I present report No. 11 of the Standing Committee on Petitions.
The report read as follows—
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PETITIONS COMMITTEE REPORT No. 11
Petitions a nd Ministerial Responses
22 June 2026
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Chair Ms Jodie Belyea MP
Deputy Chair Mr Leon Rebello MP
Mr Cameron Caldwell MP
Ms Emma Comer MP
Ms Trish Cook MP
Mr Rowan Holzberger MP
Mr Llew O'Brien MP
Ms Tracey Roberts MP
This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives
Report summarising the petitions and ministerial responses being presented.
The committee met in private session in the 48th Parliament on 30 April, 26 May and 2 June 2026.
1. The committee resolved to present the following 79 petitions in accordance with standing order 207:
Petitions certified on 30 April 2026
From 1 petitioner—requesting funding for fusion energy projects in agriculture (EN7941)
From 2 petitioners—requesting a national plan for fusion energy in water supply infrastructure (EN7942)
From 1 petitioner—requesting support for fusion-based inland development (EN7943)
From 3 petitioners—requesting deployment of fusion energy in regional areas (EN7944)
From 1 petitioner—requesting development of inland water strategies using fusion energy (EN7945)
From 18 petitioners—requesting amendments to refugee and humanitarian visa arrangements (EN9099)
From 2 petitioners—requesting review of public broadcasting practices (EN9100)
From 18 petitioners—requesting an increase to statutory annual leave entitlements (EN9720)
From 5 petitioners—requesting extension of paid parental leave entitlements (EN9721)
From 3 petitioners—requesting tax measures for stay-at-home parents (EN9722)
From 1 petitioner—requesting changes to unfair dismissal laws (EN9723)
From 1 petitioner—requesting establishment of a receipt lottery system (EN9724)
From 9 petitioners—requesting that Australia not participate in armed conflict contrary to international law (EN9726)
From 17 petitioners—requesting a royal commission into foreign interference (EN9727)
From 184 petitioners—requesting actions relating to land and water management, biodiversity and resource security (EN9729)
From 2 petitioners—requesting abolition of mutual obligation requirements (EN9730)
From 1 petitioner—requesting investigation of fuel price increases and temporary fuel excise relief (EN9732)
From 3 petitioners—requesting removal of fuel excise (EN9734)
From 104 petitioners—requesting a referendum on the preferential voting system (EN9735)
From 3 petitioners—requesting removal of fuel excise and fuel related duties (EN9737)
From 1 petitioner—requesting fuel excise relief for transport operators (EN9738)
From 206 petitioners—requesting a policy of non-engagement with individuals linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (EN9741)
From 36 petitioners—requesting establishment of publicly operated biodiesel production (EN9743)
From 7 petitioners—requesting implementation of recommendations on climate information integrity (EN9744)
From 29 petitioners—requesting changes to migration policy for family reunification (EN9746)
From 3 petitioners—requesting reinstatement of cyclone warning systems (EN9747)
From 3113 petitioners—requesting review of entry restrictions for Iranian visa holders (EN9748)
From 1400 petitioners—requesting recognition of chemical exposure as a service-related condition and provision of associated support (EN9750)
From 16 petitioners—requesting that Australia not participate in specified armed conflict (EN9752)
From 163 petitioners—requesting extension of home battery rebates (EN9754)
From 375 petitioners—requesting a motion of no confidence (EN9756)
From 8 petitioners—requesting an increase to the JobSeeker Payment (EN9757)
From 57 petitioners—requesting publication of Veterans' Review Board decisions (EN9758)
From 4 petitioners—requesting access to superannuation (EN9761)
From 10 petitioners—requesting temporary suspension of fuel excise and goods and services tax on fuel (EN9765)
From 3 petitioners—requesting temporary financial relief for transport operators (EN9767)
From 18 petitioners—requesting an accountability framework for Members of Parliament (EN9770)
From 23 petitioners—requesting condemnation of the killing of journalists in armed conflict (EN9771)
From 120 petitioners—requesting a national strategy for domestic oil and gas capability (EN9772)
From 4 petitioners—requesting withdrawal from the AUKUS submarine program (EN9776)
From 28 petitioners—requesting removal of identity verification requirements for social media (EN9780)
From 7 petitioners—requesting a levy on corporate profits (EN9781)
From 2703 petitioners—requesting national standards and support for families of missing persons and homicide victims (EN9784)
From 231 petitioners—requesting a special payment to veterans (EN9786)
From 12 petitioners—requesting review of visa decision making under the character test (EN9789)
From 6 petitioners—requesting regulation of media reporting standards (EN9791)
From 68 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into adverse experience reporting processes for veterinary medicines (EN9792)
From 13 petitioners—requesting regulation of telecommunications pricing (EN9793)
From 4 petitioners—requesting withdrawal of Australian military personnel (EN9794)
From 10 petitioners—requesting imposition of sanctions on the United States (EN9795)
From 55 petitioners—requesting investigation of vehicle component failures and compliance with consumer law (EN9796)
From 2 petitioners—requesting expanded salary packaging options (EN9797)
From 15 petitioners—requesting restrictions on use of a defence facility (EN9801)
From 21 petitioners—requesting psychological fitness standards for public office holders (EN9806)
From 13 petitioners—requesting increased transparency requirements for organisations receiving tax concessions (EN9807)
From 7 petitioners—requesting support measures for the Kurdistan region (EN9808)
From 31 petitioners—requesting limits on compulsory questioning powers and enhanced oversight (EN9820)
From 4 petitioners—requesting changes to loan eligibility for jobseekers (EN9822)
From 36 petitioners—requesting removal of compulsory questioning powers (EN9826)
From 1378 petitioners—requesting concession card eligibility for self-funded retirees (EN9827)
From 18 petitioners—requesting permission for Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) visa (subclass 491) holders to purchase residential property (EN9828)
From 80 petitioners—requesting measures addressing veteran housing and support (EN9837)
From 118 petitioners—requesting a parliamentary inquiry into government performance (EN9839)
From 15 petitioners—requesting changes to social security assessment of relationship status (EN9840)
From 22 petitioners—requesting prohibition of animal testing (EN9841)
From 22 petitioners—requesting withdrawal from the AUKUS agreement (EN9842)
From 36 petitioners—requesting conditions on deployment of Australian Defence Force members (EN9844)
From 5 petitioners—requesting extension of home battery rebates (EN9847)
From 89 petitioners—requesting removal of certain parliamentary entitlements (EN9850)
From 129 petitioners—requesting support for light rail development in Canberra (EN9851)
From 52 petitioners—requesting reduced taxation for specified income groups (EN9852)
From 29 petitioners—requesting creation of an app for e-petitions (EN9856)
From 7 petitioners—requesting inquiry into and regulation of wagering industry practices (EN9858)
From 89 petitioners—requesting standardised terminology for communications relating to taxpayer funded services (EN9859)
From 71 petitioners—requesting legal or financial assistance for specified tribunal applicants (EN9860)
From 56 petitioners—requesting legal or financial assistance for specified tribunal respondents (EN9863)
From 7117 petitioners—requesting that changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme protect access to necessary individualised support (EN9864)
From 125 petitioners—requesting a pathway to permanent residency or citizenship for long term residents (EN9866)
From 55 petitioners—requesting a nationally consistent framework for family violence information sharing (EN9868)
2. The following 50 ministerial responses to petitions were received.
Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 26 May 2026
From the Treasurer to a petition regarding access to cash and banking services (EN5391)
From the Treasurer to a petition regarding cash payments (EN8416)
From the Minister for Communications to a petition requesting review of Australia Broadcasting Corporation partnerships (EN8495)
From the Minister for Home Affairs to a petition requesting investigation into the activities of certain groups and individuals (EN8523)
From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting a specified group to be designated a terrorist organisation (EN8540)
From the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a petition regarding National Disability Insurance Scheme support needs assessments (EN8570)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding Australia's membership of the United Nations (EN8571)
From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting a national framework to criminalise coercive control against children (EN8573)
From the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to a petition requesting review of amendments to veterans' legislation (EN8575)
From the Minister for the Public Service to a petition requesting implementation of random drug and alcohol testing for government employees (EN8587)
From the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to a petition requesting permission for veterans to record medical examinations (EN8598)
From the Minister for Social Services to a petition requesting extended health care card eligibility for young people with chronic conditions (EN8602)
From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding concerns about freedom of speech and privacy (EN8610)
From the Minister for Health and Ageing to a petition requesting improved access and funding for endometriosis care (EN8614)
From the Minister for Social Services to a petition requesting increased financial support for regional students (EN8620)
From the Minister for Industry and Innovation to a petition requesting restrictions on generative artificial intelligence (EN8622)
From the Minister for Health and Ageing to a petition requesting national public funding for ambulance costs (EN8658)
From the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to a petition requesting national reforms to animal welfare policy (EN8660)
From the Minister for Health and Ageing to a petition requesting privacy safeguards relating to the Australian Centre for Disease Control (EN8691)
From the Minister for Health and Ageing to a petition requesting creation of a national regulatory framework for social work (EN8742)
From the Assistant Minister for Immigration to a petition requesting prioritisation of Permanent Residence (Skilled Regional) (subclass 191) visa applications (EN8747)
From the Assistant Minister for Immigration to a petition regarding Permanent Residence (Skilled Regional) (subclass 191) visa applications (EN8748)
From the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to a petition requesting a non-reduction provision for compensation during legislative harmonisation (EN8762)
From the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to a petition regarding dental treatment for Veteran Gold Card holders (EN8763)
From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting changes to eligibility rules for elected officials (EN8797)
From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting prohibition of face coverings in public places (EN8798)
From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting actions relating to conduct causing serious harm (EN8820)
From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting implementation of a bill of rights (EN8853 and EN8888)
From the Minister for Health and Ageing to a petition requesting timely disability support and oversight mechanisms (EN8854)
From the Assistant Minister for Immigration to a petition requesting expedited processing of Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) visa (subclass 491) applications (EN8866)
From the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to a petition requesting publication of Veterans' Review Board decisions (EN8879)
From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding the Sex Discrimination Commissioner (EN8881)
From the Minister for Education to a petition requesting inclusion of Auslan in school curriculums (EN8925)
From the Minister for Health and Ageing to a petition requesting extension of research protections to all non-human primates (EN8985)
From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting strengthened transparency requirements for foreign lobbying (EN8991)
From the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to a petition regarding consideration of the Brisbane Airport draft Master Plan 2026 (EN9057)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting revocation of a diplomatic invitation (EN9092)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting action on human rights violations in Iran (EN9270)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting revocation of diplomatic recognition of the Islamic Republic of Iran (EN9283)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting engagement with an Iranian opposition figure (EN9306)
From the Minister for Health and Ageing to a petition requesting review of access to subsidised breast reduction surgery (EN9344)
From the Assistant Minister for Immigration to a petition regarding Permanent Residence (Skilled Regional) (subclass 191) visa applications (EN9363)
Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 2 June 2026
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding human rights concerns in Pakistan (EN7108)
From the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs to a petition requesting expansion of the Community Support Program (EN7767)
From the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs to a petition requesting assistance for Christian minorities in the Middle East (EN8471)
From the Minister for Social Services to a petition regarding the child support system (EN8679)
From the Minister for Social Services to a petition regarding the child support system (EN8752)
From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting criminalisation of promotion of violent extremist ideology (EN9039)
From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting protection of freedom of expression and freedom of the press (EN9309)
From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting support to prohibit forced sterilisation (PN0651)
Ms Jodie Belyea MP
Chair—Petitions Committee
I present the 11th report of the Petitions Committee for the 48th parliament together with 79 petitions and 50 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. The petitions being presented cover a range of topics including the environment, the electorate system, PFAS exposure, support for families of missing persons and homicide victims, and self-funded retirees. Five of the petitions being presented each received more than 1,000 signatures, with one petition looking at protecting access to reasonable and necessary supports under the NDIS receiving more than 7,000 signatures. There are currently 86 e-petitions open for signatures on the House e-petitions website, covering a range of topics including the 2026-27 budget, child support, veterans' entitlements, artificial intelligence and migration. More certifications will follow at the committee's next meeting. I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the Petitions Committee.
I present the following petitions:
I present the following ministerial responses:
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 underpins the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, which allows land managers to earn credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or storing carbon. I rise today because I seek to protect the integrity of that scheme. The Act provides a framework for the methodology approvals, project eligibility and issuance of ACCUs. The Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, or ERAC, assesses proposed methods against the requirements of the Act. Under the ACCU scheme, farmers, landholders, businesses and Indigenous communities undertake projects that reduce emissions or remove and store carbon from the atmosphere. The scheme works only if Australians have confidence that ACCUs represent genuine and additional carbon abatement. That confidence is now being tested.
I'm bringing this bill forward because the Labor Minns government has proposed an improved native forest management method, or INFM method, for selected multiple-use public native forests. The proposal is currently being considered by ERAC. This methodology is intended to provide a funding mechanism for the Minns Labor government's proposed Great Koala National Park. The final creation of Labor's flagship environmental commitment is dependent on the successful registration of this methodology.
There are serious concerns as to whether this proposal satisfies the principles upon which the ACCU scheme was established. The Carbon Market Institute's taskforce reviewed the draft methodology and concluded that, as drafted, the method could present material risks to the integrity of the ACCU scheme, be too narrow in scope to achieve geographically broad impact and miss important opportunities to deliver broader forest health and community benefit outcomes. We believe the method requires substantial revision to address fundamental gaps in its approach. Likewise, the Australian Forest Products Association has urged the federal government to withdraw support for the proposal. These are organisations with direct expertise in forestry, carbon accounting and environmental markets. Their concerns go directly to the integrity of the ACCU scheme because, at its core, the methodology proposal is built on simply ceasing an existing activity within one land tenure category and seeking to generate carbon credits from that cessation. That was never the purpose of the ACCU scheme.
There is an even more fundamental concern. It is known as additionality. Additionality is one of the central principles underpinning the ACCU scheme. Carbon credits should only be awarded where the carbon benefit would not otherwise have occurred. The ACCU scheme is not intended to pay governments, businesses or individuals for doing something that they had already decided to do. The carbon benefit must be additional. Without additionality, the scheme ceases to encourage genuine new abatement and instead becomes a funding mechanism for decisions already made. This is where the proposed methodology encounters a serious problem.
The Great Koala National Park was a political commitment long before this methodology emerged. It was an election commitment, one the communities are counting on. The policy decision came first; the carbon methodology came later. That sequence matters because, if the government had already decided to create the Great Koala National Park and cease timber harvesting in these forests, then a very obvious question arises: what exactly is the ACCU scheme paying for? If the outcome was always going to occur regardless of the carbon project, where is the additionality? Where is the additional carbon abatement that would not otherwise have occurred? Why should taxpayers and carbon market participants effectively fund a decision that had already been made?
The Minns government appears to recognise this problem. That is why it now says the park is contingent upon approval of the carbon project, but that creates a contradiction: if the park is genuinely contingent upon approval of the carbon methodology, then Labor announced one of the largest conservation projects in New South Wales history before securing a credible funding model. If the park was always going to proceed regardless, then the additionality argument becomes extraordinarily difficult to sustain. Either way, serious questions arise. Either the government promised something before it knew how it would pay for it, or it is seeking carbon credits for an outcome that was already intended to occur. Neither proposition should give confidence to those responsible for protecting the integrity of the ACCU scheme. If governments can simply change land use policy and claim carbon credits as a reward, we risk turning the ACCU scheme into a funding mechanism for political decisions rather than genuine carbon outcomes.
There are many people across the North Coast who genuinely support the creation of the Great Koala National Park, but supporters of the park should also be asking some serious questions of the Minns Labor government. If the environmental case is compelling, why was the funding not secured before the commitment was made? Supporters of the park should not have their aspirations tied to a methodology that leading experts say contains fundamental flaws. Likewise, forestry workers and their families should not have their livelihoods placed in limbo while the Labor government in New South Wales waits to see whether a speculative carbon revenue stream materialises. The Minns Labor government has created uncertainty for everybody—conservationists, forestry workers and regional communities. That is not good environmental or economic policy, and it's certainly not good government.
Forestry remains one of the most important industries across the North Coast and in my electorate of Lyne. The industry directly employs more than 5,500 people and contributes approximately $2.9 billion annually, with a further $1 billion in value-added activity. These are families, apprentices, truck drivers, machine operators, harvest crews, meal workers and small-business operators. Yet, despite the proposed carbon methodology remaining under assessment and despite the government admitting the park is contingent upon that methodology, Labor has already acted. An immediate harvesting moratorium was imposed in September last year across approximately 176,000 hectares of state forest earmarked for the park. Labor has already begun shutting down the industry before the park is funded. Workers have already lost jobs, and mills are already on their knees.
The people who work in forestry understand forests better than most. They understand regeneration, biodiversity, habitat protection and fuel management. ABARES reports that only around 0.05 per cent of Australia's native forests are harvested in any given year. Australia will continue to need timber. The question is whether that timber will be produced here under world-leading environmental standards or imported from overseas under standards we cannot control. Closing down our sustainable forest industry does not eliminate demand. It simply exports production, jobs and economic opportunity.
None of this is to suggest that koalas are unimportant—quite the opposite. Koalas are one of Australia's most iconic species and deserve serious conservation efforts grounded in science and evidence. But science must drive policy, not politics. The major threats to koalas are urbanisation, vehicle strikes, dog attacks, disease and catastrophic bushfires. The 2025 CSIRO analysis found koala numbers to be significantly higher than previous estimates suggested. Further, the New South Wales government survey work found approximately 10,000 to 14,000 koalas living within state forest areas subject to timber harvesting, with populations comparable to nearby national park areas where harvesting does not occur. That finding is important. It suggests that, after decades of timber production, koalas continue to exist in substantial numbers within actively managed forests. It challenges the notion that forestry and koalas are inherently incompatible. It suggests that active forest management, biodiversity conservation and timber production can co-exist. Labor is cruelling a sustainable regional industry for political purposes. It's as simple as that.
In conclusion, this bill seeks to strengthen transparency, reinforce integrity and ensure that ACCUs are awarded only where they represent genuine and additional carbon abatement. The park does not meet this threshold and the methodology must not be approved, with my bill or not. I dedicate this bill to every forestry worker and timber mill worker, every person who has lost their job and every worker still fighting to keep one. I also dedicate it to the timber mills and supporting businesses in my electorate, those in Karuah, Booral, Bulahdelah, Pampoolah, Wingham, Kendall, Herons Creek and my friends north from Gum Scrub. You have been treated appallingly by the Minns Labor government. I will always stand with you. I commend this bill to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the bill and reserve my right to speak.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It has been an incredibly challenging few years for Australia's small-business community.
We've had the COVID lockdowns. We've had high inflation. We've had high interest rates. We have a fuel crisis and sluggish consumer demands. We in this place need to be doing everything we can to build and grow and support our small- and medium-business areas. And so I want to talk about one of the issues most important to small-business owners, and that is cash flow.
I've run a business. I ran a family business for 10 years, and I know how vitally important cash flow is.
It is the lifeblood that keeps a business running, and any blockage is the thing that can send a business to the wall.
According to ASIC, cash flow management is the No. 1 cause of insolvency among Australian small businesses.
Payment Times Reporting Scheme
Let's talk about payment times now, because the failure of customers to pay their suppliers on time significantly contributes to headaches around cash flow for small businesses. I know I've met small businesses who have actually sold the work. They can actually run on the basis of the profit that they can make. But, because they're not being paid on time, at a certain point they go to the wall because of those cash flow issues. It's those payment times I want to address in this bill.
Indeed, according to the ASBFEO quarterly report Q1 2026, around 35 per cent of disputes that came to them in Q1 this year related to payment disputes.
Slow payment can sometimes be honest miscommunication. But in some cases, the ombudsman argues, it can be an exertion of market power from large participants to manage their own cash flow, effectively using delayed payment as a cheap form of credit.
Since 2020, Australia has operated the Payment Times Reporting Scheme as the primary tool for setting higher expectations around acceptable payment times and processes. This scheme requires large reporting entities with consolidated revenue of more than $100 million to report their payment times and terms to the payment times regulator in six-monthly reporting cycles.
Under this scheme, the regulator can designate 'slow payers', determined as the slowest 20 per cent of all reporting entities for a given reporting cycle. These businesses face no strict consequences besides naming and shaming on the register.
Emerson review
This scheme has noble intentions of trying to make it easier for small businesses, but it just isn't working. A review of the scheme, conducted in 2023, known as the Emerson review, found no evidence that the scheme was causing the kind of behavioural change it set out to achieve nor any evidence that small businesses had the luxury of choosing their large-business customers based on their payment time status.
Basically, let's be real—a small business can't say no to a big customer just because they know they go a bit slower in terms of their payment times.
Analysis of the last payment times reporting cycle, ending December 2025, shows that the average proportion of payments made within 30 days was 70 per cent. That leaves 24 per cent of payments between 30 and 60 days and six per cent over 60 days.
These averages mask the extent to which slow payment is rife in Australia. From the same reporting period, only four per cent of businesses had all their payments made within 30 days, and just as many businesses had at least one payment over 100 days.
These numbers are not widely different to what the ASBFEO reported back in 2023, indicating that behaviour has not improved. It's not getting better.
Regulation and red tape
And, while these stats are concerning, the scheme is not costless as it is. It's not meeting its outcomes. But reporting in itself is a significant cause of frustration from those reporting entities, with regular and onerous reports. If—as the review found—the scheme is not working, we need to either improve it or remove it.
In fairness to the government, in 2024, some of the more administrative recommendations of the review were implemented. However, it did very little to change incentives on businesses to improve their payment times.
This bill
So this is what this bill does.
It picks up on recommendation 14 of the Emerson review and recommendation 6 of the ASBFEO review of 2017 to link payment reporting times to government procurement.
The bill amends the Public Government Performance and Accountability Act to prevent Australia's slowest payers from accessing government contracts. This would not create any additional reporting requirements—it would use the existing data we already collect.
The bill uses a different definition of 'restricted payer' than the 'slow small business payer' concept in the Payment Times Reporting Act. Under this new approach, a business will be considered a restricted payer if, over the three most recent reporting cycles, they consistently either had an average payment time exceeding 30 days or failed to report altogether.
This standalone test focuses on consistent performance and compliance, rather than relative peer comparison, to prioritise real-world impacts on small businesses. However, it still allows for flexibility—if a business has a reporting cycle with an average payment time under 30 days, they are not a restricted payer.
Exemptions
While this bill will create a bigger stick, the bill acknowledges that the primary purpose of procurement is not enforcement, but value for taxpayers' money. That's why there'll be some important exemptions that protect unintended consequences while preserving the intention of this bill.
There'll be four exemptions in this bill that will require written acknowledgement by the finance minister.
1. Firstly, that there is a 'critical national interest' consideration.
2. Secondly, that there is no viable alternative provider.
3. Thirdly, that exclusion doesn't result in significant deterioration in value for money.
4. Finally, that the slow payer has a credible, achievable remediation pathway.
This bill has a commencement date of 1 July 2027, giving businesses 12 months to make adjustments to payment practices before facing potential exclusion
Conclusion
In a productivity crisis, we need to be seriously evaluating reporting and red tape requirements that we have put on businesses and, if they're not achieving their objectives, either improve it or remove it.
Small businesses deserve to be paid on time. We have the mechanisms, we have the reporting in place to put real impetus behind this, but the government hasn't acted. What we have imposed is red tape without outcomes. We must stop this, and we need to get small businesses paid on time. This is a sensible, real-world amendment that can start to use the power of government procurement to get better outcomes for small business, and I urge the government to accept it.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the member for Wentworth's motion. I'm pleased to support this bill, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Supporting Small Businesses To Be Paid On Time) Bill 2026, which tackles one of the corrosive pressures facing small businesses: not getting paid on time. Late payment by large businesses to their small suppliers is one of the biggest drivers of small business financial stress, and inadequate cash flow remains the single most reported cause of small business insolvency.
The mechanism in this bill is elegant. We already require large businesses to report their payment times. This bill simply says that if you consistently pay your small suppliers late—averaging more than 30 days across three consecutive reporting cycles—you should not be eligible for the largest Commonwealth contracts. That's a powerful lever. Large businesses make up around 79 per cent of the Commonwealth's $71 billion procurement program. Tying access to that program to fair payment creates a real, ongoing incentive to pay promptly. It's measured and fair, with sensible exemptions, and it's self-correcting: pay on time and the restriction falls away.
A fortnight ago I sat down with hospitality owners in Curtin running some of the best venues in Perth—venues like Lulu La Delizia, Monsterella Pizza, Juanita's and Kith. The clear message was that it's getting harder just to stay afloat. Rents and insurance have gone up 20 per cent in a year. Credit card surcharge changes are costing a single venue about $25,000 annually. Wage and superannuation increases are adding up to $50,000 more. And as those wages rise, state payroll tax thresholds stay frozen, so businesses are taxed more simply for paying their staff properly. There is cost after cost, with no-one asking how it all adds up.
That's the context for this bill. These small businesses are price takers at both ends, squeezed by rising costs on one side and customers whose own spending is under pressure on the other. There is very little room to support another hit, so when a large customer or supplier pays late, using a small business as a cheap form of finance, it's one more pressure on an operator already stretched to the limit. One owner put it plainly: it feels like small businesses are left to pay the bill, while big businesses have their accountants and leverage to avoid carrying their share. These owners weren't asking for a free ride. As one put it, they just want to make it 'a little bit easier to do what we love'.
This bill is one concrete way that we can make it easier. It doesn't cost the budget a cent. It doesn't add a reporting obligation. It just says that if you want public contracts, you have to treat the small businesses in your supply chain fairly. In Curtin, these small businesses are the fabric of our community. They create the jobs, take the risks and bring our neighbourhoods to life. The least we can do is make sure they get paid on time. I commend this bill to the House.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The major parties refuse to act. For too long, they have used the lack of political advertising regulation to mislead and deceive voters.
This bill is about a simple principle: protecting voter rights from scams, the same way we protect consumer rights.
The major parties have refused to do this for too long. Why I would say can be obvious. But with the rise of the far-right movement and post-truth politics, supercharged by AI and social media platforms, this is only going to get worse and absolutely must be addressed without any further delay.
In 2022 and 2025, fake signage falsely depicted Independents as Greens candidates. This was not policy debate; this was an attempt to mislead voters about who candidates were and who they represented.
The Voice referendum exposed how misinformation can overwhelm democratic debate, with false claims repeatedly circulated to sow confusion, undermine trust and influence voters on the question of national importance.
AI is already entering political campaigning. Labor used generative AI to mock Peter Dutton's nuclear policy, while Queensland's LNP used AI generated content against Steven Miles. The technology is moving faster than the rules.
In the 2025 election, community Independents were targeted by third-party campaigns led by ex-Liberal MPs across Wentworth, Warringah, Mackellar, Kooyong and Goldstein.
In Goldstein, a mobile billboard depicted the then Independent member emerging from a genie's bottle under the headline 'All smoke'. It said that she had been questioned by the National Anti-Corruption Commission even though the National Anti-Corruption Commission had already found that there was no corruption issue.
In fact, there were strong inferences that the very referral led by ex-Liberal MP Jason Falinski was politically motivated, yet the NACC backed down from taking any kind of public stand around that concern on such a politically motivated referral and, in fact, declined to make any public statement to that effect. Without requirements for minimum standards in political advertising, candidates and communities will have no protections, and that situation will recur, and they will be scammed by bad faith actors.
It doesn't take a genie to see that there could be floodgates at the next election of politically motivated referrals to the NACC, which then just happen to be leaked to the media, with third parties linked to the opponents running advertising without any proper basis, making allegations that are incredibly false and damaging.
We have longstanding consumer protections to protect people from being scammed out of their money by misleading and deceptive advertising for goods and services.
Yet we continue to allow voters to be scammed by misleading and deceptive political advertising. We allow different rules for politicians than for the rest of Australians, and it has to stop.
This legislation does four clear things.
First, it requires AI watermarking. Any content that has been substantially created through AI has to bear a watermark, so the viewer is at the very least on notice that this is AI generated. It also safeguards future elections from the risk of electoral AI agents.
Second, political advertising must comply with the Ethical Political Advertising Code. All other consumer advertising has to comply with codes. Political advertising is the only one that is not covered currently. The political advertising code will require political advertising to be truthful and accurate. Claims must not mislead by omission, opinions must be identified as such and scientific claims should reflect the full body of evidence.
Third, this bill creates a political advertising standards board separate from the AEC commissioner to consider complaints and referrals and to take action. This addresses directly the concerns previously raised by the AEC commissioner that, if the AEC held this power directly, it could undermine confidence in the commissioner's impartiality. So I say to the government: we've addressed that excuse.
Fourth, it provides that content that is misleading or deceptive will attract criminal consequences and fines. This bill is targeted at false factual claims. It prohibits electoral or referendum material from including an express or implied statement of fact that is material, misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.
Truth in political advertising is not about stopping robust debate, opinion, satire or criticism. It is about stopping false statements of facts, deceptive impersonation and advertising that misleads voters while they are forming their choice. The modern information space is abundant with misinformation and disinformation. Still, political advertising remains a free-for-all in this country.
We're witnessing a fundamental shift in how political information is created, distributed and consumed. For most of Australia's democratic history, political messages passed through institutions that exercised some degree of editorial judgement and accountability. Today, increasingly, information is selected and amplified by opaque algorithms whose operation is invisible to voters, regulators and governments. They have the power to push particular content to target voter profiles. That shift has profound implications for democratic accountability. This is a standards-free zone, and it urgently needs fixing. That's why I'm reintroducing this bill.
Voters have had enough of this status quo. They know this is happening. Voters are ahead of the government. Recent Essential Research polling from the Australian Democracy Network found 70 per cent of Australians want truth-in-political-advertising laws, while only seven per cent oppose them. Australians know the difference between a fierce debate and deliberate deception, and they want parliament and this government to act. Either the major parties need to find the courage to step up and put these guardrails and standards in place—standards that have overwhelming support from voters—or the move away from the major parties will continue and communities will keep looking for alternatives. Prebunking is currently the only approach available, where communities have to be warned of a complete lack of standards and truthful disclosure requirements for any content they receive during election periods or in between. That is appalling.
I commend this bill to the House, and I thank the member for Bradfield for her support in this legislation.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. A strong democracy needs a firm foundation in fact, evidence and honesty. For that reason, it's a privilege to be speaking today on the need to have truth in political advertising to improve transparency and ban the lies. I thank and commend the member for Warringah for her tireless work in this area. In the last parliament, the member introduced a bill to establish a truth-in-political-advertising framework for the Commonwealth elections and referendums. The bill she is proposing today, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) Bill 2026, makes some very important additions.
First, it would introduce a board to oversee the truth-in-political-advertising framework. The board would sit within the Australian Electoral Commission but make independent decisions, be led by experts and be capable of investigating breaches of the law. Second, it would create an enforceable ethical political advertising code to ensure that ads aren't peppered with disinformation and lies, that scientific claims reflect the evidence and that opinions are not presented as fact. And, third, and very importantly, it responds to the rise of AI by requiring all ads to disclose when they use AI generated visual or audio content.
We are already seeing malicious actors use AI to disrupt democratic processes. The ABC found 370 fake Australian political messages in just one week across 14 foreign run Facebook accounts, and, in the 2024 US election, AI voice agents were used to call citizens and tell them not to vote. We need to inoculate our political process and our democracy from these risks.
It's shocking that, as a politician, I could run ads tomorrow that have no bearing to the truth and face next to no consequences. It just doesn't make sense. Most Aussies agree. Seventy per cent of voters support laws to require claims in political advertising to be accurate and truthful according to a poll commissioned by the Australian Democracy Network. And why wouldn't they? Who wants to live in a democracy where our elected leaders, or those running against them, are free to lie and deceive. We don't allow it in our supermarkets, in our super funds or in our gas networks. Why do we tolerate it in our elections? Without truth in political advertising, the quality of public discourse is degraded. I recommend this bill to the House and I thank the member for Warringah for her work in this area.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(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.
This motion is about dignity of work, a foundational value for us on this side of the House. Employment is an economic issue and one of social justice. When people are locked out of work for extended periods, opportunity and re-entry become more difficult. They are more likely to experience financial hardship, social isolation and poorer long-term outcomes while their children are more likely to grow up in households facing economic insecurity.
The consequences can become intergenerational. Secure employment remains one of the strongest drivers of social mobility and intergenerational fairness. One of the foundational principles of aspiration is a job, and governments have a responsibility to ensure people have access to effective support to find and keep one. And rather than what seems to have been written about me being born to refugees, I'm actually the son of a skilled migrant who came to this country and interacted with an employment service system whose failings I've seen firsthand.
The Commonwealth spends around $2 billion each year helping Australians find and maintain work, a substantial investment, but it's clear that the current system is not delivering the outcomes Australians deserve. Our employment services model was largely designed three decades ago. Back then, the labour market looked fundamentally different. The way people find work, the way employers hire and the skills they seek have all changed dramatically. Technological advances have fundamentally reshaped the pathways into employment and the operation of the modern labour market, yet much of our employment services framework remains built around assumptions that are nearly three decades old.
Around one in six people who exit Workforce Australia return within a year, while around one in five remain in employment services for more than five years. Too often the system has become focused on administration, compliance and box-checking exercises rather than sustainable employment outcomes. That is why our government is embarking on the biggest reforms to employment services in 30 years, and at the centre of the reforms will be three new service streams. The first is to support people who are job ready and capable of engaging digitally with support to reconnect with work quickly. The second is to provide more tailored support, including stronger pathways into industries experiencing workforce demand. The third is to provide intensive support for people facing the greatest barriers to employment. This means replacing the one-size-fits-all model with a system that responds to people's actual needs. Treating those groups the same does not produce better outcomes.
We also have to recognise that labour markets are not the same across Australia. A modern system must be capable of supporting jobseekers in their local labour market while maintaining a nationally consistent framework. We need reforms that do not bypass local realities and local communities. And in a rapidly changing labour market, helping people help into work is not simply about the search; it's about helping them acquire the skills, the qualifications and the experience needed to access employment opportunities. That is why these reforms focus on pathways, not just placements. For too long, mutual obligations have been compliance driven, disconnected from real jobs, from people and from sustainable employment outcomes. The purpose of the system should be simple: helping people move closer towards attaining meaningful employment. Under these reforms, obligations will be linked more directly to a person's employment goals and focused on developing skills, improving employability and addressing barriers to work.
The dignity of work does not end at getting a job. It extends to ensuring that work is fairly rewarded. That is why our government is championing an economically sustainable real wage increase for minimum wage and award reliant workers. It was great to welcome Assistant Minister Gorman for a forum in my community to discuss these employment services reforms. The discussions with local providers and community organisations highlighted many of the challenges these reforms seek to address. Our focus must be about building a more dignified, effective and modern employment services system—one that recognises the dignity of work, recognises the value of work, recognises the realities of today's labour market, and gives every Australian the best possible opportunity to find a job and keep it. I commend the motion to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
The contribution of the member opposite, the member for Calwell, continuously referred to this concept of the dignity of work, and the motion itself talks about the dignity of work being a foundational value for the government. These are words, and they sound good, but Australians are sick of just words. They're looking for action and they're looking for a government that is prepared to deliver on the words, because what I'm seeing across my community on the southern Gold Coast is that Australians aren't doing well. They're struggling to get into jobs. They're struggling to maintain work that provides them with an increase in their real wages.
That's because we've got a government that's not focused on the long-term economic picture, or the larger economic picture, which is: How do we support productivity in this country? How do we grow the economy? How do we generate that wealth and that growth? That's ultimately what is going to provide for the long-term opportunities Australians need. We're seeing a government that has presided over the creation of jobs, whereby four out of five new jobs created are reliant on the public purse. That is not something that is sustainable, it's not something that this government should be proud of, and it's not something that fosters that notion of the dignity of work.
The motion also goes to the government's advocacy for an economically sustainable real wage increase. Let's call it for what it is: it's an artificial increase, because there is no systemic change that the government is doing, which is to make life easier for employees. At the same time, they're also making it difficult for employers, and we're seeing the consequences of that on small business owners.
It's all well and good for the government to turn around and say, 'We're supportive of this recent increase to the minimum wage by the Fair Work Commission.' But they're not talking about the other side of that story, which is the fact that the wage increase is being eaten away by this government's own actions, being eaten away by the inflation that this government has presided over. We're seeing inflation at 4.2 per cent, which is well above the target inflation rate, and we're seeing that across the economy in terms of how much Australians are paying for groceries, for electricity bills and for housing. And we're seeing an economy where inflation is now outpacing economic growth.
A minimum wage increase, the likes of which we've seen, is actually not a net increase for Australians, and that is what people are feeling. That's what people are feeling on the ground. These words about the dignity of work and how the government supports that—again, it's Canberra talk. The people have sent us here to this place to come up with policies that are actually going to make their lives better, not just talk about what we'd like in an ideal world.
The reality of this motion is it doesn't deliver anything sustainable for Australian employees or for Australian small-business owners. Even the Fair Work Commission acknowledged that many employees were still worse off in real terms because of inflation outpacing economic growth, or outpacing wage growth. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry policy chief, David Alexander, was recently asked in Canberra about the changes to the minimum wage. He said 'small businesses would bear the brunt of the wage rise.' The consequence of that is not just for small-business owners; it's also for consumers more broadly, because that is being passed on, in many instances, to customers through higher prices. What he actually said is that this is 'the Fair Work Commission embedding that increase in the minimum wage for the year… and we'll therefore put further pressure on inflation'.
So I say to the member for Calwell, who moved this motion, that it's all well and good to come into this place and talk about the words that we think our constituents would like us to speak, but what people do want us to do—the people in the real world out there—is deliver meaningful action on managing this economy. The way that we're going to actually make Australians' lives better is by having a government that's going to take responsibility for its actions, rein in its useless and reckless government expenditure, put downward pressure on inflation and have the guts to make those tough economic decisions that this country is desperate for.
Work is about more than a pay packet. It provides economic security, and it also builds confidence, connection and belonging. That is something we understand deeply in Bass. Across northern Tasmania, from Launceston to George Town, Scottsdale and Beaconsfield, work and jobs underpin our communities and sustain our local economy. But employment in regional Australia is not always straightforward.
In Bass I regularly speak to local employers across agriculture, manufacturing, health care and tourism who are crying out for workers. At the same time, there are people in my community who want to work but face real barriers to getting and keeping a job. Barriers such as limited transport, skills gaps, caring responsibilities, disability, health challenges or long periods out of the workforce can make it much harder for people in regional communities to find secure employment.
Across Australia around 1.7 million people are not working but would like to be. This is a huge pool of untapped potential for us, and that is where employment services need to be making a positive impact. At their best, they should do one thing really well: help get people into suitable and meaningful jobs. But that requires more than matching a person to the next vacancy. It requires tailored support that understands their circumstances and goals as well as a really good understanding of the local labour market.
For too long, our system has been built on a one-size-fits-all approach. In a diverse regional electorate like Bass, that doesn't work. You can't do it. The needs of a young person entering the workforce in Launceston for the first time are very different to someone retraining after years in a waning industry or someone living in a more remote part of the electorate without access to reliable transport. Yet, too often over the past few decades, they have been treated as the same. The result was continuously poor job matches, businesses struggling to retain staff and people cycling back through the system instead of moving forward.
That's why our Albanese Labor government is delivering the most significant reform to employment services in 30 years. At the heart of these reforms is a simple principle: the right support for the right person at the right time. We are ending the one-size-fits-all approach and introducing three service streams so that support is matched to how close someone is to that labour market. For people who are job ready, it means faster and more direct pathways into employment. For people facing greater barriers, it means more intensive and personalised support to build confidence, skills and capacity.
We're improving mutual obligations so that they are actually meaningful and support people into work rather than requiring compliance for its own sake. We're strengthening the assessment so barriers are identified early and people are connected with the right supports from day one. We're introducing the employment goal plans, giving people real ownership over their pathway into work, aligned with local opportunities, including in Bass. It provides realistic support and realistic goals for people moving forward.
These reforms are backed by more than $312 million in the budget. I listened to the previous speaker, who didn't mention employment services to try and help people into work. They referred to Labor as not understanding what the employment services market requires. But we're providing the money. We're backing it with $312 million in the budget. These once-in-a-generation changes recognise the realities of regional communities like mine.
Alongside these reforms, we continue to support fair wages. It really matters in Bass, where workers are employed in retail, aged care, hospitality and other award-reliant industries. So those increases in wages really do mean a lot to us. They mean that our community can continue to do the work that they love and support their families at the same time.
Since we came to government, the national minimum wage has increased by more than $12,000 a year. I've heard the challenges to that, but the people I've talked to are pleased. They are happy. They needed this. That is what we have worked towards. It's a meaningful difference for my families because, if people work hard, they deserve fair pay. These reforms are about building a system that works for communities like mine in Bass, a system that recognises the barriers that people face, supports them into meaningful work and delivers on that basic right: the dignity of work.
I absolutely agree that the dignity of work is fundamental to what it means to be a proud Australian, and I can tell you why. A couple of years ago, I started a bar with a friend of mine. Neither of us had ever pulled a pint, waited a table or poured a coffee for a customer, but we took the plunge into small business nonetheless. One of our regulars at the bar happened to be the general manager of an employment services provider in the south-west of WA. That regular patron provided us a challenge. She said: 'I've got a customer who has never yet been gainfully employed. He's someone with autism and severe anxiety. Could you possibly find him a role in your hospitality venue?' I talked to my business partner because someone that's suffering from autism and severe anxiety isn't necessarily the greatest fit for a busy, thriving, noisy and bright venue. But we thought the easy thing would be to say that, no, we couldn't find him a spot. So we sat down with our head chef and said, 'Chef, we've got to find a way to give this guy a go.' We did. He started with rolling pizza bases in the kitchen long before opening, when there was no-one else in the venue. Seven years later, we sold that business and that employee was still there. He was doing day shifts. He was doing night shifts. He was a valued part of the team. He was fundamentally a different person to the chap that walked in the door those many years ago. So, when we talk about the best form of welfare being a job, I can say from my personal experience that not only have I seen it with my own eyes but I'm very proud I've been part of giving someone that opportunity. It is that sense of purpose that employment gives someone that government programs alone cannot replace. That individual got a 13-week wage subsidy and, after that, had to carry his own weight, and I'm so proud of the fact that he did.
Australians don't judge success in these sorts of endeavours based on announcements, intentions or media releases. They judge success based on whether more Australians are getting into jobs and staying in them over the long term. The government's described these proposed changes as the biggest reform to employment services in 30 years. But scale alone doesn't guarantee effectiveness or success in converting people off welfare and into jobs for the long term. That is the only outcome that matters.
Presently, some 670,000 Australians are still unemployed, and underemployment is a massive issue in the Australian economy which means that many Australians who do have work are still not getting enough hours to support themselves and their families properly. There are signs that the labour market is softening, with Labor's rampant inflation and their addiction to spending undermining the private sector's prosperity and its capacity to employ in this country. Our position is that reform should always be judged on whether it's putting people into sustained work, not simply on how it appears in glossy media releases and brochures.
When there are more than one million Australians receiving JobSeeker and similar income support payments and when that number has increased by over 70,000 in a single year—that's a 7½ per cent rise in just 12 months—those numbers suggest that this system is not consistently moving people from welfare into employment at all. When it comes to matching those potential employees and their future employers, you would expect that those businesses should be privately owned and prosperous, not government backed—because jobs that require taxpayer funding aren't contributing to the size of the pie in this country.
There are more than 200,000 job advertisements across the country today indicating that demand is strong. Despite this, employers are consistently reporting in my part of the world that finding suitable employees is incredibly tough. There is a disconnect between jobseekers and the available jobs that the current system is not resolving adequately. This motion asks the House to support an intention rather than assess performance, and it's for that reason the coalition won't support it.
I rise to speak in support of this motion and the biggest reform of employment services since last century, and I thank my friend the member for Calwell for bringing it before the House. It goes to some really fundamental things. One is the dignity of work, and the other is that, as a government, we have a responsibility to ensure that those who are out of work have the appropriate supports to find a job.
Work is more than a pay packet and the economic security and certainty it provides. Those are very important; however, work can also build confidence, create a sense of purpose and connect people to their communities. That's why Labor governments have always placed such importance on employment: it's both an economic priority and a social one. Under the Albanese Labor government, we've seen the lowest average unemployment of any government in 50 years. More than 1.2 million jobs have been created across the country, and those numbers matter. Behind each of them is a real person and their family. It's someone gaining opportunity and stability.
But low unemployment does not mean everyone has an equal chance in finding work. Many Australians still face barriers that make participation difficult. It might be because they have caring responsibilities, health challenges, limited skills or simply a lack of confidence after time away from the workforce. Australian governments have always recognised their role in supporting unemployed people into the workforce. That's where the employment services system plays a critical role. In my era it was the Commonwealth Employment Service, the CES—essentially a jobs noticeboard. Employment services were fully privatised in the late 1990s, and now the Commonwealth spends around $2 billion each year on this system.
But the one-size-fits-all system currently operating is ill-equipped to respond to the diverse needs of the more than one million Australians who access it each year. People who are job ready have been treated the same way as those who are facing complex and long-term barriers. We've seen too many people cycle through the system without lasting results. We've seen job placements that don't endure because they're not the right fit, and we've seen people disengage because requirements have not always been meaningful or tailored to their situation. That's not good enough for participants, it's not good enough for employers and it's not good enough for the economy.
That's why these reforms are so important. This is the most significant change to employment services in 30 years. At the heart of these reforms is the end of the one-size-fits-all model. In its place, we're creating three distinct service streams. The first is a digital service for those who are ready to work and comfortable online. The second is a targeted provider service for those who need more personalised support and guidance to find work. The third is an intensive service for people who are further from the labour market and require more time and assistance to build their capacity.
This approach recognises a very simple truth: different people need different kinds of help. By matching support to need, we can focus effort where it will have the greatest impact, and that's only possible if there is better assessment of a person's circumstances and barriers right from the start so they're directed to the right support from day one. Participants will have greater ownership of their journey, with the new employment goal plan replacing the current system with a clear pathway tailored to the individual and grounded in the realities of the local labour market. Mutual obligations will be about supporting people into work, not simply compliance for its own sake. They should be practical, relevant and connected to a person's employment goals with activities that build skills, confidence and readiness for work.
The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Amanda Rishworth, came to Macquarie to hold the first Western Sydney forum to discuss the changes with me and around 80 employment providers, community groups who provide support to unemployed people and local business representatives, and I thank them all for their attendance and the discussion. These changes won't be implemented without deep discussion with the sector, with community organisations and with people who themselves have experience as unemployed persons. Alongside this and our fair wages, we're making these systems better for workers.
Employment services are the Commonwealth's largest single procurement outside of Defence. In 2024, it was estimated that we would spend around $9.5 billion over the four years from that time. In the previous parliament, I had the great privilege of being part of a select committee that examined, in great detail, employment service delivery in Australia, really with an aim on what we could do better. It was a first-principles approach. The report, Rebuilding employment services, made 75 recommendations. It was informed by over 300 submissions, more than 60 hours of witness testimony, and over 50 meetings and site visits. That was with jobseekers, employers, employment service providers, academics, social enterprises, local and state government, social welfare groups, training providers and other human services. We did that in every state and territory, as well as having direct engagement with the OECD, experts and over 10 other nations. It was comprehensive.
I'd really like to acknowledge the work of the member for Bruce and the former member for Monash as part of that committee work. It was very important work that we did, and one of those times when we really saw members of parliament come together.
In Australia, we have approximately one million Australians of working age who are on payments of either JobSeeker or youth allowance. Of those, 557,000 are long-term unemployed—that is, they've been unemployed for more than 12 months. Approximately 200,000 people have been employed for five years or longer. To me, that just shows that the system we currently have is really failing. Over 400,000 unemployed people are aged between 45 and 66. This is a vast number of Australians. To complicate matters, Roy Morgan calculated that, in June 2025, Australia's real unemployment rate was more than 1.6 million people because, once you're working over an hour a week, you're no longer technically unemployed. Clearly, this system isn't working. What should we be doing? What the report said to us was that we need to work intensively with people and we need to be able to make people job ready—help them to get job ready—to fill those jobs where we're currently having a very high rate of immigration, to fill jobs that I'm regularly told Australians don't want to do. I find that extraordinary. I can't believe that that's true because, whether it's in aged care or child care or the trucking industry or hospitality, I am quite confident that people who are unemployed would very much like to get into those industries, except there are challenges and barriers to do so. Largely, that's because a lot of employment providers will only provide a one-day course at best for someone who's on their books.
We really need to see investment in and spending of money on people to work intensively with them to address those barriers and to get the qualifications. For instance, to be in aged care, you really need to have a certificate III to get in, unless you are one of the very lucky people that can get into a traineeship. A certificate III costs time and money, so we need to be able to support people to do that. By 2050, we're going to need an extra 400,000 people to work in aged care, and I don't think that we're doing very well at working with people who are currently unemployed who would be brilliant in that sector, who have spent a lifetime caring for their children and maybe their parents to then work in that area.
Mutual obligations should be connected to how people can find employment in an area. For instance, if you are looking to get into hospitality or you're working in hospitality, your mutual obligation should be, perhaps, working with a social enterprise, a cafe, so that you can have something on your resume. We need to do much better when we've got one million Australians who are unemployed, particularly with the advent of AI.
Just one area where I think we could do much better is in the trucking sector. We know that there are 28,000 unfilled positions, but the problem with a lot of people who are unemployed is that they can't afford to get the licence. They'd love to work in the trucking sector, and providers, unless they've got a written letter saying, 'We're going to offer you a job,' will not help people and invest in getting that licence. Licences cost anywhere between $700 and $4,000, depending on the particular licence. That's just one area in which we could intensively invest in Australians who are unemployed for the betterment of all of us.
Before the 2022 federal election, Labor made a clear commitment. We would stand up for Australia's lowest paid workers. We said we would go to the Fair Work Commission and argue for an immediate wage increase because people who work hard should not be left behind. For nearly a decade under the former Liberal and National government, low wages were not an accident. They were a deliberate design feature of economic policy. Working Australians were told to wait, accept less and carry rising costs without receiving a fair share of the prosperity they helped create.
Labor has a different view. Work should provide security, dignity and opportunity. A strong economy is measured not only by profit but by whether working people can pay the rent, fill the fridge, put petrol in the car and buy school shoes. That's why this Labor government has advocated for wage increases in every wage review since coming to office. This year, the government supported sustainable real wage increases for the lowest paid workers. The Fair Work Commission has now increased the national minimum wage by six per cent and minimum award wages by 4.75 per cent. These adjustments take effect from the first full pay period on or after 1 July this year. Around 2.7 million award-reliant workers will receive a pay rise. For them, this is practical relief—the difference between falling behind and keeping up.
Many low-paid workers are young, women or casual workers. Many work in jobs that keep Australia going—retail, hospitality, cleaning, aged care, disability support and early childhood education. They deserve more than thanks. They deserve fair pay. This also matters because award-reliant workers are disproportionately women, and their work has too often been undervalued and underpaid. Labor has backed wage rises in aged care, is supporting historic pay increases in early childhood education and care, and continues to support fair outcomes in sectors that have contributed to the gender pay gap.
Under Labor, Australia's national gender pay gap has fallen to an historic low of 11.5 per cent, down from 14.1 per cent in May 2022. That progress happened because Labor acted, backing minimum wage increases, banning pay secrecy clauses, modernising bargaining, improving transparency and lifting wages in feminised industries. That's what Labor governments do. We see fair wages as the foundation of a decent society. We do not simply praise essential workers. We fight to pay them properly.
Our commitment to fair work and fair pay is not new. It is part of Labor's legacy of nation building. After the Second World War, the Curtin Labor government helped lay the foundations for full employment through the Commonwealth Employment Service, launched in 1946. Its purpose was simple but powerful: to connect people with work, respond to labour shortages and support Australians through changing economic conditions. The CES recognised that employment policy is not just about statistics but about people, families and communities.
That principle still matters today. Under this government, Australia has recorded the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in more than 50 years, and more than 1.2 million jobs have been created. That is a record of which we can be proud. But low unemployment does not mean that every Australian can easily access work. Too many people are missing out because the employment services system that replaced the CES in 1998 is no longer working for everyone who needs support to find and keep work. The Commonwealth spends around $2 billion each year on employment services, supporting more than one million Australians. But the current system is ill equipped for diverse needs and too often relies on a one-size-fits-all model.
That's why we're rebuilding that system around people, not punishment, and around capability, not compliance for its own sake. We have announced fundamental reforms—the biggest change to employment services in 30 years. It means the right support at the right time for those people who need it, for those more than one million people out there. Labor's task is twofold: to make sure that work pays and to make sure more Australians can share in the dignity and security that work provides. The dignity of work is not just a slogan for Labor governments. It is a principle. It is a promise. And it's a promise that we are delivering. The delivery of that promise is around modernising and changing the employment services that are out there today to become more receptive to those who are looking for work.
It's a pleasure to rise to speak on the motion put forward by my good colleague the member for Calwell. I have reflected on a number of the contributions made about this issue on both sides of this chamber. I take the contribution to this discussion by the member for Mayo around a number of pieces of work that have gone before this parliament in progressing what should be a goal of everyone in this House: to encourage employment and to encourage the dignity of work in this nation. I want to commend the former member for Monash, my predecessor, who I know had a genuine and abiding interest in this area. I know that in his last couple of years in this place he dedicated himself to the committee work that the member for Mayo referenced.
The coalition agrees that the dignity of work is fundamental and that work provides Australians with independence, financial security and a sense of purpose. In the last couple of weeks, in a number of mobile offices across my electorate of Monash, that's something I've reflected on in the conversations that I've had with families and with working people. They are most concerned, at the moment, with their sense of employment security, particularly under this government, particularly as real wages fall and particularly in regional areas like mine, where we have industries transitioning, and also for that quantum of not just large businesses in those regions but the ecosystem of small and family enterprises which sit beneath, among and alongside those large employers, who provide the lunches, do the dry cleaning and deliver the newspapers to those large companies.
This is an issue that is most important to regions like mine. While we are experiencing a flux in the economy right now and a change in employment demographics, now is not the time to be making major shifts in the way employment services are delivered in this country. We still have around 670,000 Australians unemployed, and underemployment remains close to six per cent. That is a big issue for regions like mine, where there are pockets of disadvantage and pockets of lower socioeconomic families who are really struggling right now. Underemployment is a key issue for them when you've got an economy where families really need to have two incomes. That is something that many families are most challenged by, and the consequences for that are intergenerational. It has an impact on children going to school and being able to enjoy and participate fully in sporting and other activities that their parents, at the moment, are really struggling to be able to afford.
The coalition's position is that reforms should be judged not just on whether they're delivering more people into sustained work. I think that is a key goal. And it is not just how ambitious or wide-ranging they appear to be on paper, because a well-functioning employment system requires a balance between meaningful support for job seekers but also clear expectations that people actively seek and want to accept suitable work which is available to them in their local communities. The state government in Victoria does not have a good record on this issue, and I raise the example of timber towns and timber communities in my region and regions across Australia, where, because of terrible decisions taken by the Victorian state government—I single out the minister Lily D'Ambrosio for her treatment of timber communities. You take a timber worker out of that town along with their partner, who happens to be a nurse at a hospital or a teacher at a school, and suddenly that school has lost a teacher, that hospital has lost a nurse, that town has lost another family that contributes economically but also socially to the vibrancy and sustainability of that town. I have real worries about timber towns and, more broadly, regional towns across Australia that have been treated very badly.
So, yes, I commend the intention of this motion, but the application of it and the lived experience of people in my electorate in regional communities don't always live up to the high hopes of this motion.
The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
This motion goes to one notion that is really effective in politics at the moment but also really destructive. It goes to the concept of trust. It goes to the concept of this government having repeatedly broken promises to Australians on the cost of living, on energy prices and on housing affordability, just to name a few. This goes to the heart of the Australian democracy, because we're seeing a time where Australians are not trusting their government, and that lack of confidence in our democracy is a result of the people who sit on the frontbench and make promises that they cannot keep.
Let's have a look at the track record of this Australian government. What we're seeing is that families are worse off. They've been worse off over the last 3½ years. Increasingly what we're seeing is that it's not because people are doing the wrong thing. It's not because they're not working hard. It's because we've got a government that is not translating their hard work into results and rewards. Australians are working hard. They're working harder than they've ever had to work, but they're going backwards. Now, that is a serious problem and a serious economic issue that this country is facing. We're seeing families who are paying more for groceries, more for rent, more for their electricity bills and more for their fuel. That sounds a bit odd when considering that, a couple of years ago, we had a prime minister and a Treasurer who went out to the Australian people and campaigned time and time again that life would be easy and it would be easier under their government. They promised that we would see a reduction in energy prices by $275. It's almost laughable because what we're seeing is the absolute opposite of that. We're seeing CPI still running at 4.2 per cent. Wages are growing at 3.3 per cent. What that actually means is that pay packets aren't keeping up with prices, and Australians are getting a pay rise on paper, but they're actually losing it at the checkout. That's not restoring living standards. That's eroding living standards, and Australians are seeing it for what it is. The $275 cut to household power bills by 2025, which was promised, is something we're still waiting for, but what have we seen? We've seen electricity costs go up 22½ per cent over the year, and, over the course of the last 3½ years, they've gone up even more than that. It's a broken promise that Australians can see in black and white. Families know that the opposite of what the Prime Minister told Australians is happening. The power bill on the kitchen bench tells everybody what the real story is.
On housing affordability, another addition to the litany of broken promises that we've seen from those opposite, they promised that housing would be more affordable in this country. But when I speak to young Australians—and I'd say the same would be the case for my colleagues who are in this place at the moment—I don't get young people coming up to me saying, 'Jeez, it's so good we've had this government come into power, because we're actually able to get into our first home,' or, 'Rents are actually going down; have you noticed that?' It's fanciful, it's fictitious, and it's an absolute broken promise that Australians are having to bear the brunt of as a result of this government's absolute mismanagement of the Australian economy.
We're seeing that on paper as well, because housing costs are up 6.3 per cent over the year, rents are up 3.5 per cent over the year, and new dwelling prices are up 4.7 per cent over the year. I can say to Australians and young Australians who are watching that the genius of this government is that they're going to go up even more. What they've actually done through this most recent budget is pitted investors against first home buyers because, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, as you and I know all too well, state concession schemes, when they come to the incentives that are given to young people to buy their first home, are geared towards new properties. What we've seen in the most recent budget is this government being totally oblivious of that. That will also result in housing affordability continuing to go backwards, which is another broken promise by this government.
In closing, this government has failed to manage the economy, and Australians are paying the price. We need a government that is going to be accountable and take responsibility, and the right thing for this government to do would be to put forward policies that are actually going to do what they said, and they should get into this place and apologise to the Australian people.
People in my community of Bonner know that cost-of-living pressure is real, and, at times like this, people expect their government to step up with practical help. That is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing. We are delivering tax relief for workers, we are backing higher wages, and we are making things like medicines cheaper. We are strengthening Medicare and helping more Australians into housing, because our priority is clear—helping Australians with the cost of living while building a fairer economy for the future.
