamish McIntyre. He said:

The Government cannot afford to get this wrong. If these settings are not fit for purpose, we risk decreased investment, delayed succession, increased debt burdens and in some cases, forced sales of farmland to meet the increased tax liability.

These farms are often the result of generations of savings. They are the legacy left for children and for grandchildren, and they are ultimately the family business. But, under these reforms, together with the sneaky new death tax and the raid on family trust, keeping these businesses in the family has become even harder.

Included in this is the broken promise that assets bought before 1985 would never attract capital gains tax. I have had constituents who have written to me to say that these changes will not help the young people to buy their own homes. They will instead entrench intergenerational inequity by denying to those who don't already own a home the mechanics enjoyed by older generations to do so.

One constituent has told me that, while he has lived his entire life in Australia, these toxic new taxes are now forcing the family to think about leaving the country. How bad is it that an Australian family is considering leaving the country to escape the huge burden of new taxes? A Moree accountant has called the capital gains tax reform a 'contemptible' change that will hurt lower income Australians the most. He gives an example where the reform will add 11 per cent to the capital gains tax paid on the sale of a house that makes an inflation adjusted gain of just $100,000. Already we are seeing the result of these reforms before they've even arrived. Auction clearance rates and volumes are down, and rents are up—so much for helping younger generations!

Tristan from Forbes in my electorate of Parkes is a young man who is trying to live his dream with his agricultural contracting business. Tristan came to question time last month and was infuriated by what he heard from those on that side of the House. In Tristan's own words, these tax reforms do 'more damage than good, especially for those of us who are young and taking risks to run a business and try and get ahead. I'd like to read the rest of what Tristan had to say as a young Australian who these tax hikes are meant to benefit. He said:

I am losing faith in the system in a big way. I don't see the Prime Minister or any other Ministers out there with me working 20 to 23 hours a day in peak season helping, but they rob us blind of our work and money.

I am a farming contractor. I bought machinery to generate a turnover to build an asset portfolio to get into land ownership. Negative gearing was a great way to get there and build up a portfolio. Unless you come from family money or inheritance—which I have no doubt they are trying to go after as well—you can't really get into it.

They have no support for young people or understanding. They are robbing many young people like me trying to get into farming, and they don't care. I feel support for the younger generation is at an all-time low.

Well, if our young Australians feel this way and we are attacking the savings of our older generations also, then what is this tax grab all about? Should this younger generation manage to battle their way through the forest of hurdles and the cost-of-living increases and taxes to find an affordable home, they will be prevented from investing later on themselves due to the very same capital gains reform that we're here looking at today. They too, our newer hardworking generation, are being hit at every turn.

Financial Services Council analysis shows the reform 'could materially increase taxes on Australians investing outside superannuation, including younger Australians, families, part-time workers and Australians approaching retirement'. Its modelling shows that, under these reforms, a 25-year-old Australian on a median income investing $10,000 in shares would pay more tax. A median-income young family investing $40,000 in a balanced managed fund would also pay more tax. A 35-year-old professional on an above-median income investing $60,000 in high-growth managed funds would pay more tax, and a 46-year-old operations manager on an above-median income investing $110,000 to build financial security and safety would also pay more tax. The modelling also showed that people on low incomes would also pay more tax on even modest investments. People who have dreams—another great Australian tradition—and want to fund their own business now need to think twice. The risk is now 47 per cent higher and the end benefits are less.

I support schedule 3, the working Australians tax offset, and schedule 4, the $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses. I do not support the changes to the capital gains tax regime or the changes to the negative gearing regime. How workable is a scheme that only rewards new builds? Where is the incentive to continue to cherish and maintain our beautiful older homes?

I'm sorry to interrupt. I wanted to draw the House's attention. There was a unparliamentary remark made by the member for Nicholls. It would assist the House if you withdrew.

To assist the House, I withdraw.

Thank you.

In its usual type of attack on the Australian people, by stealth, the Labor government has wrapped these two small sweeteners in with what is otherwise a rotten bundle. There is another worm at its core: the power allocated to the minister of the day—a popular theme within this Labor government. This bill notes: 'The minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a method for apportioning capital gains and losses between realisation events and earlier deemed CGT events'. The bill also states:

The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine one or more kinds of *CGT assets to be covered by subsection (2).

To what extent do we want the minister to be doing the sums on our families' personal assets? Here, again, is legislation by stealth from the Labor government.

Once again, I refer to the values we treasure as Australians: honesty and integrity. It is lost here in this legislation and the promise that came before: bravery and hard work. Where is the incentive to take the brave leap to start a new business? Where is the reward of decades of hard work and mateship? This is not the work of a mate. This is not the work of a leader. Australians cannot rest easy at the end of a long day with tax reform changes such as these ones hanging over their heads. You are taxed when you make your first dollar, when you invest, when you buy your first home or maybe your second home, or when you invest for your children. You're taxed on your superannuation you have earnt, despite being taxed all the way through your life, and you're even taxed now when you die. What will be left for our children at the end of the day?

The coalition has a plan—a solid way forward, a tax-back guarantee. From the 2028-29 financial year, a coalition government will index the bottom two income tax thresholds to inflation, protecting around 85 per cent of income earners and delivering relief of around $250 in the first year. This will grow to be more than $1,000 a year by year 4, and, from 2031-32, the top two thresholds will also be indexed, protecting all taxpayers. This can be done if you stop the cycle of inflation at its source.

These taxes were an attack by stealth at a time when Australians can least afford it. We had values once that were supported by a government of this country. It is time once again that our legislation supports what it means to be an Australian.

Tax reform is rarely simple and it is rarely easy. Every change to the tax system creates debate because taxation sits at the centre of so many decisions Australians make: where they invest, whether they buy a home or start a business, and how much of their hard-earned income they keep. Yet, one thing has been increasingly clear over recent decades: the status quo is not working as it should.

Too many young Australians are locked out of homeownership. Too many workers feel like they are carrying a growing burden while watching wealth accumulate elsewhere. Too many Australians look at the tax system and wonder whether it still reflects the economy we live in today. That is why the reforms in the 2026-27 budget matter. They're not an isolated measure designed to fix a single problem. Together, they represent the most significant package of tax reforms undertaken in more than a quarter of a century—a package designed to make the economy work for more Australians rather than the fortunate few.

At its heart, this legislation is built around a simple proposition: Who should our tax system work for? Should it continue rewarding distortions that have built up over decades, or should it support workers, encourage productive investment and help young Australians build a secure future? This government has made its choice. It is a reform agenda built around fairness, aspiration and effort. Most importantly, it acknowledges that economic policy should serve the many Australians who get up every morning, go to work, pay their taxes and simply want the chance to get ahead.

Across Australia, people are working harder than ever, and I see that every day in my community in the north. Yet many feel that the rewards of economic growth have become increasingly difficult to access. Young Australians are spending longer saving for a deposit, families are feeling pressure from rising costs, and businesses are looking for greater certainty to invest and expand. At the same time, unnecessary complexity continues to make our tax system harder to navigate than it needs to be.

This budget responds directly to those challenges. More than 13 million workers will receive tax relief, businesses and startups will benefit from measures worth $3.5 billion, and compliance costs across the economy will fall by approximately $540 million every year, whilst more homes will be delivered for more Australians. These are not isolated changes operating in different directions. Together they form a coherent package designed to make the tax system simpler, fairer and more effective.

What makes these tax reforms particularly important is that they build upon the government's broader record of responsible economic management. Australians rightly expect governments to confront difficult challenges rather than leave them for someone else to solve. Responsible management of the nation's finances remains essential if we are to build a stronger and more sustainable economy. Continued investment in health care, education and the services that communities rely upon every day is a fundamental obligation of government. Revenue raised through reforms is being returned to workers and businesses, while supporting stronger budget sustainability over time. Future generations should not inherit structural problems simply because governments lack the courage to address them. Too often in politics, there is an incentive to postpone difficult decisions. A challenge emerges, everyone agrees it exists, everyone acknowledges it's becoming worse, yet meaningful action is delayed because the problem appears politically difficult. That is not the approach being taken here. This legislation accepts our responsibility to act now rather than leaving these issues for younger Australians to solve later.

Housing affordability provides perhaps the clearest example. For many Australians, homeownership remains the single most important pathway to financial security. It has long been part of the Australian dream. A stable home creates opportunities for families, provides security in retirement and allows people to build wealth and participate fully in the economy. Yet, for too many younger Australians, that dream has become increasingly difficult to achieve. The current tax settings have contributed to outcomes that favour speculation in the existing housing stock over the creation of new supply. As prices have risen faster than wages, many first home buyers have found themselves locked out of the market altogether.

That is why schedules 1 and 2 of this legislation are so important. The reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax are designed to improve housing affordability, while ensuring investment continues to play an important role in the economy. Beginning from 1 July 2027, negative gearing arrangements for residential property purchased after budget night will be limited to new builds. Why is this? It's straightforward: Australia needs more homes. More supply is essential if we are serious about improving affordability. Directing investment towards new construction helps increase the number of properties available to Australians, while supporting jobs throughout the construction sector.

Importantly, existing arrangements are being grandfathered. Australians who currently own investment properties or utilise negative gearing will not—I repeat, will not—be forced to change their existing arrangements. Certainty remains in place for current investors. Future investment, however, will be encouraged towards building additional housing stock. The goal is not to penalise people who have made decisions under existing rules; the goal is to ensure that future tax incentives support outcomes that strengthen housing supply and improve affordability.

Modelling indicates that these reforms will help around 75,000 additional Australians become homeowners over the next decade. For thousands of young families, that represents the difference between continuing to rent and finally purchasing a home of their own. Alongside these changes sits an equally important reform to capital gains tax. For gains accrued after 1 July 2027, the current 50 per cent discount will be replaced with cost-based indexation alongside a 30 per cent minimum tax.

While discussions around capital gains tax can quickly become technical, the principle behind the reform is remarkably simple: investors should pay tax on real gains and they should not be taxed on inflation. Returning to indexation restores that principle. The current arrangements created distortions that influence investment decisions and encourage capital to flow towards particular assets for tax reasons rather than economic reasons. Correcting those distortions helps ensure that investment flows towards opportunities that generate genuine economic value, which creates a positive environment for innovation and long-term economic growth.

Another important feature of the reforms is the broad application across asset classes. A piecemeal approach would simply create new distortions elsewhere. Investors should make decisions based on economic fundamentals rather than artificial advantages embedded within the tax system. Maintaining consistency across assets supports a more balanced and efficient market. Some investors will pay less tax under these arrangements. Others may pay more. Our objective is not to increase or decrease tax for its own sake. Our objective is to ensure that inflation is treated appropriately and investment decisions reflect genuine returns.

Property investors who purchase new builds will continue to have flexibility when they eventually sell their asset. They will be able to choose between the existing 50 per cent discount and the new indexation arrangements with the minimum tax. That flexibility recognises the role new housing supply plays within the broader economy.

Small businesses also remain protected under these reforms, as existing small business capital gains tax concessions continue unchanged. For many eligible businesses, those concessions can significantly reduce or eliminate capital gains tax obligations when assets are sold. Entrepreneurship remains vital to Australia's economic future. That is why the government is also continuing consultation regarding the application of these reforms to startups and businesses with low or zero cost bases.

Good policy requires consultation, and complex economic issues deserve careful consideration. Legislating major reform in stages is not unusual. Many of Australia's most significant economic reforms have been implemented through multiple legislative tranches. This budget establishes the core framework while allowing detailed consultation to continue where appropriate.

When viewed collectively, the reforms contained within this legislation reveal a broader vision for Australia's economy. Workers should keep more of what they earn. Investment should be directed towards productive outcomes. Housing policy should help more Australians achieve homeownership. Businesses should face less red tape. The tax system should be easier to understand. Future generations should inherit stronger foundations than those we inherited ourselves. Those objectives are not radical. They are sensible. They are practical. Most importantly, they reflect the values held by millions of Australians.

The budget before the House strengthens opportunity while maintaining responsibility. It supports aspiration without abandoning fairness. It promotes investment while reducing distortions. It delivers relief today while building a more sustainable future. For those reasons, I support the budget.

These tax changes are proving pretty unpopular out there in voter land, and the reason for that is multifaceted. Basically, it's the premise on which they were introduced, the personal impact that they're having on people, the inability of some ministers to explain how it's going to affect people and the fact that it's just a massive tax grab of $77 billion over the next 10 years. I'll talk a bit more about that later.

I'm hearing all these impassioned defences of these tax changes—capital gains tax and negative gearing; why we have to have it—and I'm just thinking, member for Dawson: I didn't hear any of this before the election.

No.

None of this at all. And as the member for Gippsland said when he came in here before—he's seen seven elections; seen only two—he said that the convention in Australian politics is that the candidates, the parties, the people who are aspiring to be the government or to be a representative in the House of Representatives go out to the people and say, 'This is what I will do if I'm elected and this is what I won't do if I'm elected.' As we very well know, the Prime Minister said, 'For the 50th time, it's off the table,' in relation to negative gearing and capital gains tax. So people voted the way they voted, and they said: 'Oh, well, I might vote Labor. I was considering voting for someone else, but the Prime Minister has taken negative gearing and capital gains tax off the table, so I might vote Labor .' And many millions of people probably did that.

So, less than a year later, to bring into this place changes that are the exact thing he said he wouldn't do, along with the Treasurer, breaks the trust with the Australian people. All of those opposite, particularly the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, will have a big problem the next time they go to an election, because they'll put policies forward and people will say, 'Okay, but you said last time that this was going to be your policy and you changed it.' And you'll hear a bit about what we plan to do. Not only is it real tax reform that will lead to people paying less tax but also we are having the courage and the decency to put it before the Australian people before the next election.

There's been a lot of debate in this place about what sorts of words we can use to describe the deception by the Labor Party, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, and there are certain words we can't use. But I've consulted with some younger voters as to what we can explain this as: a 'fact-adjacent operation' was one of the things I heard, and 'colouring outside factual lines'. I was also informed that election promises like these 'age like milk': eventually they sour.

But I like to use the word 'furphy', which is named after a wonderful family in my electorate of Nicholls that has always made tanks. They made water tanks for World War I diggers. When the World War I diggers hung around getting a drink it was like water cooler conversation. There were a lot of tall tales told around the Furphy water tank, and that's how a tall tale became known as a furphy. So I call this a furphy, because this is one of the tallest of tales that was told by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer before the election. And I can tell you, the Furphy family in Shepparton have honesty, courage and decency, but that's not what we saw from the Labor Party before the election.

In relation to the tax changes themselves, we oppose changes to the capital gains tax regime and we oppose changes to the negative gearing regime. But we do support schedules 3 and 4, which deliver the Working Australians Tax Offset, because we believe in lower taxes. We also support the $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses. That streamlines things. It makes it easier for people to fill out their tax returns and to get what they should be getting back from their tax. But these things are put together in a bill with schedules that we cannot support. That's been described, appropriately, as 'wedge-onomics', because they want to claim we voted against the elements that we support. They won't split the bill so we can pass the good and reject the bad—and this from a prime minister who said he wasn't going to be the type of politician or the type of prime minister who wedges people. Well, the wedge is on.

The capital gains tax changes are very confusing for people, and they may—and probably will—tax and cruel aspiration. This will affect people who want to have a go and set up, invest in and build a business, such as a dairy herd—which involves very difficult work; you have to go around at 3 am and pull calves out of cows. I spoke to a pharmacist who has a fantastic pharmacy in Hobart. His capital gain is going to rise pretty quickly because of his innovative ideas, his investment and the work that he's putting into it. But, on the figures, he's probably going to be slugged a lot more capital gains tax than he otherwise would have been when he goes to sell that business. So the next person who thinks, 'Well, I'm going to have a go and combine my blood, sweat and tears, my labour, my capital and my appetite for risk,' Member for Dawson, might go and do that somewhere else. The finance minister from New Zealand is already saying: 'Come across the ditch. Come over here. We want you.' We don't want those people to leave Australia. We want them to set businesses up here.

In relation to negative gearing, I hear the arguments. It's how a lot of people have created wealth over the years, including, probably, most of the Labor frontbench—and good on them. We're told that the changes need to be brought in so that young people can get into the housing market, but the budget papers say that this could lead to a reduction in supply. The budget papers say there would be 35,000 fewer homes. The budget papers say that rents are going to go up. The budget papers say that people could be taxed on their capital gains, which often come from a share portfolio that they've put together to try and save the deposit for the new home.

I understand the intent, and we all want to see more young people getting into the housing market, but the way you do that is to get more supply. And how do you get more supply? You make it easier for people who want to build housing developments and build houses. So our plan is to provide $5 billion to the councils, the developers or whoever it may be to build the services—the sewerage, the electricity, the roads, the drainage and all of those things that are the roadblock between a housing development going ahead and a housing development not going ahead. To be honest, sometimes the time it takes for a couple of paddocks to be zoned residential or until someone can actually pour a slab is way too long, and it's often the costs that cause it to be too long.

I just cannot listen, in all seriousness, to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and other people in the government who say, 'We are the party of tax cuts,' because this budget and these tax arrangements mean that $77 billion more tax will be collected over the next 10 years. That's huge. Some of them bell the cat a bit, because they say, 'Oh, your arrangements would cost the budget $280 billion.' I heard that today. I heard someone say, 'Oh, your changes to reduce bracket creep will cost'—I just emphasise that word 'cost'—'the budget $280 billion.' Now, that money doesn't disappear; it just stops being in the coffers of the government and goes back into the pockets of the hardworking Australian taxpayer.

We've got a better plan, and I'm very proud to be associated with an opposition that has put forward a solution to one of the big problems in tax and tax policy in Australia, which is bracket creep. Bracket creep is where, as inflation rises, people go to their boss and say, 'Inflation is rising; I need a pay rise,' they get a pay rise, the pay rise pushes them into the next tax bracket and they end up paying more tax, but really they're not that much better off, because of inflation. It's been described as the thief in the night, and governments, particularly governments with high inflation like this one, rely on it to top up their reckless spending. But it's money that's getting taken away from people. To index tax brackets to inflation is real tax reform, and it will put real money back into the pockets of hardworking Australian people. Regarding the falsity of what I hear from some of the members of the government about intergenerational equity, intergenerational equity is making sure that the tax system is set up so that people pay less tax into the future and that they're not left with a government who has spent so badly that there is a huge deficit when they do become taxpayers. That's the big problem.

The bad budget is a hard sell, and these tax changes are a hard sell, but they are, as we're finding, very difficult for some of the ministers to explain. The Minister for Housing couldn't tell us what the arrangements are if someone wants to build a granny flat on a new property. There are all sorts of issues when it comes to trusts—testamentary trusts, discretionary trusts and charitable trusts. What's affected? What's not? We're not getting clear answers. I think that is because it's confusing and it's because the work hasn't been done to really outline what the impacts, including the unintended consequences, of this will be.

I'm amazed that more people in the government are not lining up to defend this budget. I could be wrong, and I'll stand corrected if more people come in, but before I came in here I went into the whip's office, and only 26 of the 94 Labor members are scheduled to speak on this bill, Member for Dawson. You would think that if they think this is so great they would be charging through the doors to come in and talk about how great these changes are and try and explain why they said one thing before the elections, when they were running around during last year's election campaign, and now we're doing something completely different. Maybe they don't want to be associated with that kind of deception, Member for Dawson. I'm not sure, but I suppose I can't really blame them.

But, on recap, we have taxes, lots of taxes. These new laws are just a big tax grab—taxes on small businesses, farm businesses, startups and entrepreneurs, which are the engine room of the Australian economy. The CG taxes hit shares and businesses far beyond property, and the trust tax catches ordinary small businesses and farmers, not just wealthy investors. The budget locks in $50 billion of high taxes that no-one voted for. That's the point. No-one got a chance to say, 'I like this idea. I'm going to vote for you,' or, 'I don't like this idea. I'm going to vote for someone else.' That is the compact that exists in Australian democracy. We've broken a record. There's a record. This is the highest-taxing government in Australian history. No government has collected more tax from the Australian people than this does.

It's almost like the economy's grown!

I'll take that interjection, because it's flatlining. It's flatlining on today's figures, Member for Bruce. I don't know if you checked those, Member for Bruce. Some of the hardest working Australians are going to be caught up by this tax grab—entrepreneurs, the people with ingenuity, the sweat equity, those generational businesses, the farmers that are trying for succession. No-one voted for these toxic taxes, and I'm not going to vote for them now. I support the WATO, the working Australians tax offset. I support the $1,000 automatic deduction. But I cannot support the changes to the capital gains tax and the negative gearing arrangements because of the way that they were brought in—stealthily—and the impact that they will have on real Australians.

As the member for Swan, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 is probably one of the bills that I will speak to most proudly. That is because I came here because I want to make Australia a fairer place for future generations. If this were the only bill that I contributed to in the country, I would be a very happy woman, because this is about making the system fairer for future generations. That's as a local of my community of Swan; it's also as a mother. I have two children, Felicity and Lincoln, five and eight. I let them know that the reason why I'm away for 20 weeks of the year is that I want to build a fairer Australia for them. This is what this change is about. We are changing the system and we are doing that because—guess what? The system has been broken, and, if the coalition think that the system has been working, they have had their heads buried under the sand. The ability to own a home should not be a privilege for some. That's a right that should belong to every single Australian. For too long, that has not been the reality for the people that I represent in Swan and not for Australians right across the country.

This bill introduces tax reforms that rebalance the system, reforms that back the workers, the first home buyers and the generation coming up. This bill is the start of the most significant tax reform this country has seen in 25 years. It does three things: it puts money in the back pockets of every Australian worker, it opens the door wider for first home buyers and it stops the tax system rewarding asset income over wages. We are the government that believes that Australians should earn more and keep more of what they earn, as opposed to the coalition, who will vote against tax cuts this week. We do not believe that a worker should pay more tax than an investor. Income earned through hard work should not be taxed more heavily than income earned by holding an asset. That's not fairness. It's not productive either. That is the system that this bill begins to set right.

It's no secret that tax concessions in this country go to the highest earners. Meanwhile, working Australians, who keep this country going, have been doing the heavy lifting. This bill changes that. Most Australians go to work every day, contribute to the economy and pay their taxes. That's why I welcome the new $250 working Australian tax offset, which will benefit more Australians. This government is also introducing a $100,000 instant tax deduction for workers, which will benefit around 6.2 million Australians. This is the fifth time this government has cut income taxes. It's responsible. It's targeted. It's fair. And I would like Australians to know that those opposite have, time and time again, opposed this government's tax cuts—tax cuts that give money back to the people, back to everyday working Australians.

As the Prime Minister said earlier today, we are the party of homeownership. For too long, this country has accepted a housing market that is broken, a market that works against ordinary Australians and works against a productive economy. The Howard government's changes to capital gains tax in 1999, coupled with negative gearing, turned housing into the single most lucrative investment in this country, and the effect on the housing market and on generations of Australians has been catastrophic. House prices have run away from wages, and homeownership has slipped further out of reach for younger generations. This bill changes that.

As I stand here today, I'm proud to say that I'm a part of a government that is challenging the status quo and making changes for a fairer society. This government expects that these changes will bring 75,000 more Australians into homeownership over the next decade, turning around a decade in which homeownership has been going backwards. We're not waiting for tax changes to take effect before helping first home buyers. Through Labor's five per cent deposit scheme, 1,965 first home buyers in the electorate of Swan have already bought their own home. That's the difference between a government that occupies space and a government that actually acts.

Many of the people that I talk to bring up housing as the first issue on their mind. Often, it's not for themselves. It's because of someone in their life they love, usually a child or a grandchild who simply cannot see a way through to homeownership. I hit the streets last week when I was back in my electorate, and I spoke to a young man who was grateful for the 20 per cent HECS cut. Then, he also said he was absolutely behind making housing more affordable for his generation. I spoke with an older gentleman, Garry, who told me that he loved the changes and wanted them to go further. And then I also spoke with Shane North, who called the office to say that he was absolutely behind these changes. He explained that he worked hard and had bought his own house and that he doesn't have children but that he wants the system to be fairer for the next generation.

These are important changes, and I am, absolutely, very proud to represent them. This bill rebalances the system that has been tilted for far too long. It says that the dream of homeownership should not depend on whether your parents already own property. This is reform whose time has come. The ability to own a home should not be a privilege for the few; it's a right that should belong to everyday Australians. A worker should keep more of what they earn. A first home buyer should have a fair shot at the keys to their own front door. This generation that is coming up behind us should inherit a system that backs them, not one that's stacked against them. This bill makes it real. It helps the worker. It helps the first home buyer. It helps the next generation.

This is also about making sure that we make tangible differences in our community. I remember speaking to the school principal at my kids' school, maybe two years ago, and she explained that there were 20 families that had had to leave the school because of how crazy the housing crisis was. I also have a friend who, when she went through a divorce, said that the most important thing that she wanted to do was to make sure that she didn't take her kids out of the school catchment area, because of how disruptive that was.

What we're trying to do is to fix the system to make it fairer for first home buyers. We're doing that because it's the right thing to do, and it will put less pressure—but that's not the only thing that we're doing. We're also working on housing supply. For these reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

Our country is slowly flipping from a country of homeowners to a country of renters, and that's a terribly sad thing to observe and to live through. You know, you've only got to go back two or maybe three decades, and the normal course of events was that a normal sort of person, a regular Joe—he or she—would get a job, work hard, save up a house deposit and could afford to buy a modest cottage for the family to grow up in. Then they might upgrade it and sell, to move up to something grander, a decade or a couple of decades later, when they could afford it.

I don't want to go back to the white picket fence of John Howard, but I do want to go back to a day when a regular person had it within their capacity to own their own home. But, at some point during the last two or three decades, especially in the last half a dozen years or so, housing stopped being a fundamental human right in this country and became an investment product: in some ways, no better or worse than a parcel of shares or whatever someone might invest in—maybe cryptocurrency, these days. So no longer was a home a fundamental human right and something that regular people could aspire to and achieve; it became an investment product, for those who could afford to, to try and make a buck from.

I don't criticise the people who have made a buck, and I've traded a few houses myself over the years. What I am criticising, though, is the succession of governments, over decades, that quite deliberately put in place the policy settings to turn homes into investments and to take away that fundamental human right. One, of course, was negative gearing. In fact, it wasn't just the introduction of negative gearing; I think the thing that made negative gearing worse was the change that allowed property owners to deduct property costs against their gross income, including their personal salary. That change, from when you could only deduct against the costs of the property, was, I think, a very significant and a very detrimental change in turning property from a human right into an investment.

Then there's capital gains tax. Of course you should pay some sort of capital gains tax when you have a substantial capital gain. The decision to halve the capital gains tax after 12 months might have been well intentioned, but I'm hard pressed to find one decent economist, one good economist, in this country who thinks that the halving of the capital gains tax—that so-called discount—was a good idea.

You can see where I'm going with this, Deputy Speaker. I obviously support—in fact, I applaud—the government for deciding to do something about the tax arrangements regarding residential property. I will support the bill, and I will do it with honesty, because I went to the last election campaigning for tax reform of residential property. So I feel quite pure about this. I don't feel that I'm letting my community down by supporting this bill

But it does bring me to the criticism of the government by the opposition and others that they went to the election promising not to do this. Well, do you know what? To some degree I'll associate myself with the opposition's criticism here, because this is one of the biggest tax reforms that I can think of—certainly in my adult lifetime—and it would be proper process for something this big to have been taken to the election. So, although I will support it and I won't feel guilty about doing that, because I campaigned on such a reform, I would say to the government: you should have taken it to the election. I'd say to the opposition: when you have big reforms in the future, take it to the election, because, whether it be Tony Abbott reneging on his promises before and after the 2013 election or the current government reneging on its promises before last year's election, all it does is feed that cynicism about the political class in the community. It's no wonder emerging parties are enjoying record popularity, because the old political class is letting the community down and the community want to ventilate that dissatisfaction and that displeasure. So it feeds into that.

I will go back to a positive, though, for a moment. By the way, if you think I'm a bit all over the place, it's because I think this bill is a bit all over the place. It's got some really good aspects and it's got some really lamentable aspects. I do think that the idea of trying to achieve some sort of equivalency between the tax on income earned from investments and the tax on a similar amount of income earned from wages is a good idea as a matter of principle, and it is achieved to some degree insofar as, in this bill, the minimum capital gains tax will be 30 per cent instead of the old 25 per cent. I would say, though, that that increase of five per cent, particularly when it's offset against the effects of inflation, means that people who are paying capital gains tax after 12 months probably won't actually be paying that much different an amount. They might even be paying a little bit less with this reform. I think the scare campaign around this minimum 30 per cent capital gains tax is quite dishonest. It's coming from people who are accusing the government of dishonesty, but the scare campaign is equally dishonest.

But, of course, the devil is always in the detail. When I look at this minimum 30 per cent, I think, 'Well, what happens to someone who is living off the income of capital gains and is getting less than about $200,000 in capital gain from that investment?' If that were just taxed as normal income, they would be paying markedly less than 30 per cent tax. In other words—and this will be even more pronounced when we debate the next bill, which goes to the detail of trusts—the problem with setting a minimum of 30 per cent is that anyone who's getting income from investments or a disbursement from a trust of less than about, I think, $192,000 or $195,000 will actually be paying more tax than they were before. I think that's very unfair.

In fact, I'll quickly jump to that point of trusts. They say that an age pensioner will be exempt from the 30 per cent tax on a disbursement from a trust in retirement. Well, they'll only be exempt, of course, if they're receiving at least $1 of income support payment from Services Australia through the age pension. But, of course, you don't get any age pension for a couple if your income is more than about $100,000, in rough figures. So what happens to a couple who are living off their investments and getting somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 income? They will be paying 30 per cent tax on the disbursement from the trust, or—looping back to simply a capital gain—they'll be paying at least 30 per cent tax on the income from that capital gain. That is actually markedly more than if they were simply paying, for example, personal income tax.

So the settings on this aren't right, and one of the reasons the settings aren't right is that it was never socialised. There was never a public consultation. There was never an exposure draft. There was never, or never will be, a detailed parliamentary inquiry into these changes. There will never be the opportunity for the government to adjust the exposure draft and get it 'just right'. You don't just suddenly drop this sort of change on us and say, 'There you go,' and then, when you come under media pressure or political pressure, say, 'Oh, don't worry about the lack of detail'—or the settings between $100,000 and $200,000 I described. 'Don't you worry about that' sounds like Joh Bjelke-Petersen! 'As sure as night follows day, we will consult after this becomes law, and we will change it in your favour.' Well, excuse me. No wonder people are sceptical that that will be done right, particularly with these reforms increasing pressure on the minister to make adjustments and bring down subregulations or whatever. No, we should do this properly. We should have proper process.

The proper process, by the way, starts with making an election promise and then, once you're elected, saying: 'Okay, we're going to go through this. We're going to have an effective consultation process with the community, with industry groups and with other peak bodies. We're going to talk to everyone, from people in the bush on their properties right through to the captains of industry in the major capital cities, and we're going to come up with a reform that works and is fair.' Then they might have created that exposure draft and circulated that and asked, 'What do you think?' There might have been more consultations. They might have carefully drafted a bill, and then we would have come to the parliament knowing exactly what we were voting for.

I've been talking to quite a few backbenchers this week from the government, the opposition and the crossbench. I've been asking questions of them, and they've been asking questions of me, and I'll tell you what—I've lost count of the number of times my colleagues have said, 'Oh, I don't know about that,' or, 'I'm not sure about that; I don't know what that means.' We pulled out the bill today in my office, and we tried to make sense of one particular point of detail. There were three of us, and I think our six eyeballs all glazed over trying to make sense of it. It's not the way to do big reform.

I did mention the subsequent bill, on trusts. I've been to a series of elections campaigning for tax reform for at least residential property, so I will honour my promise to my community and support this bill, but I'll warn the government that I'm not going to extend the same support as it stands to the next bill, which will go into the detail of trusts. That is such a complex area. You just can't have a 'one size fits all' approach. It just doesn't work. It basically comes from a place of demonising anyone who's got a trust as—I can't be unparliamentary, but you know where I'm going with this, Deputy Speaker Boyce—a rich person who's just dodging tax, and that's not the case. I had a family trust when I had a small business in a previous life. It was the most effective structure for me in order to run my company. I wasn't dodging tax. Heavens, with the little business my wife and I had, we were lucky to take home $80,000 a year. Nothing was being dodged. It was just a sensible structure for our little business.

What jumps out at me as the most ridiculous aspect of the trust proposals is that we would put a 30 per cent tax on the disbursements from testamentary trusts. That's an appalling proposition by the government. I probably don't need to go into any detail here and detain the House. We've heard so many examples in the last week or so about all of the good and sensible reasons people need to have such trusts protecting their estate, particularly if their beneficiary might be a child with disability, a child with a gambling addiction or a child who they are concerned might fall into a relationship with a scoundrel who ends up fleecing them. There are countless reasons why testamentary trusts are a sensible and good idea to protect your family.

I'm in a blended family myself. Clare and I love each other, and I don't doubt that we will always do the right thing by each other. But, heavens, there are a lot of blended families where one partner or the other must be wondering, 'If I drop off the perch, what happens in 10 or 20 years time when my surviving spouse meets that scoundrel who fleeces her or him?' That's an example of where I think the next bill will run into a real brick wall. It might be amended adequately that I can support it. But, as I stand here now, I certainly won't, and I look forward to joining the debate about that.

In closing, can I just say: I welcome changes to make housing more affordable. Hobart is a beautiful little town, but I've never seen homeless like it. I've met people holding down steady, reasonably well-paying jobs living in their car. This is just bizarre. We're one of the richest countries in the world—I think we're the 14th-biggest economy in the world—but we've allowed our housing arrangements to devolve to the point where we have all these homeless people. People are couch surfing. I was on the Gold Coast not that not that long ago, helping my daughter get into some accommodation; she's at uni. She and her friend are paying $800 a week for a modest two-bedroom apartment with two bathrooms in a reasonable location. It shouldn't be this way. So I do support this bill, and I will support future reform to make housing available and affordable.

Some wise words, member for Clark. I thank you for your contribution.

There's no question Australia is the greatest country in the world. Being Australian is something truly unique. It's about having a fair go at working hard and having it pay off when you buy your own home. When we talk about a home, I'm talking about something more than just four walls and a roof. I'm talking about stability. It's knowing that, no matter what, you've got a place to build your future, to raise your family in or to retire into knowing your life won't be uprooted by decisions you can't control, like those of a landlord. It's the freedom that comes with this sense of security—the freedom to paint the walls whatever colour you like, but also the freedom to call this place your own.

I grew up in a house in the suburbs of Melbourne with my two big sisters. My parents bought our family home back in the 1980s. It was a huge deal for them to do that. It was a place they could raise their family—my family—with a cubby in the backyard and room for us to grow, a place that we always knew would be there for us, a place to come home to after a long day of school or after school sport and a place that shaped my formative years. That security of having a roof over our heads is something that I did not ever take for granted.

I feel very fortunate to have been able to buy my own home in my adult life with my husband, Chris. And I say that because the reality is that, for most Australians, the Australian dream is no longer a given. The anxiety of going to house inspection after house inspection, being outbid by mum and dad investors. It can be so heartbreaking when you fall in love with a home, imagine your own furniture in it and imagine your future there, simply to be outbid by an investor backed by the Australian taxpayer. I don't want this for young Australians. I don't want this for our next generation of Australians. It's not right and it's not a fair go.

There is no doubt that Aussie families are doing it tough right now. Families are feeling the weight of the cost of living at the bowser and at the supermarket checkout, and young people are feeling it when they go to buy their first home at auction, only to be outbid by the investors next to them. This was a mammoth budget responding to generational challenges, making the changes that Australians have for too long been crying out for. That is because we're dealing with a housing market that is broken. Young Aussies are doing the right thing. They're studying, picking up a trade, working hard and saving, but your first home still costs eight times the annual income. It takes 11 years to save for, and first home buyers face the reality that they may never pay off their mortgage. When a nurse, a teacher, a police officer or an early childhood educator is paying more tax than someone who is earning millions of dollars in buying and selling assets, when house prices have increased 400 per cent—twice as fast as wages—and when it's easier to buy your 10th home than to buy your first home, then the system is broken. Once you accept that the system is broken, then you have to do something about it, and that's what our budget is doing.

Our budget wants something simple—for young people to get a fair go at owning their own home. It's a simple ask and one we are taking on the work to deliver. Since Labor came to government in 2022, we have been working at continuing to support investment in new housing supply, because to make housing more affordable, we need to build more homes. Right now too much housing isn't getting built because the water, sewerage, roads and energy infrastructure simply aren't there. That's why we're investing $2 billion in the infrastructure we need to unlock more homes across Australia. In my electorate of Gorton, over 3,000 people have bought their first home thanks to our five per cent deposit scheme. It's changing lives, and it's doing this for families right across the country. Changes like our five per cent deposit scheme matter, but what we've recognised is it's just not enough alone. House prices are still climbing at an alarming rate, and not enough young people are getting into their first homes.

We have recognised that, if we really care about getting young people into their first homes, changes to our taxation system are needed, because, for younger Aussies, the playing field just isn't fair. Our tax changes are estimated to support an additional 75,000 homeowners over the next decade to get into their own home. Meanwhile, those opposite seem to be the only ones in Australia clinging to the status quo, where a generation of Australians are locked out of the housing market and where, without significant structural change, future generations will face the same fate.

I'm a millennial. I know these challenges. We're balancing these changes with supporting young Aussies who want to get ahead. Negative gearing will still be possible for investors because, if you're a young person in this country, we want you to get ahead. We want to support you to do that. If you want to do it through property, you still can get those generous housing concessions, but we ask one thing, that investment is directed into new housing supply. We ask you to do that through building desperately needed new homes. On this side of the House, we know that economic responsibility and tax reform can go hand in hand. We want a system that encourages productive investment, one that supports aspiring homeowners, hard-working Aussies who deserve a fair go, and one that supports our younger generations of Australians, just as their parents' and grandparents' generations were supported, because generational fairness matters. These reforms begin to address these generational challenges and help level the playing field for first-time buyers, which our younger generations of Australians desperately deserve.

Part of our budget's major changes are our tax cuts. To help with the cost of living, we're delivering more tax cuts from 1 July this year for every Australian taxpayer. We're delivering an extra $250 off working Australians' tax bills permanently, and we're delivering a $1,000 instant tax deduction without receipts. The $250 working Australians tax offset will provide a tax cut for the 13.3 million Australians who receive income from work. It will increase the effective tax-free threshold for workers by $1,785. All of this means that the average worker will benefit by up to $3,000. We're recognising that for more Aussies, especially young people, income comes from work, and our tax system should reflect that. Our tax cuts are deliberately designed to support younger Australians, with millennials and Gen Z expected to make up around two-thirds of the beneficiaries. We're backing the next generation of Aussies with practical reforms, making sure that you can keep more of what you earn and are supported in getting ahead.

These tax cuts are on top of our fuel tax cuts, where we've acted fast to bring down the price of fuel by cutting the fuel tax and securing future supply. We've acted to shield Australians from the worst of the global fuel crisis, and it's working. We now have more fuel in Australia than at the start of the global crisis.

For small businesses, we've permanently extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off from July this year. This allows small businesses with turnovers of up to $10 million to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000 off that year's tax return. You can claim more than one asset, which helps businesses make their investment decisions with confidence. This is estimated to improve cash flow for small businesses by around $890 million over the next five years. We're also introducing loss refundability to support new startup businesses. From 2028-29, small startups in their first two years of operation will be able to get a refund for tax losses up to the value of the fringe benefits tax and withholding tax paid on employee wages. This will benefit up to 25,000 young companies each year, providing valuable cash flow support. I think there's been less focus so far on these measures, but, from speaking with local businesses and learning about their situations, I know that these are real benefits that they'll receive.

While this budget is making life easier for Australians today, we're also building a fairer future for tomorrow. We're ensuring that every Australian can access the health care they need, regardless of their postcode or bank balance, and we're making tax cuts to put more money back into the pockets of everyday Australians and tax cuts to even the playing field for first home buyers. These are all practical reforms that respond to the real pressures Australians are facing now, as well as those they will face in future generations. On this side of the House, we believe that if a system is working against Aussies and locking first home buyers out of the housing market then something needs to change, and we are willing to make those difficult decisions and deliver on those changes, because we know that every Australian deserves a fair go.

For a long time, I have campaigned hard for the day when this House would be debating the substantive details of tax reform instead of talking about it in the abstract. Since 2022, I've held roundtables with experts, hosted events in my electorate, attended the Treasurer's own roundtable, written two substantial policy papers, made further submissions to inquiries and made the case time and time again, publicly and in the media. After 25 years of timidity, we are finally having that debate. That in itself is an enormous leap forward from even just a few months ago. It takes real guts to put a package like this into the world, and for that I commend the government and particularly the Treasurer.

But I will be honest: I have concerns with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 in its current form. It is not because I don't support the intent. The government has correctly diagnosed significant problems in Australia's tax system. It's not because I don't support the broad direction of the measures. I believe that, alongside greater spending restraint, we need to reduce our reliance on tax from wages, and this should be paid for by reducing tax concessions on assets. I'm concerned because there are still substantial issues with the government's CGT model which are not resolved and not necessarily understood, and because the government has not yet committed to giving all the money raised back as income tax cuts.

I know many will say that I'm allowing perfect to be the enemy of better, but I would argue that my community asked me to put reform on the table but also to make sure that the government gets the reform right. This bill is rushed. The proposed inquiry is unacceptably superficial. The government has admitted problems with the bill without fixing them. The government can't seek credit for the most significant tax reform in a generation and then push it through the House with only a week to review the detail. That is treating this parliament and the genuine issues of this bill with enormous disrespect. So I continue to urge the government to pause, rigorously test its assumptions and model, and, as uncomfortable as it is, bring the bill back to parliament when the reform is robust and it will stick.

Let me start with why I believe we need genuine reform, why this debate matters so much and why I support the direction of travel. Our tax system places the greatest burden on people at the time of greatest stress. A younger household pays, on average, twice the tax of an older household on 100 grand of income, despite being, on average, four times less wealthy and being more likely to be carrying a HECS debt, saving for a deposit, paying rent or raising dependent kids. These households are failing to build wealth at the same rate as their parents. The result is most visibly stark in housing. The combination of negative gearing and capital gains discount has tilted the balance decisively towards investors rather than first home buyers. That is not an accident. It is a consequence of deliberate tax settings, and it must change.

At the same time, our demographics are shifting in ways that make our tax system unsustainable. We used to have six workers for every Australian aged over 65. Now it is fewer than four. In a generation it will be fewer than three. Yet only 17 per cent of older Australians pay income tax today, compared with 27 per cent in the past. We are asking a shrinking pool of younger working people to fund a growing bill. With the disruption that AI will bring to entry-level employment, that reliance becomes more precarious still. Australia's tax base must be broadened. That is an inescapable conclusion. But it matters enormously that we get that broadening right.

This bill introduces four changes that attempt to address that. First, it will introduce a new method for calculating the capital gains discount based on indexing an asset's cost base to the annual rate of inflation. This will include a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent on real gains. Second, it will restrict negative gearing on housing investment for sales after budget night to only new builds. Third, it will introduce a $1,000 standard deduction. Finally, it will introduce a $250 Working Australians Tax Offset each year, starting from 2027-28.

Most of these changes I support. Restricting negative gearing to new builds is sensible, although I would urge the government to also phase out negative gearing on existing properties over seven years rather than grandfathering it indefinitely. A standard deduction is long overdue, and the WATO introduces tax relief, which I welcome, particularly relief that targets work. But the fundamental problem with this component of the package is that it leaves far too much on the table—$77 billion, in fact. I appreciate that the transition arrangements mean that revenue takes a long time to come in, but that doesn't excuse holding on for a pre-election sweetener or to prop up historically high levels of government spending.

I want to make the point that, unlike some other speakers in this debate, I strongly support the government's endeavour to broaden Australia's income tax base—not just on property assets—if it means we can reduce our reliance on income taxes from wages. Let's look at the facts. Just eight per cent of the capital gains tax discount goes to people under the age of 40. If you want to help people under the age of 40 build wealth and financial security, you can make much more of a difference by reducing their marginal tax rates than through CGT discounts. A package of this size could support a version of the coalition's plan to index tax brackets to stop bracket creep in the first place, a policy I was pushing for long before the opposition came onboard.

But we fundamentally need to reduce marginal tax rates, including the top marginal tax rate. The government has done half the reform with these measures, but with a very serious omission on the other side of the ledger. That is a decision of expediency. I'm sure there are some tax cuts coming closer to an election, but I think it is a missed opportunity to build trust within the community and, frankly, to make sure these tax changes are in a direction that Australians understand and can support.

But my primary concern with this bill and the biggest risk to the reform is the CGT package. Let me be clear. I believe that Australia's current CGT regime is overly generous and is not fit for purpose. I have made the case many times that the current discount of 50 per cent means that someone on a wage of 100K pays $26,000 in tax, versus someone who earns that income from property investment, who pays only $7,000 worth of tax. I think it is very hard to justify the extent of that difference. I particularly support ceasing the concessions on pre-CGT assets. There is no justifiable reason that they are still treated like this 40 years on. I will pay more tax under the government's arrangements, and I support that.

If done right, CGT reform can preserve strong incentives to take risks and build businesses, all while ensuring that more Australians can build wealth through lower marginal tax rates. But the methodology is important. I don't think there is a perfect CGT regime, and there is a lot of variation around the world. It must strive to carefully balance building prosperity and ensuring fairness, and I am concerned that the approach doesn't get the balance right. There are strengths in what the government is proposing. It has a strong intellectual basis—having a system that taxes real gains consistently. There are significant advantages for fairness, and those play out particularly in the housing market. But my concern about this methodology is how this system works in a world where almost all countries tax at lower and flatter rates and where capital and labour are mobile, and where no other country taxes real gains in this way except Israel, which has a top marginal tax rate of 30 per cent, versus Australia's of 47 per cent, on capital. I am also concerned that this model is hard for many people to understand and to predict, and that simplicity is genuinely a virtue in tax, where people are concerned and don't feel very confident.

Firstly, investors choosing between safer and risky investments will find that the returns on risk are considerably less attractive under this indexation model versus previous models, and also compared with most international tax regimes. That effect is compounded by a fundamental asymmetry in the model itself, which taxes real gains but only allows the deduction of nominal losses. The businesses we most want to encourage—high-risk, high-growth, capital-light, genuinely innovative businesses—are taxed at a much higher rate under this model and, in many cases, at an internationally uncompetitive rate. That is a problem in a world of high labour and capital mobility.

Now, I do believe that some of the concern about some of these risks is overstated. Most businesses will not be taxed at close to 47 per cent. There still remain significant CGT concessions for small businesses, and I believe that these should be maintained and, frankly, should grow. The government has committed to engage with the tech sector on these issues, and the feedback I've received is that that engagement by government is really genuine. But I am concerned that there will be real impacts, not on all businesses but on some—on some founders of high-growth companies who already have strong incentives and pressures to move offshore; on some workers who already struggle to give up secure jobs for uncertain outcomes; and on some investors, where the returns on risk are significantly diminished. That makes me nervous. At a time when we are struggling to build prosperity, to increase our productivity, we should be very cautious about changes that could affect productive risk taking and we should weigh the costs and benefits thoughtfully and ask if there is a better way to do it.

While I think that the government is absolutely right to reduce the gap between the taxation of labour and the taxation of capital, I do believe that there is a difference between receiving a secure wage today and building, investing in or working on a project based on the prospect of a future upside but also on the prospect of capital losses or wages unearned that cannot be offset against current or past labour income. The tax system can't fix every issue, and other policies are important, but in practice the tax system has the ability to weaken those other mechanisms.

Finally, there is a more practical problem. Many Australians do not understand the model. Being told that how much tax they will pay 'depends' is a difficult answer for many Australians when they are trying to plan their investments and retirement, and it is hard for them to know what this means for them. This uncertainty is bad for individuals planning their finances or business. The model has also greater uncertainty for government as to how much money will be raised.

Now, as I said, I do believe there are some advantages in the government's model and I do believe some of the issues I have raised can be overcome. But it is not yet clear to me that the advantages that the model promotes compensate for the risks that it creates, and certainly not as it is currently written.

A simpler path exists. I honestly believe that reducing the flat discount to 35 or 40 per cent, rather than the indexation approach, would narrow the gap between the taxation of labour and capital, produce a model that is comparable with other countries—at a 40 per cent discount, you'd be talking about a top capital tax rate of 28 per cent, which would be well within the bounds of most OECD countries—and raise similar, more stable revenue while still rewarding high-growth businesses and high-growth investments and not having the issues with startups that we are concerned about. That is what I believe the government should do. Failing that, I think the indexation method must deal with at least the known problems of the model and give time to explore some of the risks that are not yet fully understood or are still being explored.

That is why I'm putting forward three substantive amendments to the Treasury laws amendment bill—firstly, to remove the 30 per cent minimum rate on tax with instead income averaging over the previous 10 years of the asset or the life of the asset, whichever is lower; secondly, for to allow for real losses to be indexed the same as real gains; and, finally, to remove active businesses from the new CGT indexation regime. These amendments mitigate some of the most serious concerns that have been identified to date, but, honestly, I don't know if they are the perfect amendments. The truth is that we have not explored these bills and the changes that they create in our system enough.

There are issues that are emerging in the papers most days, but there are also counterarguments emerging. That shows that a dialogue on these bills is really necessary. I do believe that the amendments would be an improvement, but I don't believe that they would replace genuine interrogation and scrutiny, which is what these bills deserve. I cannot stress that enough. To the government: take a breath, consult broadly and address the genuine concerns raised by stakeholders.

I support the government's aim, the intentions and most of the measures, but a CGT indexation mechanism has both known and unknown flaws. Instead of being a political liability, there should be a natural process of getting this complex issue right and making sure that the reforms do address the issues that have been raised in thoughtful ways—or, at least, that the risks are properly understood by the broader population.

This budget has some extremely positive measures: the ending of negative gearing, a standard deduction, income tax relief, loss refundability and carry back, research development tax incentive reform, the permanency of the instant asset write-off and a commitment to reforming the performance test among others. I'm genuinely sympathetic to the government that these measures, many of which I have called for, have been overshadowed by the proposed CGT regime.

The piece that I would like to finish on is this: let's get this right. Tax reform really matters. This is not the only tax reform this country needs. There are many areas that need substantial reform, but, if we get this wrong, if we rush it, if we make mistakes, it will make future reforms much harder. It is time to get this right, and that is what I urge the government to do.

I thank the member for Wentworth for her considered and measured contribution. I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the related Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. At the heart of these bills are two key principles: that workers should not carry the undue burden of the tax system and that everyone should be rewarded for their hard work and aspiration by having the opportunity to buy their own home. These go to the very Australian value and the very Labor value of a fair go for all.

My dad migrated from Singapore to Australia in his 20s with nothing. He's worked as a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer, first for Ansett Australia and then for Virgin Australia, for over 40 years now. He's supposed to be retired, but he still takes the occasional shift. My mum was the first in her family to go to university. When we were growing up, she was a hospital worker. She'd go to her shifts in her bright blue uniform with bright blue mascara and a big perm. It was the eighties! While working, she studied a law degree, bringing me to lectures when I was a baby, and she became a lawyer. My parents worked hard and sacrificed and bought their first home in Doncaster East in the electorate that I'm now proud to represent. They built a life and gave me and my sister opportunities that they never had, and for that we are very grateful.

That story is not unique to my family. It is the story of my community of Menzies. It's the story of hardworking people in Doncaster, Box Hill, Warrandyte and Templestowe and the other suburbs that it's my honour to represent here in this place. These are communities built by people who believed that if you worked hard and played by the rules the system would give you a fair shot. But something has changed. The young people I speak to across Menzies are working just as hard as my parents did and as their parents did, yet many of them have said to me they don't believe they'll ever own their own home.

We've stood up a youth advisory committee, and we speak to people at schools. We knock on people's doors. And young people will overwhelmingly say, with a kind of resigned laugh, 'I don't think I'll ever own my own home.' Many people of my generation and of younger generations have never been able to achieve that dream. House prices have gone from four times the average income to eight times that. Homeownership among Australians aged 25 to 34 has fallen by seven percentage points. The system has made it easier for people to buy their fifth investment property than their first home. That is not the Australia of a fair go for all, and it is not the Australia that the Labor government is prepared to accept.

This budget we took on the challenge of restoring something that should never have been lost: the basic principle that if you work hard and if you aspire to own your own home, everybody can have the opportunity. That ambition should be rewarded. The next generation should have the same opportunities as the ones that came before. And that's why we're enacting the most significant tax reform in a quarter of a century. It is pro-worker, pro-aspiration and pro-investment.

These bills implement four key parts of the government's 2026-27 budget tax reforms: first, a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses, effective from this financial year; second, the working Australians tax offset, a new $250 annual tax cut for over 13 million workers from July 2027; third, reforms to capital gains tax, replacing the 50 per cent discount with cost base indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax; and, fourth, limits on negative gearing of residential properties to new builds. Together, these reforms will reduce the tax burden for over 13 million workers, support 75,000 more Australians into homeownership over the next decade, deliver $3.5 billion in new business tax measures and cut compliance costs by $540 million a year. By 2028 the average Australian worker will be over $2,800 better off.

I'll start with the $1,000 instant tax deduction. From 1 July 2026, workers will be able to claim a $1,000 instant deduction on work related expenses without needing to keep receipts. The member for Warringah was talking about simplifying the tax system, and that does exactly that for people who are on low and middle incomes. Think about what this means for a nurse at Box Hill Hospital keeping track of uniform costs or a tradie in Warrandyte holding onto fuel receipts. There's no paperwork. From 2026-27 around 6.2 million workers are expected to benefit from this measure, with an average tax saving of $205. More than half of those workers will be women. More than three-quarters will earn under $100,000 a year. This, as I said, is simplifying the tax system. It saves time and it puts money back in the pockets of working Australians. The ATO estimates this measure will save $380 million in compliance costs every year, so it's an efficiency measure.

Schedule 3 of the bill introduces the working Australians tax offset, a $250 annual tax cut for every Australian who earns income from work, starting from the 2027-28 financial year. That's permanent structural improvement to the tax system. It will benefit 13.3 million Australians. Millennials and gen Z are expected to make up around two- thirds of the beneficiaries. The offset increases the effective tax-free threshold for workers by $1,785 to $19,985, or up to $24,985 for those also eligible for the low-income tax offset. Combined with our previous rounds of tax cuts and the instant tax deduction, the average Australian worker will be over $2,800 better off by 2028. This is a government that is consistently, year after year, putting money back into the pockets of working Australians. We've cut taxes five times in five different ways.

Schedules 1 and 2 of the reforms go to the heart of why so many Australians feel locked out. House prices have risen 400 per cent over the last two decades. Just 44 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 34 now own a home. The current settings have actively fuelled inequality. The 50 per cent capital gains tax discount introduced by Howard and Costello in 1999, together with negative gearing, dramatically incentivised investment in established housing. Combined with unconstrained negative gearing, it created a system that rewards property investors at the expense of first home buyers.

So, from 1 July 2027, negative gearing for residential properties will be limited to new builds, because we want to encourage housing supply. We know that that is a big part of the picture of housing affordability, and that is our focus. But these measures are also an important part of ensuring that people can afford to buy their first home. Losses on existing investment properties purchased after budget night will only be deductible against residential property income. Very importantly, those who already hold investment properties and have signed contracts will be fully grandfathered. We know that people have planned for their retirements with their investment properties, and that's something that we'll be honouring. Existing arrangements do not change.

From 1 July 2027, the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount will be replaced by cost base indexation so investors pay tax only on real gains above inflation, bringing the capital gains tax discount back to its original purpose. Key protections remain. Age pension and income support recipients are exempt from the minimum tax. The four existing small-business CGT concessions are fully retained. Investors in new builds can choose either the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount or the new indexation arrangements. Treasury estimates these reforms will support, as I said, 75,000 additional first home buyers.

This legislation, as I said, is built on a simple principle: a tax system should work in the interests of hardworking Australians, not just those who have already accrued wealth. Those opposite have pledged to repeal this entire package. Let me be clear about what this means. It means keeping distortions that have priced a generation out of the housing market. It means protecting a system that delivered 400 per cent growth in housing unaffordability. That's not a plan; that's a promise to protect a broken status quo. My dad came here with nothing. My mum worked hard. They didn't have intergenerational wealth, but they were able to buy their first home. That should be possible for all Australians, including the young people in my community today. This government is making sure that that remains the case, and I commend this bill to the House.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 form the first legislative tranche of what will likely be several to implement the government's 2026-27 budget tax reforms. This represents the most substantial attempt at tax reform in a generation. The package does four things. First, it replaces the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for individuals, trusts and partnerships with cost based indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax on capital gains from 1 July 2027. Second, it limits negative gearing for residential property to new builds from the same date. Third, it introduces a working Australians tax offset of up to $250 a year for workers earning labour income. Finally, it introduces a $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses.

I commend the government for using its electoral mandate to pursue ambitious change, but generational reform requires serious scrutiny, broad consultation and careful design. When Bob Hawke set out to reform the Australian tax system, he took that to an election and he undertook broad based community consultation. The Hawke-Keating reforms—capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax and lower income tax—all endured because they were sense tested before they were locked in. John Howard spent over a year on reviews before introducing the CGT changes that this legislation will undo, and they lasted a quarter of a century. In contrast, Howard's Work Choices had no electoral mandate, it underwent only eight days of parliamentary debate, it killed his government and it was repealed within three years. The government's Economic Reform Roundtable in August 2025 was a truncated version of consultation. The youngest attendee was 43 years old. The exclusion of younger Australians from a reform agenda explicitly framed around intergenerational equity was striking. Though the reforms which emerged from that roundtable should have been taken to the 2025 federal election, they were not.

For decades, Australia's tax system has been skewed towards those who already hold wealth. The 50 per cent capital gains tax discount turbocharged investment in established residential property. It drove house prices from roughly four times the median income when it was introduced to more than eight times the median income today. Negative gearing has allowed property investors to deduct losses against wage income, pricing out first home buyers across the country. Homeownership among 25- to 35-year-olds has fallen sharply. In 2022, it was reported that it took 11 years to save a 20 per cent deposit on an average wage. In 2023, investors aged over 60 accounted for 28 per cent of property investors, up from just 12 per cent in the year 2000. Economists have raised concerns about this market distortion for years, and it's been my position since I was elected in 2022 that we need to reform our tax system to address increasing intergenerational inequity and the housing crisis.

So I support the reforms to CGT and negative gearing around housing that the government is proposing in this legislation, but the government did not flag its intention to extend CGT changes beyond housing before this year's budget. The case for reforming negative gearing and the CGT discount was made and largely accepted in the context of housing affordability, but, when the government announced on budget night that these changes would extend to all asset classes, including shares, start-up equity, venture capital and early-stage business, that caught many by surprise, not because the principle of increasing taxation across all asset classes, to approximate that of Labor, is inherently wrong—because it's not—but because there had been no consultation, no forewarning and no proper policy development process around those broader changes.

ACOSS has reported that Kooyong, the electorate that I have the honour to represent, is the electorate in this country with the second-highest total benefit from CGT discounts. It's a community that's worked hard, that has invested carefully and that has a sophisticated understanding of our economy. Yet in March this year I conducted a community survey of 931 constituents in which 73 per cent of respondents supported changes to capital gains tax arrangements and 85 per cent supported changes to negative gearing. After the budget, I conducted a second survey, which attracted 927 responses from every postcode in Kooyong. Most respondents, at 64 per cent, supported the government's changes to negative gearing. Support for capital gains tax reform was also clear, with 43 per cent supporting the proposed changes across all asset classes and a further 24 per cent supporting reform where it applied to property alone. It's clear that many in Kooyong are prepared to support reforms that might not be in their immediate financial interest, because they understand and recognise the need to improve the fairness and the sustainability of Australia's tax system.

But that support for reform does not translate to every aspect of this package, and the dominant sentiment from my community is that immediate tax reform should focus on property. Business owners, professionals, retirees and individuals in complex or vulnerable circumstances don't want these changes to extend to investment assets, business structures and family arrangements. They're most concerned about the proposed 30 per cent minimum tax on capital gains, with 48 per cent of respondents in Kooyong opposing the measure and 38 per cent supporting it. It makes sense to reduce incentives to defer capital gains realisations to low marginal tax rate years. It's fair to exempt income support recipients, but this measure disproportionately affects other groups with limited means. A young parent said to me, 'Non-property investment is one of the few remaining ways that a family can build towards a home deposit.' A renter told me, 'This feels like a blunt measure which will hurt the wrong people.'

Young investors feel that they're being denied the opportunity to build their first foothold of wealth or to secure a home deposit. Some sources suggest that more than one in three Australians aged under 35 invest, and they're more likely to take on risk by investing in cryptocurrency and exchange traded funds. For them, those investments are an easier pathway to health than to housing.

I'm pleased that small businesses will remain eligible for substantial discounts on capital gains, despite the new minimum 30 per cent rate on real gains. But I've heard from small businesses in Kooyong that thresholds for small-business CGT concessions have not kept pace with business growth and inflation. COSBOA is advocating that eligibility thresholds should increase.

Debate interrupted.

When sweeping changes are made to our tax system, those changes should be taken to the Australian people, prosecuted in an election or, at the very least, have the start date held off until the next election. This has not happened in relation to the government's proposed changes to capital gains tax that will affect housing shares, crypto, discretionary trusts and testamentary trusts, and those trusts are often created to protect vulnerable people. The government is making risky decisions considering the overall economy, especially with respect to housing.

There is not an Australian homeowner that doesn't want their children or their grandchildren to realise the Australian dream of homeownership. The proposed changes to capital gains tax will not make that dream a reality for young Australians. It's just a blatant tax grab and a double tax grab at that. The budget papers predict rents will increase and 35,000 fewer homes will be built. The government argues more Australians have invested in real estate in previous decades than in the stock market, and they want to flip that. So why make CGT changes that make it less attractive to invest in shares? If it's about housing, why capture bitcoin and crypto? In reality, the changes to CGT and negative gearing are about increasing tax revenue not about getting young people into housing. Already the budget has increased instability in the housing market. Many banks have reduced purchaser borrowing power, and auction clearance rates have fallen off a cliff.

Who do I worry about the most with this whole ill-conceived and rushed tax-grab policy? It's actually young people—two groups of young people in particular. First are those that were captured by the government's financially irresponsible five per cent deposit scheme that I see as a subprime scheme, as do many economists. With rising interest rates trying to curb inflation, they will face mortgage stress and owing more than their property is worth. Many will likely be in negative equity. Property analytics firm Cotality stated, 'The government's Home Guarantee Scheme fuelled a surge in entry-level home prices, up an average of 6.7 per cent in just six months.' Treasury, at the time, forecasted a 0.6 per cent rise in the medium term. Wrong again, Treasury. If they default, it's the taxpayers who pick up the bill for the shortfall, and there are over 50,000 of those five per cent first home buyers that are using that scheme that are not even Australians. It's shocking. Yet, for HECS, we ensure that people who apply for HECS have to be Australian citizens.

The other group of young people who I believe will be detrimentally affected are those who invested in shares and crypto to save a deposit. According to ASIC Moneysmartgen Z financial behaviours report2026, nearly one in four Australians that are aged 18 to 28 have crypto assets, and almost one in five own shares. Hans in my electorate tells me that his son has been diligently saving with bitcoin for five years and has just got enough together for a house deposit, and he's now set back two years. Aaron says that he and his family rent and that they've been investing in high-growth assets to save for a deposit. He believes the new CGT rules will be a disaster for his family. In Mayo, many live on non-income-earning acreage. They will be paying more tax. For those with a pre-1985 acreage asset which was previously grandfathered from CGT, it will be so no longer.

Let's talk about trusts—common small-business structures used for asset protection, flexibility and succession planning. COSBOA said this is going to increase complexity and compliance costs and cause uncertainty. It's the last thing small business needs. Testamentary trusts—no matter how the government tries to spin it, this is a death tax. What's left in a testamentary trust has already been taxed. The government is waiving a $250 offset as a distraction that's two years away and 68c a day. That's going to be lost in bracket creep. And, as for the $1,000 instant deduction, that's no gift—60 per cent of taxpayers make more than $1,000 in expense deductions.

The government should be upfront with voters. If you're convinced about this, implementation should be delayed until 1 July 2028. Take this to the election. Let the Australian voters decide if they want these changes.

The announcement last week that the Commonwealth has commenced legal action against 3M Australia and the 3M company for allegedly withholding information and making false statements about the long-term environmental impact of the use of 3M firefighting foam containing PFAS on Defence sites was most welcome in my local community. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, are forever chemicals, a manmade group of chemicals that are soluble in water. They've been used commonly in household products and in industrial use since the 1950s.

As part of this action, the Commonwealth is seeking more than $2 billion in damages to recover significant past and future expenses incurred in investigating and managing contamination resulting from the historical storage and use of the foam at 28 Defence base sites across the country. Defence has spent $1.3 billion on PFAS response, monitoring, assessment and remediation, working with state and territory governments to support communities near bases. In addition to that, Defence has settled multiple claims—class actions as well as individual claims—to the tune of millions of dollars.

This is the largest claim ever brought by the Commonwealth. It's an encouraging development for my electorate of Blair, which is home to the RAAF Base Amberley, near Ipswich, where there is PFAS contamination on or around the base, including in nearby waterways and residential areas like Amberley, Willowbank and Leichhardt. The testing has been regular and ongoing. It's been going for the best part of a decade. There are gaps analyses and risk assessments on contamination at all Defence sites including at RAAF Base Amberley. We need to mitigate the risks to human health, which are still unclear, and to the environment. I don't believe complete eradication of PFAS is possible, but the risks must be assessed and minimised.

Here's a bit of history. It's really important. PFAS testing on the RAAF Base Amberley has been going on since about April 2018 as part of the PFAS investigation conducted on seafood, mullet, catfish and eels in the Bremer River and Warrill Creek. The analysis showed that this shouldn't be eaten. In addition, further testing analysis was carried out by Defence as part of the human health risk assessment. Not just in April 2018 but in November 2018 there were Defence studies showing PFAS chemicals had leached from firefighting foams used at RAAF Base Amberley, and there was a Department of Defence scientific study in August 2019. Over on page 111 and 112 in appendix B, it states that children and adults eating meat from cattle grazing at Warrill Creek beside RAAF Base Amberley had a health risk 47 times the acceptable levels. Of course, there were health risks associated with home consumption of beef.

The August study expanded the concerns into other areas around Bremer River that circle the facility at RAAF Base Amberley. There was study into human impacts recommending residents not eat eggs from their own properties near the base. Fruit and vegetables grown near the base would also be tested before being eaten. I said back in those days that it was clear that residents should have access to blood and other appropriate tests so they could make sure their human health was not affected by associated, direct or indirect contact with PFAS compounds. I wrote to the previous government, and they knocked that request back. In August 2019, the study recommended further ecological studies in the Leichhardt residential area, where water was used from the waterways on what was then the fairways of the golf course before it was turned into residential dwellings.

I'm proud of this commitment by this government for a review of PFAS areas, and I was proud of the fact that, when I was shadow minister for defence personnel back in 2022, we made an announcement that we would undertake a review. Jim Varghese, a well-respected Queensland senior public servant with extensive experience, undertook that review. One of the key recommendations was the establishment of a national coordinating body to strengthen national collaboration and regional oversight. In October last year I was pleased that the government announced the inclusion of Queensland and Northern Territory representation in the body earlier than expected. Monitoring and remediation is critical for RAAF Base Amberley, and a plan needs to be undertaken and will be undertaken.

People in my community and across Defence sites throughout the country have dealt with the consequences of PFAs contamination for many years, and they deserve transparency, accountability and ongoing support. I welcome this litigation. It's an action of a government that's committed to fighting for Australians in the long-term interest, and I welcome the outcome and I support the government.

I commend my colleague the member for Lyne for bringing forward the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sex-based Rights) Bill 2026 to reinstate the rights of women, which have been eroded since the amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act by the Gillard government in 2013. This bill seeks to restore the biological definition of the two genders, male and female, that were removed in 2013, to reinstate common sense and bring clarity to the law and to protect the rights of women to have settings reserved exclusively for their use while still retaining measures to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. This bill does not remove rights. It reinstates them. It strengthens the definition of gender and gives women and girls their right to biological-female-only services, activities and spaces.

The 2013 amendments left biological women and girls vulnerable in situations where privacy and safety depend on a clear definition of male and female genders. As a consequence of those amendments, we now see biological males who identify as females given court sanctioned access to places and settings reasonably intended as sanctuaries for women and girls. These amendments and the recent Federal Court case Tickle v Giggle mean that women have no right to their own exclusive spaces, as men who identify as women can access them also. Tickle v Giggle robs rights and protections for girls and women, sacrificing their privacy, dignity and safety to the ideology of gender identity. By treating sex as self-declared rather than biological, the court's interpretation has effectively stripped women of the right to say no in spaces built for their personal privacy and protection.

When legislation fails to reflect reality and strips rights from one group to appease another, it must be amended. This bill restores the rights of women and protects their privacy and safety in bathrooms, change rooms, refuges and sporting activities. The fallacy that a biological man can self-identify as a woman and have the legal right to access places, spaces and activities that are specifically designed for women and girls must be overturned. The life experience of women born and raised female is inherently different from those who were born and raised male. Just because some women are comfortable with sharing these spaces with men who identify as women should not override the valid concerns of women and girls who do not consent to sharing these spaces.

Women have spent centuries fighting for their rights. The suffragettes fought for equality and to emancipate women from the restrictive roles they had traditionally been relegated to. The changes the Gillard government made in 2013 regressed the rights of women and created an artificial construct that men and women are interchangeable and biology plays no role in determining what it means to be female or male.

Biological sex matters in relation to the privacy, safety and services that are directly for women and girls, and our laws must reflect this reality. Inclusion is important, but it cannot and should not override the sex based protections afforded to women and girls. Women in the 21st century deserve the right to say no to the intrusion of non-biological females in their change rooms, in their sport, in their domestic violence shelters, in their rape crisis counselling centres and in any of their safe spaces.

As we move into the colder months, I know that families across my electorate of Gilmore are facing increased cost-of-living pressures, and many people are trying to cope with housing stress, mental health challenges and, in some cases, the impacts of domestic violence. During winter, demand for assistance from our emergency relief services rises sharply, with energy costs, and many households are forced to make very difficult choices between heating their homes or meeting other basic needs. For some, this time of year brings real and immediate anxiety.

That's why wonderful organisations like St Vincent de Paul are so important. Last month I had the opportunity to attend a morning tea hosted by Ulladulla Vinnies. It was a wonderful chance to meet with some of the people who are quietly doing extraordinary work in our community. I spent time with Milton/Ulladulla Conference President Maureen Dews, Regional President Anne Hayward, Wollongong Central Council President Peter Doris, and, importantly, the volunteers who make up this small but incredibly dedicated team. What struck me most was not just the scale of what they do, but the compassion and commitment behind it.

As we all know, in our communities there are many people doing it tough, often quietly and often unseen—families struggling to put food on the table; individuals facing isolation and loneliness; and others, through no fault of their own, finding themselves in real hardship. Over the past 12 months alone, Vinnies Ulladulla has assisted 576 people. Of those, 92 were seeking help for the very first time. That tells its own story. In total, more than $136,000 worth of food and welfare assistance was provided—including 150 Christmas hampers for families who otherwise may have gone without during what should be a joyful time of year. Behind those numbers are real lives. Organisations like Vinnies don't just provide practical support; they offer dignity, compassion and hope—a hand up, not just a handout.

I'm really proud that, as some local families and individuals faced the prospect of a bleak winter, the Albanese Labor government announced an additional $11.7 million in funding to bolster emergency relief and financial counselling across Australia, including in Gilmore. The extra funding will help local organisations—including the Bay and Basin Community Resources, Mission Australia, Southern Youth and Family Services, the Salvos and Vinnies—to meet the increased demand for their services. This is a 15 per cent boost in yearly base funding for each Commonwealth funded emergency relief provider. It means that our providers can help local families facing financial stress to access real, practical support, including things like food parcels, clothing and other essential items. Our emergency relief and financial counselling organisations provide vital support across Gilmore, and this funding boost will help them meet the increased demand.

Combined with Labor's tax cuts, increased wages, increases to social security payments, cheaper medicines, big increases to Commonwealth Rent Assistance, and cuts to student debt, Labor is making a real difference to help ease the cost of living. I know times are tight, and no local family should be faced with the choice of putting food on the table or paying their bills.

As a community, we are incredibly fortunate to have these organisations and selfless people like Maureen and her team of volunteers giving their time and energy to support others. Today I'd like to take this opportunity to say a sincere thankyou: thank you to Maureen, to Anne and to the many, many generous volunteers in our community who are making a genuine difference in people's lives, often when it matters most. Not only do our volunteers help people in times of need, they make our community stronger and more resilient.

But, as many of these volunteers become older, we need fresh pairs of hands to help carry the load. So I encourage everyone who has a few hours to spare to contact Vinnies, the Salvos or another community service organisation, and get involved. Not only will you improve the lives of others, you will enrich your own life by giving back to your local community.

If I'm not mistaken, it would have been about a dozen years ago—I believe it was at the Palmwoods pub—we had an LNP branch meeting. Those branch meetings are pretty action-packed meetings. After that meeting I was on the side of the street and I struck up a conversation with a fellow by the name of Jeff Addison. Jeff—a local bloke, a terrific fellow—commuted to Brisbane every single day on the rail and he educated me on the dire situation of the North Coast rail line.

I thought he was onto something. Rarely have I met somebody with a mind like an encyclopaedia when it comes to rail, but that's Jeff Addison, so I took the time to get fully educated. I remember sitting down with him. He spread all the documents on the floor, and I got my head around the problems with that rail line. I wanted to back him in on his campaign as a real rail advocate.

If I fast forward, I was fortunate enough to be elected, some time later, as the local federal MP. I was absolutely determined to be good to my word to Jeff Addison that we had to fight to upgrade that North Coast rail line, and fight we did—dog to a bone stuff. Within two or three months, I think, I had a petition of over 5,000 people working together, hand in glove, with the member for Fisher. We fought for that rail upgrade and we won $390 million in that first term as local MPs.

It shows you that, if you're prepared to fight for your local community, you can get stuff done. The member for Fisher, the member for Wide Bay and I have fought and fought to ensure we get money for the Bruce Highway, we get money for the rail line, and we have delivered, because we love getting stuff done. If you work as a team you can fight.

The reason I'm talking about this tonight is that last week I was delighted when the Queensland state LNP government released the detailed design for stage 1 of that upgrade, which is referred to as B2N: the Beerburrum to Nambour rail upgrade. It took a long time to get to where we are, but that was because at the time we were dealing with the Palaszczuk state government in Queensland. It came down to federal MPs—on a state asset—to fight to secure funding, to force the hand of the state government. Of course, they dragged the chain for many, many years until finally, in October 2024, the Crisafulli government was elected. The mighty fine minister Brent Mickelberg then took over the portfolio, and action then began.

So, last week we saw the release of the stage 1 detailed design, and now we can see the rail being upgraded. Here we're talking about a much-needed duplication between Beerburrum and Beerwah. We're talking about new bridges and removal of crossings. We are talking about upgrades to park-and-ride areas, including one in Nambour. This is critical, because the Sunshine Coast is probably Australia's largest-growing regional area—outside capital city areas. Much as we debate in this place the enormous growth of Australia's population in recent years due to the migration issue, the Sunshine Coast has exploded in population. This puts the obligation on us to ensure that we are building infrastructure ahead of the population curve, and that is precisely what we need to continue to do with the money that we have secured. Whether it be the member for Wide Bay, the member for Fisher, me, or us working as a team, we need to keep building infrastructure for our region, because it is bursting at the seams. As we head to the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, we're going to see more and more people come to the Sunshine Coast. They're predicting around 200,000 more residents over the next 20 years, so we have to keep on top of this.

I'll end with this. What we see with this rail project is a 'team Sunshine Coast' effort—not just local federal MPs and a state government but Jeff Addison. I take my hat off to you, mate. Thank you.

The Albanese Labor government understands the grave responsibility of respecting and supporting those who serve our nation. We don't wrap ourselves in flags and go out with a bit of faux patriotism. We actually get things done. We know our veterans put their lives on the line to protect our way of life, and many come home with serious injuries, both seen and unseen.

When we came to office, the Department of Veterans' Affairs had been underfunded and underresourced. Almost 42,000 claims sat unresponded to as well. Veterans were left waiting for too long for the support they deserved. In fact, the previous secretary of DVA, Major General Liz Cosson, said that, under the resourcing of the previous government, the backlog would never be cleared. To compare, in our first three years in government we spent $37.9 billion on veterans compensation and treatment, nearly $7 billion more than in the last three financial years of the coalition. On 12 May, the Treasurer handed down a budget that builds upon the ongoing and essential support for veterans.

We're implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide—a royal commission that many on the other side ducked and weaved and tried to avoid—including, last year, 32 of the recommendations, with two-thirds implemented in total by the end of 2026. In the 2026 budget alone, more than $770 million was allocated to specifically address the royal commission recommendations.

We've improved the claims system. More people have been able to get access to the health care they need. Sadly, though, there's been a degree of overservicing in the system, where practitioners took advantage of our veterans. This is an unfortunate legacy of the status quo that we inherited in 2022. The previous system constrained access to allied health services, so veterans had to keep going back to GPs every 12 sessions. A portion of allied health businesses hiked prices, taking advantage of the taxpayer dollar that was put there by all Australians to support veterans. They took that opportunity to increase their profits but not address the clinical needs of the veterans in front of them. There are always going to be a few bad eggs out there, even in health care. But sadly this behaviour was becoming increasingly widespread, in part because DVA's allied health arrangements were uncapped, which allowed these businesses to claim much more for services that some veterans didn't need.

So the government is making an adjustment to a $5,000 amount rather than a visit based calculation. But what seems to have been ignored—and, I would say, almost deliberately—by those on the other side is that that is well above what the vast majority of veterans will ever actually access. On average, this support will exceed that of the 12-session model under the previous coalition governments. Additionally, let's be really clear, allied health services above $5,000, where needed, where there is a valid clinical reason, will be paid for. Veterans are not going to be left out in the street without the service they need. Those who need the care will get the care. It is very simple.

By removing overservicing, we are restoring integrity to the system. Importantly, by doing this we increase the fees that will be paid to allied health professionals by $169 million. That means it's easier for veterans to access health care without being taken advantage of. From July 2027, veterans will have improved access to allied health support services including physiotherapy, psychology, occupational therapy, podiatry and more. Examples of funding increases are that physiotherapy and exercise in physiological standard consultations, which are now $75, will increase to $110; a standard podiatry consultation will increase to $110; and a 50-minute psychology consultation that's currently $160 will increase to $260. This means our veterans can access the support they need.

But that's not all. It's not just about funding better veterans support. We've made once-in-a-century changes to simplify veterans entitlements. From July 2026, all veterans' claims will be assessed under one piece of legislation, making it simpler to use and faster to process. This was a recommendation of the royal commission, which associated the complexity of the current system with suicidality. The Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency will be up and running next month. This will support veterans and their families as they transition from service. What's more, it will provide a new focus on wellbeing across the veterans ecosystem.

The difference is night and day. The coalition can play grievance politics all they like, but it's disingenuous to the Australian people, most of all to veterans. Labor is committed to providing the support our veterans need, and it's in the nation's interests. It's our duty and our honour to provide that support.

The House of Representatives transcript was published up to 20:00 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Aldred ) took the chair at 09:30.

I often say that this job brings me joy, and a big part of that joy is getting to see up close just how much volunteers do for our community. Last week was volunteer appreciation week, and I want to take a moment to recognise the incredible breadth of volunteer effort that makes Wentworth the community that it is. Volunteers keep our beaches safe, running patrols and teaching our kids in Nippers. They keep our sporting clubs going, not just on the fields but all through the admin, the organising, the early mornings and the fundraising that nobody sees. They run community centres and neighbourhood services, preparing meals and supporting people doing it tough. They tend community gardens, growing food and building connections, and they support our most vulnerable residents, through housing services, mental health programs and aged care. What moves me is the sheer diversity of communities being served. Volunteers in Wentworth show up for people of every background, every faith, every age and every walk of life, making sure that no-one is left behind.

I'm also really proud that my own team, including our volunteers, are part of this spirit. Members of my team have been lending a hand to support the Woolloomooloo community for some time now, and earlier this month I had the joy of joining the many volunteers from my community and the people who've supported me, alongside Alex Greenwich and so many other wonderful locals, at the fourth annual Woolloomooloo Parade. Watching Forbes Street come alive with costumes, music, handmade floats and the legendary showdown between Bruce the Giant Brush Turkey and the Rubbish Monster was just a delight. It was a beautiful reminder of what community looks like when people show up for each other. To every volunteer across Wentworth: thank you. You are the heart of this community, and it is a privilege to represent you.

Volunteering in Wentworth is not only about practical support. Sometimes it's about something harder—building understanding across difference. Last Wednesday, we held the final session of the Wentworth student-led social cohesion initiative at Ascham, and I want to thank Ascham for hosting us so generously. Seventeen schools have been part of this journey: Ascham, Centennial Park, Cranbrook, Kambala, Kesser Torah, Kincoppal - Rose Bay, Moriah, Reddam, Rose Bay Secondary, St Catherine's, St Clare's, SCEGGS, Scots, Sydney Grammar, the Emanuel School, Waverley College and WAYS Secondary.

Here's what I find so remarkable about this initiative. Students came to us and told us about the challenges they were facing and what they thought could help. Principals listened and committed to a year 8 social cohesion program across our schools, and then students—some returning and some new—came back to help shape the program and trained as peer facilitators to help deliver it. Young people identified the problem and shaped the solution, and they are now leading the way forward. While they were doing that, the educators who accompanied them were doing their own work, with the Brave Conversations Project.

The students said it best. One told us that being vulnerable is key to understanding each other and building connections, and another said it broke down the public and private school stigma. One student simply said: 'We're just trying to find our place in the world.'

Today I rise to express my sincere thanks to the federal Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Murray Watt. He visited my electorate of Bullwinkel recently, and it was a privilege to showcase the incredible dedication of our local conservationists and the unique biodiversity that we're so fortunate to have in our own backyard in Western Australia.

Our first stop was the Kaarakin Black Cockatoo Conservation Centre in Martin. Kaarakin is a vital sanctuary, currently rehabilitating around 300 black cockatoos. These birds are icons of the WA skyline, and ensuring their survival is a priority for our entire community. I was pleased to have the minister there to hear firsthand about the plight of these birds and the urgent need for facility upgrades and additional funding to support Kaarakin's amazing work.

We also visited the dedicated team at Kanyana Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre in Lesmurdie. Kanyana is a cornerstone of wildlife care in the Perth Hills. It provides a lifeline for sick, injured and orphaned native animals while it leads critical breeding programs for threatened species. Seeing their hospital and education programs in action reinforces how much our local environment relies on the tireless efforts of volunteers. I want to send a massive shout-out to the staff and volunteers at both Kaarakin and Kanyana. Your passion is the heartbeat of these operations, and I specifically want to congratulate Kaarakin's founder and the City of Gosnells councillor Glenn Dewhurst for his enduring commitment. These facilities are a credit to everyone. Protecting our environment is a collective effort, and I encourage everyone to support these centres through donations or volunteering. I look forward to working with Minister Watt to continue to champion the resources that they need to do their vital work.

I also rise today to recognise the cornerstone of community safety in the Perth Hills. We celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Mundaring Firefighters School. What makes this milestone truly remarkable is that this is a place where volunteers train other volunteers. It's a cycle of mentorship and shared responsibility, and over 9,000 people have been trained there over the last 30 years. To every volunteer, both the trainers passing on their wisdom and the trainees stepping up for the first time: thank you. You embody the spirit of service that defines Mundaring. May the next 30 years for the Mundaring Firefighters School be just as productive as the last 30 years has been, and may it show the same sense of courage, commitment and collaboration that brought us to this proud day. Congratulations, Mundaring Firefighters School, on 30 years of keeping us safe.

On 20 May, high-school students from across Warringah came together for Have Your Say Day 2026, which is a youth led civics consultation event that is supported by Northern Beaches Council, Stella Maris College and the New South Wales Office for Youth. I was delighted to attend and hear directly from students about the issues shaping their lives and the practical solutions they want us as decision-makers to take seriously. Federal politics needs a lot more events like Have Your Say Day. It's part of how members of parliament can listen and genuinely better connect with young people and emerging leaders in our communities. As I often say, if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. Whether you like politics or not, politics is in your life because the decisions we make in this place will shape the opportunities and the prospects of your life as you go on.

Students discussed complex local, state and federal issues with confidence, thoughtfulness and responsibility. Students made clear that unreliable transport in the Northern Beaches is affecting school, work, safety and their independence. We heard about delayed, cancelled and overcrowded buses; long commutes; students being left without safe options late at night; and the need for more frequent routes. Students spoke powerfully about mental health, school pressure, uncertainty about the future, stigma about asking for help and the importance of safe third spaces where young people can connect outside home and school.

They raised their concerns about cost of living and housing with honesty. Many fear they will work hard and still never be able to buy a home or live and remain in the Northern Beaches where they grew up. They also raised the government's changes and current debate on the changes to capital gains tax. Whilst they welcomed the prospect of housing being more affordable, they relayed frustration about the proposed changes when it came to shares and ETFs, which many have seen as a pathway to building a financial buffer and independence. Their message was clear: young people are not disengaged; too often politics is disengaged from them.

Have Your Say Day represents the best of Warringah's young people: thoughtful, constructive and ready to contribute. But if we want young people to keep showing up, engaging and believing their voice matters governments must show that listening leads to practical action on the pressures shaping their future, including the fairness around issues like student debt, for example. So many of those high-school students worry about the debt they will incur at university. We know the government can fix the unfair timing of HECS indexation by moving the indexation date to after compulsory repayments are credited to student loan accounts. That is just one way the government can genuinely act on the concerns of young people.

Housing affordability is one of the most important issues facing families in my electorate of Aston. For too many people in Melbourne's outer east, especially younger people, the dream of homeownership is slipping further out of reach. They have done everything that has been asked of them. They have worked hard, saved carefully and made sacrifices. Yet year after year they watch house prices rise faster than their ability to get their foot in the market. And that is why the Albanese Labor government is taking responsible action to address Australia's housing challenges and ensure that first homebuyers in Aston have a fair chance to own a home.