For people in my community of Bonner, one of the clearest things we have delivered is tax relief. Labor has delivered tax cuts for every taxpayer, and we are going further through this budget that has just been handed down, with $250 working tax offsets as well as the $1,000 instant tax deduction to make tax time easier for so many of our local workers. Taken together with the tax relief we have already delivered, we have now cut 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. That matters in Bonner. It matters to nurses heading home after a long shift, it matters to the tradie filling up at the local petrol station, and it matters to the retail workers, teachers, childhood educators and the aged-care workers trying to keep up with bills while still trying to get ahead. Labor believes that, if you work hard, you should be able to earn more and keep more of what you earn. That is what Labor stands for.
But cost-of-living relief is not just about tax cuts; it's also about wages. Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has backed higher wages for nearly three million workers. Many of those are Australia's lowest paid workers. Real wages have been growing, and the national minimum wage has now risen to over $12,000 a year since we came to office. That matters enormously in my community of Bonner, where so many people do work in child care, aged care, retail, hospitality and other essential industries. These are the people who care for our children and for those who are most vulnerable in our local community. They deserve fair pay, and they deserve a government that backs them every step of the way.
We know that, for many families, one of the biggest cost pressures is health care. That is why we are making medicines cheaper with $25 scripts, and it's why we are building more urgent care clinics. Two have opened in my community of Bonner, with the Carina-Carindale and Capalaba urgent care clinics now open and having serviced over 10,000 people already since they opened their doors. These are practical changes that are making a real difference.
When it comes to housing, the Albanese Labor government is taking that challenge seriously. We set a target of building more than 1.2 million new homes. We are helping more Australians buy a home with lower deposits, and we are supporting more housing supply. We're also reforming the tax settings so that more investment goes into building new homes instead of simply pushing up prices on homes that are already there. Housing is not an abstract policy in my community; it is about whether young people can move out of home. In Queensland, we are seeing 20,000 homes that are being built exclusively for first home buyers.
While Australians and working families are under pressure at the moment, we have ensured that we are delivering for them. We are investing more in things like aged care, we are funding permanent urgent care clinics, we are supporting community housing for young people at risk of homelessness and we are making sure that the child support system is safer and fairer so that single parents and their children get the support they are owed.
We know that people are under pressure, and we know that global events are having an impact here at home. We also know that Australians expect more from their government than just commentary from the sidelines. That is why we are delivering real tax cuts for workers and backing higher wages. It's why we are making medicines cheaper and making urgent care clinics permanent, as well as ensuring there are more bulk-billing GP practices. It's making sure that if you work hard, look after your family and contribute to your community you have the chance to genuinely get ahead. That is exactly what this Albanese Labor government is committed to—today and every day.
Since Labor was elected, Australia has faced the largest fall in living standards in the developed world. Families are struggling, with costs skyrocketing across the board, and, as a result, the dream of homeownership for the average Australian is now sadly out of reach. While Australian families struggle to stay afloat, Labor can't shake their uncontrollable spending addiction. Their budget is now forecast to be in deficit for a decade, and debt is about to pass $1 trillion. Because Labor can't manage their money, they're now coming after yours.
Their unrestrained spending doesn't just mean higher taxes; it punishes Australians and fuels higher inflation. Higher inflation has meant real wages are declining, rents are increasing, taxes are compounding and people are taking home less in real terms. No wonder people are frustrated and losing faith in government. Adding insult to injury, this government decided to double down on their efforts, reaching further into the pockets of working families in their latest budget.
Feeling like they hadn't put Australian families under enough pressure, they proposed the largest tax increases in Australian history. How those opposite thought record taxes are conducive to increasing living standards is anyone's guess. Australians, however, know that higher taxes are not the answer; they're an assault on aspiration. Young Australians continue to work hard and do the right thing, but higher taxes lock them further out of homeownership. Even the budget papers themselves show Labor's taxes will lead to fewer homes being built and to higher rents. Australians are being punished for working hard. It puts a ceiling on ambition at the very time Australia needs more investment, more enterprise and more reward for effort.
It has taken far too long but, thankfully, the Prime Minister and Treasurer have realised, at least in part, their latest budget is a failure. Labor overreach is now trying to solve the headaches it created for itself by making tweaks at the margins. Unfortunately, this budget is not a partial failure; it is a complete failure. This government's toxic taxes don't require a tweak or a carve-out or any other Canberra policy fix; they need the axe. You don't fix a bad tax by making it more complicated, you simply scrap it. More complexity does not fix bad law. The Albanese government needs to withdraw the bill and start again.
The budget must be reworked to build an Australia where living standards are restored, where workers are rewarded and where young people can get ahead. It should be our duty to ensure that the next generation is better off than the one that came before it, and to help this I've got a few ideas for those opposite. To restore living standards, Australians deserve a government that puts them first. That's exactly what the coalition plan to do. We've got a plan for lower taxes, for low inflation and an economy designed to back the self-starters of the nation, not kneecap them.
We believe that if Australians work, if Australians take risks, then Australians should get ahead. We plan to take the pressure off the housing market by capping migration based on how many homes Australia builds. It's a simple supply-and-demand calculation. If we can't meet supply, we won't hurt Australians by artificially increasing demand. We will rein in inflation and bracket creep by providing an automatic tax cut, and that, of course, will be done via ending bracket creep. When your wages rise to keep up with inflation you shouldn't be punished and taxed more.
We'll provide affordable energy by backing technologies that can provide it. History is clear: you can't grow living standards without access to affordable, reliable energy. That, of course, has been the history of Australia. We don't want America's living poor, but we can't have high wages and high energy costs at the same time. Ultimately, we are an energy rich country and we need to capitalise on that wealth.
We will also support small businesses by providing an instant asset write-off of $50,000—not the $20,000 that those opposite have suggested. That will buy you half a ute, if you are a tradie, but that doesn't get you very far down the road. Our $50,000 will get you that second-hand ute; it will give you a start; it will get you ahead. Only then can you grow the economy and properly begin to address declining living standards. Our plan is for a fairer, freer and better Australia, restoring living standards and rewarding aspirations. I hope those opposite have a good look at that idea.
The problem with what the member for Barker said is simply that the coalition failed to deliver one surplus budget, despite having promised a surplus budget each and every year they were in office. They did not do it once. The biggest-spending government in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia was the Morrison coalition government. Since we've come to office, government debt is down $45 billion and the deficit is down $7.8 billion. We have delivered two budget surpluses. So don't listen to what they say, look at the record of the previous coalition governments. Look at their failure and look at how they have voted in the House of Representatives.
I'm sick and tired of the faux outrage from those opposite on cost-of-living relief when, in fact, they have opposed almost every single bill that the Albanese Labor government has brought into this House to assist people with the cost of living. Inflation was at 6.1 per cent under the previous coalition government, before we came to power, and going up. It is now down to 4.2 per cent. So look at the facts, not at what they say. Just because a coalition spokesperson at the dispatch box says something, it doesn't mean it's always true.
They opposed every minimum wage increase we supported. They opposed student debt reduction. They opposed free TAFE before the last election. And who can ever forget their former leader, the former member for Farrer, saying that, unless you actually pay for things, you don't appreciate them? They opposed every single bill we ever put into this House to provide energy bill relief for Australian consumers. They voted against every piece of legislation that we brought in to provide tax cuts. They opposed cheaper child care.
My point of order is on relevance. The motion is very clearly about living standards, not the coalition, and I'd ask the member to be directly relevant to the question before the House.
I thank the member for the point of order. The member for Blair has the call.
How can energy bill relief, tax cuts, cheaper child care and Medicare support be not germane? The fact that this intervention was made by a coalition member shows the failure of them to understand—that's a frontbencher in the opposition—what cost-of-living relief really is for the Australian public.
They opposed cheaper medicines and 60-day scripts. Remember, they said the pharmaceutical industry was going to collapse if we provided 60-day scripts. They opposed the $25 scripts for non-concessional income earners and the $7.70 scripts for concessional income earners. They opposed every bill on housing we ever introduced, including the $47 billion Homes for Australia plan, delivering 1.2 million homes for Australians. They opposed rent assistance for the poorest people, who need rent assistance. They opposed our Medicare urgent care clinics and were going to close them down after the last election if they won office. That's free primary health care for Australians. They opposed the mental health centres; that was part of our package which they voted against.
They went to the last election with an economic plan for higher taxes, greater deficits and higher debt. That was their policy at the last election. They actually wanted to ban people from working from home! That goes to show how out of touch they are. Again and again they opposed cost-of-living relief and voted against the kinds of support that we provided in this place for Australians.
The fact is the coalition members have all anger and no answers whatsoever. It's all simplistic nonsense from them and no solutions. Their record over the nine years they were in power was appalling, and since they've been in opposition they've done nothing to assist Australians. If they had any genuine concern about cost-of-living relief, they would have voted with us on energy bill relief. They would have voted with us on tax cuts. But again and again they failed.
The budget we handed down last month was about housing affordability and included another round of permanent tax cuts, which those opposite opposed: the working Australian tax offset. They opposed $250 going into Australians' pockets. And there was the $1,000 instant tax deduction. Those opposite opposed that as well. Again and again we provided tax relief to help with cost-of-living relief for Australians, and those opposite opposed it. Since we came to office, those on the minimum wage are $12,000 better off, and the coalition, if they'd won power at the last two elections, would have opposed that.
I rise today to support the motion moved by the member for Fadden. Under the Albanese Labor government, Australia has gone backwards, and families are struggling more than ever. Our living standards have fallen more than any other developed country, according to the OECD. We know that inflation is out of control, fuelled by Labor's spending addiction, resulting in 15 interest rate rises under this Prime Minister. And it is that spending addiction which is pushing our national debt towards $1 trillion.
At the 2022 election, Labor promised that our power bills would be $275 lower by 2025. The Prime Minister repeated that promise countless times, but Australians know the reality: instead of cheaper energy, households are facing rising electricity costs and continued financial pressure. This is not the outcome that Australians were promised, and it is yet another example of a government failing to deliver on its commitments. Families are feeling the pinch right across Australia. Small businesses are finding it harder and harder to keep their doors open and are being offered no relief by the Albanese government. The result: 41,000 small-business closures under this Prime Minister.
In the last sitting week the government had the opportunity to give Australians a bigger automatic income tax cut. Instead, they voted against the coalition's tax-back guarantee 11 times. Labor talks about cost-of-living relief, but in this chamber, only two weeks ago, they voted to make Australians pay more. In fact, Labor's secret inflation tax will cost taxpayers $200 billion more. It's shameful.
In the last four years Labor have done nothing on housing or housing affordability. They pretended it was not a problem until this recent budget, when they had to act as if something was being done by breaking more promises, introducing their toxic taxes on housing. We saw the Labor spin machine go into overdrive, trying to sell the changes to the capital gains tax and negative gearing as a positive for housing, when in fact Labor's own budget papers clearly stated that there would be 35,000 fewer homes available, not more, and higher rents as a result. Remember, this is the Prime Minister who promised there would be no change to negative gearing. It is time for the government and the Prime Minister to take responsibility for their blatant mistruths and for misleading Australians.
Let's face it: Labor's budget is in tatters, and now the government is planning to plug some of these bad policy holes. Well, these carve outs are not going to fix the problems. Across regional Western Australia, small businesses are unable to attract workers, because there is nowhere for them to live. Severe housing shortages are costing businesses and preventing regional communities from thriving. Further to this, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, this government has hit our older Australians with more cost increases.
How can they claim to be doing everything they can to help Australians when people over the age of 65 are now paying more for private health cover? It is such a callous and uncaring government. Our senior citizens have done exactly what they were told to do: work hard, take out your private health insurance, go without something else just to make sure you've got the cover you need to make sure we keep the pressure off our public health queues. Labor wants to prioritise politics and reduce the private health rebate for senior Australians. It is shameful. Effectively it's a 21 per cent increase for essential health care for our older Australians. I've heard from seniors who are on fixed incomes that it is going to be nearly impossible to keep their private health insurance while managing rising living costs. So many of my constituents in Durack are choosing between keeping their insurance and paying for essentials like groceries and electricity.
There is a consistent theme here with this government. They don't care for Australians, especially our older Australians. They don't want us to get ahead. They do not want to support everyday Australians—just cutting them down, piece by piece, taxing them harder and making life harder and harder. We all know that Australians deserve much more. They deserve a government that keeps its promises, takes responsibility when it falls short and puts the cost of living front and centre. That is what we will do. (Time expired)
The member for Durack paints a pretty broad fantasy in her words today. I will tell you what is 'callous' and I will tell you what is 'uncaring': the fact that the member for Durack is part of a party that wanted to see something that more than a thousand people in my local electorate on Brisbane's south side benefit from—five per cent deposits, to get them into their very first home—cut. They wanted to cut that. It is the fact that 16,416 visits to my local urgent care clinic in Oxley wouldn't have happened under the member for Durack. And it is the fact that students and people going to TAFE would have been 20 per cent poorer if the member for Durack and her political party were in government. This is the stark reality.
When you talk about what is important to the cost of living, it's not just about talking in this place. It's about doing something about it, and this is a government that has been hard at work doing something about it while the coalition seeks to block at every opportunity, while the coalition tries to unpick critical services like Medicare and while the coalition stands in this place and talks about young people without ever backing it up—and not only not backing it up but sitting there and voting against a budget designed to rebalance our taxation system so that young people can get a fair shot.
The other day I was at the Yeronga Park Swimming Club awards. I was there with a young person, a very young person—a toddler, in fact. She was barefoot, she had face paint of a tiger that was melting off her face and she had taken off her shirt. That was my toddler, Margaret. When I looked at Margaret and saw the pity but also the shared understanding from the parents who were around me, I think that we shared more than just that kind of experience. I think that what parents share right now is concern and worry. I think what people wonder is: will my child be able to afford a home, will my child be able to have the same opportunities that I had and what is the world that they will grow up in?
I think that, when we talk about what people are feeling in our local community, it's that. They don't need discussion in this place. They need action because it's really tough out there. People are feeling cost-of-living pressures. They're feeling it at the bowser. They're feeling it when they pay their bills. They're feeling it when they pay their rent. Young people feel like they won't be able to buy a home in their lifetime. That's why this is a government that has introduced five per cent deposits. It's why this is a government that has introduced the help to buy scheme. It's why this is a government that is making sure that the relationship between our taxation system and our housing system is fair for young people.
People in my community are worried about the cost when they pick up the pump. That's why this is a government that has been driving more supply. This is a government that has been underwriting shiploads of fuel being brought into this country so that we have more fuel right here at home. That's why this is a government that has brought our fuel reserves home.
People are worried, because they want affordable health care, and that's why this is a government that has introduced urgent care clinics and has made them permanent in the budget. It's why we have $25 scripts. I was out at a pharmacy just a couple of days ago in Eight Mile Plains talking about the impact that that has made to people, particularly those who have chronic illness. It's why we've increased bulk-billing rates. In my electorate, we've almost doubled the number of places where people can go where there is only bulk-billing. It is tough out there, and the Australian people need the action of a Labor government.
This is the first time in Australian history where the next generation of Australians will be worse off than their parents. It's absolutely outrageous. The overarching theme of this Albanese Labor government is also undeniable regional neglect. Consider the Nyrstar smelter in Port Pirie. Finally, we welcomed a $150 million transitionary package from the federal and state governments. This was a sigh of relief for this resilient community, but why were our proud smelter workers and their families left in a state of limbo for over a month? Furthermore, the previous package expired on 1 May, yet the minister for industry only found time to brief my office in early June. These delays are worrying. The hardworking people of Port Pirie must never endure another period of cruel uncertainty. They need full momentum and growth to plan their long-term futures in this town.
These living standards and this regional neglect bleed into our community sport, where Labor delivered a devastating $182 million blow to grassroots. Ignoring expert advice, the government is slashing ongoing funding to vital programs like Sporting Schools, Local Para Champions and Local Sporting Champions. They are gutting the sports grants budget from $331 million down to just $151 million. Local sport is the heartbeat of regional South Australia. It keeps our country towns united. Olympic champions like Kyle Chalmers and Dean Lukin from Port Lincoln started their sporting journeys in local clubs. Cutting these grants directly hinders young, aspiring rural athletes, and it is families who will take the hardest hit, right when rising costs are already hurting their hip pockets.
Regional families are also suffering because this government cannot properly manage our economy. That is clear. Inflation data confirms that regional South Australia is being left behind. South Australia recorded the highest monthly inflation increase of any mainland state, maintaining an annual inflation rate of 4.6 per cent.
The minister claims renewable energy is driving down power bills, but this is a complete fantasy in my electorate. South Australia has 80 per cent wind and solar penetration in the grid, yet, depending on how this metric is used, we suffer the most expensive power bills in the developed world. Under Labor, households have endured a 36 per cent increase in energy prices since 2022, and over 18,000 households are on energy hardship programs. This failure to lower power prices directly threatens the very survival of energy-intensive regional employers like the Whyalla steelworks and the Port Pirie smelter.
With a South Australian based federal health minister, you'd think regional SA would get some support in the health space. Wrong! The decision to divert birthing services from Jamestown and Crystal Brook to Port Pirie until July 2026 has shaken my electorate. Expecting mothers are worried. They are being forced to travel over an hour to give birth, stripping away their long-established relationships with their local midwives and destroying continuity of care. Kapunda lost its services two months ago, and my community fears these temporary closures will become permanent.
I want to assure my constituents that I have demanded the state Labor government outline its long-term strategy immediately, but this is not just a state failure. I'm putting federal Labor and SA's own Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, on notice today. You must stop burying your heads in the sand. Our workforce crisis is crippling our regional healthcare networks, and the silence from Canberra is deafening. Minister Butler needs to step up, intervene and work with the state to deliver genuine solutions for our regional communities. Regional mothers deserve safe, consistent care, not empty promises and closed doors.
The hardworking citizens of regional South Australia demand and deserve so much more than this neglect. That is why I will continue to fight for the best interests of regional South Australian families.
I will remind the honourable member to use correct titles when addressing health ministers.
There is no doubt right now that right across the country there are many Australians who are doing it tough. Families are feeling the pressure of higher bills, global uncertainty and the ongoing consequences of conflict in the Middle East. In the face of these challenges, the Albanese Labor government has acted decisively and responsibly to ease the burden on households and to lift living standards, not just for today but for the future.
On 12 May, the Treasurer handed down a budget that is about practical help now and lasting reform for tomorrow. This budget delivers real cost-of-living relief through tax cuts, cheaper medicines, stronger wages and targeted support for those who need it most. Our government is helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn through another round of permanent tax cuts, including the $250 working Australians' tax offset and a $1,000 instant tax deduction. These tax cuts are putting money directly back into the pockets of working Australians. Combined with previous tax reforms, we are cutting income taxes five times in five different ways. By 2028, a worker on average earnings will be nearly $3,000 a year better off. This is meaningful relief and demonstrates a government on the side of working Australians.
But we know tax relief alone is not enough. That is why we are also tackling everyday costs. Yesterday our government announced that we will extend fuel excise relief for another month, making petrol and diesel 16c per litre cheaper versus normal prices for July, saving Australians around $11 per tank. This is more temporary support that will help take the sting out of petrol prices and help Australians with the cost of living. At the same time, we are empowering the ACCC to crack down on price-gouging and unfair practices, doubling maximum penalties to $100 million and investing nearly $68 million in enforcement. Australians deserve a fair go at the checkout, and this government is making sure they get it. We are also strengthening essential services. We are making medicines cheaper for millions of Australians and locking in bulk-billed urgent care clinics as a permanent part of Medicare so families can access free walk-in care when they need it most.
At the heart of our approach is fairness. Since coming to government, we have backed higher wages for nearly three million of Australia's lowest-paid workers every single year. As a result, the national minimum wage has risen significantly, helping workers keep up with the cost of living, and we are looking to the future. Our tax reforms are pro worker, pro aspiration and pro investment. They will reduce the tax burden for more than 13 million Australians, help 75,000 more people into home ownership and drive productivity through innovation and business investment. We are building a tax system that is fairer, simpler and fit for the future.
The contrast could not be clearer. In opposition, three right-wing parties—the Liberal One National Party, if you will—have consistently opposed measures designed to ease pressure on households and working families. Their approach leaves Australians to fend for themselves and without the support they need to get through challenging times. Following the One Nation leader's speech at the National Press Club last week, it is clear that her party offers no credible economic plan. The only thing One Nation offer Australians is cuts, division and wacky concepts dressed up as policies that would leave Australians worse off. Their approach risks undermining wages, weakening essential services and abandoning the very people who need support the most.
In contrast, this government is focused on delivering real outcomes. We understand that Australians are under pressure and we are doing something about it. We are providing immediate relief where it is needed, while building a stronger and more resilient economy for the future. This year's budget is about helping Australians get ahead, earn more, keep more, access essential services and achieve the dream of home ownership. It is about fairness, opportunity and security. At a time of global uncertainty, Australians deserve a government that acts to protect their living standards, and that is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is delivering.
The time allocated for this debate has now expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting.
I have to report to the House that on 4 June 2026 I received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating Ms Aldred and Ms Price to be members of the Select Committee on Cyber Security for Small to Medium Sized Businesses and Organisations.
I also have to report to the House that on 5 June 2026 I received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating Mr Gregg to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in place of Dr Freelander. In accordance with standing order 229B, as the House was not expected to sit for several weeks, the appointment became effective on those dates. I now call the minister to move to resolve the memberships of those committees.
by leave—I move:
That:
(1) Ms Aldred and Ms Price be appointed members of the Select Committee on Cyber Security for Small to Medium Sized Businesses and Organisations; and
(2) Dr Freelander be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and that, in his place, Mr Gregg be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
I've received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating that Ms Chaney be a member of the Select Committee on Cyber Security for Small to Medium Sized Businesses and Organisations.
by leave—I move:
That Ms Chaney be appointed a member of the Select Committee on Cyber Security for Small to Medium Sized Businesses and Organisations.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) gambling advertising causes significant health and financial harm to more than 3 million Australians every year;
(b) the Government's exposure draft of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 was released for limited consultation only, including broadcasters and sporting codes with no public consultation process open to the millions of Australians who are directly affected by gambling harm and with the consultation period too brief to allow meaningful scrutiny; and
(c) open letters from the crossbench as well as the Liberal Party, including from former Prime Minister the Hon John Howard OM AC and former Premier of Victoria the Hon Jeff Kennett AC, have recognised that the Government's proposed reforms to regulation of gambling do not go far enough;
(2) recognises the importance of transparent consultation on significant legislative reforms; and
(3) calls on the Government to undertake public consultation so that Australians affected by the legislation can engage with genuine co-design on the bill before its introduction.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Kooyong from moving the following motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) gambling advertising causes significant health and financial harm to more than 3 million Australians every year;
(b) the Government's exposure draft of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 was released for limited consultation only, including broadcasters and sporting codes with no public consultation process open to the millions of Australians who are directly affected by gambling harm and with the consultation period too brief to allow meaningful scrutiny; and
(c) open letters from the crossbench as well as the Liberal Party, including from former Prime Minister the Hon John Howard OM AC and former Premier of Victoria the Hon Jeff Kennett AC, have recognised that the Government's proposed reforms to regulation of gambling do not go far enough;
(2) recognises the importance of transparent consultation on significant legislative reforms; and
(3) calls on the Government to undertake public consultation so that Australians affected by the legislation can engage with genuine co-design on the bill before its introduction.
We urgently need to suspend standing orders to debate this motion. We need to do that because, while the Australian public has been forced to accept harmful and inexcusable delays to gambling reform, it should not also be expected to accept opaque law making and inadequate public and expert consultation. Consultation is not an obstacle to good lawmaking; it's how good lawmaking happens. If the government is confident in its policy choices on gambling advertising, it should have nothing to fear from consultation with the experts and with the public. If this legislation strikes the right balance and will generally protect Australians from gambling harm while providing industry certainty for the gambling industry, for broadcasters and for sporting codes, the government should be making that case publicly and transparently, but, if there are flaws, unintended consequences or missed opportunities, we should work to identify them before the bill is introduced, not after it's passed this parliament. This motion seeks to improve much-needed reform to gambling advertising. It seeks to ensure that Australians who live with gambling harm; families who have lost loved ones; community organisations who are working on the front line; and researchers, advocates and ordinary citizens have the same opportunity to engage with this legislation as the broadcasters and the sporting codes have had.
More than three years ago, something very rare happened in this place. There was multipartisan, cross-party, unequivocal consensus. That happened when a federal parliamentary inquiry into online gambling harm reached consensus on all 31 of the recommendations in the You win some, you lose more Murphy report. They were 31 recommendations agreed to by all members of the committee, across party lines. I don't have to remind the House—but I will—that that inquiry was led by the late Peta Murphy, a Labor MP who devoted enormous energy and some of her final months to this important cause. With one voice, the committee told this parliament that the harms caused by gambling were real, that the evidence was clear and that the time to act was now. That was more than a thousand days ago—a thousand days of harm, a thousand days of inaction.
After years of campaigning from the crossbench and the opposition, the Prime Minister decided to take out the trash on the government's gambling reform right before the Easter long weekend as journalists were heading out the door and as the public headed out on a well-earned break. That was a strategic play from the Prime Minister. He wanted to minimise media coverage and he wanted to avoid public scrutiny and accountability. Then, weeks later, while all the journalists and every MP in Canberra were cordoned off in the budget lock up, the Prime Minister tabled his government's formal response to the Murphy review. He did that after question time, buried in 18 other government responses to overdue reports. That government response is nine pages long—nine pages in response to a 197-page review. That's 100 days for every page of the government's inadequate response.
I was glad to see an exposure draft of this legislation released before it came to parliament. Exposure drafts are important. They allow scrutiny. They allow experts and affected communities to identify problems with legislation before a bill gets locked in. But the government didn't open up that exposure draft to public consultation. The government conducted targeted consultations only with affected stakeholders, including broadcasters and sports codes. What about the over three million Australians who experience gambling related harm every year? Was this process open to the parents whose children can still see three gambling ads every hour on a single TV channel under this legislation? What about those people who are still receiving inducements under this legislation? Will they get their say? The answer is no. The people who live with gambling harm every day were not given a genuine opportunity to engage with this legislation. There are the parents who come to electorate offices like ours who tell us that their children are addicted to gambling, that gambling is an acute mental health concern for their kids. They don't get a chance to contribute. The health experts who've come out this morning—Mike Daube from Curtin University, Sam Thomas from Deakin—were given three days notice and a 45-minute Zoom briefing to scrutinise the detail of this legislation. They've called it what it is: a charade.
Australia has one of the highest rates of gambling harm in the developed world. Australian families lose their savings. Relationships break down. People lose their homes, lose their jobs and, in some tragic cases, lose their lives. The government has recognised these harms. The Peta Murphy led inquiry recognised those harms. The parliament again and again recognises these harms, and that's why process matters. The government can't tell Australians that gambling reform is too important to ignore and that we have to rush it through but it's not important enough to consult on.
This motion asks for something very modest. It simply asks that, before this bill is put to the parliament, all Australians are given the same opportunity that stakeholders have been given behind closed doors, and that is the chance to read the legislation, the chance to consider it and the chance to provide feedback. If the government genuinely believes that this legislation is sound, then public consultation should strengthen its case. It should solidify its social licence, not weaken it. That's why I'm seeking to suspend standing orders to debate this motion.
Is the motion seconded?
Yes. I second the motion moved by the member for Kooyong. I sat on that committee, and I heard from people whose lives had been torn apart by an industry that's addictive by design, marketed aggressively and disproportionately harms young people and vulnerable communities. Our report made 31 recommendations, and its central finding was unambiguous. We need a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising phased in over time.
It took the government nearly three years to respond, and that response has been so disappointing. It addresses just a few of those 31 recommendations. This is not a phase-out of ads for online gambling. It's more Swiss cheese. Partial bans simply don't work. The evidence is clear on that. We will have three gambling ads per hour on TV and unlimited gambling ads after the magic time of 8.30, when anyone under 18 apparently trots off to bed. In the 45-minute consultation, which I'll get to, when asked about the evidence to back up unlimited ads after 8.30 pm, stakeholders were told that it was a political decision. Our kids will still be able to name all the betting companies. They'll still know what a multi is before they hit high school, and they will still think that if you know a lot about sport, then gambling is for you.
The so-called triple lock for online ads actually means unlimited online ads if you're watching through an adult account as long as, hidden somewhere on each digital platform, there's technically an opt-out function there. The only evidence we have about whether an opt-out function works is from SBS, which has had an opt-out function for gambling ads for some years now. Zero point one per cent of subscribers have taken up that option despite numerous surveys showing three-quarters of Australians want to see a phase out of gambling ads. So gambling companies are laughing all the way to the bank. Why does the gambling lobby fight so hard to keep gambling ads in front of our children? Because it works. We saw the tobacco industry try all the same tactics as the gambling industry, but then we were willing to put the public interest ahead of the money.
The government knows its response is disappointing, which is why it was announced on Easter Thursday, and details of the reform package were released during the budget lock up, when all the political journalists are literally locked in a room with lots of shiny stories—probably the few hours in the whole year when media attention is least likely. I can only imagine what they'll save up for budget lock up next year. The government's presenting this reform as 'a balance'. But just to be clear, the PM means a balance between the public interest and vested interests. It just happens to contain exactly what the chief gambling industry lobbyist proposed six months ago—three ads per hour. This is not a balance. It's spineless. It's weak caving to the money and the power, and it deserves scrutiny. The government has decided that, even if people don't like gambling ads, the issue probably won't change the way voters vote. That says so much about what's wrong with politics today. Policy decisions are driven by elections and vested interests, not by what's right for the country.
With such a huge gap between what the committee recommended and what the government's proposing, surely Australians have the right to know why. But the government wants as little attention on this as possible so they can tick the box on delivering gambling reform and move on. It's simply not acceptable. After taking nearly three years to respond, the government gave half a dozen people representing the three million Australians negatively affected by this industry a 45-minute Zoom call and a couple of days to make some submissions on the exposure draft. That's what's euphemistically called a targeted consultation. This was a charade. Given the scale of harm and the number of people whose lives have been torn apart by gambling and its incessant promotion, this bill deserves a public consultation process. Where's the evidence to back up any of its half-measures? Without a public consultation process, how can the government claim to be acting in the public interest?
Good process really matters. This bill deserves a public consultation so all Australians can have an opportunity to tell the government what they think about the reform that it's putting forward. We need that public consultation process, which will inevitably surface the many, many ways in which this bill could be improved. They are some of the reasons that this needs to be referred to a proper inquiry with a proper public consultation process, and I commend the motion to the House.
I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
The question is that the debate be adjourned.
Too little, too late. But, with so many of the policies brought forward by this Albanese Labor government, it is all too often too little, too late. The Combating Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 is another sad example of that, and I feel sorry for those authorities whose job it is these days to clamp down on the illicit tobacco trade. I'm in regular contact with one of the highway patrol officers in the Riverina electorate in relation to this matter. He texted me just last week and said this: 'We searched a vehicle last week linked to one of the illicit Cootamundra tobacco shops and seized $5,000 cash but also their detailed ledgers. The shop does between $4,000 and $11,000 of trade a day in Cootamundra! The organised crime groups are laughing all the way to the bank.' Sadly, unfortunately, they are.
In one sense, I feel for some of the shop owners because they are being heavied by very nefarious people, bikie gang thugs, to sell illicit tobacco. If they don't, then they are at risk. Their families are at risk. We've seen all too often in Melbourne Molotov cocktails being thrown not just into the tobacco shops and the vape shops but indeed the shops on either side, so much so that insurance companies are refusing to insure stores right next door to tobacco shops—tobacco shops which to all intents and purposes are legal entities. I don't smoke—never have, never will. My late father, Lance, did. It probably put him in an early grave, it's sad to say—very sad to say. I miss him every day. I feel for those people who have an addiction, because there's no worse addiction than tobacco. People who smoke just crave it, and it's very hard to kick the habit. It's also very expensive.
Four out of five cigarettes being smoked in Australia today are illegal cigarettes, and the amount of excise being lost by Labor, which has done nothing, you could argue—they will argue—until now is costing the economy. It's costing money that could be otherwise used on public health campaigns in public hospitals on just about anything that might be and would be good for society. On the public NSW Police website, on Friday 19 June, the headline was:
Traffic and Highway Patrol seize more than $4.5m in tobacco, vapes in three separate vehicle stops.
This just goes on and on, particularly along the Hume Freeway between Melbourne and Sydney. It is a corridor of commerce. It's also a corridor of illegal activity when it comes to drivers whose vans and vehicles are full of illegal vapes and illegal tobacco. We had that bizarre case that went through the courts. People were pulled up, but the case was thrown out because the court found that those who were appearing had been racially profiled. Well, I would argue that these two men who were in a truck full of illegal cigarettes and who were pulled up by the police were not, in fact, racially profiled at all. They were breaking the law. They were both 38-year-olds, and just because they weren't of Caucasian appearance the district court judge threw the case out.
Just listen to this. They were stopped in Gundagai. Officers found 2,135,200 Double Happiness cigarettes weighing 1,379 kilograms with an excise worth $2,539,822.54. That's a lot of money and a lot of cigarettes. It's a lot of illegality—but not according to New South Wales District Court Judge Jennifer English. She found the decision to search the pair's associates involved racial profiling before ordering 'no further proceedings'. Go figure!
What do you think the New South Wales police think when they read a judgement like that. They're doing their job. They're pulling up crims. They're charging them. They're bringing them before the courts, and we get some woke judge who throws it out. The cops must shake their heads. It's just bizarre. I was on the public website of the police the other day, and the reading is horrendous. These vehicle stops are seizing more and more cigarettes and vapes.
The member for Cowper—I've got a lot of time for him—brought before the parliament and to the notice of the public a better way to deal with this issue. I respect him greatly, not just because he's somebody who often thinks outside the square but because he's also a former officer of the law, a former New South Wales policeman. This legislation before us now does not have the same teeth. They are needed. As I said at the outset of this contribution, it is too little, too late. The government is playing catch-up. What this bill contains isn't, quite frankly, doing the job.
Right across our suburbs and cities and towns and regional communities in particular we've got bikie gangs. This is their method of making money. This is their way of conducting their nefarious activities. Woe betide if they come knocking on your legal tobacco store and if you are a legal shop owner attempting and trying at every step of the way to do the right thing by yourself, by your family, by your customers, by your community. Cigarette selling is still a legal activity, but, in a cost-of-living crisis, bikie gangs are strongarming, in many cases, these shop owners, and the shop owners are going out backwards if they don't comply.
The other thing is that so many of the people who are buying this illegal product are in the lowest socioeconomic section of the community. They are doing it tough, and this government is not doing anything, or very little, to help them make ends meet. When you've got a situation where you can pay $50 a pack for cigarettes or $20 a pack for cigarettes and when you've got a cost-of-living crisis, when you can't put food on the table and when you're struggling to pay your power bills, it's very tempting to justify not spending $30 more on a packet of cigarettes and do it under the counter—chop chop—than it is to do the right thing and pay the excise. I understand why the shop owners and, indeed, their customers are, unfortunately, faced with this situation. There's no condoning anybody breaking the law. But I'll tell you what—when some of these bikie gangs, laden with baseball bats and the like, come a knocking, you do feel for those shop owners who are just trying to do the right thing in a legal environment and in a legal way and method and who are being heavied by these thugs, these nefarious characters.
This bill is a partial, belated and wholly inadequate approach to a crisis that has exploded on Labor's watch. I feel for our hardworking patrol officers, such as my friend in the highway patrol, because they should be catching people who are speeding and breaking the road rules. They should be monitoring road safety, not babysitting this government, which has to be doing more at the border. I realise that you can't go through every 20-foot container. I understand that, but the government needs to have a far better response to this growing crisis. If this growing crisis remains in place, there will not be a legal cigarette sold in this country in the years to come. There will not. And this is on Labor's watch.
I rise today in support of the original, unamended Combating Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. In recent months, my office has heard from a growing number of people across Newcastle who are deeply concerned about the rise of illicit tobacco in our community. These are not abstract concerns. They're coming from local shop owners who are doing the right thing and struggling to compete with illegal operators. They're coming from families worried about the normalisation of cheap, unregulated cigarettes and they're coming from residents concerned about the organised crime that, too often, sits behind this black market. To those people who have taken the time to write or to call about this issue: I hear you, and this bill responds directly to your concerns.
Illicit tobacco is not a victimless issue. It undermines public health. It undercuts honest small business, and it fuels criminal networks that operate outside the law. It erodes the integrity of our tax system, and it makes it harder to deliver the essential services Australians rely on. This bill is about restoring fairness, protecting public health and ensuring that our communities, like mine in Newcastle, are not left to deal with the consequences of illegal activity. At its core, the Combating Illicit Tobacco Bill strengthens Australia's ability to disrupt and dismantle the illicit tobacco trade.
It delivers tougher penalties for those who import, manufacture or sell illegal tobacco products. It enhances enforcement powers for our agencies, enabling them to better detect and seize illicit goods at the border and within the domestic market. And it improves coordination between federal, state and territory police authorities so that we are not leaving gaps for criminals to exploit. Importantly, the bill also increases penalties for repeat offenders and targets those who profit most from this trade: organised crime syndicates that treat illegal tobacco as a low-risk, high-reward enterprise.
For too long, illicit tobacco has been seen by some as a minor offence, but the reality is far more serious. Illicit tobacco is no longer just a health or revenue problem; it's a serious organised crime crisis. It has become a major source of funding for criminal networks, with profits from this trade often used to bankroll other serious harms and illegal activities. Recent estimates from the Illicit Tobacco and E-Cigarette Commissioner highlight the scale of the problem. The illicit tobacco market in Australia was valued at between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in 2024-25. This is an enormous shadow economy operating completely outside of the law. Organised crime groups are earning between $4 billion and $7 billion in profits from this trade—profits that are not sitting idle but are being funnelled into other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, scams and money laundering.
This is not a contained issue. It's part of a broader web of criminal activity that affects communities right across the country, and we are seeing the consequences. This trade fuels violence. It creates risk not only for those who are directly involved but also for innocent members of the public—people who live, work and run businesses in the same communities where these criminal networks operate. These are not victimless crimes. They harm communities, they hurt the honest retailers who are doing the right thing, they put workers at risk and they undermine public safety.
That is why this bill is so important. By cracking down on illicit tobacco we are not just addressing one issue; we are striking at the financial background of organised crime. We are making it harder for those groups to profit and, in doing so, limiting their capacity to engage in other harmful and illegal activities. This bill sends a clear and unambiguous message: Australia will not tolerate criminal profiteering at the expense of communities, and we will take strong action to protect public safety.
From a health perspective, the importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. Australia has been a global leader in tobacco control. Through measures like plain packaging, strong public education campaigns and excise increases we have, as well as introducing important health initiatives, significantly reduced smoking rates over time. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, daily smoking rates among Australians aged 14 plus has fallen by two thirds since 1991 because of these measures. These efforts have saved lives. It's that plain and simple.
But illicit tobacco threatens to undermine that progress. Illegal products are often significantly cheaper, making them more accessible, particularly to younger people and vulnerable populations. They are unregulated, which means customers have no assurance about what they contain. This has been a big issue raised by some hardcore smokers in my community and elsewhere who are trying to do the right thing—buy legal tobacco—but now feel that the market is so unregulated that they have absolutely no idea of what they're purchasing and whether or not it's genuine or legal. They bypass the safeguards that are designed to reduce smoking uptake and encourage people to quit. When we can't keep track of smoking rates, it harms our ability to formulate relevant health policy.
This bill helps protect the integrity of our public health system by ensuring that tobacco control measures are not undercut by a parallel illegal market. For communities like mine, in Newcastle, the impact is very real. Newcastle is proud of its strong sense of community and hardworking small businesses. And, like many regional communities, we rely on these businesses to operate on a level playing field. When illegal tobacco operators move into local shopping strips it is the honest retailers who suffer. Local newsagents, tobacconists and convenience stores who comply with the law, who pay their taxes, who check identification and who follow Australia's strict tobacco regulations simply cannot compete against criminal operators selling unregulated product at cut-rate prices. This is not fair and it is not sustainable.
I've heard directly from business owners in Newcastle who feel frustrated that they are doing the right thing while others appear to operate with little regard for the law. Many of these businesses are family run operations. They employ local people, they support local sporting clubs and community groups, and they deserve a regulatory system that backs them in, not one that allows criminal enterprises to flourish around them. This bill recognises that reality. It sends a message to honest businesses that they should not be punished for playing by the rules, and it acknowledges that effective regulation must work not only to deter illegal activity but also to support those who are complying with the law every single day.
That broader point about regulation is an important one. Australia's tobacco control framework has been built carefully over decades with one overriding goal: protecting public health. Successive governments of all persuasions have introduced measures designed to reduce smoking rates and discourage uptake, particularly among young Australians. Those measures have worked. Smoking rates have fallen dramatically over time, and countless lives have been saved as a result. But regulation only works effectively when it is enforced consistently and fairly. When illegal operators can evade the rules entirely, it creates an uneven playing field. It undermines confidence in the system, and it unfairly disadvantages legitimate businesses that are meeting their obligations. That is why this legislation matters, not only from a law enforcement perspective but also from a regulatory integrity perspective.
This bill helps reinforce the principle that, if businesses are expected to comply with Australia's tobacco laws, then governments must ensure those laws are enforced properly and consistently. Honest retailers should not feel abandoned while criminal syndicates exploit loopholes and profit from noncompliance. They should know that the government is serious about maintaining a fair marketplace, and that is exactly what this legislation helps achieve. It strengthens the integrity of the regulatory framework while ensuring that enforcement efforts are directed where they belong—at organised criminal activity and illegal profiteering. Importantly, it also helps preserve the credibility of Australia's broader tobacco control measures, because, if people see illegal products openly available in communities without consequence, confidence in the system begins to erode. That benefits nobody except organised crime.
This legislation is about balance. It's about maintaining strong public health protections while ensuring that legitimate businesses who follow the rules are not unfairly penalised or undercut. It's about ensuring our regulatory system works for those who do the right thing. And it's about making clear that compliance should never become a competitive disadvantage in Australia.
I also want to acknowledge that this bill takes a measured and practical approach. It recognises that combating illicit tobacco requires cooperation across all jurisdictions and agencies. No single agency can tackle this problem alone, and that is why stronger coordination between federal, state and territory authorities is so critical. This legislation builds those partnerships and strengthens information sharing so that enforcement efforts are smarter, faster and more effective.
It also recognises that enforcement must keep pace with evolving tactics of organised crime. These criminal networks are adaptive. They exploit weaknesses wherever they find them, and they operate with little regard for the impact of their activities on our local communities. This bill ensures that our enforcement agencies have the tools they need to respond appropriately to those threats, because the alternative—doing nothing—comes at a very high cost. Doing nothing allows organised crime to continue building a multibillion dollar revenue stream. Doing nothing allows illegal products to remain more visible and more accessible in our communities. Doing nothing places pressure on honest small business already doing it tough, and it means undermining decades of critical progress in public health policy. This is not an option for Australia.
We cannot allow criminal syndicates to profit at the expense of community safety, public health and legitimate enterprise, and we cannot allow the normalisation of illicit tobacco to continue unchecked. The rise of illicit tobacco presents serious challenges, but this legislation represents a serious and considered response. It strengthens enforcement, it targets organised crime, it protects legitimate businesses and it helps restore confidence in the integrity of our regulatory system.
I rise to support the intent of the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026, but, unfortunately, this bill doesn't have the courage to face up to the facts. The fact is that our society has changed and is continuing to change, particularly with respect to its market habits. Governments of all persuasions for many years have failed to have the courage to address the real elephant in the room, which is excise. This is entrenching market behaviour that is tearing away at a regulatory model that has protected Australians and has ensured that we have the revenue to be able to pay for the health problems that eminently come from tobacco use and from vapes.
The challenge that we now have is that only about 20 per cent of the market—in fact, it's probably gone under 20 per cent of the market—uses a regulated product. They are using the black-market product because it's cheaper. We have priced this commodity out of the reach of many Australians. The perverse outcome of that is that we are seeing organised crime benefit from this and we are seeing the sheer reduction in excise revenue that goes into the Commonwealth and then, through funding of our health system through our states, to the ability to futureproof Australia's health challenges from the use of tobacco and vapes.
While this is commendable in terms of taking on organised crime with increased penalties, you also need to be able to police it. Consider what we did at the last election, particularly around vapes. This government moved to have vapes sold only through pharmacies, which is pure madness because you can't charge excise once it becomes a prescribed product through the health side of the equation. It means that we miss out even on the excise of vapes that are prescribed through a pharmacist who did not even want this anyway. There are not too many pharmacists that believe in vapes or believe in nicotine full stop. It's one of the products they don't necessarily want to have to sell, but this government thrust it upon them without any consultation whatsoever. Yet there is still no excise even out of the vapes that are being sold through our pharmacists. The excise piece is one that we have missed.
The reality is that even if you had gone down the path of a regulated model, like cigarettes—a sensible, regulated model through the convenience stores and supermarkets, where only those under 18 could continue to get vapes as well as cigarettes—and you had a regulatory model around the product that was being sold—one of the challenges we are seeing not just with chop-chop but with the vapes is that there is no regulatory control about what the content is. That adds to the health issues that we're going to have to pay for as a Commonwealth into the future. The challenge is that we have opened up this front without the common sense and understanding of the marketplace and understanding of what has happened. If we had also regulated vapes the way that we do cigarettes, through licensed retailers, we would have collected an extra $3 billion to $4 billion worth of excise. Of that, we'd prescribe $500 million to law enforcement to be able to go and attack organised crime.
While you can lift penalties and you can get a warm, fuzzy feeling in here saying, 'We're going to beat our chest and we're going to bring down this organised crime,' it costs money. Unless you're allocating funds to that, I can tell you that our good friends in the state jurisdictions are not as excited about spending their money on chasing down illicit tobacco. Their problems in tackling many of the social issues that our police forces around the state are facing up to, such as domestic violence, street crime and youth crime, are far greater. The reality is that they do not have the resources, and they will not have the resources unless someone is prepared to pay.
What we have missed in all this is that not only are we losing our revenue stream for the future health problems that we are going to experience but we are missing the opportunity to fund our law enforcement agents properly. That's why we should be looking at vapes and illicit tobacco in totality. Those products, as many medical professionals say, try to exchange the tobacco, get you off it and onto vapes, and then get you off those altogether. But if you don't include them in the regulatory framework and align how that is achieved from the point of sale through to excise, then you have a marketplace that is out of whack and you have educated a marketplace to fall apart because you have priced one commodity, a regulated commodity, to be out of the reach of many Australians.
In fact, only around 14 per cent of the people who use vapes today actually have a prescription, so prohibition hasn't worked. I was part of the Morrison government that went down this model of prohibition on vapes. We were wrong: prohibition does not work. But what does work, and what has worked, and we've seen it in the reduction in youth use of tobacco, is—I think, it was actually Nicola Roxon, who, as the health minister, brought this in—sensible reforms around points of sale and advertising. That has seen a reduction of around 70 to 80 per cent in youth usage of tobacco.
Having a regulated model through a point of sale of registered retailers meant that, much like alcohol, you had to be above 18 to get it. There were checks at that point of sale. That had a serious and lasting impact, and I congratulate that health minister for those initiatives. But what we missed and did wrong was to deviate from that model. We thought that we could simply make doctors prescribe vapes. No-one's going to pay to go and see a doctor to get a vape when they can go down the main street and pick one up anyway. The common sense was not there. We missed that, and we're to blame for that.
There is an opportunity to fix it, but you've got to understand that the market dynamics have changed. We've got to be courageous enough not to sit here and beat our chests and say, 'Yes, we've lifted the penalties.' We've actually got to look at how we take back this marketplace, because we have created a behaviour in the marketplace now that will make it very, very difficult for the regulated product to come back and for consumers to go back to the regulated product, and that is a challenge.
While many of you may want to stand and attack big tobacco, just understand you are hitting a trigger point where big tobacco will leave. If their stranglehold on the market is reduced and they lose their percentage of market in Australia to organised crime, they will pack up and leave. If we are not careful and we do not tackle excise, we will not have a regulated product at all in Australia. The challenge that we will see is that big tobacco will pack up and go to another international market because Australia is lost.
This is the challenge that I don't think we as legislators can see coming. If you take away that regulated product and you take away the regulated point of sale, all that happens is that you get perverse health outcomes. This is where the bill has missed the mark. The intent is commendable, but the practical reality of the lived experience that we've seen for the last five or six years should be screaming at us that we have to make radical change. There needs to be radical movement towards addressing illicit tobacco and illicit vapes and towards making sure we put in a framework that ensures a regulated product and a regulated point of sale, which is what has served us well and is the model that we should return to.
An ideological model might seem great within these four walls, but out there in the real world it's not happening at all. That's why you're seeing the perverse outcomes of organised crime taking over streets and small businesses and knocking them down. They see the opportunity—the opportunity that's been vacated by governments that have not had the courage to face up to the practical reality of this problem, where it is taking our nation and where it's taking our finances and our health system into the future. And so, while this may sound good as a bill on the surface, I fear that in another three or four years we'll be back again. If we see that the regulated tobacco market reduces even further, well below 20 per cent to five or 10 per cent, you won't have a regulated tobacco market in this country, and that is a perverse outcome. As funny as that may sound, it will be a perverse outcome, because we won't have those regulated products that protect Australians. And you can look at that and work that through with vapes. This addiction that governments of all persuasions have had for many years on excise is now being lost because we have now skewed the market to make significant perverse impacts on health crime.
I say to this government that, while we support this, it's a very superficial bill. It doesn't have the backing, the grunt, the intent or the intellectual rigour to shift the dial, as I think we all come to this place with the right intent to do. It ignores the reality of the real world. It is great that you are trying, but have more courage to understand that the market has changed and we need to change with it. We need to take more radical steps in aligning tobacco and vape excise, reducing that and understanding the elasticity of the market—that, if you reduce that and try to bring that illicit market back into the regulated market, it does have elasticity that will benefit and bring people back to a regulated product, giving us the opportunity to regulate that product, to earn the excise and to invest that excise into our health systems into the future and also in law enforcement. That would be the commonsense, real solution. This is window dressing at best, and I think we as legislators will fail unless we're prepared to be honest with ourselves and be honest with the Australian people that this is a problem that's got away from us. It's going to take the collective wisdom and courage of this building to understand that tinkering at the edges, making ourselves feel good, beating our chests for five minutes in saying we're coming down on organised crime, means we're going to be back here in three or four years debating the same thing.
All I say to those opposite is: I'm prepared to admit that I was part of a government that got something wrong. I'm asking you not to repeat the mistakes of the past, to understand that this market has got away from us and that it will take collective courage. Unless we have that, I fear Australians will hurt from that not financially but in their health. We won't have the financial resources to support that and help them when they need it.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. While I'll support the bill, I ask the government to please understand that the challenges that we are facing are far more significant than what this bill tries to address. Unless we have the courage to look that in the eye, face up to it and legislate for it, we'll be back here again, unfortunately, with even more perverse outcomes.
I rise in support of this important bill and in support of our efforts to crack down on the illicit tobacco and e-cigarette market. I do so having spoken to many parents in my electorate of Dickson on the harm that the illegal tobacco and e-cigarette trade is doing to our young people. Not that long ago, I honestly thought that smoking was on the nose—too expensive, banned in pubs and clubs—and our laws that enforced plain packaging, restricted advertising and smoking in public places, as well as significant tax increases on cigarettes, resulted in big changes to the take-up rate of smoking. We will have one of the lowest adult smoking rates in the world, but recent data by Roy Morgan in 2025 suggests that uptake of vaping might be increasing. Roy Morgan found that the 18- to 24-year-old age group reported the highest use, at 20.6 per cent in 2025, which is about four times the rate in 2019, which was 5.3 per cent.
I never imagined that my kids would even be tempted, but there I was cleaning up my eldest son's bedroom, when I found a vape when he was 16. When I asked about it, the response was, 'Everyone is doing it, Mum.' Who knows where he bought it, but I soon learnt that many of the tobacco and vape shops that seem to be popping up in every suburban shopping strip are a cover for serious criminal syndicates and are making billions.
In March and April this year, Australian Border Force intercepted record levels of illegal tobacco, seizing over one kilotonne since December. Record seizures have occurred over the last financial year, with a 320 per cent increase in the number of cigarettes seized compared to four years ago. Organised crime syndicates made somewhere between $4 billion and $7 billion in the year 2024-25 and then reinvested that money into trafficking, scams and money laundering. Cheap smokes and vapes are everywhere. Almost every vape purchased in Australia was illegal in 2024-25—95.7 per cent of vapes.
But this isn't just an Australia challenge. This is a global challenge, and it's something we must address because it hurts our communities. We've known for decades that smoking can kill us and costs our health system well over $150 billion a year. Two out of three long-term smokers will die of a tobacco related disease, and 20 per cent of the cancer disease in Australia is due to smoking. It hurts legitimate retailers. It is a multibillion dollar black-market operation that is flooding our communities with illegal products. These syndicates are also linked to violence, firearms, intimidation and firebombings, and they risk unwinding decades of success in reducing smoking rates in Australia. We saw a series of arson attacks between two rival syndicates on shops in Victoria a few years back, burning down tobacco shops and allegedly recruiting teenagers to do so. This is a public health issue, but it's also a community safety issue, and the profits are used for other criminal activities.
This bill makes it harder for organised crime to profit from illicit tobacco and vapes. It creates new offences for large-scale illicit tobacco activity linked to organised crime. It increases penalties across importing, possessing, buying, selling, producing and manufacturing. It expands unexplained wealth and proceeds of crime tools, and it enables enhanced law enforcement powers, including wiretaps, for serious tobacco offences. The goal is to harden the environment and make it really difficult for these crime syndicates to operate, and this will take time. It will take collaboration, coordinating action and sharing of intelligence between federal and state agencies.
I acknowledge the efforts of some states, including my own state of Queensland, who have toughened laws to provide for long-term closure orders, investment in enforcement on the ground and penalties for landlords who knowingly lease to a criminal operator. Commonwealth funding to the states and territories is now flowing, with $84 million over two years for training to improve licensing and compliance systems and enable joint operations, putting pressure across the whole supply chain—production, air and maritime routes, freight channels, warehousing, distribution and retail fronts.
I've seen some commentary suggesting that we should surrender and that we should remove excise tax, make it cheaper and boost health education. That approach ignores the fact that the single most effective lever to encourage people to quit or reduce smoking is price. That's why we've had decades of success in driving down adult smoking rates. It also ignores evidence that demonstrates the illicit tobacco market is driven by a complex mix of issues beyond price. Giving in might appear easier. Reducing excise taxes might reduce the illegal trade, but it would also dramatically increase the take-up of smoking across the country and increase smoking related health costs and deaths as a result.
This bill builds on the substantial work the Albanese Labor government has already undertaken to disrupt and dismantle illicit tobacco networks. Since 2023-24, the government has invested $345 million to bolster the Australian Border Force's ability to detect and seize illicit tobacco and vaping products. We also established Australia's first illicit tobacco and e-cigarettes commissioner, ensuring a coordinated national response. In the 2025-26 budget, we provided a further $21.3 million to strengthen that role and support whole-of-government coordination.
These new laws directly respond to key recommendations of the illicit tobacco and e-cigarette commissioner report, which made clear that strong consequences are essential if we are to disrupt and deter this serious criminal activity. We're also strengthening existing investigatory powers, expanding the circumstances in which those powers may be applied, including through computer access and surveillance capabilities available under the Surveillance Devices Act. The bill also amends the Telecommunications Act by including a number of illicit tobacco related offences within the definition of a serious offence. This change will strengthen the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to identify, disrupt and prosecute those involved in illicit tobacco networks. These amendments provide greater consistency and clarity across existing warrant and access frameworks, ensuring that the law keeps pace with the realities of organised criminal activity.
Last year we also cracked down on high-risk financial services, including crypto ATMs used to launder profits and conceal transactions. AUSTRAC now also has more powers to act and has put banks on notice that they must do more to scrutinise retailers linked to illicit tobacco, tightening the net. We are seeing results, with lots of accounts reviewed and removed, private ATMs removed and increased reporting of suspicious transactions. Cutting off the money supply and flow starves these criminal outlets.
This bill seeks to achieve two primary objectives. First, it rebalances the risk-to-reward calculation for criminal actors by significantly increasing penalties for illicit tobacco offences. For too long, the penalties simply have not matched the scale or seriousness of the harm. Second, the bill strengthens and modernises the proceeds-of-crime regime to ensure that the Commonwealth can effectively target and recover the profits made through illicit tobacco.
Our national strategy rests on three key focus areas: (1) disrupting and dismantling border threats, stopping illicit tobacco and vapes before they reach our shores; (2) enhancing detection, disruption and destruction at the border and within communities—this includes coordinated operations, targeted compliance activity and increased on-the-ground enforcement; and (3) strengthening national coordination across all jurisdictions, because no single agency or level of government can fight this alone.
These measures are already producing real results. As of April this year, Border Force had seized a record-breaking amount of illicit tobacco over just four months, including over four million vapes and nearly 786 million cigarettes. These are extraordinary numbers. They reflect the scale of the challenge, but they also reflect the commitment and effort this government has brought to combating it. ABF teams across the country are targeting more shipping containers, inspecting more air cargo consignments, searching more international travellers suspected of carrying illicit tobacco and conducting more domestic warrants than ever before.
I know that people in my community of Dickson are concerned about the proliferation of tobacco stores selling illicit tobacco and vapes. I too am concerned. Please know this government is doing everything it can with the states and territories to shut down the illicit tobacco and e-cigarette trade. This bill will disrupt and dismantle criminal syndicates, with tougher penalties and greater powers to detect and seize illicit tobacco and vaping products. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. This bill matters because the illegal tobacco trade in Australia is no longer a minor black-market problem. It's become a major organised crime industry and it's funding criminal syndicates, it's fuelling violence and it's hurting legitimate small businesses. It's costing Australian taxpayers billions of dollars in lost revenue. Instead of flowing into the government's coffers, revenue generated through the illicit tobacco trade flows straight into criminal networks. That means less money for hospitals, roads, aged care, regional services and national security. Australians have seen the headlines—firebombings, extortion, violence linked to tobacconists and police raids uncovering warehouses packed with illegal cigarettes and vapes. This is organised crime operating openly in our communities. That is why a bill that confronts the issue of the illicit tobacco crisis is so important.
Whilst I will be supporting this bill, I must say that it is disappointing that, given the opportunity to fix the illicit tobacco crisis I just noted—something like 80 per cent of tobacco and cigarettes being consumed in this country are illegal; that's an enormous figure—Labor, in typical form, have fallen short. The government says this bill will increase penalties, expand investigative powers and target the profits of organised crime. The government says this bill will create new criminal offences for large-scale illicit tobacco activity linked to organised crime. It says it will substantially increase penalties across the entire supply chain—importing, manufacturing, producing, processing, buying and selling illegal tobacco. They say that the bill will strengthen proceeds-of-crime and unexplained wealth laws so law enforcement agencies can go after the profits and assets generated by illegal tobacco operations. They say it will expand law enforcement powers, including telecommunications interception powers—in plain language, wiretap powers—so agencies can better investigate criminal syndicates involved in the trade.