Labor is delivering sensible reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions to help level the playing field for first home buyers and restore fairness to our housing market. These reforms recognise that our tax system should support aspiration and opportunity, not create barriers for a new generation seeking to purchase their first home. We are also helping Australians to get into the housing market sooner through our government's five per cent deposit scheme. In Aston alone, over 1,119 of my constituents have already used the five per cent deposit scheme to achieve the dream of homeownership. These are real people and real families whose lives have been changed by a government prepared to take action.

At the same time we know that increasing housing supply is critical. That is why our government is investing in 25 additional social and affordable homes in Aston, providing greater housing security and helping address growing demand. These homes will be spread out across the suburbs of Bayswater, Boronia, Ferntree Gully, Knoxfield, Rowville, Scoresby, The Basin and also Wantirna.

We also recognise the pressures facing renters since coming to government in 2022, Labor has delivered a 50 per cent increase in Commonwealth Rent Assistance. In Aston, 6,250 people received this support, helping ease cost-of-living pressures and providing much needed relief.

While the Albanese Labor government is focused on delivering practical solutions, the opposition continues to offer no practical alternative. The coalition spent years in government overseeing a worsening housing challenge and, remarkably, did not even have a dedicated housing minister for much of that time. Now, instead of providing credible solutions, the opposition leader continues to blame migrants and vulnerable communities rather than addressing the real causes of housing affordability challenges. Australians deserve better than division. The coalition is all bark and no bite when it comes to housing. They say they're all about a better future for Australians but have failed to present any serious plan that delivers them one.

The Albanese Labor government is on the side of first home buyers, renters and their families. We are investing in housing supply, supporting renters, helping Australians into homeownership and building a fairer housing system for future generations. That is what responsible government looks like and that is what we are delivering for my constituents in Aston.

I want to bring to the parliament's attention the human toll of this all renewables approach to this government's undertaking. Recently, I visited the Franzs and the Duffs just outside Jandowae. They've been impacted by a wind turbine farm called the Wambo Wind Farm. Mr Franz and Mrs Franz are in their 80s. They retired near their son, wanting to just produce beef and to be able to live comfortably and happily. Unfortunately, their neighbour decided to sign up to the Wombo Wind Farm. There's a 260 metre wind turbine less than 1½ kilometres from their home. They now live with wind turbines towering over their homes. They had no say in this. They had no inclination to want to have this anywhere near their properties. It is the same with the Duffs. They've had this imposed on them because of the planning that the former Labor government has put on this in Queensland. Allowing these turbines to be that close to someone's home is a downright disgrace.

What makes it even worse is that the approval application said that they do not need to have any of the sound tested for up to 12 months after all stages of the development are finished. So, the first stage, which is right over their homes and is going there now, doesn't need to be tested to see if it's above 35 decibels to be in breach of their planning application and approval of the applicant, and so these people will continue to live with this until stage 2 and 3 are completed. This is pure insanity.

I've written to the Queensland government to say that they need to now impose new planning rules over these applications to say that it should be set back three kilometres from someone's property boundary and can be negotiated into 1½ kilometres. That gives the non-host the ability to be able to negotiate whether they want these turbines towering over their homes, whether they want to have a 260-metre tower swishing over their homes at all. And that's a practical solution.

There is also no decommissioning deposit that these companies have to put down until after year five, six or seven of the project being in place, and so decommissioning stands at the feet of the proponent themselves. That is not something that we should be seeing happening for these people that are being thrust upon with these renewable projects, and we should have independent testing of the noise to make sure that there is independence. You can put this right across where the cooks out in the Tara project now have trouble around their ability to be able to fly aircraft in and out not just for their agricultural production but also emergency management processes. The member for Warringah was here a moment ago and she railed against eight wind turbines on North Head because of the amenity of the good people of Sydney. Well, just start understanding what happens out here.

I've also written to the federal government to say this should be part of the approval processes, not just state government, to make sure these families are protected.

I am absolutely delighted to be able to say that yesterday the Swinburne University senate council approved the sale of the Windsor Community Children's Centre site in the city of Stonnington after years and years of campaigning by the Windsor Community Children's Centre. There are still a few I's to dot and T's to cross, and the council, the state government and the federal government are all working in collaboration to ensure that the sale can proceed and that the lease can be signed with the Windsor Community Children's Centre.

I have spoken many times in this place and in the other place about the Windsor Community Children's Centre. It is one of the most magical little pockets of my electorate, where young little learners can go and can play. There is this amazing garden, and I've brought ministers and colleagues there to go and see just how incredible it is. What is really special about the Windsor Community Children's Centre is that it's a community-run early education centre, and the parents and the community of Windsor have really galvanised and gotten behind this campaign. They have fought so hard at each and every turn to make this possible, and there were moments when I didn't think this was possible. When Swinburne made the decision to sell this land and divest from it, we had crisis meetings. We had planning for a whole range of different scenarios that was, frankly, devastating. But, thanks to the work of the parents and the people of Windsor and the community—and I was proud to support them—we have achieved what was at the time unthinkable.

I give a special shout out to the outgoing vice chancellor of Swinburne, Pascal Cuesta, who has been along this journey. We have had some honest and robust conversations, but she has always acted respectfully and listened to me and has been integral in turning this around inside Swinburne. I thank her very much for her efforts and for leading this inside the organisation, and I wish her well on her next chapter. Of course, the biggest thank you goes to Sophie and Alastair, to Fiona, to the educators, to Jonathan and to the entire team at the Windsor Community Children's Centre, who have just been formidable and brave and loud and tireless in their efforts to save this incredible community organisation. This is a sale that will happen thanks to our contribution of $4.3 million, the council's contribution and the contribution of so many wonderful people of Windsor. Long may the WCCC live!

A hearty shout out this morning to Noreen Vu, one of the best general managers in New South Wales if not local government in Australia. She has been in the news in recent days and I just wanted to make sure she knew that she's got a lot of community support. Her family is one of the Vietnamese refugee migrant success stories. It truly is. She's the Chief Executive Officer of Snowy Monaro Regional Council. She was, for three years up until June last year, the very successful general manager at Weddin Shire, and I want her to know that there are a lot of people out there thinking of her and for her.

I also give a hearty congratulations to Adrian Pavese, who, last Saturday, marked 700 games as an Australian football coach. The Wagga Tigers returned the favour by winning against Narrandera at Robertson Oval by 11 goals, keeping the Imperials goalless. Adrian's success story stretches back 35 years to the days at the under-11s in Griffith. He's coached both women's at the highest level and men's as the Queanbeyan premiership coach. The influence he's had on so many men's and women's lives is enormous.

Recently, it was good to be at Batlow for CiderFest, the annual event, where I helped celebrate one year as an anniversary for Dave and Mel Purcell's wonderful Apple Thief Cider House. That is a great little establishment. That couple are great risk-takers. They have spent millions of dollars building this wonderful eatery, which is now part and parcel of Batlow, and I encourage anybody to go there and spend a day or three there.

Yass fire services are celebrating 72 dedicated volunteers who've served a combined—wait for this—1,264 years for the Southern Tablelands zone of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. A couple there, Helen and Peter Middleton from Manton in the Yass Valley Shire, shared a remarkable 122 years of dedicated, committed service to the RFS between them. That is something to be honoured. That is something to be celebrated. That is something to be congratulated. They are just quintessential country Australians. To these volunteers, who don the uniform and go out—often on Christmas Day or New Year's Eve, when everybody else is celebrating—to protect, secure and safeguard our communities, I say thank you and I say well done.

I'm very pleased to rise today to speak about the veterans and families hub in my electorate of Richmond. What's really exciting is that the hub is having its official opening very soon. Delivering this hub was one of my key election commitments from the 2022 election, and locals know they can always count on me to deliver for them. This is a project that I really wanted to see in my region as it's so vital that we provide support to veterans and their families and deliver that important support for those who've served our nation. It has always been an absolute commitment of mine and of this government.

The Albanese Labor government has invested more than $5 million to deliver the veterans and families hub in Tweed Heads, and the government throughout this process worked in close partnership with RSL Lifecare Veterans Services, RSL New South Wales and all of our local RSLs as well. In terms of the design and consultation, initially, there was a $50,000 grant from the government to RSL Lifecare Veterans Services to begin a business case for the veterans and families hub in the Tweed. Locally, we had extensive consultation with RSLs throughout the New South Wales North Coast and some of those from over the border in South-East Queensland. I want to thank all of those that attended and contributed. Their insights were valuable. I also want to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for attending one of those consultations in Tweed Heads and listening firsthand to local veterans.

I also thank the minister for visiting again when it was announced that RSL Lifecare was the successful tenderer for the project. The business case outlined the operational and management plans for the new hub tailored to the precise needs of our local veteran community. Having veterans' support and services accessible locally is so important in improving the health, wellbeing and economic outcomes of those who bravely served our nation. We are incredibly fortunate in my area to have a very large ex-service population with more than 20,000 veterans and their families, including many older veterans and war widows as well.

Soon after the actual location was determined to be 145 Wharf Street, Tweed Heads, a temporary hub was opened whilst the final renovations and improvements were underway for the hub. We're all very much looking forward to the opening, and it will be a great event. I understand that RSL Lifecare and the hub are also planning a free community open day, and I encourage locals to come along and see firsthand the services that are being provided to our local veterans. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the final renovations that they have done. They're just putting in so much time and commitment to get this hub right to provide those services. This project is one that I'm very proud of. As I said, I've committed to delivering this. I have promised, committed and delivered the Tweed Heads veterans and families hub.

I rise to recognise an outstanding young woman from Cranebrook in my electorate of Lindsay, Hayley Muir, whose remarkable achievements are inspiring the next generation of female athletes across Western Sydney, and she is only young herself. Last year Hayley was awarded the Melissa McIntosh Lindsay Award for sportsperson of the year at my annual community awards event. Her nomination recognised not only her exceptional talent but her dedication, perseverance and commitment to representing Australia through the Junior Matildas pathway. At the time Hayley had already achieved what many young athletes only dream of. After developing her skills through local football, she earned selection in Australia's under 16 team and was part of the site that won the championship in Indonesia, defeating reigning champion Thailand.

When I spoke with Hayley after she received her reward, I asked her what her next goal was. Her answer was simple and ambitious: to qualify for the U-17 Women's World Cup. I'm extremely delighted to inform the House that Hayley has now achieved her goal. This is an extraordinary accomplishment, and one that reflects not only Hayley's talent but years of hard work, sacrifice and determination. It is also a credit to her family, her coaches and the local sporting community who have supported Hayley throughout her journey.

Hayley's success highlights the immense value of investing in women's and girls sport, and supporting young people to pursue their dreams. Across Australia more girls and young women are stepping into sporting fields with confidence knowing there are pathways to elite competitions and opportunities to represent our country. Role models like Hayley demonstrate what is possible when talent is matched with dedication and supported by a strong community.

Hayley's achievement is also a reminder of the incredible sporting opportunities available throughout my electorate of Lindsay. We are fortunate to have outstanding local sporting organisations, dedicated volunteers, passionate coaches and high-quality facilities, including Olympic facilities and Olympians , who help young athletes develop their skills and realise their potential. These clubs and organisations are about much more than sport. They build confidence, resilience, leadership and a sense of community.

Hayley's journey from the local football fields in Cranebrook to representing Australia on the world stage shows exactly what can be achieved when young women are encouraged to dream big and are given the support to pursue those dreams. On behalf of the people of Lindsay, I want to celebrate Hayley on this extraordinary milestone. We are incredibly proud of your achievements, Hayley, and look forward to watching you continue to represent Australia in the future. We wish you every success as you continue your journey. Go Aussie!

I recently had the pleasure of visiting U3A Cranbourne, a wonderful local organisation based in Bowen Street, Cranbourne. U3A plays such an important role in our community by helping older Australians stay connected, active and engaged. During my visit I had the opportunity to meet with members, see their classes in action and learn more about the incredible range of activities that they offer, from art to calligraphy, knitting, crocheting, singing, playing guitar, table tennis, mosaic art, gardening and so much more. There is really something for everyone.

What really stood out to me the most was the warmth of the members and the strong sense of belonging that U3A Cranbourne has created. It was clear from the moment I arrived that this is more than just a place for classes; it is a place where people build friendships, learn new skills and support one another. I want to thank Sue and all the members for welcoming me so warmly and showing me around, and sharing the wonderful work they do for our local Holt community.

Last Saturday, I visited Dhamma Sarana Buddhist temple for their annual Vesak celebration. Vesak is one of the most important days in the Buddhist calendar, marking the birth, enlightenment and passing of Lord Buddha. It is a time of reflection, compassion, generosity and peace. Since being elected, I have visited the temple every year for Vesak, and each year it's a special reminder of the strength, warmth and deep faith of our local Buddhist community. The temple was beautifully decorated, with families, children, monks and community members coming together in a spirit of devotion and unity.

In Holt we are proud to be home to people from many different backgrounds, faiths and cultures. Celebrations like Vesak are a powerful part of our multicultural story. They bring people together across generations and backgrounds, deepening understanding and reminding us of the shared values at the heart of our community: compassion, respect and care for one another. I thank the monks, volunteers and organisers at Dhamma Sarana Buddhist Temple for their warm welcome, and I look forward to visiting them again.

I also want to give a big shout-out to Nawa Rasa in Cranbourne West. They fed 2,000 people last Saturday, and it was absolutely amazing to be a part of the dansal there. Thank you very much.

If you wanted to design a policy that puts more pressure on hospitals, increases the cost of living for retirees and slams Australians for taking responsibility for their own health care, you would struggle to come up with a more punishing policy than Labor's private health insurance rebate changes for Australians over 65. The changes will make life harder for up to 1.4 million Australians aged over 65, who will be forced to pay up to $640 more every single year just to keep the private health cover that they currently have.

Nowhere will the impact be felt more than in Flinders. The Mornington Peninsula is one of the oldest electorates in Australia. Nearly one in three residents is aged 65 or over. Consistent with the values of that generation, they are self-reliant, responsible, loath to be a burden on others, careful planners and great embodiments of one of the most admirable human qualities, which defined the work ethic of this nation: deferred gratification. More than 33,500 local seniors hold private health insurance in my electorate, the third highest take-up in the country. Our people are not wealthy tycoons looking for a tax break. They are retirees. They are veterans. They are grandparents and they are lifelong taxpayers who have spent decades paying their way. Now, many are telling me that they simply cannot afford Labor's latest hit on their wallet.

Kevin from Mornington, and his wife, have held private health insurance for 58 years. He writes:

We never expected to be disadvantaged by our own government in our later years.

Glynis from Safety Beach has paid into the system since she was a teenager, with 50-odd years of premiums and barely a claim. She says she simply won't be able to afford the increase. This is the intergenerational fairness that this government is delivering. Anne from Mornington had a knee replacement last year and she couldn't have afforded it without her cover.

I've heard the language coming from the other side in their typical Orwellian tongue-twisting way. It's about 'intergenerational fairness' and 'sharing the burden'. It almost sounds sane until you meet the people on the receiving end. In Summerville, Toni's husband is midway through chemotherapy for liver cancer. She's paid her premiums every year without fail. For Toni, this isn't about fairness. It's about whether her husband gets treatment.

For Flinders, this policy is not just unfair; it smashes my most vulnerable residents. When you make private health insurance less affordable, you don't save money; you simply move the cost somewhere else. This government did not cut the private health rebate for over-65s because it had to. It did it because it thought it could. It looked at a group of people who have already paid their dues, who are too old to change their circumstances and who are too polite to make too much of a fuss, and it made its calculations.

I rise today to speak about a very sad story in my electorate of a particular couple, Mr and Mrs Athanasiou, an elderly Australian couple who came to my electorate with a dreadful story of their funeral insurance. They're a hardworking couple who worked all their lives on a very meagre income.

They took out a policy many years ago, which was a fairly reasonably priced policy, to cover their insurance costs when they pass away. Like so many Australians, they wanted to spare their children the burden and the financial stress that follows the loss of a loved one, so years ago they made the responsible choice to take out funeral insurance. They paid their premiums faithfully, fortnight after fortnight, believing that they were doing the right thing for their family.

But over time things changed. That small amount that they were paying at the beginning started to increase by five per cent every single year. Now, in their late 80s, they are paying $93 a fortnight from a very meagre income, supplemented with the pension—something they just cannot afford. When they reached out for help with this particular company, after years of loyalty, they were told something devastating: if they stop paying, their policy would be cancelled and they would lose every single dollar that they'd already contributed.

Imagine that—doing the right thing, starting off with a policy that was a very small amount of money that increased by five per cent every year. This is not the only case that I've seen in my office. We've seen many cases like this and it is an unscrupulous, disgraceful way of taking money from older people. We've written to the Assistant Treasurer and it's been referred to AFCA.

Recently there was an article in the Adelaide Sunday Mail about another elderly couple in their 90s. It was a similar sort of thing where the premiums had increased, and it's a straight-out insurance product. In other words, you pay, with the premium increasing every year, and if you don't pay, it just stops. There are other products that could have been sold to these people which mean that the premium remains the same or that, as money is accumulated in a particular account, the premium goes down. But, no, they were sold this policy that took every single cent from them and increased every year. I'm going to write to the minister again to see what legislation we can put in place to protect people like Mr and Mrs Athanasiou.

This is not how we should honour the contribution of older Australians who've worked every day of their lives and just want to do the right thing by their families and their children. Many older Australians would be in this very same predicament. When we dug around, we found many, many policies just like this, where people have been sold this package that basically does not make sense as you get older, because, if you're on a pension, you just cannot afford to pay this, and they know that. They know that people will stop paying and it's all over and they won't lose a single cent but will just make lots of dollars out of older people.

On 26 May this year, Moira Hansen, OAM, a humble, kind and gracious lady, passed away at the age of 96 years. Moira was a much-loved member of the Maryborough community, and she'll be remembered for her empathy, her generosity and her enduring musical legacy. Moira Ann O'Sullivan was born in Granville in 1929, and it was there that she met her husband, Brendan Hansen, who, as a member of the Labor Party, went on to hold a number of roles between 1961 and 1983, including as the federal member for Wide Bay, the state member for Maryborough and a Maryborough council alderman.

Moira and Brendan were married in Maryborough's St Mary's Catholic church in 1960 and had eight children. Moira skilfully managed the multiple commitments of raising her children, supporting her husband in his roles and being actively involved in a number of local community groups, in particular the Maryborough Choral Society, which she was instrumental in founding. Brendan passed away in 1999 aged 77 and was posthumously awarded an OAM for his service to the community of Maryborough, recognising his service to the Maryborough and district housing action group and the scouting movement.

A talented singer, pianist and musical mentor, Moira was awarded an OAM in 2025 for her service to community music. Her influence and dedication to family and community was truly inspiring. Moira was also playing piano for groups visiting nursing homes well into her 90s. The Hansen name is familiar to Maryborough residents. Moira's outstanding community influence and commitment was recognised in 2018, when the Maryborough state government office was named in honour of her. In the suburb of Granville, where Moira and Brendan were raised, the Brendan Hansen Park honours Brendan's memory, and Moira continued to be a great supporter of the Granville State School, where she presented the Brendan Hansen Bursary Award to the dux of the school each year. Tragically, one of Moira and Brendan's daughters, Mary, was killed in an accident in London in 2002. Mary was also a musician, like her. and a member of the band Stereolab. In a touching tribute to Mary, one of her fellow band members said:

… I feel Mary's energy is still around somewhere. It didn't just disappear.

Similar tributes are no doubt being echoed for Moira not only by her family and close friends but also the Maryborough community at large.

Last Monday 25 May, our community woke up to the devastating news that the beloved Store Menangle was severely damaged by fire. The Store Menangle was based out of a historic building built in 1904 to serve the growing Camden Park estate, home of the Macarthur family and, of course, the birthplace of Australia's merino industry. At its peak in 1930, the Camden Park estate covered 28,000 acres, with the store being a major supply centre for this growing region. It was home in the sixties to the Menangle Rotolactor, the most advanced dairy in the world, it was said at that time. Over the years, the historic general store would evolve with the ever-changing region, and most recently it was a beloved cafe that sold local produce and delicious meals and coffee; employed local workers; and, most importantly, was a beloved spot for locals, including me, to catch up. It was also home to the local post office. For many years, my great mate Andrew McDonald and I would routinely get a coffee together in the morning ahead of our work as paediatricians at Campbelltown Hospital, and I have fond memories of the coffee, the staff and the cake at the store.

Sadly, though, we will have to wait some time to go back to the Store Menangle, as the proud 120-year-old landmark was severely damaged after an intense three-hour fire. Thankfully, the building itself remains on its foundations and some of its historic property, including the ovens and the fireplaces, remains. There is, however, a lot of internal damage and, unfortunately, it will take some time for the store to be repaired.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Fire and Rescue NSW, the Rural Fire Service, NSW Ambulance and NSW Police as well as the community members involved in helping to contain and put out the fire. Their work has kept this historic building from total destruction. Now the long road to recovery begins for all involved to get the Store Menangle back up and running.

From the ashes of this fire, the community response has been absolutely outstanding. Over $45,000 has been raised by members of our community via a GoFundMe page to help Shane, Marcel and their team navigate this devastating time. When I finish in Canberra this week, I intend to go back and give them a donation from me personally.

I wish all those involved and affected by this terrible fire the best and I look forward to going back for coffee and certainly for a piece or two of cake when they reopen in the future. I wish them well for their recovery.

Every Australian deserves a roof over their head. Every Australian deserves a place they can call home. It's more than just shelter from the elements, the weather and whatnot. A home is about safety. It's one's sanctuary, one's castle. It's about dignity. It's about hope. It's about allowing individuals to pursue whatever else it is they wish to pursue in life. But Australia is currently amidst a housing crisis. Our population has now hit 28 million people, and the truth is we just cannot house them. This is having a direct impact on the lives of so many Australians.

I see it in my own electorate of Fairfax. I see it from Coolum to Kenilworth. I see it from Bli Bli to Buderim. There are not just people living on the street; there are people who are now packing their bags because the shortage of houses is pushing prices up. They can't afford to live there anymore. Families are being uprooted, and this is causing an enormous amount of problems not just in my part of the world but right across the country. There are two alternate ways to deal with this. The Labor way and the Liberal-National coalition way under the Labor way. This housing crisis will get worse under the coalition way. It will be fixed. The difference is this: Labor's plan is to decrease supply and increase demand. The coalition's approach is to increase supply but decrease demand. The difference, therefore, is a bigger, wider gap in the availability of houses but a shrinking of that gap under the coalition.

We've seen it in Labor's budget. It says in black and white that, under their new taxation regime, 35,000 fewer homes will be built and rent will go up. That is why the coalition has put forward a different plan, a plan that includes capping net overseas migration to new builds. It is why we are also planning on introducing a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to pay for things like sewerage, water and power connections, unlocking around 400,000 new homes. It's also why we are looking at simplifying the National Construction Code, which could result in the cost of building a new home reducing by up to $70,000. This isn't just about building and construction, it's about lives, and it's about homes. That's why the coalition's approach will work.

Over recent months, I've had the privilege of meeting with people across Moore who represent the best of our community. I want to acknowledge two of them today. The first is Carmel Ward, a long-term Duncraig resident who was recently inducted as a Freeman of the City of Joondalup. It is the highest honour the city can bestow, and, in Carmel's case, it is very well earned.

For more than two decades, Carmel has given her time and care to our community. For nearly 13 years, she has mentored students at Greenwood College through EdConnect Australia and, more recently, through the Lions club. She has worked with young people who have needed patience, encouragement and stability. It's the sort of contribution that does not always make headlines but can make a profound difference in a young person's life.

Carmel has also been a central figure in Duncraig Lions club for 15 years, serving as president, secretary, youth of the year coordinator and in a range of other roles that usually mean being the person who makes things happen. She has also contributed to the Marmion, Sorrento, Duncraig Progress and Ratepayers Association and is a founding member of the Friends of Duncraig Library Bushland. It is a serious record of service. Most people would consider one of those roles a major commitment. Carmel appears to have taken on several just to be thorough.

I also want to acknowledge Audrey Poor, the president of the Joondalup Encore Theatre Society, known as JETS. JETS was formed in 1999 and has been putting stories and people on stage for 26 years. It has entertained local audiences, given performers a place to develop their craft and played an important role in community theatre in the northern suburbs. Audrey is a 24-year-old performer, writer and theatre maker, with a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Notre Dame, where she majored in theatre and film studied. She became president of JETS in October 2024, with a clear aim: to bring the society back to life and re-engage Joondalup's creative community. I recently attended the JETS production of Secret Life of Humans at the St Stephen's theatre in Duncraig. It was a reminder of the talent, creativity and commitment that exists in our local arts community.

Audrey has also raised with me a serious issue for the performing arts in our community: the lack of accessible rehearsal and performance space in Joondalup and the surrounding suburbs. Without reliable venues, local actors, writers, crew and volunteers are forced to move between inconsistent locations, uncertain times and limited resources. That makes it harder to build confidence, harder to attract volunteers and harder to grow a local creative community. For a city the size and importance of Joondalup, that is a challenge worth taking seriously. Across Moore, I meet people like Carmel and Audrey, people from different generations, different fields and different parts of our community but with a common commitment to making our suburbs better.

I'm going to start by quoting from the CSIRO's GenCost report, on page 55:

There is a clear trend that decreasing emissions increases 2050 electricity costs.

I will repeat that:

There is a clear trend that decreasing emissions increases 2050 electricity costs.

This is from the CSIRO. This is from the draft version of their GenCost report. It's a report that's regularly referred to by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, though not that particular line. That line is often left out in quoting, but it's an important line because it could not be more definitive that lower emissions will come at a higher cost. That's the CSIRO; that's not me. That's not an opinion. That's not the coal industry. That is word for word, verbatim, in the CSIRO's own report, which came out in December. I think it was missed during the events at Bondi in December, which many of us will remember. This report didn't get covered at the time, but that line and that sentence is absolutely crucial to understanding Australia's future.

There was a time when we were told to trust the science. Particularly, the people who gave us that line were people who were very strong proponents of net zero and of the moral cause of reducing our emissions. The staple of the argument was that lower emissions and lower energy costs would come without a trade off. That's what we were told. Australians were told that you could have both these things. You could have the morally good feeling and it would come at no cost to you.

I think it's fantastic to go back to that line, 'Trust the science.' Listen to the CSIRO: decreasing emissions will increase your 2050 electricity costs. This couldn't be clearer. This is a message that isn't just being delivered by the CSIRO. We are watching the world slowly turn away from those days when we were blindly told to trust the science. Of course, the US has turned. I find it extraordinary to watch Tony Blair arguing with the UK leadership to drop their net zero policies. They would only be following groups like the Net-Zero Banking Alliance or the major banks of the world who've walked away from this. The Net-Zero Insurance Alliance is much the same. We could look to our biggest trading partners, particularly China, who pay absolutely nothing more than lip service to it.

When we look ahead to what's in front of us in where costs are heading and why costs will continue to go up, we see it's storage and transmission. Sixty per cent of the energy cost rises will be due to storage and transmission costs. These are unavoidable components of the net zero plan. Costs will go up. There is a trade off. We will pay more.

I'd like everyone here in this chamber to take a moment and think back to the very first time you all rose to speak to deliver your first speech. I know many in this chamber are now polished speakers, but there was I'm sure nothing like that first moment—the first feeling of privilege that came with representing your community here in the parliament and also defining yourself as a member in this place. There was probably a bit of nervousness too, knowing that people were watching.

Now imagine if there were a place where people could build their confidence in public speaking and help them find their voice. Well, through the Toastmasters, there is a place where people can do that. It is an international organisation that has spent decades fostering environments where people feel empowered to step outside their comfort zone and develop their public speaking skills, discovering what they're capable of.

On Monday, one of my local Toastmasters clubs, the Glen Waverley Toastmasters, celebrated an incredible 50 years. Since 1976, generations of members have come through the Glen Waverley Toastmasters looking to challenge themselves, grow as communicators and connect with others. The club has helped shape confident leaders, foster lifelong friendships and create a strong sense of community that continues to this day. I particularly want to acknowledge and thank Eddie Soon, who served as toastmaster of the evening and expertly, I'm told, hosted the proceedings, as well as Rob Owers, the club charter president and Charles Adams, a club charter member, both of whom remain part of the club 50 years on from its founding. Remarkable! It is an absolutely terrific testament to the strength and community spirit of Glen Waverley Toastmasters.

I also want to acknowledge Sothea Van, Vice President, Alok Nath, President, and Graeme Bond, Treasurer, for their ongoing leadership and commitment to the club's continued success. I want to sincerely thank the Glen Waverley branch for its incredible work in strengthening our community and supporting people to grow in confidence and in leadership. Congratulations on this remarkable milestone.

I'm not at all surprised by the success of Glen Waverley Toastmasters Club, because the part of Melbourne I am so proud to represent in this place has produced two Speakers of the House, both trailblazing women: the honourable Anna Burke, former Speaker of the House of Representatives and my predecessor as the member for Chisholm; and the honourable Joan Child AO, the member for the overlapping and now abolished seat of Henty and the first female Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives. Both used their communication skills to advocate social justice and to make history in this parliament. Happy jubilee to Glen Waverley Toastmasters Club. I look forward to many years to come.

Today I rise to recognise the life and contribution of a remarkable local businessman, community leader and family man, Mr James Dunn, managing director of Expressway Spares, who, tragically, passed away suddenly last month. Born in Taree and raised on the Mid North Coast, James was part of a family whose name is synonymous with business success and community contribution across our region. As the grandson of Gerard Cassegrain, who founded Expressway Spares in 1964, James proudly carried that legacy forward, leading one of our region's most successful family businesses. But James was far more than a successful businessman; he was a devoted husband to Pauline, a loving father to Georgia and James, a loyal son and friend and someone deeply committed to his staff, his family and his community.

I attended the beautiful funeral mass at St Agnes' Catholic Church on Monday with many hundreds of people from near and far who came to show their respect, support and friendship for James and the positive impact he had on so many lives. My thoughts are with James's wife, Pauline; his children, Georgia and James; his parents, Catherine and Jim; the extended Cassegrain family; and the entire Expressway Spares team. James leaves behind an extraordinary legacy, and he will be greatly missed.

I also want to draw attention to the outstanding work of Homebase Youth Services and its Strive for Success program. Recently, I met with local young people and Homebase Youth Services Tuncurry staff for a roundtable discussion to hear directly about the issues that concern them most. We spoke about the need for a local youth activity centre, the challenges of gaining employment, youth safety and mental health care access. What struck me most was that, though it's tough sometimes to do so, these young people were looking for opportunities to grow and contribute to their community. That is exactly what the Strive for Success program provides. The program works with young people aged 15 to 24, helping them overcome barriers to employment, build confidence, develop workplace skills and connect with jobs, apprenticeships, traineeships and further education. It provides practical support and mentoring not only to help young people find work but to keep work. Importantly, the program recognises that many young people face challenges beyond simply finding a job and provides the support they need to get back on track, even if it is just with getting a drivers licence.

Yet, despite its success, funding for the program is due to run out in August. At a time when governments speak about youth wellbeing, workforce participation and early intervention, it makes little sense to put at risk a program that is already delivering results for vulnerable young people in our community. I urge the government to work with Homebase Youth Services to provide certainty for the future of Strive for Success, because, when we invest in young people, we invest in the future of our region.

Reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax announced in the budget are already changing lives for aspiring homeowners in my electorate of Dickson. I want to share the story of Kathleen, a 65-year-old single mum from Lawnton who has spent the past year searching desperately for a home of her own. Time and time again, she found herself competing against droves of investors at open homes and watching properties sell under the hammer, only for them to reappear weeks later on the rental market. She described attending open homes as both depressing and heartbreaking, quickly realising that only a small number of attendees were genuine owner-occupiers looking for an actual roof over their heads. Following the budget announcement, Kathleen noticed a dramatic shift: investor numbers at inspections had dropped significantly, and she was now competing alongside young families and other homebuyers like herself.

This is more than tax reform. It is about restoring hope for families, for first home buyers, for those rebuilding their lives after divorce, for people who have fallen on hard times and for long-term househunters who simply want the security and the stability of their own home. Today, I am delighted to report that Kathleen has now successfully made an offer on a home which has been accepted. I spoke to Kathleen yesterday, and what she said was heartwarming. She said that this is more than a house, and she will finally feel safe and secure in a home where she, her daughter and her two young grandsons can build their future and thrive together.

These changes are about restoring the great Australian dream of homeownership and ensuring that ordinary, hardworking Aussies once again have a fair shot at a place of their own: a home with a clothesline out the back and a verandah out the front. These changes ensure that the housing market works first and foremost for people seeking a home, not just first home buyers but those who have gone through a relationship breakdown. We know that women over 50 years old are the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people in Australia. Our changes to negative gearing and CGT are also for them. Labor's bold and transformative changes to make the housing market fairer for ordinary Aussies will have an immediate and lasting impact, not only for Kathleen but for three generations of her family and all those who follow.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

The Albanese government is killing Australian manufacturing and industry with its radical net zero policies. Under Labor, we are witnessing in real time the destruction of the Australian industrial base. The government's Future Made in Australia is nothing but a cover for Labor's push to net zero, which is a taxpayer funded subsidy scheme with no guarantee of success. We're guaranteed failure, though, and time and again the Australian people are being asked to bankroll the bailout of our heavy industry, with no timeline on when the government's support will end. This budget is no different. Labor's budget commits a further $222.6 million to the Whyalla steelworks despite the government having no buyer. What is Labor's strategy when it comes to Whyalla, and how much more taxpayer support can we expect? Does Labor have a plan in place should it fail to find a buyer?

Meanwhile, despite announcing its bailout last December, there is still no money in the budget for the Tomago aluminium smelter in the New South Wales Hunter region. Yesterday at estimates the Minister for Industry and Innovation conceded that not only is there no money in the budget for Tomago but the budget has not finalised a package or a timeline for when funding will be delivered. It has been six months since the minister stood up at Tomago, yet he still hasn't come good on his commitment. Under Labor, there is no transparency and no plan. Instead we see bailout after bailout—Tomago, Boyne, Glencore.

The truth is that Labor's net zero madness is driving electricity prices through the roof. We've seen electricity prices increase by up to 40 per cent over the last four years. The government's policy settings are making it difficult for heavy industry to remain viable in Australia. Despite this, Labor continues with its green ideology by importing solar panels and wind turbines from China while our smelters struggle. This isn't a future made in Australia; it's a future made overseas—courtesy of largely Chinese manufacturing. Meanwhile, Labor is pouring $775 million into their Green Iron Investment Fund over the forwards, which is a massive commitment with no proven commercial outcome. The Albanese government is asking the Australian people to take on a $775 million experiment and wear all the risk. What evidence does the government have that the Green Iron Investment Fund will deliver a return?

Instead of focusing on delivering cheap, reliable baseload power to Australian industry, Labor are pushing ahead with net zero by 2050 at any cost. They should pick up that recent essay by former British prime minister Tony Blair as I think they would find some good advice and counsel in that. Again, the government are pursuing their net zero agenda under the guise of the Future Made in Australia.

At the same time as writing millions of dollars worth of cheques to questionable projects, Labor is taking money out of industry and innovation programs. This budget has no money for the Boosting Female Founders Initiative, the Buy Australian campaign, the Entrepreneurs Program, the Innovation Investment Committee, Australian Critical Minerals R&D Hub, the Critical Minerals Development Program and the Global Mining Challenge program. The list goes on. Labor has ripped more than $8 million from the Industry Growth Program. All of these initiatives—which encourage a prosperous, competitive, secure Australian industrial sector—have been cancelled or cut by the Albanese government. This is the true cost of Labor's industry agenda.

This government is making Australia a less attractive place to do business. Despite promising not to make any changes to the capital gains tax before the election, this sneaky Labor government has imposed its toxic taxes on the Australian people and industry. Under the Albanese government, investments in startups and incentives for Aussie entrepreneurs to grow their business have become less attractive. Labor is increasing taxes on investment at the very time Australian industry needs more capital. If Labor wants more Australian industry, why is it making investment in Australian businesses less attractive? While businesses are struggling, the truth is the Albanese government continues to fund its net zero obsession.

The workforce at the Net Zero Economy Authority, the government's very own statutory body for managing the transition to net zero, has grown from one employee to 158. How many of these roles focus on supporting communities affected by Labor's aggressive push to net zero at any cost and how many are policy positions?

Australian manufacturers need affordable and reliable energy and not more bureaucracy and government intervention. A strong industrial base starts with affordable, reliable energy. That's why the coalition is going to get out of net zero. We're going to put on more coal, more gas; we're going to get a nuclear industry going with the support of the private sector. But the reality is that Australia's net zero is making Australian industry less competitive at a time when our nation needs to be more competitive in a dangerous, insecure and uncertain world. It's enough. Start putting Australian first.

Today I want to talk about one of the industries that has helped build our nation and continues to power communities like mine in the Hunter. When people talk about mining, they are not talking about some distant industry. In the Hunter, mining is our neighbours; it is our night shift workers; it is the apprentices starting their careers; it is the small businesses supplying equipment, meals, transport and services; it is the families putting food on the table; and it is the communities that have been built on generations of hardworking Aussies. Mining matters to Australia and mining matters to the Hunter.

Across Australia, the resources sector continues to be one of the biggest contributors to our national prosperity. Resources and energy exports were worth around $385 billion in 2024-25. The sector contributed more than $50 billion in company tax and almost $22 billion in royalties, helping fund schools, hospitals, roads and services Australians rely on every single day. Mining alone delivered $231 billion in exports last year, and employs more than 310,000 Aussies. It remains Australia's most productive industry, and one of our greatest economic strengths.

But for me, these numbers aren't just national statistics; they have real meaning to me in the Hunter. In my electorate, mining supports thousands and thousands of local jobs. Those workers earn more than $396 million in wages each year, supporting local households, local shops and local communities. More than 1,000 local suppliers are directly supported by the industry, and mining generates around $2.7 billion in annual direct spending through business purchases—community contributions and payments that all flow back into our region.

That's thousands of families who rely on this industry. That's thousands of workers who get up every day, put their boots on and head to work knowing they're helping support their family and contributing to Australia's prosperity. It's also hundreds of local businesses that rely on a strong resources sector. Whether it's an engineering shop in Mount Thorley, a cafe in Morisset, a transport operator in Cessnock or a family owned business in Singleton, the benefits of mining flow right across our region. That's why we need to have honest conversations about what mining delivers.

Too often people focus only on what comes out of the ground. They forget what flows back into our communities. Mining helps fund Medicare. Mining helps fund our schools. Mining helps fund our infrastructure. And mining helps fund emergency services and national defence. According to industry data, Australian mining paid around $74 billion in taxes and royalties in a single year. That's money that helps deliver the services Australia depends on every single day. The Hunter understands that better than most. We know that a strong resources sector and a strong future go hand in hand. We know that skills developed in mining today will help build the industries of tomorrow, and we know that, as the world changes, Australia has an enormous opportunity to remain a global resources powerhouse.

Australia is already a world leader in iron ore, metallurgical coal, lithium and mineral sands. We are also rich in critical minerals that the world needs for advanced manufacturing, renewable technologies and national security. That's why this government has backed the resources sector while investing in Australia's future. Since 2022 the government has announced more than $28 billion to grow Australia's critical mineral industry and strengthen our position in the global supply chains. For a community like the Hunter, that means opportunity. It means new investment, it means new jobs and it means giving local workers confidence that their skills will continue to be valued for decades to come.

The story of the Hunter has always been a one of hard work. It's a story written by miners, tradies, engineers, machine operators, truckies and small-business owners. It's a story of communities that have helped power Australia for generations. As the member for Hunter, I'll always stand up for those workers and those communities. When mining succeeds, the Hunter succeeds. When mining invests, local businesses grow. When mining creates jobs, local families benefit. When mining contributes billions in taxes and royalties, every Australian shares in that success. The Hunter has helped build this country. Our workers have helped power this country, and our mining industry will continue to play a vital role in Australia's future.

To all the miners out there in the Hunter and all around Australia: thank you for what you do. Whilever people want to buy our coal, we will sell them our coal. Whilever there's a demand for it on the international market, we will supply that demand. Thank you for what you do, day in and day out. Keep up the great work, and I'm looking forward to having a beer with you. Cheers!

My first question is a pretty straightforward question for the Minister for Industry and Innovation: why have you not engaged with industry about the budget changes, particularly the changes to capital gains tax and trusts? The second question is another very simple one for this minister: Why are you not talking to the Assistant Minister for Science, Technology and the Digital Economy at all about the tax changes? Why is the assistant minister running roundtables that you have no idea about, as the minister confirmed in Senate estimates? Why is the assistant minister running roundtables without the department there to take notes? Why has the Department of Industry, Science and Resources not engaged with any stakeholders or been to any roundtables since the announcement of these disastrous budget tax changes that blindsided industry?

The reality is there is a cold war going on within the Labor Party at the moment, and it's been shown by the member for Parramatta, the member for Bennelong and the member for Chifley speaking out publicly. It's not surprising that the minister, who sits in the left faction, and the assistant minister, who sits in the right faction, are not talking, because there's a little bit underway there, a bit of pressure. You know that there's real pressure opposite when the Prime Minister starts talking about 'unity' and 'order in the caucus' to break their word to the community. The Prime Minister protests a little bit too much.

The sad part about this division and the sad part about having a prime minister that's never worked a day in the private sector, a Treasurer that's never worked a day in the private sector and a finance minister that's never worked a day in the private sector—and they refuse to consult with industry—is that it results in policies that are damaging small businesses, damaging tech start-ups and damaging those who create innovation and solve the challenges that the Australian people face. The tech sector want to get ahead and want to solve challenges that we face as a nation, and they're being kneecapped by this government. It's either ideology or ignorance that is leading to it, but the reality is it's both because they don't understand industry.

The worst part about these changes, in addition to breaking faith with the Australian people and the Prime Minister destroying any legacy he might have had, is that these changes will punish start ups and small businesses and will provide an incentive to investors to invest in large organisations that are already established. Let's say you have $20,000 that you want to invest. If you invest that into a start up who delivers a return on capital increases—they start at zero and build a business, and part of the plan is an exit strategy to sell that business—that means that your capital will go up significantly and you will now be taxed at 47 per cent under this government. So why would you want to put that $20,000 into that business where your exit strategy will be taxed at 47 per cent? The better use of that $20,000 is to put it into the share market, into companies like Woolworths or Coles or the big four banks, big established businesses that are not relying on their value through asset growth. They are providing dividends back to you every quarter or every six months or every year. You want that revenue coming back to you through a dividend, and, if you manage your numbers right, you won't be taxed at that higher rate.

That is the perverse impact of these capital gains tax changes by this government. It will drive less innovation. It will support fewer Australian businesses. It will hurt science. It will hurt technology. It will hurt those that want to get ahead, and it will encourage people to give more money to the big four banks, to Woolworths, to Coles, to those successful businesses. Well done to those successful businesses. They're not the ones that need government help, but they are getting it from this government because this government, as we have seen through the minister for industry, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, does not understand the challenges that people face. They do not understand industry, and in the long-term, our country will suffer. Products like cochlear and so many other ideas that have been generated in Australia will have less capital, and without capital these ideas cannot go from an idea in a factory or a laboratory into the mainstream and actually commercialise and solve those problems.

I am very glad that the member for Casey is here because it gives me a chance to talk about some of the things that we were talking about last time we were in this chamber. If you can just bear with me for a second, one thing I'd like to address from his contribution there is that he talks about having an experience in industry, but having run companies and small businesses myself, I know that there are two ways that you can run a small business. One is you can invest in your plant and your people, or you can strip the profits out of it and run it into the ground. And the way the Labor Party runs this country is like the way that we run a business. We invest in our plant and we invest in our people. They strip the profits out of it and they run the country into the ground.

The other thing that I want to talk about is that it was interesting hearing the member for Canning there talk about—are they now opposing the support that we're giving to the Whyalla steelworks? I remember an interview, a now famous interview, where the member for Canning was talking about not making a last stand for economic rationalism. Well, it seems that their support for Whyalla would be testing that statement.

At the end of the day—I would appreciate it if the member for Casey bears with me for a sec—I think there are three things that have landed Australian people at the moment in a situation where we are just not going to cop the status quo any more. They are privatisation, economic rationalism and unfettered free trade. The last time I said unfettered free trade it got the member for Casey really worked up. So it gives me a chance to explain it as he walks out the door. By unfettered free trade, I am a huge supporter in free trade and in tariffs being reduced. It has been wonderfully beneficial for the country. It has been wonderfully beneficial for the world. But what you can't do is just open the borders, lower the tariffs and leave your industry to compete against state owned industries overseas. What you can't do is just abandon the manufacturing and textile industries that were protected by those tariffs by walking away and leaving it to the free market. That's what you did. That's what your side did. Being in South Australia, I knew how important it was to protect our car industry, but the member for Casey's party was happy to walk out on the car industry and let it go to rot.

Do you know why people are so angry? Do you know why they're turning away from the coalition parties? Look at what happened in the South Australian car industry. You would well know, Deputy Speaker Sharkie. When they closed the Lonsdale car plant, they did a study of the workers there. They found that a third of those workers went and found good jobs; a third of those workers went and found insecure, casual jobs and lost their hours and lost their income; and a third of those workers never worked again. So you wonder why people are angry at the moment. You wonder why living standards have gone backwards in this country. You sit there and smirk, the member for Casey. There is a lot of anger out there. Your side of politics seems to be dismissing it and not caring about it and wanting to protect the status quo.

I can tell you it is a feature of the Albanese Labor government that we have realised the status quo is no longer acceptable, and that is why we have picked up the slack to invest, to take part in investment of something like $2½ billion to protect the workers in Whyalla. By the way, I come from that region. As a Broken Hill boy, I grew up with the television network which was connected with Whyalla and Port Pirie. We've also stepped in to protect the jobs in Port Pirie, and there's more work being done on that. We've stepped in to protect the jobs in Mount Isa, at the smelter there. We've stepped in to protect the jobs in Gladstone, in the member for Flynn's electorate, by investing a billion dollars to support the aluminium industry. We have picked up the slack.

We have realised that free trade is a fabulous thing for our economy and a fabulous thing for our country. We cannot let industry wither on the vine like those in the opposition parties did. The member for Canning talks about not taking a last stand for economic rationalism, for neoliberalism. Well, I'm not sure that that is something which is shared universally across the party. I suspect it's shared by a couple of the National Party members sitting there, but the Liberal Party has completely lost the plot, and I think it's really paying a price for it at the moment.

The member for Casey smirks, but I'll tell you who is not smirking—the Australian people, because, over the last 30 years of mainly coalition rule, we have seen industry walk out the door, we have seen housing be run into the ground, we have seen—

Honourable members interjecting—

So I commend these budget bills. (Time expired)

Before I call the next speaker, can we all just be a little bit quiet and a little bit more respectful of whoever is on their feet speaking.

It's always a pleasure to follow the member for Forde—always ill-informed but very enthusiastic, so congratulations to you. I rise today to demand answers regarding the collapse of the manufacturing industry in Australia. Australia has the world's best iron ore, the world's best resources and the world's best workers. Yet, because of this government's war on affordable energy, we cannot even afford to turn that iron ore into steel. Under this government, we've become a nation that digs it up, ships it out and then pays a premium to buy it back. This is not a strategy. This is a surrender.

While our competitors use Australian resources to build their empires, our local workshops are being priced out of existence by a government that seems more interested in Greens slogans than the reality of the factory floor. You cannot build a manufacturing sector when the basic costs of doing business are being driven through the roof—excessive red and green tape, high energy costs and difficult industrial relations laws.

I recently hosted a manufacturing roadshow in Mackay, and the message was clear. Our manufacturing sector is at breaking point. We have a talented business in Mackay that produces world-class rock bolts, products that underpin the safety of our entire mining sector, yet they're forced to compete with inferior, imported steel bolts that land in Australia much cheaper than it costs to manufacture them in Australia. This is not a fair market. It is a stacked deck. Our foreign competitors operate without crushing energy costs or the heavy handed regulation that cripple our own manufacturers. This government burdens Australian manufacturers with red tape while rolling out the red carpet for subsidised imports.

Minister, why is this government destroying our manufacturing industry because you refuse to hold foreign imports to the same standards you mandate for Australian manufacturers? Will the minister commit to establishing a national import quality taskforce to hold foreign imports to the same standards imposed on local manufacturers? Does this government find it acceptable that Australian made goods are being priced out of the market by substandard inputs?

We also know that modern manufacturing requires baseload electricity—electricity that's affordable, reliable and available 24/7, not just when the sun shines or the wind blows. Labor is so obsessed with reaching net zero that they've zeroed out on manufacturing's ability. You cannot forge world-class Australian steel on the back of a passing breeze. I ask: will this government commit to reforming the energy grid to ensure industrial hubs can access stable, affordable baseload power?

Australia's standing in global resource investment is slipping. We have consistently fallen down the rankings of the Fraser Institute's annual survey of mining companies, not because of a lack of resources but because of the rise of regulatory burden. Capital goes where there is certainty, and right now Australia looks to be a high-risk zone because the environmental goalposts are being moved at the stroke of a pen. Labor's safeguard mechanism is a carbon tax by stealth—a financial handbrake on heavy producers, forcing capital to flee to nations with better policy settings.

Can the minister explain how imposing arbitrary, impossible-to-achieve environmental targets on our manufacturing industry enhances our sovereign capability? Will the minister scrap these mechanisms to restore the investor confidence required to scale up our local workshops?

The testimony from the manufacturing roadshow made one thing very clear: you cannot be green when you're in the red. We need to restore sovereign confidence by ensuring our tax and regulatory landscape is stable. When our large-scale players, particularly in the mining sector, have the confidence to invest, it creates a massive flow-on effect for our local manufacturers. Certainty at the top of the supply chain provides business confidence to workshops in Dawson.

Minister, the final questions I have are: Does this government have the guts to admit its energy policy is destroying our industrial base? Will the Albanese Labor government commit to restoring the affordable power necessary to rebuild our manufacturing industry?

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

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I would like to highlight the Albanese Labor government's commitment to building a stronger, smarter and more resilient Australia. In the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio, this budget backs the sectors that create jobs, drive innovation and secure our economic future.

This is a government that understands modern prosperity does not happen by accident. It is built through investment in our people, our researchers, our manufacturers and our industries. That is why this budget delivers new spending on research and development, strengthens our national science capability, and supports the businesses and workers who are helping Australia lead in the industries the world needs.

The scale of Australia's resources sector shows just how important this portfolio is to our economy. In 2024-25, resource and energy export earnings reached $385 billion, mineral exports were $231 billion and the sector contributed more than $21.9 billion in royalties to the nation. Over 310,000 people are employed in mining, and more than 432 major resource and energy projects are currently under development across Australia. These are not abstract numbers; they are jobs, wages, investment and opportunity in communities right around the country.

This government is also backing the future through critical minerals and value-adding here at home. Since 2022, we have announced more than $28.3 billion to grow Australia's critical minerals industry, including production tax credits, support through the Critical Minerals Facility, the Value-Adding in Resources Fund, and a Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve. We are also working to secure supply chains, support advanced manufacturing and position Australia to be a reliable partner in a changing world.

In gas and energy, the government is taking responsible steps to ensure Australians have secure and affordable supply. We have introduced a domestic gas reservation scheme, strengthened the gas code and acted to put downward pressure on domestic gas prices, while protecting households and businesses from spikes. At the same time, we are ensuring that the transition to a cleaner economy is orderly, practical and focused on national interest.

The budget also provides strong support for science and innovation. The government is providing CSIRO with an extra $387.4 million over four years, alongside ongoing funding for the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, because science is not a luxury; it is essential national infrastructure. This investment supports critical research, strengthens our biosecurity and ensures Australian science continues to deliver real benefits for families, industries and regional communities.

I would also like to acknowledge my community in Pearce, which has a very high fly-in, fly-out population and a strong connection to the resources and energy sectors. Pearce is a large and fast-growing outer metropolitan seat in Perth's northern suburbs, covering 755 square kilometres and 30 suburbs. Many families in our communities rely directly or indirectly on this industry for work, for opportunity and for economic security. That is why it is so important that this budget supports stable investment, secure jobs and long-term confidence in the industries that sustain regional and outer suburban communities like mine.

I also want to acknowledge the important role of our regional communities in this national effort. From the Pilbara to the Hunter, from regional Queensland to the Territory and beyond, Australians are contributing to the industries that power our country. They deserve a government that backs them with real investment, practical policy and a clear plan for the future. This budget does exactly that by supporting energy security, research capability, industrial resilience and local jobs.

We are also investing in the kind of nation-building that has lasting impact. That means supporting critical minerals processing here in Australia, strengthening supply chains and making sure our scientists and engineers have the backing they need to turn discovery into practical outcomes. It means giving businesses the confidence to invest, expand and innovate, while ensuring workers have the secure, well-paid jobs that come from a more productive economy. This is how we create opportunity not just for today but for the next generation.

After a decade of neglect from those opposite, the Albanese Labor government is doing the serious work of rebuilding capacity and confidence in Australian industry and science. We are backing innovation, supporting skilled jobs and making sure Australia is a country that not only exports raw materials but also adds value, builds capability and competes globally. That is the responsible path to prosperity, and it is exactly what this budget delivers.

The new proposed AI data centre in Victoria would be Australia's largest ever, demanding more power than Victoria's biggest coal plant. Data centres like this one consume obscene amounts of land and obscene amounts of energy and water, threaten our energy transition, take away jobs and degrade our environment. What would these data centres do for us? It's really difficult to imagine any good, when they destroy far more jobs than they create, they increase energy prices and reliance on fossil fuels due to their excessive demand, they degrade our precious water and the surrounding environment, and they're privately owned by foreign corporations that don't pay tax. I don't know about you, but I think that's a very bad deal.

Unfortunately, it appears that the government thinks it's a good deal. I was shocked to read the government's Austrade website, which proudly proclaims Australia is becoming a regional data centre hub, where it is cheaper to build and operate data centres than it is in Asia. For big tech companies, the government rolls out the red carpet and says: 'Step right up. We're a cheap date.' It's a pretty sweet deal for the multinational corporations, but it is a betrayal of ordinary people and our environment.

Why the major parties are so friendly to the big AI companies is not a mystery. Technology companies donated over $13 million to political parties at the last federal election. Just last week, Anthropic visited Canberra to sign a memorandum of understanding involving exclusive contracts to investigate AI safety. Can you believe it? The government is asking an AI company worth half a trillion dollars to investigate its own industry. What a joke. Meanwhile, the Victorian government has been so desperate to approve a huge new data centre that they hosted international AI executives at the Australian Open. Regular people don't get that kind of access to our governments, but big AI companies do.

Has the government put any safeguards in place for data centres? No. All they've produced are non-binding expectations—not laws, just expectations. The government will ask nicely, cross their fingers and hope that big tech companies do the right thing. Wishful thinking? Clearly. It's a stunning failure to regulate this emerging threat to our jobs, our environment and our energy security. The Greens have established an AI inquiry into those data centres. The government must learn from past mistakes of being slow to regulate new technologies and pass comprehensive legislation to safeguard Australians from AI risks.

The government is representing gas corporations, not the Australian people. Yesterday, I moved a simple amendment calling for a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. Labor MPs voted to defeat it, and One Nation and the LNP didn't even bother to turn up. Australians are fed up with the gas companies ripping us off. They know that many gas corporations like Santos are paying no company tax. They know that the PRRT scheme is completely ineffective. We're raising more tax from beer than PRRT. Japan's raising more tax from our gas exports than we are. The PRRT revenue is predicted to go down over the next few years. They know that a 25 per cent tax on gas exports is a simple and effective way to make gas corporations pay their fair share for our gas—gas that belongs to us, the Australian people.

People are sick. They're so sick of the gas corporations having more of a say than them. They're sick of the donations, the cash-for-access meetings and the revolving door between gas lobbyists, MPs and senior staffers. People know that our health system, our education system and our other public services are underfunded. The $17 billion raised from taxing our gas would help fix that. Instead, gas corporations are making huge profits from our gas and using that money to continue to lobby against paying their fair share. It's a great, big, self-perpetuating circle of influence over our democracy. I hope that Labor MPs and the minister, who voted against a gas tax, are prepared to answer this question of the Australian people, who overwhelmingly support a tax on gas exports, about why they have once again put the gas corporations first.

The Albanese Labor government continues to support and invest in Australia's resources sector and our growing critical minerals industry. Australia's resources sector remains one of the greatest strengths of our national economy, and I want to thank and commend our terrific Minister for Resources, Madeleine King, who is leading the charge. In 2024-25, resource and energy exports were worth $385 billion, with a B, for our nation. This sector contributed more than $50 billion in company tax and almost $22 billion in royalties to governments right across the country, and 310,000 Australians are directly employed in mining. Hundreds of thousands more rely on the jobs and economic activity that the sector supports. This includes the hardworking people of my seat of Paterson in the magnificent Hunter region, which is the oldest mining region in the country.

Out of that comes the fact that we are leading the world in resources and extractive industries. We are the largest exporter of iron ore, metallurgical coal, lithium and mineral sands and amongst the world's leading exporters of gold, rare earths, uranium and cobalt. These achievements didn't happen by accident. They're the result of decades—actually, centuries—of investment, innovation, skills, hard work and wherewithal of Australians who are working in our resources sector. That's precisely why Australia is so well placed to lead the world in the next great extractive industry: critical minerals.

Sometimes, the conversation around critical minerals is framed as though it's entirely separate from the traditional resources sector, but the reality is very different. There's a direct interface between our existing extractive industries and these emerging industries. The skills, the expertise, the engineering capability, the environmental management practices and the operational knowledge that have been built through generations of mining in Australia provide us with a significant bedrock and advantage on which to build this new set of industries. We know how to find resources. We know how to extract them safely and efficiently. We know how to manage large-scale projects. We know how to build regional economies and industries and communities.

The challenge before us now, in my opinion, is to take those strengths and apply them to the new critical minerals opportunities. Importantly, we must learn from the past. Australia has often excelled at extracting resources but not always in capturing the full value of them. The critical minerals opportunities allow us to do both. It is not simply about digging materials out of the ground, as some members on the other side have accused us of. It is about local processing, refining and manufacturing. It's about value-adding as much as we can here in Australia, creating the high-value jobs as well as the high-value products. It's more about economic benefit and about that remaining in Australia.

That's why this government has committed more than $28 billion since 2022 to grow Australia's critical minerals industry. We've introduced $17½ billion in production tax credits for critical minerals. We've expanded the Critical Minerals Facility to $5 billion. We've established a $1.2 billion Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve, and we've invested in research and development, infrastructure, international partnerships and common user facilities that'll help unlock these future projects. These are all incredibly important for our country.

We've also recognised that Australia's critical minerals future must be built in partnership with regional Australia, like my regional Australia in the Hunter. I am Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries, and we're currently conducting an inquiry at the behest of the minister looking at critical minerals and rare earths and the social licence and economic benefit of these industries, and we are getting some fantastic evidence. The evidence received in public hearings so far has highlighted the opportunities and the challenges faced by regional communities in hosting critical minerals projects, and I'm really looking forward to delivering a good report with some great recommendations. But I want to thank those regional communities who are working hard in our resources sector.

The 2026-27 budget confirms the federal government is spending over $14 billion on its program Strengthening Australia's Fuel Resilience. My interest and question to the minister is: how much of this is going to support gas security? I'm interested in the minister's explanation of how this spend will allow for continued development of gas availability. I'm very pleased that Minister King is in the chamber for my contribution. I have a high regard for the minister. I cannot say the same for her Victorian counterpart, the energy minister, who has done untold damage to jobs and economic security in the Latrobe Valley. It is a point of interest for me in my contribution today because I'm proud to represent people who grow, make and manufacture things in my region that the rest of Australia relies on.

In the Latrobe Valley, my friend and colleague the member for Gippsland has what were four but now are three coal fired power stations in his electorate, but I am very proud and privileged to do my best job up here on behalf of the many people who work in those power stations. We have, of course, Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B and Yallourn. Previously, we had Hazelwood. In the Latrobe Valley, on current usage rates, we've got 500 years of brown coal resources. It's the largest single deposit of brown coal in the Southern Hemisphere. I'm very keen for that resource not to be left stranded beneath the earth but to continue for important projects. I know the minister has championed the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain Project, which is of strategic significance between Australia and Japan and which also goes to the heart of sovereign capability challenges around fertiliser and other by-products that the Latrobe Valley can bring about.

I'm most interested in our gas resources. Gas is a very important feedstock for businesses. It is also a very important fuel stock for businesses like food manufacturers who cannot electrify their processes for a variety of reasons. The Latrobe Valley has powered Victoria for generations. Those hardworking men and women in the valley have kept our lights on in Victoria, kept our industries running and kept our economy moving despite the best efforts of the Victorian Labor government. I give my thanks to those men and women who have worked so hard over many decades.

Victoria's electricity demand is not falling. It is, in fact, growing rapidly. The rise of artificial intelligence, cloud computing, advanced manufacturing and data centres is driving unprecedented demand for reliable electricity. Data centres are critical infrastructure that supports everything from banking, cybersecurity and telecommunications to health care, defence and government services. It is important that Australia keeps up and doesn't get left behind. Data centres are also particularly energy hungry. There are a number of compelling national security reasons Australia should be encouraging the construction of more data centres on our own soil. In an increasingly uncertain world, we cannot afford to become dependent on overseas jurisdictions for the storage, processing and security of our own data. Retaining Australian data within our borders strengthens our sovereignty, protects sensitive information and ensures that critical digital infrastructure remains under Australian control.

Data centres require one thing above all else and that is reliable, around-the-clock power. That is why gas fired generation has an essential role to play in Australia's energy mix. While renewable energy is one part of the system, the reality is that, when the sun doesn't shine and when the wind doesn't blow, you still need 24-hour dispatchable power. Gas provides that reliability. Gas fired power can start quickly, respond to sudden changes in demand and provide the firming capacity required to support intermittent renewable generation. It is a perfect backup.

The Latrobe Valley is uniquely positioned to deliver this future. Our region already possesses a highly skilled, highly trained workforce, transmission infrastructure, industrial capacity and the energy expertise to support new gas generation projects. Coal fired generation will be retired over the next couple of decades. I'm desperately worried that, in two years time, Victoria will be losing 22 per cent of its baseload energy capacity with the closure of Yallourn, which the Victorian energy minister has not taken into account at all, in terms of replacement capacity. That's why I believe working with the private sector for private-sector investment and looking at a gas fired peaking station in the Latrobe Valley will support energy security, energy reliability, jobs and industry.

I thank all members for their participation in this consideration in detail, particularly the members for Hunter, Forde, Pearce and Paterson. All are strong supporters of the resources sector.

This government has put resources at the very heart of our policymaking because we know that a strong resources sector means a strong economy now and into the future and more jobs for future generations of Australians. The government is determined to ensure that Australian gas works for Australians and that Australians can access that important energy source at affordable prices. This is the simple principle behind the Albanese government's gas reservation scheme. Gas is an Australian resource. It comes from Australian land and Australian waters. It is developed by Australian workers. It underpins Australia's heavy industry and it is supported by Australian communities in the regions and the capitals right around the country. So it is only right that Australian households and Australian businesses and industry should have access to reliable gas at fair prices.

Gas remains critical to the energy security of Australia and that of our regional partners. Gas offers fast, flexible generation that backs up renewables and keeps the grid stable. It will be essential to our net zero transformation. It is particularly important to support high-heat manufacturing, including critical minerals processing.

We simply won't build a thriving critical minerals industry or maintain manufacturing capacity in this nation without reliable and affordable gas, and that's why we are taking action. From 1 July next year, LNG exporters will be required to reserve the equivalent of 20 per cent of their LNG exports for the domestic market, and they will need to meet these domestic supply obligations before getting access to export approvals. Reserving Australian gas for the Australian community is the right thing to do. That's in stark contrast to the coalition, who, in the past, left the energy market in a diabolical mess. We continue to put policies in place that work in the best interests of Australian gas consumers. Our plan for Australian gas is a better option for Australia.

What the Greens political party, Clive Palmer, the teals and Senator Pocock have in common is their shared campaign for an additional flat tax rate on the gas industry or some kind of windfall profits tax. This campaign has made for a clever slogan, and it certainly makes for some easy clicks and likes on social media. But the reality is very different. Many of these political groups and individuals spent the better part of their political careers campaigning to end Australia's gas industry altogether. For some, a gas tax campaign is an attempt to engineer that outcome via stealth. It is prudent to see what happens in other nations when they bring in such a proposal.

In the energy price spike of 2022 brought on by Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the conservative United Kingdom government brought in a 25 per cent energy profits levy on oil and gas windfall profits. The levy expanded to 35 per cent and then to 38 per cent two years later. Combined with company tax and other taxes, taxation on oil and gas projects in the UK and the North Sea rose to 78 per cent. At the same time, a handbrake was placed on new exploration and development in the North Sea. The result is that revenue projections from the windfall tax have fallen by around 75 per cent, about 5,000 industry jobs have been lost since the introduction of this 25 per cent tax in 2022 and 58,000 jobs are forecast to be gone by the early 2030s. The UK is now relying more and more on imports for its energy.

The experience in the United Kingdom of what started as a 25 per cent windfall tax on oil and gas production is that in four very short years 5,000 jobs have been lost, the industry has declined, production has reduced by 40 per cent and the UK is likely to import the vast bulk of its oil and gas by the 2030s, not to mention the end of the revenue base that was sought to be taxed. This is what the Greens, Senator Pocock, Clive Palmer and the teals have in common: a plan for a windfall profits tax to destroy the gas industry of Australia. Well, I for one will not stand for it.

The gas industry of Australia employs many thousands of people. It has employed many thousands of people over the decades of its existence in this country. It has also generated an extraordinary amount of revenue for the communities that support the gas industry. It provides for our energy security. It provides for the energy security of our region and therefore the peace and prosperity of our region. Nothing is more important. There's not a more important thing Australia could do for the peace of our region.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

We all know the story of this sordid, destructive budget that has acted as a wrecking ball through investor confidence in Australia—and, of course, household confidence. In the federal electorate of Goldstein, I have gone and spoken to small businesses, and so many of them are in a state of despair and dismay at the state of the federal budget and the impact it had on them.

I spoke to somebody yesterday who said, 'I remember a time where you could skip federal budget night, because it was just the government reporting on its finances.' He says, 'Now you have to see how your life is going to change after the last budget,' because they know full well that the new taxes in this budget are going to be destructive for their small businesses and their chances to get ahead. The small businesses of the country are particularly stressed. They're already living with the consequences of the Treasurer's active inflation agenda and, of course, the cost-of-business crisis that's flowing on from that. We're already experiencing record small business insolvencies nationwide, and we also have a record collapse in consumer confidence and small business confidence. But do you know what the answer is to this crisis of confidence? The government thinks we should add a new tax on top of it, thinking it's somehow going to solve the problem. Somehow, between their new taxes on housing, rents, small businesses and investments, it's all going to end up boosting confidence for the Australian people.

When we've come to the government and asked basic questions about the consequences of their taxes or how they're going to operate, they literally have no answers. They dither in question time. So we're going to give them a chance, perhaps, to address some of these problems. Going through the notthetax.com.au website, we've had lots of questions submitted, like one from a constituent who asked a question about their first child, born 1968 with a brain injury. They live in care, and they're unable to tie their shoelaces or add anything such as one plus one. When they die, their child will not be capable of handling an inheritance, or anything that manages, with their siblings. So the parents wanted, through their will, to establish a discretionary trust to administer the child's share of their equity so that they were able to live a dignified life. Under this budget, the government is going to come along and add a new 30 per cent tax on that young Australian's chance to live independently. Despite what the Treasurer or the Prime Minister says in saying there's an exemption, there isn't because this person is an adult. So there's a punching down from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on the financial security of people with a disability.

My first question is: Minister, why do your changes to trusts target people with a disability, and why don't they provide an exemption for them when they're an adult, as the Prime Minister at least claimed in question time in the past couple of weeks? My second question to the minister is: what has the government modelled on how quickly the WATO, the Working Australians Tax Offset, will be overtaken by increased receipts from inflation, and, if it will, what date will it be overtaken? Of course, I asked this question yesterday in the parliament, in the House of Representatives, in question time, but the Prime Minister couldn't answer. The third question is: can the government guarantee that, under the budget, a worker on the median wage will be better off in real terms next financial year, adjusted for inflation? It's a simple question. Of course we all know the answer to it, so I'm looking forward to the minister answering that basic question. The next basic question is: what is the total value of off-budget expenditure? We have literally no idea. We now have two budgets. We have the real budget and then we have a shadow budget of off-budget expenditure, where the government just gets away with doing whatever it wants. We'd like clarity on what the total value is of off-budget expenditure.

Minister, how much more will Australians give to the government than they will get back under the new tax measures? Will Australians be better off? Minister, does your budget say it will build more or fewer homes? I think we all know the answer to that one—35,000 fewer homes—but I don't think you're going to hear those words out of the minister's mouth. Minister, does your budget say that rents will increase or decrease? See previous answer; we know they're going to increase.

Minister, does your budget say whether inflation will rise or fall? Of course we know—but how does that compare to the analysis the Treasurer subsequently released after the budget, with its capital gains tax, which assumed an even higher rate of inflation? Will the budget documents, with the sneaky modelling done by the Treasurer, show an increase or a fall in inflation? And, finally, what is the inflationary impact on your budget, Minister? Australians deserve to know the truth.

The 2026 budget builds on the cost-of-living relief we've already delivered—practical, responsible support that recognises Australians have been under real pressure and that the government has a role to help, while keeping inflation in check and planning for the future, because we know that the cost of living is not a single problem with a single solution. It is what families feel when they fill up the car, when they pay the power bill, when they take their kids to the doctor and when they try to get ahead at work and keep more of what they earn. We know this, and the evidence that we know this is now enshrined in legislation.

In 2022 we began the work. We cleaned up the budget we inherited and put in place the foundations for responsible cost-of-living relief while inflation was rising and global pressures were intensifying. In 2023 we delivered targeted relief: energy rebates, cheaper medicines and increases to support payments. In 2024 we broadened that relief: tax cuts for every taxpayer, more help with energy bills and additional support for renters. In 2025 we built on that again with a second round of tax relief, major investments in Medicare and further reductions in the cost of medicines and student debt. And in 2026 we are locking that progress in with reforms in this budget that make a lasting difference to people's take-home pay, their healthcare costs and their long-term opportunities.

At the centre of the 2026 budget is tax relief, which continues a multi-year plan to ensure Australians keep more of what they earn. From 1 July the lowest marginal tax rate is reduced again to 15 per cent. That builds on the changes already delivered in 2024—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:26 to 11:47

That builds on the changes already delivered in 2024 and continues the pathway to a fairer, more sustainable system. And what does that mean in practice? It means middle-income Australians—teachers, tradies, nurses—see more in their pay packet without needing to apply for anything or navigate complicated systems. And we are further simplifying the system as well. From this financial year, Australians will be able to claim a standard $1,000 tax deduction for work expenses, reducing red tape, cutting compliance costs and putting more money back into people's pockets. We're also introducing a new tax offset—the working Australians tax offset—which will provide additional relief for workers on top of the existing tax cuts. Taken together, these reforms are about something fundamental: making sure work pays and that Australians are rewarded for their effort.

Part of making work pay is making sure people actually receive what they have earned when they've earned it. This is why our reforms to superannuation, including the move to payday super, are so important. By requiring employers to pay super at the same time as wages, we are closing the gap where too many Australians, particularly women and lower paid workers, miss out on the super that they're entitled to. It means stronger balances over a lifetime, fewer losses due to noncompliance and greater financial security in retirement.

But cost of living relief is not just about tax relief and fair pay. It's also about everyday services that we all rely on and whether those services cost too much. This is why the 2026 budget continues our major investments in Medicare, making permanent the network of Medicare urgent care clinics across the country and ensuring Australians can access free urgent care close to home without a long wait in a hospital emergency department; expanding bulk billing so that more Australians can see a GP for free, because access to healthcare, of course, should depend only on your Medicare card, not your credit card; and making medicines cheaper. Australians with chronic conditions are seeing real savings every year.

Through reforms to the tax system, we are changing the incentives that shape the housing market so that more investments go into new housing supply and more Australians have the opportunity to own their own home. It's structural reform that makes housing more attainable over time. That is the real story of the 2026 budget. My question for the minister is: how many of these cost-of-living measures that I've mentioned does the minister think would have been enacted if we'd seen a coalition government of the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation?

This government has an uncontrolled spending addiction, and it's prioritising ideological objectives, which has in turn turned this budget into a political tool. Those opposite are reaping the rewards of windfalls from the very industries they would seek to shut down, dipping further into incomes earned by hardworking Australian families. All of this is to fuel wasteful spending on a grand scale. They're using record sums of taxpayer funds to prop up their pet projects, and what does the average Australian have to show for it?

Departmental budgets continue to rise, yet delivery remains hindered by bureaucracy, leading to very poor outcomes. Consultants and contractors are still raking in hundreds of millions of dollars while public servants struggle with unclear priorities. Wasteful programs that were supposed to deliver once-in-a-generation outcomes have delivered cost overruns and disappointment. Regional grant programs have had their funding redirected or cancelled altogether under those opposite. This budget continues that trend with the phasing out of the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant Program. For a world-class industry struggling to deal with decreases in global demand, it's a signal that those opposite simply don't care.

The tax sourced from regional communities continues to rise, with ever-shrinking return on investment. All the while, the Albanese Labor government continues to try to sell an alternative reality. 'Australians have never had it better,' those opposite continue to bleat. How many more government advertising campaigns will we need to see, where agencies are directed to spend millions in Australian taxpayer funds to tell Australians how to fill up their car, how to pump up their tyres or indeed how to remove their roof racks? My question to the minister, amongst others, is: what will the total government advertising spend be by the end of this financial year?

Time and again, this government continues to throw good money after bad. They tout themselves as responsible economic managers, but their continued wasteful spending tells a very different story. Sadly, there seems to be no end in sight and seem to be no repercussions for that waste. Budget deficits are forecast to continue to rise every year across the next decade. Government debt will surpass $1 trillion. All of this public expenditure adds further fuel to the fire, placing further pressure on inflation, acting like a silent tax on the bank balances of every Australian. Inflation limits how far your dollar can reach, adding to the cost of everything. We know that out-of-control spending from this government has already been responsible for keeping inflation at uncomfortably high rates. The Reserve Bank has warned those opposite, but they haven't heard the message, and we've seen consecutive interest rate rises across the year.

My question to the minister is: Minister, where is the fiscal restraint? Caught up in a spending frenzy, it seems like times are far too good for Labor to exercise any fiscal restraint. That can be someone else's problem for some other time. Instead, they seek new ways to drain more and more money to fund their addiction. In this regard, the Albanese government is making history. Facing an economic environment where living standards have fallen harder and faster than anywhere else in the developed world, we now have the highest-taxing government in our nation's history. In an effort to sell these measures as anything different, we have tax changes dressed up as reform that will instead hit housing supply, investors and ultimately everyday Australians through higher rents and reduced economic investment. We see new and additional spending measures that fail basic value-for-money tests. Senate estimates has already shown that the government's fuel supply tsar is earning $2,750 a day, or the equivalent of a million dollars a year. On top of this, the simultaneous expansion of the Public Service, the funding of bargaining processes and the presentation of a budget that does not accommodate expected cost increases are reinforcing concern about Labor's broader fiscal approach. Overall, expenditure from this government has skyrocketed, with no respite in sight.

There is no doubt that, because Labor can't manage its money, it's coming after yours. My question to the minister is: Where is the accountability? Or is your government one that's all care and no responsibility? (Time expired)

The member for Barker talks about this budget having an ideological objective, and he's absolutely right. It has an ideological objective, and that objective is to get young people into homes. That objective is to make sure that families have a roof over their heads. That objective is to make sure that the next generation has the opportunity to open a door that they call their own.

Given that we're talking about consideration in detail in relation to the Finance portfolio, I thought it would be prudent to start with some numbers: 2,800 is the number of dollars that someone on the average income will get back in a tax cut from this government; 75,000 is the number of Australians who will be supported into their very first home because of this budget; $3.5 billion is the amount of new business-tax relief; 137 is the number of urgent care clinics being opened to make sure that health care in this country is more affordable and closer to home; and the last number, half a trillion dollars, is the hole that this opposition will make in the budget—from their irresponsible, unfunded approach to budgeting. Those numbers paint a really clear picture. Those numbers paint a stark contrast between a government that is investing in the things that matter to everyday people—housing, the cost of living, tax cuts—and an opposition incapable of doing that.

When the Treasurer handed down the budget last month, he identified five main focus areas for action. To begin with, this is a budget that helps Australia navigate global shocks, including ups and downs in energy prices, and we've already seen the policies of this government come to fruition with the first steps in reducing energy prices. Secondly, it focuses on taking some of the pressure off households where we can, with targeted support to help people manage the cost of living and to try and get everyday people into their very first home. Next, it works to make the economy more productive, because that's what will lift living standards over the long term. It follows up with necessary tax system reform that supports workers, that supports businesses, that supports young Australians and that delivers tax relief to every Australian taxpayer. Finally, it aims to put the nation's finances on a stronger footing, helping to ease the pressure on inflation.

We are putting more money back into the pockets of Australians with another tax cut for every taxpayer, and, this week, we will finally find out if a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer is something that those opposite support or whether they will double down, wind up again and again vote against a tax cut for every single taxpayer. Making sure that everyone gets a tax cut is part of the architecture of what this Albanese Labor government is doing in this budget. We know what the other side wants when it comes to the deliberate design of their policy architecture. What they want is for working people's wages to go lower. While this Labor government is investing in a tax cut for everyone, while this Labor government is investing in health care and while this Labor government is working towards a pay rise—of up to $12,000 now, by the way—for our lowest-paid Australians, those opposite want to vote against a tax cut yet again.

This government is committed to a fairer tax system, because when nurses, teachers, sparkies, aged-care workers, early childcare and education workers, coppers and boilermakers are paying higher taxes than those people who are earning from assets, that's a problem, and this is a government that will fix that problem through this budget. This budget reflects the view that the strength of the economy must be measured not just in headline figures but in the everyday experience of Australians at the checkout, in energy bills, at the pharmacy and at the pump.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

This budget is focused on helping Australians find secure work, stay in work and build better futures. Labor has always been the party of the worker and we fight hard to deliver fair wages and conditions. We've delivered pay rises to almost 2.7 million of our lowest-paid workers, with yesterday's decision by the Fair Work Commission bringing the minimum wage above $1,000 a week for the very first time. This means that these workers are now more than $12,000 better off every year, thanks to Labor. We've backed pay rises for aged-care and early childhood workers, and our same job, same pay reforms have benefited more than 8,000 people. We've enshrined penalty rates into law and we've ensured more Australian workers are now covered by an award.

When it comes to skills, we've seen nearly 300,000 students enrol in free TAFE courses in New South Wales alone, putting them on the path to jobs in nursing, aged care, early childhood, construction and more, and saving them thousands of dollars. Our Key Apprenticeship Program is delivering the tradies that we need now in housing, construction and energy by supporting apprentices with $10,000 incentive payments and supporting their employers with $5,000. As of 30 April this year, nearly 26,000 people have started housing construction apprenticeships, and more than 24,000 have started new energy apprenticeships. The National Centre for Vocational Education Research's recent report shows that 95 per cent of people who complete trade apprenticeships will move into work in these sectors. We know it works and we're focusing on the industries we need the most.

In my electorate, we've delivered the $2.5 million renewable energy training centre at Wollongong TAFE, bringing renewable energy, education and career engagement programs directly to local students. This is a collaboration with the University of Wollongong through the Energy Futures Skills Centre, another amazing centre that we have invested $10 million in to create the clean energy workforce of the future. The $47 million Illawarra Heavy Industry Manufacturing Centre of Excellence has been jointly funded by the Australian and New South Wales governments. Again located at Wollongong TAFE, this centre will target training in traditional and renewable heavy industry manufacturing for the defence and transport sectors. It will also equip students to work in digital, electrical and robotic manufacturing and deliver microskills and microcredentials to upskill our current workers.

Our 2026-27 budget continues to deliver that strong backing to employment and workplace relations. We're working to strengthen our employment services system through once-in-a-generation reforms by overhauling Workforce Australia's 'one size fits all' approach, put in place under the former government, and this is very welcome news in the regions. We're so very lucky in the Illawarra to have an experienced and passionate employment sector that is really working hard to support local people into meaningful work and delivering great outcomes.

The Illawarra South Coast Local Jobs and Skills Taskforce, led by local jobs coordinator Andrew Wales, comprises industry leaders, businesses and community representatives who are regularly looking at ways we can better support both businesses and workers, because it's not just workers who are losing out under this system; it's also the businesses, who aren't being linked with the right with workers and with the right skills. Instead, they are being flooded with thousands of applications from jobseekers that they simply cannot assess. Andrew's local jobs program has a range of amazing initiatives to create opportunities for both workers and employers.

MTC FutureReady is another local employment service in Wollongong delivering free courses funded by the Australian government to give jobseekers the skills they need to find and retain work. MTC also works with employers to hire, upskill and retain staff, and local participants have told me that their lives have been changed by this program.

But the reality is that our employment services are overworked and undersupported by a system that is not set up to support the long-term unemployed or people with complex needs. Around one in five Workforce Australia participants, or about 140,000 people, have been in the system for five years or more, and they are being let down by the 'one size fits all' approach, so we are investing $312.1 million to replace this with three new tailored service streams: a digital stream, a provider-led support stream and an intensive services stream.

I want to use my time today to speak up for the people who rarely get a seat at the table when we're talking about employment and industrial relations policy, and that is Australia's small-business owners. Before entering this place I ran a small business, I sat on the board of the committee for Mornington Peninsula, and I worked as an industrial relations lawyer. I know what it's like to try and do the right thing by your people and to feel completely overwhelmed by the sheer volume of workplace law that you're expected to master just to keep the doors open.

The employment and industrial relations framework that governs small business in this country has become extraordinarily complex. We have the Fair Work Act, over 100 modern awards, enterprise agreements, the National Employment Standards, the right-to-disconnect obligations that now apply to small business and, from 1 July this year, payday superannuation requiring employers to pay super with every single wage payment, not quarterly as they have done in the past. Every one of those changes, taken alone, might sound reasonable, but, taken together, they represent an almost impossible compliance burden on, for example, a cafe owner in Frankston or a tradie on the peninsula or a family running a small construction firm.

The Fair Work Commission itself told us in February that lodgements of workplace claims have increased by 40 per cent over the previous three-year average. And what did the government do in the budget? It allocated $1.3 million to give small businesses specialised support to navigate the commission. Rather than fix the complexity, they're just helping small help desks to manage it.

And the pressure doesn't stop there. Yesterday, the Fair Work Commission handed down its annual wage review decision—a 4.75 per cent increase to modern award minimum wages, effective on 1 July. That's on top of payday super, on top of the right to disconnect and on top of a minimum wage that was already lifted by 3.5 per cent last year. Now, I want to be clear: no-one on this side of the chamber opposes workers being paid fairly. But the cumulative impact of these changes landing all at once on 1 July on small-business payrolls is substantial, and the government has provided almost no transition support or simplification measures to help small employers absorb them. Is it any wonder that last year 370,000 small businesses exited the market?

This morning, we've also found out that the government is also pursuing legislation that would allow the Commonwealth to preference employers covered by an enterprise agreement when awarding government contracts. On the face of it, this might appear to be inoffensive. In practice, it is deeply concerning for all small businesses. The overwhelming majority of small businesses in this country operate under modern awards, not enterprise agreements. They do not have the workforce size, the army of HR advisers or the legal resources to negotiate and administer an enterprise agreement. Legislating to preference their larger, better resourced competitors in government procurement purely on the basis of industrial relations structure is not productivity policy. It is using the Commonwealth's purchasing power to tilt the playing field against small business and to force them into multi-employer agreements, as they have already done in early childhood.

I also want to address the CFMEU. Geoffrey Watson SC, the union's own court-appointed corruption investigator, has estimated that criminal infiltration of Victoria's Big Build cost taxpayers $15 billion. The Allen government disputes that figure, but is there any figure that would or could be acceptable to taxpayers? The Suburban Rail Loop, which Senate estimates has revealed already had 16 instances of alleged wrongdoing that the government was aware of, has received another $3.8 billion from this government in this budget. Given that the government continues to reward bad behaviour, it's no surprise that the tactics that triggered the CFMEU's administration in the first place haven't stopped. At Snowy Hydro 2.0, a project that's gone from $2 billion to a potential $42 billion, officials lodged over 500 worksite entry requests in a single year, including 84 in one day. This is not accountability.

I have some questions for the minister about her budget, should she deign to join us today. With Fair Work claims up 40 per cent and AI making lodgement cheaper for claimants—but defence is not cheaper for small employers—the budget's response was $1.3 million for a help desk. Can the minister name one structural reform to reduce that burden? The government's procurement legislation would allow the Commonwealth to preference employers. Most small businesses operate under awards. Can the minister explain why a small-business owner who can't afford to negotiate an enterprise agreement should be locked out of government contracts? The government's criminal wage theft laws took effect in January. Small-business owners who make a payroll error— (Time expired)

At the core of every decision of the Albanese Labor government is the principle of 'no-one held back, no-one left behind'. The 2026-27 budget builds on the already steadfast progress in creating a better working future for Australians, where indeed no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. The Australian Labor Party is the party that was built by and for workers. On this side of the House we believe that Australians should have secure work, earn a fair wage, enjoy protections from unjust actions and have agency over their working lives. We're taking action to make the lives of working people better, and the results are pretty astounding.

Since coming to office, more than 1.2 million jobs have been created, with unemployment remaining low by historical standards. In fact, this government has presided over the lowest average unemployment era of any government in the past 50 years. At the same time, we are delivering real improvements to wages and workplace rights. Since we came to government, in May 2022, the national minimum wage has increased by more than $10,250 a year, with yesterday's Fair Work Commission decision delivering the fifth consecutive increase. This makes a tangible difference to workers across Australia, including families in my electorate of Chisholm. I will never forget, in 2022, standing beside the then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, when he was asked whether he supported a wage increase for the lowest paid workers in Australia and he said 'absolutely'. We've enshrined penalty rates into law. We've delivered same-job same-pay reforms that have already benefited more than 8,000 Australian workers, and we're also continuing the work of closing the gender pay gap, which now stands at a record low of 11.5 per cent. There's clearly more to do, though.