On paper this bill certainly does sound strong, but in reality it is not. Trust Labor's rhetoric to be completely out of step with reality. The bill is heavily focused on increasing maximum penalties and not on actually improving enforcement outcomes, and there lies the problem. Penalties without enforcement are useless, just as enforcement without penalties is meaningless. You cannot have one without the other and expect to make a meaningful dent in the illicit tobacco trade. Furthermore, the imposition of penalties on offenders is determined by the courts and they already do not impose the current maximum penalties. So simply increasing penalties on paper is not going to do anything when the instinct of the courts is leniency.
Critically, this bill does nothing to address the core structural issues that have created the illicit tobacco trade in the first place. Instead, it has actively fuelled this crisis. Labor's 2023-24 budget imposed further increases in tobacco excise on top of already high levels. That decision widened the price gap between legal and illegal tobacco, drove consumers into the black market and made illegal tobacco more profitable than ever for organised crime. Does this bill attempt to change these disastrous excise settings? No, it doesn't. There is no reconsideration or reconfiguration of the very policy settings that drove consumers to the black market in the first place. There is likewise no significant new investment of any kind in the already weak border enforcement, in domestic compliance, in operations or in the active disruption of criminal supply chains. And there is no explanation about what the federal government intends to do about a host of practical on-the-ground problems.
We have all seen illegal shops shut down only to reopen days later and the criminal networks operating with impunity. Without stronger enforcement, better coordination and real consequences this bill will not change the overall trajectory of this national catastrophe. We will still have a situation where criminals are getting richer, violence is escalating, small legitimate retailers are suffering and excise revenue is collapsing. Without stronger action illegal tobacco will continue to fund organised crime; drive fire bombings, ram-raids and extortion; and place small businesses and communities across the country at risk.
In my own electorate, there have been break-ins and arson attacks which present economic and safety issues for neighbouring small and family businesses that are legitimate. Real estate agents in Lyne have spoken to me about being under significant pressure because, due to the state of the local economy and the number of empty stores, they're getting frequent requests from supposed convenience stores that do not have a tobacco licence wishing to set up a shop in their premises.
I have two tobacco stores in the street where my Wauchope office is. One of them is legitimate. I can say that only one is legitimate; it has been there a long time. The other one has what we see in all these shops—all the windows have got branding over them and I have no idea how they can make money from having one fridge with a few drinks, a couple of packets of chips and some chocolate bars. I have seen plenty of people walking outside the store with a lovely white paper bag, only to open it and pull out a packet of cigarettes that are not the Australian branded ones and open it up there on the street. That is what we are seeing. On either side of that shop are legitimate businesses operating in our community, and I fear for them and I fear for their safety.
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has warned that illicit tobacco is now one of the country's fastest-growing criminal markets, and economically the cost of the illicit tobacco trade is significant. The government's own figures show that the illicit tobacco market is worth between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion annually. That is billions flowing straight into the hands of organised crime cartels and syndicates, whereas it could be flowing into the Commonwealth's revenue base.
You would think that this government, which has created an unprecedented budget deficit, would do everything in its power to re-appropriate these funds, but it is not. So whilst the Treasurer is going after hardworking Australians with record taxes and rebate reductions, making life increasingly difficult and unfair for them, he is also letting the criminals, the illicit tobacco underworld, get off pretty well scot-free. It is also worth noting that even the government itself, in the explanatory memorandum, concedes the financial impact of this bill is small and unquantifiable. That tells you almost everything you need to know.
Even Labor state governments are exasperated. The New South Wales health minister, Ryan Park, has publicly and repeatedly expressed disappointment at the federal government's failure to act. When even its own Labor colleagues are pleading for action and getting none, it is clear that the Albanese government is out of its depth.
I support strong enforcement against organised crime. I support stronger penalties for criminal syndicates. I support targeting the money that fuels these operations. And I support giving law enforcement the tools they need to dismantle criminal networks, because if criminals lose the profits they lose the incentive. I will support the passage of the bill because any improvement is better than none, but it is not at all sufficient. Labor has lost control of illicit tobacco, and this bill does not provide the comprehensive solution that is now required.
Labor had the chance to implement far stronger action. Instead, they have run scared. So I call on the government to go further, to be tough. Incorporate real enforcement action into this legislation. Actively coordinate responses with state and territory governments to support frontline enforcement efforts. Take action to enforce store closure orders, lease terminations for illegal outlets and meaningful disruption of criminal supply chains. Actively confiscate and disrupt revenue streams. And confront the issue of the pricing signals, demand-side drivers and the problems that have flowed from their catastrophic changes to tobacco excise. Australia now has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. The intention behind those taxes was to reduce smoking rates, and, of course, reducing smoking is an important public health objective, but governments also have a responsibility to confront unintended consequences.
When the legal price of tobacco becomes extraordinarily high, organised crime sees opportunity. That is exactly what has happened. Illegal products are now being sold for a fraction of the legal retail price, and criminal syndicates have stepped in to exploit that gap. Under Labor, illicit tobacco has proliferated across Australia. Criminal gangs and syndicates have been empowered, and communities are at risk. Now, after years of causing that mess, it is scrambling to look like it is doing something. We're being asked to get behind an inadequate bill and pretend that this will fix it. It is a partial, belated and wholly inadequate response to a crisis that has exploded on Labor's watch.
Australians expect governments to keep communities safe, they expect organised crime to be confronted, not tolerated, and they expect criminal syndicates not to build billion-dollar black markets while taxpayers lose billions in revenue. The Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 sends an important message, but it must deliver more than rhetoric. The Australian government cannot allow organised crime to profit on illicit tobacco unchecked. This parliament must stand firmly with law enforcement, with legitimate businesses and with communities affected by organised criminal activity. We must ensure Australia remains a country where the rule of law prevails over criminal enterprise. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. I've met with members of the community—genuine, legal tobacconists. My friend Tim is a good guy, and his wife ran the coffee shop next to my office in my previous life, where I would go in the morning and chat. We'd chat a bit about basketball, a bit about life. He kept bringing the same thing up: 'These illegal shops, Matty. They're doing us in.' These laws have to be stronger. This is a man who'd built his life legally, who had multiple tobacconists, who sold his wares and did his work. Criminals came in to snatch his livelihood. We would all like to see smoking rates reduced. This is a big part of the process, but it is not at the expense of honest, hardworking Australians who are selling legal wares.
This is not just a federal government thing. Local councils have a part to play; state governments have a part to play. In my own region, Leichhardt, right across the road from my house, an illegal tobacconist sprung up. The Cairns Regional Council acted and shut them down. They tried again and were shut down again. That shop is now a florist. I look forward to it opening; I look forward to buying flowers. It was a legal response to an illegal problem. That is what happens when all three levels of government take responsibility to deal with what this is—a criminal organisation, a response that is not appropriate in our cities and our towns, peddling wares that we know to be dangerous to our children. I am pleased to be able to commend this bill to the House. It is another example of what we're doing to stop crime in our community.
This bill expands the law enforcement powers to investigate tobacco related offending and increases the consequences for criminal actors involved in the tobacco market. We have to reset the risk and reward. At the moment, it's been tilted the other way. This bill goes a long way to rectifying that. If criminals are looking at an enterprise, or racket, they need to understand that, if you mess up and we catch you, you are done. We will take it. We will take those opportunities from you, and you will serve time. This is a crucial step because it's not a revenue problem, it's an organised crime problem. It is bringing people who don't belong here, doing terrible things to our communities and terrible things to our small businesses—the people who've been working hard their entire lives—racketeering. It is believed that the illicit tobacco and e-cigarette market is valued between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion. That's why they've arrived. That's what they think they can get a part of, and we're here to stop them. Organised crime groups are putting around $4 to $7 billion in profits, and they don't use that money to put into their pockets; they use that money to fund other criminal activities for whatever that might be.
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.
Last week I hosted an NDIS reform roundtable with participants, parents and local providers from across my electorate. What I heard was thoughtful, informed and constructive. Participants and providers recognise that the NDIS must be sustainable into the future, but they have deep concerns about the proposed changes. They're worried about the rigid five-year plans and rules that limit reassessment and review of decisions. They warned that registration costs could push small, trusted providers out of the market, leaving participants with fewer choices and options for care. I also heard grave concerns about the cuts to social and community participation—funding that helps get people to work, to medical appointments, to day-care programs and into the community. I want to sincerely thank everyone who took the time to share their lived experience, expertise and insights at this roundtable. Your voices are critical in shaping a system that truly works for the people it was designed to support, and I will continue to advocate for reforms that get this right and build on the principles of choice, control and dignity.
Last week I was entirely pleased to be able to go and visit a site where 49 new homes have come out of the ground. Prior to the election last year, I turned the sod there with Minister Clare O'Neil. Most of these houses are due to be complete by Christmas this year. The site itself has a wonderful vibe. It's a community feel. We've got one-, two-, three- and four-bedroom homes, none of which are the same design, so they're all unique and they're all purposeful. One of the homes has four bedrooms and the biggest yard I've ever seen. I cannot wait for a family to love this home and to be in here with their kids as their kids grow up, watching their kids play in the backyard as they're in that big living space and that beautiful new kitchen. There's another home which actually looks out over a railway. We don't have many of those in Tasmania. There aren't many trains. But, each year, at Christmas time, we have a Christmas train. It is the highlight for a lot of people. This house actually looks over that rail yard. By this Christmas, that house might have a family inside, and they may have kids who are waiting for the Christmas train to go past. That is what Labor is doing. We are building homes for people to love, to live in and to grow in for the future, and we are very proud of that.
Labor's toxic taxes do not need a carve out; they need an axe. Just a month after budget night, their policies are already in tatters. The Prime Minister swore blind that he would not touch super, capital gains, negative gearing or tax cuts, but he completely broke his word. If you couldn't trust Labor last month, you surely can't trust them now on these changes. After weeks of backlash, they are now poking holes in their own mess, letting bureaucrats pick which businesses are worthy. Well, come out to the regions. Tell that to the local sparky, the dairy farmer or the family running the corner bakery. Out in the country, every small business has to innovate daily just to keep the lights on and survive. Labor's complex new rules are punishing the exact people who keep this country moving forward. They hit hardworking tradies, farmers and regional families having a real crack, trying to build a nest egg and get ahead in life. Enough is enough. We will deliver lower taxes for small businesses and give Aussies automatic tax relief every single year to restore our standards of living. The coalition has a solution, and it's pretty simple. The time has come to axe Labor's taxes and start again.
I acknowledge the ongoing work of Charlie King and Rob Cross from CatholicCare NT and their NO MORE campaign, which is helping to build safer communities right across the Northern Territory. For many, many years, Charlie and the NO MORE team have delivered a simple but powerful message: preventing violence is everyone's responsibility. Through NO MORE action plans, organisations commit to practical steps that create safer workplaces and safer communities. I'm proud that my own electoral office has completed a NO MORE action plan.
Over the weekend, I joined members of the Tracy Village Cricket Club, led by the excellent president, Mel Nixon, where players linked arms before their match as a visible commitment to respect and responsibility. Tracy Village Cricket Club was the first club in the Darwin and districts league to adopt an action plan, demonstrating the leadership that local sporting clubs can provide.
In the member for Lingiari's electorate, the Smith Family's Communities for Children program, which is in Katherine, is helping to bring the NO MORE message to this year's Katherine rodeo. As the pickup men at the rodeo remind us, 'We don't stand back and hope that our riders are safe; we step in and we act early.' That's a lesson for all of us in stamping out domestic violence.
Last week I attended Waverley Park Homestead at Willunga. This is part of the Willunga National Trust assets, and they have an art gallery there. I have been there many times and it is glorious. If you're coming to South Australia, come to Willunga and come to Waverley Park Homestead. I'd like to acknowledge Mark Staniforth, who's the director of Waverley Park Homestead, and Paddy O'Toole, who's a prominent historian, researcher and chair of the National Trust Willunga branch.
The art gallery, importantly, is part of the National Gallery of Australia's Sharing the National Collection program. This is a program that has invited suburban, regional and remote art galleries to host works on long-term loans. Waverley Park is one of these galleries, and its wonderful pieces have been extended until 2030. That's what we were there to announce last week. One of the paintings, by SA artist Kathleen Sauerbier, is an oil painting called Jetty ramp and Howe's fishing outlook from circa 1935.
It's an extraordinary exhibition. I'm so pleased that the Minister for the Arts has created the Sharing the National Collection program, and I urge all Australians to get out to the regions and see our national collection that is hanging right across Australia. Congratulations to Waverley Park on the work that they do. It is a glorious place and I encourage all to attend.
Last week I stopped by the Essendon Health Medical Centre, one of the many clinics across Maribyrnong that is now fully bulk-billing. In fact, under our government, we have doubled the number of GP clinics across Maribyrnong that have moved to full bulk-billing. Let me tell you what this means. It means a mum can take her sick kid to the doctor without having to think about checking her bank balance. A tradie in Niddrie gets the care that they need with just their Medicare card, not their credit card. That's real relief in real clinics for real families.
But bulk-billing is just one piece of a larger story. We know that people are watching every dollar that they spend. That's why, from 1 July, every worker in Maribyrnong is getting a tax cut. The nurse at the medical centre, the tradie in Keilor East, the hospo worker pulling a late night shift at Moonee Ponds—every single one. For the worker on the average wage in my electorate that is hundreds of dollars back in their pocket.
And it doesn't stop there: a $1,000 instant tax deduction; reforms to level the playing field for first home buyers; cheaper early learning and care for young families; seeing the doctor for free; paying less tax and keeping more of what you earn. This is the difference. Some offer outrage. We offer outcomes.
Last week, Labor was forced into yet another backflip. After six weeks of defending its budget, the government suddenly discovered what Australians already knew: this budget is flawed. It is fundamentally flawed. But let's be clear. Labor's toxic taxes don't need a tweak. They don't need a carve out. They need an axe. You don't fix a bad tax by making it more complicated, you scrap it and you start again. The problem isn't that Labor forgot to exempt one group or another; the problem is that this government sees higher taxes as the answer to every problem. Tax retirement savings, tax investment, tax aspiration—they'll probably tax inspiration as well! Just this morning I received a letter from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry warning that Labor's capital gains tax changes will mean less investment, less innovation and fewer jobs. I've also seen overwhelming support for my campaign in my electorate against Labor's health tax on seniors. More than 8,000 Australians have signed my petition opposing Labor's decision to strip private health insurance rebates from older Australians.
Australians are tired of backflips, they are tired of uncertainty and they are tired of this government. It is the most socialist government this country ever— (Time expired)
There's a group of people in parliament today raising awareness about early-onset bowel cancer. I met with Mieke and Andrew, two young people who've each battled early-onset bowel cancer. Their message is: you are never too young. Bowel cancer is the deadliest cancer for Australians aged 25 to 54. Bowel cancer rates are two to three times higher among Australians born in the 1990s than those born in the 1950s. Mieke travelled to Canberra from Leura in my electorate. She told me she wants to see clinical practice guidelines for GPs regarding age bias, and that's because she had too many people telling her she was too young, and too many people are told, 'You're too young to have bowel cancer.'
The Bowel Cancer Australia pin that I'm wearing has a light green ribbon with an apple in the centre, which was very fitting for Andrew, whose family had an apple orchard in Bilpin in my electorate of Macquarie when he was growing up. Now, as a busy tradie with a young family, Andrew didn't raise his intermittent symptoms for some time until he told his wife, and, fortunately, he listened to her when she told him that he needed to see a doctor.
Bowel cancer is really treatable if caught early, so I thank Andrew and Mieke for their advocacy and I support them in the things they want to see—more research and more awareness about the fact that young people can get bowel cancer.
If you incinerate the Christmas ham, it does not matter how neatly you try to carve it; you cannot save it. It belongs in the bin, just like Labor's budget—broken, unpopular and completely unfit for purpose. This government's tax carve-outs have become messier than grandpa hacking the Christmas ham with a chainsaw. Instead of making the clean cut to axe it, Labor has butchered its toxic tax policies to pieces. It's now a chaotic mess that will create new compliance costs, hitting Australians during this Labor-created cost-of-living crisis.
Every day, Australians are watching inflation decimate their pay packets. Carve-outs have turned toxic taxes into an administrative nightmare and finance experts have exposed the truth. This budget punishes the people with ambition who are just trying to have a go. Young Australians trying to build security through modest investments are being heavily punished by Labor. The truth is simple: a confusing policy is a bad policy. The saddest reality facing families is there'll be nothing left to carve, because Christmas is already out of reach for many. This government's spending crisis means families are having to choose between keeping the lights on and buying their groceries. For those people, there will be no festive joy, only economic misery served cold by Labor.
Labor believes security starts with a home, and peace of mind starts with health care. We are delivering social and affordable homes—539 homes in Hasluck alone. They're all around precincts like Midland Train Station, Woodbridge, Bassendean and Ellenbrook, ensuring that people can afford to live where they work and socialise and shop. Then we've got the schemes that are already being actively taken up, such as the five per cent deposit, which covers mortgage insurance as well, to help young home buyers get into their first home.
We're committing 100,000 homes just to first home buyers, so investors need to step back. And, with the changes from the budget, we're going to be achieving reforms that allow for negative gearing to be presently grandfathered but then applicable only to new investment properties, again, ensuring that the existing housing stock is available to Australians.
Then, on health, I'm so fortunate. In Hasluck, I committed to delivering and have now delivered three urgent care clinics, so anyone in Hasluck is 20 minutes from an urgent care clinic—Midland, Ellenbrook and Morley. There have been over 70,000 presentations since opening already. That has taken the pressure off our hospital in Midland. This is making real change for families to be able to see a doctor completely free, and not just for physical medical purposes. We've also got Medicare mental health clinics, ensuring that people will be able to get access to the mental health care they need as well.
Labor's toxic taxes don't need a tweak, a carve-out or another Canberra fix; they need the axe. You don't fix a bad tax by making it more complicated; you scrap it. Let me tell you about Vince, a 19-year-old from my electorate of Mallee who grew up in foster care in a family with no real ambition. He refused to let that define him. He got his first job at 14. Now he studies, works and invests what little he has left each week because he is trying to get ahead, and Labor wants to take nearly half of that away. Vince puts it plainly. 'What is the point of investing?' he said to me. 'Why take on all the risk and only get half the reward?' He has done the numbers. This policy could cost him nearly $40,000, and he says it leaves him feeling hopeless and frustrated—'hopeless', from a young man who did everything right. This is not fairness. This is crushing aspiration at its source. So I say to this government: listen to Vince. Listen to the young Australians asking, 'Why bother?' Scrap this tax, stop punishing effort and restore hope.
Across Griffith, people want health care they can rely on close to home and within the family budget. They want cheaper scripts, easier access to a GP and confidence that their Medicare card has their back. That is why the Albanese Labor government is proudly strengthening Medicare and making health care more affordable. Since 1 July 2022, Griffith residents have saved more than $18.2 million on more than 2.1 million cheaper scripts. That is real money back in the pockets of local families, pensioners and workers. We're also seeing bulk-billing improve locally. In Griffith, bulk-billing rates increased from 58.7 per cent in October 2025 to 63.5 per cent in March 2026. As of 3 June 2026, eight practices that were previously mixed billing are now fully bulk-billing.
Our urgent care clinics are also making a real difference, and in the last couple of weeks I visited two of them with our health minister. Across Griffith, they have seen more than 43,000 presentations, including 3,700 at Coorparoo, 5,400 at Carina and a staggering 34,000 at South Brisbane. These clinics are bulk-billed, walk-in and open for people who need urgent care but do not need the emergency department. Ashley from my community recently said she'd visited the clinic at Carina twice this year. She said she was so impressed by the service and she's always happy to pay for a GP, but these after-hour clinics are always so helpful.
You would have heard us talk a lot about Labor's toxic taxes. The key part of the toxicity of these taxes is the impact that they're having on investment. This should have been known by Labor, because, on page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1, there is this comment of the Treasury forecasts:
Lower house price growth will have a modest impact on housing supply, with the increase in supply over the next decade expected to be only around 35,000 dwellings fewer compared to no tax policy change …
That means fewer houses. How can you contort yourself to say that if there are fewer houses there's going to be more opportunity for people to get into housing or that people's rents aren't going to skyrocket? I don't know how you can make that argument.
We're not the only ones saying that this will have a negative impact on housing. CEDA has said in a letter that they've written, which has been co-signed by 26 other industry associations, that the impact of Labor's CGT proposal has not been properly considered. Higher taxes on investment in business means fewer opportunities to expand, less innovation and ultimately fewer jobs and slower wage growth. This has been backed up by the Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black. He said that the test for economic reform was whether it increased investment, grew the economic pie and boosted living standards and 'it is clear that the reforms fail that test'. Therefore, these taxes in many ways are toxic.
The most recent bulk-billing data is in, and it is really clear and obvious to all of us that Labor's reforms—our tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing incentive and the way in which we've invested in Medicare—are delivering. They are delivering for regional electorates, for outer metro electorates and for Australians. In my own electorate, because of the investment that Labor has made, we have reversed the trend of what was happening. Bulk-billing in my electorate of Bendigo is now back up to 89.2 per cent, and that is because of the investment of our government. We have gone from having two bulk-billing clinics when those left office to 37 bulk-billing clinics. That is what we have done.
I recently visited a clinic in my electorate which did not exist when those were last in government. It has opened since we came to government and invested in Medicare. It is at the Bendigo Marketplace. It is in the CBD of Bendigo supporting and servicing people in my electorate. A cautionary warning to those opposite in the Liberal, National and One Nation parties: every single one of those GPs servicing that clinic was born overseas, like so many of our doctors working in regional areas keeping our communities healthy. This is a good example of good migration policy at work.
Last Wednesday, I hosted a small business roundtable in my Surfers Paradise office to bring together local business leaders, and I wish to acknowledge Anne Nalder, Laura Younger, Kelsey Taylor, Matthew Anderson and Emma Curtis for taking the time to share their experiences and concerns. The overwhelming sentiment from every person around that table was simple: Labor's toxic taxes punish hard work, aspiration and investment. Now, just weeks after delivering its budget, Labor is scrambling to introduce carve outs. If these taxes are bad enough to run away from now, they are bad enough to scrap all together.
The government told Australians they would not touch capital gains tax, negative gearing, trusts, super or stage 3 tax cuts. Labor broke those promises. If you couldn't trust Labor on tax a month ago, you cannot trust them now. These carve outs do not fix the problem. They just let Canberra decide which businesses are worthy, which businesses are innovative and which Australians are allowed to get ahead. Small-business people know the truth. Every good business has to innovate every day just to survive. More complexity does not fix bad law. This is a failed policy from a failed budget. Labor should stop playing politics, withdraw the bill, scrap these toxic taxes and start again. This is an all-out assault on Gold Coast small and family businesses.
Sliding doors—these are moments in your life when you realise that your life could have changed quite significantly. My mum and dad grew up in Kenya, and my dad had six brothers and sisters. All of his brothers and sisters migrated to the USA. We were the only ones who migrated to Australia. When I think of my cousins in the US and I think of my life here in Australia, I realise that I am so grateful for all the opportunities and all the things that happen in Australia and some of the things that make Australia a truly extraordinary country—minimum wage, superannuation, paid parental leave and, of course, Medicare. Who was it that introduced those policies? It was the great Australian Labor Party.
Earlier today in the Federation Chamber, I was listening to the member for Macarthur talking about when he first opened his practice, which was the same day that we introduced the Medicare system that we have today. He saw the way that Medicare transformed health outcomes for Australians. Labor built Medicare, and, of course, we will protect it.
One of the great things about this job is having the opportunity to listen and act. I remember speaking to a man who was distraught about the bulk-billing rates in his community. In Swan, there were 11 Medicare bulk-billing clinics. We now have 22. We saw bulk-billing rates of 67 per cent. It is now 75 per cent.
Who said this? 'If successful, I'm determined to restore a greater sense of responsibility to the office of prime minister, a deeper respect for the Australian people and for the integrity of our democracy, real accountability and delivery. I will lead a government that keeps its promises.' Well, we will hear again today, sadly, more deceit and more dishonesty from this Prime Minister. And why? Because his so-called changes to his deceitful taxes are meaningless. They're useless. They'll do nothing. It will still mean that we'll have the highest-taxing government on income. That's the Albanese Labor government. When it comes to taxing capital, it's the highest-taxing government in the world. When it comes to what's happening to rent, they're being driven through the roof. Independent modelling out today shows rents will go through the roof.
This is a dishonest and deceitful Prime Minister who cannot look the Australian people in the face without telling them porkies. Enough is enough, Prime Minister. Get your act together. Get real with the Australian people. Be upfront with them, and stop taxing them to death.
When Medicare works, people notice, not of because a headline or an announcement but because they can see a doctor when they need one close to home and don't have to worry about the cost. I recently welcomed the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, to Bonner, where we visited two local healthcare services that are doing exactly that: the Carina-Carindale urgent care clinic and Yulu-Burri-Ba, one of our wonderful fully bulk-billed clinics. Both of these services are making a real difference to our local community.
The Carina-Carindale Medicare Urgent Care Clinic is helping locals access free health care seven days a week, with no appointment necessary. It's one of the 137 clinics Labor has delivered nationally. It's already had over 5,000 patients through the door. We also visited Yulu-Burri-Ba, where staff are delivering high-quality, culturally safe health care for our community and helping ensure people can access fully bulk-billed care close to home. Labor has doubled the number of bulk-billing GPs in Bonner over the last 12 months. These visits were a reminder that Medicare is not just about policy; it's about people. When Medicare works, people notice.
Every day, Australian self-starters wake up to build a better future and a better small business for themselves and their communities. We should want them to get ahead, and we should want a government that backs Australians who back themselves. But the Albanese government has declared war on Australia's small-business community. Let's face it: we already have record-low consumer confidence. We have record-low small-business confidence. We also have record small-business insolvencies. The only solution from the Albanese government is to chuck higher taxes on top. Fifty times over they said they wouldn't be introduced because the Prime Minister was a man of his word and said, 'I will lead a government that keeps its promises.' We know full well that isn't the case, and Australians are living it. The government is scrambling. Of course, the health minister is quietly doing the numbers for his leadership tilt, but the government is caught out being drunk on their denial and drunk on their deceit.
Don't worry. There is hope. A coalition government will scrap these taxes that attack the aspiration of Australians and undermine Australians that want to get ahead. We will make sure that taxes are adjusted to pay back inflation. We will increase the instant asset write-off to $50,000 and make it permanent. We are consulting on a small business act to protect Australian self-starters from Labor's aggressive tax attacks. Have your say by going to www.standwithsmall.org.
Last night marked the end of an era for the Hunter. Since 1962, NBN television has been telling our stories, connecting our community and shining a light on local issues. Last night, NBN'S final Sunday night bulletin went to air. For many people across the Hunter, Port Stephens and the Mid North Coast, NBN wasn't just a television station; it was part of the family. It was where we turned to see our local stories, our local faces and the issues that mattered to our community. Big Dog even helped put the kids to bed!
This is personal for me. Back in 1990, NBN gave me my first job in the media. It taught me the value of local news, the importance of asking the right questions and the responsibility that comes with telling people's stories. It is still important today. The truth matters.
Today I want to thank the journalists, camera operators, producers, editors, presenters, production teams and all of those who've worked tirelessly over the years to keep us informed. While the change comes as a result of decisions made by the WIN network, we still need our stories to be told and we still know that local news matters. In a world where we are competing for eyeballs and attention, storytelling really matters. We have to have good journalism. I want to thank those good journalists who keep doing the job. The truth matters more than ever in our democracy today.
Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was humiliated into changing his position on his toxic taxes just 38 days after his budget of broken promises. Despite this Olympic-level backflip, can the Prime Minister name a single country that will have a higher tax rate on real capital gains than Australia?
Thanks for the question. Well, on budget night we made it very clear that we foreshadowed Treasury's discussion paper. It was all there for all to see. But, of course, for those who were busy hyperventilating and saying they were opposed to things before they even saw legislation, they didn't look at that detail.
We outlined that the implementation would happen in steps—far fewer steps than happened the last time there was major tax reform, way back under the Howard government. Then, there was something like 30 separate pieces of legislation. What we've done is to continue to consult. We will continue to do that.
On top of retaining all four of the existing capital gains tax concessions for small businesses, we're also increasing the turnover threshold for small businesses to access the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount from $2 million to $10 million. That's a fivefold increase, and what that means is that every active small business will be included in that. What it means is that 98 per cent of all active businesses in Australia will be included in that. There's now $3.8 billion in the budget that lowers taxes and provides support for small businesses, making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent.
My point of order is on relevance: I asked whether a single country will have a higher real capital gains rate than Australia.
Standing orders provide that the Prime Minister must be directly relevant to the question, and the question was regarding the budget and the tax position of the government, to which the Prime Minister is being directly relevant. I can appreciate you would like a direct answer. I can't compel the Prime Minister to do that, but I'll encourage him to make sure he is being directly relevant.
What we've done is what we said we'd do on budget night: consult widely, back small business to succeed and grow, make the tax system fairer and make sure that young Australians get a fair crack. That's what we've done.
Those opposite have continue to do what they've done the entire time since this gentleman here replaced Susan Ley after the infamous meeting on the day of a funeral in Melbourne. He promised there that he would restore faith in the coalition, and what we've seen since then has been diminished each and every day. The worse he goes, the more he interjects.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government backing the aspiration of more Australians to get ahead and own a home of their own? How does the government's housing agenda make a positive difference to people's lives, and what alternatives are being offered?
I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. Each and every day, our government is driven by making a real and positive difference in people's lives, delivering real change to make a real difference, doing what's right rather than just doing what is easy, not just pointing issues out but trying to take action to fix them, delivering real change that Australians can see and feel. What we're doing in housing is an example of that. It is not an abstract idea; housing is the key to a better life for people. It's the key to a better education for your kids, to better healthcare, to quality of life. That's why over four years we've thrown everything at housing supply: the Housing Australia Future Fund, Build to Rent, Help to Buy—all part of our Homes for Australia plan.
Last week, I went to the Housing Australia Future Fund site in Jacka in Canberra. Fifty-seven social and affordable homes are under construction right where they're needed, just part of the 55,000 social and affordable homes which are being built—a program that those opposite say that they would abolish. In Clifton Springs in Victoria, I met Brooklyn, Lachie and dog Rosco with the member for Corangamite. Now, they bought their own home using a five per cent deposit, and what they said to me was that renting was frustrating, because their money wasn't going anywhere, but now it is going into a real asset for this family. That's the real change that we're delivering. I've been to Prospect in Adelaide, to Perth, to Hobart, to Stones Corner in Brisbane, to Rosanna in Jagajaga in Melbourne—all have seen the difference that our policies are having.
For too long the housing system was broken, prioritising investors looking to buy their 10th property and locking out young people looking for their first home. That's why we're reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax—so that hardworking Australians can actually see their hard work pay off, making a real difference. That's how you back aspiration—aspiration for all, not just for some, delivering real change to make a real difference.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Australia will have the highest tax rate on real capital gains in the world?
Thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. The changes that we are making are about fairer tax arrangements for capital gains so that the taxes only apply to real gains.
The Treasurer will pause. We're not going to have that sort of sledging, Member for Page. It's just not something I want to have in this House, so I'm just going to ask you to withdraw that and we're just going to try and refrain—both sides, everyone's language. We just don't need that.
I withdraw.
I thank the member for Page for being gracious.
Treasurer, it's not helpful, when the member for Page is withdrawing something, for you to make that remark either.
Well, I didn't hear what he said, but I think, to assist the House, I agree with the manager. The member for Page did the right thing. I'm just going ask the Treasurer to withdraw and then just get back to the question and do the business of the House.
Thank you, Speaker; I withdraw. Comparing tax rates on real and nominal gains is deliberately disingenuous from those opposite. What they don't understand or don't concede is that there will still be a discount for capital gains, but it will be a fair reflection of inflation rather than the Howard approach, which has distorted investment in our economy for a quarter of a century now. The exact discount will vary, but history suggests that in many cases it would be in the range of 30 to 50 per cent or even more. The Treasury estimates that under our changes the average tax rate on gross capital gains will increase from 19.3 per cent to 21.4 per cent at the end of the medium term, when the policy will be close to maturity. If you use those reasonable assumptions—
The Treasurer will pause, and I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition to make his first point of order.
On relevance: to answer the question, he needs to name just one country—only one country—
Resume your seat. The Treasurer was asked a specific question. It was narrower than the first. I'm just going to make sure he's being directly relevant. But he is not straying off that. He's not talking about opposition policies. He's talking about the government's policy. So I'm just going to listen carefully to make sure he's being directly relevant.
So, as I was saying, on reasonable assumptions, at a 5.1 per cent rate of return, S&P/ASX 200, the tax rate is 21.4 per cent, for example. That is lower than the UK's, at 24 per cent. It's lower than Germany's, 26 to 28 per cent. It's lower than in France, 34 to 35 per cent. It's lower than Ireland's, 33 per cent. It's lower than in the Netherlands, 36 per cent. It's lower than Denmark's, 42 per cent, and also lower than—not a country—California, which is the tech capital of the world.
We know what's really going on here. Those opposite had the opportunity to vote to make it easier for first home buyers and to cut taxes for workers and they voted against both of those things. Whether it's this right-wing party or that right-wing party or that right wing party, they are all the same. Whenever they're given the opportunity to vote in the interests of working people, young people or first home buyers, they vote directly against the interests of those Australians, while we are proud to support them.
My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping with the cost of living and helping Australians get ahead? How does that compare to other approaches?
Thanks for that question from an absolute champion, the member for Calwell. Helping people with the cost of living is a primary focus of this Albanese Labor government. That's why the Prime Minister announced on the weekend that we'll be extending that fuel excise relief for another month, making petrol and diesel 16c a litre cheaper and saving Australians about $11 per tank. This is more temporary and tapered support that will help take the sting out of petrol prices and help more Australians with the cost of living. That's because, despite the welcome and very substantial drop in the price of petrol in recent months, we recognise that people are still under pressure, and this extra month of fuel relief will help Australian motorists and businesses with the cost of living even as this support begins to taper off.
But it's not the only way we're helping people with the cost of living. We're cutting taxes for 13.3 million workers, again and again. We've got five tax cuts in all. We've got better pay for workers and we're delivering a fair go for first home buyers as well. As it turns out, from next week the national minimum wage will increase by six per cent and modern award wages will increase by 4¾ per cent following that good decision from the Fair Work Commission advocated for by this Labor government and this employment minister. From next week as well our tax cuts for more than 14 million Australians will start to roll out—one of those five ways that we're cutting taxes for workers. And the tax reforms we've put before the parliament will help younger Australians get ahead and to get a fair go, particularly first home buyers.
As I was saying a moment ago, this is what separates us from the three right-wing parties in Australia over there. We're delivering tax cuts for every taxpayer, better pay for workers and a fair go for first home buyers, and the three-ring circus over there is standing in the way of all three of those things. That is the absurd irony of Australia's political system.
One Nation talks a lot about helping workers, and the coalition talks a lot about tax cuts, but they vote against both of those on the floor of the parliament. Every time they have the opportunity to vote for higher wages and lower taxes, the right-wing parties opposite, instead of voting the way that the workers of this country need them to, vote the way that Gina Rinehart and Geoff Wilson tell them to.
Whether it's slashing the fuel tax, better pay, tax cuts or a fair go for first home buyers, we are taking action and delivering real change to ease the cost of living and help Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. The three right-wing parties over there are standing in the way of our tax cuts, better pay and a fair go for first home buyers in this country.
I'm pleased to inform the House that in the gallery today, in their red and white T-shirts, are representatives of Bowel Cancer Australia along with a delegation of patient advocates, reminding everyone that they're never too young to be tested. Her Excellency Ms Carla Manuela Lourenço Saragoça, the Portuguese Ambassador to Australia, is with us today—apologies for my pronunciation. Also in the gallery today we have Wangaratta High School and Mansfield Secondary School as guests of the member for Indi. On behalf of the House, welcome to question time.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. As you know, our veterans deserve the very best care our country can provide. Bathurst RSL Sub Branch have submitted a proposal for a veterans' and families' wellbeing hub in Bathurst, which would serve as stage 1 of a Central West regional hub. They've got the land, they've got the building and they're willing to make a financial contribution to it. Will your government support it, and when will you fund it?
I want to thank the member for his question, and I also thank him for having me out to his electorate to meet with the local RSL and to hear what they want to do there in terms of having a hub to support the veterans in their community. They really did an excellent job of explaining the real-world impact—I met with RSL members and advocates working out there—and the support they want to be able to provide on their side of the range. And I thank the member for passing to me as well their business case for how they want to set up that hub and have it running on an ongoing basis.
We've been delivering hubs across the country, which we committed to at the 2022 and 2025 elections. They are an important part of the broader ecosystem and footprint to support our veteran communities—in particular, where we've got the highest concentration of those veteran communities around the country. From 1 July, we will be rolling out the changes to the veterans entitlement legislation. That's going to be the biggest change in a century. We're moving from three complex systems that were interacting with each other to a single system going forward, improving the system that supports our veterans and making it quicker and easier for their claims to be processed.
Also, importantly, we'll be implementing another recommendation of the royal commission, from 1 July, when we stand up the new veteran and family wellbeing agency. It is going to co-ordinate across those veterans' and families' hubs that we already have up and running, providing an on-the-ground footprint. It will provide a national service online and by phone to help veterans navigate the systems of support in the broader wellbeing areas. It is incredibly important work.
We are working through setting that up and the other services that will be provided through that agency and funded by that agency. It's important we get that right moving forward in the near term. That's an important piece of work both in terms of the agency itself and in terms of working with the existing hubs. As we work through that, we will then be able to better look at the wide variety of submissions that have been made to government for a further round of hubs and supports to local ex-service organisations—be them RSLs or other organisations—that want to improve how they can deliver better support to veterans and families on the ground. We really want to support that and we want to make sure we work through that in a methodical way as we stand up these big changes that are improving support to our veteran community.
I've looked at the business case that's been provided by the member. I very much appreciate it and look forward to working through it after we've stood up the wellbeing agency from 1 July this year.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government acting to keep fuel supplies flowing? And how will the government's extension of fuel relief help keep fuel prices down so that we can keep communities connected and our freight moving?
I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. She well knows the impacts that the Middle East conflict has had on regional communities and the price of fuel in those communities. I also very much thank Australians, who have been really magnificent through this. They have done an incredible job in working with government to make sure that we can keep fuel and our freight operators moving around the country.
We have been working very closely with industry and our international partners to ensure fuel continues to flow and that we keep our communities connected. On Saturday, the Prime Minister announced that Export Finance Australia had secured, with the private sector, a further 50 million litres of diesel and that this shipment is now headed for Port Botany. Since February, we have secured additional supplies of nearly 800 million litres of diesel, 155 million litres of jet fuel and 340,000 tonnes of fertiliser. There is now more fuel in the country than there was in February this year, before the conflict began.
By securing our fuel supply, we are providing certainty. But we do know that supply is just part of the story here. The war in the Middle East has caused the biggest spike in fuel prices. That's why we've worked quickly to cut fuel excise to save Australians money at the petrol pump. And because freight is the backbone of this economy, we have also moved to cut the road user charge for heavy vehicles. We've seen fuel prices come down from their peaks in April but we do recognise that people are still doing it tough.
And while we have weathered this crisis well, we know that it will take a while for global fuel movements to recover. It's why the Prime Minister announced yesterday that we are extending fuel excise cuts into July, saving Australians 16c per litre—around $11 per tank. But what we're also doing is continuing the reduction of the fuel excise in the road user charge through to July. That is critical for our freight industry and critical for our trucking industry to be able to continue to move goods and services around this country.
Of course, this support has been welcomed by the Australian Trucking Association—and I recognise their strong advocacy on behalf of their members—the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Automobile Association and the businesses that have kept our goods moving all the way around our country. This is additional support for Australians as global fuel movements remain constrained and it builds on the work that we have been doing to support the transport industry since the beginning of this crisis—work like amending contract chain orders through the Fair Work Commission, zero-interest loans for eligible SMEs through the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation and more support through the ATO for businesses who are facing fuel related financial pressures.
When things are uncertain around the world, we're focused on helping Australians at home. It might be good to get a question from those opposite about this important issue.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm that, even after the budget backflip, during your time in office the Albanese Labor government has been the highest-taxing government in Australia's history?
It was the Howard government, actually.
I thank the member for his question, but in fact it is the Howard government that is the highest-taxing government. Those opposite went to the last election calling for $75 billion in higher personal income taxes. If they'd had their way—they wanted $14 billion of higher taxes.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order. Pause—
We're going to respect the dignity of the House, as all Speakers have done, and I will allow the opposition leader to withdraw that remark.
I withdraw.
Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. Just to help the House, we are not going to have the yelling. If anyone yells and screams, they are not going to stay here. No Australian wants to see that. The Prime Minister has the call.
They wanted $14 billion of higher taxes on the resources and manufacturing sectors by abolishing production tax credits. They want higher taxes on motorists by abolishing the EV concession, they want higher taxes on housing construction by abolishing build-to-rent. They want higher student debts for more than three million Australians because they said they'd cancel the 20 per cent cut.
The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Herbert will cease interjecting. The member for Page, on a point of order?
The point of order is on relevance. I asked about the government's tax policies, not the opposition's.
I listened and, in about the first six seconds, the Prime Minister answered that directly. He gave a direct answer when he was asked the question—can he confirm that, over his time in office, this government is the highest taxing government in Australia. He has answered that, and now he's giving some contrast. If you're asking those sorts of questions, you're going to get some contrast out of it, but he has been directly answering the question. We'll deal with this, and then I'll hear from the manager.
Honourable members interjecting—
How about you let the Speaker decide who does what rather than you?
I thank the manager for defending me. I appreciate that. To the point of order, we'll hear from the Prime Minister, and we'll hear from the manager.
That was the very nature of the question, and, therefore, I'm entitled to give a comparative analysis, which is precisely what I've been doing, having first answered the question in the first seconds as you correctly said.
We're going to deal with it this way. I said I'd give the manager a fair go, and he'll get that now.
The comparison is between governments. The Prime Minister isn't being relevant. You're the highest taxing government in Australian—
Resume your seat. I'll help the House. When you say, 'Are you the highest?' it implies a comparison.
Honourable members interjecting—
Hang on, yes. If you're asking a question about if you are the highest, obviously a minister may say they're not, and they're going to explain why. The member for McEwen is warned. We'll allow the House to settle, and we'll get the Prime Minister back to the question, being directly relevant.
They have interesting tactics meetings, I'm sure. The fact is that the Howard government was the highest taxing government, as I have said. The fact is also that those opposite opposed the measures that we put in place to provide support for personal income tax cuts; they opposed the measures to cut student debt; they opposed the measures for free TAFE, which makes a difference; and they opposed the tax arrangements that we put in place to encourage EVs and the cheaper batteries program. They opposed all of these measures. We on this side have put forward no less than five tax cuts, one of which, of course, clicks in next week for 14 million Australians. If the Leader of the Opposition had been the Treasurer, rather than the worst shadow treasurer Australia had ever seen, what we would have seen is higher taxes. That wouldn't have occurred. That was the policy that they took to the election. Instead, we get a tax cut and we get another tax cut next year.
Don't shake your head. I heard you say it, so you're going to withdraw that.
I withdraw.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition. If people respect the standing orders and the institution, we won't have to stop. Before I call the member for Jagajaga, we're going to allow the House to settle. It is Local Government Week, so that means we're going to give a shout-out to some local representatives, and I'd like to do that now because they've come to the parliament, and I want to recognise them.
It is local government week, so that means we're going to give a shoutout to some local representatives. I'd like to do that now, because they've come to the parliament, and I want to recognise them. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Councillor Tania Brown, the lord mayor of Wollongong, as a guest of the members for Cunningham and Whitlam. We've got Councillor Tanya Taylor, the mayor of Willoughby, as the guest of the member for Bradfield. The Mayor of Townsville, Nick Dametto, from Queensland; and the CEO of the Townsville City Council are here as the guests of the member for Herbert, as well as Mayor Claire Pontin and the Deputy Mayor of MidCoast Council, who are sitting in the gallery as guests of the member for Lyne. Welcome to all our local government friends and look forward to seeing you this week.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How has the Albanese Labor government acted to strengthen Australia's fuel security and shield Australians from the impacts of the conflict in the Middle East? What policies would leave Australians more vulnerable?
I thank my honourable friend for the question and also recognise the invaluable work she does as a member of our climate and energy team in this government. In the face of the most serious energy crisis the world has ever seen, this government had the view that a very serious response was required. That response involved the Prime Minister interacting with leaders in our region to ensure fuel security, it involved the government working with Export Finance Australia to get extra fuel for Australians, and it involved working closely with the private sector in the face of great challenges, including one of our refineries catching on fire at the worst possible time.
In the face of all those challenges, I'm pleased to tell the House that Australia has more fuel today than at any time since the minimum stock obligation came into force and that we have substantially more fuel than we had on the day Iran was bombed. We have 44 days worth of petrol, which is eight days more than the day Iran was bombed. We have 39 days worth of diesel, which is seven days more, and we have three days more worth of jet fuel at 32 days. And there are 51 ships on the water currently on their way to Australia with more fuel and 3.9 billion litres of orders locked in and contracted to be delivered over the next four weeks. So Australians can know that, just as we have since 28 February been telling them that our fuel supply is secure, that situation remains and remains into the future.
There was a choice for people in public office to engage seriously with these challenges or to engage in politics—to engage in solutions or to engage in sledges. Those opposite chose sledges and chose insults, not ideas. They said to Australians that the shortages were coming and that rationing was coming—the parties to the Right. One Nation actually called for rationing, demanded rationing. We had the view that a calmer approach was necessary.
We had the view that a steadier approach was necessary, and the member for Wannon, my shadow minister, warned that rationing and shortages were coming. He said in March they were coming in April. He said in April they were coming in May. He said in May they're coming in June. In April he said, 'I say to Chris Bowen very clearly the time is that he focuses on diesel and makes sure we're going to have supplies into May and June.' Well, I've got good news for the member for Wannon. That is the case, and it's the case into the future as well. That's what this government has achieved.
We thank the private sector. We thank our trading partners for working closely with us. We do not thank those who engaged in sledges, not solutions. There was a time, as the minister for transport indicated, we got questions from those opposite about these issues, but now they don't like the answers. It was all about politics and not about petrol. It was all about point scoring, because those opposite are partisans, not patriots.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that businesses of all sizes will lose the existing 50 per cent capital gains tax discount across all assets?
He's a bit slow on the uptake, Mr Speaker. We announced some time ago that there would still be a discount capital gains. It would move to a discount which reflects the real gains that people make rather than an arbitrary figure—point No. 1. Point No. 2 is, just on Thursday, we announced the next steps in the legislation for the really important tax reforms that we announced on budget night. What that made clear was that 98 per cent of all active businesses will be able to access concessions and carve outs when it comes to the CGT system. We made that very clear. One hundred per cent of active small businesses get access to the higher turnover threshold, and that means 98 per cent of active businesses get access to carve-outs and concessions when it comes to those existing concessions in the system.
Once again, I think it says everything about the shadow treasurer that he is trying to weaponise a scare campaign against the types of changes that he called for in this parliament and in his book. This is a shadow treasure who, time and time again, called on the government to make changes of this kind. Then, when we do it, he tries to weaponise a scare campaign against it.
What those opposite really want—what their vote the last time this parliament sat tells the whole country is that, when they're given the option to vote to make it easier for first home buyers, they vote against it. When they're given the option to vote for more tax cuts for workers, they vote against it. In that regard, they're no different to One Nation, the Nationals or the Liberals. They are all the same when it comes to that.
If they don't want there to be a fairer go for first home buyers, if they don't want to better align the tax treatment of labour and asset income—as the shadow treasurer called for in his book and in the parliament on multiple occasions—and if they don't want to cut taxes for workers, they should just say so. They shouldn't be hiding behind this dishonest scare campaign that the shadow treasurer is especially guilty of.
My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government helping more Australians achieve the dream of homeownership, and how will the government's approach benefit more Australians compared with other approaches?
I thank the member for Bullwinkel for her question. It was absolutely wonderful to be in Western Australia with pretty much our whole team WA caucus having a big forum to talk about what's next for housing in Western Australia. We have got incredible advocates fighting for that great state here in our parliament on the Labor side of politics. The discussion at that forum was all about how we get our country building more homes and how we get more young people across our nation getting into that incredible aspiration of owning the home that they live in. Of course, that is what the federal budget was all about—building more homes for Australia and making sure that we back in more young people to get a fair go at auctions.
Speaker, in the Australia that you and I grew up in, ordinary people on normal incomes could get into homeownership after saving for just a handful of years. This was a central part of what made Australia a fair and equal country at that time. But that has changed. The average time it takes for a young person to save a 20 per cent deposit in Sydney today has gone up to 17 years. Something's got to give, and that's why our government has stepped in so significantly. After a decade of ignorance of this problem and total neglect of it, we're stepping in. We're building more homes, we're backing more first home buyers and we're levelling the playing field at auction.
Just this last weekend gone, we had yet another Sunday of reporting about the auctions that had happened on Saturday and story after story about first home buyers being at the front of the queue and winning for the first time in a generation. Speaker, you would have read in the Nine papers the report of a young couple who bought their first home at auction in Coburg North in Victoria. This was a three-bedroom home that had been owned by the same family since 1972. This young couple were able to compete because they were supported through Labor's help to buy scheme. The young couple were very frank when they were interviewed by the newspaper. They said, 'We could not have done this without help to buy.'
Help to buy is a program that helps 10,000 Australian families on low and moderate incomes get into homeownership in circumstances where they'd otherwise have no real opportunity to do that. We're adding on top of this 260,000 Australians who have gotten into first home ownership through our five per cent deposit program and, on top of that, 75,000 Australians who will get into first home ownership because of our budget measures. These measures are incredibly popular with the young first home buyers in all of our electorates. Why is that the case? Because the problem was never about aspiration and drive. The problem was about opportunity, and our government is stepping in. We are creating better opportunities for the young people of this country, and they are winning at auctions for the first time in a generation.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise whether a bricklayer who comes up with a faster way to lay bricks, a farmer who comes up with a more efficient way to harvest his crops or a hairdresser who comes up with a new hairstyle will be eligible for the innovative business CGT concession?
When it comes to the examples that the honourable member has used, in every case—or in almost every case—they would be included in the new, much higher threshold for small-business turnover. I understand that the honourable member is asking whether those businesses would apply for this kind of concession. I'm saying that they would apply for another kind of concession, which would have a similar effect. So—
So the hairdresser is going to be turning over more than 10 million bucks, is it, mate? It might be where you get your hair cut!
Opposition members interjecting—
I do. I'm envious!
The Treasurer will return to the question. When the House comes to order, I want to hear the remainder of the Treasurer's answer.
The point that I'm making is that there's more than one concession and carve out available. Every active small business will be able to access the CGT concessions and carve outs, and 98 per cent of all active businesses. When it comes to farms—I was asked particularly about farms, and my understanding is—
We're just going to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. I mean it's a bit of a difficult time to take a point of order, when he was talking about a point of the question, but I'll hear from the manager.
The question was a very specific one around whether they would be eligible for the innovative business capital gains tax concession, not others. It was whether, for that one, they would be eligible.
The question was about that topic regarding a bricklayer, a farmer and a hairdresser. We've heard about the hairdresser component, and now we're going to hear about the farmer component. The Treasurer just started to say, 'In terms of the farmer' that he was asked about by the member for Wide Bay. I don't know what he's going to say, but I'll make sure he's being directly relevant. But he was specific to the question from the member for Wide Bay, and I want to make sure. But I thank the manager for raising the point of order.
Me, too. I'll touch on the farmers, and then I'll go to the startups part of the question. When it comes to farmers, as a consequence of the implementation details that we announced on Thursday, something like 99 per cent of all agricultural businesses will be eligible for the updated 50 per cent active asset reduction—99 per cent of ag businesses, including farms. This might be why the National Farmers' Federation has described this as 'one of the most consequential wins for the NFF and its members following sustained advocacy on behalf of farmers'. That's the NFF taking a more constructive approach than those opposite.
When it comes to the startups paper that we released on Thursday, as we flagged in the budget papers on budget night, we are engaging, in good faith, in a meaningful and genuine way, and the consultation paper that we released goes to some of the questions that the honourable member asked me about—defining innovation, how long the business is held for—so we can provide the appropriate number of concessions and carve outs for a really important part of our economy, which is the startup sector.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. What updates are there on the detection of H5 bird flu in Western Australia? How has the Albanese Labor government been preparing and working with states and territories, industry and the community to respond to this disease?
I want to thank our great member for Moore for that great question. I know that he and many other members in this place, particularly our members from Western Australia, are really concerned over the reporting on the weekend, where I announced that the CSIRO's Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness had confirmed that a brown skua in Western Australia tested positive to the H5 bird flu. Just a few short moments ago before question time, I, together with the Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook, and Minister Watt, announced that further testing has confirmed H5 bird flu in a northern giant petrel found in the same region.
I reiterate that these are two migratory birds. Whilst these two confirmed results are not unexpected, given the spread of H5 globally, they are very concerning. I also want to be very clear at this time that there's no evidence of any mass mortalities, nor is there any evidence of the bird flu in our poultry or agricultural systems. Also, there's a generally low risk of human infection associated with this strain of the virus.
I want to reassure all Australians that we are well prepared for the arrival of the H5 bird flu, and we had been planning for this. Our national biosecurity response arrangements have been enacted, with Western Australia managing the on-ground response. They have responded very quickly to the detection with enhanced surveillance. They're working closely with industry, veterinarians, wildlife carers and local communities. My department, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, is leading the national coordination. Along with our experts, we've been meeting around the clock over the weekend with industry and with jurisdictions—the states and territories—to manage the response to this detection. The head start that we've been given before the arrival of the H5 bird flu has not been wasted by our government, particularly given some of the devastation in wildlife that we have seen overseas.
We've invested over $113 million to strengthen our preparedness for H5 bird flu. This is part of the more than $2 billion in additional biosecurity resourcing that we have provided since coming to government. It also includes funding delivered directly to the Western Australian government to support the delivery of rapid, critical diagnostic and decontamination equipment. Our preparedness funding has also made a great difference on the ground, with improved biosecurity measures, particularly for endangered species. We've also been conducting national preparedness exercises right across portfolios with states, territories and the industries.
We have been working really hard, in terms of the detection, with the public. I thank the public for this detection. I also want to say that this is the system working. I reiterate to the public that, if you see multiple sick or dead birds or other animals, please do not touch them. Avoid contact, record what you see and go to birdflu.gov.au.
on indulgence—I thank the minister for her update. The coalition stands ready to support the government as it deals with the impact of the confirmed detection of the H5 avian influenza in wild birds in Western Australia. It is a serious development, and I thank the minister for her willingness to contact me over the weekend and for her office's preparedness to provide updates to the coalition on a regular basis.
We need to be very clear that this is a threat for which the Australian biosecurity system has been preparing for many years. While we do need to prepare for the worst, we are hoping for the best. We stand ready as a coalition to support the government, particularly with the potential risk to our poultry sector. Although I emphasise the minister's point that these are wild birds that have been detected with the virus, we do need to do everything we possibly can to ensure that our $8 billion poultry industry and the 60,000 people who work in that supply chain are kept well informed in the coming days and weeks. I thank the minister for her update to the House.
My question is to the Treasurer. Regional communities are often the last to get and the first to lose. The Bank closures in regional Australia report was tabled in May 2024. There are 596 regional towns that once had one or more banks which now have no form of bank at all. The report recommended that access to financial services should be recognised as an essential service. Treasurer, it's been more than two years. Will you commit to tabling your response before there are any more branch closures?
I thank the honourable member for her question. If they're still around, I acknowledge the school from her local community in the parliament as well. We have taken substantial action since that committee report was handed down. I appreciate that the honourable member is asking me about a process response to the committee inquiry, but we haven't waited for that. We've actually been taking some quite significant steps. I acknowledge the former assistant treasurer and the current Assistant Treasurer for all the work that we do in this regard, because we know that local banks can be the lifeblood of country towns, including your beautiful part of Australia. That's why we worked really hard to keep essential banking services in regional Australia, recognising how important they are.
Between 2017 and 2022, the number of bank branches in regional Australia fell by 29 per cent—about 700 regional bank branches closed under our predecessors. Since we came to office, we've negotiated a moratorium on branch closures for 2½ years to ensure no regional branch closures by the major banks before 27 July. We've secured increased investments in Bank@Post—I acknowledge the communications ministers for that. We've delivered the cash acceptance mandate and released draft legislation on the cash distribution regulatory framework, and our support for regional banking is having a real impact in communities across Australia. The rate of closures under our watch has actually plummeted.
Having said all of that, we do acknowledge that there is more work to do. Actually, a large part of the work that the Assistant Treasurer and I do with the ABA and directly, bilaterally, with the banks is about the next steps. When it comes to regional banking, we do have more work to do there. We've been up front about that. I acknowledge Simon Birmingham and others who have been working very closely on that, and we hope to make some more progress before long. We've also been working with the regulators and with communities to try to find sustainable solutions here.
We do recognise how important regional banks are to regional communities like the honourable member's. That's why we've taken significant steps and it's why there'll be more to come.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How will today's historic signing of Australia's largest ever defence export to Canada deliver high-paid secure jobs in defence industry?
I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his service in wearing our nation's uniform. This morning I did sign an agreement with Canada's Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, Stephen Fuhr, to enable Canada's acquisition of Australia's over-the-horizon radar. This is the biggest defence export in our country's history. It's a $2.5 billion deal and it surpasses the most recent largest defence export, which was the 2024 sale of Boxers to Germany—that was a $1 billion deal. It is no coincidence that the two largest defence exports in our country's history have happened under the Albanese government, because we have given a real focus to defence exports. In this regard I acknowledge the Minister for Defence Industry.
In working with our friends and partners on shared defence platforms, that is not only good for our national security—it supports Australian industry and it supports Australian jobs. The Canadian deal is supporting 1,000 direct and indirect jobs, principally in South Australia and Victoria. The Boxer deal supported 600 direct jobs in Brisbane. The over-the-horizon radar began its life back in 1986 under the Hawke government in a partnership with BAE Systems Australia, and since then it has been the cornerstone of our long-range northern surveillance. It is far and away the best long-range radar in the world. Like Australia, Canada has vast areas to surveil, and they will use this technology to look north over the Arctic. What it really means is that Canada and Australia will now be partners in the future development of this technology.
While Canada will definitely benefit from the decades of investment that we have made in the radar, Australia will also benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars that Canada will spend on R&D in furthering this technology. Canada and Australia have always been the very best of friends, but as of today we have a significant strategic dimension to the relationship. It builds on the visit from Prime Minister Carney here in March, which significantly elevated our defence and security partnership. This is a really big day in the Australia-Canada relationship, but it is a historic day for Australia's defence industry because this is quite literally the Albanese government delivering a future made in Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said, time and time again, that he has changed his position on his toxic taxes, yet those taxes on savings, investments, housing and businesses continue to rise. Will the Prime Minister just cut to the chase and, like Julia Gillard before him, admit he's another Labor liar on taxes?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! I'll deal with this. The Leader of the House?
Speaker, you've put every member on notice for a long time on that issue.