We understand that a stronger, more resilient economy depends on stronger wages, stronger rights and stronger opportunities for all working people. We also recognise that having a job is only part of the story. We also need employment services and a system that works for people who are looking for work. For too long, the one-size-fits-all model has failed Australians who need tailored support to find and keep work. Our government is delivering a once-in-a-generation reform to employment services, with more than $312 million of investment. We're creating a new digital service, with personalised tools, training and career support, and we're introducing intensive services for people facing complex barriers to employment, providing more support and more opportunity to move into meaningful work.

This budget is also about building the skilled workforce that Australia needs for the future. If we want to build more homes, make Australia a renewable energy superpower, strengthen manufacturing and secure this nation's future, we absolutely must invest in skills and apprenticeships right now. This is why we are continuing targeted support for apprentices and the businesses that train them. Under the Key Apprenticeship Program, apprentices and small and medium employers in priority sectors like housing and new energy can access incentives of up to $4,000. Importantly, this is already delivering results. Since July last year more than 25,900 apprentices have commenced under the housing construction stream; 24,100 apprentices have commenced training in new energy pathways. Trade apprenticeship completions have risen significantly, including increases among electricians, plumbers, carpenters and bricklayers. And, importantly, we are seeing more First Nations Australians and more women entering trades and construction pathways. This matters because we want opportunity and aspiration to be available to every Australian. We're backing apprentices and we're rebuilding skills, but, unfortunately, those opposite can't decide whether supporting apprentices is valued. We are entrenching free TAFE, whilst those opposite offer the view that if you don't pay for something you don't value it, which is really quite shameful.

This budget also recognises the incredible contributions skilled migrants make to our country. Unfortunately, they often face unnecessary barriers preventing them from working in professions and trades they are trained for, so we're improving those skills recognition pathways, modernising assessment systems and helping migrants move into jobs that match their capabilities sooner. There's lots more that I could say about this part of the budget, because our government is absolutely committed— (Time expired)

This is one of the rare opportunities for the opposition to put questions to the relevant minister in relation to the appropriations for the employment and workplace relations portfolio. I am going to start my contribution with a number of questions.

In relation to this government's same-day super program, noting that small businesses are at the heart of our economy and often operate with similar payroll systems, in the case of a late or mistaken superannuation payment, I would like to know what modelling has been undertaken to indicate the economic impact of penalties imposed on businesses, particularly those which are currently cash poor.

There has been a lot of conversation about the CFMEU and its administration, so I have a question for the relevant minister. If the CFMEU were significantly reformed or deregistered, how much would Australian taxpayers save in debloated construction costs, especially within the context of a housing crisis? And in a similar vein, the most recent federal budget indicates that the CFMEU administrator, chief of staff and deputy chief of staff earn more combined in a year than is allocated to help small businesses navigate the Fair Work system. Is this an indication of the Albanese Labor government's priorities?

We've heard a lot from those on the other side in this chamber, in the context of this debate, and there are two points that I would like to discuss in particular. One is this notion that government members purport about not leaving anybody behind. During the time that I was back in my electorate, between sitting weeks, I can honestly say that is not what people feel on the ground right now. If those members opposite looked very closely at their constituents and engaged with their small businesses I am sure that they would find the same, because people do feel very isolated and alone at the moment—and small-business owners more so than others. In fact, just this morning I had the opportunity to speak to two small-business owners in my electorate who are really frustrated about the changes that were occurring under this government, and especially the changes under the recent budget, because they know the sacrifices they've had to go through. They know the risks that they've had to assume, they know the jobs that they've created and they know what their contributions to the Australian economy are, and yet they feel penalised. And not just once or twice, but layers and layers of penalty that is imposed on them by this government's policies. There are many people in this country who are being left behind at the moment, and small-business owners are at the front of that line.

I'd also like to point out that, prior to my speech, the member opposite, the member for Chisholm, was raving about unemployment figures under this government. And whilst we'd always welcome people to be in jobs, let's actually call it out for what it is. We are seeing that four out of five jobs are being created in the public sector, not in the private sector. When we're talking about those new jobs and we're talking about unemployment rates we need to be upfront and honest with the Australian people. These are not jobs that are being created as a result of the government supporting a private sector that is thriving, enriched and engaged. These are jobs that are being created by government for government at the expense of the Australian taxpayer and at the expense of Australians who are doing the right thing and are running businesses, taking risks and doing all that sort of stuff. So let's call that out for what it is.

We had the minimum wage increase decision yesterday. While I respect the decision and while the coalition respects the decision it's very rich to say, 'Everything's great for small businesses, and everything's great for people who are on the minimum wage,' because what's happening is under this government's mismanagement of our economy and under their ridiculously reckless spending we're seeing all of these increases being eaten away time and time again by inflation, and that is home-grown inflation. If you compare Australia to the rest of the world—I know those opposite like to talk about what's happening in the Middle East, but this was happening well and truly before then. We've had 15 interest rate rises, 14 of which occurred prior to the Middle East conflict, so these minimum wage increases are going to mean a drop in the ocean for Australians who are doing it tough. We've got a government who has lost control of the economy and who does not know how to manage the economy and generate wealth. If you generate wealth in this country by running a small business, what does the government do? They come after you.

This budget builds on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to ensuring that every Australian can find secure work, develop valuable skills and share in the nation's prosperity. From the day we came to office, this government has understood that a strong economy and strong workplace protections go hand in hand. More than 1.2 million jobs have been created since Labor was elected. Australia has recorded the lowest average unemployment rate of any government over the past half-century. At the same time, we have worked to ensure that workers receive a fairer share of the wealth they help create. The national minimum wage has increased by more than $9,120 per year since May 2022, not including yesterday's announcement by the Fair Work Commission to increase the national minimum wage by 4.75 per cent on 1 July.

The gender pay gap has fallen to an equal record low of 11½ per cent, and more than 2.7 million Australians are now covered by enterprise agreements. These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represent real Australians earning more, enjoying greater security and having more confidence about the future. This budget continues that work. One of the most significant measures is a reform of Australia's employment services system. For too long, Workforce Australia operated under a 'one size fits all' approach. People with completely different circumstances were expected to navigate the same system and receive the same support. Whether someone was job ready, returning to work, managing a disability or facing significant personal barriers, the response was often identical. That approach simply was not delivering the outcomes Australians deserve. Despite historically low unemployment, about 140,000 participants have remained in the system for five years or more. That is a clear sign that change is needed.

This budget begins a 'once in a generation' overhaul of employment services. Instead of a rigid and impersonal model, Australians will receive support that reflects their individual circumstances. Those who are ready to work will benefit from a new digital service with personalised tools, career guidance and targeted support. Those needing additional assistance will receive provider led services focused on pathways back into employment. Australians facing complex barriers will receive intensive support with greater flexibility and more tailored assistance, because finding work is not always straightforward, and each path to employment is unique. Importantly, the government is backing these reforms with significant investment. More than $312 million has been committed through this budget to establish new digital services, strengthen assessments, expand intensive support programs and improve customer service. These investments will help more Australians move into secure employment and stay there.

The budget also recognises that a strong labour market depends on a strong skills pipeline. Australia's future will be built by skilled workers in housing, renewable energy and defence, which all require a highly skilled workforce. That is why the government continues to back apprentices and trainees. The reforms announced in this budget ensure that support is targeted where it makes the greatest difference. Small- and medium-sized businesses will continue to receive assistance to take on apprentices. Apprentices themselves will receive direct support to help them complete their training and build successful careers. These policies are already delivering results. More than 25,000 apprentices have commenced under the housing construction stream of the Key Apprenticeship Program. Trade apprenticeship completions have increased significantly. Construction trades are seeing stronger participation, and more women and First Nations Australians are entering occupations that have traditionally been underrepresented.

The budget also recognises that many skilled migrants arrive in Australia with valuable qualifications, practical experience and a desire to contribute. However, complex recognition processes have prevented people from fully utilising those skills. This government is acting to address that problem. By improving skills recognition pathways, strengthening oversight and modernising systems, we are helping skilled migrants move into jobs that match their experience sooner. Alongside these employment and skills reforms, the government continues to strengthen workplace protections. We have delivered same job, same pay reforms that are benefiting thousands of workers, and we believe that opportunities should be available to every Australian regardless of their background or circumstance.

This budget helps Australians find work. It helps them gain skills, earn fair wages and build secure futures. In doing so, it strengthens not only our labour market but our entire nation. I commend the government for these reforms and for its continued commitment to creating a better working future for all Australians.

The government calls this the most ambitious and important budget in decades, but there is nothing ambitious about a budget that cuts the support we use to train the very workers we need to build this country. This budget confirms that, from January next year, the Key Apprenticeship Program incentive pay to employers will be cut from $5,000 to $4,000. That is a 20 per cent cut, and it falls on the exact trades the government says matter most: clean energy and housing construction. We are in the middle of a housing crisis—if we don't already know it. The government has promised 1.2 million new homes by 2029, and they're already not meeting that number. The government's decided to walk away from training apprentices and make it harder for employers to take one on.

The peak body for the home building industry, the Housing Industry Association, said it plainly. It welcomed parts of the budget but warned that cutting this incentive risks discouraging employers from taking on apprentices, especially the firms already training young people at scale. As the HIA put it, this budget is one hand giving while the other hand takes away. Builders and traders have told us for years that they cannot find enough skilled workers and, when they do, they struggle to keep them. Apprentices start but do not finish. Projects are delayed because the people are not there. Cutting support now does not fix that; it makes it worse.

This is not abstract in my electorate of Fowler. On the last census, more than a third of employed people—over 21,000 workers—were in machinery operating, labouring and trades occupations. That is 37 per cent of our workforce against around 26 per cent across New South Wales and 28 per cent across Australia. Here is what makes this cut bite even harder in my community. Far fewer of our young people go to university. For so many families in my electorate, a trade is not a backup plan; it is the plan. It is the pathway into secure work and a good life, so, when this government cuts apprenticeship support, it is pulling the ladder up on the very community that relies on it most.

I saw the hunger for myself last month after the Fowler Future Fest, our careers expo. The Housing Industry Association stall was one of the busiest, crowded with young people who want a trade. They want to earn while they learn and build a real career. Those young people are exactly who this cut lets down. Let me make a broader point: apprenticeship support is not a handout. It is how a small or family business builds its own future by training the next generation in the skills it needs to grow. When we back a small business to take on an apprentice, we are building skills and capability in our young people. That is not a cost to the country; it's an investment in it.

This is not about construction only. For example, take hospitality, an industry that turns over around $66 billion a year and employs close to a million Australians. It has the youngest workforce in the country. From January this year, the support for apprentices and trainees in hospitality was cut in half, from about $5,000 to a maximum of $2½ thousand. So the cafe, the restaurant and the family kitchen that gives a young person their very first job now gets half the help to train them. In the middle of a skills shortage, how does that make any sense at all? There are no apprentices without an employer being willing and able to sign the training contract and to carry the risk. Most employers in my community are small- and family businesses carrying every new cost and every new rule themselves. The budget makes the risk heavier, not lighter, at the very moment the pipeline is already fragile.

The contradiction sits at the heart of this budget. You cannot build 1.2 million homes without the workers to build them. As the Housing Industry Association puts it:

Business as usual will not deliver the trades numbers Australia needs.

Yet this budget cuts the one incentive designed to bring those workers in. So my questions to the minister are these: how does cutting apprenticeship support help employers in communities like mine take on and keep apprentices; why would any government that says housing is top priority make it harder, not easier, to train people who will build the homes; and what will this government do to back the small- and family businesses who give our young people their start instead of giving them every reason to pull back?

Dignity through employment is an important belief of our government. We want a future for Australia where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. More than 1.2 million jobs have been created since the Albanese Labor government came to office. We are closing the gender pay gap, which stands at a record low of 11.5 per cent. Our same job, same pay reforms have benefited more than 8,000 workers, including workers in Tangney, one who told me how she is benefiting with a pay rise of several thousand dollars a year.

In this year's budget, we are working to strengthen employment services with important reforms to the employment services system. Despite historically low employment, around one in five Workforce Australia participants have been in the system for five years or longer. This is a higher proportion than a decade ago. Currently, employment services treat everyone the same regardless of their differences in skills or experience or the barriers they face. This new proposed reform changes this approach by introducing three service streams and offering (1) digital services with individualistic resources and brief interventions, (2) high-quality, targeted, provider led support for those who need to build skills and confidence and (3) intensive services for people facing complex barriers.

The reforms are backed by a $312 million investment in the recent budget, including more than $205 million to build the digital new digital service and more than $52 million to test and refine the intensive service in the early, targeted rollout. This reform requires significant design detail underneath the overarching framework. I look forward to working in my community on these reforms and ensuring my electorate has the opportunity to contribute to a better working future for Australians where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind.

I recently had the opportunity to meet with Training Alliance Group, an employment services community program and vocational training provider who is active in my electorate of Tangney. They shared with me the work that they do in my electorate, including having supported 227 Tangney residents across government funded programs in employment services, disability employment, parenting pathways and accredited vocational training. I want to acknowledge their work in my electorate. I will value their input into these reforms.

Tangney is home to many migrants. I have heard firsthand from many constituents, who have shared with me their frustration, about the barriers they face when trying to have their qualifications and experiences recognised in Australia. They wish to find work that reflects their skills and expertise so they can build a better life for their family and contribute further to our community. But, unfortunately, this barrier in the system can be difficult and frustrating to navigate and can lead to skilled migrants not being able to work in their field of skills, knowledge and expertise.

Our government is working to improve and speed up skills recognition because we recognise that many migrants already have the qualifications and professional experiences that can help us in a variety of ways, from building homes to supporting essential services. We are working to expand trade skill recognition pathways, strengthen oversight of skill assessment processes and modernise ICT systems so we can unlock their potential sooner. The Albanese Labor government is focusing on backing Australians to get the skills they want for the jobs we need for our country.

I rise today on behalf of the engine room of our economy: our small businesses. In particular, I'm standing up for the small businesses in regional South Australia. Under this Labor government we're witnessing a complete disconnect between the Treasury benches and the daily reality faced by mum-and-dad enterprises. Labor has comprehensively lost touch. They govern for big unions and big city projects, while leaving regional South Australian businesses out in the cold.

In the budget released last month, only two per cent of the infrastructure pipeline was for regional Australia. Look no further than the impending payday super changes that will roll out on 1 July. This government attempts to frame this as a simple administrative update. But, for a hospitality venue in Clare or a local manufacturer in Wudinna, it is a sudden, brutal drain on their cash flow. Superannuation is not the issue here. We all know it's critical to our workforce system and a vital payment that all employees are entitled to. This is not the debate. But, under this scheme, money will now leave businesses much sooner, fundamentally altering their working capital at a time when they are already being battered by high inflation, record energy costs and a raft of burdensome industrial relations changes.

What specific support measures has the government offered to help these cash-poor businesses adjust? There are absolutely none. Instead, they are forcing small operators, whose simple payroll systems were, previously, completely, perfectly adequate, to undertake expensive updates. And what happens when a local butcher or a publican makes an honest mistake or a late payment simply because they don't have the cash in the till? They'll be slapped with penalties.

If you want to see the government's true priorities, you need to look at the budget papers. The government allocated a petty $1.3 million to the Fair Work Commission to help small businesses navigate an increasingly complex and hostile dispute resolution system. Yet, in the same breath, they allocated $5.3 million to the CFMEU. That's $5.3 million of taxpayer money to continue propping up the administration of the CFMEU. Small businesses are the self-starters of our nation. They work weekends. They work nights. They sacrifice holidays and do everything to put themselves in a position to get ahead.

I see this in my own electorate of Grey. Let me tell you about Alby Pierson. Alby is a small-business owner. He runs Roadys Towing and Recovery in Moonta. For businesses like his, Labor's budget and their inability to manage inflation and the fuel crisis have delivered doubt and uncertainty. He has told my office about the impacts of fuel prices and Labor's taxes on him and his family. He is unable to plan for future jobs. He is unable to plan for the future of his business. He said:

Previously, I was paying $6,000 per month on fuel. Last month, it was $12,000 and I was down 800 litres. It is quite stressful.

He also told me:

I work hard 24/7, recently I went out to the Nullarbor and spent 4 days away from my family. While I was out there all I could think about was how half of the money from this will go to Albo.

He went on to say:

We are digging into our savings. That can only go so far. Insurance is going up, rego is going up, even my mobile phone bills are going up.

His conclusion is one that many business owners share today:

You can't forecast, you can't plan ahead, and you can't get ahead.

This is the reality for people on the ground. Now we want them to adhere to a new superannuation system—talk about totally out of touch.

The rules of the economy are rigged against the self-starters. The compliance burden of industrial relations law, tax law and regulatory law falls on small businesses with the same weight as it does on big businesses. But small businesses do not have the HR departments, the legal teams or the lobbyists. Labor can't manage money, so they're coming after yours.

I want to thank all members for their contribution as we consider in detail the important work the government is doing in employment and workplace relations. More jobs, higher wages, lower income taxes—that's what Labor governments deliver and that's what this Labor government is delivering. I'll note that those opposite oppose those higher wages, and they oppose those lower income taxes.

We are proud of our contribution in supporting the labour market in Australia. There have been 1.2 million jobs created since the election of the Albanese Labor government. That means 1.2 million more opportunities for people to enjoy the benefits of work in this great country, Australia. In the time since the last election, we've seen some 128,000 Australians enter into the workforce. That accompanies the work that we've done to back increases in the minimum wage. We saw that great news yesterday about a six per cent increase in the minimum wage and a 4.75 per cent increase in award wages. On this side, we welcome that progress. I want to note that, when you look at it, since we've come to office those on the minimum wage have seen a 30 per cent increase in their wages. That's $12,079 more that a minimum-wage worker is taking home for a 38-hour week.

It builds on the work that we've done when it comes to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act, making sure that workers can earn more and keep more of what they earn, and the work we're doing when it comes to those who need more support in our labour market, including the work when it comes to the program we call Parent Pathways—supporting parents back into the workforce and staying engaged in the workforce and close to the labour market so that when their kids are a little bit older they've got the supports that they need.

I'm also pleased to report that, as this budget supports, the gender pay gap in Australia is at historic lows. On top of that, this government has expanded paid parental leave and included superannuation on paid parental leave. I want to thank a range of members who did the work when it came to supporting parents who face one of the most unimaginable tragedies of losing a child or having a stillbirth. The work that this parliament did last year when it came to the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025, which passed in the parliament on 3 November 2025, means that there is protection for those entitlements for parents at a time of unimaginable grief. I want to thank all members who supported the passage of that through the parliament.

We've also seen legislation pass through the parliament to protect penalty rates in law, benefiting some 2.6 million Australian employees, 59.8 per cent of whom are women. On top of that, we've got our $30 billion National Skills Agreement, free TAFE and programs to help people start their own small businesses through self-employment assistance. Now we embark on the important work of employment services reform. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations announced this at the National Press Club last week, acknowledging it's major and complex reform. We've put the money in this budget—$312 million—to establish key parts of the new system: a digital service in stream 1, a highly targeted provider-led service in stream 2 and intensive services in stream 3, for those furthest from the labour market.

I encourage all Australians to engage in the consultations that are happening across the country and to go onto the department's website and have their say to make sure that we can have an employment services system that serves the Australian people. I commend the portfolio budget to the chamber.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Australia is home to world-class farmers, and one of the reasons our 85,000 farmers are world class is that they know how to manage risk. They can manage the risk of seasonal conditions. They can manage the risk of commodity prices. More recently, they've had to manage the risk around fuel and fertiliser prices, related to the war in Iran. But how is an Australian farming family meant to manage the risk of a prime minister who deliberately misleads them prior to the election and does something completely different only 12 months later? How is a farming family meant to manage the risk of having a prime minister promising no changes to capital gains tax, no changes to trust arrangements and no changes to negative gearing and then, 12 months later, changing his mind? How are farming families meant to manage that risk?

This is precisely the wrong time for the government to be making it harder for our farming families. Just yesterday ABARES released a forecast that indicates quite a concerning picture for Australian agriculture. Production is forecast to decline. Export earnings are forecast to decline. Winter crop production is forecast to fall significantly from recent highs. Most concerningly, the average broadacre farm business profits are forecast to fall dramatically in 2026-27. These are tough times for a lot of our farming families, and this prime minister has just made it tougher. At precisely the moment when farm profitability is falling and under pressure, there is little—if not nothing—in this budget that directly addresses declining farm incomes. If the government's own forecasters are warning about tougher conditions ahead, you'd expect a positive budget response. Instead, like always, the answer from the Labor Party is more punitive tax measures.

The complex issue that we need to deal with here—

Rubbish!

I hear the minister interjecting, saying 'rubbish'. She'll get her chance.

Family farming businesses rely on long-term investment decisions and succession planning. Succession planning is one of the most difficult aspects for our farming families across the nation as they try to make sure the next generation has a future on the land. The government's tax changes have generated significant concern across the agricultural sector, and no amount of bluster and bulldust from the government can take away from the fact that the peak farming organisations are raising concerns with this government about the broken promises contained in the budget.

The concern is that these changes create additional barriers to intergenerational farm succession. The National Farmers' Federation chief executive, Mike Guerin, said:

If you impose CGT on that transfer you make farm succession impossible.

…   …   …

The current threshold is $2m in turnover and $6m in net assets. That was set in 2007, so it doesn't reflect the operating realities of farming businesses today.

The NFF president, Hamish McIntyre, said:

… the message from agriculture is clear: The last thing this country should be doing is making it harder for the next generation to stay on the land.

He also said:

We need to ensure changes to CGT don't unintentionally compromise the future of Australian farmers

The Victorian Farmers Federation acting president, Peter Star, said:

A farming family … simply cannot absorb the kind of CGT liabilities now arising when transferring a farm to the next generation.

That is the feedback not from the Liberal Party and not from the National Party but from the peak farming bodies. They're concerns being expressed about how farming families are meant to manage this broken prime minister—sorry, this broken promise; he's a broken prime minister as well. This is a broken promise from a prime minister who promised no changes to capital gains tax.

My questions to the minister today are: Will the minister stand up today and guarantee that Australian farming families won't be worse off as a result of the changes her government has made in the capital gains tax arrangements in the budget? Why did the government announce significant capital gains tax and trust taxation changes affecting family farms without first consulting your own department or Australia's farming sector? At a time when invasive pests and weeds are costing Australian agriculture billions of dollars each year, why did your government cut the established pest animals and weeds program without putting a replacement program in place? After four years in government, can you explain why regional communities were promised stronger support for agriculture, yet this budget contains cuts to drought preparedness, cuts to pest management, no funding to implement the national food security strategy, fewer industry support programs and no meaningful response to falling farm incomes?

With a world in flux, there has never been a time of more critical importance when it comes to food and fertiliser security for every Australian family, regional community, farmer, producer and food manufacturer across our country. We know we have the best farmers in the world. Food and fertiliser security is an issue I have worked on extensively as Chair of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture and now as Chair of the Primary Industries Committee. The parliamentary work and the inquiry that we did led to a landmark report on food security. It was a prescient report. That inquiry brought together farmers, producers, transport operators, retailers, food charities, academics and industry leaders from right across Australia. We heard a clear message: Australia has a strong food system, but we cannot take it for granted.

The committee found that food security is about much more than what happens at the checkout. It relies on a resilient supply chain, access to essential inputs, strong biosecurity, protective farmland practices and a skilled workforce. Most importantly, it means ensuring all Australians have access to safe, nutritious and affordable food, and that is the work of a government. That work highlighted the growing challenges though from climate impacts and natural disasters to workforce challenges, supply chain disruptions and increasing geopolitical uncertainty. That is why I'm so proud that the Albanese Labor government—under Julie Collins, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—committed to developing Feeding Australia: A National Food Security Strategy.

This strategy builds on the work of the parliament and reflects the recommendations and evidence gathered through the inquiry. More than 400 individuals and organisations have contributed to the process so far, a national food council has been established, and co-design sessions have been held right across the country. This is progress on food security. Our farmers, fishers, processors and transport operators produce world-class food and fibre that feeds Australians and, importantly, millions around the globe. Farm gate production is forecast to exceed $100 billion this financial year. That's four years ahead of the target set out by the National Farmers' Federation. Strong export opportunities are helping drive this growth, but we cannot afford to be complacent. Food security requires planning, coordination and long-term vision. It requires government to work alongside industry, communities and producers to strengthen the systems we all rely upon, and that's exactly what this government is doing.

At the same time, we know our ag sector is facing immediate challenges. The conflict in the Middle East has created uncertainty for farmers, fishers, freight operators and regional communities right across Australia, particularly across access to fuel and fertiliser, and our government is acting swiftly on this. From day one, we've worked closely with industry to monitor impacts and keep Australia's food, fibre and fuel moving. We have announced that we'll underwrite the purchase of fuel and fertiliser by the private sector, giving suppliers confidence to secure additional supply and meet demand, including for regional and independent fuel suppliers. We've released fuel stockholdings to ease regional supply pressures, temporarily amended the fuel quality standard to unlock additional supply and worked with regional partners to identify alternative sources of key agricultural imports. Importantly, support through Export Finance Australia has facilitated six cargoes, carrying more than 209,000 tonnes of additional agricultural-grade urea into Australia, with more expected. This is important. The fertiliser working group continues to meet regularly with industry representatives to monitor supply, access demand and identify practical solutions. We're working closely with Fertilizer Australia, the National Farmers' Federation and suppliers to ensure Australian farmers have access to the fertiliser inputs they need because when farmers have certainty, regional communities have certainty.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to a strong, sustainable and profitable agricultural sector, and, since coming to government, we have strengthened biosecurity, we have boosted the workforce, we've opened new trade opportunities, and we've invested in the long-term sustainability of Australian farming.

This budget and its approach to agriculture reflects a general lack of interest in agriculture from Labor. That's not to take away from some of the members who are interested in it and who do understand it, but, from the top, I've noticed since I've come to this place there's a general lack of interest in agriculture. Farmers continue to face rising input costs, labour shortages, biosecurity threats, market uncertainty, natural disasters and increasing regulatory burdens. In that environment, the budget should have delivered measures that improve productivity, competitiveness and profitability.

I do want to start by acknowledging the government's efforts on fuel security. This is a key concern of the agricultural industry, and the government has made significant efforts to go around the world looking for fuel and making sure it gets to Australia so we've got the diesel we need. What about a long-term strategy—what if what's happening in the Strait of Hormuz were to happen closer to home? Have we got a long-term strategy on using our natural resources to create our own fuel security instead of just flying to Asian refineries and saying: 'Hey, we've got some gas, can you please give us some fuel? We've run out.'

The other issue is in relation to fertiliser. I haven't seen a targeted effort in fertiliser in the same way that there's been on fuel. There is some relief coming in fertiliser in relation to the Perdaman facility in north-west Australia. That was initiated by the previous coalition government using the NAIF, despite the fact that some members opposite might like to take credit for it. It will come online, but, at the moment, we have got some serious concerns about fertiliser availability for the coming cropping season. Forecasts are increasingly pointing to the return of El Nino conditions, bringing a heightened risk of drier weather and other agricultural regions. Having lived my whole life in regional communities, I've been through drought. It is awful. It is horrible for the farmers; it is horrible for the community. Given the fact that I'm from the Murray-Darling Basin, we have another thing called a man made drought, where the government takes away the irrigation water that's used to grow the crops. We had that foisted upon us, not by seasonal conditions necessarily but by the fact that the amount of consumptive water there was to use previously for crowing our crops has been taken away by the government. That is incredibly frustrating.

Given the fact that drought has such a powerful fact on regional communities, I want to ask the question of why the government has made the decision to cut funding from the Future Drought Fund, one of the key drought preparedness and resilience programs, brought in in 2019. There's been some drought decision-making in South Australian programs, some mixed farming strategies for drier times, some water-smart dams in WA and simplifying agtech and using that innovation to work through drought issues. All of that was funded by the Future Drought Fund. And this government has decided that it's a really good idea, given the threats that farmers and farming communities face from drought, to cut all that funding in the budget. It's incredibly short sighted, and I will ask the minister some questions about that.

In relation to taxes, family farming businesses rely on long-term investment decisions when they're succession planning and when they're making their arrangements. Often they've got a high level of assets but a low level of income. The government's tax changes have generated concern across the agricultural sector, because many farming businesses operate through trust structures. They're also concerned about the capital gains tax implications. What they've told me is that they don't need a government which is spending too much to treat them like a cash register. That's what they're doing with their higher taxes.

There have been some comments from the VFF and NSW Famers that show significant concern about the changes to the tax arrangements. I have three questions for the minister. Minister, can you point to a single new budget measure that will directly improve the profitability of Australian farmers, or was agriculture once again overlooked in Labor's budget? Secondly, Minister, with the growing concerns about the return of El Nino conditions and worsening seasonal outlooks, why did your government cut funding from the Future Drought Fund instead of strengthening support for drought preparedness and resilience? Thirdly, Minister, your government continues to talk about a national food security strategy, but where in this budget is the funding to actually deliver, implement and strengthen Australia's food security?

I rise today to support the appropriation bill for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The Albanese Labor government and Minister Julie Collins are committed to a strong and sustainable agricultural sector, one that continues to grow, back regional jobs and support communities right across Western Australia and beyond. Agriculture is the backbone of our regions. It drives our exports, underpins local economies and feeds our nation and other nations.

Since coming to government, we have been delivering for farmers and producers, strengthening biodiversity, boosting the workforce, opening new trade opportunities and supporting more sustainable farming practices. Let's be clear: Labor is the party for farmers, and we know it has been a tough period. Across WA and across the country, farmers are facing extreme weather, rising costs and ongoing uncertainty. On top of that, global instability, including the conflict in the Middle East, is putting enormous pressure on supply chains including fuel and fertiliser, and that creates real concern for farmers, fishers, freight operators and the regional communities that rely on them. That is why the government is acting, supporting these industries now, while investing in their future.

When we came to office, agriculture was worth about $88 billion. Today, it's forecast to exceed $100 billion in this financial year, four years ahead of the National Farmers' Federation 2030 target. That growth is being driven by strong trade. Since 2022, we have delivered 272 market access outcomes, opening new markets, improving export conditions and restoring lost opportunities. We have repaired relationships that were neglected for nearly a decade and secured the removal of trade barriers worth $20 billion, including restoring trade with China. We are strengthening ties with India, implementing our agreements with the UAE and expanding opportunities right across our region. For WA producers that means more markets, better prices and more certainty.

But we also know farmers cannot take advantage of these opportunities if they're under pressure at home. That is why we've taken practical steps on fuel and fertiliser supply. We are underwriting purchases to secure supply, releasing fuel stockholdings and supporting the import of critical fertiliser like urea. We are working closely with industry to ensure supply keeps flowing and that farmers have what they need to keep producing.

For WA, drought resilience is absolutely crucial. This government has invested more than $1.3 billion in rural support and drought preparedness. We are delivering the new drought resilience hubs, including in southern and northern Western Australia, connecting farmers with the latest science, technology and expertise to prepare for and respond to drought. We are also backing with real financial support, including concessional loans and drought hardship assistance, so that farmers can get access when they need it the most. At the same time in WA, we are supporting communities through the transition of the live sheep exports by sea. We understand how significant that change is to our Western Australian farmers, particularly in my electorate of Bullwinkel, and that is why we have committed almost $140 million to help producers, transport operators and regional communities plan for their future. Through this transition funding, we are supporting farmers to diversify, invest in new opportunities and strengthen their long-term viability while helping transport operators adapt and continue contributing to the regional economies.

Finally, food security remains one of the most important responsibilities of any government. Australia has a world-class food system, but we cannot take that for granted. That's why we're developing 'Feeding Australia: A National Food Security Strategy' to ensure that our food systems remain strong, resilient and prepared for future challenges. Behind all of this are the people who make our ag sector what it is: our farmers, fishers and regional communities. We know the pressures that they are under, we know the challenges they face and we're backing them, because this government will always have their back.

Last year, Western Australian farmers produced a grain crop of 27.2 million tonnes, which is a new record, breaking the previous record, which was set two years prior. That represents about a 100 per cent increase on the 10-year average, which is an extraordinary achievement by my farmers across the Western Australian Wheatbelt on the back of better sowing techniques, with the introduction of genetically modified crops, particularly canola, allowing much better weed control and much earlier sowing, completely changing the farming systems. However, they do face significant challenges in repeating that exercise this year.

On fuel and fertiliser costs, we all know that the war in the Middle East has disrupted supply chains dramatically, but the main impact is being felt not just in fuel prices. We've seen diesel fuel prices increase more dramatically than other fuel prices, but I want people, particularly the minister, to remember that the reduction in fuel excise doesn't benefit the farmers, because off-road fuel is already completely excise free. So there's been no relief from those elevated fuel prices for the farming community. More importantly, fertiliser prices have jumped dramatically. Urea is the main nitrogen input of that 27.2-million-tonne crop, and West Australia used 800,000 tonnes of urea last year. While I accept that the minister and the government have been doing some work and they made an announcement about 200,000 tonnes of urea from Indonesia, which is a positive announcement, that is not even 25 per cent of the WA crop requirement, let alone Australia-wide.

So we have got significant challenges not just for this year. I point out that the safeguard mechanism, which is part of the government's net zero policy, will force up the price of not only fuel but also fertilisers. Urea is effectively solid natural gas, and the Perdaman development up on the North West Shelf is a welcome development that, hopefully, will shore up the supply chain. They'll be selling it at export parity, so it won't make any difference to the price, but at least we'll have a supply of urea on shore. But they will be hit by the government's safeguard mechanism, and that will force the price of urea up for our farming communities not just in Western Australia but Australia-wide.

The second major component of agriculture in my electorate, of course, is livestock—most particularly sheep. The devastation that's been wrought by this government is being manifested as we speak. Minister, you may not be aware, but the sheep numbers in Western Australia have dropped from around 9 million in 2024 to 6.5 million today. That has meant the supply of animals going into the local abattoir system has dropped dramatically. Are you aware that a $3.3 million transition grant was granted to a processing facility, Beaufort River Meats, the day before they closed their doors because they couldn't get enough stock? I'd like you to address that issue.

Other major processors are down to four days and three days a week of processing because they simply can't get the numbers. We are losing the critical mass of livestock across Western Australia, and that will have ongoing implications—not just in the meat-processing sector, but amongst shearing teams. We've seen livestock transporters selling their crates and going out of business, and that impact is going to be profound and long felt in my electorate. Minister, my questions are: Farmers continue to face high fuel and fertiliser costs that are eating into already-declining farm incomes. Why did this budget fail to provide any meaningful relief for those growing cost pressures?

In terms of seasonal conditions, even in Western Australia we suffer seasonal ups and downs. El Nino does affect the west coast as well as the east coast. So with the growing concerns about the return of El Nino conditions and worsening seasonal outlooks, Minister, why did your government cut $52 million of funding from the Future Drought Fund instead of strengthening support for drought preparedness and resilience?

Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has delivered for the Australian agricultural sector by strengthening biosecurity, boosting AgForce, opening up new trade opportunities and improving farm sustainability.

We're working to diversify trade opportunities to export more of Australia's world-class cultural products than we did before. We've unlocked $20 billion worth of trade with China and delivered more market access opportunities than ever before for Australian farmers and producers. This has been a game changer in my electorate of Blair as, under the former Morrison government, China imposed import restrictions on two local meat-processing plants—JBS Dinmore in Ipswich and Kilcoy Global Foods based in Kilcoy and Coominya. Thanks to the efforts of this Albanese government, these were removed in 2024 and two red-meat processors were able to resume exports with China. This government is focused on opening doors for Australian agriculture and processing industries to grow and diversify overseas markets.

Between July 2022 and March 2026, the Albanese Labor government recorded 272 market access achievements. Australia's farm gate production value is forecast to exceed $100 billion this year—years ahead of the National Farmers Federation target. The opposition spent nearly a decade eroding and neglecting our relationships with many of our trading partners, and Australia's reputation suffered as a result. We're getting those relationships back on track and opening opportunities. My question to the minister is: how will the Albanese Labor government continue to support and secure more market access for our agriculture exporters, including red-meat processors in my electorate?

The government is backing the beef industry to ensure a stronger, sustainable profitable future for our producers and regional communities. We provided record funding for Beef Australia, including $12 million to deliver a bigger and better Beef 2027 in Rockhampton, in my home state of Queensland. This underscores our commitment to Australia's almost $16 billion beef industry, which is our most valuable agricultural exports.

Beef and veal were Australia's third-largest agricultural export commodity to Indonesia in 2025, valued at $581 million—a figure which has grown 49 per cent since we came to office. My question to the minister is: What is the government doing to support beef producers and processors in my electorate, and elsewhere, to export world-class products? How is the government assisting them to diversify their export markets to provide our farmers with the best platform for continuing growth?

The Albanese Labor government is also working with stakeholders delivering the PALM scheme, a reliable and productive source of labour for employers that is particularly beneficial and safe for workers. Under the Albanese government the PALM scheme has continued to grow, from about 8,000 workers in March 2022 to more than 32,500 this year. Now, 29,000 of those workers are across agriculture and meat processing, including at JBS Dinmore and Kilcoy Global Foods. Importantly, the number of long-term workers has increased significantly in both agriculture and meat processing.

So we're getting on with the job—strengthening PALM, investing in skills and training, and adding occupations to the Australian Apprenticeships Priority List—while working with the industry to address ongoing challenges. We're also investing $440 million, from 2022 to 2027, to expand and improve the PALM scheme. I know this is a win for Australia but also for many of our Pacific neighbours—including, for example, the Solomon Islands. We've had the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands here in the last few days. I met him at Brisbane Airport recently and raised this topic with him. The number of employers participating in the scheme is at a record high, with 130 new employers joining since the deed and the guidelines were introduced, in July 2023, bringing the total number of employers to 537 as of February 2026. How is the PALM scheme going to help our local farmers?

I also want to talk about our national food security strategy, Feeding Australia. The government has undertaken consultation and received 400 submissions. We've established the National Food Council, and we've also got a national food supply chain assessment going on. The Lockyer Valley and Somerset Water Security Scheme, in my electorate, is very important, with the capacity to deliver a 50 per cent increase in irrigation water for agriculture and horticulture. They made a submission to Feeding Australia. Minister, my question is: can the government update the House on the progress of the National Food Security Strategy?

Finally, I also want to know where we're going on fertiliser and fuel security for our farmers, our producers and our fishers.

There's a range of things I believe need to be addressed in this. We've just had a 0.6 per cent fall in productivity in Australia, and agriculture has a major part to play if we want to turn that around. That fall was premised before any effects of the Iran crisis came through, so I imagine right now it's worse. I want to know what the current focus of the government is to develop agriculture—where that focus lies and how you're intending to bring it ahead.

I want to know what your current plan is for infrastructure, especially vital infrastructure such as dams. Where do you intend to build them? Do you intend to build any If not, what is your plan for the growing requirements for food security, which is indelibly linked to water security? I want to know how you've been working with industry on a water basis. In certain areas, like the protein hub, which is Tamworth, our biggest issue now is getting hold of water to underpin producers such as Baiada. Their kill rate will be going up to seven million chickens a week. They cannot possibly do it—they cannot employ the 1,400 people who will work there—unless they have access to water. They want to know what the answer is and, to be quite frank, so do I.

I want to know about an issue that is especially pertinent to the cattle industry of Central Queensland, which my colleague the member for Wright would understand. We currently have an incursion of fire ants. If the fire ants get out of the Brisbane area and into Central Queensland—

A government member interjecting—

I don't know what's so funny about this. This could lead to a beef productivity reduction of up to 40 per cent, as has been found in Texas in the United States. I want to know what your plan is for that. How do you believe that is progressing, and what do you intend to do about it? If you intend to do nothing, I intend to put it on Facebook and let everybody know.

I also want to know what you are doing to try to drive the skill sets in agriculture in a decentralised form. Do you have a plan for decentralisation? Do you have any form of plan to take the resources into the areas where people are?

For Western Australia, I want to know what your plan is, as has been brought up by the member for O'Connor, with regard to the massive hole that's been left from the loss of the live sheep trade. Do we just remove it and expect something to organically grow there, or have you now gone out and said, 'This is our plan to promote another industry to take its place, to utilise the transport industry, the labour force that will obviously be looking for further work—such as in the shearing industry, where the AWU started from—and also the export dollars'?

I'd like the minister to comment on exactly where she sees food security in Australia. We couldn't believe this, but, more and more, we are seeing a slip in Australia's capacity and food security. It was most pronounced during what I think they call the tinderbox drought, when we had to import about 60 per cent of our dairy product because we didn't have the capacity to deliver it ourselves anymore. In areas where this was so prominent, such as parts of Queensland and New South Wales, we no longer have a dairy industry. Is this going to be the way of the future—that we'll be importing dairy product from New Zealand—or do you have a plan as to how we'll once more reinvigorate the dairy industry so as to get that vital part of our agricultural infrastructure underpinned not only for the country but also for the city?

Finally, in the marketing of products, how do you believe we are going in dealing with the major supermarkets? Do you feel that the competitive pressure is there and the honesty and transparency in trade are apparent? Do you believe farmers are getting a fair deal? Do you think that there is an unreasonable centralisation in our retail capacity?

In the great state of Tasmania and more specifically in the mighty electorate of Braddon, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who does not have some connection to agriculture and primary production. The north-west of Tasmania is the food bowl of our state. Our temperate climate, reliable rainfall and rich red volcanic soils support a huge variety of premium crops and livestock. The region is renowned for its potatoes, onions, carrots and brassicas grown for both domestic and international markets. While we're on the topic of carrots, Braddon is home to the Carrot Festival, hosted by the marvellous team at Harvest Moon in the Forth Valley. Harvest Moon is a proudly Tasmanian success story, growing premium vegetables for more than 40 years. If you've enjoyed a packet of snack sized carrots recently, there's a good chance that they came from Harvest Moon.

The electorate is also known for premium fruits such as apples, cherries and berries. Tasmania's fruit and berry industry generates around $400 million in farm-gate value and employs more than 10,000 seasonal workers. Braddon is also leading the way in high-value crops, including poppies for pharmaceutical use, pyrethrum daisies for insecticide production and lavender for oils, teas and honey. We also produce truffles, wasabi, oysters, saffron and avocados, all of which pair beautifully with the famous Cape Grim and King Island beef grown in the electorate.

Agriculture is a major employer in Tasmania, supporting well-paid jobs and our local communities. Beyond the farm gate, it creates hundreds of jobs in processing, manufacturing and transport. I know this firsthand because, before entering this place, I spent 11 years working at the Edgell Birds Eye factory, now Simplot, starting on the potato production line. That is why it is so important that governments continue to support the sector.

The Albanese Labor government is backing agriculture and primary production in a range of ways, including through our strong biosecurity system. We are managing the threats that are posed by pests and disease that could impact our industry's environment, plants, animals and communities. Thanks to our investment in biosecurity, Australia remains one of the few countries free from many of the world's most damaging invasive pests and diseases. Our biosecurity system protects agricultural, forestry and fisheries exports worth more than $51 billion while supporting jobs and safeguarding our natural environment. We apply these protections offshore, at the border and onshore.

The government is also investing in research, innovation and resilience. The Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture demonstration farm in my electorate is a fantastic example of collaboration between researchers and producers. Last year, the Climate-Smart Agriculture Program supported workshops and field trials focused on improving soil health and sustainability. We're also helping farmers prepare for the future challenges through the Future Drought Fund. In 2025, grants were awarded to restore dams across Tasmania, helping to strengthen water security and drought resilience.

At the same time, we're rebuilding international relationships and strengthening trade partnerships to create new opportunities for Australian producers. We have seen trade barriers removed and new market access opportunities open for a wide range of agricultural products. However, we know that market access alone is not enough. We can open as many export markets as we like, but if we do not have the workforce to harvest, process and pack our produce those opportunities cannot be realised. That is why the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme has been so important for our region.

The north-west has embraced workers from the Pacific nations and Timor-Leste who have become a critical part of our local workforce. The PALM scheme has helped fill labour shortages and provided businesses with reliable and skilled workers, many of whom return season after season. By supporting our farmers, protecting our biosecurity, investing in innovation and strengthening our workforce, we are helping to ensure Tasmania's agriculture sector remains strong and prosperous for generations to come. Minister Julie Collins is a strong voice and an active participant right across the agriculture sector, and I congratulate her on her commitment in supporting the sector, particularly through this difficult time.

I do want to acknowledge the presence of the minister here today. She's offered to respond to our questions, so I'll be nice and brief to reflect that. Invasive species are a concern to anyone involved in the agricultural sector. Indeed, on my own property in the Ferguson Valley, I've got a problem with pigs, and a south-west farmer recently spoke to me about their property, which has been in the family for 170 years. Never have they had a problem with pigs, but they do now. So I do want to know why this budget, of all budgets, has seen the axing of the established pest weeds control program.

Additionally, my patch is home to that little emerging wine region called Margaret River. It's globally renowned for its quality wine but an industry that is nonetheless facing its worst oversupply crisis in recent memory, so the axing of the cellar door grant program in the out years of this budget and the allocation of nothing towards the transition funding that the industry has advocated for over several years now is a disappointing oversight in the budget. Minister, your government's own forecasts show that farm incomes are expected to fall significantly in the year ahead, and this budget contains so little by way of direct support to help farmers facing lower incomes and tougher conditions over the coming years.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the demersal fishing ban that has crippled our local fishing industry in WA as a result of the Western Australian government's ban on demersal gillnet fishery. The last correspondence from the Commonwealth, on 31 October 2025, said nothing about the sustainability of the sector, yet 33 days later the industry had its licence to operate cancelled. I'd like to know what consultation the Commonwealth received from the WA government before making this decision and how the Commonwealth departments were seemingly so unaware of the precarious state—if we're to believe the state Labor government—of the demersal fishery.

I've galloped through that, Deputy Speaker Fernando, so we can hear from the minister.

I do want to thank the member for Forrest for going so speedily there through his questions. I also want to thank the members for Paterson, Braddon, Blair, Bullwinkel, Gippsland, O'Connor, Nicholls and New England, who all made contributions today. I'll do my best to answer some of these questions very quickly.

Certainly, our agricultural trade, in terms of the trade questions, is the most diversified it has ever been, and we have been working really hard to restore international relationships. We've now had, between July 2022 and March 2026, over 272 market access achievements, and that's new markets open, markets sustained and markets improved, all restoring access where market was lost. So that is incredibly substantial.

I do also need to put on the record, in relation to some of the assertions in some of the questions, that our government is investing over $440 million for the nationally cost shared pest and disease response programs and that there has been no cut in this budget to the pests and disease programs. I do need to be very clear about that. Of course, that comes on top of the fact that our government has invested over $2 billion into biosecurity since we've come to office. Part of the investments that we have made in terms of pests and diseases, to answer the member for New England, is shared with the states and territories. We're investing $592 million in the imported red fire ant issue and the incursion there. So we are working with the states and territories on those.

There were also a range of questions about what we are doing to improve productivity for farmers. Obviously the biggest item in the budget is around the security of fuel and fertiliser, which is top of mind for our farmers. As many people have mentioned, the ABARES data that came out yesterday did say that seasonal conditions would impact farmers' productivity and on-farm productivity, particularly in relation to the seasonal conditions but also, of course, through fuel and fertiliser and the impact of the war in the Middle East here in Australia but also globally. That significant investment was welcomed by the National Farmers' Federation and, indeed, by everybody across the sector. We have been working incredibly closely with the industry. I am having weekly meetings with over 60 representatives of the sector and the industry on how we work with them in relation to fuel and fertiliser.

We did get some congratulations from those on the other side in relation to fuel and diesel, and there were some questions around fertiliser. Since the beginning of the war, we have processed through biosecurity in Australia a million tonnes of urea. That has come through our biosecurity system. So the fact that we have underwritten six cargoes of over 290,000 tonnes is not the end of the amount of urea that has been coming into Australia. Since the beginning of the war—since February—over a million tonnes of urea has gone through our biosecurity system. We are working incredibly closely with the fertiliser sector and with industry to source the urea that Australian farmers need and provide as much certainty as we can in what are clearly very uncertain times.

I do want to state that we also, of course, have available at all times assistance to our farmers who are doing it tough. We have put an additional $1 billion into the Regional Investment Corporation from 1 July. We have the new drought hardship loan as well for those that may encounter some of the difficulties, and some farmers around Australia have already applied for that loan. So I do want to put on the record that we do understand some farmers are doing it tough, which is why we're doing that investment in the Regional Investment Corporation, which is why we have that very significant investment of over $14 billion in terms of fuel and fertiliser security and the ongoing capability of security going forward here in our country. I have addressed some of the issues that people have raised around pests, diseases and trade.

I think I've covered off on most of the questions that I was asked, but I also do want to put on the record that there has been a bit of a scare campaign being run around what is happening with the significant changes we are making in the budget in terms of taxes. I want to quote the NFF's media release:

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

Again I put on the record that we have been working closely with the National Farmers' Federation in relation to the changes. We have also been working with them very closely in terms of the budget and in terms of the current situation in relation to the Middle East. We continue to do that. Even last Friday, we had the NFF go on air and say that the figures that I have used in the parliament, that around nine out of 10 agriculture, fisheries and forestry businesses would be exempt from the capital gains changes under the existing small business provisions—and I say that we continue to work with them.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 13:34 to 15:58

The government is reclaiming $103.9 million from the National Water Grid Fund because it's 'uncommitted', yet councils and water utilities are queued up with shovel-ready projects. Uncommitted doesn't mean unneeded; it means undelivered. This is a delivery failure. Will the minister tell us how many ready-to-go water grid projects sit unfunded whilst this $103.9 million is handed back? From that same fund, $140 million has been committed to Queensland for 2029-30 with no named project and no location. We're asked to wave through $140 million for a project that on the papers does not yet exist. Will the minister name the particular project? Where is it? What does it deliver, and why can money be found four years out for an unnamed Queensland project but not for the communities from which $103.9 million has just been taken?

The Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program collapses from $479 million this year to $357 million next year and to just—wait for this—$3 million in 2027-28. Then it's gone—completely gone. This is the program which helps farmers lift water efficiency and recovers environmental water without ripping it straight out of irrigation for river towns. Why is the government defunding the one tool that recovers water without hollowing out communities, leaving only buybacks? Lazy, lazy politics equals water buybacks.

The Sustainable Communities Program, which is meant to cushion the socioeconomic hit of buybacks and water recovery, is also cut after 2028-29, justified by a claim that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will be 'delivered in full' by the end of 2027. Good luck with that. The government has not shown how this will be done. It has not. So I do ask: will the Murray-Darling Basin Plan be delivered in full by the end of 2027—yes or no? If the minister cannot guarantee it, why switch off community support on the assumption that it will? That is exactly what the minister is doing with this particular initiative.

Costs across the budget papers for water recovery are marked 'not for publication'. The department's own tables admit this is because of commercial sensitivities and ongoing government-to-government negotiations with the states. This is—I hate to say it—a polite way of saying there are deals being done with your money that this parliament is not allowed to see. What is being offered to sweeten those deals, what's the total value hidden behind these NFP lines and when will basin communities get to see what's been promised on their behalf?

Our river communities are hurting, and whenever the government goes in and buys more water out of these river communities it not only distorts the water market and the price of water; it also hurts the baristas and the schools. Coleambally Central School, for example, has had its student population halve over the past decade. It hurts motor mechanics and small businesses across the board, because they don't get anything in return. It's the farmer who gives up the water who gets paid, sometimes at an inflated figure, and that farmer often leaves town, taking their family and their children with them. Sometimes, they head for the coast—and good luck to them—but it leaves a community which is a shell of what it once was.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan, to this end, does not mean that these communities should lose their socioeconomic status, but unfortunately they are and unfortunately the government implements lazy politics by buying water out of these communities and shelling out these communities. It's simply not right. Our river communities and our irrigation communities, many of which are based on soldier settlements back after the First World War, are being short-changed by this terrible government.

There is a simple test for this budget. Does it make the future cleaner? Does it make the systems fairer? Does it help people in their real lives? On environment, water, climate change and energy, the answer is yes. For Melbourne, that matters, because my community does not see climate and environment policy as something distant from their daily lives. It is not distant when a family is trying to bring down their power bill. It is not distant when a renter wants access to clean energy but has no control over the roof above them. It is not distant when a young person asks whether government is actually listening to the science. Melbourne expects ambition but Melbourne also expects delivery. That is what this budget is doing. It takes the big national task in front of us and turns it into work that can be achieved step by step, program by program.

The Albanese Labor government is delivering an extra $1.3 billion for the environment and water, taking total investment to $9.9 billion over the next four years. That means we are not just talking about protecting nature; we are funding it. We are starting up the new National Environmental Protection Agency from 1 July 2026. That means stronger enforcement of national environmental laws. For too long, Australians saw environmental protection treated like paperwork. This government is treating it like responsibility.

We are also making the approvals systems work better. The budget funds modern environmental information, data and digital systems, including the use of artificial intelligence, so assessments can be clearer, simpler and faster. That matters, because Australia needs to build. We need homes, we need renewable energy and we need the critical minerals that power the clean economy.

This budget funds changes to environmental offsets through the nature repair market on a new restoration contributions system. That means restoration must be real. When nature is damaged, the response cannot be vague. It must help repair the places and species that need it. The budget invests $110.8 million to extend the Saving Native Species program.

We are delivering for the Great Barrier Reef, providing $91.8 million for protection, restoration and monitoring, supporting the Reef 2050 Plan. That work supports traditional owners, scientists, tourism operators and regional communities. It protects a living wonder, it protects jobs and it protects the future. And, because environmental work does not stop at the shoreline, this budget also invests in Australia's marine parks, including stronger action on illegal fishing and work to protect and restore our oceans.

We are acting on waste. The budget delivers a national pilot of solar panel recycling, because the clean energy transition has to be clean all the way through. It is not enough to put panels on roofs; we have a plan for what happens when those panels reach the end of their life. That is forward thinking. That is responsible. That is Labor delivering.

On climate change and energy, the same principles apply. This budget supports the National Consumer Energy Resources Roadmap. That means helping households and communities get the benefits of solar, batteries, electric vehicles and a smarter energy system. It maintains battery system inspections under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. That means safer batteries, better consumer protection, more confidence for people buying electric vehicles and more support for workers and businesses making the transition happen.

For Melbourne, fairness has to sit in the centre of this. Clean energy cannot only work for people with big roofs, a garage and a private driveway. It has to work for renters, apartment residents, students, older people and small businesses. The transition must be cleaner, and it must be fairer. The budget strengthens energy security through the National Fuel Security Plan, with stronger reserves, storage, stockholding rules and market oversights. This budget passes the test—cleaner future, fairer systems, stronger protection and real help in people's lives. That is what Labor is delivering, and I am proud to support it.

It's a shame Minister Bowen isn't here to answer these questions. What a surprise. But, because we've seen blowout upon blowout upon blowout upon blowout—and I think that the minister's starting to get a bit of a nickname as 'Blowout'—it's no understanding that he's not here. I would hope that these questions might be passed on to the minister, who is getting the nickname 'Blowout'.

We turn to the Capacity Investment Scheme. What is the true cost? What is the true cost of the Capacity Investment Scheme? There's a very simple answer. I understand that with every single project there might be—and I only say might—a valid reason as to why they might be commercial in confidence. But there is no reason why the whole program shouldn't be. And do you know why? It's because the Capacity Investment Scheme promised 40 gigawatts of power across 75 projects yet Senate estimates just confirmed only one project has actually been built. So how much money is being poured into this scheme and what's the blowout in the budget? That is what we would like the answer to. Please, the Australian people deserve some transparency around this scheme, which is absolutely failing.

We have the Cheaper Home Batteries Program blowout. It's unbelievable. It was budgeted for $2.3 billion and it's now $8 billion. It blew out by so much that the regulator had to put money out the door. The question I've got is: is it good governance when you blow a scheme out so much that the regulator, who's meant to oversee it, is the one who's funding it? Under what regime would that be good governance, apart from that of Old Blowout, who seems not to care that everything blows out.

Green hydrogen—why did you cut $1 billion out of the green hydrogen scheme? Is it because it is completely failing? There's another billion in there. Are you going to blow that as well? Please, can you be upfront about what is happening with green hydrogen. Are you going to blow another billion dollars on green hydrogen? We would love to know the answer to that.

There's something else we'd like to know. In the budget papers it says that you've got no idea what each individual department is spending on net zero. That's what the budget papers actually say—that you do not know what each individual department is spending on net zero. So how much is each individual department blowing on net zero? Do you have any idea about this? There is a blowout of such significance—seriously, there are going to be gale-force warnings soon because of this minister. So we want to know what each individual department is going to do.

Last of all, what we'd love is some real honesty around the Office of the Presidency. Did the minister whisper to the secretary: 'Could you name it Office of the Presidency, because that'd make me feel really good. I'm blowing all these programs to kingdom come, so I need something to make me feel like I'm sort of doing my job'? What I'd love to know is how many staff will be ongoing in the Office of the Presidency after this year. At the end of this year, when the Office of the Presidency is no longer needed, do you think the minister is going to keep the Office of the Presidency, just to make him feel good, or will it go? Can we get an answer to that? Is the Office of the Presidency only for this year, or will there be another reason for the minister to keep the Office of the Presidency and the 30 staff working in it? It would be great to get an answer to all of those questions today.

I'm very proud to speak on this bill. Climate change, energy, the environment and water matter where I'm from, and there are lots of numbers here. Numbers are great. Minister Bowen will update you on the numbers daily—on how many solar batteries are being installed and what that means for the environment and what that means for bringing down power bills. I don't want to argue the science, although some of those opposite will still have that argument. Arguing the science right now is a bit like arguing the existence of cats. It exists. Deal with it. Move on.

The member from Wannon kept asking: What is the true cost? What is the true cost? What is the true cost? The cost is Saibai. The cost is the cape. The cost is the turtles. The cost is the reef. It's disgraceful. Climate change is an existential risk to my communities. Minister Wilson stood on the shores of Saibai and looked out over Papua New Guinea, maybe three or four kays away. His feet got wet by the inundating tide. The bodies of the children and the elders of Masig wash out to sea as the tides inundate the cemetery.

This government invests in seawalls. It invests in resilience. It takes the time to go to the places where climate change is at its worst, where it is most critical, and that is the Far North. This is not limited to the Torres Strait. We had two cyclones cross the coast this year within two weeks of each other. We were lucky. For reasons that remain clear only to nature, Cyclone Narelle missed the community of Coen. Being a category 4, it would have caused death. This is what we're fighting against. It's not about anything other than giving people the chance to live their lives on the country that they grew up in and to make sure that the species of fish that they catch is still there. There is a duck that heralds the change of seasons on the Torres Strait. The duck has not been seen for 20 years. It is a victim of climate change.

As part of my electorate, I have custody of some of the great natural wonders of the world: the Daintree Rainforest, overrun by pigs, and the Great Barrier Reef, under threat to the crown-of-thorns starfish, the drupella snail and climate change. We invest in local business and the tourism industry to get on top of these threats. We make sure that the future and the jobs that are connected to the reef exist. There are 77,000 jobs under threat because the Queensland government wants to approve more coalmines and more coal fired power plants, which will put the World Heritage listing at risk. The World Heritage listing, which drives tourism to the area, which drives small business and which makes sure the people in the Far North have jobs, things to eat and places to go, provides all of our economic benefit, as does the reef and the Daintree. Cape York is a truly spectacular area, almost as special as the Daintree and the reef. The sawfish is endangered. It's a truly unique species that people have never heard of and that some people will travel their entire lives to look at. That's money. That's tourism. That's economic development. While you want to turn climate change into an ideological battlefield, it's not. It's an economic outcome. It drives entire regions. It drives entire cities.

It is really important that we make sure that we're pulling our weight and that the resilience exists to keep our natural wonders, which people travel across the world to see. The reef is in great shape because of the actions of this government, because of the work on the riparian corridors, because of the work to shore up the run-off into the reef and because of the work that we're achieving in making sure—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:17 to 16:29

Strap in for the best 43 seconds of the day! This matters. As I outlined previously, it makes a real difference to the people and the places that I represent. Some things are bigger than us, and climate change is one of them. It impacts our neighbours in the South Pacific, in the Torres Strait and the people on the cape. It impacts our tourism industry. It's something that has to be taken seriously. It's something that needs an all-of-government, all-of-nation approach and response. Fighting over it is useless. This is people's lives and this is people's livelihoods. I commend the bill to the House.

Long-time listeners of the Federation Chamber won't be surprised to know that the focus of my questions today begins with Labor's offshore wind proposal for Geographe Bay. It started at 8,000 square kilometres, an area some 10 times the size of Singapore, being locked up for an offshore wind farm. That's hundreds of the most modern turbines, each taller than the biggest skyscraper in Perth, being connected across Geographe Bay, a whale migration superhighway. My community was outraged.

After a community backlash at the bungled consultation process, the zone was halved to 3,995 square kilometres, which was declared in August 2024. In January this year, the government granted the final feasibility licences to three projects across 732 square kilometres of that zone. The question really is whether this government—which has, as I said, bungled the consultation process—failed to realise that the imposition of the vast exclusion zone threatens the activities that are the lifeblood of our community. This includes fishing, or what's left of it after the state Labor government decided to ban commercial fishing, boating and diving, as well as the important contribution that tourism makes to our local economy.

Given that these three ventures are foreign owned—Westward Wind is a joint venture with Spain's EDP Renewables and France's EDF—the question is whether these feasibility licences will be progressed by this government and whether the Geographe Bay offshore wind farms will actually lower power bills for households and businesses in WA's south-west. If the government can't categorically confirm that it will lower power prices in south-west WA, the question is why on earth are these proposals proceeding at all? Offshore wind is being cancelled around the world. Large turbine manufacturers are making significant parts of their workforce redundant in response to turbine cancellations, which does beg the question: why is this government so intent on pushing ahead with these projects at the same time the rest of the world seems to have woken up?

Until we get some straight answers on these three projects, south-west residents will remain sceptical of the approach this government takes to managing climate change and energy, not least because we'd have a hard time believing any commitment the government does make with regard to the lower power prices. We're still waiting for the $275 power price reduction that we were promised before the 2022 election! It seems that RepuTex modelling is a phrase that we don't say in this place either!

The member for Wannon referred to the Cheaper Home Batteries Program blowout from $2.3 billion to $8.5 billion. I'd like to know whether the minister, who is not here, has done any work to understand what the distribution of those grants has been in relation to household income. Early criticism of the scheme was that this was reckless spending; it wasn't targeted in any way. The government tells us this budget is predicated on fiscal responsibility and restraint, so you'd think such a program, now running at $8.5 billion and counting, would have been carefully targeted on some sort of socioeconomic base or subject to means testing. I'm looking forward to hearing from the government as to whether or not those concerns have been addressed through this process.

As a proud Western Australian, when it comes to the energy portfolio, there is nothing more important to me than the government's proposal around the gas industry and the imposition of a nationwide reservation scheme, which in principle is the sort of thing we've been calling for for quite some time. But the interaction with Western Australia's long established 15 per cent domestic gas reservation scheme seems to be very unclear because ministers have been out saying different things. The industry doesn't know, because it can't get a straight answer. This is deeply impactful when you consider things like the Browse Project being on the horizon.

I have sat through a number of the contributions from those opposite on the matter before us at the moment. Hearing their contributions has been uninspiring because at no time have they recognised the impact that climate change is having on our environment. At no time have they recognised the huge economic and human toll climate change is having on our country and globally. The only time I think they may have mentioned climate change was to refer to the department itself. It's like they are trying to talk about this debate but refusing to acknowledge the fact that climate change is having a huge impact on our lives economically and socially.

I remember how bad the 2019-20 bushfire season in New South Wales was. It was so bad that the former New South Wales fire and rescue commissioner Greg Mullins came out strongly with a number of retired fire chiefs to say that—if we do not act on climate change, take it seriously, stand up as political leaders and do something to address this problem—the bushfire season will become more intense and more frequent and everyone will be left suffering the consequences. We have seen that come to bear with the bushfires in California and with the bushfires in parts of Europe. And yet those opposite still refuse to acknowledge the impact that climate change is having on natural disasters—making them more intense and more frequent.

My colleague the member for Leichhardt spoke incredibly eloquently about the impact that climate change is having on his community in Far North Queensland—again, something those opposite refuse to acknowledge. But—even if we were to take them on their concerns about cost, what this all means and particular projects running over time—what did they have that they were proposing? A $600 billion nuclear energy program. I tell you what, the cost blowouts there would have been enormous. The time taken to build those things would have run into the decades. What a ridiculous policy. They not only came with a ridiculous policy but have also now abandoned net zero in its entirety, such is the stranglehold by the far right of this country. They're refusing to even attempt to get to net zero. I'm really pleased that we on this side of the House are talking about climate change and the impact it's having on our community. We're committed to net zero, but we've also got the practical steps to help us get there.

Last year, I stood in this chamber and I had the opportunity to speak on a very similar bill because we are taking real, practical action on climate, energy and our environment. We have done so since we were first elected four years ago. Now that I'm standing here again, I'm really proud to talk about the significant environmental law reforms that we have put in place—the most significant in more than a decade—because for too long the system was outdated and ineffective, failing to properly protect nature while also creating uncertainty for businesses trying to do the right thing. Through reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, we've changed that. We've established a new National Environmental Protection Agency, a strong independent regulator with the powers, resources and transparency needed to properly protect our environment. It is something that has been missing from this country for far too long. Just as importantly, we've made the system work better. We're cutting duplication between levels of government, improving access to high-quality environmental data and giving businesses clearer guidance and faster decisions. That matters because Australia should not have to choose between protecting nature and building homes, clean energy and the infrastructure that we need.

The last fortnight has demonstrated that the work we are putting in to get more renewable energy into the grid is working. We are now seeing that 50 per cent of our electricity is now coming from renewable energy. That has resulted in prices starting to come down as well as emissions coming down, and what a great achievement that is.

One startling statistic about the budget has flown under the radar this year, and it's funding for nature. It's made up just 0.3 per cent of total spending. That's less than one-third of one per cent of the budget. To put that into perspective, for every $100 spent by the federal government this year, only 30c will go to activities that benefit nature. It gets worse because the 30c declines to 10c in 2029. That's down from a $1.10 per $100 under the Rudd-Gillard governments.

Let's take it a step further and narrow down to the money allocated specifically to on-ground conservation activities. These are the programs that directly protect nature, like establishing new conservation areas, restoring habitats for native animals like koalas, or combating invasive species. Here the picture is even worse. The Biodiversity Council calculates that funding for on-ground nature programs is only 0.6 per cent of the budget. That's $1 for nature out of every $1,667 spent by the government. In other words, it's practically nothing. Our main program for preventing new extinctions, the Saving Native Species Fund, only has two more years of funding, and it's less than $40 million a year. Australia is the world leader in extinctions. It is No. 1 in the world for mammal extinctions and No. 2 for biodiversity loss. These are not records of which we should be proud.

It's great that the government has committed to no new plant and animal extinctions and to conserving 30 per cent of its land and marine species areas by 2030. But these are just commitments. They're just words. The great thing about the budget is it allows us to evaluate whether the government is doing what it takes to achieve those commitments. This budget shows too clearly that it's not. At the same time as providing minimal funding for nature protection, it's pouring far more money into activities that harm nature—fossil fuel subsidies, including fracking projects that damage water tables; native forest logging; and projects that clear native vegetation.

When the odds are stacked against it like this, Australia's unique and ancient biodiversity will continue to die and on this government's watch. This isn't just a problem for environmentalists; it's a problem for Australians. The good news is that we know it's smart economic management to invest in nature. Nature underpins everything else in the budget. A strong economy is impossible without a healthy environment. Our prosperity would crumble without well-functioning ecosystems to provide us with potable water, clean air, healthy and productive soils, pollinators for fruit and nut trees and other crops, and mangroves for storm and flood protection. None of these things is nice to have. Each is absolutely critical.

So what kind of spending do we need to put nature on a better footing? Is it 10 per cent of the budget? Is it five per cent? It's actually not that large a number. Leading scientists and ecologists from organisations like the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and the Biodiversity Council have calculated that to put Australia's environment onto a more secure footing would cost only one per cent of the budget. That's about $8 billion a year. Yes, it's a lot of money but an incredibly worthwhile investment. Research shows that the more a country spends on conservation, the fewer species it loses. That one per cent of the budget would go to tackling invasive species, stopping new extinctions, protecting 30 per cent of Australia and restoring Australia's degrading landscapes—in other words, its habitats. One per cent is to stop us going backwards and set us up for a healthier, cleaner future.

Now, most Australians want this to happen. Australians care about nature and they want the government to do more to protect it. Ninety-five per cent of Australians believe that spending on nature should be increased to one per cent or more. One per cent is doable. It's well within the realm of possibility but only if the government treats nature as a priority. And budgets are just that; they are priorities. They are the one time in the annual political calendar when governments have no choice but to lay all their cards on the table. In following the money, this budget makes it clear as day that this government simply doesn't prioritise nature, so my question to the government is: to meet the government's commitments to no new extinctions and conserving 30 per cent of Australia's land and sea by 2030, what advice are you relying on that has led you to reduce funding for nature in this budget?

I'm grateful to all the members who have contributed to this debate, this conversation, and will answer some of the questions that have been put. I'll start by saying that, in this portfolio area, as across the budget, the government is focused on resilience and reform. We know that we're living through a fuel crisis at the moment. It's interesting that that none of the contributions to date, particularly from non-government members, have picked up on that. I think that that is a very pressing concern for Australian households and businesses. Making sure that we are more resilient has been a big focus of this budget, with a $10 billion investment in fuel security as we address supply issues, as we address cost issues. But, as the Prime Minister, Treasurer and cabinet ministers have said—

Order. The member seeking the call?

I think the debate on this issue is supposed to finish at 4.45 and the consideration in detail of the next item is supposed to commence at 4.45.

I thank the member for Berowa for his interjection there, but my advice is that the minister started right on 4.45, which is the instruction we have from the table office, so we'll proceed.

As I was saying, whilst we take those really important steps to improve resilience in Australia, particularly around fuel security and both supply and cost impacts, we're not neglecting the obligation of government to take on much needed reform. That is certainly true in the portfolio areas that we're discussing.

I'll pick up some of the things that were raised by members. The member for Riverina talked about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Of course, that was poorly managed by those opposite in the nine years that they were at the wheel. We are going to deliver and are delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full—indeed, 400 of the 450 gigalitres that need to be secured under that plan will have been secured by the end of this year. That is good for the environment. It's good for the river system and therefore good for all of the human communities and agricultural users who depend on that. I think the member for Wannon let himself down by really indulging in a lot of name calling more than anything, and I'm not really sure what quality debate this country gets by that kind of conduct, particularly from an opposition that didn't even have an energy plan for the nine years that they were in government. They tried 22 and they landed none. He asked about the Capacity Investment Scheme. I hope that he understands that the Capacity Investment Scheme is an underwriting scheme. Those projects don't involve direct funding contributions from the Australian government. The recent tender, tender 7, will deliver 19 renewable energy generation projects in the eastern seaboard, with $17 billion worth of private investment creating tens of thousands of jobs and obviously helping us achieve the clean and cheaper energy transition that is essential to our future.

The member for Forrest talked about wind farms and wind power. I'm not really sure that the member for Forrest was clear enough in saying that he doesn't think that wind power should be part of Australia's energy future. It's a big part of almost every other country's future, and we have some of the best wind resources in the world. We think that Australia should benefit from that resource; that's why we've created those zones. There are three feasibility licences in the area of south-western Western Australia, and consideration of those licences will proceed in a sensible and orderly way.

The member for Bradfield did use some, I think, strangely selective number positing. The work that we do for Australia's environment obviously includes focused work on threatened species and improving the condition of our environment, but it significantly includes all of the serious things we're doing to address climate change. Climate change is the newest and most significant factor affecting Australia's environmental condition and biodiversity, and this government is doing what the Australian community would expect. We're taking that very seriously, making a big difference in reducing emissions here, domestically, and being part of that global, cooperative effort.

Australians will look at this budget. They will see that we're backing up the remarkable achievement of having more than 50 per cent of our oceans in a marine protected network, with an additional $100 million to back that in. They'll see the additional contributions we're making in terms of consumer energy resources off the back of the remarkable progress we've already made in taking Australia towards its destiny as a renewable energy superpower and a clean industry powerhouse. That is our obligation as government. That's what we are delivering in the Albanese Labor government.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

I want to raise an issue of child safety and whether an international convention, which is nearly 50 years old, and its application is serving the interests of the safety of Australian children. This is an issue I've worked on and raised several times throughout my parliamentary career. It's an issue I became aware of because of one of my courageous constituents who has been forcibly separated from her infant daughter for several years. Her Australian daughter no longer lives in the safety of this country and has been forcibly returned overseas by a court order. Since meeting my constituent, I've met other people whose Australian children are in similar situations overseas. Because of this law, Australian courts, Australian bureaucrats and Australian police aided the removal of Australian children to foreign countries. The situation for my constituent came about because of the actions of the application of an international convention that doesn't put the protection of Australian children as a paramount consideration.

On Sunday, Channel 9's 60 Minutes broadcast an investigation into the way in which the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is currently being implemented in this country. I commend 60 Minutes for bringing those stories to the Australian public. What was shown was deeply confronting. I encourage every member of this parliament to watch it. Since that story was broadcast, I've been contacted by other people whose families have been adversely affected by the application of the Hague convention and who are fearful for the safety of their children.

The Hague convention was well intentioned. Adopted in 1980, it was designed to deal with children being taken across international borders. The purpose of the convention was to return the child to its habitual place of residence. Under the convention, the removal to the habitual place of residence can only be challenged where there's a grave risk that the return of the child would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. But those terms are interpreted very narrowly. Practitioners who've worked in the field for many years have rarely, if ever, seen a case where the Australian child is allowed to remain in Australia. Judges may but are not required to consider family violence when determining these matters. When issues of domestic violence are raised they're often not tested, as would be the case in ordinary family court proceedings.

The way courts deal with the Hague convention cases reflect an outdated understanding of attitudes towards child safety. In the 46 years since the Hague convention, the world has changed. Our understanding of the hurt inflicted on children who witness or experience abuse has changed enormously, and the convention has not. When I was the shadow attorney-general in 2022, I raised these issues with the then attorney-general Dreyfus. I asked him to review the application of the Hague convention. His department made a small amendment to the Family Law Regulations. This was a legislative note which clarified that courts may have regard to the risk that returning a child would expose them to family violence. This was well intentioned, but my concern is that it has simply not gone far enough.

In November 2024, the Family Law Council did a report on the Hague convention. That report Protecting victims of family violence, including children, in the family law system: international child abduction made several recommendations for legislative reforms, but it did not consider the merits of the convention itself. Today, I'm calling on the Attorney-General to convene a public inquiry into the Hague convention. That inquiry should examine whether the grave-risk-of-harm threshold is fit for purpose; consider whether courts should be required, not merely permitted, to take evidence of domestic violence into account; and ask whether Australia should advocate at an international level for reform of the convention itself.

My questions to the Attorney today are as follows. At present, the Hague convention's return orders are procedural in nature only. There's no cross-examination of evidence, and sometimes evidence isn't even considered. Are there plans for Hague cases to be heard like other family law cases and become proceedings where evidence can be heard and tested? Has the government considered amending the law to require that domestic violence 'must' be considered when assessing the grave risk of harm to the child, rather than, as currently is the case, that it 'may' be considered. Has the government considered legislative changes so that, in Hague convention cases, the psychological effects on young children who are exposed to domestic violence can legitimately meet the grave-risk-of-harm threshold, as outside observers will tell you that they do? And has the government considered amendments to allow the Attorney-General to step in in relation to the return of children who would otherwise be at risk of physical or sexual abuse under a Hague return order?

These are important and serious issues which concern the safety of Australian children and the way in which an international convention that is 50 years old deals with those under Australian law. They're important issues. I raise them in a serious way because of the effect that they've had on my constituents and other families across this country.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the consideration in detail with regard to budget measures relating to the Attorney-General. This portfolio is charged with providing expert advice and high-quality legal services to the Australian government and its entities, always as a model litigant. The requirement to be a model litigant means the Commonwealth and its agencies are required to act honestly, consistently and fairly in handling claims and litigation; deal with claims promptly; make early assessments of the government's prospects of success; pay legitimate claims promptly; not take advantage of a party who lacks resources to litigate a legitimate claim; keep costs to a minimum; not rely on merely technical defences; and consider alternative dispute-resolution options.

In addition, the portfolio has responsibility for designing, implementing, maintaining, evaluating and reforming legal and policy frameworks to promote better outcomes for the Australian community in a range of areas, including rights, justice, security and integrity. This all sits within the ambit of the Attorney-General, and this element of the portfolio is significant because it touches on how we live, how we interact as a community and how we protect and maintain the way that we live.

The Attorney-General's portfolio often goes about its work quietly, but the significant work that the portfolio undertakes with respect to law reform is meaningful because it impacts the frameworks which govern and guide our communities and our country. Importantly, this portfolio is also charged with the critical task of working to improve access to justice for vulnerable people—including women, children and First Nations peoples—and of establishing and providing support to royal commissions, to assist them to commence their inquiries in a timely manner, consistent with their terms of reference. The portfolio has broad, wide-ranging and impactful responsibilities, and we see this play out in the budget.

A key budget measure for the Attorney-General's portfolio is ending gender based violence. The gravity and significance of this cannot be underestimated, and it must always be properly funded and resourced. It is a huge challenge but one that we must meet through this portfolio to drive legal and systemic reforms that we need to eradicate gender based violence. Key initiatives in this respect include funding specialised sexual-violence legal-service pilot schemes, criminalising image based abuse and advancing the 2022-2032 National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.

Similarly, the Attorney-General, alongside the National Office for Child Safety, drives the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse. This 10-year framework implements key recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. There are several key areas of focus in this respect. Firstly, there is awareness and education which is delivering nationwide campaigns like the One Talk at a Time campaign, to build child-safe cultures and teach body safety. This has been rolled out and is a simple, non-threatening campaign designed not only to educate children and young people but to create an environment where they feel safe and empowered to speak up for themselves. Then there is the offender prevention program, which is about implementing frameworks to identify and prevent online child sexual abuse and enhance vetting capabilities.

The portfolio is also coordinating the government's response to the antisemitic attack in Bondi. The supported measures, which are critical, include stricter hate crime laws, the banning of hate symbols and organisations who engage in hate crimes, and the development of powers for the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse or cancel visas based on hate motivated conduct. The time to continue acting in this respect is now.

I also want to highlight the role of the Attorney-General in Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program, which supports the government on policy and legal issues related to nuclear powered submarines. The critical and essential national endeavour that is AUKUS needs to be supported by properly considered regulation and policy. We often talk of AUKUS in the context of STEM only—and we should talk about it in this context—but there is more to it. We need to continue the work to develop and implement the frameworks by which matters relating to AUKUS will be governed and measured. This is a critical role for the Attorney-General.

Finally, I would like to ask the Attorney-General, in her remarks, to outline how the government is investing in our justice systems, our integrity framework and our institutions.

I rise during consideration in detail of the Attorney-General's portfolio because there is a simple question at the heart of Australian law that this government can no longer avoid. It's a simple question that should not be controversial. What is a woman? Australians know the answer. A woman is an adult human female. In fact, that is exactly how the Prime Minister himself answered the question just a few years ago. Yet today Australians are increasingly being told that asking that question is somehow part of a culture war. The Prime Minister says concerns raised by women about their rights, their own rights, under the Sex Discrimination Act are a culture war. With respect, that response is not leadership; it's avoidance.

Calling something a culture war is not an answer. It does not explain what the law means, it does not explain how competing rights should be balanced and it does not address the genuine concerns of millions of Australian women. What troubles me most is that the Prime Minister's comments suggest that women who raise concerns about privacy, safety, fairness and dignity should somehow be dismissed because their concerns are politically inconvenient. Australian women are not participants in a culture war. They are asking legitimate questions about laws that were originally enacted to protect them.

Last week, Australians watched Senate estimates and heard the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Anna Cody, suggest that protections relating to pregnancy and potential pregnancy could apply based on how someone is perceived, rather than whether they can become pregnant. If a senior official responsible for administering the Sex Discrimination Act can advance an interpretation that many Australians struggle to reconcile with common sense, then Australians are entitled to ask whether the law is still clear. If the law is clear, it should be capable of being explained in plain English.

The Sex Discrimination Act was introduced by the Hawke government in 1984 to protect women from discrimination and advance opportunities for women and girls. Today, many women are asking a different question. Does the law still protect us? The Federal Court's decision in Giggle v Tickle exposed a problem politicians have spent years trying to avoid. When rights based on biological sex come into conflict with claims based on gender identity, whose rights come first? The court interpreted the law that this parliament wrote. The court did not create the problem; this parliament created it.

Specifically, the ambiguity was created when the Gillard government amended the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013 and failed to include a clear balancing test for competing sex and gender rights. The Albanese government inherited that problem, but it owns it. Women are increasingly being told they cannot object to biological males entering spaces established specifically for women. Many women feel they have lost the right to say no. Whether members agree with that view or not, it is a genuine concern held by millions of Australians. Dismissing these concerns as a culture war is a cynical attempt to silence debate rather than answer the question.

My bill, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sex-based Rights) Bill, seeks to provide clarity. It retains protections for transgender Australians. It does not remove gender identity as a protected attribute. What it does do is recognise a reality that most Australians understand instinctively: biological sex matters in some circumstances—women's sport, women's toilets and change rooms, women's prisons, female-only spaces and services. Most Australians understand why those spaces exist. That is why the Nationals have launched a national petition today, calling on parliament to support my bill and restore protections for women and girls in law.

Australians deserve to have their voices heard. The Federal Court has spoken. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner has spoken. Women are speaking, yet the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General continue to avoid taking a position. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General now have their feet firmly stuck on the sticky paper. Either the law is ambiguous and needs to be fixed, or the law is not ambiguous and the government believes that trans women are women for the purposes of Australian law, even when rights based on biological sex are affected; there is no longer any middle ground.

So my question to the Attorney-General is this: does the government believe the Sex Discrimination Act is ambiguous and in need of reform, or does the government believe the law is already clear and that trans women are women for the purpose— (Time expired)

The Albanese government is committed to ending violence against women and children. Within this portfolio, support for victims of gender-based violence who have to interact with the courts and the justice system is particularly important. The prevalence of domestic and gender-based violence in our country is still too high, and the barriers and burden of proof too often still prevent victims-survivors from reporting these crimes. When victims-survivors are brave enough to report their experience and bring about charges, they can sometimes be retraumatised through the legal process.

I want to acknowledge that in May the Albanese and Allan Labor governments announced joint support for the expansion and extension of the specialised trauma-informed sexual violence legal services pilot in Victoria. This completes the national rollout of these services and builds on announcements of the establishment of new pilots across New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania and the extension and expansion of existing pilots in the ACT and WA. These pilots are aimed at creating and expanding a legal service delivery model that is trauma informed, victim- and survivor-centric, culturally safe and accessible.

I'm really pleased to see the Albanese government build on this investment in the 2026-27 budget, with the item 'support for specialist family violence legal services' providing $11.7 million to support victims of family violence from being cross-examined by their perpetrator in family law proceedings. This will be very important for those people who are facing courts and justice systems as part of their process. I note this funding is in addition to approximately $2.5 million per annum ongoing funding provided to support solutions for domestic and gender-based violence. I want to acknowledge all the people who work on the front line in this very important area, and I want to acknowledge how important this funding is.

In concluding my remarks, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General to outline some of the key measures in the budget which strengthen frontline responses to family, domestic and sexual violence to keep women and children safe.

I want to raise a number of issues that are within the Attorney-General's portfolio and require urgent attention. The first is child sexual abuse material.

Last year I introduced a private member's bill to make it an offence to download AI tools designed specifically to generate child sexual abuse material. These tools are available on websites, app stores and the dark web. Intelligence company Graphika reported in late 2023 that they had moved from niche internet forums into a scaled, monetised business, with more than 24 million unique visits recorded to 34 of those websites in a single month. Possessing a single image is already illegal, but these tools let perpetrators generate, delete and regenerate material endlessly, evading existing laws. Every AI generated abuse image starts with photos of a real child. They normalise abuse, overwhelm law enforcement and make it harder to identify actual victims. The government acknowledged in 2023 that existing laws likely do not adequately prevent AI facilitated harms. My bill offers a ready solution. Minister, will the government commit to legislating against AI child sexual abuse material generators before the end of the year?

Governments are increasingly using automated systems to make decisions that affect people's lives—welfare payments, visa applications, tax assessments, child protection and the NDIS. Robodebt showed us exactly what can go wrong when automated decisions are made at scale, and the robodebt royal commission recommended a mandatory legislative framework for government decision-making. The problem isn't automation itself; the problem is automation without transparency, proper human oversight or meaningful avenues for people to challenge the decisions made about them. People have a right to know when an automated system has made a decision about them and a right to have a real person review it. The Attorney-General's Department has a central role in ensuring our legal frameworks keep pace with these emerging risks. Minister, will you legislate mandatory safeguards for automated government decisions?

Australia urgently needs whistleblowing law reform that delivers accessible, consistent and comprehensive protections across both public and private sectors. The announcement yesterday of a review into Australia's private sector whistleblower regime is welcome and is something I've urged the government to progress, but while that review begins there's still silence on promised reforms to public sector protections. The Public Interest Disclosure Act has applied to Commonwealth whistleblowers since 2013. It's outdated and overdue for reform. Public consultation on draft legislation, including a proposal for a new whistleblower ombudsman, concluded on 1 October 2025. That was eight months ago, with no bill, no timeline and no explanation since. People who speak up about wrongdoing in the public sector deserve better than a government that consults and then goes quiet. Minister, when can parliament expect for the bill to protect Commonwealth public sector whistleblowers to be introduced?

Freedom of information is one of the few everyday tools citizens, journalists and civil society have to scrutinise government power, and the system is broken—not in my words but from the findings of every major review over the past decade: Hawke in 2013, Shergold in 2015, Thodey in 2019 and the Senate inquiry in 2023. All four reviews reached the same conclusion: the system is not fit for purpose and needs a comprehensive, independent review. None of them actually conducted one. The government's recent attempt at reform proposed reducing disclosure, expanding exemptions and introducing fees. It did not address collapsing rates of full disclosure, serious processing delays or what advocates describe as administrative torture. Reform that only moves towards less transparency is not neutral; it's a political choice. Minister, will the government commit to a comprehensive, independent review of the FOI Act led by independent experts with genuine public participation?

The NACC was established to investigate corruption and restore public trust in government. Australians are watching closely, and what they're seeing is concerning. No public hearings have been held, and not one case has met the exceptional circumstances test. The workings of the NACC have occurred almost entirely behind closed doors, and now there's a vacuum of leadership, with vacancies for both the commissioner and the deputy commissioner. This is a critical moment. The appointments you make, Minister, and how you make them will either rebuild or further erode public confidence in this institution. Minister, will you commit to an open, merit based appointment process by advertising the roles, publishing the selection criteria and disclosing the assessment process?