Yes. The Leader of the Opposition has upheld the standards of the House twice today, so I'm going to ask the member for Forrest to do the same, to withdraw.
I withdraw.
And leave the chamber under 94(a).
The membe r for Forrest then left the chamber.
We're moving to the next question. We're not having that disruption for question time.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australians to earn more, and what are the risks to Australians' wages?
I'd like to thank the member for Forde for his question but also for his advocacy in ensuring that Australians earn more. The Albanese Labor government is absolutely committed to supporting Australian workers get ahead. Our reforms have reinvigorated enterprise bargaining, seeing millions of workers receive higher pay increases. Our government has legislated to protect penalty and overtime rates in the modern award safety net, ensuring that these workers' pay packets won't go backwards. It's been this government that's advocated for a wage increase to the minimum award wages each and every year since we've been in government.
The Fair Work Commission has handed down its most recent decision to deliver a real wage increase for our lowest paid workers. From next week, more than 2.7 million hardworking Australians will start receiving more money in their pay packet. This means, from next week, the national minimum wage will have increased more than $12,000 a year over the course of this Labor government. This increase will benefit many hardworking Australians. I met some of those hardworking Australians this morning. They're up in the gallery today, and I thank them for their visit.
Workers like Prachi, who is a supermarket worker—Prachi told me this morning that, for her and her workmates, this wage increase means that they are being seen. It means that they count. This increase will also benefit workers like Brayden, who works in fast food. He said this increase will make a difference to him and his family. And Riley, who works in retail, said that this pay rise is incredibly important and the extra money per hour will really help him.
I'm asked about what the biggest risk is to Australians' pay packets. Well, the biggest risk to higher wages is the three-ring circus over there, the three-ring right-wing parties. When the coalition was last in government, they never once advocated for a pay increase for our lowest paid workers. Just a few weeks ago, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the One Nation party refused, time and time again, to back in a working—
Honourable members interjecting—
We hear the shadow treasurer chirping away. He needs to understand that not all publicity is good publicity. It is really clear that there is only one political party in this country that stands up for working Australians, and that is the Australian Labor Party.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the capital gains tax and negative gearing changes announced in the May budget were significant and market-sensitive measures—so significant that your government has already walked parts of them back in recent days. Can the Prime Minister give the House a strong assurance that no government MP or their close relations used prior knowledge of those changes for private financial benefit before they were made public?
I'm not particularly happy with that regarding the standing orders and the imputations that were contained in that question. We don't want to go down a path where people are being accused of things or there are allegations in questions. There are some imputations in that question. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Member for Fowler, we'll get through this.
I know that there's normally some level of levity that's taken, but the rules are that the question can't contain argument, inference, imputation or insults. It's all there.
We'll deal with this, and then I'll give the member for Fowler the call. When you're saying things about whether MPs, the Prime Minister or their close relations are using prior knowledge, it's a dangerous path to go down. Is the member for Fowler seeking to rephrase the question?
I'm happy to rephrase the question. Can the Prime Minister give the House assurance that this information was properly safeguarded before the budget and was held so that no-one connected to or in government was able to act on it for private financial benefit?
I'll just ask the Prime Minister to ignore the last part of the question because that is not within the standing orders.
I would say to the member for Fowler that, if she's got a suggestion or an allegation about anyone in the chamber, she should actually say what it is and preferably say it outside. This isn't a council. This is a serious parliament, and one of the things that we do—
The member for Fowler, on a point of order?
I think the Prime Minister should have some respect in the House.
Resume your seat. The House is going to come to order so the Prime Minister can deal with the question.
No-one has done more for local government in this House than me. Part of the critique from some in the three right-wing parties and their cheer squad outside has been that there wasn't enough consultation before the tax announcements that were made. We were very careful, as always occurs and, I'm sure, has always occurred for as long as I've been here, across the board, whoever has been the Treasurer and gone through our ERC processes. That is something that we have in this country that we should cherish and we should honour, not denigrate to try to score a cheap point.
I make this point—around 65,000 taxpayers in Fowler will benefit from the WATO. When it comes to student debt relief, 24,000 people benefited. There have been 3.4 million cheaper scripts in the electorate of Fowler. There is the Liverpool Medicare Urgent Care Clinic—I note that all our urgent care clinics are now open—has received 19,900 visits, and there are now 86 fully bulk-billed practices in Fowler—
Order. The member for Fowler has taken her point of order. Resume your seat. I'm not entertaining the point of order.
And I had the pleasure, it must be said, with the member for Werriwa and the member for McMahon, of being in south-west Sydney just yesterday. It's a great part of Sydney. We were there for the opening of an Assyrian community hall at St Yosip's. It's a fantastic community and it was great to spend more time in south-west Sydney. I look forward to spending more time in the months and years ahead in south-west Sydney, advocating for the interests of the people there genuinely.
My question is to the Minister for Education. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting early educators while keeping costs down for parents? What has been the response?
I thank my friend the hero from Holt for her question, and happy birthday to little Ilija, who's turned one just in the last couple of weeks—am I right? Fantastic. Childcare workers do one of the most important jobs in this country, but you wouldn't know it from what they've historically been paid. When we were first elected a couple of years ago, childcare workers were leaving the job in droves not because they didn't love the job but because they couldn't afford to keep doing it, because you could get paid more stacking shelves than you could educating the most precious things in our lives: our kids. If you want proof of that, look at the data. In some centres the attrition rate was 40 per cent. That's 40 per cent of the workforce leaving the job they love in any given year, and that's a crisis. But it's now changed and it's changed for a reason: the 15 per cent pay rise that we've now delivered.
If you want proof of that, job vacancies are now down 31 per cent, job applications in some places are up 30 per cent and there are now 20,000 more childcare workers doing that sort of life-changing work right across the country. In other words, it's worked. It turns out that, if you pay people more, more people want to do the job. That's why what we announced last week is so important. It's the sort of thing that only a Labor government would do. It's good for workers, but it's also good for parents, because it's part of the deal for childcare centres to get this extra funding that they've also got to cap their fees. Over the last two years or so, that has saved parents a lot of money, and what we announced last week will save them even more. What we announced last week will save the average family with a child in child care about $1,500 over the next two years. Again, it's the sort of thing that only a Labor government would do. The Liberal Party would never do it. The liberal party with the orange logo up the back would never do it. It's only the Labor Party that would do this—real cost-of-living help pushing wages up and keeping costs down for parents.
But we also announced something else last week. There's nothing more important than the safety of our kids, and that's why we've set a new condition. In order for centres to get this money, they've also got to be at the national safety standard. Ninety-five per cent of centres are at the national safety standard now. I want it to be at 100 per cent. I think parents expect it to be at 100 per cent, and that's why we're doing this. It builds on the safety reforms that we're already rolling out, it's what every parent in this country would expect and it's what every child in this country deserves.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
In accordance with standing order 105(b), I wish to draw your attention to multiple overdue questions in writing: questions 140, 146 and 161. I ask that you write to the Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and seek explanations as to why they have chosen not to answer my excellent questions in writing within 60 days.
I shall do so as the standing order provides.
I present the Auditor-General's reports Nos 37 to 40 for 2025-26. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Documents made parliamentary papers.
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 move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today the Albanese Labor government is introducing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026. This bill will extend fuel excise relief for another month to take some of the sting out of petrol prices and help Australians with the cost of living. It does so in a considered and calibrated way, acknowledging that support is still needed while tapering that support over time as we return to more normal settings. We welcome last week's agreement between the United States and Iran, but we desperately need that agreement to stick. We need the Strait of Hormuz to be opened and to stay open. We cannot afford another false dawn or another false start.
From an economic point of view, the end of the war in the Middle East cannot come soon enough. But, even after the signing of that deal, even after the proper opening of the Strait of Hormuz—we'll still be paying a hefty price for these hostilities long after they end. Despite the welcome and substantial drop in fuel prices, we know that people are still under pressure. That's why we're taking action to provide a bit more help to Australian motorists and small businesses. The bill extends fuel excise relief for another month, making petrol and diesel 16c per litre cheaper compared with normal prices, saving Australians around $11 per tank. It follows our three-month cut to the fuel excise of 32c per litre that we announced in March.
This additional support will commence on 1 July and run to 2 August in line with the scheduled fuel excise indexation date. Following discussions at National Cabinet, the states and territories have also indicated that they are willing to contribute to this discount. I thank the Prime Minister and the state and territory leaders for the outcome of those discussions today with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. In addition to this bill, we are also reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge by 16c per litre, which will save truckies $64 on a 400-litre tank of fuel. Here I pay tribute to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for her work.
This bill to extend fuel excise relief is both responsible and responsive. It's responsive to changing global circumstances and the pressures that people are under. Since the war in the Middle East broke out almost four months ago, we have seen higher fuel prices around the world. We welcome that prices have moderated significantly from these peaks in Australia, providing our motorists some much needed relief. Since the end of March, petrol prices in most capital cities have been around 90c a litre lower and diesel prices in most capital cities have been more than a dollar per litre lower since the end of March. Since the conflict started at the end of February, petrol prices are lower in almost all capital cities and diesel prices are on average around 20c per litre higher.
This bill recognises that, although fuel prices have moderated, people are still under cost-of-living pressure. Australians didn't choose this war, but they continue to face the costs and consequences of it. That's why a more modest but still meaningful discount is the appropriate way to continue this support for a bit longer. This bill delivers that cost-of-living relief in a responsible way. It is temporary, and it is tapered. We know that economic and fuel market recovery will take time, and this extra month will help Australian motorists and businesses as this support tapers off and we return to those normal excise settings. It's also a responsible way to help manage demand at service stations across the country towards the end of this month.
This responsible cost-of-living relief is in addition to all of the other actions that we are taking on fuel—and, again, I pay tribute to colleagues for these efforts—creating the $7½ billion Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility for additional supply and storage; securing over 800 million litres of diesel and 150 million litres of jet fuel by Export Finance Australia; providing $3.2 billion to establish the Australian fuel security reserve and bring our total stocks of diesel and jet fuel to 50 days; legislating new ACCC powers to enable faster, coordinated industry responses during exceptional circumstances; supplying a $1 billion economic resilience program for loans to eligible businesses, including heavy vehicle operators; releasing $1.1 billion in support for domestic production of low-carbon liquid fuels; and providing over $80 million to roll out more kerbside and regional EV chargers and electrify Australia Post's delivery fleet.
All of this helps to take the pressure off for the farmers who grow our food, the truckies who get goods to where they're needed and the businesses that sell our everyday essentials. It also builds on all the other ways that we're providing responsible cost-of-living relief, including income tax cuts for every worker, making medicines cheaper, helping more Australians into a home and backing higher wages for workers. From 1 July, we'll have more temporary cost-of-living help in this extension to the fuel tax cut but also more permanent cost-of-living help in another round of tax cuts for every taxpayer and more increases to the minimum wage.
This comes after a budget that is all about making it easier for people to buy their own home. It's got more income tax cuts and is better aligning the treatment of income from labour and assets. All of these measures are about helping Australians with the cost of living and responding to the very real pressures that they are facing while we shore up our critical supply chains and navigate all of this global uncertainty. This extra fuel excise relief is just the latest but still a very important way that we are continuing to help Australian families and small businesses. That's why we commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Illicit tobacco is no longer just a health issue. It is an organised crime issue, and, when we meet the dark tentacles of organised crime, we have to meet it. That is what this bill is all about. This is about helping the legal tobacconist. I've met with many of them, and they are furious, as they should be. They are honest people doing the right thing. People doing the right thing should not be worse off. People doing the wrong thing should be absolutely stopped. You would be angry too if your business was tracking along and another business doing exactly the same thing illegally opened up next to you. These changes that we're making are to make it easier for the federal government to respond and take it all away.
We need to look at the two key objectives. The first is, of course, risk versus reward. The calculation for criminal actors is: what is this going to cost me if I get caught, and is it worth more than what it will cost me if I keep going? This is going to raise offence penalties to rebalance that to match the harm and the severity that these criminal organisations are inflicting upon our small-business owners and our communities. The other is making proceeds of crimes more difficult to get hold of, because, let's face it, this is generated by their need for profit. Take the profits away and you take away the incentive.
As such, this bill amends a list of other legislation to help expand law enforcement powers, investigate illegal tobacco related offending, raise the penalties and make sure that we can stamp this out. The laws being amended include the Customs Act 1901, the Excise Act 1901, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. By updating all of these laws, we can make this fight more effective. This is an important step to make sure that illicit tobacco has no place in this country and that legal shop owners can continue to peddle their wares.
Since 2023-24, the Albanese Labor government has provided $346 million in funding to Australian Border Force to crack down on illicit tobacco and vaping products. I spent a bit of time with Border Force. They are very active in my part of the world. They're some of the finest men and women in the country, working hard to protect our borders. I know that they put this funding to good use. I know that they are taking out vapes and e-cigarettes when they're coming in. An additional $21.3 million was allocated in the 2025-26 budget to help coordinate these efforts.
By disrupting the flow of illegal cigarettes and e-cigarettes before they get into the country, we make it harder for them to be sold on the streets. We have enhanced detection and better disruption, and we will destroy that which we find. We have better connectivity between state, federal and local governments to make sure that we can identify and punish these people who break the law. I have reported several illegal tobacconists in my area in the last couple of weeks, and the work is having results. Since January 2020, more than 14 million vaping products and accessories and over one billion illegal cigarettes have been seized and destroyed by Border Force. These are vapes and cigarettes that didn't get into the hands of our children. These are vapes and cigarettes that didn't put profits back into the pockets of criminals.
I'm pleased with the work the Queensland LNP state government has put in to support these laws. We have seen that when there is a proper crackdown 100 per cent of illegal tobacco disappears. This requires all governments of all persuasions at all levels to respond. The coordination that I have seen firsthand in Cairns with the Cairns Regional Council, the Queensland LNP state government and this ALP Labor federal government has delivered results for my community. When they pop up, they get shut down. The one across the road from me, in a florist, was shut down. With the ones that I have recently reported, I one day soon hope to be able to buy flowers or some other legal thing from there as well.
These are important steps. This is about keeping our children safe. This is about making sure that profits don't go into the wrong hands. This is about protecting small business. Illegal tobacco has no place in our community. I am pleased to commend the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 to the House.
Australia's illicit tobacco trade has exploded into one of the country's fastest growing criminal markets, costing $4 billion in the 2023-24 financial year. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has linked criminal syndicates to more than 200 firebombings and at least three homicides since 2023. That violence is affecting suburban shopping strips, neighbourhoods and communities across the country. This issue is raised with me every week in the electorate that I have the honour to represent.
The Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 creates new offences for large-scale illicit tobacco activity linked to organised crime. It increases penalties across importing, possessing, buying, selling, producing and manufacturing. It expands proceeds of crime tools, and it enables enhanced law enforcement powers for serious tobacco offences. These are sensible reforms. But I fear that the horse has bolted on the illicit tobacco market. More than half of all tobacco, cigarettes and most vapes in Australia are now purchased from an illicit market which exceeds the combined size of those for cannabis, cocaine, heroin and ecstasy. Through poor policy settings and public health measures, we have created one of the largest black markets the country has ever seen. Tobacco excise collection peaked at $16.3 billion in financial year 2020. The government is going to collect only $7.8 billion this financial year, even though close to two million Australians still smoke daily. We have turned a regulated and effectively taxed market into an unregulated criminal one.
This predatory and illegal industry is specifically targeting young Australians. The most recent child health poll from the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne found that 26 per cent of young people aged 12 to 17 have used a nicotine product, mostly vapes, with 12 per cent currently using them and three quarters showing dependence. That means that one in 10 teenagers in this country are dependent on vapes. As a paediatrician I find those numbers deeply alarming. Addiction can happen quickly. Nicotine rewires the developing brain in ways that can create lifelong dependence. Young Australians who vape are three times more likely to take up tobacco smoking. And let's face it, the vaping prohibition has not protected young people. It's handed the youth nicotine market to criminal networks, which are selling unregulated products without ID checks in flavours deliberately designed to attract children.
That is a legislative and a policing failure. While the total cost to our country of tobacco and nicotine addiction was estimated at almost $36 billion in 2021, collection rates for tobacco fines are lower than those for speeding infringements. Those operators treat fines as a routine cost of doing business. Greater penalties without the resourcing and coordination necessary to collect them will not break this business model.
The city of Stonnington comprises part of the electorate of Kooyong that I have the honour to represent. In its submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill, the city of Stonnington noted that Victoria has only 14 inspectors to supervise the eight to 10,000 retailers statewide and that those 14 inspectors have to undertake visits in pairs for their safety. In addition, the Victorian licensing scheme does not currently extend to e-cigarettes, vaping products or nicotine pouches. We need a national licensing and regulatory framework to bring all states into alignment.
I also want to address the active and ongoing contribution to this policy mess from the tobacco industry. Representatives from Philip Morris recently appeared before a Senate committee examining the illicit tobacco trade in a closed in-camera session not listed on the inquiry's published program. This was permitted despite Australia's obligations under article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires governments to protect health policy from interference by the tobacco industry. The Department of Health's own guidelines are very clear. Interactions with tobacco executives should occur only when they are strictly necessary and they should respect the Australian government's commitments on tobacco control. Those guidelines expressly state that such consultation should be public. A secret session in front of a Senate committee is not public.
Philip Morris was also permitted to give evidence behind closed doors in February to a New South Wales parliamentary inquiry into the illegal tobacco trade. Closed sessions allow the company to lobby privately for the sorts of policies that would directly benefit it, such as cuts to tobacco excises. They allow the company to do that beyond the scope of what it said publicly and without the media or the public being able to gauge the expertise of the witnesses or to scrutinise the advice that's been given to committee members. Let's face it: the tobacco industry is not a neutral stakeholder. It is a commercial actor, and its profits depend on the continued sale of a product that kills 66 Australians every day and whose interests are directly affected by the outcome of that ongoing Senate inquiry and of this legislation.
We've also recently learnt from work done by journalists at the Guardian Australia that individuals with undisclosed links to tobacco industry bodies have been positioning themselves as independent law enforcement experts in Australian and international policy forums, opposing excise increases, lobbying for cuts to customs duties, advocating for the legalisation of nicotine pouches and adopting other positions that align directly with the commercial interests of the tobacco industry. Tobacco companies have used 'denial of harm' tropes for more than 50 years, but they're now trying to reframe this debate around the issues of crime and law enforcement, not health. They are deceitfully presenting industry aligned voices, funded voices and lobbyist voices advancing policies that serve commercial interests, but they're presenting them as neutral crime experts. This pattern of behaviour has been called out repeatedly by organisations like the Public Health Association of Australia.
The tobacco industry funds economic reports based on flawed surveys and flawed analysis, and then it feeds them into public debate. It channels money to business think tanks and to lobby groups like the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores, which purport to speak on behalf of small business owners but which are funded by the tobacco industry. Research published this year found that 48 per cent of internal tobacco company lobbyists and 55 per cent of third-party lobbyists working on behalf of tobacco companies previously held positions in the Australian government. Many of those have moved into lobbying positions for the tobacco industry within 12 months of having left public office. This is despite the cooling-off periods prescribed in the government's milquetoast lobbying code of conduct. I have consistently pushed for a stronger lobbying code of conduct and for proper cooling-off periods, but we don't have them and we won't get them in the ineffectual legislation that the government is about to put before this House. The ongoing and active influence of the tobacco industry in our politics demonstrates why those things are actively necessary.
The current drive for a major cut in tobacco importer customs duties is an industry influenced campaign. The recent budget reported that tobacco excise and Customs duty collection will amount to more than $4 billion in 2025-26. A 50 per cent cut in the Customs duty rate would deliver a tax windfall to the multinational tobacco companies of about $2.1 billion every year. British American Tobacco Australia would receive about $900 million, Imperial Brands $550 million and Philip Morris a sweet $540 million. No wonder the tobacco industry is lobbying for a cut in tobacco excises! This House should be clear-eyed about that strategy from this industry. It doesn't mean that every concern raised about enforcement or about settings around the excise is wrong—some of those concerns are legitimate—but it does mean that when we hear these confident claims about what's driving the illicit market and what will fix it, we should be asking, 'Who is making those claims and in whose best interest?'
There is no simple fix to the question of the tobacco excise. There's little correlation between tax levels and illegal tobacco trade. We have the most expensive legal cigarettes in the world, but the illegal tobacco trade flourishes in countries in which cigarettes are much cheaper than they are in Australia. To compete with the black market, the price of legal cigarettes would have to fall dramatically. Such a reduction in price would be regressive and it would harm public health. Canada's experience in the 1990s, when it halved its excise to combat cigarette smuggling, is quite instructive. Smoking rates rose, particularly among young people, quitting rates fell and the illicit trade persisted. It's also worth noting that there is no legal mechanism in Australian law to guarantee that these multinational cigarette importers would actually pass any tax cut down the retail supply chain to customers.
The tobacco industry can't be made to compete on price with organised crime. Any proposal to cut its taxes to address criminal supply chains is unsupportable. Having said that, there is little point to further tax increases unless they're going to actually increase revenue and decrease smoking, and, given the scale of the current illicit market, there's no good case for an increase in those excises.
I'm moving an amendment to this bill which highlights the issue of the tobacco industry's influence in this debate and which calls on the government to prohibit political donations from the tobacco industry under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Political donations from the tobacco industry are already prohibited in states like New South Wales. At a federal level, most major parties voluntarily refuse tobacco industry donations, but the National Party continues to accept them—in 2024-25 alone, $137,500 from Philip Morris and $88,000 from British American Tobacco—and One Nation has also accepted tobacco industry donations in the past.
In relation to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the guidelines adopted by treaty parties in 2008 called for article 3.5 to be implemented across all branches of government, including legislators. Our legal obligations are clear, but we're not yet acting on them. This parliament should legislate immediately to prohibit political donations sourced from tobacco industry interests, including the tobacco retail sector, under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The tobacco industry is the only commercial sector that is the subject of an international treaty specifically designed to insulate government policy from its influence, and that treaty exists because the industry's long history of manipulating public debate and purchasing political access has been extensively documented. We saw that just last month. A major tobacco company was granted a secret hearing into one of our Senate inquiries, while public health organisations waited their turn. The tobacco industry's current push for a 50 per cent cut in the tobacco customs duty is an influence campaign which is worth potentially $2.1 billion to the three major multinationals. When commercial actors of that scale can make political donations, the extent of policy capture is obvious.
The amendment that I'm moving calls on the government to prevent an industry, whose products kill 24,000 Australians every year—66 Australians every day—from purchasing political influence at the federal level. This parliament has previously failed to legislate such a ban, despite many calls from health groups, despite existing state-level obligations and despite our treaty obligations. We have an opportunity today with the bill, which is already appropriately focused on the harm that the tobacco trade does to this country.
I thank the government. With this bill, they are holding fast against the tobacco industry's, its lobbyists' and the voices for hire's efforts to reduce the tobacco excise. But I also urge this government to have the honesty and courage to confront the failure of its vaping prohibitions and to confront the enforcement resourcing gaps at the state level, as well as the question of whether further excise increases are actually reducing smoking or enriching organised crime and the question of the tobacco industry's ongoing and well resourced lobbying campaign to shape this parliament's answers and its actions.
I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name:
That all words after "notes that" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"(a) the public health harms of smoking are significant, including that around 24,000 Australians die every year from smoking;
(b) Australia's illicit tobacco trade had an estimated total economic cost of $4 billion in 2023-24, contributing to serious organised crime and community violence; and
(c) the influence of tobacco industry lobbying on public health policymaking is significant, including that:
(i) there is a revolving door between government and tobacco lobbyists, with around half of tobacco company lobbyists, including third-party actors, having held positions in the Australian government before or after working for the tobacco industry;
(ii) representatives of a major tobacco company, Philip Morris, reportedly appeared before the Senate inquiry into the illegal tobacco crisis in Australia in closed sessions not listed on publicly available hearing programs; and
(iii) the industry's push for a 50 per cent cut to tobacco importer customs duty is estimated to deliver annual tax windfalls of approximately $2.3 billion to multinational tobacco companies;
(2) calls on the Government to heed expert calls to legislate to prohibit political donations sourced from tobacco industry interests, including the tobacco retail sector, under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; and
(3) further notes that the above measures, along with restrictions, enforcement and penalty provisions contained in this bill, are necessary to address the public health and community safety harms posed by tobacco to Australians".
Are the amendments seconded?
I second the amendments and reserve my right to speak.
I rise today to speak on the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026, which is an important and necessary reform that reflects the seriousness of the threat posed by illicit tobacco trade across this country. During my time as a councillor at Georges River Council, I recall many local residents raising this concern, particularly on the rise of tobacco shopfronts popping up everywhere in my local area, particularly within very close proximity to local schools. This issue is not limited to my electorate, but I'm alive to the challenges within the local planning laws around permitted use, which are enabling the rise of tobacco shops in communities like ours. Parents, teachers and local residents are rightly concerned when these businesses appear near places where young people learn, play and travel each day. It sends the wrong message about tobacco use and it risks normalising products that we know can cause serious harm.
However, this legislation is about far more than cigarettes sold under the counter or untaxed tobacco entering the country illegally. It is about organised criminal networks exploiting gaps in our laws, undermining public health measures, threatening community safety and profiting at the expense of ordinary Australians. Here are some quick statistics from the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner 2024-25 annual report that shows the seriousness of this problem. Between 50 and 60 per cent of all tobacco products sold in Australia are illegal and a significant proportion of vape products purchased in Australia was illegal. We think that organised crime groups are earning between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in profit from this trade.
For too long, illicit tobacco has been viewed by some as a secondary issue, merely a matter of lost revenue or regulatory noncompliance, but the reality confronting our communities today is vastly different. The illicit tobacco trade has evolved into a sophisticated and highly profitable criminal enterprise. It is now deeply connected to organised crime syndicates that engage in a range of unlawful activities, including money laundering, fraud, intimidation, trafficking and violent offences. That means every illegal packet sold is not just a breach of the law; it is money flowing into the hands of criminals who do real damage in our communities.
The Albanese Labor government recognises this issue demands a strong and coordinated response, and that is precisely why this bill has been introduced. The legislation before the House will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and disrupt illicit tobacco operations while also increasing the penalties faced by those who choose to profit from this illegal market. It sends a very clear message: organised crime should not view illicit tobacco as a low-risk, high-reward activity.
The bill amends a number of Commonwealth laws, including the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Taxation Administration Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. Together, these amendments modernise and strengthen the legal frameworks available to authorities in combatting the illegal tobacco trade. At the core of this legislation are two objectives. Firstly, the bill seeks to rebalance the risk-and-reward equation for criminal actors involved in illicit tobacco. Criminal syndicates are currently generating enormous profits while facing penalties that are no longer proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct involved. Those breaking the law would rather cop the fine because it does not actually affect their significant profits. Existing laws have simply failed to keep pace with the scale and sophistication of this market. Secondly, the bill aims to strengthen Australia's proceeds of crime framework so authorities are better equipped to seize and confiscate the profits generated through illicit tobacco activity. These criminal organisations are motivated by profit. If we are serious about dismantling these networks, we must target the financial incentives that drive them.
The scale of the problem cannot be understated. It is worth repeating that the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner report estimated that the illicit tobacco market in Australia was worth between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in the 2024-25 period alone. That is billions of dollars flowing into the hands of criminal groups rather than being invested in hospitals, schools, infrastructure and essential services for Australians. These profits are not sitting idle. They are being used to bankroll wider criminal activity. The same organised syndicates involved in illicit tobacco are frequently linked to other forms of serious offending, including drug trafficking, scams, extortion and financial crime. We have also witnessed disturbing incidents associated with illicit tobacco trade, including violent intimidation, firebombings of tobacco retailers, threats against business owners and criminal disputes spilling into local communities. These are serious threats to public safety and social cohesion.
It is important to recognise that illicit tobacco offences are not victimless crimes. Legitimate small businesses suffer when illegal operators undercut lawful retailers who comply with Australian taxation and public health laws. Workers and local communities are placed at risk when organised crime embeds itself within local economies. Consumers are exposed to unregulated products that may contain harmful or unsafe substances, and our local high streets are taken over by multiple tobacconists rather than the law abiding, community building small businesses.
Perhaps most concerningly, the growth of illicit tobacco threatens decades of progress in reducing smoking rates in this country. Australia has been long recognised globally as a leader in tobacco control and public health policy. Through education campaigns, regulation and taxation measures, smoking rates have steadily declined over time, saving countless lives. However, the expansion of cheap illegal tobacco products risks undermining these hard fought gains. Criminal groups are exploiting price differences and weakened enforcement settings to distribute the unregulated tobacco products more broadly throughout the community, including potentially to younger Australians. That is why stronger action is required.
The bill introduces increased maximum penalties for a range of illicit tobacco related offences. These enhanced penalties reflect the serious harm caused by this activity in line with the recommendations made by the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner. Importantly, the stronger penalties will also enable law enforcement agencies to utilise a broader range of investigative tools when targeting illicit tobacco networks. This includes access to enhanced surveillance and investigative capabilities under existing legislative frameworks.
The amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act are particularly significant. By recognising key illicit tobacco offences as serious offences under the act, the amendments ensure agencies will be able to access telecommunication interception powers already available in relation to other forms of organised crime. This is not about creating unprecedented or extraordinary powers; it is about ensuring consistency across the law enforcement framework and recognising the reality that illicit tobacco crime has become a major organised criminal activity.
Law enforcement agencies must be equipped with appropriate powers to investigate criminal syndicates that are increasingly sophisticated, technologically capable and highly organised. Criminals involved in this trade are not operating in isolation. They use encrypted communications, complex financial arrangements and coordinated distribution networks. Our agencies must have the tools necessary to keep pace.
At the same time these amendments maintain appropriate safeguards and oversight mechanisms, the bill does not impose unnecessary burdens on ordinary Australians, community organisations or legitimate businesses. Rather, it strengthens targeted enforcement against serious criminal conduct.
This legislation forms part of the Albanese Labor government's broader and ongoing efforts to combat illicit tobacco and vaping products across the country. Since 2023-24, the government has invested $346 million into the Australian Border Force to strengthen efforts aimed at detecting and intercepting illicit tobacco and vaping imports. This funding has supported enhanced enforcement activities at the border and within the community.
The government has also established the nation's first Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner, backed by $21.3 million in funding allocated in the 2025-26 budget. This role is critical in coordinating national efforts and ensuring stronger cooperation with Commonwealth, state and territory agencies.
The government's approach is built around three central priorities. The first is disrupting and dismantling threats at the border to prevent illicit tobacco and vaping products from entering Australia in the first place. The second is improving the detection, disruption and destruction of illegal tobacco and vape products both at the border and within local communities. And the third is enhancing coordination and intelligence sharing across jurisdictions through initiatives such as the National Disruption Group and the National Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Coordination Forum.
These efforts are already producing results. Since January 2024, the Australian Border Force has seized more than 14 million vaping products and related accessories. In the final six months of last year alone, authorities also seized more than one billion illicit cigarettes. These figures demonstrate both the scale of the challenge and the importance of sustained enforcement activity. However, no single level of government can address this issue alone. Strong cooperation between the Commonwealth, states and territories is absolutely essential. Over recent months we have seen encouraging progress in interjurisdictional collaboration. Governments across Australia are increasingly recognising the need for a united response to organised crime in the illicit tobacco market. Through the National Illicit Tobacco and the E-cigarette Coordination Forum, governments have identified priority actions to strengthen enforcement and close legislative loopholes. These actions include the introduction of stronger licensing schemes, tougher closure orders for illegal operators, increased penalties for landlords knowingly facilitating unlawful activity and expanded on-the-ground enforcement operations.
There are signs that these strategies are already having an impact. South Australia and Queensland have reported reductions in illegal trade activity in areas where intensive enforcement measures have been implemented. Victoria is also progressing reforms to strengthen closure powers and landlord accountability measures. This demonstrates what can be achieved when governments work together with a shared purpose, and the Albanese Labor government remains committed to continuing this cooperative approach. We understand that combating illicit tobacco requires coordination across borders, agencies and jurisdictions. Criminal networks do not respect state boundaries, and our enforcement efforts cannot operate in silos.
Ultimately, this bill is about protecting Australians. It's about protecting communities from organised crime and violence. It's about protecting legitimate businesses that are doing the right thing. It is about protecting public health outcomes that generations of Australians have worked very hard to achieve. it's about ensuring that criminal organisations cannot continue to exploit weaknesses in the law for massive financial gain.
The government understands that strong laws alone will not solve every aspect of this challenge. Our ongoing enforcement, cooperation and investment will remain essential, but legislation such as this provides the necessary foundation to ensure our agencies have the powers and tools required to respond effectively. We cannot allow Australia to become an attractive operating environment for criminal syndicates seeking to profit from illicit tobacco. We cannot allow organised crime to continue generating billions of dollars while communities bear the consequences. We cannot allow decades of public health progress to be undermined by illegal and unregulated products flooding the market.
Smoking still kills, on average, 66 Australians every day and accounts for 20 per cent of the nation's cancer diagnoses. Two out of three long-term smokers will die of a tobacco related illness. This bill represents a measured, targeted and proportionate response to a growing national problem. It strengthens penalties, improves investigative powers, enhances proceeds-of-crime mechanisms and reinforces cooperation between governments and law enforcement agencies. Most importantly, it sends a very clear message that illicit tobacco crime will be treated with the seriousness it deserves.
I rise to support the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. Smoking still kills about 66 Australians every day. After decades of hard work, daily smoking rates halved between 2001 and 2022 from 22 per cent to 11 per cent. Australia was a genuine world leader in tobacco control. The illicit market now threatens to undo much of that progress, fuelling organised crime and hooking a new generation. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, the combined rate of smoking and vaping has climbed back to 28 per cent, higher than it was a decade ago, and that's a trend that should alarm every member of this House. The illicit tobacco market is now estimated to be larger than the combined Australian illicit market for cannabis, cocaine, heroin and ecstasy. So the case for stronger enforcement is clear.
This bill responds by creating new offences for large-scale illicit tobacco activity linked to organised crime and substantially increases penalties across the full supply chain. It expands unexplained-wealth and proceeds-of-crime tools, enables wiretaps for serious tobacco offences and improves information sharing between law enforcement bodies. These are sensible, proportionate reforms. But enforcement alone will not win this battle. Australia has a national target of reducing daily smoking prevalence to five per cent by 2030. If we rely on enforcement alone, without addressing underlying demand, we will be chasing this problem indefinitely. That means maintaining our public health infrastructure, funding quitting support, and holding the line on plain packaging, advertising restrictions and excise. And it means being alert to who is shaping these settings and how.
Tobacco companies have a well documented history of seeking to influence public health policy in ways that serve their commercial interests rather than the public's health. That history is why Australia, as a party to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, has clear obligations to protect public health policy from industry influence and to ensure full transparency in any interactions that do occur. It's also why I seconded the amendment from the member for Kooyong to ban political donations from tobacco companies.
The long and troubling history of hidden influence by tobacco companies brings me to the Senate inquiry into the illicit tobacco crisis and specifically to the hearing on 4 May, where the committee allowed tobacco industry representatives to give evidence in a closed session. I wrote to the committee chair to express my deep concerns. I asked why private briefings from tobacco companies were considered appropriate, when the transcript of the Philip Morris session would be released and how the committee would ensure that the remainder of the inquiry remained consistent with our international public health obligations.
I have now received a response. The committee advises that it may call any witnesses it deems relevant, that transparency is its first preference and that the Philip Morris transcript was published on 7 May, and I welcome the publication of that transcript. But the committee's response does not fully address my concerns. It doesn't explain why a closed session was the initial preference. Neither does it address how the inquiry will remain consistent with our obligations under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires governments to protect health policy from commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry.
This matters. Parliamentary inquiries play a vital role in building public trust in decision-making, particularly on matters of public health. Where that process appears opaque, where some witnesses get public scrutiny and others get a closed room, it invites entirely reasonable questions about whose voices are being heard and whose interests are being served. We cannot allow the legitimate concern about illicit tobacco to become a Trojan Horse for the tobacco industry to rehabilitate itself as a policy partner, to insert itself into regulatory processes or to subtly water down the public health settings that have made Australia a world leader.
It's worth noting that right now the gambling industry is copying straight from the tobacco playbook, casting doubt on where the harm is done, resisting proper regulation, wining and dining decision-makers, and now pointing earnestly to overseas illegal gambling sites, claiming that that should be the focus of regulation. We've seen it all before, and we can't be fooled by it from tobacco or from gambling.
If this bill is to achieve what it promises, the enforcement framework it creates must be matched by an unwavering commitment to public health policy that's developed transparently and free from industry capture. I urge the committee and this House to ensure that when we scrutinise the illicit tobacco trade we do so with our eyes open to the criminals who profit from it and to the legal industry that has never stopped trying to protect its market share at the expense of public health. I commend this bill to the House.
Illicit tobacco has become one of the most pressing organised crime challenges facing Australia, including my community in southern Sydney. The latest official estimates in the ITEC Commissioner's 2024-25 annual report are sobering. Between 50 and 60 per cent of all tobacco products sold in Australia are now illicit. Organised crime groups are earning between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in profit from this trade. Almost every vape purchase in Australia is illegal—about 95 per cent of all e-cigarette products sold—with a market value of about $1.6 billion. What used to be seen as a health issue has morphed into a serious and organised crime problem. A massive global surplus of cheap tobacco has been weaponized by serious transnational organised crime groups across the Middle East, South East Asia and the Pacific. They operate like multinational businesses, investing capital in what they perceive as a high-profit, low-risk situation. That business model must be disrupted.
The Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 is legislation that represents a necessary and proportionate response. We need to make illicit tobacco less profitable and riskier for those involved, and that's exactly what this bill does. This legislation strengthens Commonwealth laws, significantly increases penalties, targets unexplained wealth and enables enhanced investigatory powers such as telecommunications interception, surveillance devices and other tools required to disrupt modern criminal networks. This fight matters because the consequences are real and tangible. Smoking still kills an average of 66 Australians every single day and accounts for about 20 per cent of our national cancer burden. Two out of every three long-term smokers will die from a tobacco related illness.
If we fail to turn the tide on illicit tobacco, we risk a new generation of Australians being drawn into smoking through cheaper, unregulated products. That would be a profound public health failure with enormous long-term costs to our health system. Australians are rightly sick of illegal tobacco shops operating openly in shopping strips and high streets across the country—including, in my community, places like Engadine and Heathcote. These are not victimless crimes. They bring violence, intimidation and criminality into local communities. The government is working closely with states and territories to shut down illegal outlets and disrupt the trade wherever it operates.
The Albanese Labor government has already committed substantial resources. Since 2023-24, $346 million has been provided to the Australian Border Force to crack down on illicit tobacco and vaping products. Australia's first Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner was appointed, backed by $21.3 million in the 2025-26 budget. Since January 2024, more than 14 million vaping products and accessories have been seized, and, in the last six months of the last year alone, over one billion illicit cigarettes were intercepted. Those figures demonstrate commitment. They also demonstrate the scale and sophistication of the problem. Such volumes do not exist without deep, organised and well-financed criminal supply chains.
Despite these efforts, the illicit tobacco market continues to grow. Border enforcement remains essential, but it is no longer enough on its own. Criminal groups have adapted. They have diversified routes, refined concealment methods and calculated that profits still outweigh the risks. This bill directly targets that calculation. At its core, the legislation addresses two fundamental problems. Firstly, it rebalances the risk-reward equation by increasing penalties and investigative consequences. Second, it strengthens proceeds-of-crime laws so that criminals can no longer enjoy the benefits of their illicit profits.
The bill amends multiple Commonwealth laws to increase penalties for offences involving the importation, possession, production, manufacture, supply and sale of illicit tobacco. Existing penalties were set when this market was smaller and less organised. They have not kept pace with the reality on the ground. Low penalties have meant low risk, allowing the trade to flourish. Higher penalties unlock more powerful investigative tools. Certain surveillance and computer access warrants can only be used where offences meet specific penalty thresholds. By lifting penalties, law enforcement agencies gain access to the tools they need to investigate encrypted communications, layered corporate structures and complex money-laundering arrangements used by organised crime.
The bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to classify serious tobacco offences as 'serious offences'. This allows agencies to seek telecommunications interception warrants, aligning illicit tobacco offences with other serious organised crime activities. These powers already exist elsewhere in the law. This bill recognises that illicit tobacco now warrants the same level of response. These powers are proportionate. We are confronting criminal networks generating billions of dollars using violence and intimidation and undermining decades of public health progress.
The damage goes well beyond revenue. It includes firebombings, standover tactics, corruption and the normalisation of criminal behaviour within communities. The second major pillar of the bill focuses on profits. Criminal networks are motivated by money. Seizing cigarettes disrupts supply temporarily, but it does not eliminate the incentive. What truly undermines organised crime is removing its wealth. Organised crime groups earn between $4 and $7 billion each year from illicit tobacco. These profits are reinvested into other serious crimes, including drug trafficking, fraud and scams. They corrupt systems, silence witnesses and expand criminal infrastructure. Taking this money strikes at the heart of this enterprise.
The bill strengthens and streamlines information-gathering and confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act. It enables information obtained during investigations to be shared with other Commonwealth regulators, allowing coordinated action against professional facilitators such as accountants, lawyers and shell entities that support criminal networks. Following the money has already delivered results. AUSTRAC and the banking sector have shut down hundreds of high-risk accounts, terminated merchant services, removed private ATMs used for cash laundering and significantly increased suspicious transaction reporting.
This bill strengthens that ecosystem by ensuring that intelligence flows effectively between enforcement and regulatory agencies such as AUSTRAC, ASIC and APRA. The Proceeds of Crime Act search warrant framework is also modernised. Passed in 2002, it has not kept pace with updates to the Crimes Act 1914. As a result, police have sometimes had fewer powers to proceed investigations than in ordinary criminal investigations, even though financial crime is often more complex. This bill realigns those frameworks, giving law enforcement consistent and contemporary tools to trace, restrain and confiscate criminal assets.
The legislation also strengthens unexplained wealth provisions, and it improves national consistency. Organised crime does not respect jurisdictional boundaries. These reforms ensure that orders can be pursued and enforced across Australia, rather than fragmented by differing state processes. New non-publication provisions protect the integrity of investigations and ensure proceedings are not undermined. Revenue protection matters. Billions in lost excise revenue undermined funding for hospitals, for schools and for essential services, but the harm of illicit tobacco goes deeper. Australia has achieved world-leading success in reducing smoking rates through sustained policy, plain packaging, advertising bans, smoke-free laws and public education. Illicit tobacco undermines every one of these measures. It makes harmful products cheaper, more accessible and unregulated, it strips away health warnings and safety standards, and normalises smoking, particularly among young people and price-sensitive consumers.
The government's approach rests on three pillars: stopping illicit tobacco at the border, disrupting supply and sales within the community and strengthening coordination between the Commonwealth, the states and territories. That third pillar is critical. States and territories hold key powers over licensing and premises closures, landlord accountability and local enforcement. Through the national illicit tobacco and e-cigarette coordination forum, jurisdictions have agreed on priority actions including stronger retailer licensing, long-term closure orders, penalties for non-compliant landlords and increased on-the-ground enforcement. Evidence shows this works. Jurisdictions that apply comprehensive enforcement see significant drops in illegal trade. Others are strengthening closure and landlord laws to permanently shut down illegal operations.
This bill arrives at a critical moment. It will not dismantle an entrenched criminal economy overnight—criminal networks adapt—but this legislation equips law enforcement with the tools required to match the scale of the challenge. Every seizure, every restraining order and every dollar confiscated increases pressure on the illicit market. This bill sends a clear message: The risks are rising and the rewards are shrinking. It protects honest retailers competing fairly. It protects workers from intimidation and violence. It protects communities like mine from organised crime.
The government's objective is clear: shut down illegal shops, choke off criminal money and make illicit tobacco unprofitable. This bill advances that objective through higher penalties, through stronger proceeds of crime powers and through enhanced investigative capabilities. Together, these measures rebalance the risk-reward equation that fuels the trade in illicit tobacco. I commend this bill to the House.
The Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 is an important bill to speak on. As a Victorian, I know, and every Victorian knows, firsthand the challenges that we face with the crime crisis in Victoria. Many states are dealing with illicit tobacco, but what cannot be denied is that a lot of the crime crisis is being fuelled by the profits gained by organised crime from illicit tobacco. As Victorians, we are now seeing this move into illicit alcohol as well. Organised crime is pushing into the hospitality industry and we are seeing venues being firebombed. And let's not beat around the bush, these things are linked. The illicit tobacco crisis, the illicit alcohol crisis and the crimes that they are fuelling are linked. They are bankrolling organised crime. There is such a disparity now in the price of illicit tobacco and illicit alcohol versus legal tobacco and legal alcohol, because of the excise, that it is fuelling this crime crisis.
Combined with a complete lack of consequence for those who break the law, it is lower risk for organised crime to import a shipping container of illicit tobacco and make more profit than if they are looking to import illicit drugs. That is the reality. That is the mathematical reality for organised crime. And we need to do more, because it's not just criminals who are impacted. It is every community, it is innocent shop owners, it is those looking to do the right thing.
Let me share a story from my community about the impact of the crime wave linked to illicit tobacco. On 11 February 2024, a tobacconist in Seville was firebombed. I want to pay tribute to Seville CFA, Wandin CFA, Hillcrest CFA and many other CFAs across the upper Yarra and the Yarra Valley that were quick to turn out to get that blaze under control in the dead of the night. But, despite their work, the impact was profound. The much loved restaurant and family business next door, Branded Burgers and Bar, as well as the local dentist and medical centre—they were all impacted by substantial smoke, heat and water damage. In fact, Branded Burgers and Bar had only just changed hands. The new owners, Lyshea and her partner Chris, were in the early days of opening the business at the time. The business had to close for 10 months as they dealt with insurance and the renovations.
I worked with them in this time to support them as much as I could. It was causing hardship and stress for them, as the owners, and for the team of locals that they employ, their families and the wider community. It was great to be there when they opened up again and to see them now continuing to thrive. They survived that tough 10 months, but they were impacted through no fault of their own. Their business copped the damage of the criminality. This is just one story I share, but we know there are hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of stories across the community of small businesses and people impacted by these firebombings, by this crime. There is no doubt that the impact is profound, and that's why it is so important that more is done to stamp this out.
Like so many government bills, it has an impressive-sounding name—Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill. Of course we want to combat illicit tobacco. The coalition are supporting this bill because something is better than nothing, but let's be up-front here. This is partial. It's inadequate. It is not going to make a significant difference to the illicit-tobacco crime crisis that we face. In fact, astonishingly, in the explanatory memorandum, the government's own words confirm that this is a wet lettuce. They say:
The Bill does not introduce substantial new powers, rather seeks to clarify, streamline or strengthen existing information-gathering and confiscation mechanisms, to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement outcomes.
So at a time when crime is out of control in Victoria and is being fuelled by the profits from illicit tobacco, and when the current system is not working, the government, in their own words, bring in a bill that is not going to make a difference. There are no substantial new powers for any enforcement agency to hold these criminals to account.
This is legislation at its worst. This is this government at its worst. Member after member and the minister will stand up and say: 'We've made a difference. We're combating illicit tobacco. It's a scourge. We've got to do something.' They've got a headline and they will pretend that they're doing something, but, in their own words, it's not going to make a difference. My community, all Victorians and every Australian is sick of this government talking a big game and failing to deliver.
If there is one hallmark standout from this prime minister, the legacy of this prime minister will be a prime minister that misleads the Australian people and a prime minister that grandstands and thinks that introducing a bill and making a statement in the house of parliament is job done. It's not because the criminals in Victoria and the criminals across the country do not care about the political games of this prime minister. They are not worried about the consequences unless they are profound. This government has shown, in their own words, that this is not going to make a difference.
We are seeing this play out in so many ways. We are seeing the gap widen as illicit tobacco increases and more people are going to illicit tobacco stores. Retailers are shutting down. Many are not even offering cigarettes anymore. I don't smoke. I never have, and I never will. It's not for me. I'm not going to judge those that do. It's up to them. I think it's a dangerous habit that health professionals have shown shouldn't be there, but people are free to live their life. No wonder people are turning to illicit tobacco when they can get a packet for $20 and they walk into a retail store it's $80. That's human nature, and I don't judge those for doing that. There are unintended consequences of these decisions for hardworking businesspeople. Retailers and their staff are getting abused by consumers in their stores because a consumer is walking in and going: 'Why are you charging me $80 for my cigarettes when I've been paying $20? You're ripping me off.' Most consumers that walk into a tobacconist don't actually comprehend or understand that they're technically breaking the law. They just walk in to buy those products because that's their shop and they think that's the price. They walk into a larger retailer that's doing the right thing and they think they're ripping them off and they abuse them.
The other perverse impact of the illicit tobacco crisis is that smaller retailers in particular—corner stores, milk bars, convenience stores, service stations—are being faced with a choice. Sometimes they don't get given a choice, and there are lots of reports about this. Organised crime are walking into their stores and telling them, 'You will sell illicit tobacco or will be back.' Some have gone to the police and they've faced the consequences of those criminals coming back. Others have had to accept them for their own safety. But if they refuse to stock illicit tobacco, they'll go broke. If you've poured your life savings and you've put everything into your business, you then have a choice: do you shut down your business and fail to feed your family, or do you start stocking this illicit tobacco like everyone else so you can put food on the table? That is the choice many small business owners are having to make across the country, and that's heartbreaking for them. That's how big this issue is.
And what do we get from this government? In their own words, 'No consequential changes, no substantial new powers.' Essentially, it's a wet lettuce that is not going to change something that is out of control. It's even worse in Victoria, because we have a premier, Jacinta Allan, and a state Labor government that refuse to be tough on crime. They refuse to hold to account those that commit the crimes. We hear time and time again about these criminal organisations paying young people as little as $1,000 to firebomb a hospitality venue or a tobacconist. Then, when the police catch those kids, in many cases they're back out on bail and they do it again. We have this amplification in Victoria of failures at the federal level to address illicit tobacco—and, now, illicit alcohol—and failures in Victoria at the state level of Jacinta Allan and this weak Labor government to actually hold these criminals to account. Add both together and you have chaos in the streets. You have hospitality venues closing down or having to employ security at their own cost 24 hours a day; hospitality owners being threatened with their lives; retail workers being threatened and having to move out, and nothing from the federal government or the state government.
However, it's 2026 and there is hope, and that hope comes in the form of Jess Wilson and the Liberal Party. Jess has made it clear that she has a plan to restore safety to Melbourne's vibrant nightlife by recruiting 3,000 more police officers, expanding 'adult crime, adult time' sentencing and implementing a one-strike bail rule for serious offences. You do the crime and you will do the time. Under the Labor government, under Jacinta Allan, that's not the case. You do the crime and you get let off. You do the crime again and you get let off again. You do it again and you get let off—and we wonder why there are no consequences.
I know, from talking to many in Victoria police, they know it's time for a change. They are frustrated time and time again by the lack of consequences for young people. This is how disastrous it has gotten in Victoria. I was talking to two police officers in my community about a criminal that they arrested, and they literally got sledged by that criminal. They said: 'Yes, lock me up, I don't care. By the time I get to the magistrates, I'll get bail. I'll be back here in 24 hours and there's nothing you can do about it.' And what did that criminal do? Exactly that. They got bail, came back to the police station and laughed at the police officers. That's the real-world consequences of Victorian crime under this Labor government.
Let me go back to this point. This bill will not make a difference to what we are seeing because very rarely, if ever, are tobacconists being shut down and, if they are being shut down, they're opening up again within 24 or 48 hours because the profit margins are so huge that it is nothing. It is a blip for their stock to be taken away from them. It is a blip to have even a shipping container intercepted because of the profit they make on everything else. Every year it gets worse under this government. It gets worse because the excise continues to go up. It provides a differentiation such that there are now reports that there will not be legal tobacco sold in this country in the next four to five years. Different reports have it that between 60 and 80 per cent of all tobacco in Australia is now sold illegally.
Let's not kid ourselves that the smoking rates are going down. As I said, I wish we lived in a world where no-one smoked. It's not a habit I support at all. But we live in the real world where more people are smoking because it is so easy and accessible. That's before we even talk about the impact on young children. Let's be honest. These illicit tobacconists don't care if they're selling to a 10-year-old, 12-year-old or 15-year-old. They're criminals, and it's every Australian that pays the price. (Time expired)
by leave—I present the following paper from the Australian Human Rights Commission: A fair and just future for First Peoples social justice report 2025.
I rise to speak in support of the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. This legislation responds to a problem that has changed rapidly in recent years. Illicit tobacco is no longer a problem on the edge of the economy; it has become tied to organised criminal activity, community safety concerns and growing risks to public health. Across the country, illegal tobacco products are being sold through unregulated networks with no oversight, no safety guards, no safety standards and no accountability for what these products actually contain. At the same time, criminal groups are making billions of dollars from the trade and using those profits to fund other serious criminal activities.
That is why our government is acting—to protect communities, protect public safety and stop criminal networks from embedding themselves deeper into Australian life. The Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner estimated the illicit tobacco market was worth between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in 2024, with illicit tobacco products making up to 50 to 60 per cent of all sales. That is an enormous criminal economy. These groups are not investing in this market by accident. They see huge profits and vast distribution networks and, until recently, they had a level of risk that did not match the harm being caused. These reforms change that equation. They expand law enforcement powers to investigate illicit tobacco offences, they strengthen proceeds-of-crime laws and they increase the consequences for criminals operating in this trade. If criminals are making billions from illicit tobacco, governments must be prepared to respond with the full strength of the law.
In my community, these laws will make a real difference. Melbourne is a city built around busy shopping strips, small businesses, hospitality venues and local places where people gather every single day. But people in Melbourne have also watched illegal tobacco shops spread quickly across retail areas and commercial precincts. Alongside that growth, there have been reports of violence, arson attacks, threats and intimidation linked to organised criminal activity. My constituents are rightly concerned. It affects workers locking up shops at night. It affects nearby businesses trying to operate honestly. And when criminals and activity criminal activity becomes more visible, more brazen and more violent, this chips away at public confidence.
I've been meeting with business associations across my electorate, including those on Victoria Street and Bridge Road and across the CBD. Their members are running honest businesses in a hard economy. They are managing rent, wages, insurance, supply costs and thin margins. They are doing the right thing. Then, in some places, we see the impacts of organised criminal activity spilling into our precincts. It affects the way people feel about their local shopping strips. It affects business confidence. It affects the sense of safety that local communities deserve.
We saw that danger clearly on Bridge Road in Richmond when a smoke shop was firebombed in the early hours of the morning. Not only was the smoke shop affected; whatever the circumstances, it was the neighbouring businesses that were forced to deal with the consequences. Workers at the bakery next door, Little Frenchie & Co, were close enough to see the smoke and flames. One worker, who said they had to move quickly, said, 'Quick! Move everything out the back.' The manager, Sam Razis, put it plainly: 'Little Frenchie's is our business. It is our livelihood, so to come so close to disaster is pretty awful.' That is the human reality behind this issue.
For nearby traders, this is not a line in a criminal report; it is their shopfront, their staff, their stock, their lease, their livelihood. And when illegal tobacco becomes tied to arson, intimidation and organised crime, the damage spreads beyond one premises. Communities should not have to get used to organised crime operating in plain sight. Honest small businesses should not have to compete beside enterprises that ignore the law entirely, because these are not victimless crimes. The impacts spread outwards. They damage trust, they undermine safety, and they place pressure on businesses and workers trying to do the right thing.
It matters on Victoria Street, Chapel Street, Swan Street, Errol Street, Brunswick Street and across the CBD. These places are more than commercial strips. They are where families run restaurants, cafes, groceries, pharmacies and retail stores. They are where workers rely on safe jobs and steady hours. They are where community life happens. That is why this bill matters to the community of Melbourne. It backs the businesses that contribute to the community, not the criminal networks that exploit it.
There is also a serious health concern sitting underneath this issue. Australians have spent decades reducing smoking rates and improving public awareness about the dangers of tobacco. That work has had a profound impact. Governments, health workers, community organisations and public health advocates have spent years driving smoking rates down and reducing the harm caused by tobacco products, but illicit tobacco creates a dangerous shadow market operating outside Australia's regulatory systems. These products are not subject to proper health checks, quality standards or legitimate oversight.
Regulation exists for a reason. Australians expect products sold in this country to meet proper standards, especially products that affect public health. Illicit tobacco bypasses all of that, and when criminal groups control the supply chain, public safety means nothing to them. Profit is the only goal. These networks are not interested in protecting people. They are interested in making money as quickly as possible, and if dangerous, poor-quality or unregulated products end up in Australian communities, that is simply treated as part of doing business. That is unacceptable.
This legislation recognises that illicit tobacco is not just unlawful trade; it is part of a broader criminal ecosystem that harms communities in multiple ways at once. The Albanese Labor government has understood the seriousness of this issue from the beginning. Since 2023-24, this government has committed $346 million to the Australian Border Force to crack down on illicit tobacco and vaping products. We have appointed Australia's first Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarettes Commissioner, and, in the 2025-26 budget, a further $21.3 million was committed to strengthening national coordination efforts. That work is already producing results.
Since January 2024, more than 14 million vaping products and accessories have been seized by the Australian Border Force. In 2024-25, the Australian Border Force seized 2.66 billion cigarettes, up more than 320 per cent on four years ago. That figure shows the scale, but it also shows that enforcement agencies are working to disrupt these operations before products reach Australian communities. This response has not relied on one agency acting alone. Criminal networks move quickly. They operate across borders, and they exploit gaps between systems wherever they can. That is why coordination matters. The Commonwealth cannot solve this issue alone. States and territories cannot solve it alone either. The response only works when governments share intelligence, co-ordinate enforcement and target these operations from multiple directions at once.
Through the National Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Coordination Forum, governments are working more closely together to strengthen enforcement, improve licensing systems, introduce tougher closure powers and target the structures that allow illegal operators to keep functioning. Victoria is part of the national effort. The Commonwealth plays a critical role at the border through intelligence sharing, through national coordination and through the agencies disrupting supply chains before these products reach Australian communities. States and territories play a different but equally important role through licensing systems, shop closures, local enforcement activity and stronger penalties targeting illegal operators on the ground. When those efforts work together, the impact is far stronger. Because organised crime does not stop at state borders, neither can the response.
Importantly, governments are recognising that shutting down one illegal shop is not enough on its own. If the financial networks, supply chains and criminal profits remain untouched, these operations simply reappear somewhere else. That is why one of the strongest parts of these reforms is a focus on criminal profits. Organised criminal activity survives through money. If these groups continue making enough profits from illicit tobacco, they will continue investing in this trade. These changes directly target that business model. They strengthen proceeds-of-crime laws. They improve information sharing between agencies, and they give law enforcement stronger tools to investigate unexplained wealth and confiscate criminal assets.
Dismantling these networks means more than shutting down one storefront; it means disrupting the financial structures underneath the trade itself. It means going after the profits that allow these organisations to expand. These groups treat their operations like businesses. They invest in supply chains, distribution, storage, cash movement, property and systems designed to hide profits. These reforms strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to follow that money and disrupt those structures, because, when government starts taking away criminal profits, property, vehicles and assets, the pressure on these illegal operations increases.
The reform also helps aid agencies dealing with serious illicit tobacco offending. That includes stronger surveillance, communication and disruptive powers. These powers are significant, and they should be because the groups involved in this trade are sophisticated and highly coordinated. Law enforcement agencies need modern tools that match the scale and complexity of the networks they are dealing with. These changes help ensure they have those tools.
Some people argue that the answer is to cut tobacco excise, but Australia should not surrender its health policy to organised crime. There is no realistic excise cut that would dismantle criminal supply chains already operating across borders, warehouses and illegal shopfronts. The answer is not to make smoking cheaper. The answer is to make illicit tobacco more risky and less profitable for criminals.
Importantly, this legislation recognises something that my community already understands instinctively. If governments do not act early, these problems become harder to contain. People want to feel safe in their shopping strips, neighbourhoods and local communities. My community wants confidence that organised criminal activity is being confronted directly, not ignored until it becomes even more entrenched. They want a government prepared to step in early. That is why the Albanese Labor government is coordinating a national response and strengthening the laws needed to deal with organised crime. Allowing illicit tobacco networks to continue growing unchecked would carry enormous consequences over time for public health, community safety and trust in the rule of law itself.
Australians expect laws to mean something. They expect governments to enforce standards fairly and consistently. When people see illegal operators functioning openly, selling unregulated products while criminal groups make billions in profits, confidence in the system starts to weaken. That is why visible enforcement matters. That is why strong penalties matter. That is why these reforms matter. They say clearly that organised networks will not be allowed to treat Australian communities as easy targets for profits.
Melbourne is a city that thrives on community life. People gather in cafes, support small businesses and build connections through space. Those places should feel vibrant and welcoming. These reforms help protect the sense of community confidence. They support the honest businesses who operate legally, employ workers properly and contribute positively to city life. Every time illegal tobacco products enter Australia through illegal supply chains, the risk grows louder, longer and larger. There's a risk to public health and a risk to public safety. I commend this bill to the House.
I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Combating Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. Sometimes we stand in this place and make speeches on topics that we have little understanding of because it's out of our remit. I'm confident in speaking on this particular bill. I speak quite often about my time as a detective in the NSW Police, in particular my time as an undercover operative in the drug enforcement agency for 2½ years. During those days, we'd infiltrate organised crime.
I'm confident in saying I know exactly what organised crime gangs and groups are thinking about this bill right now. They would be thinking, 'We love the Labor government, which has sat there and done nothing for the past four years and let us earn billions of dollars through the illicit tobacco and vaping trade,' and they would say, 'Thank you, Labor government for the factories of cash, the cars, the lifestyle in Dubai, in Thailand and in Australia, and all that money that we've reinvested into our business model for more serious illicit drugs, for human trafficking and all the other horrible things that organised crime do.' They would be saying, 'Thank you Labor because you've let us make this money.' They would now say: 'Thank you for this weak, limp Combating Illicit Tobacco Bill, because it will do nothing to our business model. It will continue to allow us to make money. It will continue to allow us to live like kings around the world, and it will continue to contribute to the demise of legitimate businesses in Australia.'
Now, for those of you who may be listening, I'll give you a little bit of an education in history over the past four or five years. Back in 2022, the illicit tobacco market sat at around 20 per cent. That would fluctuate somewhere between 13 and 20 per cent in the preceding years. It is now, after four years, at 80 per cent. Eighty per cent of the tobacco market is illicit. I can't blame the punters out there—and I should put on the record that I don't like smoking and I don't like vaping, but they are legal products. Well, tobacco is legal; vaping is not. But, hey, you see everybody standing on every single corner looking like they're on fire every time they breathe out. But I can't blame the average punter who wants to spend $20 on a packet of cigarettes instead of up to $80.
What we've actually seen since we've hit the 80 per cent mark—and this is the business model of the cartels, mind you—is those $20 packets double because the cartels know that they've got the market. The average punter will say, 'Well, you know, it's just double.' It's still half the price. It's still half the price of the legal tobacco. So they'll go ahead and purchase that.
And then we see what's happened to vaping. The government, when they first came in, outlawed vaping. It's illegal. Nobody's going to use it. Nobody's going to go down to the corner shop anymore and buy a vape. Well, we all know the proliferation of those pop-up shops selling illegal vapes to kids. Every speaker said it. They don't care who they sell it to. These are criminals. For teachers and principals around Australia, it is the bane of their existence with teenagers in toilet blocks. I actually heard of a teacher who would take the kids out to vape at morning tea so they wouldn't have the problem. Now, that's unique. I don't know what the parents thought of it. But that was a practice that they had.
The government outlawed it, so, in conjunction with illicit tobacco, where we're now losing around $7 billion a year in excise, instead of legalising vaping—again, I can't stand it. But what we're getting at the moment is Chinese crap. I use that term specifically because we don't know what's in it. It's not quality controlled. It's not regulated. It is poison. It is poison going into a 12-year-old's lungs. And it's pushed towards children. They're fluorescent. They've got characters. They've got graffiti on them. It is pushed towards our young people deliberately. And we've seen now popcorn lung over a couple of years of use of it. Instead of regulating this industry and taking it out of the cartel's hands, we've handed the whole industry to them along with another $7 billion in excise if we comparatively did it with tobacco. But, no, this government says, 'Oh, this will work.' They're really living in la-la land. So we have had in four years a drop of $7 billion to $9 billion in excise and a whole industry of vaping, which is controlled 100 per cent by cartels within and around Australia.
And not only is that doing damage to our economy; it's doing damage to the fabric of our society. I've spoken about the corner pop-up shops and the number of mums and dads who have stopped me and said, 'Pat, how do we stop this?' And I'll get to how we stop it before the end of the speech. 'How do we stop this? How do we stop these people preying on our children and turning our main streets into something that would resemble a bazaar market in India?'
But there are also the social implications. We have had over 300 firebombings between Victoria and Sydney. In my 30 years of law and law enforcement, I have never heard of anything like that—shootings, innocent people killed, families terrified and business owners terrified. If there's a property leased to one of these pop-up vape or illicit cigarette retailers, you can't get insurance on either side or above. You might be a legitimate owner of a commercial premises that you bought for your superannuation down the road, and, because of this illicit activity and the permission of this government for it to occur, you're not being insured anymore. So, if that place gets firebombed, there goes your superannuation, there goes your property and there goes the people who may want to rent your commercial property, because you can't get insurance. So there's more than one flow-on effect here.
Then you have the legitimate business owners who are being forced by the cartels to sell their product. These are nasty people. I've dealt with them. I've operated with them. The things that you see on TV, the lengths that they will go to, are true. And these poor business owners are out there saying: 'I have to put food on the table. I have to make a living. I have to look after my kids. I have no other choice than to sell it.'
So how do we change it? We start by changing the excise. I'll be shouted down by those saying I'm doing the devil's work for the British alcohol and tobacco and the vaping groups. I don't like them. I don't like cigarettes. I don't like vaping. But the fact is that we have pushed the purchase price so high that the average punter has to buy the cheaper one. We need to review that whole system, whether it's 80 per cent, whether it's 50 per cent or whether we go back to 2019, but we have to make it a viable alternative. We have to take and break the business model of the organised crime groups. We have to break it and smash it because it's the same business model that they use to put the vapes through, and it's now the same business model that they use to put the illicit alcohol through. I warned of this years ago. I warned alcohol was coming because I know how they operate. Anybody could have seen it. This government should have seen it.
So we change the excise and then we give law enforcement resources and power. I've been calling on a standalone agency, similar to the one in the United States, to deal with this. The Federal Police cost about $1.5 billion a year to operate. We're losing $7 billion to $9 billion. A standalone agency would make us money. It would bring back the excise and it would break the cartels that are operating here. We have to give them the funding, we have to give them the resources and we have to change the status quo.
This bill does none of that. It tinkers around the edge of enforcement, prosecution and penalties. There's no purpose or reason to increase the penalties when nobody's being prosecuted. I'm not against increasing the penalties, mind you, but it's not addressing the real issues. It's not addressing the business model or how to smash that business model. It's not addressing the lack of enforcement. When you have the New South Wales Labor premier and health minister criticising this government on their policies on tobacco and vaping, you know there is something seriously wrong with the system.
So instead of tinkering around the edges with penalties and enforcement, do something real. Take this back to the drawing board. Use the things that I and other members have said and make it a real combating illicit tobacco bill. Combat the bad guys. That's the idea about this bill. Don't let them operate the way they've been operating for the last four years. Don't let them get to 100 per cent of the illicit tobacco market. What will happen once they get to 100 per cent is they will increase the price again. They will make a peak price. They will work it out. They're smarter than government. They will work out what the pain price is that the average punter will pay, and that is what they'll charge them. That is what they'll continue to do until we break its back. This bill does not break an egg. It does not do anything to address those real issues. Take it as read that, if this bill passes with no changes, you will see no changes outside of this bubble in the real world.
The Albanese Labor government is cracking down on illicit tobacco in Australia, and the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 is really about restoring the rule of law in a market increasingly dominated by organised criminal activity. Illicit tobacco is not a victimless crime. It funds criminal networks, undermines legitimate businesses and places unregulated products into the hands of Australians. Effective regulation depends not only on strong laws but on the public's confidence that these laws are enforced fairly and consistently. The rapid growth of illicit tobacco threatens public health, undermines confidence in our regulatory system and funds other illegal criminal activities.
This bill will address a regulatory gap, allowing our law enforcement agencies greater enforcement powers, because no Australian should have to live in fear of the next firebombing in the illicit tobacco gang war. That's exactly what people have been fearful of. We've seen this across the news for the last period of time where the firebombings and the threats have occurred. This is serious also in the sense that illicit tobacco directly funds the commission of other crimes like murder, kidnapping, arson and assault, and organised criminals have turned to importing illicit tobacco because they believe it is less risky than smuggling drugs.
This government, the Albanese government, is going to change that calculus. Our focus is to shut down illegal shops and make this trade unprofitable so that the crime is not worth the risk. Organised criminals need to know that importing illicit tobacco carries serious penalties, including jail time. Under our government, we are going to crack down on these criminals because there is no place for this illegal criminal activity in our community.
Selling cigarettes is not against the law. These laws are aimed at organised criminals and the front companies they use. This government is doing everything to balance the need to combat criminal activity without undue burden on legitimate and legal business. So the bill will seek to amend the Customs Act 1901, the Excise Act 1901 and other relevant Commonwealth legislation to expand law enforcement powers to investigate illicit tobacco related offending and to raise the penalties for such offences.
These aren't new powers. We're enhancing powers to investigate illicit tobacco offending and increase the consequences. The key measures in the bill include increasing criminal penalties for the importation, possession, buying, selling, supply, production or manufacturing of illicit tobacco; enabling the use of telecommunications access powers in relation to illicit tobacco related offences; and expanding the scope of search warrant powers, information disclosures, the availability of examination orders and the grounds for making a non-publication order.
These amendments do not introduce unprecedented investigative powers. Instead, they aim to provide greater consistency and clarity across existing search warrant frameworks. They're also not expected to impose additional legislative burdens on business or community organisations in Australia. Previously there has been legislative amendments introduced to address the risks associated with the illicit tobacco market, including on its profitability, however, the market has continued to have exponential growth and profitability for criminal factors.
It is quite obvious to all that more work is needed to deter, disrupt and prevent further growth in the market and that's exactly what we are debating today—tougher penalties for those who profit from illicit tobacco—because without these amendments penalties and law enforcement powers will remain inadequate. I would hope that all those across the aisle would understand that. Without these amendments, law enforcement will not have the powers they need to combat these criminal groups. Without these amendments, things will only get worse. Taken in conjunction, the reforms in this bill seek to rebalance the risk-to-reward calculation made by criminal actors. This bill will raise offence penalties to match the severity of the harm being caused by the illicit tobacco trade and will enhance Australia's proceeds of crime regime to better target criminal profits from illicit tobacco.
This illicit tobacco problem is really a wicked problem for Australia. It has caused wide-reaching problems for public health and public revenue, and it now presents itself as a serious organised crime crisis. Communities across our country are increasingly witnessing the violence and intimidation linked to illicit tobacco operations, from illegal storefronts to organised fire bombings and extortion. One has just got to turn on the nightly news to see that criminal groups have used illicit tobacco as a vehicle to bolster their profits and to fund intergang warfare.
Organised crime groups are earning a whopping $4 billion to $7 billion in profits. This is funding other crimes such as arson attacks and murder. This trade is further fuelling that violence, the fire bombings, the intimidation as these groups actually fight each other in a turf war around distribution—something that has become an all too common practice here in Australia—and they are not victimless crimes. They harm communities, they harm honest retailers, they harm workers, they harm people living in nearby homes and they are a harm and a risk to public safety, not to mention to the lives of the firefighters who are put into danger every time one of these attacks occurs.
This bill responds decisively to a growing threat to public safety. In my electorate of Wills, organised crime groups have firebombed storefronts in Coburg, in Brunswick East, in Glenroy, in Hadfield, in Pascoe Vale and in Fawkner. This is a list of nearly every suburb in my electorate that has had a firebombing. Earlier this year, in my local suburb of Glenroy, organised crime groups committed six different arson attacks and shootings in two months alone. One shop in Glenroy had been targeted twice in one month, and another shop was firebombed and then shot at three weeks later, making those incidents the fourth attack on a single business. Local traders in Glenroy have expressed that they will be the next shop targeted. One trader was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying: 'I don't feel safe, but I still have to go to work. We shouldn't have to put up with this. We're not used to ongoing crime like this in our country.' It is unacceptable that members of my community do not feel safe going to work or running their businesses.
The illicit tobacco trade is fuelling this violence and this intimidation. The risks and the harm that illicit tobacco pose to our community cannot be understated. That is why this bill is so needed. It's so vital to come down hard on these criminals. Allowing this trade to continue would not only risk unwinding decades of success in tobacco control and lowering smoking rates in Australia but risk tearing apart the very safety and wellbeing of our own communities, such as in my electorate of Wills.
We can't let this wave of violence continue. We have a responsibility to wipe out illicit tobacco and the organised crime crisis it brings. We're going to disrupt and dismantle border threats to stem the flow of illicit tobacco before they make it to our shores. We're going to enhance detection, disruption and destruction of illicit tobacco and vapes at the border and within the community. And we're going to have better connection and coordination of efforts across the Commonwealth and the states and territories, including the establishment of a national disruption group. This bill will work in conjunction with our existing efforts to crack down on illicit tobacco.
Since 2023, the Albanese government has provided $346 million in funding to the Australian Border Force to crack down on illicit tobacco and vaping products. We have also appointed the first ever Illicit Tobacco And E-Cigarettes Commissioner, with $21.3 million allocated in the 2025-26 budget to help coordinate national efforts to combat illicit tobacco. We are seeing real and tangible outcomes as a result of the government's policy. Since January 2024, more than 14 million vaping products and accessories have been seized by the Australian Border Force. In just the last six months of 2025, more than one billion illicit cigarettes were also seized. Interjurisdictional relationships have also improved, as it is crucial that the Commonwealth, the states and the territories work together on these efforts. That includes new cooperation through the National Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Coordination Forum.
By increasing the consequences for those dealing in the marketplace of illicit tobacco, we are further strengthening our ability to thwart the harms placed on our citizens, our shop owners, our businesses and our communities. Together, the reforms in this bill are aimed and will protect public health, support legitimate businesses and disrupt the organised crime networks that profit from the illicit tobacco trade. Our coordinated national response further ensures Australia remains safer, healthier and fairer for future generations to come. I commend this bill to the House.
I want to start by saying that we support this legislation and the spirit in which it's achieved, but I also want to reflect on just how inadequate it truly is. Let's look at the reality. Under this government, there has been a thriving illicit tobacco market that has fed organised crime across Australia, and nowhere has it been more acute than in my home state of Victoria. Frankly, it's an absolute national disgrace that this crisis has allowed itself to get to this point. We have seen Australian small businesses firebombed by criminal gangs as part of a turf war over an illicit product, and this didn't come out of nowhere.
Australians were consistently warned about the consequences of a reckless approach to tobacco regulation by so many people, including academics and myself. That fell on deaf ears inside this Labor government and earlier Labor governments. None of this is a surprise. None of this is a shock. It is a direct and deliberate consequence of the policy design of the Albanese government, the Gillard government and the Rudd government. Think about it. You have a situation where you take a lawful product, you put it into plain packaging akin to other illegal products which already thrive within organised criminal gangs and then you increase the tax rates to the point where it becomes an attractive proposition for organised crime gangs to enter into the market and to be able to enjoy outrageous proceeds off the back of otherwise lawful citizens.
We've seen this in human history. One of my great political heroes is a woman by the name of Pauline Sabin, and I suspect nobody else in this chamber has heard about her. Pauline Sabin was a woman who was part of the saloon movement that tried to introduce prohibition in the United States. She supported it because she wanted to stop the issues of domestic violence, which were particularly targeted towards women at the time from drunken men coming home from saloons. She then watched the prohibition movement not only lead to a flurry of illegal product but turn lawful citizens into unlawful actors. People actively engaged in subversion of the law at every level just to be able to go about their daily lives and consume a product. At the time, what were called the progressives, by the way—we need to be clear—thought that they knew how to live people's lives better.
That is exactly what has happened here. Thank you, Nicola Roxon. Thank you to the ministers who have decided to firebomb small businesses across this country under poor policy framing. What we have had is a replication of the problems of prohibition in Australia at every level—problems where the federal government introduced legislation and then the states couldn't be bothered or failed to enforce it, creating premiums for illegal activity, which have been harvested by organised crime and profiteering. We have had consistent failure of enforcement at every level—state and federal levels—thinking that they can somehow decide what goes on in the hearts of men. What we've now seen, of course, are turf wars. Exactly the same thing occurred in prohibition, where people died. Now, we're seeing the firebombing of small businesses across the country.
We're seeing it in the Goldstein electorate too. There have been firebombings, I understand, in Moorabbin. Lawful businesses that have not been involved in the illegal tobacco trade have also been targeted in Sandringham, all because we have seen a profiteering motive that government has actively stoked. As a consequence, the profits have been so great that they have led to the attraction of organised crime gangs from overseas and our own country to profiteer.
It's even worse than that. We've gone from a problem of just illegal tobacco to now shifting towards illicit alcohol. This is one of the things that's emerging very strongly in the state of Victoria. There are distribution networks available to those who are engaged in unlawful tobacco, and now they're shifting over to illicit alcohol on the same basis—that the excise is providing such a premium that they can displace lawful products.
What a shock: when there's an expansion in the volume of illegal products, organised crime gangs don't report their data to the ATO. So what we have is a government that's still indulging in the idea that somehow it's seeing cigarette rates and consumption rates decline and that the Australian community is going to be healthier as a consequence. The drunken denial that we continue to see from this government, not just drunken denial to its broken promises in the budget but drunken denial and deceit in its response to illicit tobacco, is one that is now costing the taxpayer billions in forgone revenue. As I pointed out, illegal gangs tend not to pay tax and tend not to report their data to the Australian tax office. And, of course, we're continuing to live with the downstream consequences of the health impacts associated with what is likely to be a rising level of illicit tobacco consumption.
I do appreciate that the government has finally woken up after fuelling this crisis—fuelling a situation where businesses are being firebombed, fuelling the very environment that has led to an otherwise lawfully consumed product becoming illicit to the benefit of organised criminal gangs. I acknowledge that they've finally woken up to the fact that even they can't go on pretending that there's nothing wrong here. Now, they're taking, frankly, pretty modest measures to say 'maybe we better stamp this stuff out'. The Australian small businesses who they've targeted with a firebombing in their budget have now experienced firebombing in the literal sense—by the organised crime gangs that profit off illicit tobacco.
A consequence of this trade is that there has been a decline in the pretty basic proposition of respect for the law. Again, I go back to the prohibition movement: we saw exactly the same thing then, back in the 1920s and 1930s in the United States, when honest citizens were engaged in dishonest activity or illegal activity, and the law actually propagated a disrespect for the law. This government has been an active participant in creating disrespect for the law. That is a disastrous outcome for our community.
We have had a complete overdose of denial and deceit by this government about the impacts of its policy arrangements and a complete unwillingness to actually address the root cause of the problem. I understand that Labor does not want to confront this problem, but Australians are living the consequences of the problem Labor caused: illegal activity, organised crime, violence and firebombing on our streets, in our strip shops. That has increased not just the cost to small businesses—although it has directly for those who are attracted to it—but the cost to all small businesses across the board, because what we've seen is an increase in insurance premiums directly off the back of the government stoking criminal conduct.
I can't believe that, as we're debating this bill, some of the Labor members are saying how virtuous their actions are. They have been directly complicit in fuelling organised crime. They have been directly complicit in supporting the legislation that has created the situation that we are now facing as a country. They have been directly complicit—
Assistant minister, on a point of order?
The shadow treasurer is reflecting on members, if he's making a claim about direct complicity of members on this side in the kind of conduct that he's describing. I think you should ask him to withdraw.
I think that you're directly impugning another member, Member for Goldstein. I'd ask you to withdraw your last comments.
I'm not sure that I can withdraw those comments because Labor members have supported the budgetary measures that have got us to this point. Are we really contesting this, Deputy Speaker?
I think you said that members on the other side have been complicit in fuelling this organised crime, which is directly impugning members on that side of the House, Member for Goldstein. Either you withdraw it or you change the wording of what you've said.
I'm happy to change the words of what I've said, Deputy Speaker, but I think we need to be realistic. No-one actually believes that the stoking of excise and the continuing raising of excise on tobacco by this government has not been a direct contributor to the proliferation of organised crime. I'd love to hear a Labor member contest this and say in their speech: 'No, it's got nothing to do with excise. It's just magically appeared out of nowhere.' The profiteering of organised crime and the reason for the very incentives that mean they've stepped into the marketplace are anything but. That's why you tend to get organised crime engaged in low-product-value, high-margin products. One is illegal drugs. I don't think we're disagreeing on that. One is illicit tobacco. I don't think we're disagreeing on that. It's just like, once upon a time, they engaged in things like selling illegal DVDs. But no-one buys DVDs anymore, so that has been taken out of the equation.
The tax rates are set in the federal budget last I checked. We've got one of these federal budgets before the federal parliament right now. Last I checked, Labor members voted for the last four budgets. So, alright, I'll set it up this way. Labor members of parliament vote for a budget. The budget then increases the tax rates. The tax rates then increase the incentive for organised crime. The organised crime then profiteers. But there is no connection between any of that that brings any of the Labor members into complicity in that activity. I need to be clear about that. It's just a fantasy. We're all making it up. I can tell you it's only in the parliament of Australia, in the House of Representatives, that people don't think that there's some sort of connection between those series of events that have led now to firebombing of small businesses and increasing insurance premiums. The biggest explosion of organised crime in Australia's history has been under this government. Now there's the risk that we're going to see equivalent behaviour with the expansion of illicit alcohol across the sector, which is leading to attacks on small grocery shops, attacks on small businesses and firebombing that's risking people's lives and destroying small business. But, hey, according to the member Fremantle, there's no connection between any of that. It's just a coincidence.
I think we've just got to get real. It's not a coincidence. It's real. It's what Australians are living. It's propagating crime. By the way, that criminal activity and the money that's raised from that activity is then going on to fuel other things, like terrorism. This, by the way, has been a point that has been made by our police services and is very distressing. I know that the Labor members don't like drawing the connection between their budget, their tax regime and organised crime and terrorism, but I'm afraid it's real. Australians are living with this, but we've seen this constant attitude of being drunk on deceit and drunk on denial from this government about the reality of what it is its doing. But Australians are living it. I have no issue calling this out, because there has to be a point at which we in this parliament wake up and people actually start to realise the consequences of their actions. As I outlined, it was the progressive movement in the early part of the 20th century that was responsible for prohibition that went on to lead to the propagation of organised crime, the proliferation of organised cartels and the profiteering, as I said, of organised crime. But, more importantly, it led to violence and death on the United States's streets.
Once again, we are seeing a repetition of behaviour. We have progressives who think that their grand intentions are greater than the actual lived outcomes of Australians and that, if only they were left in charge and they had every lever that they could pull at their discretion, all of a sudden they would build a better society. In fact, that's wrong. They're handing our streets over to organised gangs that then use that money to proliferate criminal activity which harms every Australian either financially or in their safety and has gone as far as financing terrorism, and—can I tell you what?—some of us are sick of it.
Some of us are sick not just of the drunken denial from the government about the consequences of this but of the fact that there seems to be this complete disregard of what they're doing to Australian streets. We know that crime is a massive issue in our country. We know who's paying the price for the Labor government's denial on these issues and the consequences of their decisions. We know, because we're living it in our communities and our on our streets, and, while there might be Labor members who like to turn a blind eye, the Australian people are not turning a blind eye.
This measure, of course, is a step in the right direction, but it is a long way from how far we need to go, and until the Labor member for Fremantle, the member for Macnamara or any other members on the other side of this chamber are prepared to be honest with the Australian people and stand up—and we know honesty, by the way. We know full well it was not exactly something that came naturally before the last election. But if they are going to do it, we'd need a sense of honesty about what the consequences of Labor's policy are going to be. I can tell you that the small businesses of the country are desperate for a sense of leadership from this parliament, and it certainly isn't being provided by this Labor government.
It's pretty disgraceful hearing a member opposite talk about lack of action. These are not newly emerged issues. These are issues that, when the member for Goldstein was last in government, we supported that government in trying to take action on. Did they go far enough? No way. But we supported those steps.
I'm going to read to you from a media release, put out in September 2018 by the then minister, the Hon. Stuart Robert MP. It talked about cracking down on the illicit tobacco black market. This is not something new that's just happened since we came to government. This has been something that has built up, and governments prior to us have failed in being able to stop it. Mr Robert, at that time, spoke of the actions they were taking and the changes they were making on duty liabilities being paid when tobacco is imported into Australia. The release said:
Together with the newly established, Australian Border Force-led Illicit Tobacco Taskforce and the proposed import permit requirement for tobacco announced in the 2018-19 Budget, the Government is ensuring the Australian border is even more resilient to organised criminal groups that facilitate tobacco smuggling.
"Tackling duty evasion and black economy activities in the tobacco warehouse environment will disrupt illicit tobacco supply chains and deny organised crime syndicates access to the illicit profits that fund their other criminal and black economy activities," said Assistant Treasurer Robert.
"This will reduce criminal activity, protect law-abiding local businesses and provide an estimated $3 billion in revenue to the Commonwealth," Assistant Treasurer Robert said.
That was obviously very well intentioned. But clearly, from September 2018 to now, we have not seen those measures make a significant difference, so we are taking further steps, as we have done all through our time in government, to tackle an issue that both sides agree is a problem. In the way that we were supportive when we were in opposition, I look to the support of those opposite for the efforts that we're making.
Across Macquarie, we're seeing those bright yellow stickers on the front windows of tobacconist shops suspected of selling illicit tobacco products or selling tobacco without a licence. What goes along with those stickers is a three-month closure for that tobacconist. I've seen these stickers in the Riverview Shopping Centre in Windsor, which is just up the road from my electorate office; inside the Richmond Marketplace in Richmond; and on the main streets of some of our towns, including, in Springwood, next door to Dbl Ristretto, a very popular coffee shop. They are a welcome indicator, right in front of our eyes, as we go to our local shops, that you can see of actions being taken at the state level to combat the availability of illicit cigarettes, vapes and loose-leaf tobacco in our communities. The Commonwealth, states and territories are working together to reverse the equation for organised crime at every step and in every way to make the illicit tobacco trade more risky and less profitable, disrupting the illicit supply chain and shutting down illegal shops. This bill is another step in that process.
I think people have asked themselves, 'Can I do something if I see shops selling illicit cigarettes or illegal vapes?' The answer is yes. Any one of us can make a report. There are three different ways to do so. You can report suspicious sales or illicit products to Border Watch on their 1800395706 number or at borderwatch.gov.au, to Crime Stoppers on 1800333000 or crimestoppers.com.au or through NSW Health, in New South Wales, for local enforcement of tobacco and vaping laws.
Retailers who are found to be noncompliant with closure orders may be subject to further enforcement actions or penalties. A local New South Wales court can issue a long-term closure order of up to a year if it's satisfied that illicit tobacco or illicit vaping goods have been, or are likely to be, sold or if tobacco or non-tobacco smoking products are sold without a licence.
To disrupt the illicit tobacco trade, we have to think about things at every single stage—pre border, at border and post border. Preborder intelligence sharing has been enhanced with partners such as the UAE, China, Singapore, Sri Lanka and others. The best container of illegal tobacco is one that never even reaches Australia's shores. At the border and post border, Australian Border Force data tells us that in 2024-25 they achieved record levels of seizures, supported by $188 million of extra Commonwealth funding. They seized 2.66 billion cigarettes, and that's up more than 320 per cent on four years ago. The national disruption group, led by the Australian Border Force, is up and running, bringing together Commonwealth agencies and all states and territories, with national weeks of action planned across the country. The Police Ministers Council's received advice on 50 pieces of legislative reform and laws that are now being strengthened.
The Commonwealth's Combating Illegal Tobacco Bill 2026 that we're debating today will raise penalties, activate intelligence and law enforcement techniques, such as wiretaps and computer intercepts, and strengthen proceeds-of-crime laws. Hitting criminals where it hurts means using every single tool and more rapidly taking their profits, cars, cash, houses, boats and other toys away. Priorities identified for states and territories include licensing seizures, shutting down illegal shops, going after landlords and lifting resourcing of frontline enforcement.
The Commonwealth funding to states and territories is now flowing, with $84 million extra to help put trained people on the ground, improve licensing and enable joint operations. AUSTRAC is working with the banks and service providers to shut down the money flows that keep illicit tobacco profitable. Hundreds of accounts have already been closed and payment systems stopped. This bill expands law enforcement powers to investigate illicit tobacco related offending and increases the consequences for criminal actors involved in the illicit tobacco market. It's a crucial step in addressing the rapidly expanding illicit market.
We know illicit tobacco is no longer just a health or revenue problem. It's a serious organised crime activity and is a major source of funds which are used to fund other serious harms and crimes. The illicit tobacco trade, as I said at the start, is not new, nor is it a problem isolated to Australia. It is a global problem. The first strike team, in fact, was set up under Border Force in 2015. We need to keep fighting it and not blame each other. Those opposite need to recognise that, just as we supported the steps they made, we need their full support in taking these actions.
The Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Cigarette Commissioner report estimated that the value of the illicit tobacco market was between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in 2024-25. Organised crime groups are earning between $4 billion and $7 billion in profits, funding other crimes like trafficking scams and money laundering. We know this trade fuels violence, firebombings and intimidation and risks the unwinding of decades of success in tobacco control policy and lowering smoking rates in Australia. These are not victimless crimes. They harm communities, honest retailers and workers, and they make the public less safe.
In that context, this bill seeks to achieve two objectives. One is to rebalance the risk-to-reward calculation for criminal actors by raising offence penalties to match the severity of the harms being caused by the illicit tobacco trade. The other is making the proceeds-of-crime regime more effective to go after the profits generated from illicit tobacco, which is of course the main motivation. Since 2023-24, the Albanese Labor government has provided $346 million in funding to the Australian Border Force to crack down on illicit tobacco and vaping products. We also appointed the first ever Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner, with $21 million allocated in the 2025-26 budget to help coordinate those national efforts that are now underway. The three key focuses of the government's action are, firstly, to disrupt and dismantle border threats to stem the flow of illicit tobacco and vapes to Australia before they make it to our shores; secondly, to enhance detection, disruption and destruction of illicit tobacco and vapes at the border and within the community; and, thirdly, to have better connection and coordination of efforts across the Commonwealth and states and territories, including through the establishment of the national disruption group.
Since January 2024, more than 14 million vaping products and accessories have been seized by the Australian Border Force. In just the last six months of last year, more than a billion illicit cigarettes were also seized. This government's focus is simple: shut down illegal shops, choke off the money and make this trade unprofitable. Over the last six months, interjurisdictional relationships between the Commonwealth, states and territories have rapidly improved and we've seen a strong new cooperation through the National Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Coordination Forum. I really want to give a shout-out. South Australia and Queensland are already showing illegal trade falls when enforcement hits 100 per cent of an area, and Victoria is moving to strengthen closure and landlord laws. These are really good things to see.
The Albanese government remains committed to working with our state and territory partners to continue to tackle the illicit tobacco trade, and I would hope those opposite are with us all the way.
I rise to speak on the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. This bill is before the House because Australia is no longer dealing with a small compliance problem. Under Labor we are dealing with a black-market crisis, a public health crisis, a law and order crisis and a crisis of confidence in government policy. This did not happen by accident. It is not something Australia can blame on events overseas. It is homegrown, and responsibility sits firmly with Labor. The bill increases penalties, expands investigative powers, allows telecommunications interception in illicit tobacco investigations and strengthens unexplained-wealth, search warrant and proceeds-of-crime powers. Those are serious tools and they are needed, but let us be honest about why we are here.
Under Labor legal tobacco has become so expensive and nicotine rules have become so distorted that a huge part of the market has simply gone underground. People have not stopped using nicotine; they have moved outside the legal system Labor was supposed to protect. The Australian Bureau of Statistics says nicotine consumption in Australia increased by almost 40 per cent from 2017 to 2025. It also says illicit sources rose from 12 per cent of total tobacco consumed in 2017 to 80 per cent in 2025. That is not a rounding error. That is not bad luck. That is Labor's policy failure in plain sight. That is Labor's legacy. That is the health minister's legacy. They have allowed illegal tobacco to become normalised in the minds of too many Australians.
The ABS says household spending on legally purchased cigarettes and tobacco has almost halved since 2020, but please don't get excited. Labor cannot pretend Australians have suddenly stopped smoking. The evidence shows more people are buying illegal tobacco instead. An article in the Australian on 3 June showed the explosion of illicit tobacco in stark terms, with the problem taking off after the June 2022 quarter—believe it or not, Labor's first quarter in office. In fact, someone in the House today said to me that their pouch of tobacco used to cost them $120 but now costs them $20. How is that possible?
Before Labor came to office, daily smoking was continuing to fall under the coalition government. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says daily smoking among Australians aged 14 and over fell from 19 per cent in 2001 to just 8.3 per cent in 2022-23. Labor points to legal sales as though the problem is shrinking, but legal sales alone no longer tell the full story. Actual nicotine consumption is rising. That is what happens when government policy drives people out of the regulated market and into the hands of criminals.
Labor's failure carries an enormous public health cost. The AIHW has estimated the social cost of tobacco at $155.4 billion in 2021, projected to rise to $159.7 billion in 2022-23, with healthcare costs alone estimated at $7.9 billion. Tobacco remains the second leading risk factor driving Australians' burden of disease, accounting for 7.6 per cent of total disease burden in 2024. Labor wants this debate to sound like it is only about excise revenue or personal choice. It is not. It is about people getting sick. It is about the pressure that smoking related disease puts on families, hospitals and taxpayers and communities who are living with increased crime, and it is about a government that has let the burden fall hardest on those with the least access to care.
In 2022-23, the AIHW reported that 20 per cent of people in remote and very remote areas smoked daily, compared with seven per cent in major cities. Women in very remote areas were 5.5 times more likely to smoke during pregnancy than women in major cities. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in very remote areas, smoking rates were 46.7 per cent, compared with 20 per cent in major cities. As shadow minister for regional health, I say this plainly: Labor's tobacco policy failure hits hardest in regional Australia, where health services are already stretched, household budgets are already under pressure and people have fewer doctors and fewer services to turn to. I've been saying for seven years in this place that your postcode should not determine your health status, but under Labor it absolutely, increasingly does.
Then there is vaping. The AIHW says seven per cent of Australians aged 14 and over were recurrent e-cigarette users in 2022-23. The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing says one in six teenagers aged 14 to 17 have vaped and one in four people aged 18 to 24 have vaped. It also says young people who vape are three times more likely to take up smoking. I remember the arguments when vaping came in that it would be an off-ramp from smoking. I don't think so. I don't think anybody who looks outside in our streets and sees teenagers vaping more and more, eventually going on to smoking, would believe that. Australian research has warned that vaping could add at least $180 million a year in health system costs from only one part of the group of vape users who go on to smoke. That is on top of the already huge cost of smoking related disease. This is also why Labor's failure to control the black market is such a public health disaster.
For decades, governments have worked to make the dangers of smoking clear through warning labels, plain packaging and strict point-of-sale rules. Those protections only work when the market is regulated. In the black market, which Labor has allowed to grow, those protections disappear. Estimates published before the latest ABS numbers had already placed the illicit tobacco market at around 55 per cent of the total market in 2025, valued at about $5.6 billion, with missed excise revenue estimated at between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. Treasury has downgraded tobacco excise revenue by $8 billion over the next five years. So, under Labor, we have a black market undercutting lawful sellers, hollowing out revenue, weakening public health warnings and making organised crime richer. That is not a small policy problem. It is Labor's double failure. It is a double failure.
Labor's response has been a half-baked vaping prescription model. In fact, that is too generous. It is not half baked; it barely made it to the oven. The pharmacy prescription framework has not worked. I said at the time it would not work, and here we are. Illegal supply remains dominant, and pharmacists did not ask to be conscripted into Labor's failed nicotine controlled experiment.
Labor's failure is also feeding organised crime. The Illicit Tobacco Taskforce was created to detect, disrupt and dismantle serious organised crime syndicates dealing in illicit tobacco. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has said that organised criminals view illicit tobacco as low risk and high reward. Even the Albanese government admits the illicit market has become a serious organised crime problem. The ACIC links illicit tobacco to organised crime entities and outlaw motorcycle gangs. That is why this bill gives agencies stronger tools and lifts penalties. But the reality is even darker than that. This is not only an illicit trade; it is a violent one. How many firebombings, how much intimidation, how much violence and how much criminal behaviour must communities endure before Labor accepts responsibility and says enough is enough?
I've been told confidentially by police that senior officers are effectively unable to get involved at the retail illicit tobacco level unless matters escalate into overt violence, arson or other serious criminal conduct. That should concern every member of this House because it means help comes after communities have already been put at risk. Hospitality venues are now vulnerable, too. High liquor excise and severe economic pressure may be creating incentives for illicit alcohol to follow the same path. Some venues are tempted to mix illicit liquor with legal liquor just to survive in Labor's high-cost economy. If Labor does not act properly, the organised crime business model built around illicit tobacco could spread further. That should alarm every Australian.
Under Labor, health labelling has been undermined, point-of-sale controls have been undermined, legal retailers have been undercut, revenue has been lost, organised crime has thrived and Australians are paying the price. In my electorate, a constituent named Peter spelt out what this means for a lawful small business. His legal cigarette sales fell from about $10,000 a week to about $1,000 a week. One former customer told him they were saving $400 a week by buying illegal cigarettes. That is what Labor's failure looks like on the ground. Honest regional businesses are losing lawful sales while criminals cash in. If your business is next to an illicit tobacco store, you face another problem altogether. Insurance companies are charging high premiums or refusing to insure shops at risk of collateral damage from firebombing. I cannot believe that in 2026 we are talking about brazen organised crime spreading through modern Australia in this way. It is an absolute indictment on Labor at federal and state levels.
Enforcement matters, but enforcement alone cannot fix a market that Labor's own policy settings helped drive underground. If Labor wants to restore public health outcomes on tobacco and vaping it must confront the criminals. But it must also confront the excise and regulatory settings that helped create this opportunity in the first place. The tobacco excise is simply too high. I'm told that cigarette price settings in 2019-20, when the coalition was in government, were still broadly within consumers' willingness to stay in the regulated market. Under Labor, the tobacco market is broken. Public health warnings are not getting through. Lawful small businesses are being punished, criminals are being rewarded and decades of work to reduce smoking are going quite literally up in smoke.
This bill may give agencies stronger tools, but it is far too little and far too late. Minister Butler, the health minister, will be judged for this failure. Labor will be judged for this failure. And communities like mine will keep paying the price until Labor has the courage to fix the mess that Labor helped to create.
I rise to support the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. I think every member of this chamber has seen evidence of the rapidly increasing illicit tobacco market in our communities—dodgy-looking candy stores. There's one in my area where half the shelves are filled with aluminium barbecue trays, as if that's the centre of the business. We all know where they are; we all know what they do. It's created a sense of lawlessness and an undermining of respect for the law that cannot be tolerated any longer. It's been a problem that's been rising for a long time.
While some will try to counter it in partisan terms, it's worth remembering that the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce, which was set up back in 2018, was during the coalition government, and then there was a Senate report in I think around 2020. That's not to say that it's the coalition's fault or Labor's fault. This is something that's been coming for a while. But, as other colleagues in this House have spoken about, the risk-reward ratio for selling illicit tobacco has made it all too tempting for criminal enterprises, which deal this substance much as they do other illicit substances: creating supply chains, exploiting vulnerabilities in our system and chasing the money where it lies.
So the important thing with this legislation is that it helps to change that risk-reward ratio. It makes very clear that this is a serious offence. Its connection to serious crime itself means that the gravity of this offence gives it a serious aspect, and it needs to be treated as such. We know the industries that are driving this. We know that serious organised crime is involved and that it is doing real harm in our communities. We've seen businesses that are completely uninvolved in tobacco face far higher costs because their strata fees have been increased by insurance costs, driven by risks associated with having tobacco retailers nearby, both legal and unlawful.
So this is having a real impact on our communities. It's having a real impact on our local economies. And it's something that all of us in the community see as this shameless, open lawlessness that needs to be dealt with in a clear and decisive way. We've seen in jurisdictions like South Australia and Queensland that where we have clear laws and we go ahead and enforce them it is incredibly effective in combating the many mischiefs associated with this market.
This bill is a further investment, a further step to ensure that we have clear and strong laws that can be enforced by our officials across the country to ensure that there is a consistent approach and that the severity of the impact of this illicit trade is reflected in the seriousness of the crimes as recorded in legislation. While it is around excise and revenue raising, to me that's incidental. It is about the safety of our communities, it's about the rule of law, it's about combating serious crime in a real and serious way, and it's about ensuring that ill-gotten gains are recovered and treated for what they are and that there is nothing to be gained from selling illicit tobacco at any level. We have to be clear, strong and decisive. I, as much as anyone, get frustrated when I see consumer affairs or council employees politely knocking on the doors of these retailers. I also want to see police kicking down those doors—simultaneously with other venues, because we all know they text each other and know what's going on.
We need strong law enforcement around this, and that will be supported by having strong laws made in this parliament that will apply across Australia to ensure that those tools are available to our law enforcement agencies. As part of that, the tools include surveillance provisions enabling us to detect, disrupt and respond to acts involved in this supply chain to ensure that we're actually disrupting this illicit trade and that there is no profit to be gained from engaging in this industry. It's hurting people, including our most vulnerable, in areas where people haven't got a lot of spare money and whose access to supports is minimal.
We're not dealing with honest actors here; we are dealing with crooks. We are dealing with bikie gangs. We are dealing with some of the most serious criminals in the country who have found very attractive trade for themselves. And, generally, it's not the only stuff they're selling. They're involved in all sorts of illicit trades. This is one that they've found to be rather profitable, because it's a highly addictive substance, it's cheap to purchase, they've found various ways to get it into the market and there is demand.
Excise is a policy that's existed for a long time. It's been one of the great successes. I know that some are arguing that those excises should be cut in order to support the legal trade in tobacco. If there is one industry that I don't support—in addition to the criminal industry—it would be the tobacco industry. These have not been honest brokers. These are a lot of the same folks that said: 'Don't worry; vaping will be the solution to smoking. That will help us get over these addictions.' We all know that's a load of crud. The reality is that these are self-interested companies. They have been in the industry of death for decades, and I don't think I've ever seen that industry on the side of the angels on any topic. So I think we need to view any remarks backed by industry with a healthy degree of scepticism. While I'm not here to bag local retailers, we've got to remember the history of this industry. It's one whose messages should be taken with a grain of salt, particularly when those remarks happen to align with self-interest on their part.
But I think, as a starting point, there is nothing wrong with saying that we should enforce the law. The laws should be strong, they should be consistent and they should be applied without fear or favour. We need to ensure that people understand that there are consequences. This goes to deterrence, both general and specific, in that, when a sentence is handed down, anyone thinking of getting involved in that kind of activity realises that it's not going to be on and that engaging in that industry is not going to be conducive to a long, happy and prosperous life. It's also about dealing with individuals to make clear that this is simply not acceptable to society, because this industry has got to a point where we can no longer afford to tolerate it.
The harm that it is causing is real. It's beyond economic, and it's beyond budgetary. It goes to the rule of law. It goes to the safety of members of our community. It goes to the affordability of conducting legitimate retail business and to making sure that our communities remain safe spaces as much as possible. It's particularly exploitative. It's targeting our most vulnerable: those who have financial constraints. Rather than having the supports out there to help them deal with their addiction or the disincentives that have historically, for years and years and years, driven reductions in smoking rates, they've been undermined by the creation of this industry. We cannot let it continue to fester and to go through our communities without any response.
We've seen what's possible in multiple states. When we go ahead and take a hardline approach to these things, it is successful. We've got to make sure that our authorities are supported with strong laws so they're not looking for other breaches and things like that—that the laws around the possession and transportation of these substances are, in themselves, treated as serious offences and managed as such. That is an incredibly important development.
We've seen the value of this trade estimated at between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in 2024-25. Organised crime groups are making profits of $4 billion to $7 billion in a year. You can see why the temptation is there. So we know what the drivers of it are; what are the restraints? Well, that has to be strong laws. It has to be strong enforcement and ensuring that those disincentives are there, because we as a community cannot afford to tolerate it. We're going to rebalance that risk-reward calculation by ensuring that strong penalties are on the books and also that they are known and that they are enforced in a clear and public way. There will be a role for the media, a role for state governments and a role for ourselves to play in ensuring that this works, because there's no point having strong laws and court decisions that no-one hears about. We've got to ensure that the strength of these laws is promoted and understood and that we have a very clear, and hopefully united, message to the illicit trade that their conduct cannot and will not be tolerated by this parliament or by the authorities in Australia.
Since 2023-24, we've provided around $346 million in funding for Border Force to crack down on illicit tobacco and vaping products. We know that they're catching a lot of them on the border, but we also know that that, in and of itself, will not work. It happens through post. It happens through a variety of means, and not every shipping container can be checked. We've also got to ensure that there are systems on the ground disrupting every aspect of the supply chain—the warehousing, the transport—and, if it gets into a shop, getting in on the ground and taking care of that quickly as well.
It is going to have to be complemented by reforms at state levels, reflecting those in South Australia and Queensland that deal with leases and things on the ground. This is part of the solution but not the entire solution. I think it is important that we all acknowledge that this isn't a package that will get the job done by itself, but it is an important piece of the puzzle. It would be a great shame if anyone in this chamber voted against it simply because it is not a package that gets the whole job done itself.
This is going to be a partnership with state government. There's even going to be some roles for local council, local government and communities in making sure that we are holding these crooks to account because they are exploitative, they are criminal and they are undermining not only the safety and wellbeing of our community but also the lives of many of our most vulnerable citizens. These are not healthy products. They're not regulated. There have been lots of reports of dodgy packaging allowing bacteria and mould, so these cigarettes can be even more deadly than the ones sold at the corner store. We cannot show any tolerance for this stuff.
But, at the same time, the solution is not to go back to the old days and say, 'Well, let's just go back to legal cigarettes.' Actually, smoking itself is a huge public health problem. It needs to be resolved. Let's at least try enforcing the law strongly rather than just kowtowing to industry calls for bringing back legal cigarettes by making them cheaper again. I think that would be a huge drive backwards. It would completely send the wrong message to our communities. Let's, as a first step, make sure we've got a clear and comprehensive regime to deal with the illegal behaviour and show that strong, zero-tolerance approach to it. That will involve licensing regimes. It will ensure accountability. It will ensure that we know exactly who is registered and lawfully able to trade in legal tobacco products without allowing every shyster who can get themselves a retail lease to get involved in this illicit trade.
I receive quite a lot of emails from people in my community—and it's happened since I was first elected—who are genuinely concerned about the presence of unlawful tobacco businesses in our area. They know that it has a huge impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood. They know it has an impact on the businesses that are just going about their day to day—the local butcher, the local pharmacist, the local bakery—because all of them are going to face higher strata fees through insurance premiums, which makes the cost of business higher and makes them even less sustainable, particularly when times are already tough. Then they've got rapidly increasing insurance costs on top of that.
This is driving legitimate businesses way out of this industry towards the brink because the increase in insurance premiums can be quite dramatic in some of these strata organisations. Often it is a collective insurance policy that covers multiple businesses, so people who are doing the right thing all the time, have done nothing wrong and aren't in control of the situation are facing the costs and consequences of this illicit trade. Every avenue that we can pursue to take down these crooks is going to have to be pursued. I commend the South Australian and Queensland governments for showing that it can be done and that a strong, firm hand, when it comes to dealing with these crooks, actually does work. But we have to have the commitment, and the supports obviously need to be offered at all levels to ensure that that is possible. We as a government remain committed to working with our state and territory partners to tackle this illicit trade, so I commend this bill to the House.
In a debate like this, I think we should start with some pretty basic human behaviour because a brief study of human history would tell us that, whenever you seek to limit human behaviour with enforcement in the form of punitive taxes, human behaviour and human ingenuity always win. Let's go back to England and Wales in 1696, when a tax was levied on windows. People responded to this by bricking up their windows, and that's why you can still see Georgian buildings today with their window openings bricked up. It was known at the time as a tax on light and air and is sometimes credited as the source of the phrase 'daylight robbery'.
When it comes to the tax levied on each cigarette in Australia today, some local constituents tell me that it resembles daylight robbery. At about the same time in England, in 1662, the fireplaces were taxed. People then responded by blocking up chimneys, occasionally with fatal results from poor ventilation. In 1784, also in Britain—we could learn a thing or two from all these new tax ideas—bricks were taxed by the number of bricks taken to build a dwelling, so manufacturers simply made bricks bigger. That's why you see Georgian buildings featuring unusually large bricks.
This is not a new phenomenon. We've seen wallpaper taxes, glass taxes, clock and watch taxes, beer taxes. There were salt taxes in France, driving mass salt smuggling, which was a genuine grievance feeding into the revolution. Indeed, a salt tax in India was part of the social disruption that led to Gandhi's 1930 salt march. We, of course, saw in the US a particularly dramatic example between 1920 and 1933. It wasn't just a punitive excise tax on drinking; it was just an outright ban: prohibition, which saw a nationwide surge in organised crime and black-market activity.
I think that is useful to frame the conversation today about what is driving the illicit tobacco market, or the black market for cigarettes, in Australia. Any cursory examination would tell you that it is the excise tax. We have got to the untenable position where a lawful packet of cigarettes in Australia might cost you some $50 or $60, and the black-market cost for that same packet of cigarettes is about $15 or $20. Australians under pressure, as they are during this cost-of-living crisis, suffering under the rampant inflation in our economy that the Albanese government is overseeing, are responding by making the difficult choice of knowingly breaking the law, because illicit cigarettes are less than half the price.
I met with an IGA owner in my own electorate some months ago who opened his books to me and also disclosed that he'd been doing some online shopping. He showed me the screenshots, and it appeared to me that Australia Post might well be the biggest courier of black-market cigarettes in this country. He was able to, through a Facebook group, buy cigarettes that were cheaper than the wholesale price that he pays through his IGA supermarket. Worse than that, he showed me his books over the last three years. The rise of black-market cigarette sales has taken $1.5 million directly out of that business, a small, family owned business in my electorate. This is a crisis and not just in the terms that we have heard on both sides of the chamber tonight about the firebombings and the crime and the insurance premiums and the like but also from the kick in the guts to those retailers who are trying to do the right thing.
This same IGA owner—I credit his meeting with me because I left vastly illuminated, as I'm not a smoker—made the point that these cigarettes he was able to buy very cheaply through Facebook and obviously therefore via organised crime were branded cigarettes. They were beautiful. There was a lovely packet with the gold embossing of 'Benson & Hedges' in all its glory. There was nothing about the health risks of cigarette smoking on that packet of illegal cigarettes. Then he showed me what a lawful packet today looks like. I wasn't aware that, far beyond just having the plain packaging with the health warnings that we have, each cigarette lawfully purchased in Australia actually has to carry the health warning on it. So out of the packet which has health warnings all over it you take a cigarette that also has health warnings all over it. The idea that we can approach this issue of illegal tobacco ignorant of the fact that we're driving people away from a product that has all the health warnings on it towards a product that instead carries all the branding that the then Labor government banned more than 14 years ago seems to me to be an extraordinary oversight at the very best. Unless we acknowledge that human behaviour is at the centre of this, we're not going to be effective in tackling the scourge.
Whilst stronger enforcement and the sorts of measures that are featured in this bill—including the increased appropriations to our enforcement agencies—are welcome, they're not going to fix the problem. That's where we need to be honest with the Australian people. They can see it happening around them every day. In my community, there have been a number of raids. Indeed, I met with the south-west police recently to discuss that. They have to admit that their resources are stretched. They are still trying to deal with all of the normal sorts of enforcement that, rightly, only the police can do. WA is a long way from Canberra, and so the AFP are also stretched in their resourcing presence in Western Australia, naturally focusing on Perth. My electorate is a couple of hours south of Perth, and the problems we've had with illegal tobacco have gone right down to the bottom of my electorate, in Margaret River, and further south to Augusta. So you're talking about dragging police away from the very serious sorts of enforcement they need to be doing. They should be getting after murder and violent crime. They should be chasing down child exploitation. They should be monitoring our road safety. They should be doing all of these things. The police have readily admitted to me that a focus on tobacco enforcement is not included in their workload—and I understand why. It's simply outside the scope of their normal responsibilities.
The scale of this problem should be pretty apparent to everyone living in this country. But what is missing, and I know coalition speakers have focused on this for good reason, is the impact that the rise of black-market cigarettes has had on the budget. When we go back to 2012 or 2013, immediately after the plain-packaging legislation, we can see that excise tobacco was sitting at about $18 billion a year. The fact is that this year's budget papers have forecast tobacco excise at just $2½ billion, showing an almost complete collapse in the collection of that revenue, in the face of rising smoking in Australia—and that's the important point. This isn't reflective of the fact that we've eliminated smoking in the community. In fact, some evidence suggests quite the opposite, that we are seeing more and more smoking in young people. I do wonder if it's because they're seeing cigarettes that simply aren't subject to the health warnings and the like that we would otherwise require in this country.
To see between $8 billion and $11.8 billion in excise being evaded every year, depending on whose estimate you accept, is having a massive impact on communities across the country that are crying out for basic services like new hospitals. Indeed, the Margaret River hospital in my electorate hasn't been upgraded in 25 years, despite the fact that the local population has more than tripled in that time and the number of people living there expands even more during peak tourist season. We are seeing this desperate need for investment in health infrastructure across the country and we are seeing a collapse in the revenue associated with tobacco excise.
We have to recognise why illegal tobacco is increasing. In this case, the answer is not necessarily obvious. We ought to be talking about slashing tobacco excise in this country—not by five per cent, not by 10 per cent but by more than 50 per cent—because, until the price of a lawful packet of cigarettes is within a couple of bucks of the price available through the black market, we are simply not going to change that behaviour. Worse than that, we are making criminals out of ordinary Aussies who are struggling to put food on the table, get their kids to school and maybe have a packet or two of cigarettes a week. I don't think it's fair that we make criminals out of innocent people,
I want to see the government shift its focus, if you like, away from this ever-increasing idea of more enforcement, more resourcing for agencies to chase these people down. The numbers speak for themselves. The ABF, the Australian Border Force, seize some 2½ billion cigarettes a year, which is a 320 per cent increase in seizures. That's great, but it's simply a drop in the ocean when it comes to the number of people who are freely accessing black-market cigarettes in this country.
Indeed, I understand that authorities have recognised the problem themselves and that the Australian Border Force have said, 'We can't seize our way out of this problem.' Indeed, I've seen some estimates that, provided more than 15 per cent of the product being illegally imported into the country makes it through our Customs and Border Force checks, these organised crime gangs are profitable. So when you consider the risk-reward context, as my local police have put to me, running a black-market tobacco operation, where you might get a shutdown notice issued for 30 days and a small civil penalty applied to a person convicted of an offence—these are organisations that are making billions of dollars a year—versus the risks they take when they participate in the illicit drug trade, where people who are caught end up in jail for 10, 20 or more years, it's no wonder that even the criminals are turning their minds to the black market of cigarettes and going, 'This is where we're going to be playing.' It's just basic human behaviour.
When you understand that behaviour, I think we need to be applying that to the way we legislate here. There have been almost 300 firebombings and arson attacks linked to tobacco turf wars alongside robberies, extortion, kidnapping and murder. This isn't something that we're talking about as the plot for a Hollywood thriller. This is playing out in communities across Australia. If we're honest about why, we ought to see the government taking action to slash the excise on tobacco.
In my part of the world, we're also looking at the rise of bootlegging—black market alcohol—and it is far more prevalent than you might think. Indeed, the ATO themselves estimate some $800 million of forgone excise on alcohol.. I won't focus on this, because we are debating tobacco here tonight, but the same point stands in that punitive taxation is creating an opportunity for organised crime to exploit ordinary Australians who are just after a little vice to make life that little bit better in their own way. I don't think that we should be making criminals out of those Australians. We should be focused on normalising excise tax at the same time as tightening up some of this enforcement.
Legal tobacco sales are collapsing. They're hurting the retailers. They're hurting the small business people, who we should be backing in this country, and the consumers themselves are effectively ordinary Aussies we're making criminals out of. I think this bill falls a long way short of where we could be in this very needed and very timely debate in this country. On that, I thank the House.
The Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 goes to the heart of community safety, public health and integrity of our borders. This bill is a central part of our government's work to crack down on the illicit tobacco market and organised crime groups that are profiting from it. For many years, illicit tobacco was treated as a niche issue, a matter of health policy or lost revenue, but that era is now over. The evidence is now overwhelming that illicit tobacco is no longer a sidelined criminal enterprise. It's a serious organised crime crisis. It's a multibillion dollar revenue stream for criminal syndicates. It's fuelling violence, firebombings, intimidation and the spread of serious crime across the country.
The Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner has estimated that the value of the illicit tobacco market in 2024-25 was between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion. Organised crime groups are earning between $4 billion and $7 billion in profits, and these profits are then used to fund drug trafficking, scams, money laundering and other serious harms. But they're not victimless crimes. They hurt communities. They hurt honest retailers, most importantly, and they hurt workers. They undermine public safety. In that context, this bill is not optional. It's essential.
The Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill has two clear objectives. First, it rebalances the risk-reward calculation for criminal actors. For too long, the penalties for illicit tobacco offending have been far too low relative to the profits that are on offer. Criminal syndicates have treated the current penalties as a cost of doing business. This bill changes that. It raises offence penalties to match the severity of the harms being caused. It ensures that illicit tobacco is treated as the serious organised crime that it is. Secondly, the bill strengthens Australia's proceeds-of-crime regime. It makes the regime more effective in targeting the profits generated from illicit tobacco. The truth is simple: the main motivation for these criminal groups is money. If we want to shut down the trade, we must choke the profits.
To achieve these objectives, the bill amends the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Taxation Administration Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. These amendments expand law enforcement powers, and they increase penalties. They ensure that illicit tobacco related offences are treated as serious offences under the T(IA) Act. They enable access to telecommunications data and interception powers essential for disrupting organised crime networks.