I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate, and I do want to thank the member for Jagajaga for her comments relating to the government's priorities on women's safety and acknowledge her longstanding advocacy in this area.

The government is committed to ending the scourge of family, domestic and sexual violence, which has such devastating impacts on individuals, families and communities. Tragically, at least 21 women and children have already been killed this year through intimate partner violence or domestic violence. Addressing this requires sustained, evidence based action, and that is exactly what the Albanese government is doing. In my portfolio, that includes investing in police capability through a world-leading $4.1 million national training package that's now available across all jurisdictions. This cutting edge training uses real-life case studies with immersive virtual reality to help improve responses to domestic violence, coercive control, technology facilitated abuse, trauma and misidentification. More than 10,000 frontline police officers are expected to undertake the training.

Last year, the government piloted specialised, trauma informed sexual violence legal services in three jurisdictions. Following their success, we've now completed the rollout nationally. This helps ensure victim- survivors in every jurisdiction can access stronger support to navigate the justice system. We also continue to support the Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties Scheme, with almost $36 million allocated since 2025 to ensure that victim-survivors are not directly cross-examined by perpetrators in family law proceedings. Combined with the Albanese government's significant reforms to the Family Law Act, these measures form part of a broader, ongoing commitment to ending this violence.

Through the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, the Albanese government has also committed $4.4 billion to help prevent violence and reduce intimate-partner homicide. I'm mindful of time, but I mention that, in my portfolio, this includes $28.6 million to pilot new policing models targeting high risk offenders, $50.6 million to improve information sharing and $6.8 million to support children after separation. These are significant investments, but there is so much more to do.

In this budget we've provided essential funding across the portfolio to strengthen institutions, uphold the rule of law, address gender based violence and help keep vulnerable Australians safe. Whilst time does not permit me to conduct an exposition of every measure, there are a few I'd like to highlight, including $37.3 million over two years to strengthen the capacity of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions; $74.2 million to strengthen the integrity of the migration system, including investments in the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit and Family Court to improve efficiency, and a duty lawyer pilot to support access to justice; $10.8 million over four years and $2.7 million ongoing to support the Australian Law Reform Commission; and $27 million over four years and $5.7 million ongoing to the OAIC to strengthen privacy regulation and oversight across digital initiatives.

This budget reflects the clear priorities of the government in my portfolio. It strengthens institutions, while delivering practical protections that keep Australians safe.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

There is no more important partner for Australia than Indonesia, or, as former Indonesian president Jokowi told this place in 2020:

Australia adalah sahabat paling dekat Indonesia.

And this year's federal budget says 'Oke, gas!' or 'Let's go!' to furthering Australia's engagement with our neighbour, partner and friend Indonesia.

The recently signed Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security embodies the spirit of respect and friendship that lies at the heart of our relationship between our peoples and our governments. The treaty builds on our long history of cooperation and takes our bilateral partnership to the next level. To implement this treaty, to take this next step in our relationship, we need Australians who understand Indonesia and speak its national language. While it's clear that there's no partner more important to Australia than Indonesia, it's also clear that there's no partner more important for Australia to understand than Indonesia.

And that's why, in this year's budget, the Albanese Labor government has committed $33.2 million to support the implementation of the Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security. It includes $11.4 million to boost Indonesian language education and $3.4 million to establish an Australia-Indonesia leadership dialogue. Language is essential for building a relationship underpinned by trust and understanding between Australia and Indonesia. It's a pathway for deeper relationships across all sectors—government, business and civil society—for the benefit of both countries.

In his 2020 address to the Australian parliament, President Jokowi commended Australian students for learning Bahasa Indonesia. He noted that our people-to-people links were a strategic asset and that investing in the next generation would strengthen the bilateral relationship. In 2010, then president SBY said a similar thing to our parliament when he said that he knows of 'no other Western country with more Indonesianists in your governments, universities and think tanks'.

But, unfortunately, since 2010, when SBY gave that speech, there's been a 58 per cent decrease in the number of Australian year 12 students studying Bahasa Indonesia. In 2024, just 486 Australian year 12 students across the whole country studied Indonesian. Today, only 13 of our universities offer Bahasa Indonesia, almost half the number of institutions that offered it in 1992. Without intervention, the teaching of Bahasa Indonesia in Australia will be extinct in the next term of parliament. This government has already started to take action to turn around this trajectory through our reforms to the New Colombo Plan.

In 2025, NCP reforms placed greater emphasis on long-term, immersive experiences and study of priority Asian languages like Bahasa Indonesia. As a result, this year, there are a record 29 long-term NCP scholars heading to Indonesia, an over 80 per cent increase from 2025. Under the new semester program, there were 170 grants awarded to universities to support students going to study in Indonesia for a full semester. New funding to support Indonesian study and engagement in the federal budget is another significant step. The $11.4 million announced in the budget is a further targeted strategic investment for Indonesian language study. Funding will go towards increasing Indonesian language and country expertise, including through cultural exchange.

A cultural exchange early in a student's life plays an essential role in fostering the Indonesian experts of the future. Australia's Ambassador to Indonesia, Rod Brazier; and former ambassador to Indonesia Penny Williams are two key examples of this. Williams lived in Jakarta with a local Indonesian family for a year as a high-school student in 1981. She was our first ambassador who spoke Bahasa Indonesia. Rod Brazier immersed himself in the local culture in Makassar in South Sulawesi on a university exchange in 1990. These opportunities are essential for building intrinsic interest and a deep passion for Indonesia, for its people, for its culture and for its language. To continue to be effective in our region, we need more people like Ambassador Brazier and former ambassador Williams. We know that we need to have deep connections at a leadership level too, and that's why we've committed $3.4 million to establish an annual Australia-Indonesia leadership dialogue.

Last month, I visited Indonesia as Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Indonesia along with Vice Chair Senator Richard Colbeck. We visited Solo, a political and cultural hub in central Java and the home of President Jokowi and the current vice president, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, both former mayors. We engaged with young political leaders, including the current mayor, Respati Ardi; and the 10th Prince of the Mangkunwgaran royal house. In Jakarta, we met with members of parliament, including the Chair of Indonesia's Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group, Ibu Sara.

It's an experience that more MPs in this building need and more Australian leaders need. The Australia-Indonesia leadership dialogue will help us better understand Indonesia. Shortly, the House Standing Committee on Education, which I chair, will release its report into building Asia capability in Australia, and it will make further recommendations on how to build a pipeline of future Asia-capable Australians to chart our way forward.

It's interesting to note that the government's first contribution here was all about boosting their expenditure—nothing to mention about the cuts in this budget. Representing a region like mine, home to the Margaret River wine region, it's interesting that in the European Union free trade agreement the government has sold out Australian producers and their right to export their wine as prosecco, surrendering the name to EU producers after a 10 year phase-out, which is clearly a blow-off for the Australian producers who currently export Australian prosecco. Not only is this a slap in the face for Australian producers, to add insult to injury, the Minister for Social Services was on social media promoting the EU free trade agreement and celebrating access to cheap European wine and champagne.

I don't know about you, but I'd put the quality wine of Margaret River up against any in the world, let alone just in Australia. I don't think it's worth celebrating on behalf of a government that portends to represent regional Australia. It's such a slap in the face. Producers who export Australian prosecco now face a forced transition away from the name that they've built their export businesses on, and I'd like to know why. Additionally, it's extremely important to the south-west of WA that organisations like Tourism Australia are well funded and well resourced to ensure that 'Brand Australia' is on point internationally and attracting tourism to our shores.

Shortly after international borders reopened after COVID, as one of its first acts, Labor cut $35 million from Tourism Australia at the exact moment that we needed to be shouting to the world that we were open again, competing again and ready to welcome tourists back to our country—pockets full of cash with lots to spend it on.

In 2026, the visitor economy is still not back to where it needs to be. Total international visitation remains below 2019 levels, and genuine holidaymakers—the sorts of people who fill hotels, book tours, hire cars, visit attractions and, importantly, spend money at cellar doors and otherwise keep our regional communities afloat, are still at less than 90 per cent of the 2019 levels. So here we go again—another Labor budget and more cuts to Tourism Australia. Indeed, this budget exposes some $50 million in reductions for Tourism Australia over the forward estimates. Again I'd like to know why. This is a time when international holidaymakers still have not recovered, as I said. The fuel crisis is hurting travel confidence as Australian families find it more and more difficult and, indeed, more and more expensive to get out into the regional parts of Australia. And so this cancellation, this cut, is sending exactly the wrong signal.

In 2026-27 alone, Tourism Australia's total expenses are $15.1 million lower than the government itself forecast in last year's budget. The most concerning cut, though, is to Tourism Australia's demand-building work. This is the core function that gets people on planes, fills hotel rooms, supports the aviation recovery and drives visitors back to regional Australia—like my part in south-west WA. That funding is down by almost $42 million over the comparison period. Again I'd like to know why, because my constituents, who are doing it tough being ignored by this government, are now staring down the barrel of budget cuts at the worst possible time for a regional economy like mine. It seems to me that the government cannot continue to credibly claim that it supports tourism, that it supports regional Australia, while continuing to cut the very programs that are designed to drive demand and convert it into bookings and businesses for those small and family owned businesses who rely on tourists coming to our part of the world and spending up big.

This is a real reduction in the resources available to sell Australia to the world. It means less capacity to compete in key international markets, less marketing firepower, fewer partnerships and weaker support for regional Australia. And again I'd like to know why.

I rise to contribute to this consideration in detail regarding the portfolio of foreign affairs and trade. Now, the work of this portfolio is directed at promoting and protecting Australia's interests overseas in support of our security and prosperity. We do this by maintaining a global diplomatic presence, and we have an overseas network spanning 114 overseas posts and consulates in 85 countries of resident accreditation around the world. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade also works to shape our international strategic policy to strengthen our economic engagement with our partners, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, and to provide development assistance. Global conflicts and challenges, trade and investment opportunities, the application and upholding of international rules, support for regional stability and support for Australians overseas all form part of this portfolio. In this respect, there are more than one million Australians overseas at any time, and the portfolio leads and coordinates efforts to help Australians in trouble overseas. In the 2025 financial year, the department managed over 26,000 cases of consular and crisis assistance and responded to over 61,000 calls to the consular emergency centre. The department supports around 1,500 consular cases at any one time, and earlier this year the department sprang into action to assist the thousands of Australians living, working and visiting countries in the Middle East after the conflict in Iran began.

Building relationships around the region and strengthening our partnerships with our neighbours has been a hallmark of this government. Our region benefits from stability and peace. When Australia is peaceful and stable, when the Indo-Pacific is peaceful and stable, the entire region benefits. Peace and stability across Australia and the Indo-Pacific and meaningful cooperation between all countries in the region sends a strong message that goes beyond. That message, which this government prosecutes, is that when collective responsibility is used to secure and maintain peace and stability, everybody benefits. It speaks to the importance of sustaining productive and mutually beneficial relationships with our regional partners, our traditional allies and our European, Asian and Canadian middle-power friends. The need to continue to generate, maintain and then further build regional security is an imperative that has been rightly recognised with this government's facilitation of both the Jakarta Treaty with Indonesia and the Pukpuk, or crocodile, Treaty with Papua New Guinea.

Regional security and stability lead to the creation and maintenance of circumstances in which the aspirations of the Indo-Pacific can be best realised, steering economic development and prosperity for all countries in the region. Stable regions have stable, resilient and fair economic environments that can grow and thrive, which is good for citizens and, importantly, good for democracy. Relationships with our regional partners have proven fruitful in recent months, with the government able to draw on these meaningful partnerships to secure additional fuel and fertiliser supplies for the Australian people in the midst of one of the most serious energy accessibility crises the world has ever seen. We would not have been at the front of the queue without having first done the work to build those relationships, which included exploring and crystallising what is mutually beneficial from a gain-of-trade perspective. The time to build relationships is not when a crisis arises; the right time is all times, which is the approach this government has taken and the approach that has been successful.

The EFA, legally constituted as the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, also falls under this portfolio. It's Australia's export credit agency, and it is also playing a critical role in fuel security. Last month, approximately 100 million litres of additional diesel was secured for Australians, with two shipments coming from Brunei and South Korea. This is the first of the expected shipments of fuel secured under the government's new strategic reserve powers, which saw Export Finance Australia partnering with Viva Energy to facilitate this purpose. Export Finance Australia has also reached commercial terms with Ampol, IOR and Park Fuels, supporting them to purchase the additional fuel needed to address regional shortages and critical supply gaps. We now have more fuel in this country than prior to 28 February. Perhaps the minister could update the chamber as to where we stand.

I rise for my contribution around consideration in detail, particularly since the minister's here, and to reinforce what the member for Forrest asked, particularly around the callous cuts to Tourism Australia. Over $85 million has been ripped out of Tourism Australia since they first came to government and over the forwards. In a time when tourism in Australia hasn't got past 2019 levels—we're sitting at about 90 per cent of 2019 levels, and if you cast your mind back, we had this little thing called COVID where planes stopped and the world stopped—I would have thought that one of the first actions of a government that took over after COVID would be to ensure that Tourism Australia was properly funded so that airlines could continue to bring people here, motels could be full and tourist operators could get their fair share after going through a pretty tough time.

I think it's important that the government gives an explanation to Tourism Australia, who has passionately defended this industry and has grown this industry in the important way that it contributes to this economy. It is important that the government gives an explanation as to why they cut it, what impacts that will have on the particular industries and what parts of tourism it will actually impact. I'm sure there would have been Treasury modelling on that. It's important that the government shows transparency to Tourism Australia out of sheer respect.

I'd also like to bring to the minister's attention—as the previous speaker, the member for Sturt, alluded to—the shortages around fuel. This mismanagement by the government in the initial stages of the fuel crisis in not understanding there were two markets—one in which regional markets are supplied by secondary tiered distributors, when we had towns running out—caused the government to spend $20 million on an advertising campaign that effectively trashed tourism in regional Australia.

I'll give you a perfect example. In my electorate, between Easter and October, we see somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 visitors every year. People come out as part of the drive market and go to towns like Longreach, Winton, Roma and Charleville. But we have seen nobody this year. In fact, I've been to caravan parks in Charleville where there is nobody there. I've been to motels in Charleville where they are sacking people today. This is because the government has put out a $20 million campaign telling us to take our roof racks off and to pump our tyres up. This has created fuel anxiety across regional Australia. People in the cities are too scared to come out. And when you talk to these tourist operators, they will tell you that 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the cancellations are because tourists believe they will get stuck in regional Australia. Tourists believe there isn't fuel there.

I have five councils in western Queensland that could create, in less than a week, an app that could tell people travelling across western Queensland whether there was fuel at fuel stations. We have a government that spent $20 million on telling us to take roof racks off and to pump our tyres up, but cannot create an app that gives Australians confidence to get out, travel across regional Australia and make sure there is economic diversity in these regional communities. The drive market is shot. And as we go into winter and into the ski season, you are going to see much of that sector also hurt because of the scare campaign that this government undertook. It's not going to take much to recalibrate some of that $20 million.

I wrote to the minister back in April—it would be great to get a response from him—asking him to get the government to create a national app. They have FuelWatch. All they have to do is add a little green bar next to it where they can actually show people, when they drive across regional Australia, where there is fuel at a fuel station. That would help take away the anxiety. They can pivot their $20 million into scaring Australians into submission. They could actually go and shout to the world that they have actually solved the fuel crisis and there is fuel there. They could create confidence across this country that there is fuel in regional Australia. If they recalibrated those ads immediately then we would get people out there. Our season isn't finished in regional and rural Australia.

It takes leadership to understand you have made a mistake. It takes leadership to fix it. But when you've got a minister who won't even respond to a letter that was sent with genuine intent, with genuine concern and real solutions for a little group of councils in western Queensland—I mean, the department would spill what it would cost to put an app together before smoko on a Monday. Surely, they can put together something that would give confidence to the Australian community that maybe this fuel crisis is over and that tourism is important in this country. Unfortunately, we have a government that has ripped the guts out of it in their budgets and has ripped the heart out of it with a purely senile advertising campaign.

In my first speech to the House, I talked about my time as an Australian diplomat and how alliances work in practice. In an increasingly uncertain world, our diplomatic relations have never been more important. The budget handed down by the Treasurer three weeks ago will continue to invest in strengthening Australia's relationships, our region, our resilience and ensuring we remain secure and influential.

The uncertain international environment that we are operating in is an important context for foreign affairs and trade. Countries across the Indo-Pacific are confronting a triple shock of major global aid cuts, trade disruptions and energy insecurity as a result of conflict. Each of these challenges risk increasing instability in our immediate region, and undermining years of hard earned diplomatic gains.

A stronger, safer and sovereign Pacific is good for our region and good for Australia, and this Labor government is investing in rebuilding relationships and restoring trust and friendship in the Pacific so that Australia can once again be the partner of choice. There is no better demonstration than the deepening of our relationships with Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Tonga with landmark agreements that strengthen our economic integration, climate resilience and regional security cooperation. And we welcomed the new prime minister of the Solomon Islands to parliament today as part of a high-level delegation agreeing to negotiate a new comprehensive treaty. Through the Pacific Islands Forum, we are backing responses to energy supply disruptions and inflation that are Pacific led, such as regional energy distribution hubs in Fiji, deepening our relationships by making sure our neighbours are equal partners.

There is no country more important to Australia's national security than Indonesia. The Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security—or, more simply, the Jakarta treaty—signed in February 2026, represents a major step in the bilateral relationship between our nations, and the most significant one in decades. Alongside the budget's $33.2 million in funding to institutionalise the Jakarta treaty, we are working to increase the prevalence of Indonesian language and country expertise within our own nation and creating new leadership dialogues to foster connections and understanding between the next generation of Indonesian and Australian leaders. Australia and Indonesia share deep trust and an unbreakable bond as neighbours, partners and friends, and we are building the future of the Australia-Indonesia partnership during this time of instability and uncertainty.

Additionally, Australia's partnership with India continues to build on the unprecedented progress that we have made across the strategic, economic and people-to-people relationship. The $25.3 million allocated in the budget will allow us to expand on the opportunities created by India's rapid economic growth. By enhancing commercial links with India, including through the Australia-India CEO Forum, we will create new opportunities to diversify our trade flows and build secure and open supply chains for our exporters and businesses, creating jobs and promoting economic growth.

When it comes to the difference between those opposite and this government, the contrast is clear. While the Liberals lectured the Pacific and left a vacuum for others to fill, this government is stepping up to the challenge. The investments we make in our region help stop people smuggling, drug trafficking, illegal fishing and the spread of disease and help address climate change. It is cheaper, smarter and safer to invest in stabilising our region now than to deal with the consequences of instability later. This budget delivers that investment to support peace, stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific, strengthening Australia's partnerships and protecting Australians at home.

I acknowledge the minister in the chamber, and I have some specific questions, especially in relation to the EU deal, compared to the UK deal that we did when in government, because there's a stark contrast. But I want to pick up a couple of things about trade.

I acknowledge the great work the coalition did when in government. As members would remember, when we came to government in 2013, about 20 per cent of goods and services that Australia exported were covered by free trade agreements, and by the time we left government it was 80 per cent. There were 15 or 16—I forget which number—multilateral or bilateral trade agreements that we did, including the CPTPP, which was significant, but also Korea, Malaysia and China. We set up a lot of free trade agreements in government because we believe in free trade. We have always been the country that has driven trade deals, and we have been very successful at it.

Members have been talking about fuel security. I want to remind everyone in this chamber right now that we sell about $650 billion worth of stuff overseas every year, and there are four big ones: coal, iron ore, gas and food/agriculture. They're the four big ones, and they add up to about $400 billion worth of stuff. Everyone was talking just now about what the government has been doing to guarantee fuel security—speaking to some of the leaders across South-East Asia and trying to guarantee that we would get fuel supply. Do you know what they were guaranteeing in return? There was something they went up there with. They said, 'If you give us and guarantee us the fuel supplies that we need, do you know what we'll make sure we guarantee you? We will guarantee you all the coal and all the gas and all the iron ore that we sell you.' That was what we had to trade.

I never hear it, but I'd love members opposite in the chamber to get up and celebrate our coal industry, to get up and celebrate our gas industry and to get up and celebrate our iron ore industry, because they are the industries that the ministers had as leverage to get our fuel supplies. The other thing—

Matt, I'll take the interjection. Have you ever celebrated the word—have you said 'coal' in the House?

Have you said the word 'coal'?

Australian resources—

Oh, 'Australian resources'! They can say 'resources'. The Treasurer obviously said the names of the things that we sell overseas. They can say 'resources', but they can't say the word 'coal'. Some of them could say the word 'gas'—many of them couldn't say the word 'gas' either—but none of them can say the word 'coal'. Celebrate it. It's how your ministers went up and guaranteed our fuel supplies. Coal was an important part of that, as was gas, so celebrate that.

The other thing I'll remind those opposite of as well—I don't know if any of you are regional—is the $400 billion worth of stuff. You need to be reminded. That $400 billion worth of stuff all comes—the main things that come out of Australia are regional. There are no coalmines in your electorates, there are no meat abattoirs in your electorate, there's no gas—

I'll take the interjection. What's the interjection?

We know where they are.

Good. I'm reminding you. I'm just reminding you: you don't have them. So respect them. Just because you don't have them doesn't mean you shouldn't respect them.

I ask that all comments come through the chair, please. Thank you.

Celebrate those industries. I remind you all that country Australia, regional Australia, is the backbone of this nation. We export everything. We are the electorates and the parts of Australia that sell everything. So thank us; don't demonise us like you do. Don't demonise regional Australia. Don't demonise coal workers, don't demonise gas workers and don't demonise farmers, as you do, with the way they farm and what they do.

Actually, Deputy Speaker Swanson, I'll give you a shout-out because I'd say you're one of the few Labor MPs who know what I'm saying, and you do respect it. You respect the coal industry, you respect the gas industry, you respect iron ore and you respect food. I know that you have a bit of a battle sometimes with some of your inner-city, wokey, leftie caucus members, who don't support those industries. So good on you. I know you agree with everything I've said, being a regional MP and supporting that wonderful backbone.

I'm running out of time, but I just want to make some comparisons. In the UK FTA, we got 170,000 tonnes of beef. The EU deal—35,000 tonnes. In the UK FTA, we got 220,000 tonnes of sugar. The EU deal—45,000 tonnes. One hundred and twenty-five thousand tonnes of lamb—shocking deal! (Time expired)

This budget is about resilience and reform at a time of global uncertainty. In uncertain times, Australia cannot turn inwards. We have a responsibility to lead in our region. I'm a proud member of the Tamil heritage—the first member of this background from New South Wales. I am also the first member of Papua New Guinean heritage in the House of Representatives. I represent Barton, one of the most diverse electorates in Australia. It is a place where people understand that our story as a nation is tied to the stories of our neighbours, our families and the region we call home. When I come to this place, I try to act in a way that honours that heritage. But, more than that, I try to act in a way that helps build the kind of Australia we need and the kind of region we need. In this budget, that means supporting peace, stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.

At the moment, Australia and our neighbours are facing a triple shock: global aid cuts, trade disruptions and energy insecurity—all linked to the conflict in the Middle East. These shocks are being felt across the world, but they are being felt particularly hard by developing nations in our region. That is why we are reprioritising our aid budget so that more than 75c in every development dollar is directed to our region.

For too long, Pacific nations were lectured, mocked and dismissed by the former coalition government. Their concerns about climate change were not taken seriously, their ambitions were belittled and their communities were treated as an afterthought. Development assistance was cut and a vacuum was left for others to fill. We're taking a different approach. We are treating the Pacific as family because they are family. That means trust. It means reliability. It means support.

Through the Pacific Islands Forum, we are backing Pacific-led responses to energy supply disruptions and inflation shocks, including targeted budget support in Fiji as a regional energy distribution hub. We've signed the Pukpuk Treaty, a historical mutual defence alliance between Australia and Papua New Guinea, and we are pursuing a landmark partnership agreement with Tonga focused on strengthening economic integration, climate resilience and regional security cooperation. That is what respectful partnership looks like.

When we turn to Indonesia, we see one of the most significant steps in our bilateral relationship in decades: the Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security, or the Jakarta Treaty. This is about strengthening the ties between our two nations at a time of real upheaval. It recognises that our futures are connected and that our security is stronger when we work together. With India, the next phase of our comprehensive strategic partnership will continue to deepen our relationship with one of the fastest growing economies in the world. That means diversifying trade. It means building secure and open supply chains for our exporters and businesses. It means continuing to build our capacity in the Indian Ocean so critical maritime trade routes remain free and open.

Now, some members of this parliament would have Australians believe that investing in our region is somewhat at odds with putting Australia first. But that is the problem with slogans; they might sound tough, but they do not deal with the world as it is. The wellbeing of our region is directly connected to the wellbeing of our own country. Development assistance to the Pacific and South-East Asia helps disrupt people-smuggling routes. It helps tackle drug trafficking, illegal fishing and the spread of disease. It helps build stability in the places closest to us, and it also ensures that Australia remains the partner of choice so that other powers cannot simply step in, gain influence and build proximity to our region. The truth is that backing our region is backing Australia. It is how we protect our borders, it is how we strengthen our economy and it's how we build the peace, stability and prosperity that our country and our region need.

Australia's international affairs budget is $76.18 billion, or some 9.5 per cent of the total federal budget. That includes defence, development, diplomacy, intelligence and international policing. But the distribution of that funding raises serious questions about whether the government is investing in the full range of tools needed to protect Australia's interests.

Defence dominates the international affairs budget, accounting for approximately 82 per cent of total spending. By contrast, official development assistance is just $5.2 billion, only 0.63 per cent of the federal budget. At a time of increasing conflict, geopolitical instability, climate disruption, humanitarian need and regional concerns, we need to make sure that we are adequately investing in all forms of statecraft.

Firstly—and these questions are in relation to foreign aid—will the government commit to returning Australia's foreign aid budget to at least one per cent of the federal budget, as called for by the Australian Council for International Development? Secondly, given that aid is now just 0.63 per cent of the federal budget, in what year does the government expect Australia's aid contribution to return to at least one per cent? Thirdly, how does the government justify aid declining in real terms when global official development assistance fell by 23.1 per cent from 2024 to 2025?

Conflict and global instabilities are increasing, yet investment in preventing these crises is moving in the opposite direction. Official development assistance across OECD Development Assistance Committee countries declined by 23.1 per cent from 2024 to 2025, the largest single-year decrease on record. Australia's own contribution remains historically low. Australia's ODA as a share of gross national income has fallen to 0.18 per cent, below the OECD average of 0.26 per cent—we're already talking about everything being very low here—and behind comparable partners, including the UK, Japan and Canada. This is all the while we have two billion people—around one quarter of the global population—living in conflict affected areas. Foreign aid is not charity; it is preventive statecraft. It supports regional stability, economic development, health security, humanitarian response and the ability of countries in our region to resist coercion. Polling also shows strong public support. YouGov polling from May 2026 found that 74 per cent of Australians support aid being maintained or increased. The government can't claim that there is no public support to rebuild the aid program, but what there is is an overestimation. The public believes we are providing much more aid than we actually are. The numbers are much lower than the public perception.

The next question I have is in relation to a CBAM. Does the government intend to implement an Australian carbon border adjustment mechanism? Has the government modelled the revenue that could be raised through a CBAM or fossil fuel export levy? Can the government ensure Australian industry is not disadvantaged by competing against imported products that do not face equivalent emissions costs?

The EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism is set to expand, and the UK is also moving towards a similar border carbon regime. These mechanisms are designed to apply a carbon cost to imported goods where emissions have not been priced earlier in the supply chain. Australia's safeguard mechanism applies to large domestic emitters, but it does not price exported fossil fuel emissions when those products are consumed overseas. Similarly, we do not address the imported emissions that come into Australia. That creates a serious risk. Other countries may collect carbon revenue at their borders on Australian products while Australia misses the opportunity to raise revenue at Australian borders and reinvest that revenue here. An Australian CBAM, alongside a fossil fuel export levy set at the same effective emissions price as the safeguard mechanism, could help protect Australian industry, support cleaner manufacturing and raise revenue for climate resilience. Is the government preparing Australia for this shift in global trade or waiting while other countries set the rules, because they are active in this space?

We're living in a period of sharper strategic competition, where rules and norms that underlie our security are under enormous pressure. The conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East are having material effects on Australians at home and their safety abroad, where disruptions to trade and global reductions in development assistance threaten the economic prosperity of our region. In this environment, we can't afford to be passive. We must work to shape a peaceful, prosperous region where Australia is a trusted partner, and that's what the budget does. The budget continues our government's commitment to investing in our region, our resilience and our relationships. It focuses our development assistance where Australia has the most at stake and where it can have the greatest impact, and that is in our neighbourhood, in the Indo-Pacific. The global development landscape is changing rapidly, and developing countries in our region face significant pressures, including major global aid cuts, trade disruptions and energy insecurity as well.

In 2026-27, Australia will invest $5.2 billion in official overseas development aid. Going to the last speaker's question, it's an increase in our overseas development aid budget. It's an indexed increase of $112 million from 2025-26, and our government introduced indexation to the overseas development aid budget. More than 75c in every development dollar will support the Indo-Pacific. There is $2.2 billion for the Pacific and $1.4 billion for South-East Asia. This is a strategic investment in Australia's national interests. When our region is peaceful, stable and prosperous, Australia is more secure. When our neighbours are more resilient, Australia is more resilient.

This budget continues our deepening engagement with the Pacific, supporting climate resilience, health, education, economic resilience, connectivity, infrastructure and access to essential services. Our focus is primarily on security, and we've already announced the Pukpuk Treaty, which builds on other agreements that we have: the Vuvale Partnership with Fiji and the Falepili Union with Tuvalu. It was also wonderful to see Matthew Wale, the new Prime Minister of Solomon Islands, here today—evidence of the growing relationship between Australia and our Pacific neighbours. We're backing that commitment with the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, with an additional $550 million in capitalisation, supporting high-quality, sustainable infrastructure across the region. For Pacific island countries, climate change is the No. 1 priority, and Australia will provide $173.7 million directly to climate change and environment initiatives for our regional development partners, which is a $29 million increase.

In South-East Asia, this budget also strengthens Australia's engagement with a region central to our future. The Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security—the Jakarta treaty—is a major step forward in our relationship with Indonesia, and this budget provides $33.2 million over four years to strengthen our institutional ties, increase Indonesian language and country expertise in Australia, support economic security and resilience, improve civil maritime capabilities and establish an annual Australia-Indonesia leadership dialogue.

With India, the budget provides $25½ million over four years to build our comprehensive strategic partnership. These are practical investments in the relationships that matter most to our community and to Australia.

At a time of global uncertainty, the government is investing in trade diversification. We've been successful in securing the Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement—and I will give credit to the opposition. The A-UKFTA and the CPTPP were good agreements, and Labor offered support to those. The question for the opposition is: will you offer similar support for the Australia-EU Free Trade Agreement, which opens up and expands markets for Australian agricultural producers, into the largest market in the world—Europe? That is a question that they will not answer. Will they or won't they support the Australia-EU Free Trade Agreement?

I was asked to provide an update regarding fuel. I can tell the House that we now have 48 days worth of fuel, 30 days of avgas and 36 days of diesel. Who would have thought that we now have more fuel supplies in stock than we did when this crisis began! It's a great example of the wonderful work that our government has done in securing fuel supplies for the Australian people, to ensure that our economy doesn't face disruption, and a great example of the strong relationships that we have internationally.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

It's such a train wreck of a budget that we have right now, and one of the worst things is the complete failure and unwillingness of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to answer basic questions of the Australian community about the impact the budget is having—how it's kneecapping young Australians and kneecapping small businesses, rather than backing them in for a pathway to growth. It doesn't seem to matter what question we ask in question time or in this chamber—the minister barely even turns up, let alone answer a question. They either don't understand their budget, or they don't care about the impact it's going to have on Australians.

I raised this question this morning and there was still no answer from the sneaky Treasurer, who spends an awful lot of time promoting 'doubleplus untruths', as we'd call it in Newspeak—I don't want to be unparliamentary—about the impacts and his data, just to spin a line to get himself out of a tricky situation. Have you ever seen that episode of South Park where people get this problem of smug and they can't see through the smug? That's certainly what it's like when the Treasurer is in question time.

I raised the example this afternoon of what impact the budget is going to have on trusts. Through our notthetax.com.au website, we've collected a lot of stories that have stepped through the impact to trusts. I'll use this one example: 'In 1968, my first child'—I'll leave out their name—'was born with a brain injury. He lives in care. He's unable to tie his shoelaces or even add one and one. When I die, he will not be capable of handling an inheritance or managing the challenges of siblings. Therefore we established a discretionary trust to administer his share equitably and to make sure that he was able to live a dignified life, despite his brain injury.'

What's the Albanese government's solution to that, Member for Mitchell? The answer is to tax it. Chuck a minimum 30 per cent tax on people with a disability. When we used similar examples in the House of Representatives and asked the Prime Minister whether he was going to impose taxes on people with a disability, he dismissed it as though there were no problem at all; he even denied that it was going to happen.

This government can't answer basic questions about its budget. I think it's actually because they don't understand their budget, and I think we're more seeing and more evidence of that. The slippery treasurer—I could come up with a different word, but I'll just leave it at 'treasurer'—might think he can dart his way in and dart his way out, but eventually economic reality will catch up with him. You need to answer basic questions, Treasurer, because what you spin isn't what Australians are living.

I know the Prime Minister goes into question time—and the Treasurer does the same—and says that Australians have never had it so good under the Albanese government, but the reality is something quite different. We've had a three per cent decline in real wages since the start of the Albanese government. There have been record small business insolvencies—that's jobs, that's aspiration, that's hope and, of course, that's employment. Every time somebody wants to work hard to get ahead, under the Albanese government the answer is to punch down at them and to tax them. Even worse than that, they don't want them to succeed. Since the budget, we've had examples of small businesses that are concerned about the impact these tax changes are going to have on them in the future, and the Treasurer wants them to fail so that they fall short. What a despicable act from a government—to want the citizens of their own country to fail at commerce, to want them not to be fully successful or able realise their ambitions and their dreams. That's what makes me so angry.

They won't even answer basic questions. 'Minister, has the government modelled how quickly the tax cuts that you're offering in this budget will be overtaken by receipts from inflation, and, if so, when will it be overtaken?' We asked that yesterday. Did we get an answer? No. Zip. Zero. 'Minister, can the government guarantee that, under the budget, a worker on the median wage will be better off in real terms next financial year, once you factor in inflation?' They couldn't answer that one either. We know the reason why. It's because Australian workers won't be better off. 'Minister, what is the total value of budget expenditure?' That's the other big problem we've got. They just keep accruing more and more on the off-budget expenditure side, or the shadow budget. 'How much will Australians give to the government that they can get back under new tax measures?' They can't answer that. 'Does the budget say it will build more or less homes?' We know the answer to that—35,000 fewer. 'What about the direction of rents?' They're going up. (Time expired)

I will give the shadow treasurer some credit here. He does have some great oratory, with a lot of flair and a lot of hyperbole, but let's look at some of the facts here. Something that they don't want to admit is that a change to the CGT in 1999 by then prime minister John Howard did not have the result they were hoping for. Instead, that change—the 50 per cent discount on CGT—had the unintended consequence of making homeownership harder for first home buyers. In the shadow treasurer's hyperbole, I don't know if he's going to recognise that fact, but let us all recognise the fact, today, that the change failed to do what the Howard government was hoping it would do, which was to increase investment in shares. What actually happened was that investment in shares and dividends went down, whereas investment in property shot through the roof.

We want people to succeed. We want them to invest. But we don't want a first home buyer going to an auction and having to compete against an investor who has the whole taxation system—negative gearing and the 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax—working for them. That's an unfair playing field. Anyone would admit that. So what happened under their watch? When my parents bought their first home 40 years ago, the dream of homeownership was within reach because a home cost about three times the average household income and you could save for a deposit in just four years. When I bought my first home 15 years ago, it had already become twice as hard. Homes were six times the average income, and it took eight years to save for a deposit. For a young Australian today it's even harder. Homes cost around nine times a typical household income, and it takes close to 12 years to save for a deposit. So what have we done as a country in less than three generations? We've made it three times harder to buy a home and take three times longer to save, because homes cost three times more relative to income. And that's not just a statistic; it's a whole generation locked out of homeownership.

Those opposite don't want to admit this fact. They don't want to talk about how first home buyers are finding it really difficult. The challenge is absolutely difficult. The challenge is immense. Part of it is making sure that we get our tax system right. Part of it is making sure that we increase supply, that we're building more homes. And part of it is to help first home buyers get their foot in the door. We on this side of the house are actually trying to address it from all three fronts. While those opposite ignore it—in fact, they fuelled it—we on this side of the house are addressing it on all three fronts. At every budget that we have delivered since we have been in government, we have put measures in place to increase housing supply and to support first home buyers trying to buy their first home.

Let's remember what those opposite did. They failed so completely that they forgot to appoint a minister for housing. That's how seriously they took the problem. But we have addressed supply, we're addressing support for first home buyers and now, in this budget, we are levelling the playing field. We are making changes to negative gearing and we're making changes to the capital gains tax so that, when that first home buyer, that young Australian who has an aspiration to own a first home, goes to that auction, they are getting a fair crack at being able to afford buying that home. They're not having to bid against investors who have a taxation system that is heavily weighted towards them. Now, if that is not aspirational, I do not know what is. We on this side of the House are pro homeownership. We are pro aspiration and, importantly, we are supporting that first home buyer.

I have about three or four questions to the government and to the minister, and the first one is: why did you deceive the Australian public? There's an issue of integrity that's really important here. I understand that people might have opinions on certain policies and might want to do stuff. I even understand that you might say, 'Well, we came to this conclusion because of whatever reason.' When you do something that you didn't say you were going to do is one thing. If you just said, 'Well, we didn't say we—' there's so much deceit here, I'm not even sure how to frame this. At the election campaign, you said you weren't going to do it. So there's a different level you've gone to in the deceit of the Australian public. There's a different level of deceit you've gone to with your communities, and you should hang your heads in shame. I know you're all looking at your phones, but hang your heads in shame at the same time, because what you went to the Australian public with 12 months ago was that you weren't going to do this. Not only did you not announce it—a lot a lot of governments haven't announced things that they then went and did after the election; I get that—but you actually said you wouldn't do it. So there's a level of deceit there. There's a level of dishonesty there. There's a level of a lack of integrity there. There's a level of arrogance there. There's a level of hubris there that I really think you should all have a long, hard look at, because what's happened is the Australian public now don't believe you. Anything that especially your leader and your Treasurer say no-one believes any more. The Prime Minister has got a bit of a record of it: 'No, we're not going to make changes to super. No, we're not going to make changes to tax cuts, and we're going to promise you $275.' There's a long list now of deception and deceit. I think they've now finally worked it out. So my question is: why did you deceive the Australian public 12 months ago?

My next question is: why do you think one of the highest capital gains levels in the world is good for business and private enterprise in this country? We have countries like New Zealand and Singapore. I mention them because they're sort of our closest neighbours and two comparisons which are moving capital gains taxes in the exact opposite direction because they realise to attract investment, to attract capital, you've got to be competitive. So why are you making us one of the countries in the world with the highest level of capital gains tax? The thing that people now tell me—small businesses, medium-sized businesses and big businesses now say: 'This is the rule in Australia. This is how Australia now works. We have to take the risk, and the Albanese Labor government take the reward.' That's what they're saying to me. Why do you think one of the highest levels of capital gains taxes in the world is good for our economy? I'd like to know your answer for that.

I do have a little bit of a theory behind it, which I'm happy to share. I think it's because both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have never worked in private enterprise. They wouldn't know what it's like to make money and don't know what it takes to make money in a private enterprise because they've never had any experience in private enterprise. They've been bubble boys in the sense that all they've ever done is work in politics, whether it be in federal or state politics as a staffer. So neither the Treasurer nor the Prime Minister has had a real job. That's one of my theories. If I'm wrong, please tell me why they understand private capital and how the world works at that front. So I have two questions so far: why did you deceive the Australian public last year, and why do you think some of the highest capital gains levels in the world are going to help our economy? I do have a theory, though, for that one.

I was actually in the budget lock-up. This is not me saying this; this is actually in the budget paper, so I assume it's Treasury saying this. Why do you think it's a good idea, when we don't have enough housing stock, that tax proposals you announced on budget night will mean that 35,000 fewer homes will be built over the next 10 years? You might say, 'You're just saying that because you're the other side of politics.' No, I'm not. I'm quoting Treasury. I'm very interested in the answer to this one as well: why do you think we don't have enough homes being built? We all acknowledge that. It's something we both agree on in politics. So I'd love to know the answer to the question: why have you introduced tax policies that will mean 35,000 fewer homes will be built over the next 10 years? That's in quotation marks from Treasury. So could you explain that to me and to Treasury. I think Treasury probably may be interested as well in why you want to build fewer houses.

I do want to bring up trusts as well. I've got a couple of good examples here that I'll let go. So just remember: Why did you deceive the Australian public? Why do you think the highest capital gains taxes in the world are going to be good for our economy? And why do you want fewer homes to be built?

Despite the comments from those opposite, I am actually very proud to stand here today as a member of the Labor government that has been delivering on commitments to all Australians. We've delivered on so many. Here are three of the best. No. 1 is making health care cheaper and more accessible, with more free doctor visits following record investments in bulk-billing, $25 PBS scripts, free Medicare urgent care clinics, including the great new one in Kelvin Grove in my electorate, and the free walk-in Medicare mental health centres, including one in Lutwyche in Brisbane. No. 2 is supporting wage increases for our lowest paid workers, including aged-care workers and those who service at our local pubs. Low-paid workers will see an increase of between 4.75 per cent and six per cent in their pay packets in about three weeks. No. 3 is enabling almost 250,000 first home buyers into a home of their own and building 5,000 social and affordable homes for those in need. These reforms have made a real difference to every worker and their families. Let's not forget that those opposite opposed all of these measures.

There is so much going on in the world around us at the moment—a war in the Middle East, oil price shocks and natural disasters. This Labor government can't control these events, but we can support Australians who are impacted and who continue to do it tough. That's why, in this '26 budget, we continue to roll out responsible cost-of-living relief for people across Brisbane and Australia. It's why we've taken strong decisions to introduce big reforms that start to address intergenerational inequalities, especially when it comes to housing, to make our tax system fairer. It's why we've designed this budget to make our economy more resilient.

At the same time, we're building a responsible and a stronger budget with lower deficits and less debt, which will help take pressure off inflation and build our fiscal buffers during these times of global uncertainty. Responsible economic management is a defining feature of this government, and this budget is our most responsible yet. Decisions in this budget mean we're saving more and we're spending less compared to the midyear update. And, as a proportion of the economy, debt is below what we inherited from those opposite. This is strong economic management by our Labor government.

This government is committed to helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. We're delivering another tax cut for 13 million Australian taxpayers from 1 July this year. That's on top of the one from last year, and there'll be the third one in July next year. We're taking an extra $250 off working Australians' tax bills permanently, and there's the $1,000 instant tax deduction without receipts. That, of course, comes on top of cutting fuel taxes to save many when they fill up at the bowser.

One of the most important reforms of this Labor government's tax package is rebalancing tax payments so that the system is fairer for everyone, especially young people. What I hear when I talk to our community in Brisbane is 'We're working hard. It's tough to get ahead. The system is not working for us'—and guess what? They're right. The status quo is not working, especially when it comes to the big Australian dream of owning your own home. We've already delivered five per cent deposits for first home buyers, and we're building 100,000 homes just for them. But right now, first home buyers are being priced out by property investors backed by tax breaks like negative gearing, which also happens to be helping drive up the price of homes. This can't go on. A whole generation is being left behind. That's why we're acting. We're levelling the playing field for first home buyers by changing the capital gains tax and negative gearing.

Another thing we're doing is making housing more affordable by building more homes, and that's why we're helping fund some of the essential infrastructure like water, power and roads. Labor has always been and always will be the party of fairness in Australia. That's why this budget is pro aspiration. It's pro-worker. It's pro-investor. It's for every young person who dreams to buy a home. It's for every person who goes to work every day, maybe before dawn or working through the night, and who brings home that pay packet but is still finding it tough. It's for those who have fallen on tough times, and it's for those who want to invest. This government is doing everything it can to help Australians with the cost of living, and we're changing the tax system to make it fairer for our younger generation.

Now the LNP has a clear choice. They can continue to watch the ground sink beneath young people's feet and pretend that it's solid, or they can join us and recognise that Australians need a tax system that works for everyone. While those opposite continue to be focused on themselves, this Labor government is focused on delivering for all Australians.

The first question is one that all the Australian people want to know. Why did this treasurer and this government mislead and deceive the Australian people at the last election? Suddenly, 12 months later, they've realised that housing is an issue. It's been an issue for a long time, and their position has changed. So the real question then is: has the Minister for Housing failed? Is it about time that the housing minister gets reshuffled out of another portfolio that they have failed in—the minister who failed in Home Affairs and has gone to housing and has failed? That answer can be given by the RBA.

There was a secret document released that the government didn't want out. The RBA didn't want it out. It showed that this government has failed when it comes to housing in their first term. The Australian people know that and young people know that because, when they try to get a house, it's harder than ever. Those opposite will talk about how this budget is about housing, but if it's about housing why are they increasing taxes on stocks, on small businesses, on ETFs and on those young people that leave a corporate job and join a startup and take stock options? How is collecting $77 billion of increased taxes helping young people get into housing? The answer is that it's not, because this budget is not about helping young people get into housing. It is about taking more from the Australian people so that the government can spend it as they see fit. However, we know that this government continues to fail when it comes to spending money on behalf of the Australian people.

We know this budget is so bad that this Treasurer is doing everything possible to avoid scrutiny. Today in the House there was an opportunity for the Treasurer and for the government to be proud of their work, proud of their budget and support this work going to the House economics committee for review. We wanted to make sure that there were no unintended consequences; to make sure small businesses, young people and the Australian people were not impacted. But this government hid from scrutiny.

Those opposite all went in and voted against referring this to a committee that they control. I don't know why the Treasurer would not want the member for Chifley, of all people, scrutinising this legislation. The Treasurer and the member for Chifley are working closely together and have a great relationship, so I cannot imagine why the Treasurer would be scared of scrutiny, other than the fact that he can't defend his changes. That is why he is rushing this legislation through. But that committee referral was important to scrutinise this. As media reports showed on the weekend, one backbencher from the government was quoted as saying, 'I don't understand this legislation.' We literally have a member of the government about to vote on legislation that they admitted, in their own words, they don't understand, so what hope does a business owner have of understanding it?

We saw the pathetic efforts in question time yesterday where the Minister for Housing, when asked about new builds, couldn't answer the question in a five-second answer. The Minister for Housing doesn't understand the detail of how this legislation will impact housing and the Australian people. This government want to hide from scrutiny. They do not understand the basic facts.

We saw a protection racket today when the Manager of Government Business had to protect the Minister for Sport from answering a question about how this budget will impact sporting clubs in my community and in every community across the country. The Minister for Sport does not understand the detail of how these changes will impact the Australian people, sporting clubs and community groups who are working so hard to support young people. In many cases, sporting clubs are the lifeblood of a community.

This government does not understand the changes that they have made. They are continuing to hide from scrutiny. This Prime Minister and this Treasurer are playing political games, rushing this legislation through when it doesn't come into effect until 2027. They want to hide from scrutiny. We've heard again and again over the past three days, and we're going to hear it again tomorrow, government backbenchers regurgitating talking points without understanding the detail of what they are voting for. They are not allowed to have their own thoughts on the government side. The reality is that if it stood up to scrutiny, they wouldn't have misled the Australian people at the last election. They would be proud of their changes. They would be happy to have a House economics committee review it. They would be happy to have more than two days of scrutiny in the Senate. This is a bad budget that is going to hurt the Australian people, and it is going to cost this government because they have been dishonest with every Australian. (Time expired)

I rise in support of the proposed appropriation. This is about funding our essential government agencies under the Treasury umbrella. These are agencies that help shape our economic policy, administer our tax system, protect consumers, support business and ensure that all of us, as decision-makers, have the information and thoughtful advice we need to make good decisions on behalf of the Australian people.

We know that our economy is facing a series of long-term challenges—the difficulty for Australians to buy their first home; demographic change; technological change, which is presenting both remarkable opportunities and challenges at the same time—so we need more than good intentions. We need strong, robust institutions that support good governance in Australia.

This budget paper is more than just about supporting bureaucrats, it's about maintaining and building on our economic resilience, our productivity and on our consumer protections. The efficiency and effectiveness of our institutions doesn't mean that this is something that can just be ignored. I understand the temptation for political theatre, and I have enjoyed some of the showmanship as much as anyone, but the reality is a well-governed society requires good institutions. It's the boring bit of the budget process, but it is important. It ensures that, when we come up with challenging policies, we actually have the facts behind us. It ensures that, when we're confronted with decisions that affect the future of the Australian people, we have the relevant facts on the table, whether we like them or not, and that we have the economic reality put in front of us, whether it suits us politically or whether it reflected our perceptions years ago, simply to make decisions based on the world as it is, not how we wished it to be. The strength of those institutions is essential for us to maintain the strong governance that Australians rely on.

These institutions also play an essential role in protecting us from things like scams, like the work of the ACCC. I know in my electorate of Deakin there are a lot of people—older people, young people and even small businesses—that are being affected by scams, and some of the remarkable work being done by the ACCC in helping protect individuals and small businesses from the increasing risks of scams has been incredibly important. That is the kind of day-to-day grunt work that is so essential to keeping our economy going, and it's these bodies that sit under Treasury that do a lot of that thankless work.

They do the stuff that we don't talk about in either the main chamber or in this chamber but is really important and affects people's day-to-day lives, such as ensuring our tax system works properly and with integrity to ensure that we receive the revenue that is required to pay for all the things that Australians need—defence, health, education and all of those important things—but also making sure that it is done in a way that Australians can have trust in. That institutional trust is essential for the functioning of our democracy and our economy. It's the strength of our institutions which can give investors confidence all around the world that Australia is the right place to invest. So, when we invest in the institutions listed in this appropriation, we are actually investing in our own economic prosperity going forward.

There's also a lot of important work being done around cutting red tape. We've had a lot of discussions in this chamber about small business, but I think one thing we can all agree on is that we've really got to get out of our own way. We've got to minimise the impost of compliance on small business. The work being done to cut unnecessary red tape is an essential piece of work that we've been following through on in successive budgets, and certainly this one has a real focus on ensuring that we continue to cut red tape and simplify things for small business going forward.

It also has some specific measures that are of benefit to workers. We have the $250 working Australians amount. We also have the simplification of a year-on-year tax through that $1,000 instant deduction, saving a whole lot of people the trouble of keeping receipts and hiring an accountant when they have fairly straightforward tax returns by simply being able to tick and opt for a $1,000 instant deduction, which we expect to help millions of Australians recover more every single tax year. That's not just an election sweetener. That's not just a one-off. That is permanent structural reform to the tax system.

It's because we have the support of professional institutions that we were able to develop and implement these really important policies and changes. While we get the glory work and get to take the credit for the good—and sometimes we cop the blame for the bad—the hard grunt work is really being done by our institutions in government, who really don't receive enough credit. I get as frustrated as anyone with bureaucracy, but the important work that our Public Service does really lacks recognition in this place sometimes. The important work being done to ensure that the trust and integrity in our institutions that we currently enjoy is preserved and built upon is essential. If we continue to invest in these important institutions, we can all be assured that governance in this country is based on robust information and advice from professionals who have done the grunt work. I commend this appropriation to the House and thank all of the hardworking people in Treasury and all of its agencies for their great work.

Government spending sits at 26.8 per cent of GDP against a 50-year average of 24.5 per cent, and it is forecast to remain elevated across the entire forward estimates. New policy decisions in this budget added $12 billion of payments over two years. Off budget, there's a record $32.5 billion in net cash flows from investments in financial assets next year alone. This was an expansionary budget delivered in an inflationary environment. The savings the government has relied on rely heavily on restructuring the NDIS, which I wholeheartedly support, but it is one of the most politically and administratively challenging reforms in recent memory. I support the intent, but these savings can't be banked until they're delivered.

Beyond that, I don't believe the hard calls in this budget were made enough in spending, particularly in things like infrastructure and the EV discount. Why is this? Because the Budget Process Operational Rules make restraint structurally difficult. The offset rule sounds like a discipline; in practice it encourages ministers to hoard savings until they can be recycled into new programs. Combined with broad exemptions for election commitments and ERC discretion, programs only ever grow. Demand driven spending compounds this, with costs routinely exceeding budgets.

In place of restraint, considerable spending has been pushed off-budget, where public scrutiny is weaker. This amounts to an extra percentage point of GDP. Next year, $7 billion of that is too commercially sensitive to even itemise. This is not transparency; it is the opposite. Spending concerns are compounded by an inability to show what it has bought. A recurring finding from the audit office is that agencies cannot demonstrate effectiveness, because evaluation was never built in. Programs run for years, get extended, get increased budgets and never face a rigorous test of whether they work.

Productivity growth has averaged 0.2 per cent for seven years against 2.2 per cent in the 1990s. Addressing this decline is essential and urgent for our future prosperity. I welcome the productivity package in this budget on the performance tests, venture capital, loss refundability and carry back. The deregulation agenda is also welcome, but it is devoid of clear timeframes and metrics, and it is promised by every government. Like the NDIS savings, there is still a long road to the bank.

The government's centrepiece growth thesis is Future Made in Australia. I support investment in clean energy where Australia has a genuine comparative advantage, but building strategic redundancy in the name of national security is the explicit antithesis to productivity. There may be a price worth paying, but it should be named honestly, costed honestly and evaluated honestly. We do not have that.

So the government must do three things. Firstly, a bottom-up build of every portfolio, with existing measures scrutinised line by line and justified in, with the goal of returning to structural surplus without raising taxes. Secondly, every policy proposal must state publicly what they think success looks like, by when and against what benchmark, and programs that don't meet the mark must be reconsidered. Finally, the government must commit to real timeframes to deliver its national single market and deregulation agenda.

When government takes income through taxation and returns it through spending, it substitutes its own judgement for that of the people who earned it. That is sometimes right, but it should not be the default. The people of Wentworth are not asking for more programs; they're asking for better ones. They're asking for the room to shape their own lives on their own terms. That requires lower taxes on working incomes. The income tax cuts in this budget are welcome, but they are insufficient and are undermined by an expenditure trajectory that keeps pressure on the fiscal position indefinitely. There is a choice: a government that grows its own footprint and crowds out the choices of its citizens or one that trusts people to build their own futures.

There are a number of issues with the government's budget, and these are the fundamentals that need to be addressed. I can see that the government is trying to address some of the issues in relation to spending, but it needs to go significantly further. Our economy has changed; our population is ageing. That does put additional spending pressures on the budget. But the speed at which the government has moved from a more traditional percentage of GDP spending to its current level of spending does not reflect demographic changes. It just reflects a different way of running the country, which is a way I don't think the Australian people have supported.

It's useful to think about our housing crisis by way of looking at people. Sometimes that might be a friend who's not wanting to move out of their school catchment area so their child doesn't have to change school; maybe it's walking up to someone that's in the process of selling stuff on Facebook Marketplace and they have a six-month-old baby, but they're packing up their house because the landlord has put up the rent; maybe, as I saw, it's a lady playing the clarinet at the park next to the zoo because that's where she lives while facing homelessness; or it could be a FIFO worker who just cannot find a rental. These are the many stories that we've heard all across Australia. What this budget is fundamentally about is fixing the system to make it fairer for more people. The ability to own a home should not be a privilege for some; it's a right that should belong to every Australian, and for too long that has not been the reality—not for the people that I represent in my community and not for Australians all across the country. This bill introduces tax reforms that rebalance the system. They are reforms that back the workers, the first home buyers and the generation coming up behind us.

For too long, the way that we tax labour income and the way that we tax investment in residential property has been out of balance. The result over many years has been a system that has rewarded those who already own assets as opposed to those that are trying to acquire their first home. Since 1999, house prices have increased by more than 400 per cent. That growth has been twice as fast as the growth of incomes. That is the gap that this generation has been asking the government to close. It has locked too many people out of ownership. Young people in our communities go to school, university or TAFE; get their first job; work hard; and do everything right, and they still find themselves locked out of the housing market.

As the Prime Minister said earlier today, the Labor Party is the party of home ownership. That's why the Albanese Labor government is coming at the housing challenge from every single possible angle. We're building more homes, we're making rent fairer and we're backing first home buyers, and now we're making the tax system fairer. Let me start with supply because, contrary to what the opposition believes, you can't fix housing without building more of it. In my electorate alone, we are delivering 524 new social and affordable homes, and 487 of those are coming from the Housing Australia Future Fund, a fund that the coalition voted against—a fund they tried to stop. That fund is currently delivering homes in my community, but the supply alone is not enough.

That's why this budget matters. It reforms negative gearing. It reforms capital gains tax. These reforms over time will help an additional 75,000 Australians enter the housing market over the next decade. This is a significant change, and it is a significant change of direction after a period of time in which home ownership rates have been decreasing. But this government is not just relying on these generational tax reforms to rebalance the scale. We're already helping Australians own their own home in my electorate. In the electorate of Swan, 1,965 first home buyers have already bought their first home through Labor's five per cent deposit scheme.

The week before last, when I was doorknocking in the electorate, I spoke to a young man who was grateful to get a 20 per cent HECS cut but also recognised that we're trying to make the housing system fairer for his generation. And then I spoke to an older gentleman called Gary, who told me that he loved the changes and wanted Labor to go further. Last week, when I was in Canberra, I spoke to Shane North, who called the office to say that these are fantastic changes. What he explained is that he had worked hard and bought his own home and he wanted the same for the next generation. It wasn't because he was a father, because he's not. He said that it was just fundamentally the right thing to do. That is my community, and I am proud to represent them.

I want to acknowledge that this kind of reform is not easy. With this in mind, the test of tax reform is not whether it pleases every commentator or billionaire. The test is whether the system is fairer as a whole. To that test, this bill stacks up.

The budget each year is probably the most important set piece that a government will engage in. An important part of that process is this consideration in detail on which we're embarking this evening. It's quite concerning to me that we don't have the Treasurer here and we don't have the Minister for Housing here. We've just heard the member talk extensively about housing, but the people who don't seem keen to come up here and defend the budget are the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing.

Chirping away over on the other side there, we've got the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, which is wonderful. He probably knows a thing or two about the tax changes that were in this budget, because he was the assistant shadow treasurer between 2013 and 2019, the period in which I might say these taxes were born under the leadership of the then shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen.

All these great changes to CGT and negative gearing were put out there at the 2019 election—in an honest fashion, I might say. They were wholeheartedly rejected by the Australian people. As a result, the assistant minister opposite spent another three years in opposition licking his wounds, lost the job of being the shadow assistant treasurer, and now finds himself here tonight trying to defend the indefensible broken promises in this Labor budget.

It really deserves to be asked: if the members are so deadset keen on this being the great solution for housing, why, on page 158 of the budget papers, does it disclose that there will actually be 35,000 fewer homes constructed as a direct result of the taxation changes that are proposed in this budget? If one of these senior ministers were here, I would like them to acknowledge whether or not they know that, in fact, just not introducing these new taxes would lead to more homes. Imagine that: if they had just decided not to introduce all of these big new property taxes, we would actually be 35,000 properties ahead of where we are now.

All of this—with the objective, I might say, of throwing out a taxation system that has been well settled—is for an objective of 7,500 additional first home buyers each year. If you take that down to the electorate level, like the member was just talking about, that's 50 new first home buyers in her electorate and in each and every electorate across Australia. That is a massive risk for this government to take—to tip over the taxation system that has served Australian first home buyers and families well, over many, many years—for that outcome.

We know that this government, over the course of the last four years, has let 1.4 million new Australians into this country through net overseas migration. They're now on track for two million people. I would like to know, from the housing minister or the Treasurer: Do they agree that this migration intake has put pressure on housing? Do the ministers agree that tying migration to housing completions would actually help? We think it would. It would assist in reducing this incredible demand that's been created through what has been going on with net overseas migration over the last four years.

I've got to say that I'm not surprised that the housing minister is not here. She's had a rough day, because she woke up to news on the front page of the Australian today talking about her answer—her words—in question time yesterday, when she responded to a question from the member for Capricornia about a granny flat and said:

A new dwelling is one that genuinely adds new to housing supply.

We also know that the budget explainer states that a granny flat adjacent to an established property is ineligible for negative gearing. So, Minister, explain. If you can't understand your own policy, how on earth are Australians supposed to understand it? Will a granny flat be negatively geared or not?

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

I have one simple question, which I hope this government can answer. After four years of an Anthony Albanese government, why are we still filling out a paper based declaration card, when returning to, or coming to, Australia, to declare what is in your bags and where you have been? I can give a little bit of feedback and a little bit of experience on this because I was once the agriculture minister. Back in 2021-22, we sat on a pathway of digitising the declaration card so that we could simplify it like the rest of the world has done to make it easier for our airports to process passengers through those airports so they can enjoy their holiday here in Australia but also to protect our biosecurity and for Border Force to have the information about those coming in here. Wouldn't it make sense that, in 2026, after we set this in train back in 2021-22 at the cost of a bit over $20-odd million to digitise this, we have a government that has been here for four years and still hasn't prioritised this?

Just so we understand—this goes beyond Border Force into biosecurity, because we were also putting in place and prioritising 3D X-ray scanners with AI intelligence. We were doing that in New Zealand. If you put your bag through New Zealand and came to Australia, that scan would marry with your electronic declaration so that our Border Force and an AQIS staff would know what was in your bag before you even came here and whether it married up with the declaration card. That was going to save hundreds of millions of dollars in what was required of the resources at our airports to process passengers through every one of our ports. The fact is that, four years on, this government has fallen asleep at the wheel and hasn't digitised the declaration card when the rest of the world has. When we face the Olympics in Brisbane in 2032, you'll have line-ups waiting to come through airports, whether they be in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne or wherever they want to come into this country to go and experience the Olympics. We will still be waiting because the Albanese government has been sitting there doing three-fifths of bugger all.

The reality is that the technology's there, the opportunity is there and the streamlining of this process helps Border Force and AQIS to process passengers. That feeds in to what happens in terms of what we actually charge for the processing of passengers coming through. This government added to the processing of passengers an extra $10 in this budget. Well, if you invested in technology, you wouldn't have to increase that and put a tax on tourism by actually saying there's another $10 on the passenger movement charge in this country. If you had invested in a simple digitisation of the declaration of those coming into this country for a measly $25 million, you would have sorted this out. What is the minister doing? Literally—where are the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry? We had it sorted. We were ready to actually implement this. We'd actually invested in further technology down the supply chain to ensure that we could process passengers but also protect our borders even better with AI intelligence and 3D scanning. That would go further to make sure that we protected Australians. We would streamline this. This is just common sense. But, for some reason, this minister has been asleep at the wheel and has let this fall away. This is an opportunity for the minister to explain why.

To finish in the time allotted to me, I saw in the Australian today a story about illicit tobacco and a new report that tells us that now we are to the point where only about 20 per cent of the market is through a regulated model. The rest is through the black market because we have gone down this model of prohibition. Prohibition has never worked anywhere, and the fact that this government has said that they think that it will work has meant that we have lost billions of dollars of excise that will now not go into our health system, where we will still have the health problems to abide. This is the reality of a government that has lost touch with the reality of where we sit as a nation and where the pressures are as a nation. I say to the minister: there are a couple of quick fixes here, and you could do them very quickly. (Time expired)

You might live in Sunnybank on Brisbane's south side in my electorate of Moreton. Your kids might go to one of the local state schools. It could be Sunnybank Hills State School, the No. 1 school in all of Queensland. You might sit on the local P&C and turn the sausages at the barbecue for the big fundraiser. You might coach the local netball team. You might work as a nurse paying your taxes and looking after some of the most vulnerable people in our community. But you've got a problem, because the coalition has you in their sights, because you are a permanent resident.

Opposition members interjecting—

Those opposite may 'ooh', but it's not funny, and it's not funny because we're talking about the lives of real people not only in my community but in yours. Yes, these are hundreds of thousands of hardworking taxpaying people, people who are a critical part of our community, people who are a critical part of our economy, and many of them live in my community, which is the most multicultural electorate in all of Queensland. They are doctors, nurses, aged-care workers, childcare educators, builders, teachers and volunteers. They are our family, our friends and our neighbours.

These are the people who've chosen to build their lives and families here. Their contribution is real, and it's felt every day in the services and support Australians rely on. But that doesn't matter to the Leader of the Opposition. In his budget reply speech, he stated that a coalition government will cut off permanent residents' access to the NDIS and 17 other different programs. The list includes the aged pension and the disability support pension. Under his plan, carer and parenting payments, family tax benefits, Austudy and seniors and low-income healthcare cards would be cut. The Leader of the Opposition said: 'If you're not an Australian citizen then you do not get the privileges of an Australian citizen. When you commit to this country, we'll commit to you.'

As those opposite 'ooh' and 'aah' and as they make claims across this chamber, I've got a challenge for them. That challenge is to go back to your communities, to your constituencies, and look these community members in the eye and tell them what you will cut. Because the words here are big and brash, but when you get back home, these are people who are our friends. These are people who are our family. These are people who make up our community. So when you get home, you tell the person with a disability who's been paying taxes and working in health care that no longer under a coalition government—

An opposition member: I'll tell them it's grandfathered.

You can tell that elderly person when you get back that no longer will they, as a senior, get those concessions. That is a slap in the face of all permanent residents working hard, paying the same taxes as everyone else.

Let's be clear about what this really is. Let's be clear, mate, because it's about scapegoating migrant communities.

Don't call me that! A point of order.

It's about bolstering—

Yes. Please refer to a member's proper title.

the fictitious claims the opposition trots out. I grew up in Queensland. I grew up in Queensland in the nineties when Pauline Hanson had 11 seats out of 89, and you can sigh, but that time leaves a mark on people. It means that when you hear a dog whistle, you know what it sounds like. This ain't a dog whistle; this is a blowhorn.

When Labor came to government in May 2022, we inherited a broken migration system. In fact, when net overseas migration peaked in 2023 after COVID-19, it was because the Morrison government policies were still in place. It was unsustainable, and that's why Labor has cut net overseas migration by 45 per cent from its peak. Labor recognises and respects the contribution of Australia's permanent residents. Australian values of mateship and a fair go are core, and when you take this action you throw them out the window. (Time expired)

Every Australian knows that taxpayer dollars should be allocated to the areas and the projects that best enhance our nation's chance at a safe and prosperous future, that align with our values and that protect our sovereignty. These are tenants that should be overlaid in every portfolio, and Home Affairs is no exception. Today, I'd like to focus on two areas within the portfolio that I've received the most commentary on from my constituents. They are namely illegal tobacco and, more recently, the ISIS brides. I've been banging on about illegal tobacco for seven years. Illicit tobacco and vapes are just flooding our local high streets with illegal products, and it's directly affecting significant members of my constituency.

Parents are worried about their teenagers getting addicted to unregulated and unsafe products that they can access very easily by walking in. There are no checks. There are no licences. They can pick up a vape. They can pick up illegal tobacco—chop chop—without even being questioned. You're seeing these pop up every single day on the corners of regional and rural Australia. And then you have the owners of the legitimate shops who literally are closing. People who are trying to do the right thing, using legal products, are now closing their shops. Quite often, they're the ones who sell the milk and the bread in those tiny towns—like Dorrigo, which is in my electorate. We notice there's a very real lack of action and bizarre inaction by this government.

On behalf of them, I ask the minister: when will you admit that a blanket ban of vapes was never going to work without adequate AFP and Border Force resourcing and was nothing more than headline-grabbing tokenism? When will you admit that the current excise levels on regulated tobacco have actively created the illicit tobacco trade boom and take action? Why haven't you created a permanent, standalone federal vaping, alcohol and tobacco agency similar to the US model, an agency that is funded properly and set up to work with state and territory law enforcement agencies and assist them rather than expecting them to do the heavy lifting? Why haven't you taken action to empower our courts to crack down and crack down hard on illegal operators and agents?

Without every single one of these measures, the illicit tobacco and vape trade will continue to thrive and in fact expand into our markets. This year, we're seeing reports of firebombings that have engulfed Melbourne's hospitality industry being linked to organised crime and the sale of black market liquor. It was not a stretch of the imagination to see that liquor was the next thing to come into this business model.

Then there are the ISIS brides and the litany of unanswered questions that the Australian people deserve real answers to from the minister. The first one is: why were they allowed to slip through the back door when there was a Hollywood-esque production of the arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith? We need answers on that. Why was the temporary exclusion order not imposed on the entire group of ISIS brides and children seeking to travel to Australia during 2025-26 as we saw in the example of Hodan Abby? Were passport arrivals, identity checks, consular engagement or liaison with foreign authorities provided in relation to the returns of ISIS brides in 2022, 2025 and 2026? Every Australian knows that taxpayer dollars should be allocated to the areas and projects that best enhance our nation's future and safety.

On Friday I was in the Cairns Airport, which is basically the hub for all of the far north, and I ran into my friend and former teammate Deba George. I hadn't seen Deba for a very long time. He hails from Erub, which is also known as Darnley Island, in the Torres Strait. As old friends do, and as men of a certain age do, the conversation turned to our children. His eldest child, Fabian, who has just turned 21, is down in Brisbane, and Deba said: 'Listen, it's time to go home. It's time for you to get back in touch with culture. It's time for you to go fishing with your uncle.' So, in a couple of months time, Fabian is going to do just that. He'll work the finfish, catch the crays and provide some of the best fish in Australia. But, more than that, this is Fabian getting in touch with who he is—as well as with his family, his culture and his birthright—as a Torres Strait Islander and fishing those waters, as his forefathers have done for tens of thousands of years.

In October last year, Minister Hill and I travelled up to the Torres Strait. We knew that there was probably trouble afoot. Operation Lunar had done a really great job of pushing illegal fishermen out of the waters of the Northern Territory and the Kimberley, and they had eyes on the Torres Strait. We met with the elders, with council and with the PBC to discuss what needed to happen. We provided an uplift almost immediately, with manpower and winged aerial vision on the waters. A few other things went wrong. The northern summer did northern summer stuff, and the weather pushed more Indonesian fishermen into the Torres Strait. We travelled back up there to discuss with the elders what the solution could be. What were we going to do?

One week after my meeting with Minister Burke and Minister Hill, Operation Broadstaff was launched, which is an operation specifically designed to protect the traditional fishing waters of the Torres Strait—their livelihoods, their way of life—by keeping control of our biosecurity, but, most importantly, by allowing the culture to live and breathe. People of the Torres Strait were fearful. They did not want to have people they didn't know in their waters. The response was quick, swift and effective. We told these fishermen, 'If you come here we will take your catch, we will lock you up and we will burn your boat.' We have delivered on every single one of those promises. The fishermen are coming less and less now.

But that was just a bandaid response. It was a quick response and a hard response to stem the bleeding. The ultimate response is the cooperation between the wonderful officers in Border Force—and they are fantastic. We spent a fair bit of time with them and with the community itself. We are co-designing a response led by Torres Strait Islanders to protect Torres Strait Islander waters. This is the demand of the community. This is the response of our government to make sure that they feel that their government, their country, is listening to them.

The Torres Strait is a long, long way away from Canberra. Parts of it are four kilometres away from Papua New Guinea. There are treaty villages where the border between our two nations is more of a philosophical impediment than anything else. Families travel across for trade, ceremonies and culture. Getting that balance right to keep illegal fishermen, who should not be in the area, away but still allow for that tradition and culture which has been around forever is so important, and it cannot be achieved without that local knowledge, which can only be provided by sitting with the elders and by taking the time on the islands to understand.

In our travels, Minister Hill has seen places of this country that no-one else gets to go to. You need permission to land on these places. We've been to Boigu, Dauan and Saibai. He has spent time, he has listened and he has acted. That garners respect in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Minister Hill has earned that respect through his deeds, his actions and his time on the ground. He is welcome anytime in that part of the world. I will travel back to check on Operation Broadstaff in the next few months and hear from the locals about how it's going, but the consultation continues. The interaction between Border Force and the community has been second to none, and it is something I know this government is very, very proud of.

One of the greatest and most important obligations of any federal government—in fact, any government—is to ensure the protection of its citizens, and the Department of Home Affairs is principal, as is the Minister for Home Affairs, to that responsibility. So this evening I want to talk primarily about the return of the so-called ISIS brides and I want to ask the minister a series of questions.

Who arranged the health checks for the Sydney arrivals on 26 May, and was the purpose to keep the arrivals away from waiting media? Why did those arrivals receive what could essentially be described as a rockstar arrival process? Why was the national counterterrorism coordinator unaware of those arrangements if they related to a cohort of national security concern? Were similar arrangements offered to the Melbourne arrivals or to any previous returned ISIS bride cohorts? Where did the 26 May arrivals go after landing in Sydney and Melbourne? Why could the Home Affairs secretary not answer that question at estimates? What monitoring, reporting or control arrangements are now in place for each member of the latest cohort? Were passport approvals, identity checks, consular engagement or liaison with foreign authorities provided in relation to the return of the ISIS brides in 2022, 2025 and 2026—yes or no?

No-one believes this government—we could put a full stop there—when they say that they did not provide any assistance to the return of these ISIS brides. It is inconceivable that you could bring these cohorts from Syria, from a refugee camp, without any assistance from this federal government, yet that is what they continue to portray to the Australian people. It is a fiction. It is a fib. It is a fabrication—one of the many that this government continues to make and expects Australians to believe. How much taxpayer funding has been allocated already and how much will be allocated in the future to support ISIS brides and their children? This is a reasonable question to ask. These are people who decided to leave Australia and fight with a group of terrorists that were willing to fight and kill Australians. They made that decision. We can all feel a high degree of sympathy for the kids, but the women and men that left this country to do that have to face the consequences of their very poor decisions.

Why is it that of all of the ISIS brides this government has only once used a temporary exclusion order? Despite the fact that a number of the returnees were charged with some very serious criminal offences, why did this government not form the view that a temporary exclusion order should've been placed on these people who were returning to this country? A temporary exclusion order is not a permanent ban. It simply enables the government to control these people's return in a much more systematic and controlled way so that law enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies can then manage their return. Why did this government not provide or institute temporary exclusion orders on these other individuals? I'd really like an answer to that question.

Finally, Minister, I'm very keen to understand—this perhaps may have been dealt with in estimates, and I may have missed it—why was Ben Roberts-Smith humiliated? He was filmed effectively being dragged off the plane and away from his family while these ISIS brides effectively received the gold treatment from this government. (Time expired)

Australia is known as one of the most successful multicultural nations in the world, and, out of all the countries in the world, my father chose to migrate to Australia, which is something that I will always be very grateful for. My electorate of Swan is one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse electorates in Western Australia. The people I represent come from many places across the globe, from the Philippines to India, from Vietnam to South Africa, from New Zealand or even the Pacific. They are nurses and teachers, small-business owners and tradies. They show up. They contribute. They help build this country. This government has made structural decisions that reflect this reality.

We established the Office of Multicultural Affairs to co-ordinate settlement services, community grants and advocacy so that the voices of these culturally and linguistically diverse communities can help shape public policy rather than simply receive it. For the first time in 11 years, there is a standalone minister for multicultural affairs at the cabinet table, not tucked into another portfolio and not an afterthought. We commissioned the Multicultural Framework Review, the first examination of this nation's multicultural policy in more than 50 years, and we committed $100 million in response to this. Also, the office has been engaging with CALD communities and peak bodies, making sure that their voices are indeed represented in public policy, research and design. One of the things that we saw during the pandemic is some of the impact of laws, whether state or federal, on culturally and linguistically diverse communities. It's really important that we actually think about the way that these policies affect communities and can be implemented in a practical manner. By doing this, we are building an Australia which recognises the importance of inclusion, diversity and opportunity and empowering people to contribute to this amazing nation. We also have the national Translating and Interpreting Services that has been providing services in Australia and has helped translate more than 51,000 documents and provided over 236,000 interpreting services. We also have the Australian migrant English program, which has helped about 70,000 clients in previous financial years.

What we're trying to do in the future is actually continue to strengthen the modern multicultural Australia, and a part of that is with the $500 million in funding to support multiculturalism, social cohesion and community priorities. This is something that's particularly important at this moment in Australia's history, because I would say that social cohesion is challenged right now. The Albanese government is also targeting investment through the Infrastructure for Multicultural Communities grant, making sure that Australians have access to modern, fit-for-purpose community infrastructure. We're also continuing the community languages program by investing another $25 million to support 600 community schools across Australia, helping 90,000 students learn 84 languages. At the time when my mum and dad migrated to Australia, they were very focused on integration, so much so that they did not continue practising the language that my sister already knew, Swahili, and I don't know any languages other than English, and sometimes I feel like I should, but modern Australia is a much different place, and what I'd say is that, for people that are bilingual or multilingual, our globalised world needs more people that can speak more languages, and I am a little bit jealous of the member for Tangney.

The Albanese government is also extending its economic pathways to the refugee integration program for another 12 months as well. I'd also say that the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion is incredibly important and that what we saw happen in Bondi was absolutely unacceptable. We need to make sure that that never happens again, and I want to make sure that Australia is a place where everyone can reach their full potential. I'm proud to be a part of the most multicultural federal government in Australia's history. That's not just backbenchers; that's also around the cabinet table as well. We represent modern Australia.

Australia is in the grip of an illegal tobacco crisis. The problem of illicit tobacco has moved well beyond a revenue loss issue and is now being described by Commonwealth agencies as a public health, community safety and organised crime problem. It is putting at risk the lives of everyday Australians who go about their work, business and family lives. The Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner says illicit tobacco and vapes are a serious and growing threat to public health, community safety and the economy, while the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the Australian Institute of Criminology have reported that, in the period of 2023 to 2024, illicit tobacco alone cost Australia $4 billion, a fourfold increase over three years.

Since 2023, there have been over 200 firebombings, many in my home state of Victoria, and there is a clear link between the illicit trade and organised crime—even terrorist activities, in some instances. At the same time, enforcement activity has reached record levels without yet reversing the trend. The Australian Border Force reported 23,097 illicit-tobacco detections in the 2024-25 period, seizing nearly 2½ billion cigarette sticks and over 435,000 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco, but also stated plainly:

… we can't seize this problem away. Enforcement at the border … must complement education, health, domestic enforcement and compliance.

The policy debate in Australia has shifted from whether illicit tobacco is a problem to what combination of excise, retail regulation, intelligence, law enforcement and public health measures can realistically shrink this illicit market. So my question to the minister is: why, when the government claims to be investing record amounts into investigation and enforcement activities through this portfolio, is the tobacco black market continuing to grow out of control, putting the lives of Australians at risk every day?

The second issue I wish to raise is connected vehicles coming into Australia. All of these relate to electric vehicles, and many new combustion engine cars have the same capabilities. There is a custom-made ship that has just brought thousands of BYD cars to Australia, with communications systems manufactured by Huawei. The privacy commissioner gave a clear and public warning over a year ago now that Australia's privacy protections for consumers in the area of connected cars were simply not up to scratch. The government is years behind other countries, particularly our security partners, in stepping up to protect consumer privacy, especially where a known risk of the misuse of biometric information like voice recognition and health data is domestic-violence-offending.

I note that the US trade commission has already announced action against the selling of data, including geolocation information, to third parties without the knowledge or consent of consumers. The fact that the former US Biden administration is still years ahead of where the Albanese government is on recognising the risks and setting an appropriate regulatory regime is a matter of concern.

The Australian Signals Directorate has an advice book urging consumers to note the risks of information collected in connected vehicles via text messages and the like. I think it would be prudent for politicians to take that advice. Smart vehicles are equipped with hundreds or even thousands of sensors that collect real-time information on vehicle status, road conditions, passenger behaviours, geolocation, voice recordings and facial imprints.

I note that, in 2024, in a Senate estimates hearing, department officials confirmed that they were still working on connected-vehicle privacy settings. I'd also reiterate the Australian privacy commissioner's warnings in this regard. I have serious concerns about the misuse of connected vehicles in domestic-violence perpetration and the breaching of consumer data and privacy, so my question to the minister is: after years of public warnings from national security advisers about concerns around privacy and consumer data, why does the Australian government not have a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework to protect Australia and Australians against these known threats?

I rise on the Home Affairs appropriations at a time when the security environment facing Australia is more complex, more contested and more consequential than at any point in recent memory. The first responsibility of any national government is the protection of its people, and that responsibility is not theoretical. It is not confined to briefings, agencies or capital city institutions. It is felt in every community across this country, including in regional New South Wales, including on the Central Coast and including in the homes, workplaces, hospitals and small businesses of the people that I represent.

National security today is broader than it once was. It is about the integrity of our borders, it is about the resilience of our critical infrastructure, it is about countering terrorism, espionage and foreign interference, and it is about disrupting organised crime, human trafficking and people smuggling. It is about ensuring our cyber defences are strong enough to protect not only Commonwealth systems but the local services and businesses that Australians rely on from day to day, and it is about maintaining confidence in the institutions that keep our democracy secure, orderly and free. This is the serious purpose of the Home Affairs portfolio.

Australia cannot afford the luxury of complacency. We live in a region and a world where strategic competition is sharpening, where authoritarian states are more willing to test boundaries, where cyberoperations can reach into local communities and where criminal networks are increasingly sophisticated, transnational and technologically enabled. These threats do not always announce themselves at the border. They do not always arrive by sea or by air. Sometimes they arrive through a phishing email to a small business; sometimes they arrive through attempts to compromise a local council, a hospital network, a water provider or an energy system; and sometimes they arrive through coercion, misinformation, illicit finance or foreign interference designed to weaken our democracy.

That is why appropriations before the House matter. They support the capability of the Commonwealth to identify risk, respond to threats and protect the national interest. They support the work of our border agencies in ensuring that legitimate travel and trade continue, while those who seek to exploit our systems are met with firmness and resolve. They support the integrity of our migration system because public confidence depends on a system that is orderly, credible and fair and administered in the national interest. They support the cyber and infrastructure resilience that modern Australia requires, because in 2026 a cyberattack on a regional health service, a port, a freight network or an energy provider is not merely a technical inconvenience; it is a national security event with local consequences. And they support the work required to counter extremism, espionage, foreign interference and organised criminal activity before they cause us harm.

For regional Australia, national security must never be understood as something that happens elsewhere. Our communities are part of the national security architecture. Our hospitals hold sensitive data, our councils operate essential services, our regional transport networks move goods and people, our small businesses are part of our national supply chains, and our emergency services stand on the front line when issues arise. That is why investment in Home Affairs is not an abstraction. It is practical, it is necessary, and it is about ensuring that the Commonwealth has the capability, the discipline and the operational readiness to meet the threats of the present and prepare for the threats of the future, because our nation's strength is found not only in our agencies, our intelligence capabilities and our border systems but also in the cohesion of our communities, the trust people have in democratic institutions and the confidence Australians have in their government acting in the national interest. That balance matters. Australia can be strong on border protection and still be fair; we can be uncompromising against people smugglers and criminal networks while remaining decent and humane; and Australia can meet a changing security environment with calm resolve and not fear.

This is the work that these appropriations support. They support the Home Affairs portfolio, which is central to the protection of Australia's sovereignty, security and social cohesion; they support the agencies and personnel who perform difficult, often unseen work in the service of our nation; and they support the systems that allow Australia to remain open to the world without being vulnerable to those that seek to do us harm. In matters of security, the parliament should always remember what's at stake. It is about ensuring that Australia remains sovereign, secure and free. From the Central Coast to every regional community across New South Wales and beyond, Australians expect their government to act with steadiness, strength and purpose, and these appropriations help provide that foundation. On that basis, I support the Home Affairs appropriations and commend them to the House.

I have great respect for the member for Bruce, and I want it known that I genuinely think that the member for Bruce has his heart in the right place on this. What I do believe is that we have to understand the political dynamic that is currently before us. Australia is moving to parties such as One Nation because of this being a crucial issue. If you don't recognise that, then you don't recognise exactly what's going.

In 2021-22 170,900 people, net, came into Australia. In 2022-23 538,000—1½ times the population of Canberra—came into Australia. In 2023-24 about 1¼ times the population of Canberra came into Australia. In 2024-25 306,000—slightly less than the population of Canberra—came into Australia. This is not looking after the home affairs. This is being completely recalcitrant from the reality of what is before us. Why do you believe that you can match the political, personal and religious philosophies just by reason of them arriving in Australia? It's not correct. It doesn't work. I'm not an imbecile. I'm not a racist. But we have to that understand that we can't just keep pouring people into Australia and thinking that everything's going to be fine and dandy. It's not.

I want to ask the minister—and he knows better than all of us—how we can bring into this nation people with a view which I know would be anathema to the member for Bruce and just expect them to change that view. What are we going to do to change it? I know that the member for Bruce and I, on different sides of the political equation, believe in something. There are the guardrails for Australian culture, and if you step outside them you're stepping outside what Australia is. You must abide by those guardrails. Home Affairs, where he is responsible, must make sure that those guardrails remain intact.

Do you see any problem with any other philosophy that comes into our nation? Do you ever step aside from political correctness and say: 'No, that is not acceptable. That philosophy is not acceptable, and we will not tolerate it in this nation, this incredible nation we've created'? Do you have the courage to clearly enunciate what those issues are, to stand behind exactly what those issues are? Do you have the courage to say, in the face of the people who do not believe them, exactly your beliefs on behalf of Australia are? It's dangerous. It's scary. But you've got to do it.

Can you explain why we exist in this netherworld, where we talk up and down and around about the Chinese Communist Party and the PLA without ever mentioning their name? We know what's going on here. Why do we play this stupid game? We've just had the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands here—and I'd like to commend the Prime Minister of Australia on that; I really would. Congratulations. Good work! But why do we all play this game? How are we dealing with that, Minister? Why aren't we being honest about exactly what the problem is? We all know it, but we don't say it, because we're scared. We're scared. That's a terrible thing for a nation that prides itself on the Gallipoli experience on Anzac Day.

Can the minister explain what he loves about Australia and what he'll offer to protect it? What is the culture of our home? Minister, Member for Bruce, what is the culture that connects you and me on different sides of the political chasm, with the same incredible, indelible belief of a love of our nation that we know is at threat and that you must protect? (Time expired)

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 : 35