These are not unprecedented powers. They bring illicit tobacco into line with other serious crime offences, they provide consistency across existing search warrant and investigative frameworks, and they do not impose new burdens on legitimate businesses or community organisations. They simply ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to respond to a rapidly evolving threat.
Some may ask why further legislation is needed. The answer is clear. Despite previous reforms, the illicit tobacco market has continued to grow at an exponential rate. The profits are enormous. The risks to criminals are low. The consequences for communities are severe. Without legislative change, penalties will remain too low. Law enforcement powers will remain inadequate. Criminal syndicates will continue to exploit the gaps, and this bill closes those gaps. It ensures that penalties reflect the seriousness of the offending. It ensures that illicit tobacco offences are treated as serious offences for the purposes of telecommunications access. It ensures the proceeds of crime regime can be used to seize the profits that drive this trade. This is how you deter, disrupt and dismantle organised crime.
Some have suggested that cutting tobacco excise would somehow solve the illicit tobacco problem, but reducing excise won't solve this problem. This is a serious organised crime issue, and reducing the excise risks the health benefits that have come from the increasing cost of smoking that is driving many to quit the habit. That brings a national health benefit as well as a benefit to the individual.
This is a global problem that's been driven by a massive surplus of cheap production. In some countries, illicit tobacco can be manufactured for as little as 50c a pack. Organised crime syndicates operating like multinational corporations have weaponised this surplus and flooded national borders with illegal product. These groups don't care what they sell. One day it's counterfeit luxury goods, the next day it's tobacco and the next day it's drugs or human trafficking. Their business model is simple: maximise profits, minimise risk. Because illegal tobacco is so cheap to produce, even if excise were wiped out completely, illicit tobacco would still be cheaper. States, territories and the Commonwealth would be left chasing the same criminals and the same syndicates. They would be shutting down the same sleazy shopfronts that have sprung up in strip shopping centres across the country. It's unfortunate that many of them are springing up around schools.
This has been a bipartisan policy for decades. The tobacco excise rose by around 121 per cent under the previous Liberal-National government. It's risen by about 32 per cent under our government. So, of that cost increase associated with increases in the excise, much was driven under the previous Liberal-National coalition government. The purpose was never to raise revenue; it was to reduce consumption, and it worked. Adult smoking rates have fallen dramatically. The challenge now is to hold on to those gains. We cannot surrender decades of progress to organised crime. If we were to reduce the excise, we'd be saying that the illegal syndicates have won and that we're going to heed and bend to what they want by reducing the cost of illegal cigarettes.
This builds on the Albanese government's strong record of action against illicit tobacco. Since 2023-24, the government has provided $346 million in funding to the Australian Border Force to crack down on illicit tobacco and vaping products. We appointed Australia's first illicit tobacco and e-cigarette commissioner. We backed the appointment with $21.3 million in the 2025-26 budget to coordinate those national efforts.
Our strategy has three key pillars: first, disrupting and dismantling border threats; second, enhancing detection, disruption and destruction of illicit products; and, third, better coordinating across jurisdictions through the national disruption group and the National Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Coordination Forum. The results are significant. Since January 2024, the Australian Border Force has seized more than 14 million vaping products and accessories. In the last six months of the year, more than a billion illicit cigarettes were seized.
I've been down to Port Botany in my electorate, to the Australian Border Force container X-raying facility, and I've seen firsthand the hauls of illegal cigarettes that they're picking up through that technology—shipping containers that are taken randomly off Australia's largest and busiest container port and x-rayed through that facility. This scale of response is required. To understand the challenge, we need to recognise that no country can win this fight at the border alone. Even Singapore, one of the most orderly jurisdictions in the world, has an illicit tobacco problem. They don't have shopfronts; they have motorcycle couriers and encrypted messaging apps. The method changes, but the threat is the same. That's why our government is throwing everything at this problem.
Border Force has recorded multiple record-seizure weeks—a record week in March and another in April. But the reality is simple: border enforcement alone cannot defeat a globalised, highly profitable criminal enterprise. That's why this bill is so important. It strengthens penalties. It expands investigative powers. It targets the profits that drive the trade. The government's focus is simple: shut down illegal shops, choke off the money and make this trade unprofitable. But we can't do it alone. The only way to dismantle illegal tobacco markets is through seamless cooperation between the states and territories and the Commonwealth. Over the past six months, interjurisdictional cooperation has strengthened dramatically.
Through the National Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Coordination Forum, 80 priority actions have been identified for states. These include stronger licensing regimes, long-term closure orders, penalties for landlords who knowingly lease to illegal operators and more on-the-ground enforcement. We're already seeing results. I've been walking down the street in my electorate and seeing signs on what were previously some of these dodgy operators operating out of shopfronts saying, 'This shop has been closed down due to illegal illicit tobacco sales being identified.' In South Australia and Queensland, illegal trade has fallen sharply in areas where enforcement has reached 100 per cent coverage. Victoria is moving to strengthen closure and landlord laws. Other jurisdictions are following suit. That's what national coordinated action looks like, and the Albanese government remains committed to working with every state and territory to shut down this trade.
While the government is focused on dismantling organised crime networks, others have chosen a different path. We've heard the calls to cut the excise, but those advocating for it cannot point to a single piece of evidence showing that it would actually reduce illicit tobacco—not one. It's a policy built on a vibe, not on facts. As the ABS data released yesterday confirms, consistent with the tobacco commissioner's report, the problem is driven by surplus global production weaponised by transnational organised crime, not by domestic settings. Let's be clear: the immediate beneficiaries of an excise cut would be global big tobacco—not Australian consumers, not public health and certainly not community safety.
We can't surrender Australia's health policy to organised crime, we can't unwind decades of progress in reducing smoking rates, and we cannot pretend that cutting excise would do anything other than make big tobacco more profitable and organised crime more entrenched. Not one line of those proposals would shut down an illegal shop. Not one line would seize a dollar of criminal profit, and not one line would make a community safer. This bill does all three. Fundamentally, we must go after the crime syndicates themselves. Battling organised crime is a serious job. It requires intelligence, coordination and the full force of the law, and that's exactly what this bill delivers.
The ABF, the AFP, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the state police are working together to dismantle these networks. The national disruption group is coordinating efforts across jurisdictions. With this bill, law enforcement will have the penalties, investigative powers and proceeds of crime tools they need to hit these syndicates where they hurt most: their profits. That is the only way to win this fight—not by cutting excise and pretending that the problem will disappear but by choking off the money, shutting down the illegal shops and making this trade unprofitable.
This bill is a necessary, proportionate, evidence-based response to a rapidly growing organised crime threat. It strengthens penalties. It expands law enforcement powers. It ensures that the proceeds of crime regime can be used to seize the profits that drive this trade. It builds on our government's strong record of action: record funding for the Australian Border Force, the appointment of the first Illicit Tobacco and E-Cigarette Commissioner and unprecedented cooperation across jurisdictions. It sends a clear message to organised crime that the days of low risk and high reward are over. This parliament has a responsibility to protect communities, to uphold public safety and to ensure criminal syndicates cannot profit from harm. That's exactly what this bill delivers.
The coalition will support the passage of the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. We support measures that strengthen law enforcement powers, disrupt organised criminal activity and make it harder for criminals to profit from illicit tobacco. However, while this bill contains some worthwhile measures, we shouldn't pretend that it represents a comprehensive solution to the crisis that Australia now faces.
This bill is ultimately a response to a problem that has exploded under Labor's watch. It's a crisis that has been a number of years in the making and a crisis that extends far beyond just tobacco. This is about organised crime, community safety, lost government revenue and whether Australians can have confidence that the rule of law, which underpins our society, is being upheld. Australia is now facing a full-blown illicit tobacco crisis. The government's own illicit tobacco and e-cigarette commissioner estimates that the illicit tobacco market is worth somewhere between 4.1 and $6.9 billion annually. That figure alone should alarm every member of this House. This is not some small black market operating on the fringes of society. This is a sophisticated, highly profitable criminal enterprise generating billions of dollars every year.
Those profits are not flowing into the legitimate economy. They're not funding public services. They're not supporting Australian jobs. They're flowing directly into the hands of organised criminal syndicates, who are doing significant damage to our community, to our social fabric, by, as an example, firebombing legitimate businesses. The coalition's amendment correctly notes that illicit tobacco has become a multibillion-dollar black market increasingly linked to organised crime, violent criminal networks and serious community harm. We've seen the reports of firebombings. We've seen reports of extortion. We've seen criminal groups fighting over territory and profits. This is no longer simply a public health issue, as important as that is. It has become a significant law and order issue. It has become a significant domestic national security issue. Australians are rightly concerned.
The unfortunate reality is that this crisis did not emerge overnight, nor did it emerge by accident. The Albanese government's approach to tobacco excise has played a significant role in creating the conditions that have allowed this black market to flourish. The coalition's amendment notes that repeated increases in tobacco excise significantly widened the gap between legal and illegal tobacco products, driving consumers towards the black market and dramatically increasing the profitability of organised criminal supply.
Now, let me be clear: nobody on this side of the House is arguing that tobacco use should be encouraged—at least I don't think any of my colleagues are. Perhaps we might have some smokers on our side. But governments must recognise that, when legal products become dramatically more expensive, criminal markets step in to fill the gap. There is the age-old saying that 'nature abhors a vacuum'. That is precisely what has happened. Organised crime recognised the opportunity. The profits became enormous and criminal syndicates moved quickly to exploit that opportunity. While Labor was increasing the excise and celebrating projected revenue gains, criminal organisations were building a thriving black market right under our noses.
One aspect of this issue that receives far too little attention is the enormous loss of government revenue. Every illegal cigarette sold represents excise revenue that is never collected. Every shipment of illicit tobacco imported into Australia represents money that should have gone into the Commonwealth's coffers. While Labor originally forecast billions in additional revenue from its excise increases, the Parliamentary Budget Office has estimated that those policies will reduce budget revenue by more than $20 billion between 2024-25 and 2028-29. That is a staggering figure. That is money that could have been spent on hospitals, roads, defence, aged care, disability services and infrastructure. Instead, it is disappearing down the black hole of the black market.
Australians are being taxed more, while criminal syndicates avoid paying any tax at all. That is not fair to hardworking mum-and-dad Australian taxpayers or to small and big businesses alike. It is certainly not sustainable. At its core, illicit tobacco is one of the largest tax evasion schemes operating in Australia today. That is why I believe we need to think differently about this problem. For too long, governments have viewed illicit tobacco primarily through a health lens, but it must also be viewed through a taxation and organised crime lens. The Commonwealth has extensive powers to pursue Australians who fail to meet their tax obligations. We all know that. The Australian Tax Office has sophisticated capabilities. It has investigative, compliance and enforcement powers. Yet somehow criminal enterprises operating multimillion-dollar illicit tobacco networks continue to flourish.
Australians are entitled to ask how this could possibly be. How is it that there are hardworking, everyday Australians out there working hard to put food on the table and to pay their rent or their mortgage who are also paying their taxes, yet these criminal syndicates seem to be getting away with blue murder? If we can dedicate resources to investigating relatively small tax discrepancies that everyday mums and dads often get picked up on, surely we can dedicate greater resources to pursuing criminal syndicates that are evading millions of dollars in customs duties and excise revenue. The tax office can't keep going after the low-hanging fruit.
The money trail is often the most effective way to dismantle organised crime. We all know the stories of Al Capone and his exploits. He was never charged or convicted in the US of all of the many crimes and alleged murders that he had committed or organised to be committed. At the end of the day, they got him for tax fraud. That's something that we should be doing here. If we can't get these people for the firebombings, extortions and assaults, let's go after them from a tax perspective. Most people would be more scared of a tax inspector than they would be of a member of the police force. People who are involved in these illicit schemes should be worried about the tax office coming and knocking on their door. Who cares about how we get them off the streets or how they end up going to prison, as long as we get them off the streets and as long as they go to prison. If they go to prison for tax fraud, so be it. We need to follow the money, freeze the assets, seize the profits and take away the financial incentive, because, if organised criminals continue to make enormous profits, they will continue to find new ways to operate.
To be fair to the government, there are elements of this bill that the coalition welcomes. The bill seeks to strengthen the risk-to-reward calculation for criminal actors by increasing penalties and improving the ability of authorities to pursue criminal profits. The bill also strengthens proceeds-of-crime arrangements and expands investigative powers available to law enforcement agencies. Importantly, the legislation expands access to telecommunications interception powers for serious illicit tobacco offences. These are sensible reforms. They will provide additional tools for investigators, they'll assist police and enforcement agencies, and they should help make it harder for criminal organisations to operate.
For these reasons, the coalition will support the bill. Supporting the bill, however, does not mean ignoring its shortcomings. The reality is that much of this legislation focuses on increasing penalties on paper. The government talks big about stronger penalties, it talks big about longer prison terms, it talks big about larger fines, but penalties only matter if criminals believe that they will actually be caught. The central challenge is not simply the size of the penalty; the central challenge is enforcement. Courts already have significant penalties available to them, yet criminal organisations continue to operate because they do not fear being caught. That is why stronger enforcement must sit alongside stronger penalties. Without meaningful disruption, criminal organisations will simply adapt, and they will continue to operate.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of this bill is that it does not form part of a broader national strategy. The coalition calls on the government to finally develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy to combat illicit tobacco and organised criminal activity. That is exactly what is required. We need stronger border enforcement, we need greater intelligence sharing, we need stronger cooperation between Commonwealth agencies and state police, we need greater financial investigation capability, we need more aggressive use of proceeds-of-crime laws, and we need stronger coordination with states and territories. Many Australians have seen illegal tobacco stores shut down only to reopen days later. Many Australians have seen criminal operators appear to continue trading with little consequence. That cannot continue. There must be real consequences for those who repeatedly break the law, there must be meaningful disruption of criminal supply chains, and there must be a coordinated national response. This debate is ultimately about more than tobacco. It's about protecting communities. It's about ensuring criminal syndicates cannot operate with impunity, and it's about ensuring Australians actually feel safe in their neighbourhoods.
The growth of the illicit tobacco market has brought with it organised crime, intimidation, violence and criminal activity. The longer governments allow those networks to become entrenched, the harder they become to dismantle. That is why this issue deserves serious attention. That is why the coalition continue to push for stronger action. The coalition will support the Combating Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. We support stronger law enforcement powers, we support stronger proceeds-of-crime measures, and we support sensible efforts to disrupt organised criminal activity. But Australians should be under no illusion. This legislation alone will not solve the problem. The illicit tobacco market is now worth billions of dollars. It's costing taxpayers billions in lost revenue. It is enriching organised crime, and it is creating real community safety concerns across Australia.
This crisis did not happen overnight. It developed over years of poor policy decisions, weak enforcement and government inaction. The Albanese government has lost control of illicit tobacco. This bill is an acknowledgement of that reality. The coalition will support any measure that helps restore order, but we will continue to argue for a broader, stronger and more comprehensive response, because this is no longer about tobacco; it's about organised crime, tax evasion and community safety, and it is about protecting the interests of Australian taxpayers.
The bill before the House, the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026, is a necessary and decisive response to a growing threat to Australia's public health, community safety and economic integrity. We're talking about the illicit tobacco trade. Speaking from experience, having been a nicotine addict on and off for many, many years in my life—I'm pretty clean at the moment and haven't touched a cigarette for well over four years—
And you look extremely healthy, I've got to say.
I know about addiction to this horrendous drug that has addicted billions of people around this earth and caused health devastation everywhere you go in every corner in this world. It is one of the most addictive drugs that humankind has seen. It is the hardest drug to get off—harder than heroin, amphetamines and most other drugs. This is what the illicit tobacco trade knows and understands really well, and it is why they're targeting this area. They know that the addiction is so great that, no matter the cost, people will try to find a way to get their tobacco.
This bill strengthens law enforcement powers and significantly increases the penalties for illicit tobacco offences, ensuring that the legal framework will finally reflect the seriousness of the harm being done. Let's be clear, this is not a minor issue. It's not an isolated compliance matter; it's a multibillion-dollar criminal enterprise, and governments, regardless of their persuasion—whether they're from the coalition side or the Labor side or the callithumpian side—should be doing everything possible to wipe it out or to keep it at bay as much as possible. Recent reporting has estimated the value of the illicit tobacco market to be between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion. That is billions of dollars flowing into illegal networks, strengthening organised crime, undermining lawful businesses and putting Australians at risk.
The bill has two clear and essential objectives. The first is to rebalance the risk-to-reward equation for those engaging in illegal activities, ensuring that penalties truly reflect the scale of the harm caused and that crime in this space is no longer seen as a low-risk, high-reward opportunity. The second is to strengthen Australia's proceeds of crime regime so that those profiting from illicit tobacco can no longer hide behind complex financial structures and their unlawful gains can be properly targeted and removed.
As I said, illicit tobacco is not just about lost revenue. It directly undermines the progress that's been made over decades in reducing smoking rates here in Australia. We have been leaders in the world when it comes to tobacco reduction, whether it be through the banning of advertising on TV, the sporting ban at our cricket and football matches or the plain packaging tobacco laws that we brought in. I chaired the health committee at the time, and I remember very well that, when we conducted the inquiry, we had a conga line of tobacco companies come in with their lawyers, their consultants and their million-dollar CEOs to give evidence. They were all trying to tell us that what we were doing was illegal or wasn't quite right.
What we saw as a direct result of the plain packaging of tobacco, in the years in front of it, was that the amount of people taking up smoking—in other words, teenagers—was dropping at a remarkable rate because the fancy advertising and packaging wasn't working. We've done some great things in this country when it comes to reducing the numbers, and we don't want to see it now going upwards. That's really important to keep in mind.
What's taking place now is exposing Australians to unregulated and potentially dangerous products. Tobacco is dangerous as it is, even legal tobacco. It creates health problems. It causes cancer, asthma—a whole range of things. Unregulated, it is even more dangerous. It fuels organised crime, embedding criminal activity deeper into our communities. The reality is really clear. The illicit tobacco trade has continued to grow rapidly and profitably. That tells us that the current system is not working and that it's not strong enough. When you come to that realisation, then there's no doubt that we need stronger laws. Without stronger laws, without tougher penalties and without effective enforcement powers, the risk remains low for those breaking the law, and that is simply not acceptable.
This issue is not theoretical; it's already playing out in real time in communities all over Australia. In fact, in my electorate and my community of Adelaide in 2025, a local shop in Torrensville became caught in what can only be described as the escalating violence in the illicit tobacco trade. In the middle of the day, in full view of the public, a brazen arson attack took place. It was a weekend, on a Saturday, when all the shops were operating all around it. It was so intense that two men were seen emerging from the building engulfed in flames. They obviously tried to firebomb the place, but it backfired on them. It exposes Australians to much danger. Three people in this incident were seriously injured and rushed to the Royal Adelaide Hospital suffering from severe burns. The damage to the businesses was devastating, with early estimates exceeding $500,000, and it was the wrong business. They had targeted the wrong place. It's putting Australians into danger every single day.
The cost goes far beyond dollars. It is the fear, the trauma and the disruption that's inflicted on local businesses and their workers and the entire community. Pressure is being put onto businesses to sell their illegal products. We know so. We've read about it in our papers. We've seen it on our news stories. We've seen it on Four Corners. These people are thugs that basically don't care about the safety of anyone. They don't care about new addicts in the tobacco game. They will put the pressure on particular shop owners to sell their illegal product through fear and trauma and the disruption that's inflicted on them and their local businesses.
Tragically, the incident that I just explained is not the only or an isolated incident in my electorate. Just days earlier from that incident, another shop located only a few hundred metres away had its doors smashed and fire deliberately lit inside. That business was left completely gutted. It was reduced to little more than charred walls, blackened floors and the remains of what had once been a thriving local enterprise. These are businesses that have nothing to do with illicit tobacco, yet they are being dragged into a cycle of violence driven by criminal networks operating in this space. Either pressure is being put to them to sell their illegal product, they're saying no and they get attacked or they're selling someone else's illegal product and therefore another crime group will attack them.
We've seen so many similar incidents, not just in my electorate but all over the country, continuously. In 2024, an office—again, in my electorate—was targeted by a Molotov cocktail attack, reducing it to ash. It is believed that the real target was the tobacco business next door. They missed the target and burnt down an innocent, law-abiding citizen's business. It's believed that the real target, obviously, was the tobacco business next door to this particular office block. This is the reality: indiscriminate violence spilling into surrounding businesses and communities, putting innocent people's lives at risk.
These so-called tobacco wars are not just about illegal cigarettes. They're about organised crime asserting control, using intimidation and violence, to protect a highly profitable illegal market. Authorities now estimate that there are 200 tobacco stores just in Adelaide alone. It's believed that 50 to 60 per cent of all tobacco products sold are now illicit, and this may get worse before it gets better. That's the scale of this problem. So you cannot just sit here and say, 'We're not going to do anything about it.' That's why this government is acting. It's no longer hidden. It's no longer isolated. It's happening in plain sight in our suburbs, on our streets and in our local communities.
When criminal activity reaches this level, when it begins to threaten lives, legitimate businesses and public safety, it becomes clear that stronger action is not just necessary; it is urgent. This is not a challenge that can be solved by one level of government or one state government alone. It is something whereby, if we're serious about this, we need to be equally serious about working together across the Commonwealth, states and territories with unified coordination.
It would be a real shame if this bill was not supported by every member of parliament, because, as I said, it's not about ideology. It's not about politics. It is about shutting down illegal businesses, shutting down organised crime and ensuring that the number of people addicted to tobacco does not go up. That is our No. 1 priority here. That's why this government is focused and clear. These so-called tobacco wars are not just about illegal cigarettes; they're about human people and human lives. I commend the bill to the House.
The real debate today isn't happening inside the comfort of this chamber. It's happening to the sound of midnight sirens, the shattering of storefront glass and the pungent smell of smoke in our suburbs. Follow that smoke and it leads directly to the police tape stretching across local shopping centres, to the charred ruins of family businesses and into the lives of everyday Australians, who no longer feel safe walking down suburban streets. I rise in this chamber today not to debate a piece of public health regulation but to confront a national security crisis.
This multibillion-dollar criminal empire didn't just emerge from an unforeseen global shock. It was built, brick by brick, under the watchful eye of the Albanese government because of a failed tax policy that has created the most lucrative black market this country has ever seen. Labor thought they were taxing a habit. Instead, they subsidised a syndicate. Criminal syndicates don't deal in statistics; they deal in terror.
Let's look at the real victims of this policy. A 27-year-old woman, Kate Tangey from Melbourne, is dead. Her family is shattered. Their lives are completely destroyed. Why did this happen? Because a criminal tobacco gang firebombed the house she was in, targeting the wrong place in the dead of night. She paid the ultimate price for the gang warfare that has continued to run rampant. The syndicates might be targeting their rivals, but everyday Australians are the ones being dragged into the inferno. Look at the Gold Coast, where a late-night attack gutted a neighbouring laundromat and suburban cafe. And look right here in Canberra, where fires have forced families out of their beds as nearby apartment blocks have had to be evacuated. The underworld is fighting for market share, but the public is carrying the terrifying risk.
If anyone in this chamber thinks this black-market warfare is a crisis confined to the big cities, they are wrong. You only have to look at the suburb of Andergrove in Mackay in my electorate of Dawson. Just after midnight on 28 February, the Andergrove Village shopping complex became a war zone. For the fourth time in two months, a local tobacco shop was targeted by arsonists. But the fire didn't stop there. It ripped through the walls and completely gutted Bauer Mackay, a brilliant family-run electrical business next door, destroying over $160,000 worth of their equipment. The hardworking owners, the electrical business—they did absolutely nothing wrong. They didn't deal in tobacco. They didn't deal in contraband. But their livelihood was reduced to ashes anyway because the out-of-touch government has allowed the legal criminal empire to run rampant on our doorstep.
The assailants, caught on CCTV, were two adults in balaclavas wielding flaming Molotov cocktails—a targeted and deliberate attack. This is not a regulatory issue; this is gang warfare playing out next to our schools, next to our cafes and inside our communities. Unbelievably, there have now been more than 285 firebombings across this country linked directly to this illicit trade. The syndicates might be aiming at their rivals, but the collateral damage falls entirely on the innocent. It falls on the family run bakery next door, it falls on the first responders rushing into a burning building at midnight, and it falls on local residents forced to flee their beds.
The coalition will support the passage of this bill because any weapon, no matter how blunt, is better than leaving our police empty-handed. But let's be completely honest. This bill is too little, too late. It is a desperate attempt by a government that has lost control of our borders and lost control of our streets. The profits from this black market are funding bikie gangs, international syndicates and cartels. The government's own figures admit that the illicit market is worth up to $6.9 billion annually. That's nearly $7 billion in cold, hard, untaxed cash flowing straight to the worst elements of society, and that's how they get so rich. Labor serves the business model on a plate.
When the Albanese Labor government handed down its 2023-24 budget, they rammed through massive compounding increases to tobacco excise. They did so ignoring the warnings from law enforcement and retailers. They genuinely believed that, if you keep raising the price of a legal packet of cigarettes, demand will magically vanish. But they forgot the actual first rule of market economics: if you tax a legal product into orbit, you do not stop people smoking; you simply hand the entire market over to organised crime. When a legal packet of cigarettes costs over $40 and a criminal syndicate can sell an illegal imported packet under the counter for $15, you create an absolute gold rush for thugs. You make illicit tobacco more profitable than trafficking cocaine with a fraction of the legal risk.
Labor did not fix smoking; they accidentally became the chief marketing managers for the black market cartels. And what has been the result for the budget? The Parliamentary Budget Office has revealed that these failed tax settings have blown a massive $20 billion hole in the Commonwealth revenue base. At the exact moment local families are staring at electricity bills stuck to their fridges, wondering how they're going to buy groceries, billions of dollars in tax revenue are being diverted from our healthcare, our education and our roads straight into the pockets of underground syndicates. It is a spectacular double failure, a law-and-order catastrophe and a fiscal disaster all rolled into one.
This is not just a coalition critique. The anger and frustration has reached boiling point inside the Labor Party itself. Labor state governments are completely frustrated by the incompetence in Canberra. The New South Wales health minister, Ryan Park, has publicly and repeatedly slammed the Albanese Labor government's failure to act. He has rightly pointed out that the state authorities are being left to play an endless, futile game of whack-a-mole, trying to shut down illicit shops while the federal government's high excise continues to pour high-octane fuel on the fire. New South Wales Labor premier Chris Minns has shown the type of leadership that the Prime Minister lacks. He has called for a total rethink of the excise strategy, acknowledging that current settings are completely unsustainable and actively counterproductive. When their own state colleagues are publicly begging this government to fix a mess, it is definite proof that they have completely lost control of the nation.
The government tells us that this bill will solve everything by increasing maximum penalties, expanding investigative powers and targeting criminal profits, but, when we actually read the text, this bill is all show and no substance. The legislation is obsessed with increased maximum penalties on a piece of paper rather than providing the resources to improve actual enforcement on the street. Anyone who understands the courts knows that doubling a maximum penalty means absolutely nothing if the judiciary system isn't imposing the current limits and if financial penalties are rarely enforced against underground networks. Cartels do not look at a sentencing schedule before they plan a firebombing. They look at the likelihood of getting caught. And, under this administration, that likelihood is remarkably low.
The Australian Border Force made an incredibly blunt submission to the Senate inquiry on this very issue. They noted that we cannot simply seize our way out of this problem. They explained that their frontline officers are running themselves ragged trying to mop up a flood while the Labor government keeps the taps turned on full blast. This bill ignores the tsunami entirely and just gives the Australian Border Force a slightly larger mop.
What is missing from this bill tells us everything you need to know. This legislation does absolutely nothing to address the core structural drivers of the crisis. There is no reconfiguration of the disastrous excise settings. The government refuses to even look at the pricing signals they are sending to the economy. They are so wedded to their policy pride that they would rather see suburban shops boarded up with police tape than admit their tax experiment has backfired. There is no significant new investment for our frontline enforcement agencies, no major funding boost for the Australian Border Force at our container terminals, no new support for domestic compliance operations to help local police raid illicit warehouses and zero explanation of how government intends to solve the practical street-level hurdles facing our communities. We have all seen the ridiculous spectacle of an illegal tobacco shop being shut down by state health officials, only to reopen 48 hours later under a different name with a new frontman. This bill provides no mechanisms to break that cycle.
Even the government itself admits the legislation is a lightweight response. In the explanatory memorandum, they concede that the financial impact of the bill is small. They are introducing a signature bill to solve a multibillion dollar national crisis, and their own official documentation admits they cannot quantify a single dollar of criminal disruption. That tells you everything you need to know about the substance of this plan.
However, the coalition will support the bill, because we believe some tools are better than none, but this government must implement a far more comprehensive strategy to restore the rule of law. A serious response to the crisis must move beyond paper penalties and focus on actual disruption, confiscation and closure. This government should coordinate with the states to introduce immediate nationwide store closures and lease termination provisions. If a business is caught selling illicit tobacco, authorities must have the power to padlock the doors, cut the utilities and cancel the commercial lease immediately. This government must make it physically and financially impossible for these illicit shopfronts to operate.
This government must also shift its focus from penalties to the complete confiscation of revenue streams. Our law enforcement needs tobacco-specific asset forfeiture laws that allow police to seize the cash, the luxury vehicles and the properties of anyone involved in this trade, hitting the syndicates where it hurts the most—their wallets.
Thirdly, the government must finally swallow its pride and look at the pricing signals driving this crisis. There needs to be an honest, independent review into how tobacco excise settings are impacting the black market, guided by law enforcement and economic reality rather than bureaucratic stubbornness.
Lastly, this government must actively support our frontline state and territory enforcement officers. We cannot expect local police forces to bear the brunt of a federal border failure without direct financial and logistical assistance from Canberra. This debate is no longer just about tobacco regulation; it's about community safety, economic sanity and the rule of law.
I understand that the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into the Hansard, in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.
The incorporated speech read as follows—
I would like to speak in support of the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 and the stronger measures this government is taking to crack down on the growing illicit tobacco trade across Australia. This issue matters deeply to communities across Pearce. People are increasingly concerned about the growth of illegal tobacco and vaping products being sold openly in suburban shopping strips, near schools and in local commercial centres. They are concerned not only about the health impacts but also about the organised criminal activity that sits behind this trade. Across our communities, people can see that this problem has escalated dramatically. Illegal tobacco shops are no longer hidden away. They are operating in plain sight. Communities are rightly asking how criminal networks have become so brazen and so embedded in everyday neighbourhoods. This is no longer simply a matter of unpaid tax or regulatory noncompliance. It is now a serious organised crime issue, and it requires a serious and coordinated national response.
The evidence before us is alarming. Official estimates suggest that between 50 and 60 per cent of all tobacco products sold in Australia are now illicit. Organised criminal groups are estimated to be earning billions of dollars from this trade every year. That money does not simply disappear. It is reinvested into other forms of criminal activity, including money laundering, trafficking, scams, and other organised illegal operations that threaten community safety. The illicit vape market is equally concerning. The overwhelming majority of vaping products sold in Australia are estimated to be illegal. These products are often unregulated, frequently targeted at younger Australians, and sold through networks designed entirely to avoid scrutiny and accountability.
People in Pearce understand that when organised crime becomes profitable, communities suffer. Local families want safe neighbourhoods. Parents want confidence that products being sold near schools and shopping centres are lawful and regulated. Small business owners who do the right thing are frustrated watching illegal operators undercut legitimate businesses while facing few apparent consequences. Communities are also concerned about the broader impacts this trade is having on social cohesion and public confidence. When illegal shopfronts appear to operate openly and repeatedly without consequence, people lose faith that the rules are being enforced fairly. That is why this legislation is so important. This bill sends a clear message that Australia will not allow organised criminal networks to profit from illicit tobacco and illegal vaping products at the expense of public health and community safety. The purpose of this legislation is straightforward: to increase the consequences for criminal actors involved in the illicit tobacco market and to strengthen the powers available to law enforcement agencies investigating these offences.
The reforms recognise that the illicit tobacco trade has changed significantly in recent years. Criminal syndicates are now highly organised, technologically sophisticated and operating across jurisdictions. These networks function like multinational businesses. They exploit weaknesses in regulation, move money rapidly across borders and take advantage of what they perceive to be a high-profit, low-risk criminal enterprise. This bill seeks to change that equation. It increases penalties for offences relating to the importation, manufacture, possession, sale and supply of illicit tobacco products. These stronger penalties are designed to act as a deterrent and reflect the seriousness of the harm these activities cause to the Australian community.
Importantly, the bill also strengthens investigatory powers available to law enforcement agencies. As criminal activity evolves, law enforcement must have the tools necessary to keep pace. This legislation expands access to powers that support the investigation and disruption of organised criminal networks involved in illicit tobacco. That includes strengthening telecommunications interception capabilities and enabling more effective surveillance and investigative techniques for serious tobacco related offences. These powers matter because organised crime does not operate through isolated individuals. These are coordinated criminal enterprises using encrypted communications, financial networks and sophisticated supply chains. Effective investigations require modern tools that allow authorities to identify the organisers, financiers and facilitators behind the trade—not just the individuals working at the retail level.
The bill also strengthens Australia's proceeds-of-crime framework, and this is a particularly important part of the reforms. One of the clearest messages communities in Pearce send is that organised criminals should not be allowed to keep the profits they make from harming Australian communities. People are rightly frustrated when criminal enterprises continue operating because the financial rewards outweigh the risks. That is why targeting criminal profits is essential. This legislation strengthens the ability of authorities to seize unexplained wealth, confiscate criminal assets and disrupt the financial structures that sustain illicit tobacco operations. While prosecutions are important, we know that organised crime is ultimately driven by profit. Taking away the proceeds of crime—whether that be cash, luxury vehicles, property or other assets—is one of the most effective ways to dismantle criminal networks.
The reforms also improve information sharing between agencies and regulators. This reflects the reality that combating illicit tobacco requires a coordinated national effort involving Commonwealth agencies, state and territory governments, financial regulators, law enforcement bodies and border authorities. The work already being undertaken by agencies such as AUSTRAC, the Australian Federal Police and other authorities is making a difference. High-risk financial accounts linked to illicit tobacco activity are being identified and shut down. Suspicious financial transactions are being monitored more closely. Regulatory cooperation is increasing. These reforms build on that work and strengthen the capacity for agencies to act collectively and effectively.
Importantly, this bill also modernises aspects of the Proceeds of Crime Act to ensure law enforcement agencies have powers that reflect contemporary criminal activity and contemporary investigative practices. Criminal organisations today operate across state borders and increasingly use complex structures to conceal ownership, assets and financial flows. Law enforcement agencies need nationally consistent powers to respond effectively. These amendments improve consistency in the way orders and investigative powers can be applied across Australia and reduce unnecessary barriers that can slow investigations. That may sound technical, but it has very real impacts. Every delay, every procedural inconsistency and every gap between jurisdictions can be exploited by organised crime groups. Streamlining and modernising these powers strengthens the national response and improves the effectiveness of investigations.
But, beyond the criminal dimension of this issue, we must also acknowledge the significant public health consequences associated with illicit tobacco. Smoking continues to cause immense harm across Australia. Communities across Pearce know the impact that smoking related illness can have on families and individuals. Many families have seen loved ones suffer from cancers, respiratory diseases and chronic health conditions associated with long-term tobacco use. That is why allowing a large-scale illicit tobacco market to flourish presents such a serious risk. Cheap and accessible illegal tobacco products undermine decades of public health work. They make harmful products easier to obtain and can increase uptake, particularly among younger Australians and vulnerable groups.
The rise in illegal vaping products is especially concerning. Parents in Pearce regularly raise concerns about the accessibility of vaping products to young people. They are worried about how easily these products can be obtained and the long-term health consequences associated with nicotine addiction. Communities want stronger enforcement and stronger safeguards to protect young Australians from becoming the next generation targeted by nicotine dependency. This bill forms part of that broader effort. It recognises that illicit tobacco is not a victimless crime. The impacts are felt in our health system, in community safety, in legitimate businesses and in the wellbeing of families. The costs are ultimately borne by all Australians.
The illicit tobacco market also creates broader economic harm. Legitimate retailers who comply with the law face unfair competition from illegal operators selling unregulated products without paying appropriate duties or complying with health requirements. Local businesses should not be placed at a disadvantage because criminal operators choose to ignore the law. Communities expect fairness. They expect that businesses doing the right thing are protected and that criminal enterprises are held accountable. The people of Pearce also expect governments to respond decisively when organised crime becomes more visible in suburban communities. People do not want to see illegal tobacco stores normalised in local shopping precincts. They do not want criminal activity becoming embedded in everyday community life. They want action that restores confidence that laws are being enforced properly and consistently. This legislation is an important part of that response. It strengthens penalties. It strengthens enforcement powers. It strengthens proceeds-of-crime laws. And it strengthens cooperation between agencies working to disrupt organised criminal networks.
Importantly, it also recognises that this challenge cannot be addressed by one level of government acting alone. The Commonwealth, states and territories must continue working together to close illegal operations, strengthen enforcement and reduce the profitability of illicit tobacco markets. That collaboration is essential because organised crime does not recognise state borders, and effective enforcement cannot operate in silos. Communities expect coordination, cooperation and practical outcomes. This bill helps deliver that. It represents a serious response to a serious and growing problem. And, while legislation alone will not solve every aspect of illicit tobacco activity overnight, these reforms provide law enforcement agencies with stronger tools to disrupt criminal operations and hold offenders accountable. Every seizure matters. Every prosecution matters. Every illegal shopfront shut down matters. Every dollar taken from organised crime matters. Each action increases pressure on the illicit market and helps reduce the profitability of criminal activity.
Ultimately, this legislation is about protecting Australian communities. It is about protecting public health. It is about supporting legitimate businesses. And it is about ensuring organised crime groups do not continue profiting at the expense of community safety and wellbeing. The people of Pearce expect strong action against organised crime and stronger protections for local communities. This bill delivers important reforms to support that goal. I commend the bill to the House.
Australia once led the world on tobacco control. Plain packaging, graphic warnings, non-smoking areas, information campaigns and excise yielded substantial government revenues and, more importantly, created a generation of Australians that never took up smoking. Smoking rates went from one in three to one in 10 in little more than a generation. We were right to be proud of this record. We were wrong to be complacent.
Smoking rates are now higher than they were 10 years ago. Australians are consuming 40 per cent more nicotine than in 2017, far outpacing the 14 per cent population growth. This is despite prices tripling since 2016 due to annual excise price increases. Taxes now make up $30 of the price of a 20-pack, and this has risen rapidly against a backdrop of strained household budgets. But Australians are not smoking less. Instead, they have simply found a cheaper, unregulated, criminal alternative. Illicit tobacco now makes up an estimated 80 per cent of tobacco consumed in Australia, up from 12 per cent in 2017, according to recent data from the ABS. That's four out of every five smokers breaking the law, and almost all vapers are too.
The illicit market is systematically undermining 25 years of progress, creating a triple blow to public health, government revenue and community safety, and there are enormous consequences. The first is public health. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in Australia. It costs us 66 lives every single day. The loved ones lost and childhood exposure to second-hand smoke drove early efforts to deter smoking. Smoking kills. Illegal tobacco is worse still. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has warned that illegal tobacco often contains higher than expected nicotine concentrations and unregulated ingredients, like heavy metals, pesticides and moulds. These products disproportionately reach lower socioeconomic communities, regional and rural Australians and First Nations people, widening health inequalities.
The second is government revenue. The tobacco excise peaked at $16.3 billion a year in 2019-20. This year, just $4.1 billion is expected, and it's expected to decline over the forwards, not because Australians are smoking less but because of the illegal tobacco industry growing. We're collecting 25 per cent of the excise we did five years ago, and yet we have more people smoking than ever. It is painfully clear that the tobacco tax is not working. The decline in government revenues is a direct fiscal consequence of a market that has been ceded to organised crime.
The third is community safety. Organised crime has not just entered this market; it has taken over. The growth of the illicit market has been accompanied by more than 200 gangland firebombings of tobacco shops since 2013, violence and intimidation against small business owners and skyrocketing insurance premiums for businesses that simply have the misfortune to be located next to a tobacconist. In what other sector are illegal businesses able to operate in plain sight on every main street in very suburb in every city—and in my electorate? What is concerning me even further is that illicit alcohol is starting to follow the same trajectory. The ATO puts the market at over $700 million a year. In a recent investigation, 30 per cent of licensed bottle shops were found to be selling suspected illicit product, bringing with it the risk of methanol poisoning.
So let's turn to this bill. The Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 does take a useful step in response to this crisis and enacts recommendations from the ITAC Commissioner's 2024-25 report. It creates new criminal offences for large-scale illicit tobacco activity linked to organised crime. It increases penalties across importing, possessing, buying, selling, producing and manufacturing. It expands unexplained-wealth provisions and proceeds-of-crime tools. And it enables enhanced law enforcement powers, including wiretaps for serious tobacco offences, with imprisonment terms of up to 15 years for the most serious conduct.
I support this bill. Increasing penalties will create a greater deterrence, and the expanded unexplained-wealth powers are particularly important. They go after the money, not just the product. Criminal networks that absorb seizure losses as a cost of doing business are far more vulnerable to asset confiscation. But I have to be honest about what this bill alone cannot do. Illicit tobacco has reached a crisis point. Failure to act on an emerging and growing issue—by both sides of parliament, but particularly by the government, who's been responsible for the last four years—has increased the complexity and cost of addressing it.
The central question in this debate is whether enforcement alone can solve a problem of this scale. I do not believe it can, and I believe that the government must act further. Authorities seized triple the quantity of illegal cigarettes last financial year compared with four years ago. It's a record result. In January, 52 tobacco stores were shut down in New South Wales following raids targeting illicit tobacco. Yet the market keeps growing. Across states and territories, law enforcement personnel are stretched, and resourcing is uneven. Victoria has just 14 enforcement officers, compared with more than 200 in Queensland. The Australian Border Force's submission to the Senate inquiry highlighted that the scale, profitability and adaptability of supply chains limited the efficacy of enforcement alone.
It is clear that Australia has passed the revenue-maximising point of the Laffer curve, not because fewer people are smoking but because the price differential between illegal and legal products has become so large that criminal substitution has overwhelmed any deterrence effect. This bill seeks to rebalance the risk-to-reward calculation by addressing risk. Reward is the other side of the equation. Undeniably, the excise settings have created enormous profit margins for illegal operators to exploit. It should be reviewed, but cutting the excise alone is unlikely to reverse this trend. A comprehensive approach is needed. Illegal-cigarette purchasing has been normalised by consumers over years, and tobacconists have strongly established retail networks. They cannot simply be priced out. The think tank e61 concludes that the entrenchment of the illicit market necessitates a combination of stricter enforcement, meaningful financial levers and a coalition of policy actors willing to confront the full picture.
I note that this bill arrives while the inquiry of the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee is still underway, with its report due on 30 June. I welcome that process, but it does raise the question of why we are debating this bill now, before that inquiry has reported, rather than using its findings to shape a more complete legislative response.
So passing this bill is necessary, but it is far from sufficient. The government must consider all options, starting with demand. The goal is fewer smokers. The second best is that smokers buy legal tobacco. Neither is achievable when an illegal packet costs less than half the legal price. Enforcement alone cannot close a gap that wide, and significant excise reduction calibrated to substitution behaviour needs to be on the table.
Secondly, the bar must be lifted on retail licensing. Australian Council on Smoking and Health, ACOSH, chief executive Laura Hunter put it plainly: 'It is far too easy to become a tobacco retailer in Australia.' She noted that obtaining a tobacco licence involves none of the property checks, police checks or community consultations that are routine in a liquor licence. There are 40,000 tobacco retailers in this country, serving eight per cent of the population—a number that makes compliance monitoring operationally impossible. There are 10 times more tobacconists than the four major supermarkets combined. A genuine national licensing scheme with meaningful barriers to entry, regular compliance checks and real consequences for illegal selling is a prerequisite for enforcement to work. Several states have moved on this, but there is no nationally consistent floor, and it is the job of the government to work across the states for a national approach.
Third is proper resourcing of border enforcement. The ABF's Operation PRINTWALL has delivered record seizure results—over a kilotonne of illicit tobacco deterred since December 2025, with 87 tonnes seized in a single week in April. These are significant achievements, but the ABF has been explicit that it cannot seize its way out of this problem. The government has committed $188.5 million to border enforcement and an additional $156 million for the current financial year. That resourcing must be sufficient and targeted to disrupting the import chains, not just the retail end. Seizures are symptoms. The supply chain is the disease.
Finally, there is resourcing of state enforcement agencies. The current disparity between states is a weakness when criminal networks move supply across jurisdictions and the moment one state tightens its laws. The ITEC Commissioner has documented exactly this dynamic. Organised crime doesn't stand still; it relocates wherever the barriers are lowest. A national approach with consistent standards is the only way to stop that arbitrage
In conclusion, Australia was once a global leader in tobacco control. That record is worth defending, but defending it means being honest when a policy has gone completely wrong. The illicit tobacco crisis is not just a story of inadequate penalties, though penalties matter. It's not simply a story about insufficient border enforcement, though that matters too. It is a story about a market that has been structurally handed to organised crime by a combination of extreme pricing and inadequate supply-side management, which now operates so openly on so many street corners that its normalisation is one of the greatest strengths. This is about organised crime happening in broad daylight. The government must do better in this space.
Today I rise in strong support of the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. This bill is about public health, community safety and the rule of law, but it's also something very practical. It's reversing the equation for criminals. Right now, organised crime sees illicit tobacco as high profit and low risk. This bill is about making it higher risk, lower profit and harder to operate at every stage of the supply chain. The scale of this market should shock every member of the House, and the official numbers are moving fast. The ITEC Commissioner's 2024-25 report put illicit tobacco at 50 to 60 per cent of the tobacco market, but the more recent ABS estimates suggest that the problem has grown significantly higher in that short a time. Organised crime groups are estimated to have made between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in profit from this trade, and it's not petty noncompliance. That is industrial-scale criminal activity.
In 2024-25, the Australian Border Force seized 2.66 billion illicit cigarettes. Operation PRINTWALL has already detected more than a kilotonne of illicit tobacco across the broader continuum, including more than 87 tonnes seized in one week alone. That tells us two things. First, enforcement is working. Second, the size of the market we are up against is enormous. In Bass, people can see it. Across Launceston, in the CBD and surrounding suburbs, illegal tobacco and vape shops appear, disappear, rebrand and reappear again. Products that everyone knows are illegal are being sold in plain sight. They're operating in shopping strips next to legitimate businesses and in the heart of our communities. Recent reporting in the Examiner made clear the scale of the problem in northern Tasmania, with targeted operations led by Tasmania's Department of Health seizing nearly $119,000 worth of illicit tobacco products across the north. It's not a few packets under the counter; it's a substantial illegal market operating within our very community, and locals are right to ask why this has been allowed to continue.
We need to be very clear about what illegal tobacco is and what it is not. It is not harmless, it is not low level and it is not victimless. It is organised crime in a shopfront, and the profits do not sit neatly inside the tobacco trade. They're reinvested into serious criminal activity, drug trafficking, money laundering, intimidation, violence and exploitation. When an illegal tobacco shops in a local community like mine, we should not see it as a quirky retail or issue a minor regulatory breach. We need to see it for what it is: a business model that relies on addiction, undermines public health, undercuts legitimate business and helps fund organised crime.
I especially want to focus on the health harm, particularly with our local Assistant Minister For Health here. It's very important. It cannot be and is not being treated as just a revenue problem from our government. Tobacco remains one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease in Australia. Smoking causes cancer, chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease and stroke. For us, it means more ambulance callouts, more GP appointments, more emergency presentations, more hospital beds, more surgery, more chemo, more palliative care and more families sitting beside someone they love facing news that could and should have been prevented. The Australian government estimates smoking kills more than 24,000 Australians each year. That's one person every 22 minutes. Around 20 per cent of Australia's cancer disease burden is actually due to smoking. Those are the costs that we don't put on the packet. It's carried by patients; it's carried by families; it's carried by nurses, doctors and paramedics; and it's carried by the taxpayer through our health system.
In Tasmania, this is a crucial point. In 2022—older stats—12.4 per cent of Tasmanian adults were current daily smokers, compared to just 10.9 per cent nationally. We know that those numbers have increased in that time. It's a major cause of cardiovascular disease, including heart disease and stroke. For us, that's not abstract. That's an ambulance called out in Scottsdale, it's a hospital bed in Launceston, and it's a family in George Town dealing with the consequence of preventable illness. Every time illegal tobacco becomes cheaper, easier to access or more visible, it makes quitting harder, it makes relapse easier, and it makes it easier for young people to start. It threatens decades of public-health work that has saved lives.
Australia has been a world leader in tobacco control. Plain packaging, advertising restrictions, health warnings, public education and excise have all helped to reduce smoking rates over time, and those policies worked because they made tobacco less attractive, less accessible and less normalised. This illegal market does the opposite. It makes it cheaper, easier to find, dodges health warnings, bypasses regulation and removes age checks. It puts unregulated nicotine products in the hands of people who never should have been sold them in the first place.
This is especially dangerous for young people. A cheap cigarette or a black-market vape are products sold without proper checks. These can become the entry point to years of addiction, and I've seen that up close in my work as a teacher. I've seen a 14-year-old selling illegal cigarettes sourced from a local shop, not because she understood the criminal market behind it but because she was trying to make friends and earn some money on the side. I've seen students leave school grounds at lunchtime to vape in a car together, and, by the end of lunch, one of them was vomiting, dizzy and suffering from severe headaches. That is what this market does. It reaches young people before they can understand the risk. It turns addiction into something cheap, accessible and social, and it leaves families, schools and health services dealing with the consequences. When we talk about illegal tobacco, we're not just talking about today's crime, we're talking about tomorrow's cancer diagnosis, tomorrow's stroke, tomorrow's lung disease, tomorrow's pressure on Medicare and hospitals, and tomorrow's grief for families.
There is also a basic fairness issue here. In Bass, I speak to small-business owners who do the right thing. They follow the law, they pay their taxes, and they comply with regulations. They absorb the cost of doing business properly and legally. Sometimes, next door or down the road, they see another shop selling illegal tobacco with fewer costs, fewer checks and, for too long, too few consequences. This is not a level playing field. It punishes honest businesses and rewards people prepared to ignore the law. It's damaged confidence in enforcement, in regulation and in the basic promise that, if you do the right thing, our system will back you.
This bill is about restoring that confidence. This bill strengthens the legal framework in key areas and increases penalties for offences involving the importation, possession, buying, selling, supply, production and manufacture of illicit tobacco. For some offences, those penalties will reach up to 15 years imprisonment. If criminals are treating this trade as low risk and high profit, then the law must change that calculation. It expands proceeds-of-crime tools because, if we're serious about organised crime, we have to follow the money, we have to strip the profits and we have to make sure that criminals cannot build wealth from products that harm our communities.
The bill also gives enforcement and intelligence agencies stronger tools to investigate and disrupt serious tobacco offences, because it's not a simple retail offending. You've got international supply chains, distribution networks, financial flows, criminal enablers and connections across jurisdictions. It means we cannot fix this problem at the border alone. We have to act pre border, stopping shipments and disrupting criminal supply before they reach Australia, we have to act at the border, where Border Force is already seizing record volumes, and we have to act post border in the warehouses, distribution networks and illegal shopfronts where the products are sold. The whole-of-supply-chain response is the only credible response. Shutting illegal shops is one of the fastest ways to choke the profits because, if criminals cannot sell the product, they cannot make the money and, if they cannot make the money, the business model starts to break.
We also need to answer the argument that tobacco excise caused this problem and simply cutting it would solve it. The tobacco excise is not just a revenue measure; it's a public health measure. It exists because smoking imposes enormous costs on people who smoke, on their families and on the public health system. Yes, criminals are exploiting the price gap, but there's no serious argument that we should surrender Australia's health policy to organised crime. Cutting prices would not make transnational crime syndicates pack up and go home. It would make smoking cheaper, make tobacco companies richer and risk condemning more Australians to smoking related disease and early death. The answer is not surrender. The answer is enforcement, disruption, prevention and support to quit. And that is what this government is doing. We're investing in the Australian Border Force, we're strengthening laws, we're improving national coordination and we're targeting money laundering. We're supporting people to quit smoking and vaping. Through this bill, we're making the illicit tobacco trade more dangerous and less profitable for the criminals behind it. No country will eliminate illicit tobacco entirely, but we can shrink it, we can disrupt it and we can make it harder to import, harder to distribute, harder to sell and much harder to profit from. We can send a very clear message: our communities are not open for this kind of business.
For Bass, this is not theoretical. It's on our streets. It's in our suburbs. It's affecting our small businesses. It's threatening public health. It's helping organised crime profit from addiction. This bill stands up to that. It protects public health, it backs legitimate businesses and it strengthens enforcement. It upholds the rule of law, and it says that Australia will not surrender decades of tobacco control success to criminal syndicates. I commend this bill to the House.
The sale of illicit tobacco is fast becoming one of Australia's most lucrative organised crimes. It's no longer a problem that's confined to back alleys in big cities. It's turning up in suburbs and shopping strips across the country, including in my electorate of McPherson on the Gold Coast. This is the predictable consequence of a tax policy that may look good on a spreadsheet but ignores what's happening on the street. Out of roughly $50 for a legal packet of cigarettes, close to $30 goes straight to the tax office. Official surveys say the number of people who report smoking has dropped sharply in the past year. That should be great news, but wastewater testing shows that Australians are consuming more nicotine now than eight years ago. Smokers have not quit. Many have simply shifted their purchasing into the black market.
At between $10 and $20 a packet, illegal cigarettes are an irresistible offer for anyone who's addicted and under financial pressure. Nicotine dependence is powerful. If the only affordable option is the illegal one, the criminal syndicates are going to win every single time. The tax office misses out, honest retailers miss out and the public health objective is totally undermined. While Canberra keeps hiking excise on the promise that higher prices will deter smoking, under Labor, excise has been ratcheted up again without any serious plan to deal with the second-order effects—the surge in illegal traders, the growth in organised crime and the spread of illegal vapes. The health minister has even admitted in the past that the government is not going to use the police to enforce its own vaping laws. What sort of a message has that sent to crime gangs? It has sent the wrong signal and the worst possible message.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, you've seen a government in Labor that supported our amendment as the coalition to create the Illicit Tobacco and E-Cigarette Commissioner. But it took them more than a year to permanently appoint somebody to the role. And it's taken months after the budget last year for funds to flow to Labor's new national disruption group. While ministers talk, the black market is thriving, and more than 130 legitimate small businesses, often family run, have already been attacked around the country with millions of dollars in damage done.
Debate interrupted.
I'd like to take this opportunity today to raise a really serious matter and one of really high importance. Last week, I met with the homicide at home project team at Melbourne university. This is a team of people who have brought together researchers, people with lived experiences, practitioners and advocates to create real-world change in policy, practice and community support, change for children and young people bereaved by domestic homicide. I'd like to commend their work on their research report Children and young people bereaved by domestic homicide:a focus on Australia. I'd also like to commend their collection of stories published in their book Life After Intimate Partner Homicide, as well as their children's book, What Ally Needs Now, by Andrea Baldwin, Thu Huong Nguyen and the researchers and people with lived experience.
I'll share with you a little bit about Ally's story now. Ally is a rhino beetle, because they're the strongest beetle in the world. When she was younger, something terrible happened in her family. Ally was a victim-survivor of domestic homicide. Many people tried to help her, but she still felt misunderstood until she found a group of people with similar experiences to her. In my own life, I've heard of grief as a suitcase. You lug it around, and over time it becomes a smaller bag until it's a little bit lighter—a little handbag you carry with you. Ally the rhino beetle learns about grief like it's a marble in a jar. As Ally grows, she'll find that the marble stays the same but that the jar gets bigger. Ally's friends tell her:
Your life is like the jar getting bigger as you learn and change and grow. In time there will be so much more in your life it will be easier to live with the marble.
This children's book was created to help children like Beverley Attard. Today, Bev is a highly regarded social worker in my electorate of Gorton. Over 30 years ago, when Bev was just 11 years old, she was witness to her mother's murder, a crime perpetrated by her father. Beverley shared parts of her story in this book by the Beetle Collective. She shared thoughts and feelings that dominated her childhood and shaped the person she is today. Beverley shared:
I was provided counselling, but didn't find any meaning out of it. 'Write a journal about your feelings.' I don't even like doing that now. There was nothing child-focused about it.
What Beverley is describing here is something the research team at homicide at home have identified—that the children of the most extreme cases of domestic violence, such as homicide, are the ones who are often left with the least support.
But Beverley is not alone in her story. In the two decades leading up to 2020, in Australia a total of 1,210 people were killed by a current or former intimate partner. This is a national crisis. I'm proud that the Albanese Labor government is taking really important steps to address violence against women. Since 2022, we have invested $4.4 billion to deliver the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, the most of any government ever. This consultation is now underway, closing 31 July. We've introduced the Leaving Violence Program support; added hundreds of frontline workers to the domestic, family and sexual violence sector across the country; and we've provided nearly $1 billion to the states and territories for service delivery.
But what the research team at homicide at home have identified are the gaps. When a child loses a parent at the hands of domestic homicide, they're often experiencing multiple losses at once—one parent is deceased, while the offender, who is often the other parent, is detained, is on the run or has died by suicide. The home is no longer a home; it's a crime scene, and children are left behind with no clear advocate. Usually, the people caring for them are dealing with their own intense grief, and these kids are often navigating multiple losses and incredibly complex trauma, often while having to move away from home or change schools, even more disruptions to their daily routines.
At a really basic level, these children often fall through the cracks. That's why sharing these stories is so incredibly important. Beverley's story, along with the others bravely told in these books, rebel against the silence and the stigma that are often put on those bereaved due to intimate partner homicide. These stories are real, they are alive and they are carried by children into adulthood, shaping their experiences forever. They deserve to be told, and they expose gaps in our social welfare systems which deserve addressing.
I rise tonight to speak about the future of enterprise and infrastructure on the Gold Coast. It was a pleasure recently to welcome Aaron Violi, the shadow minister for the digital economy, science, technology, innovation and cybersecurity to McPherson. His visit was a reminder that the southern Gold Coast is not only one of the most beautiful places in Australia it's also one of the most enterprising. At Macro Mike in Burleigh, we saw a local success story built from initiative. Mike Kellett could not find products that suited his needs so he created his own. That idea has grown into a well-known Burleigh business, delivering products across Australia and now around the world. It's exactly the kind of Australian enterprise we should be encouraging—people identifying a problem, backing their judgement, taking a risk and building something that creates jobs and opportunity.
We also visited GCIT, a local business operating at the front line of cybersecurity, managed IT, AI and automation. These are no longer abstract issues. They are central to how small businesses operate, how families protect their information and how our economy becomes more productive. If Australia is serious about lifting living standards, then we must be serious about the digital economy and about supporting businesses that are adopting new tools, new systems and new ways of working.
At the McPherson Breakfast Club, Aaron joined a packed group of local businesses and individuals for an open discussion on cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and the recent federal budget. The questions were frank because the pressures are real. Small businesses are facing rising costs, labour shortages, tax pressures and regulation that too often make it harder to grow, employ and invest.
We also heard from a local distillery about the challenges of building a business in a highly regulated environment, including the burden of alcohol excise. These are not complaints from people seeking special treatment; they are the practical realities faced by people who are doing exactly what we ask Australians to do—work hard, take risks, employ locals and contribute to their communities. Governments should enable that effort, not stand in the way.
I also would like to speak about a project that is essential to the future of the southern Gold Coast, the heavy rail extension from Varsity Lakes to the Gold Coast Airport. I brought this to the attention of the federal infrastructure minister during my first week in parliament. The Gold Coast is growing, and the southern Gold Coast is feeling that growth every day. It is felt on our roads, in our suburbs, around our airport and across the communities that make our region so special. But if we are to protect that lifestyle that draws people to the Gold Coast then our infrastructure must keep pace.
The heavy rail extension is a logical, practical and necessary step. The Gold Coast public transport network will remain incomplete until Varsity Lakes is connected by heavy rail to Coolangatta and the Gold Coast Airport. A city of our scale, and growing at such a pace, with an airport of national importance should have direct rail connectivity to the airport. It's not a luxury; it's basic transport planning for a growing city.
This project would improve connectivity for roads and for locals travelling across the coast. It would support commuters travelling between the Gold Coast, Logan and Brisbane, and it would give visitors a better first impression of our city while reducing pressure on the M1 and local roads. It would also help ensure future growth is supported by proper transport infrastructure, rather than forcing more people into cars and then wondering why congestion gets worse.
This project will require more than goodwill. It will require the state government, the federal government and the City of Gold Coast council working in lockstep. It will require planning, preservation, funding and delivery discipline. And it cannot be allowed to sit indefinitely as a line on a map or an aspiration in a planning document.
The southern Gold Coast is desperate for effective public transport solutions. Heavy rail to the airport is one of the most important of those. The task now is to move from recognising the need to delivering the outcome. Our community deserves a transport network that matches the growth, the ambition and the importance of the Gold Coast. That means getting on with the job and making the heavy rail extension to the Gold Coast Airport a reality.
I rise to speak about housing and, in particular, the stark difference in approaches to housing between this Labor government and the LNP state government and the impact that's having in my Brisbane community and more broadly across Queensland. On this side of the House, we do not shy away from the housing challenges. That's why, in this year's budget, we made the decision to reform our tax system to make it easier for first home buyers to get into their first home. I heard from young people, their parents and their grandparents how the system is just not working. It's real. It's unfair. It's denying young people a chance at the Australian dream of homeownership.
The current system, as we know, gives big tax breaks to investors, helping them outbid first home buyers, locking young people out of the market. For decades, generous tax concessions have distorted wealth creation and investment. The current system allows investors to be taxed on only 50 per cent of a capital gain or, put simply, a profit, regardless of whether that profit or gain comes from economic growth or simply from rising asset prices due to inflation. Labor's reforms seek to restore the original principles: tax real gains, not inflationary gains. They're also about bringing the taxes we pay as a result of sitting on assets closer to the tax we pay as a result of working very hard. Under the proposed model, capital gains will be adjusted for inflation rather than receive a blanket discount. This is not radical. This is common sense.
In my first speech to this House, I did speak about one of the biggest challenges facing leaders right now being intergenerational inequality. To deliver fairness and the dream of owning their own home, every one of us in this chamber should be motivated to provide to the younger generations at least the same opportunities and aspirations that we had. We know that housing is a life-defining challenge for so many Australians. Many people are working hard and doing everything right, yet they still can't afford a place to call home. Young people are outbidding each other for rental properties, and families with kids—families that would have owned a home a generation ago—cannot get a foothold in the market now. We hear this from young people. We hear it from parents who cannot give their kids the stability they got as children. We hear it from renters whose rents are going up too high and too often. We also see it in the rising homeless population that is so evident in our suburbs and across our regions.
For too long the Commonwealth government had tapped out of the housing challenge. During the coalition's nine years in power, they neglected housing, to the point where they didn't even appoint a housing minister for most of their time in government. They built just 373 social and affordable homes over that entire period. The crisis wasn't created overnight, and it won't be fixed overnight. Since the Albanese Labor government was elected in 2022, real progress has been made right across the country. When it comes to housing, Labor has taken the Commonwealth from being the negligent bystander that it was under the former coalition government to being the boldest and most ambitious government since the Second World War. We're tackling the housing crisis from every angle and we're delivering.
This is in stark contrast to what's unfolding in Queensland under the LNP state government. They have scrapped the mandates under the State Facilitated Development program that require developers to include affordable housing in new builds. Under the LNP, up to 10,000 social and affordable homes across the state have now been cancelled. The SFD scheme was introduced by a Labor government in 2024 and included a mandate that at least 15 per cent of homes within those developments be affordable. The LNP claims it is cutting red tape, but let's call it what it is: it's delivering for its donor mates, the property developers. Peak body Q Shelter claimed that the policy shift risks delivering more market housing that remains out of reach for low- and moderate-income households.
Then, just last week, it was reported in the Brisbane Times that the LNP government had not managed the social housing register and that, at the end of last year, there were almost 30,000 applicants for social housing in Queensland. This comes on top of the introduction of the three-strikes-and-you're-out policy. It's a cruel policy. I say to the people of Brisbane and Queensland that you should demand better out of the LNP. They have abandoned you, and they have given up the fight for more affordable housing. The LNP is putting the interests of property owners and property developers over the interests of Queensland. In the middle of a housing crisis, they would rather help developers build high-end apartments while turning a blind eye to affordable solutions. I say to the Queensland LNP: stop putting developers before Queenslanders and do your bit.
Last week was Men's Health Week, an important acknowledgement of the need to break the stigma that prevents men from seeking help when they need it. The week challenges the 'tough it out' culture, promoting early intervention, open conversations and stress management. This event is especially important to me as the representative for some of the most vulnerable men and boys in this country. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics suicides data, the suicide rate for males living in remote areas is more than double the rate of males living in major cities. Tragically, Western Australia's suicide rate is the highest standardised rate in the country. For regional, rural and remote WA, it was revealed last year by the WA Mental Health Commission that, between 2018 and 2023, suicide rates increased by 20 per cent whilst at the same time they fell by 17 per cent in Perth—some good news. For families across Durack, these are not mere numbers and statistics. Each death by suicide is a loved family and community member.
Poor mental health, of course, does not always lead to suicide. It can also lead to other destructive behaviours. We've seen the rise of the likes of Andrew Tate on social media, brainwashing our young men into toxic masculinity. We need more encouragement by governments and society of positive masculinity. Too often, the discussions we have about men and masculinity are negative. Too often, it is wrong to be masculine. As the federal member for Durack—I'm sure I can say this for everyone who's in this House today, including the Speaker—I constantly come across very fine examples of positive masculinity, whether they be men volunteering at the local fire brigade, helping out at the local footy club or the local surf club, working for a not-for-profit or big business, in local government or are a fellow politician. Put plainly, they're just good blokes.
Sadly, the other side of the coin is the rise in domestic violence and coercive control. The data shows we simply cannot look away. In Western Australia, there were 11,908 offenders prosecuted for family and domestic violence related offences in 2024-25. This was an increase of 20 per cent from the previous year. These offenders now represent 28 per cent of all offenders in Western Australia. Seventy-nine per cent of family and domestic violence offenders are male, and the male offender rate is almost four times higher than the female offender rate. These figures represent families under pressure. Women are living in fear, and children are growing up in unsafe environments and learning from poor examples and role models, including in our most remote communities where support can be really hard to access.
So the question has to be asked. What do we do about it? How do we support our men to be better men? How do we help men to be the best version of themselves, especially with their mental health? I have often wondered whether a federal minister for men and boys was part of the solution. There are numerous ministers representing the humanitarian portfolios within the federal government, and rightly so. These include but are not limited to women veterans, the homeless, immigrants, the elderly, the youth, welfare recipients and Indigenous Australians. We need to recognise the real challenges facing Australian males and ensure they have a dedicated voice and a dedicated seat within cabinet and government.
The federal government has acknowledged men and their contributions to society with the appointment of a special envoy for men's health. However, an envoy is not a minister and can be merely symbolic. I do want to acknowledge that the member for Hunter, who is the current envoy, has done important advocacy work in this role. However, the challenges faced by men and boys are greater than an advisory role.
Supporting men does not come at the expense of supporting women. Recognising the challenges of young men does not discredit the challenges faced by young women. If we're serious about reducing the rates of male suicide, domestic violence and coercive control while promoting positive masculinity, we must be equally serious about supporting Australian men and boys to thrive. We need meaningful investment in programs teaching self-care, respect, accountability and healthy relationships. We have to invest in our men and our boys to be able to build safer and happier communities.
We may not be able to recite, line and verse, the tale of the Trojan Horse, but we get the gist—a gift that proved not to be a gift at all but a deception aimed at those tired of fighting. These days, you don't need a trojan horse. A private plane gifted to you by Australia's richest person can do the job. Obviously, I'm referring to the gift billionaire Gina Rinehart handed Senator Pauline Hanson, an odd gift to accept considering One Nation has styled itself as sticking up for battlers. Senator Hanson has galvanised supporters around that and a list of grievances including the idea that they want to fix Australian politics by taking a hammer to things.
During last week's National Press Club speech, the leader of One Nation gave us a long list of things she doesn't like. There were the usual suspects: immigration, multiculturalism and people speaking anything other than English, even in their own homes; the ABC, SBS and most other media that aren't Murdoch media; the United Nations; and foreign aid. We've got net zero and wind turbines. Of course, we Muslim Australians got a mention, spoken about in a way that simply could not be done to other faiths. Islamophobia being normalised and tolerated is just wrong.
In a modern democracy like ours, Senator Hanson is entitled to have her say. But, as much as she's entitled to have that say, Australians that support her are entitled to know how she'll deliver. We heard time and again 'I'm not making that decision now; that's all on the table'. But Senator Hanson has been in politics in one way or another for 30 years. You either don't know how you're going to get things done or you're not prepared to tell people how you're going to do it. Australians deserve a fair dinkum answer.
For Australians attracted to One Nation because they think politicians say one thing and do another, I get it. But what should we think about a party that says it's standing up for Australian battlers but votes against them? For example, One Nation has complained you can't sack people, which suggests they're going to want to change that. One Nation has voted against moves to criminalise wage theft. They voted against protecting penalty rates. They're against lifting the minimum wage for battlers on the lowest incomes. What about same pay when contractors and workers are doing the same job? One Nation is against that.
This one really gets me. If you're a worker killed on the job, should the employer be held accountable for that if it was their fault? One Nation says no. But pay attention to who One Nation is really helping when it votes against workers. One Nation is actually doing the bidding of some of the biggest businesses and billionaires that have fought these changes for years—and there's your trojan horse. If you think politicians should do what they say and say what they'll do, then there's a big old 'please explain' owed by One Nation.
There's something else I just can't sit by and be quiet about. I've always known Australia to back the underdog, the person who has the odds stacked against them but makes it through. Yet lately we've had a lot of talk—bad talk, ugly talk—about migrants, banning them for things that they're not responsible for at all. It makes them feel bad for who they are, despite doing everything that was expected of them. We need to call this out.
I'm the son of migrants. We spoke English and Bosnian at home. I went to school with a lot of students whose migrant parents were the cleaners, the cooks, the mechanics, the bricklayers, the seamstresses, the factory workers, the owners of milk bars who worked crazy hours over seven days a week and the mums leaving for a day's work as the dads were coming home from night shift. They worked their guts out to build a better life for their kids while pushing their kids to do well at school—pushing them to become doctors, lawyers, accountants and engineers, which they then went on to be.
I want to say this to migrant Australians who've made our country their country of choice: we see you, we see all that hard work you did or are doing and, most importantly, thank you for that hard work. You haven't just built a better life; you've actually chipped in to build a better country, and that's deserving of a pat on the back, not a slap-down by a political figures. That's just wrong. If you're in favour of a stronger nation, then surely it's better for our country to get people working together and not against each other. How is the country made stronger by picking fights with each other? The answer is it isn't. We can do better than that for people than those who seek to divide us.
Speaker, in just a few short years, in 2032, the community that you represent, the community that I represent and the community that the member for Fisher represents will get the opportunity to host an Olympic Games, a phenomenal—
Yay! And Paralympic Games.
And the Paralympic Games, of course—the member for Fisher reminds me. It is absolutely going to be a highlight, and it's going to be an event that is of such massive significance to all our communities but also the whole nation. It will be the third Olympics that Australia has hosted. We talk about these great sporting events and we talk about the legacy that they might lead. We're hoping for great sporting achievements—we're hoping to take a whole swag of medals across both games—but what I think we're all particularly keen on is ensuring that these games leave a lasting infrastructure legacy across all our communities.
The deadlines that come with these games help focus the minds of policymakers. Bureaucracies move a little faster when they've got a deadline to work towards. If you're anything like me, Mr Speaker, you've been watching the World Cup, and you've been seeing these amazing stadia across North America. I've been doing a bit of research into what some of the cities that have helped host that World Cup have been able to achieve in the lead-up to these important fixtures. Los Angeles was able to accelerate the construction of the metro D Line subway. Seattle completed the final section of its Link Light Rail network. Atlanta redesigned its whole bus network and launched a new bus rapid transit corridor and completed a $5 billion Centennial Yards redevelopment. Vancouver expanded the bus, SkyTrain and Seabus services across their city. Houston delivered a major active transport corridor, linking the stadiums to fan zones and other downtown precincts.
None of those projects are really about delivering sporting infrastructure, although I am looking forward to having the white-water facility built within my electorate for the 2032 games. These are about setting these cities up for future success, not just for a few weeks of competition but for a broader economic uplift. The major project that I want to try to realise before the 2032 games arrive in greater Brisbane is the extension of Brisbane's metro system out to Capalaba. That would take us through the Sleeman Sports Complex, which will be hosting a number of Olympic events, and through to the Birchdale whitewater facility, which will be set up near Capalaba. This project is one that has been identified by the state government and by Brisbane City Council as a key bit of legacy infrastructure that they want to deliver before 2032. We were very pleased in the lead-up to the last federal election to get a bipartisan commitment for federal funding, $50 million, for the study of a business case for those extensions, not just Capalaba but some of the other extensions that are being looked at.
Brisbane City Council's games transport legacy plan, which I'm advised is about to be released, is going to list the Capalaba extension as a priority project, with a target of having it operational by 2031. Hopefully that gives us enough time. Of course these things blow out a little bit, but I'm hoping that that will be achieved by the time that the games arrive. The key hurdle that we're going to be facing over the next 12 to 18 months is if we can get federal funding to complete that project. The study's under way. We've seen this federal government commit $6 billion to the Suburban Rail Loop in Melbourne before the sort of work that we're undertaking for the Capalaba extension has been completed. That commitment's already been made, and my community want to know why we aren't seeing that same level of commitment for Brisbane Olympic legacy projects. Why aren't we seeing that same level of appetite from this government to try to ensure that we get some of these important projects, which aren't just important for the Olympic Games but are important for the broader economic outlook of our entire South-East Queensland region? As I said, the next 12 to 18 months are going to be absolutely critical. The opportunity is there. Councils are on board. The state governments on board. We need a federal government that's prepared to be on board as well. We cannot afford to miss the bus as we head into 2032.
House adjourned at 20:00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Mascarenhas ) took the chair at 10:30.
There's no shortage of loud voices in this parliament on migration. Migration is being targeted as an easy scapegoat for all our challenges, despite the long history of its successful contribution to our economy and our society.
There's no doubt that we need better planning in our migration system to match infrastructure needs with our population, but there are also aspects of our migration rules that are failing because they're deeply unfair to those caught in the system. Australia has a parent visa system that's quietly failing thousands of families. More than 151,000 applicants are currently in the queue. With only 8,500 places allocated in the system each year, the queue grows faster than it's processed. The government's independent review described the situation as 'cruel and unnecessary', noting that offering visas that will probably never be granted serves neither applicants nor system integrity. I could not agree more.
Families choosing the premium pathway pay fees of nearly $100,000, about 10 times the standard option, on the expectation of processing times of around three years, but wait times have blown out to 15 years. If you lodge an application today on the standard pathway, you can expect to wait until 2059. A 70-year-old applicant today would be 103 before receiving a decision.
Kyle from Shenton Park paid the premium so his parents could join him, his partner and his seven-year-old son, Isaac. Six years later, his parents are still waiting. Based on current wait times, Isaac will be in his 20s before his grandparents can settle permanently in Australia. Stefan from Mosman Park contacted me about his mother, Kristina, who is 82 and has been on a bridging visa for six years. She cannot leave Australia to visit a gravely ill friend in Germany without voiding her application. She waits, unable to plan her life in either direction. These families acted in good faith, and the system has not matched that.
I welcome some of the government's migration reforms announced in the budget. Updating the points test, fixing skills recognition and increasing scrutiny of visa applications are sensible steps, but the parent visa backlog sits outside that conversation, and it shouldn't. I urge the government to look seriously at options for improvements to the parent visa system: increasing the number of parent visas each year, with stronger financial obligations on sponsoring families to manage the fiscal impact; introducing a fairer method of allocating places from the existing backlog, such as a lottery instead of a queue that stretches beyond most applicants' lifetimes; or placing greater emphasis on temporary parent visas that are more affordable and accessible, supported by enhanced financial commitments from sponsors. The migration debate in this country too often focuses on problems that are overstated. Here is one that's real, measurable and within the government's power to fix.
It's great to see wonderful WA representation across all sides of the chamber this morning. A future made in Australia means better jobs for our community, using our resources, knowledge and innovation to make more things here and back skilled Aussie workers. My community of Burt is home to some incredible workers and businesses making and developing things from Kenwick down to Byford.
Recently I visited some to see their great work, often hidden away, happening right in the heart of our community. There are companies like AG Trusses in Armadale, who are taking the need to build more houses and making them a reality, turning WA timber into housing frames that can be up within a day. Then there are the industries that keep Australia moving, like Specialised Tyre & Wheel, who manufacture agricultural and off-highway vehicle wheels, and those that grow our resources sector, like metallurgical lab Nagrom, who are world leading in lithium testing. Backing agriculture, construction and Australian industry is why the Albanese Labor government launched the largest pro-manufacturing package ever, our Future Made in Australia policy, to see more industries like this.
Nearly 10 years ago, I was elected to represent our community of Burt. Since day dot, I've been fighting for the infrastructure funding our community needs and deserves. For too long our community's population was exploding but the infrastructure it needed simply was not keeping up. Just think about Armadale Road. In 2016, a decade ago, when the seat of Burt was first formed, Armadale Road was nothing more than a pothole riddled, congested single-lane carriageway. Now it's been duplicated and has a bridge at the freeway, which has made the journeys of thousands of people in our community faster and safer.
We're continuing to build a better Burt. We're upgrading and extending Tonkin Highway. Just recently, the first section of the new underpass structure was installed. This is the first of seven units that will form the underpasses that will support the future road network. The contract has also been awarded to widen Tonkin Highway to six lanes, delivering new grade-separated interchanges at Welshpool Road and Hale Road. That will mean a new path for pedestrians and cyclists as well as safer and faster journeys on the road.
But it's not just about roads; it's about supporting our community to grow and thrive. The Armadale central park development is now underway. Known as Karlup Journey Place, it'll bring with it a more vibrant and welcoming town centre to Armadale. With this project, we're investing in the places our community lives, works and learns. It'll be a wonderful new space, connecting the new Armadale train station with shops, cafes, Armadale TAFE and the Armadale University Study Hub that was opened earlier this year.
Your postcode shouldn't decide whether you can see a doctor, whether your child receives care or whether a loved one survives, but, in Mallee, too often that is the brutal reality. From Mildura to Swan Hill and from Ouyen to Horsham, St Arnaud, Robinvale and Dimboola, people know what Labor's regional health failure looks like. It looks like weeks waiting for a GP appointment, families driving up to six hours for specialist care and older Australians delaying treatment because fuel, accommodation, lost wages and out-of-pocket costs are simply too much. This is no longer just a staffing problem; it is a patient crisis and a financial crisis for regional health services.
When hospitals and aged-care providers cannot recruit permanent doctors, nurses, midwives, allied health workers and aged-care staff, they are forced into a desperate cycle of locums and agency nurses at enormous cost—let alone the increasing FIFO specialist workforce. Every dollar spent plugging roster gaps with short-term staff is a dollar not spent supporting permanent teams or improving patient care. Labor's failure to build and retain a real regional health workforce is forcing country health services to burn scarce funding just to keep the lights on, and patients pay the price.
The workforce crisis is the crisis. Without health professionals in our towns there is no access, no continuity of care, no early intervention and certainly no prevention. People get sicker. Patients present to hospital acutely unwell, when earlier care could have prevented it. Labor can shout slogans about Medicare all it likes, but slogans do not open a GP appointment in Ouyen, deliver allied health in Dimboola, keep maternity services safe or bring specialists to Horsham or Mildura.
This Labor government has failed to address the lack of a regional health workforce at the scale required. It has pushed metro-centric policies and offered political bandaids when the bush needs structural reform. Regional Australia needs end-to-end rural training to grow our own workforce from local kids and to keep them. We need real incentives for clinicians to live and work in regional communities. We need funding models that recognise distance, disadvantage, thin markets and chronic disease. Regional health care is not and should not be second-class health care.
Earlier this week I got to play basketball, and, given my prodigious height, this was quite a sight! I did it for a great cause with some of my good mates, the member for Macnamara and the member for Hunter. It was put on by the Man Cave. It was a great cause by a great for not-for-profit organisation in my electorate, which focuses on preventive mental health for boys and young men. This year's Men's Health Week theme is Partners in Care, which highlights how relationships, communities and support networks shape men's health outcomes across their life span.
The event brought to life the fact that when you unite boys and young men with their role models and with other leaders and you do it on the court in any sporting environment, that physical, mental and emotional health are really deeply connected. This event showed that, when we come together, we can build positive support networks that lead to a greater connection amongst young men. And this is what it's about. It's about human connection—getting them offline and actually connecting with others, connecting with peers, connecting with mentors. Having that human connection is so critically important for their development as young men.
That's why organisations like Man Cave actually matter. They help young men build positive habits early, because men, frankly, continue to experience poor health outcomes when comes to a range of areas. They're less likely to engage in preventative health checks, and a lot of health experts agree that early detection remains one of the most effective ways to improve health outcomes and save lives.
Most blokes in this country are more often comfortable talking about the footy—I know I am, talking about the World Cup—or talking about work or whatever they're doing on the weekend than they are about talking about their own health. But having those conversations can literally save lives, having them early as well can save lives and, in a sense, too, being able to talk to your mates can save lives. It sounds a bit melodramatic, but having someone to talk to that understands is really, really important.
So, if you're a bloke—and there are a lot of blokes out there—and you've been putting off a check-up or a blood test or a conversation with your GP, now is the time to do it. Go and do it. Make the booking. Looking after your health isn't a sign of weakness. It's one of the most important things you can do for yourself and for your family and for the people who rely on you and who love you. I think that's an important message for men across the country. So, in honour of Men's Health Week, I encourage all men to get a check-up and check in on both their mental and their physical health and seek support when they really need it.
There's a dangerous disconnect between Labor balancing its budget on a spreadsheet and veterans paying the price in blood. Through shrapnel tearing flesh, the concussive shock waves of roadside bombs and the agonising torment of combat trauma, the men and women who sign up to defend our nation do not cap their sacrifice. Yet this Labor government has capped their health care by slapping a $5,000 annual cap on DVA funded allied health treatments.
Labor is giving with a teaspoon and taking with a shovel. They are boasting about raising fees for providers, but, because each appointment now costs more, this cap means that a veteran's entitlement evaporates twice as fast. It's a double-edged sword that cuts into our ex-service men and women, forcing them to decide whether their physical wounds or their mental scars need treating first. These essential treatments are not discretionary extras. They are what keep our wounded veterans functioning daily.
I saw the human cost of this policy last week in Townsville, Australia's largest garrison city. As I saw the pain on the faces of the veterans who live in my electorate, I gained an understanding of how this ambush has assaulted their faith in this Labor government. On the night of the State of Origin, right before Queensland thrashed New South Wales, the local pub wasn't just full of footy fans; it was packed with veterans who came specifically to voice their disgust at this policy. One proud gentleman stood before me and said the words that should haunt every member in this chamber. He told me that the only day he gets thanked for his service is Anzac Day, and he feels that people only say that because they get a day off work. But what has hurt him more is that this allied health cap feels like a sickening kick in the guts from a government who cares more about ISIS brides than our own soldiers—like our veterans that spent decades fighting to overcome how they were treated when they first came home. We promised we would never abandon a generation of heroes like that again. Yet that is what Labor is doing.
When these men and women signed up, they gave the country a blank cheque with their lives. They did not limit their sacrifice, and Labor should not limit their recovery. Labor must stop treating the DVA gold card like a coupon. It is a sacred promise, and these heroes have earned every single cent. To those opposite: have a heart, reverse this and look after our veterans. They certainly deserve it.
Like so many other first-time parents, I am deeply indebted to the midwives who helped me through the birth of my son. I could not thank the midwives at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital enough for their care and support. They were there for us during the many hours of a difficult labour. Recently I heard from a constituent, Mark Ottaway, who felt a similar sense of gratitude when his beautiful boy, Patrick, was born. Just 10 days later I also had the privilege of welcoming Patrick's mum, Katie, as a new Australian citizen. Having come from the United States, Katie experienced pregnancy, birth and motherhood far away from family and support networks. Like many expectant parents, Katie and Mark were excited but also very nervous. Their story is one example of the extraordinary midwifery care provided through the Concord Midwifery Group Practice at Concord hospital.
For Katie and Mark, what made all the difference was their incredible midwife, Annie Levine—now affectionately known as 'Aunty Annie'. The impact Annie had on this young family was profound. From their first appointment, Katie said she had never felt more comfortable with a healthcare provider. Annie listened, deeply respected their choices and empowered them. Over time, that care became more than clinical support; it became a relationship built on trust, warmth and genuine compassion. When Katie went into labour, Annie calmly guided them through those uncertain first moments. When complications arose and Katie needed surgery, Annie's care went beyond the clinical. In one of the most frightening moments of Mark's life, Annie was there for him too. She cared not just for Katie and baby Patrick but for the whole family. And that care did not stop at the hospital; in those early weeks at home, Annie's visits, advice and encouragement were, in Mark's words, invaluable.
This is the kind of care that happens every day at Concord hospital—skilled, compassionate and deeply human. Stories like Katie and Mark's remind us of the important work that midwives do. That is why the Albanese Labor government is supporting the next generation of midwives through paid prac placements, so eligible midwifery students receive financial support while undertaking mandatory clinical placements. For Katie and Mark, Annie Levine was the reassuring voice and trusted presence they needed, and that is the difference great midwives make.
I rise today to speak on what is affectionately known as Australia's longest shortcut, the Outback Way. This route links Laverton, in the northern Goldfields of Western Australia, to Winton, in Central West Queensland, cutting through the Red Centre. I today welcome Patrick Hill and the Outback Highway Development Council to Parliament House.
Since the late 1990s, this ambitious trans-Australian tourism route and essential freight artery has secured over $1 billion in federal, state and territory funding. The Outback Way will provide a shorter, more direct route for interstate freight movement, reducing reliance on the main southern corridor, strengthening supply chains and improving efficiency for industry. For outback communities, it will deliver food security, greater access to fresh produce and improved connectivity to health, education and social opportunity. It will also unlock tourism across the heart of Australia, supporting regional communities along the way. Industry recognises this. The Livestock and Rural Transporters Association has affirmed that the route will improve market access year round and enable the relocation of livestock during drought or flood.
Across much of the country, progress has been strong. In Queensland, the corridor has been effectively completed. In the Northern Territory, the Plenty Highway has been largely upgraded and key sections to tourist destinations such as Uluru are well maintained.
But the Western Australian corridor tells a very different story. Along 732 kilometres of this route in WA, progress remains stifled as funding sits unspent and bureaucracy continues at a glacial pace. In 2022, the Morrison government committed $678 million towards completing the remaining sections. This year, Main Roads WA pointed to official processes to gain agreements for the reallocation of land tenure and existing native title claims along the length of the corridor, but this cannot be used as an excuse for further delay. Native title considerations are not new, and they are not insurmountable. They are a standard part of developing major infrastructure projects in this country. There are stretches of this road that do not fall within any native title claims, and still no progress has been made. It's bureaucracy, it's delay, and it's failure to move from a commitment to the delivery.
With civil construction costs exploding since 2022, the cost of sealing the remainder will only continue to balloon while this project sits idle. Main Roads now suggests that completion may not occur until 2032, 10 years after key funding was announced. This is simply not good enough. So I ask: What is the updated cost of completing the Outback Way? Where is the allocated funding? Who will fund the shortfall? And when will we see action to cut through the bureaucracy that is holding this program back? For the communities along this route, this is not just a road; it is a lifeline to access the services— (Time expired)
Last week I joined the Prime Minister and housing minister at the North Canberra suburb of Jacka. Jacka is named after Albert Jacka, the first Australian to receive the Victoria Cross. Before he served in the First World War, he worked as a forester, which raises a question: could a worker on a forester's wage buy a secure home today?
To address that, the Australian government is boosting housing supply across the country. In Jacka, skilled tradies are building 57 social and affordable homes backed by $50 million in Commonwealth funding through the Housing Australia Future Fund. These homes are due to welcome their first residents within a year. Our $47 billion Homes for Australia agenda will unlock 420,000 homes over the next decade. Through our five per cent deposit scheme, a quarter of a million Australians have already been helped towards their first home. We're changing negative gearing so new investors are encouraged to finance new homes, which means more construction and a fairer contest at auction for first home buyers. In Jacka and across the country, Labor is building that future.
Yesterday, Pam Muston organised her 10th Kowen trail marathon, an event that raises funds for the Wamboin Rural Fire Brigade, turning hills and kilometres into community strength. Hundreds of runners chose to run the 12-, 21-or 42-kilometre courses through Kowen Forest before returning to a breakfast cooked by the local firies.
I've had the privilege not only of running plenty of Pam's races but also of running alongside her, so I can attest that she's not only a great race director but also a terrific ultramarathoner. Pam has won the Glasshouse Mountains hundred-miler three years in a row, raced the 240-kilometre Coast to Kosci on multiple occasions and runs the Sri Chinmoy Canberra Trail 100 race each year. Her 2025 ACT Local Hero nomination recognised the admiration Canberrans have for Pam.
I also pay tribute to Jenny Kellett of Hawker. At 71, Jenny holds multiple Australian age group records for the half marathon and marathon. Two years ago she ran the Chicago Marathon in three hours, 23 minutes. Last year she completed the Comrades Marathon in nine hours, 29 minutes. Jenny keeps proving that older athletes can produce speedy times. Pam and Jenny both took up serious running in their 50s, and these two remarkable women inspire many to run further than they might have imagined.
The King's Birthday honours remind us of the incredible contributors in our community and the wonderful work that they do each year. Goldstein is the home of many recipients, including Associate Professor Miron Goldwasser AM for significant service to orthopaedic surgery and to clinical education and training; to Michael Kennedy AM for significant service to snow sport development and advancement in Australia; and Professor Andrew Stripp AM for significant service to medical administration.
Other significant, notable contributors have been Dr Dov Degen OAM for service to medicine and mental health support, Stephen Laffan OAM for service to the community through voluntary roles with sporting associations, Prudence Molnar OAM for service to the community, Andrew Mullett OAM for service to Aussie Rules football, David O'Brien OAM for service to the community through the not-for-profit sector, Barry Sneddon OAM for service to sports administration, Cornelis Van den Dungen OAM for service to motor sports and Rodney Watson OAM for service to secondary education and to the community. Each has made an enormous contribution to our community, and we want to thank them not just for the work they've done but for the work they continue to do.
I also want to acknowledge the important work that's being done by local residents to ensure young Australians with a disability have a pathway to employment. Every young person deserves the chance to participate, contribute and thrive within their community. Recently, we had a Bayside young persons with disabilities roundtable hosted in the Goldstein office that brought together the Bayside City Council and local employers—such as the All Things Equal cafe, AusPV, Sports Conscious, Brighton Paper, Joe Tea, Buxton Brighton, MATCH and DFP Recruitment—along with the disability advocates and community organisations, and Sandy Village Traders Association, to focus on one question: how do we remove barriers and expand opportunity for young Australians with a disability to improve employment opportunities? I want to particularly thank Emily Higgins for her leadership in spearheading this initiative and bringing people together to share experiences, challenge assumptions and identify practical solutions. The roundtable reinforced that inclusion requires employers, governments, advocates and communities to work together to create pathways to employment, participation and independence, and I really want to stress that last point: independence.
The future belongs to young people who are empowered to pursue their goals with confidence. Our job is to ensure every person has that opportunity by giving them a pathway to be able to secure employment, to be able to go on and live an independent life and to be able to go on and live their best life. It's not just what we want for people with a disability; it's what we want for every Australian, and this important step by Emily Higgins and all those who participated is part of it. We wish Bayside council well, in particular, for continuing to lead it.
Just like our valiant Socceroos, this Albanese government is kicking goals, and in Hasluck that means health, it means housing and it means opportunity. In Hasluck, we have now committed to and delivered on the three urgent care clinics: we have one in Midland, one in Morley and one in Ellenbrook. That means, for constituents in Hasluck, no-one is further than 20 minutes from urgent care, and already 70,000 presentations have been made at these urgent care clinics, which naturally takes the pressure off our emergency departments. For a young kid at the DOS who sprains their ankle, they can go and get treated at Ellenbrook—they can get an X-ray done; they can get the treatment that's needed—rather than diverting all the way down to Midland to be treated at emergency there.
We have, of course, also delivered on our commitment to $25 scripts. This has meant that 2,583,000 people in Hasluck have saved enormous amounts of money, because they have benefited from the $25 capped scripts—and that's $40 million across Western Australia.
On bulk-billing clinics, I welcome the fact that the Walter Road East GP clinic, Egerton Drive, Swan Valley Medical, Alpha Omega Family Practice, Woodlake Village, the Ellen Stirling Medical Centre—all these clinics are coming on board thanks to our commitment to and our delivery of tripling the bulk-billing incentive. Bulk-billing is a fundamental, core part of Medicare, and it's fantastic to see that more and more clinics are opening to be fully bulk-billed for all patients.
Then there's mental health. We know that's a big concern for families right across my electorate, so to have a bulk-billing—no referral is even needed—Medicare mental health clinic in Midland is absolutely sensational. In fact, 25,000 people have already presented there, and that means they're getting the care and the attention that is needed to ensure that their mental health is prioritised and that it doesn't escalate into any further concerns, because they're getting the treatment that they need.
To round out on health, we've got the St John of God hospital, an absolutely brilliant service that supports a massively big catchment. We have committed $355 million to upgrading the St John of God hospital, which is going to include neonatal, new ICU and more beds, of course, ensuring that people across my electorate of Hasluck get the health opportunities that they need
In housing, it's a big story. I won't have the time to get through it all, but I just want to highlight 539 homes that are going to be social, affordable homes built around train precincts—Woodbridge, Bassendean and Ellenbrook. These are beautiful homes. Already, the construction has started, and they will be built in no time. We've got the five per cent housing deposit and Help to Buy. We've got shared-equity options, we're building 100,000 homes just for first home buyers and we've got massive investments in last-mile infrastructure. These are the opportunities that we're creating for residents in Hasluck.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I 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.
Medicare is one of the most precious of Australian promises—that the health care you receive should depend on your Medicare card, not your credit card. It speaks to who we are as a country that, when you're unwell, you get the care you need no matter who you are and what your circumstances are. It's a proud Australian tradition and a proud Labor legacy. Labor created Medicare, Labor will always protect Medicare and Labor is strengthening Medicare for the future.
But that promise hasn't universally been supported by all sides of politics. When the coalition were last in government, they weakened and undermined Medicare every chance they got. When we came into government in 2022, it had never been harder or more expensive to find a doctor, because the coalition had frozen Medicare rebates for six long years. Every year that the freeze stayed in place Medicare covered less and less of the real cost of seeing a doctor. That meant more pressure on GPs, more pressure on clinics and more pressure on patients. And let's not forget they tried to introduce an infamous GP co-payment. They wanted Australians to pay more just to see a doctor. Bulk-billing was in freefall after a decade of cuts and neglect. That should tell you everything about the coalition's approach to Medicare. They cut, they froze and they tried to force Australians to pay more for health care every single chance they got.
Then there is One Nation. On Medicare, like everything else, One Nation is all slogan and no solution. They say they support bulk-billing, but, when it comes to the serious work of strengthening primary care, supporting GPs, training more doctors and nurses and making it easier for Australians to see a GP for free, they have nothing serious to offer.
Medicare and bulk-billing aren't strengthened by a press release or a dog whistle slogan. Neither One Nation nor the coalition have any plans to strengthen Medicare. They've only got grievance and noise. Australians don't need Medicare turned into another culture war. What they need is a government that truly believes in Medicare and wants to strengthen it, and that's exactly what we get with the Albanese Labor government.
Our government has made the single largest investment into Medicare ever—$8.5 billion to deliver more bulk-billing practices, GPs and nurses to help ensure all Australians have access to free and quality health care. We have the numbers to back it up, because it's working. From March 2025 to March 2026, bulk-billing increased in every single state and territory. It's now up to 81.9 per cent nationally, up more than 4.6 per cent in a year, with more than 3,600 practices fully bulk-billing. Bulk-billing rates in my electorate are now up to 88 per cent, with a total of 39 Medicare bulk-billing practices which fully bulk-bill every patient with a Medicare card. That is 59 per cent of all GP clinics in my community.
When it comes to strengthening Medicare, bulk-billing is just the tip of the iceberg. We promised to deliver 137 fully bulk-billed Medicare urgent care clinics for free, urgent health care. They're open until late, open seven days and accessible without appointment so that we are able to free up our emergency hospital rooms. We have kept our promise; we have established all 137 Medicare urgent care clinics, including one in my electorate, in Burwood, at 8 Elsie Street. It opened in December last year and has already treated thousands and thousands of patients.
In this year's budget we made Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of Medicare. We've made medicines cheaper, with PBS medications to cost no more than $25 for the first time since 2004. Labor is the only party that is delivering on Medicare. We are the only party that will protect and strengthen Medicare.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member for Reid for moving this motion. I'm happy to acknowledge that bulk-billing rates increased in every state and territory in the last quarter. The Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program is having a measurable effect, and the government deserves credit for that.
However, for the GPs and the patients of Kooyong, the experience of Medicare in 2026 is much more complicated than the headline figures suggest. In south-eastern Melbourne, the bulk-billing rate is essentially static—it's just over 74 per cent—and for those patients who attend practices that aren't able to bulk-bill, the average out-of-pocket costs increased by 9.4 per cent in the last 12 months. It is now $93.44. According to Cleanbill, 147 electorates out of the 150 in this country have experienced an increase in out-of-pocket costs on average to see a GP in the last year.
The Medicare Benefits Schedule was built around short, episodic consultations, but that model no longer reflects the reality of general practice. More than half of all Australians have at least one chronic condition, and a growing number have two or more. Managing complex multimorbidities takes time, but GPs who do that are financially penalised for doing so. Recently, the Grattan Institute found that GPs are paid as much as $15.41 per minute for a two-minute bulk-billed consultation, as opposed to $3.30 a minute for consultations for more complex issues that take as long as 20 minutes. That's not a sustainable model when we have an ageing population with increasing rates of chronic illness.
The government continues to fail to overhaul how Medicare rebates are designed, and the rebates are not keeping up. The Medicare rebate was indexed by 2.6 per cent this year. That's against general inflation and wage growth much higher than that. Every year that the rebate is indexed below the annual cost of running a practice—lower than wages, rent, compliance and insurance—that's a year in which the gap between what it costs to deliver a bulk-billed service and what Medicare pays for it widens further.
A recent Consumers Health Forum survey gives us a really clear idea of the current patient experience in Australia. Almost half of all respondents, 49.8 per cent, said that they had missed health care that they needed in the last year, and the leading reason for that was cost. Two in three, 67 per cent, of those who skipped dental care said that they just couldn't afford it. More than half, 54 per cent, of those who failed to fill a prescription said the same. Only one in three Australians felt confident that they could afford medical care if they became seriously ill. When even the most transparent, most accessible part of our healthcare system is generating that level of cost anxiety, it tells us something about the pressure that the whole system is under—cost pressures on patients who need care and cost pressures on practices to maintain bulk-billing.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the changes to assignment-of-benefit requirements announced by the government late last week. Prior to that change, bulk-billing in many practices, community health centres and aged-care facilities was under immediate threat. For patients who can't easily engage with a digital consent workflow—children, people in mental health crises, people with intellectual disability, elderly patients who don't have a smartphone, people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, aged-care residents—a failed consent capture means that either their bulk-billed service goes unpaid or it's converted to a private bill.
I wrote to the minister several times, raising urgent concerns about this proposal. The last-minute extension of the current arrangements, which came at the end of last week, was after sustained pressure from the RACGP, the AMA and other expert groups. In response to that advocacy, I'm glad to see the government extend verbal assignment of benefits until July 2027. Without that change, our bulk-billing system would have been under immediate administrative threat.
Bulk-billing increases are real in some parts of this country, and they're certainly welcome. But Medicare's long-term health depends on rebates keeping pace with the actual cost and complexity of care, and on the administrative architecture supporting access, not undermining it. I ask the government to turn its attention to both of those things.
I am proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, which is investing $8.5 billion to strengthen Medicare and deliver more free health care for Australians. This free access to a GP is life-changing for many Australians because it means they can go to the doctor when they need to, not just when they can afford to. Labor has made it easier for Australians to see a GP for free by expanding bulk-billing incentives and boosting payments to GP clinics that bulk-bill every patient. Our most recent reform came into effect on 1 November last year. From that date, and for the first time, bulk-billing incentives are paid to GPs for every patient they bulk-bill. Previously, these incentives were only available to children under the age of 16 and concession card holders. This investment means that patients will save hundreds of dollars a year in out-of-pocket costs.
I'm delighted to say that the latest data shows Labor's bulk-billing policies are delivering excellent results. The national GP bulk-billing rate was 81.9 per cent for the January-to-March quarter, a 4.6 percentage point increase on the same period last year. Bulk-billing has increased in every state and territory due to our reforms, including a rise of four percentage points to 85 per cent in my state of New South Wales. In my electorate of Whitlam in 2023, bulk-billing rates were at 73 per cent. In 2026, due to our government's incentives, bulk-billing rates are close to 90 per cent. The bulk-billing rate has risen for every age group as a result of Labor's reforms, including a particularly strong increase of almost eight per cent to 76 per cent for patients aged between 16 to 64 years. There are now over 3,800 Medicare bulk-billing practices across Australia, and I note that more that 1,400 of these were previously mixed billing clinics. In my electorate of Whitlam, the number of fully bulk-billing practices has jumped from nine to 28 due to Labor's incentives. Approximately 97 per cent of the Australian population is now within a 20-minute drive of a bulk-billing practice, which is a wonderful outcome.
Another major bulk-billing reform implemented by this government is the rollout of Medicare urgent care clinics which are open for extended hours seven days a week with no appointment needed. Patients can walk in and see a trained doctor or nurse, and the services are bulk-billed, and they do not pay a cent. A network of 137 Medicare urgent care clinics has opened over the past three years, including two in my electorate of Whitlam—one in Dapto and one in Shellharbour. Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia have seen over three million presentations since the first sites opened in 2023, and there have been over 33,000 visits to urgent care clinics in my electorate of Whitlam. A significant benefit that flows from opening an urgent care clinic is that it takes pressure off local hospitals. In my electorate, that includes Shellharbour and Wollongong hospitals, where more than half the presentations are non-urgent or semi-urgent presentations.
Labor has also cut the cost of everyday medicines on the PBS to $25, the lowest co-payments since 2004, and it's just $7.70 for concession card holders to get their medicines. This is helping millions of Australians afford the medicines they need. Over three million cheaper PBS scripts have been filled in my electorate alone, and that's delivering over $19 million of savings to people in my community.
Labor built Medicare, and the Albanese government is strengthening it after a decade of neglect under the coalition. When Labor came to government in 2022, bulk-billing was in decline, GP clinics were under pressure and people were putting off seeing a doctor because they simply couldn't afford it. The Albanese Labor government has stepped up and reversed that trend, recognising that health care must be based on need, not wealth. Bulk-billing is the beating heart of Medicare, and the Albanese government is successfully delivering more bulk-billing for more Australians. By strengthening Medicare, expanding bulk-billing and making essential medicines cheaper, the Albanese Labor government is restoring confidence in a vital system that defines who we are as a country.
Every year, more than 22 million Australians see a specialist general practitioner for essential health care, making GPs the most accessed health professionals in the country. We know high-quality general practice reduces emergency department presentations and hospital admissions and improves long-term health outcomes. The latest quarterly bulk-billing data is encouraging, particularly the rise in bulk-billing for non-concessional patients to 72.5 per cent—up 8.5 percentage points over the year. But more than one in four non-concessional GP visits are still not bulk-billed, meaning too many Australians still face out-of-pocket costs. The government should treat these figures as a foundation for further reform. As a priority, we must ensure that people who need more time with their GP can access this care.
More than two-thirds of GPs nominate the increasing complexity of patient presentations as the greatest challenge facing the profession. Last year's Health of the nation report showed that 84 per cent of GPs want to provide more preventive care, but only one in three have time to provide it. The average GP appointment is now 20 minutes long, and three in five Australians live with at least one chronic health condition, yet Medicare rebates still fail to reflect the time, complexity and continuity required in modern general practice. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has again called for GPs to be properly remunerated for longer consultations, including most recently at the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability inquiry into the health impacts of alcohol and other drugs in Australia.
In alcohol and other drug care, as in so many other areas of health, GPs need time to have those sensitive conversations, identify risks early, coordinate care and support recovery for complex conditions. Many leading patient and health organisations agree. To quote just a few, Chris Forbes, Chief Executive Officer of Kidney Health Australia, says:
Kidney Health Australia supports GPs to take the time needed to identify those at risk of kidney disease, enable early diagnosis, and ensure the latest evidence-based medications and support programs are appropriately utilised—drastically improving outcomes and slowing disease progression.
Daile Kelleher, CEO of Sexual and Reproductive Health Australia, says:
Longer GP consultations are essential in sexual and reproductive healthcare. They enable meaningful conversations, support informed decision-making, and ensure patients feel comfortable raising sensitive issues. Adequate time leads to earlier intervention and better health outcomes.
Professor Tanya Buchanan, CEO of Dementia Australia, says:
It is vital that the estimated 446,500 Australians living with dementia have access to affordable long GP consultations to ensure they receive timely, comprehensive and coordinated health care tailored to their needs.
What is key is that, when GPs have more time with patients, care is earlier, safer and more effective.
In 2024, Deloitte Access Economics found that a 40 per cent increase to patient rebates for level C and D consultations would lift the bulk-billing rate to 85 per cent, halve out-of-pocket costs for patients who are not bulk-billed and deliver around $339 million in annual health savings to the system. Out-of-pocket costs disproportionately affect people with chronic and complex health conditions, particularly those on low incomes; carers; and people unable to work because of their poor health. If patients cannot afford high-quality general practice care, they delay treatment, become sicker and are more likely to end up in hospital.
If we are serious about improving Australia's health, easing cost-of-living pressures and reducing pressure on hospitals, we must strengthen general practice. That means supporting GPs to spend the time their patients need with them, investing in preventive care and ensuring Medicare rebates reflect the complexity of Australia's changing healthcare needs.
Medicare has been the backbone of my professional life as a paediatrician for over 40 years.
Hear, hear! And a very good one you've been, too, I've heard.
I thank the honourable member. In fact, I opened my paediatric clinic in Macarthur the same day that Medicare was launched by the Hawke government in 1984. In that time, I've seen the transformational significance that Medicare—and bulk-billing, for that matter—has had on communities like mine in Campbelltown and Camden.
I've seen many efforts to downgrade Medicare, from the Fraser government destroying Gough Whitlam's Medibank to the Howard government attempting to destroy Bob Hawke's Medicare. We even saw attempts under the Abbott government to introduce a co-payment, a way of rationing health care, particularly to people who are disadvantaged. When we came into government in 2022, we saw firsthand what a decade of cuts and neglect had done to Medicare. It had never been harder or more expensive to find a bulk-billing GP, and this was having a real effect on the health and wellbeing of people in my electorate. It was having an impact on our local hospitals, too; our emergency departments became overcrowded with patients who couldn't afford to get into bulk-billing GPs sooner.
Fortunately, Labor understands Medicare. It is a part of our DNA. No-one should forget that. We are the one party of government in Australia that supports our universal healthcare insurance system, known as Medicare. So we've got on with addressing the serious shortfalls that were affecting bulk-billing rates across the country, particularly with general practitioners.
This was led by our historic $8.5 billion investment into Medicare—the single largest investment in Medicare since its creation over 40 years ago—which has delivered more bulk-billing, and more doctors that bulk-bill, so that Australians can see a GP without added costs and get access to health care in an affordable and timely manner. I know the member for Mackellar, who spoke prior to me, as a very highly respected general practitioner in her electorate, also understands the importance of Medicare. Australians know the importance of Medicare, and, to be honest, it was one of the reasons that we had such a resounding win by the Albanese government in the last federal election.
I'm very proud that, after this historic investment in Medicare, bulk-billing rates in Macarthur have risen to an incredible 98 per cent of GP visits as of March this year. Bolstering this is the number of Medicare bulk-billing practices in Macarthur, which has now grown to 45, an increase of 14 since our historic investment into our beloved Medicare system.
Aiding our GP clinics and helping reduce pressure on our emergency departments are our innovative Medicare urgent care clinics, and I'm proud to have one which is working very well in my electorate of Macarthur. It opened in December 2023 and, since then, has seen over 32,000 presentations. Around the country, we've opened all of the 137 urgent care clinics we promised to deliver during the last election, with more than three million presentations having been made to urgent care clinics across the country.
Whether it's leaving a bulk-billing practice or the urgent care clinic with a script, patients are still benefitting from the strong investment into health care and historic improvements from our cheaper medicines policy, which is saving them money every time they go to the pharmacy and ensuring those needing medication can afford and access it. In Macarthur, there have been over 2.3 million cheaper medicine scripts prescribed to individuals, resulting in over $14 million of savings to patients in the Macarthur electorate.
Considering that we inherited a broken bulk-billing system and a neglected Medicare, I'm very proud of the tremendous work that our government has done during the four years that we have been in federal power. There's more to be done, I agree—there certainly is more to be done. The college of GPs recently presented to the health committee the importance of more prolonged consultations for things like addiction medicine, for dealing with mental health challenges and for some of the chronic illnesses that many of our constituents suffer from. But I'm very proud of what we've done. There's more to be done. It is part of our DNA. We will make sure that our health system is strengthened every time we can. I'm very proud of the actions of this government in health care.
The member for Macarthur was going so well until he started bagging the coalition out. But I do want to just acknowledge the member for Macarthur because I think he's a decent fellow and he is a lifelong paediatrician who has served his local community. Good on him. We need more paediatricians. You should go back and be a paediatrician, serving your local community that way. Those members opposite often talk about how they're the champions of Medicare. Well, I've got to tell you that the coalition absolutely supports Medicare. It absolutely supports it. The last thing we would want to see in Australia is a US-style healthcare system where, if you get sick and seriously sick, then that could often be a death sentence to you, or certainly a life-changing situation. The beauty about a universal healthcare system in this country such as Medicare is that it doesn't matter who you are, it doesn't matter how wealthy you are, it doesn't matter what your job is and it doesn't matter what your postcode is; you will be able to get the world's best treatment at a tertiary hospital, provided you live in the cities. For those people who live in the bush or live in rural and regional Australia, it's a lot harder. They have to often be transferred to a tertiary hospital through organisations like the Royal Flying Doctor Service, who do incredible work. But the coalition is absolutely supportive of Medicare because it does provide access to world-class doctors and world-class medical treatment.
The motion that's before the House today notes that bulk-billing has ticked up in the March quarter. The motion congratulates Labor on spending $8.5 billion of taxpayers' money. It pats itself on the back for 3,800 bulk-billing practices. But it says nothing about the Australians who still can't find a doctor, still can't afford one and still see their local services being hollowed out. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare tells us that, after peaking at around 89 per cent in 2020, the national GP bulk-billing rate fell to 77 per cent in 2023 and only inched back to 78 per cent in the first 10 months of 2024, still well below where it was under the coalition. For the key working age group, 16- to 64-year-olds, bulk-billing sits at around 69 per cent. Labor's so-called 'free health care' is least available to the Australians most likely to be juggling work, children and mortgages. Out-of-pocket costs have surged. Independent analysis shows that, in two-thirds of electorates, average out-of-pocket fees for a standard consult now exceed $45 and, in some electorates, the total cost of a visit is pushing beyond $100. In my own electorate of Fisher, non-bulk-billed patients are paying significantly more than they were just a couple of years ago, even after Labor's so-called Strengthening Medicare reforms. That is not a system delivering free health care; that is a system shifting more costs onto ordinary patients.
This motion doesn't mention that Labor's incentive has sent more money into already well-served communities while underserved regional, rural and outer suburban areas see clinics close, doctors leave and patients travel further and pay more. It doesn't mention that 12 leading nursing and healthcare organisations have warned a Senate inquiry that Medicare policy is materially compromising timely access to care in rural and regional Australia. Under Labor, nurse practitioner bulk-billing has fallen sharply, and regional patients are being slugged more at exactly the time they can least afford it.
The coalition is absolutely committed to Medicare. It always will be in the future. Medicare is a vital part of the health services in this country— (Time expired)
I also really want to thank my colleague the member for Reid for bringing this very important matter to the House today. Indeed, like the member for Reid's, my electorate of Chisholm has thousands of people in my community that are dependent on accessing Medicare bulk-billing services. Instilled in me from a very young age—with a GP for a father and a nurse for a mother, who ran their own medical practice—was the importance of everyone in our community being able to access health care.
When I speak about Medicare bulk-billing services, I'm speaking about pensioners, concession-card holders and families with children who benefited from our initial $8.5 billion investment in Medicare. I think, when I speak about Medicare bulk-billing services, about every Australian worker in my electorate who, since 1 November last year, has also benefited from Labor's further investment in Medicare bulk-billing. They include the more than 4,000 retail assistants, the 1,500 registered nurses and the many thousands of teachers, carers and aged-care workers who live in my electorate.
On this side of the House, we know that Australians don't hope to get sick at all—none of us do. And, when you do get sick, you shouldn't think about how you're going to pay for being sick, and what the impact of going without income may be.
I'm really proud to be part of a government that values Medicare, and we know that, when you value something, you invest in it. So I'm really pleased that we have been investing significantly and consistently in Medicare. Whether it's through the Albanese Labor government's record investment to strengthen Medicare with more bulk-billing, or through cheaper medicines, we're continuing to deliver high-quality, low-cost health care for Australians.
It should be no surprise to anyone that, when you triple the bulk-billing incentive, you create the conditions that enable medical practices to deliver increased bulk-billing services. That's precisely what we've seen happening on the ground. This includes more than 1,400 mixed-billing practices across Australia switching to bulk-billing.
The delivery of bulk-billing services across Australia, throughout Victoria and in my electorate of Chisholm has increased by every measure. That means that there are more than 3,800 bulk-billing practices across the country, including more than a thousand in Victoria and 31 bulk-billing practices in my electorate of Chisholm. We've seen that increase in practices leading to an increase in bulk-billing rates since our investment in Medicare, resulting in real and practical cost-of-living relief for Australians right across the country.
This is the kind of real help Australians are looking for and our government is providing. Minister Butler said that Labor built Medicare and we are strengthening it for all Australians. This is a really important mission that we have in government, and we will continue to keep our focus on investing in health care.
As I mentioned, we tripled the bulk-billing incentive in 2023 and again further stepped up to invest in Medicare and strengthen it by expanding that incentive from November last year. Our incentives are helping more people see the GP for free and delivering the biggest boost to Medicare ever. The 31 Medicare bulk-billing practices in my electorate of Chisholm are now bulk-billing all their patients all the time. Almost 50 per cent of GPs in my electorate are now in bulk-billing practices. I'm really proud of the fact that that bulk-billing rate has increased since I was first elected in May 2022. I am really pleased that the bulk-billing rate in my electorate sits at 80 per cent. This is a significant achievement and it's something that I'm really pleased to have been able to deliver for my community in government. I really want to thank all of those general practitioners and the staff in those practices for the important work that they do every day, keeping our community healthy.
One of the other significant ways that we've invested in Medicare bulk-billing is through investing in our Medicare urgent care clinics. We've got a Mount Waverley urgent care clinic which opened on 24 September, and we've had over 21,700 presentations in that time, which has made an enormous difference to people in our community, and I hear positive feedback all the time from people in my electorate.
Labor built Medicare. We will always do what we can to defend it and to strengthen it so everyone in our communities can get the health care they need when they need it. I'm proud to speak on this motion today.
I rise to speak on this motion in relation to bulk-billing, and I say to the Australian taxpayer who may be watching: this is what we're actually using taxpayer funds to debate. We've got a government motion—so a motion that's moved by a member of the Australian government—that commends the government's record and that thanks the government for its investments.
When I came to this place, I came here—maybe I was aspirational or hopeful—because I thought that we would actually be having conversations about how we can make this country better and how we can take this country into the future, not just come and speak on motions that are congratulating the government, which is something that we seem to do very often in this place.
But, if the government wants to speak about bulk-billing and if the government wants to speak about health, let's speak about it, because the simple fact is that Labor's bulk-billing rates are lower than the bulk-billing rates under the coalition. We've seen a government which has attacked private health care and older Australians in particular over the last couple of months in a way that is not only negligible but absolutely unconscionable. Labor's urgent care clinics look far too much like political infrastructure instead of health infrastructure, and the reality of bulk-billing is that Labor says it's strengthening Medicare, but patients are asking, including in my electorate on the Gold Coast, why it's actually costing them more to see a GP.
In 2021-22, when we left office, GP bulk-billing was at around 88 per cent. But by 2023-24 it had fallen to 77 per cent, and the July to March 2025-26 year-to-date figure is around 79 per cent, still far below what it was under the former, coalition government. In fact, bulk-billing rose under the previous, coalition government, from around 83 per cent in late 2013 to around 88 per cent in 2022. That's the reality. Those are the facts. If the government wants to speak about it, let's talk about it.
There's private health insurance and older Australians. What we've seen over the last couple of months is a decision by this government to cut the private health rebate for around 3.2 million older Australians, which will hurt our most vulnerable people at the time of their life when they need it the most. Labor is testing the resilience of our health system at the expense of older Australians, and that is wrong. It is wrong on so many levels.
If we're looking at urgent care clinics, Labor is failing on health, but it's always ready to use health and to use health care when it comes to political advantage or political opportunities. Nowhere is that clearer than in Labor's Medicare urgent care clinics campaign. We've run the numbers, and what we've come up with is actually quite interesting. Labor electorates are around 3.5 times more likely than coalition electorates to have two or more urgent care clinics. I think that's quite surprising, especially when you take into account the size of coalition electorates, which are on average larger and more regional and rural. So you'd expect them to be prioritised on the basis of size and service need, but that's not something that we're seeing from this government. What we're seeing is a Labor government that's using taxpayer funded clinics to shore up its own marginal seats. Again, that is wrong.
The assault by this government on older Australians and on people who depend on our healthcare system seems to have no bounds. I represent an electorate on the southern Gold Coast which has an average age demographic that is slightly higher than the national average, so people are speaking to me day after day about these changes, because they're feeling them and they're feeling them compounded with what's happening as a result of the government's cost-of-living crisis.
So I'd say to the government: look at what you're doing. Instead of just coming in here and moving motions congratulating yourselves and patting yourselves on the back, bring the facts. Let's talk about them, because what we need to do is come up with system that protects those Australians who depend on our healthcare system, not punishes them. Labor promised stronger Medicare, but Australians are getting higher costs and fewer bulk-billing options, which is putting more pressure on the healthcare system, and older Australians are being hit. Patients are being required to pay more, and health funding is being used for political gain.
Labor can spin the figures, but Australians know the truth when they pay at the GP counter. It's not a record to celebrate. It's a record that Labor should be ashamed of and should be held accountable for.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) 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; and
(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.
Australia has, over decades, all but lost the manufacturing industry, and the current Labor government are determined to kill off the rest. Australia has lost the manufacturing industry due to higher wages, low productivity, excessive red and green tape, inflexible IR laws and high energy costs. Under the Albanese Labor government, none of these things are getting any better. We have the engineers and the tradies, the best and brightest people that can design, produce, scale up and manufacture in this country, and we don't have to suffer through this continual decline.
You can't make things like cars or do any complex engineering feats without the simple processes of making the small things, and the coalition has a plan. With computers, AI and robotics we can increase productivity. When you increase productivity, you can actually increase people's wages; you could pay higher wages. The coalition is supportive of paying higher wages as long as you get the productivity. But all these changes are energy intensive. Energy is the manufacturing industry. Energy is the economy. And it's fair to say that Labor is certainly failing in the energy policy sphere.
When I travel around talking to and, more importantly, listening to manufacturers, they tell me that the No. 1 issue, the No. 1 problem, that manufacturers face in this country is energy costs, including fuel. Electricity costs under the Labor government have gone up 40 per cent; gas has skyrocketed. Manufacturers can't compete with their overseas competitors. What we need to enhance manufacturing in this country is abundant, cheap, reliable energy, energy that is available 24/7, not just when the sun shines or the wind blows. When heavy industry are casting something, whether it be copper, zinc or whatever it is, they might have molten liquid there at around 1,000 degrees. With intermittent, unreliable energy, if that stops, then all of a sudden everything stops. It's not molten anymore. It goes back to solids, creating a massive problem.
The manufacturing industry is also capital intensive, so you need to be able to run the industry 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Otherwise, it simply doesn't stack up. You cannot do that with renewable energy, even backed up by batteries. Capital is portable, so, when international companies are looking at where they are going to invest, we need to make sure that they come to Australia and we need to make sure that we have the settings right so they can bring manufacturing to this country.
The coalition has a sensible energy plan. We will scrap net zero. The net zero fantasy is destroying industry in Australia and is bankrupting manufacturing all while making Australians poorer and dropping our living standards. The coalition has a cheaper, better, fairer plan. It's cheaper because we're going to keep our existing coal-fired power stations running longer, and coal fired is the cheapest way of making an electron. We're going to be energy agnostic—whatever is the cheapest that is generated and delivered to the business, to the manufacturer, to the industry and to the household. It's better because we're not going to allow solar panels on good-quality agricultural land; we're not going to allow the 28,000 kilometres of poles and wires. And it's going to be fairer because we're still going to cut emissions, but we're going to do it in line with other OECD countries. We're going to scrap the safeguard mechanism, which is actually just a carbon tax 2.0 that's upsetting every one of our heavy emitters. Folks, we can do better, and the Labor government needs to do better.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I rise to speak on this motion because Australian manufacturing matters. It matters to our economy, our regions, our national security and the dignity of skilled work in this country. The motion correctly notes that manufacturing is our sixth-largest industry, producing billions of value added output and employing 930,000 Australians. It also correctly notes that Australian manufacturers can design, produce and scale high-tech, high-value goods. On that much, there is no dispute.
But what this motion omits is just as important as what it includes. It omits the record of those opposite. It omits the closure of the car industry. It omits the years of drift, delay and ideological hostility to active industry policy. It omits the fact that, when Australian manufacturing needed a government to stand up for it, those opposite told the industry to fend for itself. We will not be lectured by the very people who helped close the car industry and then turned up years later in hi-vis vests pretending to be shop stewards for Australian industry. Manufacturing does not survive on nostalgia. It does not survive on slogans. It survives on investment, skills, procurement, energy policy, supply chains and confidence.
That is why the Albanese Labor government is delivering a future made in Australia. This is serious industry policy. It is about making Australia stronger, more resilient and more secure. It is about backing workers, backing businesses and making sure more things are made here. The world has changed. Wars, supply shocks, trade disruption and strategic competition have reminded us that a country that cannot make things leaves itself exposed. That does not mean Australia must make everything. It means we must make more of the things that matter: critical minerals, metals, clean energy, defence capability, advanced manufacturing, AI, quantum, research, innovation. At the centre of that work is the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, which is actually putting real capital behind Australian industry.
And that is the difference between this side of the House and those opposite. They give speeches about manufacturing; we invest in it. In Western Australia, we understand the importance of building capability. We understand the trades, we understand resources, and we understand fabrication, heavy industry and the value of a skilled workforce. That is why I'm proud that we are building trains in the west. Now, some will say that, if only part of the construction is local, it's not good enough. I understand that argument—I want more local content, more WA workers, more apprentices, more fabrication and more supply chain work done here—but do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You do not build manufacturing by refusing to start. You rebuild it by placing orders, training workers, building facilities, improving capability and lifting local content over time. A workshop does not become world class because someone moves a motion in this place. It gets there because it receives real work, real contracts, real apprentices, real investment and real continuity.
The motion also talks about energy costs. Fair enough—manufacturers need affordable and reliable energy. But those opposite want this country to forget the system they left behind: ageing assets, weak investment and uncertainty. Labor is doing the hard work—Rewiring the Nation, the Capacity Investment Scheme, firmed renewables, grid modernisation and a practical gas policy for manufacturers that still need gas as a feedstock or transitional fuel.
The motion also raises imports and dumping. Again, the government is acting. We are strengthening Australia's trade remedy system, making it more accessible, delivering faster decisions and better protecting Australian businesses from unfair practices.
Manufacturing policy requires discipline. It requires a government that understands that skills, procurement, energy, trade, research and industrial relations are all connected. Those opposite had a decade and they delivered drift, denial and decline—and now they oppose the National Reconstruction Fund, Rewiring the Nation and the very tools required to rebuild capability.
So, yes, let's talk about Australian manufacturing. But let's be honest: manufacturing will not be built by those who only discover it in opposition. It will be built by investment, procurement, skills, energy certainty and national purpose. Labor is not standing on the sidelines, hoping manufacturing comes back; we are getting on with the job of rebuilding it. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on this motion because the debate is not theoretical; it is about whether this country still makes things and whether the people who make these things can afford to keep doing so in this country.
Manufacturing is Australia's sixth-largest industry, producing $137 billion of value-added output every year and employing over 930,000 Australians. It's not in Canberra boardrooms or in the Labor Party room run by the unions but on the factory floors in regional towns, where the local manufacturer is often the largest employer within that district. This is an industry that has transformed itself into a hub of research, capital investment and innovation. Our manufacturers can design, build and scale high-tech, high-value goods using world-class processes with a world-class skilled workforce. The capacity is here. What is missing is a government willing to back them.
Here is the truth this government must acknowledge and confront: you cannot run an advanced manufacturing sector on the back of the highest energy costs in the developed world. Reliable, affordable base-load power is not a luxury for manufacturers; it is the foundation everything else is built on. Every policy that has driven up energy costs while strangling the development of our own gas and energy resources has made every single one of those 930,000 Australian jobs less secure.
This is where I must direct the focus back to the budget this government has just handed down. Manufacturers were told to expect a cheaper plan for more reliable power. What they got was a $1 billion interest-free loan to help them survive a fuel and supply chain crisis that this government did not see coming—a rescue package dressed up as reform. Industry has already said it plainly: this budget does not provide a clear path to lower industrial costs in the face of rising energy prices. You do not build sovereign manufacturing capability on emergency loans; you build it on cheaper, reliable power every day, every year, not just when there's a crisis. While this government has spent $18 billion in this budget on net zero initiatives, manufacturers right across regional Australia are paying the price with their power bills. This is a direct result of the last four years of policy that has shut down base-load generation faster than it has been replaced.
A budget serious about manufacturing would have started at the cost of energy. This one didn't. Let's be honest about what regional manufacturers are actually asking for—not a handout, but a level playing field. They are competing against many substandard imported products that would never pass our own quality and safety standards if they were made in Australia, undercutting local workshops doing the right thing. That is a failure of this government to defend its own industry.
That's why this motion calls for a national import quality taskforce to stop substandard foreign dumping at our border. It's why we're calling for royalty discounts for companies that procure 100 per cent Australian-made products. And it's why we call for an overhaul of the 'Australian Made' logo fees, because it makes no sense that a small regional workshop must pay a premium just to tell the world where the product was built. We don't need to wait for a budget to make these changes. If this government were serious about backing our manufacturers, they would have taken this action by now. Without policy intervention on energy costs and imported standards, regional manufacturers do not stagnate; they decline permanently. A billion dollars in loans buys an industry a few more months. It won't buy them a future.
This is about national sovereignty as much as it is economics. A country that cannot make its own steel, its own components or its own equipment has handed control of its own future to somebody else. This budget, by its own government's design, was forced to spend its way out of that very vulnerability—emergency fuel reserves, emergency loans, emergency stockholdings—because the underlying weakness was never fixed. Regional industry are not asking for sympathy or another emergency package the next time there is a global shock; they are asking for a fair fight, affordable energy, honest competition and a government that values what Australia can produce. I commend this motion to the chamber.
I rise to speak against this motion. In doing so, I'm very pleased that the member for Dawson is here today, because it gives me a chance to discuss this in front of him. The last time I was speaking about manufacturing, and the pinning of blame for the Australian car industry walking out the door and overseas, he was able to somehow misinterpret those comments, blaming the Albanese government for being responsible for the end of our car industry.
It is not without some irony that I read the first line of the member for Dawson's motion, which is:
Noting that Australian manufacturing has undergone significant transformation over the past decades …
That is an understatement of epic proportions. Let's just look at the two elements of that first line. The first is: Who was in government over the past few decades? Who's been in government for most of the last 30 years? That's the coalition government. That's an easy one to answer. When they talk about 'significant transformation', what they really mean, surely, is the decimation of our manufacturing industry. To begin with that statement is either spectacular irony or it is that they've completely missed the point. It was their policies over the last three decades or so.
I guess the member for Dawson would also probably be inclined to agree with a bit of what I have to say, because, deep within the heart of the National Party, I've always seen that there is a little bit of common sense—deep, deep within that part of the coalition. I think the member for Dawson, like many people in the bush, like many people who believe in that national spirit, has probably watched in dismay over the last 30 years as coalition partners have walked away from supporting Australian industry. That walking away has taken three elements. The first is privatisation. The second is economic rationalism. And the third is unfettered free trade.
While we all acknowledge that free trade has been particularly beneficial to the agriculture industry and given us access to markets overseas that have really supercharged the agricultural industry, that completely ignores the effect that it's had on the manufacturing industry. Instead of actually providing some sort of support to industries which are effectively, when you have lower tariffs, competing against state owned industries overseas, then, really, that is not fair trade. While lower tariffs have been a spectacular thing for our local economy, they have been one of the reasons we've been able to keep inflation down for so long. It has been a great thing to be able to bring in cheaper imports. But it cannot come at the cost of manufacturing—when you let those imports come in, but you let your own domestic companies compete against effectively foreign owned state companies.
We have seen, with the privatisation of essential services like communications—for instance, Telstra being privatised—it has hit the bush particularly hard. We've also seen a lack of public housing. It must be remembered that part of our postwar economic miracle was very much an investment in public housing and an investment in public energy, something which was done by both coalition and Labor governments, the idea being that if you can keep the cost of living down by providing affordable housing, you're able to keep wages down. The best example of that was Elizabeth in South Australia, where you had a car industry effectively built around public housing, which was provided to keep that cost of living down, which kept the pressure off wages, which ultimately provided a high standard of living and was able to support Australian industry.
Unfortunately, instead of pursuing that approach, we saw the coalition, as they took part in this significant transformation over the past few decades, walking away from that basic support—walking away from providing essential government support directly to keep those industries going but also from providing those sort of ancillary services, like cheaper energy and cheaper housing. So it is with some recognition of that irony that I rise to oppose this motion today.
Our nation was built on industry: makers, doers, builders and manufacturers. South Australia was the manufacturing capital of this nation. Melbourne was textiles, Sydney was finance and South Australia was the manufacturing heart of this country. Today it remains our sixth largest industry, producing $137 billion of value added output, employing 390,000 people, from big businesses like the smelter in Port Pirie and the steelworks in Whyalla to family operations like Sharman's in Long Plains. We in regional South Australia produce high-value goods using cutting-edge processes. But, in 2026, most manufacturers are no longer with us, and those remaining are fighting to stay alive.
Under this Labor government, we are witnessing a complete disconnect between the Treasury benches and the daily reality facing our regional businesses. Labor has comprehensively lost touch, and Minister Bowen must put Australians first. After wasting $150 million to host a climate conference in another country, he's handing even more taxpayer money to foreign governments trying to make a buck out of green energy projects on our soil. Meanwhile, families and businesses are still waiting for the promise of a $275 reduction in their power bills. Minister, where is it?
When we talk about energy, people only think about the energy in their homes—their air conditioners and the lights in their rooms. Household electricity consumption is less than 10 per cent of this nation's energy consumption; the rest is industry and transport. When the price of energy goes up, everything goes up: the cost of producing a coke can, the cost of your protein in the supermarket or the cost of processing your recycling. If energy is cheap, we create a prosperous nation. In South Australia, we have the highest energy prices in the developed world.
If you want a prosperous and secure Australia, we must unleash our own energy resources to reduce these crippling costs. We need reliable and firm base-load power for our manufacturers to remain competitive. We'll put an end to green energy rent seeking. We will bring down power prices by backing all technologies that can deliver affordable and reliable energy. Labor put all their eggs into the wind and solar basket, and they're proving to be the most unreliable and expensive energy in the developed world. South Australia is the classic example.
You see, Labor governs for big unions and big city projects, leaving regional South Australian businesses out in the cold. Look no further than the impending payday super changes rolling out on 1 July. The government attempts to frame this as a simple administrative update. But for a smaller manufacturer in Port Lincoln or Moonta, it is a sudden, brutal drain on their cash flow. Super is absolutely critical, and all employees are entitled to it. That is not up for debate. But, under this new scheme, money will leave businesses much sooner, fundamentally altering their working capital, at a time when they are being battered with energy costs.
And what specific support measures has government offered to help cash-poor businesses adjust? Absolutely none. If you want to see this government's true priorities, look at the budget. They allocate a paltry amount to help small businesses navigating complex IR disputes, yet they happily hand out millions of dollars of taxpayer money to continue propping up union administration. The compliance burden of tax and reg law falls on small businesses with the same weight as on big businesses. They do not have large HR and legal teams.
The fight to save Australian manufacturing and reclaim our national sovereignty means we must challenge these sorts of policies that leave us vulnerable to foreign imports. Regional industries are not seeking a handout. They just want a level playing field. Without immediate policy intervention to address the energy disparity and the lack of import standards, we risk even more industrial decline. We must protect our domestic production at all costs. Australia needs a national import quality taskforce to stop foreign dumping. We should offer royalty discounts for companies that produce 100 per cent Australian made—Aussies backing Aussies. We must back our manufacturers now. We must secure our energy future. We must reclaim our sovereignty, and build a prosperous, secure nation for the future.
A Future Made in Australia is an acknowledgement that we live in a constantly and rapidly changing global environment, with intense international competition, constant conflict and supply chains that are consistently being challenged. It's also an acknowledgement that Australia has competitive advantages in renewable energy and critical minerals, and that partnership with the private sector is critical if we are to insulate and grow our economy and create secure, well-paying jobs that advance the national interest.
A key pillar in the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia is the National Reconstruction Fund. Worth $15 billion, the National Reconstruction Fund has announced 28 investments, totalling nearly $1.6 billion, to date—investing in businesses in priority industries that lift manufacturing, value-add and enhance local capability. South Australia was home to one of the first major National Reconstruction Fund investments, with a $25 million investment being made in Myriota, a satellite telecommunications company. This National Reconstruction Fund investment is being used to scale the company's Australian based manufacturing of advanced satellite communications models and hardware for global export. Myriota's technology is growing Australia's capability in the telecommunications and space sectors, while enhancing productivity and efficiencies in partnering sectors such as agriculture, mining and defence.
Staying with defence capability and enabling capabilities—two of the seven priority areas for National Reconstruction Fund investment—Gilmour Space Technologies has also received a $75 million investment, which the company will use to further develop its Eris orbital rocket technology, scale its satellite and rocket manufacturing and expand its spaceport. Another example is the $50 million investment in Advanced Navigation's headquarters, core R&D and high-end precision manufacturing capabilities in Australia. This investment is creating almost 200 new, high-skilled roles in deep-tech engineering, photonics, robotics, high-tech manufacturing, operations and technical sales, and keeping manufacturing jobs here in Australia where they are needed.
This motion also talks about energy, and we are pursuing a prompt but balanced transition to renewable energy. For some, the transition is too slow; for others, too fast; and for others yet again, the transition should be scrapped. But why would you scrap a balanced approach that recognises that the path to decarbonisation and clean energy, whilst urgent, will take time and requires an acknowledgement that some Australian manufacturers do still rely on gas? The government's intervention in the gas market to deliver a gas reservation agreement from next year is a part of this. Yes, we want to phase out fossil fuels, but we can't do that 100 per cent just yet. What we can do in the meantime is continue the agenda at the same time as ensuring Australians are shielded from global energy shocks by having access to adequate quantities of our own gas.
Finally, there's research and development. A Future Made in Australia relies on targeted, meaningful and sufficient investment in research and development, which is why, in the recent federal budget, the government announced it would reform the research and development tax incentive to better incentivise business R&D spending in Australia, primarily by replacing the offset on supporting R&D activities with a higher offset rate on core activities, by refocusing the refundable offset on high-potential firms in need of cash flow support, and by encouraging large-scale R&D firms to undertake their R&D in Australia by increasing the maximum expenditure threshold to $200 million. Collaborative efforts between academia, industry and government agencies are crucial for pushing the boundaries of R&D. This is essential because R&D is the catalyst for innovation. Investing in research means that new ideas can be explored and novel concepts can be worked on before they are introduced to the market. Well-funded and targeted R&D can lead to improvements in a range of things, including economic growth, and it must remain a central pillar of A Future Made in Australia.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting
I move:
That this House:
(1) 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.
The wine industry is facing one of the most significant challenges in its history, and the people at the heart of the sector deserve to know that this government is listening. The Australian grape and wine sector provides more than $51 billion to our economy and supports more than 203,000 jobs. It's an industry that sustains regional communities, drives tourism, supports exports and showcases Australia to the world. Our wine regions have contributed enormously to Australia and now there is a genuine partnership with government to help secure that future—it's absolutely desperately needed.
Right now, the industry is in structural distress. Global wine consumption has fallen to its lowest level since 1961, and Australian production exceeds sales by 52 million litres in the last financial year. Forecasts suggest that the global wine market will shrink by a further eight per cent over the next five years. These figures tell a story, and behind that story are people, families and communities. This is playing out in wine regions across the country and is particularly evident in my home state of South Australia, where 80 per cent of Australia's premium wine and 50 per cent of all of its bottled wine is produced. South Australia is the 'wine state' and a proud member of the prestigious group of the Great Wine Capitals Global Network.
In my electorate of Mayo, the wine industry is part of our very fabric. We are home to some of Australia's most recognised wine regions, including the Adelaide Hills, McLaren Vale, Langhorne Creek and Currency Creek. Together, these regions account for almost 30 per cent of South Australia's grape production and support more than 1,300 grape growers. I've spoken with some of those growers who are questioning whether they can continue. It's not viable to keep growing unsold grapes, but it's also too costly to pull out vines and to diversify.
Just last week, I was in McLaren Vale, and it was heartbreaking to see unpicked vineyards scattered right across the district. I've spoken to winemakers, cellar door operators and hospitality businesses. They are all facing increasing financial pressure and uncertainty about the future. I've heard from families who've devoted generations to the industry and are now unsure whether they have a viable business to pass on to their children. The tourism industry is feeling the fallout in regions where wine tourism is critical to economic survival. There are flow-on effects to bottling plants, to agricultural supplies, to freight companies, to printers, to carton manufacturers and to all those secondary industries reliant on a successful wine sector.
The pressure is relentless. It's not just financial; it's emotional. It's affecting mental health, family relationships and entire communities. It's often invisible to those outside of the industry but it's being felt right across kitchen tables, inside family businesses and across regions.
What is frustrating is that the government seems to be turning a blind eye to this. The Australian grape and wine industry put forward a budget proposal designed to allow orderly transition, reduce oversupply and support growers and winemakers through change, but the industry's calls for assistance have gone unanswered. The budget not only failed to help the wine industry; it actually cut funding, phasing out the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grants program at a time when it's most needed and not reinvesting that funding into anything else within the sector. The reality is that this devastating change to the wine industry is happening whether the government acts or not. The cost of doing nothing will not disappear; it will simply be borne by growers, families, communities and, ultimately, taxpayers.
This motion recognises both the economic significance of our wine industry and the human consequences of its current challenges. We owe it to families, workers and communities who have built this industry to ensure they are not left facing the challenge alone. This is an incredibly important industry to my electorate. It provides an enormous variety of employment and I urge the government to support it.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives
Sitting suspended from 12:16 to 12 : 29
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I understand the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into Hansard, in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.
The incorporated speech read as follows
I would like to speak on the importance of Australia's grape and wine sector and the urgent need to support its future. This is an industry that is not only iconic but foundational to our rural and regional communities. It contributes more than $51 billion to the economy and supports over 203,000 jobs, many in areas with limited alternative employment. These figures represent families, livelihoods, small businesses and communities built over generations, where the success of one vineyard often supports an entire local economy.
Australia is home to 65 wine regions, more than 2,000 winemakers and over 5,000 grapegrowers. From the Swan Valley to Margaret River, these regions are central to local identity. In my electorate, wineries such as Paul Conti Wines are not just businesses but community institutions supporting tourism, creating jobs, mentoring local workers, and showcasing Australian produce to the world. The sector underpins a broader ecosystem. Hospitality, tourism, freight and exports all rely on its success. When the sector performs well, it drives regional growth. When it struggles, the impacts ripple across entire communities, and, right now, the industry is under sustained pressure.
In 2024-25, production exceeded sales by 52 million litres, reflecting a deeper structural imbalance. Global consumption has fallen to its lowest level since 1961, and the market is forecast to shrink by a further eight per cent over the next five years—equivalent to a loss of around 1.5 billion litres. Behind these figures are real consequences such as unsold crops, difficult business decisions, tightening margins and growing uncertainty for regional communities. These challenges are not cyclical; they require a coordinated and forward-looking response.
That is why targeted support is essential. The Albanese government has delivered more than $90 million in support for the sector. We extended the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program, with $30 million over three years to help regional businesses attract visitors and grow local economies. From 1 July 2026, the WET rebate cap will increase to $400,000, providing eligible producers with up to $50,000 in additional support each year to strengthen cashflow and invest in adaptation.
We are also supporting export diversification through Austrade's $50 million Accessing New Markets Initiative, ensuring Australian wine continues to reach new and emerging markets. In addition, we have backed the development of a national vineyard register, progressed a mandatory code of conduct for grape purchases to ensure fairer dealings, partnered with the South Australian government on the SA Wine Recovery Program and funded the Grape and Wine Sector Long-term Viability Support Package.
I acknowledge the work of Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated and their $139.25 million proposal to address structural challenges. It is a practical and strategic plan that deserves serious consideration. A wine business viability and transition program will also be critical, ensuring that those who choose to remain in the industry are supported to adapt and those who choose to exit can do so with dignity, certainty and a pathway forward. At the same time, rebuilding demand remains essential, through stronger export markets, diversification and the reinforcing of Australia's global reputation for quality and innovation.
More broadly, the Albanese Labor government has invested over $1 billion in rural support and drought resilience, helping farmers prepare for and respond to changing conditions. We are also strengthening the Rural Financial Counselling Service, ensuring farmers and small businesses facing hardship can access free, independent advice when they need it most.
With the right policy settings, targeted investment and ongoing collaboration between government and industry, we can support the grape and wine sector through transition and position it for a stronger, more sustainable future. This is about backing regional Australia. It is about supporting an industry that has shaped our national identity. And it is about ensuring communities—like those in my electorate—continue to thrive for generations to come.
I'm very pleased to support this motion, because the wine industry has a long and proud history in the Central West of New South Wales. It's part of the fabric of our communities. In places like Orange, Mudgee, Molong, Bathurst, Cargo and Canowindra, wine isn't just a product; it's part of who we are—the identity of our region. It's jobs, small businesses and tourism. It's a great source of pride for our region, and it's a vital part of our region.
Our wines are exported all over the world. Across Calare, there are thousands of hectares under vine, more than 200 wineries and close to 100 cellar doors. From growers in the vineyard to cellar-door staff and everyone in between, hundreds of locals and businesses depend on this industry. In 2024-25 alone, it contributed to the overall gross production of wine in New South Wales, which was valued at $209 million. So it's a very important part of our region.
But, beyond the numbers, it's an industry that is under threat and under real pressure. The wine sector is facing structural challenges. In the past year, production outstripped sales by 52 million litres. That's not a temporary aberration; it's a sign that demand has shifted. Globally, wine consumption has dropped to its lowest level in decades, and, over the next five years, the market is expected to shrink by around eight per cent. That's the equivalent of 1.5 billion litres. These are not just statistics. They translate to real impacts for growers, winemakers, businesses, families and their employees across communities like ours. As I drive around our region, I can see the wineries and the vines being taken out literally before our eyes. They're being removed from paddocks. It is a very concerning situation, and this is why we need to get support for our wineries and get a program in place which deals with this issue.
To give you an example of some of the great things that are happening in our region, at the 2025 NSW Wine Awards Printhie Wines won the trophy for the best sparkling wine, for their 2016 vintage. There were a number of other winners as well. For example, Tamburlaine took out the award for best organic wine, and they were actually very successful in a number of categories. Gooree Park, near Mudgee, won the trophy for best pinot noir. Tamburlaine also won trophies for the best cab sav and the best other red wine varietal.
Right across the region, there are great innovators and great winemakers. At the 2025 Orange Wine Show, Printhie Wines again took out the award for best wine of the show, with their 2016 vintage sparkling. Over at Mudgee Wine Show, Robert Stein won the Champion Wine of Show award, with their 2019 dry riesling. You can see the great things that are happening across our region in terms of winemaking. But this is a major challenge for our region, and we need support.
Another challenge that our industry is facing is the closure of the Great Western Highway. A bridge built by a convict chain gang in 1832 has unsurprisingly failed, and this has meant that tourism numbers across the region have drastically decreased. Even though there are diversion roads in place, the number of tourists coming from the Sydney area and beyond has dropped dramatically, and this is having a major impact on cellar doors and tourism, and it is a major crisis facing our whole region. We have this issue with our wine industry, which is being made a lot worse by what's happening with government inaction, both state and federal, on the Great Western Highway. I would urge the state government and the federal government to show some leadership on this issue. The Premier of New South Wales needs to come out to our part of the world and see the impact that this highway closure is having on our businesses, and we need government support to sort out our wine industry as well.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion today, and I share the member for Mayo's sentiments about how important the wine industry is to the Australian economy and to remote and regional Australia in particular. In recognition of this importance, the Albanese Labor government will always provide strong support for the grape and wine sector.
An example of this is the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program, with a $30 million commitment over three years designed to allow wine and cider producers to apply for grants of up to $100,000, through Wine Australia, on their eligible rebatable cellar door sales. Round 8 of this program is anticipated to open in August 2026. In round 7, $3.8 million of this was delivered to businesses in South Australia.
One beneficiary in round 7 was Amadio Wines. The Amadio vineyard is located north of the Adelaide Hills wine region, between the areas of Kersbrook and Williamstown, and, on its 320 acres, it grows a huge variety of grapes, including our favourites: sav blanc, fiano, chardonnay, pinot grigio, shiraz and sangiovese. Amadio also has a cellar door at Felixstow, in my electorate of Sturt, and I went for a visit last Thursday, where I met winemaker Danniel Amadio. The Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program has allowed Amadio Wines to invest in a customised tasting offering, to invest in their website to allow them a bigger online push into the domestic and international market, and to invest in more sophisticated point-of-sale equipment for cellar-door sales. I helped test the cellar-door sales equipment and can confirm I was easily able to buy some beautiful Australian made prosecco—yes, we can still call it that—and a gorgeous nebbiolo rose, which I can confirm is no longer with us!
In Sturt, we are also lucky to be home to Penfolds wines Magill Estate Cellar Door, which also benefited from the grant program and is the spiritual home of Penfolds wines. Located 8½ kays from the CBD, Magill estate is an escape—a sanctuary with beautiful grounds, beautiful food and, even better, beautiful Australian wines. I love going there and, more importantly, I love supporting the South Australian wine industry.
South Australia is being supported because of the solid partnership between federal and state Labor governments. Together, Labor is supporting South Australian grapegrowers and winemakers to diversify sales and boost their long-term productivity and sustainability, with the SA Wine Recovery Program having been extended through to 2027. This program is backed by $3.1 million in federal funding, and the extended program is designed to support South Australia's wine industry to recover from the adverse events and market disruptions that have been experienced in recent years. This includes supporting a third round of the resting vineyard rebate, supporting growers to temporarily rest parts of their vineyard to cut production costs and buy some time to evaluate and make decisions on the future viability of vineyards. This builds on the existing streams of the program that will be extended, which focus on improving vineyard waste management, working on domestic market demand-building initiatives and boosting regional grape and wine capability.
In South Australia, we produce 80 per cent of Australia's premium wine and 50 per cent of all bottled wine, with more than 397 million litres of wine exported overseas in the 2024-2025 financial year, worth $1.8 billion. This makes the SA Wine Recovery Program, developed following recommendations made by the Viticulture and Wine Sector Working Group established by agriculture ministers, with further input from the South Australian Wine Industry Association and Wine Grape Council of South Australia, absolutely critical. Our wine industry is not just worth supporting. It is absolutely critical that we support it, and not only so it grows and thrives domestically but so that it can continue to form an important part of our international trade with both established and emerging markets.
Government must continue to play a leading role in this, but consumers can too by buying our beautiful Australian wines. Not only are they excellent but, when you buy Australian wines, you are supporting the Australian wine industry, Australian jobs and Australian businesses, which are worth backing every day of the week.
I will put the wines of Margaret River up against any from around Australia in terms of their quality. In fact, perhaps the only thing better than a summer's afternoon with a crisp glass of Margaret River chardonnay is being curled up by the fire with a glass of Margaret River cabernet sauvignon, as I was just this last weekend. But the grape and wine sector across Australia is in for the fight of its life, and it is indeed high time for the Albanese Labor government to step up, put its money where its mouth is and support our viticultural industry.
My electorate of Forrest ranks as one of the finest wine regions of the world, attracting large tourism numbers to the region every year, not to mention a swag of medals at every international wine show. But it is clear, from speaking to the families and producers on the ground, that times really are tough for this industry. Just last November, Tate Wine collapsed into receivership, and by December its creditors had voted to wind it up. The Tate name in Western Australian winemaking goes back more than 50 years, some half a century, to when their father helped plant vines in Wilyabrup, at the heart of the Margaret River winegrowing region. That family's history in wine is now gone. The receiver himself said it plainly: 'The Australian wine industry is struggling from the structural impacts of oversupply.'
So how has the government responded to an industry which is clearly under pressure? In May's budget it axed, at the worst possible moment, the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grants program, the only federal program directly supporting cellar doors and jobs in the wine industry.
In September last year my office was notified that Brookland Valley and Houghton Cellar Door on Caves Road, also in Margaret River, would be closing, with the loss of four local employees accordingly. This just underscores why it is the worst possible time for the government to be cutting support to this industry.
But the scale of this problem isn't just limited to a bad patch. These are structural issues across the country and, to some extent, across the globe. Last year, production outran sales by some 52 million litres. Global consumption of wine is at its lowest since 1961, and the market is tipped to shrink another eight per cent, or some 1.5 billion litres globally, which is, to put it in some context, four times everything that Australia produces in a year. Our producers are lucky to some degree, in that they typically produce premium wine, which has suffered less perhaps than other markets.
But Tate Wine is not alone. Just last week, a video was doing the rounds on the internet of an excavator tearing down grapevines at De Bortoli Wines, something of a household name even in my part of the world. Darren De Bortoli spoke frankly about the decision and said, 'That's the cruelty of it. The old vines produce the best fruit, but they're shiraz, and at the moment shiraz can't find a market.' He's not alone. We've got the 166-year-old family winery Tahbilk, which has been burning vineyards planted in the 1990s—vines its winemaker said were producing very good wine. But that is the simple reality across this industry. This is mortgages, livelihoods and family stories, and the mental health of those families pushed to the brink.
The industry hasn't asked for a blank cheque, though. Australian Grape & Wine has a three-year plan that would cost, in total, $139 million—some $60 million to help growers transition or exit with dignity, $40 million to rebuild export markets, $20 million for wine and regional tourism and $15 million for the mental health of growers in crisis. This is a very modest ask as far as transitional support goes in the agricultural sector or, indeed, any other part of the economy undergoing such challenges.
In the south-west and all over Australia, our growers and winemakers may well be the best in the world. But they're facing worsening conditions, and they need a government that is willing to give them a helping hand. Instead, they've received a slap in the face from a government who has callously cut the only federal grant program that was helping jobs in the wine industry. The government simply can't ignore Australians who have put their hand up and are having a go to produce supply and give back locally. It's time we got behind our wine industry and did the right thing not only in restoring the program that was cut in this year's budget but by delivering on the very modest ask of this industry crying for help.
The Hunter Valley is one of Australia's great wine regions. For many people in my community, wine is more than an industry; it is a way of life. For generations, families have built vineyards, wineries and businesses that have helped shape the identity of our region. The Hunter's wine industry is not just about what ends up in a bottle or a glass; it is about the growers who lovingly tend their vines, the winemakers who turn the grapes into world-class products, the cellar door staff who welcome visitors and sell that wine, and the countless local businesses that rely on a thriving sector.
As co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Viticulture, I have had the opportunity to meet with grapegrowers and winemakers from across the country. While every wine region is unique, the message I am hearing is remarkably consistent: this is an industry under pressure. I acknowledge Lee McLean and Australian Grape and Wine, who do a terrific job as one of the peak bodies advocating for grape and wine across Australia.
The Albanese government recognises the importance of the grape and wine sector, and we have been demonstrating support since coming to office. We've delivered more than $90 million in targeted support for the industry. Last year we extended the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program with a $30 million commitment over three years. That support is helping regional businesses attract more visitors, strengthen tourism offerings and create local jobs. We recognise there is more to do. Importantly, we recognise that wine is not simply an agricultural product; it's a major driver of tourism and regional economic development, and, as my tourism providers tell me, it is an experience we want people to have—an authentic Australian experience that so many people who visit our nation are craving.
Under the tax system, from 1 July this year the wine equalisation tax rebate cap will increase from $350,000 to $400,000. That change will provide eligible producers with an additional $50,000 in support each year, helping businesses improve cash flow, make investments and adapt to changing market conditions. We've also supported export diversification through Austrade's $50 million Accessing New Markets initiative. And we have cobbled back some of the loss we had to China post-COVID, which was very important; I commend the trade minister for doing that.
Australian wine producers know better than anyone that the importance of building and maintaining export markets is crucial, and expanding opportunities in new markets helps strengthen resilience and reduce reliance on any single destination. Alongside these measures, the government has backed the development of the National Vineyard Register, supported the introduction of a mandatory code of conduct for wine grape purchasers, partnered with the South Australian government through the Wine Recovery program and invested in Wine Australia's long-term viability initiatives. These are practical actions designed to support the industry's future.
Getting back to my beautiful local community, I thank all those families who've spent decades—in fact, we are the oldest wine region in the country. I know that there are generations of families—I can think of them, from Petersons to Calais to Savannah; there are three generations of families right there—who are providing a fabulous product. They are people who love wine, they love the people that want to enjoy their product, and I thank them everyday for that. I think of all of those businesses and people who rely on wine for their incomes and their livelihoods. I want them to hear that they have a government who gets it. We do want to support you, and we do want you to continue to produce the great wines that you have.
I thank the member for Paterson for her forbearance. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that the 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.
The people of the Illawarra know renewable energy is the future. It's cheaper and it's cleaner, and the same is true for electric vehicles. They drive down emissions, and they save thousands of dollars in petrol costs over the life of the car. Thanks to the Albanese Labor government, electric vehicles are becoming more affordable, driving a huge surge in EV purchases. It is absolutely clear that the new vehicle efficiency standard is working. More EVs and low-emissions vehicles are entering the market than ever before. This standard helped bring Australia into line with the rest of the world, making Australia a new target market for more electric vehicle manufacturers. Our tax-saving initiatives for EVs have also encouraged more people to purchase low-emissions vehicles by reducing upfront costs. The statutory review of the electric car discount showed that, thanks to our policies, there are now more models to choose from at a greater range of prices, making EVs more affordable and accessible to everyday Australians. Treasury estimates almost 100,000 vehicles have benefited from the fringe benefit tax exemption. We know that in May this year there was an EV purchased every two minutes. That's compared to every 45 minutes four years ago—a truly incredible uptake. In the Wollongong local government area, there are more than 11,000 registered hybrid, plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles.
These figures are not by accident; they are the result of a government that has put the right policy settings in place to allow more electric vehicles to enter our market—a choice for consumers and more affordable prices. In fact, our policies have been so successful at delivering a market with more choice that we've refocused the fringe benefits tax exemption to EVs that cost under $75,000. This is not something we could have done three years ago, because there simply were not enough vehicles available in that price range. Now there are. At the same time, we're helping more local people charge their cars at home for free, thanks to more than 2,500 cheaper home batteries across the Cunningham electorate. From 1 July, our Solar Sharer Offer will see all households provided with three hours of free power every day—extremely handy for charging up electric vehicles for free.
Australians are embracing cleaner and cheaper forms of power for their homes, for their businesses and for their cars. Across the Illawarra, we've got an ever-increasing supply of fast chargers, including two on public lands, thanks to Wollongong City Council and the NRMA. Council has also recently installed a range of kerbside chargers mounted on power poles in Wollongong, Thirroul and Austinmer. Installed in partnership with EVX Australia and Endeavour Energy, these chargers are powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, helping electric vehicle owners charge up on the go. I was pleased to also spot some EV charging stations at the new social and affordable apartment block that the Housing Trust opened in the heart of Wollongong just last week at Warruya. Supported by the Housing Australia Future Fund and NSW government and council funding, these charging stations will help families in need to reduce their petrol costs with cheaper, cleaner electric vehicles. It's really great to see, and I'd like to congratulate the Housing Trust for this important inclusion.
In the Illawarra, we are not just adopting this technology; we are helping to drive the innovation behind it. As we shift to a clean energy future and we electrify more of our technology, having the battery power to back it up is absolutely crucial.
Sicona Battery Technologies is pioneering the next generation of battery materials and creating a sovereign battery supply chain. Their innovative technology, created in the Illawarra, can reduce battery charging times by 40 per cent, which is simply incredible. Their technology is compatible with existing global manufacturing infrastructure, it improves the performance of lithium ion batteries, it's cost effective, and it's scalable. These are batteries that will power the electric vehicles of the future. They will be essential for clean energy storage, and they were founded in the Illawarra. Sicona is a vital part of our local, innovative, advanced manufacturing industry, supporting local jobs and contributing to the Future Made in Australia—and in the Illawarra.
It is our government that has delivered the right policy settings to unlock a future where electric vehicles are within reach for more Australians. They are cheaper and cleaner, they bring down costs and emissions, and they are delivered by the Albanese Labor government.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
We find ourselves in here to have a pretty extraordinary debate. For the first time—I think in Australian history—the government is taxing Australians and sending that money to China. You heard right. Under the Labor government's car and ute tax, ordinary Australians are being penalised for driving petrol or diesel internal combustion cars, and the money that they are being levied is being dispatched to Chinese manufacturers of EVs.
If that wasn't extraordinary enough, we also find ourselves listening to Labor MPs crowing about the fringe benefits tax exemptions that have been afforded to EVs in recent years. Those same exemptions made a Tesla cheaper for a surgeon than for a nurse. That is an appalling breach of faith against the Australian people, and I do think it is extraordinary that the government continues to defend the indefensible when it comes to EVs.
Admittedly, with all of these subsidies and taxpayer funded largesse, EV uptake has increased. Indeed, from a very low starting point, it just crept above 12 per cent for the 2025 year in car sales, which still means that the overwhelming majority of Australians are purchasing internal combustion engine vehicles. Indeed, in my part of the world and that of the member for Grey, here, our communities rely on internal combustion engines, whether it's for travelling the vast distances in our electorates, getting around the farm or lugging the boat down to enjoy the pristine waters of Geographe Bay on a weekend. These are the choices that Australians ought to be able to make for themselves without facing a tax impost or a fee levy from the Albanese Labor government.
We find ourselves now with about 410,000 EVs in Australia compared to the many millions of conventional cars that Australians still choose overwhelmingly to purchase for their own use. The government is overstating, I think, how widespread and accessible the transition really is, because upfront cost remains a major and ongoing barrier for many households considering an EV. This is because EVs typically cost between $10,000 and $15,000 more than a comparable petrol model.
That price difference is particularly significant at a time when families are dealing with sustained cost-of-living pressures, fuelled by the Albanese government's out-of-control spending and the inflation that it is causing, which is running rampant in the economy and seeing the worst decline in living standards in the developed world. The government's claims about affordability are not being felt in the community. That's because, when it comes to the Labor Party, you must look at what they do, not listen to what they say.
Many Australians don't have the capability to reach into their pockets and fork out for an expensive EV and an expensive charger, because any savings from running an EV depend heavily on access to cheap and reliable charging. That necessarily means that renters, apartment residents and those without off-street parking face real and ongoing barriers to cheap and reliable charging. Those challenges are even more pronounced in regional and rural communities like mine. Australia has currently got an estimated 1,500 fast-charging sites nationwide. For a country as large and as decentralised as Australia, that network is still very thin, representing less than two chargers available per 10,000 people in the country.
But the bigger issue is not the number of chargers but where they are actually located, because most charging infrastructure is concentrated in the capital cities and not out in the regions, where my community live. Only one-third of towns have access to a charger within 20 kilometres, and more than two-thirds of towns have no charger at all within five kilometres. That means there are stretches of hundreds of kilometres without access to a single fast charger, which makes EV ownership totally impractical for regional Australians, who rely more heavily on the types of utes, four-wheel drives and other internal combustion vehicles I referred to earlier.
For the government to crow about a scheme which, as I said, made Teslas cheaper for surgeons than for nurses and to throw hundreds of millions of dollars a year—and climbing—towards Chinese manufacturers, money that was taken from hardworking Australians, it does expose this EV fantasy for what it really is.
Point Cook, in my electorate, is known for a few things. It's Australia's biggest suburb and Australia's most multicultural suburb. It's the No. 1 postcode in Australia for internet shopping, and, of any suburb in Australia, it has the second-highest uptake of the Albanese government's EV discount. Residents of Point Cook know a bargain when they see it. EV discounts are one of the myriad of ways that this government is building a cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy system in Australia.
Let's look at the progress. Over the past year, Australia's emissions have fallen by 9.7 million tonnes. The decline has been driven by more renewable energy, cleaner cars and practical emissions reduction. In this year's budget, we announced that we are supporting the single biggest boost to Australia's main energy grid, with new renewable energy projects, and by 2030 these projects will supply enough electricity for four million Australian households. We've also been delivering the Albanese government's Cheaper Home Batteries Program. Through this program, Australian households, businesses and community organisations can get a discount of around 30 per cent on the upfront cost of installing a range of small-scale battery systems. Under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, more than 400,000 households have installed a cheaper home battery. Around half of them have also installed new or upgraded their solar systems at the same time, and they can recharge an EV with their solar systems. In my community, 1,600 households have already made the switch using the subsidy. Many of these households have slashed up to 90 per cent off their energy bills, and we've already had over 20,000 solar panel installations in my electorate, in Melbourne's west.
Australians want cheaper, cleaner energy, and we're taking up renewables faster than anywhere else in the world is. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the adoption of electric vehicles. We have supported Australians into cheaper-to-run cars through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Act and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act. The electric car discount is a full exemption from FBT for EVs under $75,000, pushing car companies to offer more affordable choices. Almost 100,000 vehicles have already benefited from an FBT tax exemption. On top of that, we've discounted EVs further by making them fully exempt from import tax. Our government's new vehicle efficiency standard incentivises car companies to supply more efficient vehicles, and this includes hybrid, plug-in hybrid and more-efficient petrol and diesel vehicles. Last month, the sales figures showed that 30 per cent of cars sold in May were electric or plug-in hybrid. More Australians bought EVs in the last quarter than in any previous quarter.
Under the coalition government, Australia was missing out on access to these choices, putting us in the same basket as Russia for fuel efficiency standards. Under the last government, we were the dumping ground for expensive cars that the rest of the world just didn't want. Four years later, our reforms mean that it's now cheaper than ever to make the switch to electric, and we're seeing the consequences of our reforms.
When we came into office, Australians bought an electric vehicle once every 45 minutes; now it's once every two minutes. The share of new vehicles sold which are electric or plug-in hybrid has jump started, from under two per cent in April 2022 to 27.5 per cent in April 2026. In that four-year window, Australians went from buying 29 EVs every day to buying 515. Put simply, the total number of EV models available in Australia has nearly tripled in that period of time. My community has done even better in those four years. We've experienced 453 per cent growth in hybrids and 2,482 per cent growth in EVs. Consider all of this growth that we've experienced: this happened after the previous government did nothing on EVs and left Australia's renewable energy policy empty, on a dead battery. Since 2022, the Albanese government has not only caught up, but has completely recharged renewable energy policy in Australia.
It's quite extraordinary sometimes to listen to those opposite talk about EV policy. They seem to really hate Australians getting a bargain and reducing their costs, if it comes through an electric vehicle. It really is extraordinary to listen to.
But, if you vote against these EV discounts, you're voting against people in my community saving money. You're voting against helping them in this cost-of-living crisis. For those in my community, those reforms mean cheaper cars and more off your energy bill.
EV models available for under $40,000 have grown from just two in 2022 to more than 10 today. It's no wonder there's been this 2,482 per cent growth in EVs in my electorate in Melbourne's west—in an outer suburb in Melbourne's west—and it'll only go up from here. It's all part of our government's plan to address the immediate cost-of-living pressures our community is facing, at the same time as we deliver support for Australian families. Unlike the coalition, the Australian people know that what's good for the planet can be good for your pocket too. I'm proud of a government that's embraced Australia's clean energy advantage. I'm delighted to see Point Cook taking up EVs faster than just about anywhere in the country. (Time expired)
I thank the member for the Illawarra for moving this motion. The share of new vehicles sold that are electric or plug-in hybrid has grown from less than two per cent in April 2022 to almost 30 per cent today, and that exponential growth in clean transport sales now sees 515 Australians buy an EV every single day, compared to only 29 four years ago.
I support this progress towards cleaner, cheaper transport, and I support policies which put zero emission vehicles within reach of all Australians. So I commend the government on retaining the fringe benefits tax exemption on electric vehicles in the May budget. That's something that I have advocated for, to the economic roundtable last year and prior to this budget. I'm glad to see that that advocacy has succeeded. But I'm concerned that the Albanese government plans to scale back the FBT exemption from 1 April next year. The FBT exemption has been one of the most effective levers driving EV uptake. Right now, the FBT exemption is available for all eligible vehicles below the luxury car tax threshold of $91,387, but, from 1 April 2027, only EVs costing less than $75,000 will be eligible for that full exemption, and, from 1 April 2029, EVs under $75,000 will receive only a 25 per cent discount on payable fringe benefits tax.
I support targeted tax concessions and I support sustainable budget management, but not at the cost of withdrawing support at exactly the time that the EV market needs the confidence to grow. In the year to date the Tesla Model Y has been the most popular EV sold in Australia, with more than 10,000 units shipped. Some versions of this model cost close to $90,000. If we limit the fringe benefits tax exemption to cars priced at less than $75,000, we risk discouraging uptake of some of the most popular EV brands in Australia.
Globally, Australia remains an electric vehicle laggard. To grow our share of cleaner, cheaper vehicles, we have to remain an attractive market for manufacturers, and we have to foster a bigger second-hand market. If the FBT exemption is narrowed too quickly and too aggressively, before a critical mass of affordable models is really established, then that EV transition could stall.
I'm also calling for the government to reconsider restrictions on P-platers driving EVs. Anomalous regulatory settings mean that new drivers can legally drive three-tonne RAM 1500 pick-ups but not Model Y Teslas. Regulations based on a single measure—power to weight—which don't consider other safety characteristics of cars have resulted in a perverse outcome, which governments need to consider, review and revise.
We do need to continue to improve EV infrastructure, in Kooyong and across the country. Range anxiety remains real. It's particularly problematic for renters, for apartment dwellers and for those travelling through or living in rural and regional areas.
The government has to do more to build public charging infrastructure. We need binding targets. We need investment in fast charging along all the major transport corridors. We need standards requiring charging capability in all new apartment buildings. We can do these things. We can invest in ongoing FBT exemptions and in EV-charging infrastructure. Instead, the Albanese government continues to provide more than $10 billion every year to fuel tax credits which disproportionately benefit large fossil-fuel-intensive industries. If we are serious about incentivising the clean energy transition, we have to stop subsidising fossil fuel industries when we should be helping them decarbonise.
I will always support genuine progress on electrification. But this parliament's job is not to applaud. It's not to navel-gaze. It is to scrutinise. On the FBT exemption, on charging infrastructure and on fuel tax settings, this government still has a lot of work to do. EVs can't stall, but progress can. I urge the minister to go even harder to drive EV uptake.
I rise in support of this motion. This debate is often made far more complicated than it needs to be. It is not about telling Australians what they must drive; it is about giving Australians more choice, more competition and cheaper options to run. If someone wants to drive a petrol car, they can. If someone needs a diesel ute for work, they can get one. If someone wants an electric vehicle, they should be able to buy one at a competitive price, with proper charging infrastructure and without Australia being treated as an afterthought by the global car market. That is what the Albanese Labor government is doing. We've cut taxes on electric vehicles, we've introduced the new vehicle efficiency standard and we are investing in charging infrastructure. We are bringing Australia into line with the rest of the developed world. Australian families should not be left with fewer choices, older technology and higher fuel bills because our market was allowed to fall behind.
When we talk about electric vehicles, batteries, charging and the grid, I do not just hear a policy debate. As a qualified electrician, I see switchboards, metres, cabling, apprentices, tradespeople, workshops and service vehicles. This is a real transition in the way households and businesses use energy. Australians already understand that because they live with rooftop solar. Families have looked at power bills, looked at their roofs and made a practical decision. They did not wait for permission from Canberra. They have done it because it stacks up. Today, rooftop solar is providing more than 10 per cent of Australia's electricity, and that is a remarkable achievement. It is not just about technology; it is about households taking control of their energy costs.
Electric vehicles are part of that same change. More homes have solar. More homes are installing batteries. More families are thinking about how they can use power generated here rather than petrol bought at the bowser and priced through international markets. And there is a pretty simple advantage in that. The sun over Joondalup does not get delayed in the Strait of Hormuz. The wind off Sorrento Beach does not check the oil price before it turns up to work. That is the practical benefit of using more Australian energy generated here to run more of our homes and our vehicles.
This matters in the outer suburbs and the regions. In places like Joondalup, Edgewater, Currambine and Iluka, and across all of Perth's northern suburbs, people drive long distances for work, school, sport and family commitments. Fuel costs are a real weekly household expense. People who drive further should have more options to save on fuel, not fewer.
This is why the new vehicle efficiency standard matters. It is not about forcing anyone into a particular car; it is about making sure manufacturers bring their best, most efficient and most affordable vehicles to Australia. For too long, Australia was at the back of the queue. Other countries got the cleaner, cheaper-to-run models first, while Australia was expected to take whatever was left. That is not good enough. The standard is helping change that. More electric, hybrid and efficient vehicles are coming into the Australian market. There is more choice and there is more competition, and more of those choices are becoming realistic for working households.
The electric car discount has also helped. It has made electric vehicles more accessible, including through novated leases and workplace arrangements. Early support helps build a market, but it also needs to be fair and sustainable. That is why the government is refocusing the discount over time towards more affordable vehicles. This should not be seen to be about subsidising luxury cars; it is about bringing cheaper-to-run vehicles within reach of more Australians.
We're also investing in the infrastructure needed to make this work. Chargers matter. Regional black spots matter. Kerbside charging matters. Dealerships, repairers and servicing capability matter. As a former electrician, I know this much: the wires do not connect themselves. You need skilled workers, proper standards and a plan that goes beyond a headline.
Those opposite say they support choice, but they would abolish the new vehicle efficiency standard. They would abolish the electric vehicle tax cut. They would abolish the support for home batteries. In other words, they support choice right up until Australians start choosing something they do not like. They cannot say they want lower fuel bills while opposing the policies that give Australians access to more efficient cars. They cannot say they back households while trying to keep Australians at the back of the global vehicle queue. That is what this government is doing, and it's why I support the motion.
Let's be very clear. The recent uptick in EV consumption in the last couple of months is because the Australian people do not trust this prime minister and this energy minister to manage the crisis in Iran. This government has worked aggressively to move primarily metropolitan Australians into electric cars. But at what cost?
Electric vehicles have an excellent application in our modern cities, especially due to regenerative braking, and will continue to become more widespread. However, we must ground this argument and this debate in physics and engineering, not ideology. I remain highly critical of their limited application in regional and industrial settings because heavy electric transport trucks, mining trucks, tractors and regional passenger transport face massive logistical limitations, and crucial charging infrastructure remains a vast, unresolved barrier for regional communities.
Take me, for example. As the member for Grey, I drive about 100,000 kilometres a year. Could I perform this job in an EV? Absolutely not. With the range alone—going from Port Lincoln to Ceduna, Ceduna to Whyalla, Whyalla to Coober Pedy—I couldn't even get to those communities, let alone find a charger along the way. To cut a long story short—this is not revolutionary—they simply do not work in the bush and won't work for some time. Until the energy density of batteries can be comparable to hydrocarbons, batteries will remain unfit for purpose in industrial applications and in long distance transport, particularly in regional communities. EVs are not fit for purpose, and it is completely unacceptable that Labor's family car tax and ute tax subsidise city based doctors and lawyers at the expense of tradies who need that ute to perform their task or that farmer who needs that tractor to do their job.
My focus is also on the deeply concerning influx of Chinese electric vehicles and cheap Chinese batteries. We must honestly ask why these vehicles are suddenly so affordable, and it is not simply because of the self-professed brilliance of Labor-Greens policies. Chinese vehicle exports surged by 69 per cent in May. Why? It was because of the crisis in Iran and the lack of confidence that Australians have in this government's ability to manage the crisis but also because the domestic electric vehicle sales in China dropped by four per cent. So, to aggressively offset their softer local sales, Chinese manufacturers are leaning much harder into overseas markets. The Americans aren't taking their cars, so they're bringing them to Australia. Consequently, Chinese brands now account for 57 per cent of the EV market in Australia, up from 33 per cent just last year.
This state backed product dumping is rapidly destroying genuine fair competition. They're dumping to take over the market and are being paid handsomely for doing so. This is the truth of this prime minister and minister for climate change and energy's net zero pipedream: it punishes Australians and enriches the Chinese Communist Party. Just as it was with solar panels which are produced in China, with our metals and our resources, and sold back to us, so it is with electric vehicles. Half of all cars sold between now and 2035 have to be EVs to meet our net zero target. That won't happen. But at this rate China will become very, very rich from it.
Cybersecurity experts warn that the rapid uptake of these foreign devices actively places our critical infrastructure at risk of international hijack. In more ways than one, Labor's current policies are fundamentally at odds with national security imperatives as they pertain to China. Chinese manufacturers account for 70 per cent of the home battery market, while 80 per cent of new EV arrivals are also built in China. Shouldn't we be worried? Even the Minister for Home Affairs, Tony Burke, was warned by his own department to take precautions, while driving his own Chinese EV, to protect the secrets of our nation. What are we doing here?
The current flood of electric vehicles is not a miracle of the free market or of good policy. It is aggressive Chinese product dumping, and we need to get a handle on it. (Time expired)
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House 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.
This motion seeks to right a grave injustice to thousands of Australians. Superannuation is money that belongs to Australians for their retirement. The same goes for death benefits which are held by super funds and distributed to a person's nominee or dependants on their passing, Where the person has a terminal illness, they can be eligible for the early release of those funds as well.
I've assisted constituents who have waited over a year to access their own money. In one case, a constituent approached me after her late husband passed from a terminal illness. He had wanted to access the early payout of his super, which he was entitled to do. He wanted to say to his children, while he was still alive, 'Kids, I know this is not going to make everything better, but it is something.' AustralianSuper messed this man around in his dying weeks, not replying to his emails, transferring him from call centre operator to call centre operator and hanging up on him, depriving this father and his family of that final conversation. To make matters worse, his widow was then stonewalled for eight months to access her own money. The amount of money we're talking about is such that, if she'd stuck that in the bank over that period of time, it would have yielded about $8½ thousand.
Irene Thomas is another constituent of mine. Her battle was with Cbus. After I intervened on Irene's behalf, the money was paid to her, but that was over a year later. Irene recently told Lucas Baird from the Australian Financial Review about her wait to access her own money and said:
What would have happened if I were destitute?
There are over 4,000 Australians waiting up to four years to access their own money. One of the first things I did when assisting these constituents on the issue was to check what the mandated minimum payout timeframe was with the regulator, ASIC. Surely, there must be a timeframe in which people can access their own money. It turns out that, according to ASIC, there is not. ASIC just says it should be 'as soon as practicable'. In other words, there is no mandated timeframe. Well, there should be.
In January 2025, the federal government announced plans to introduce mandatory service standards for superannuation funds, especially over their poor handling of death benefits. Eighteen months of 'soon' is too long for many Australians who are still waiting. These are not isolated cases. There are thousands of Australians who have been waiting years to access their own money, because big super has made an art form out of frustrating every effort at every turn—transferring calls, not answering emails and challenging every document. In many cases, we are talking about older women who, while navigating the grief of losing their spouse, have to jump through every obstacle imaginable just to access their own money.
There was a light-handed industry led code of conduct implemented a couple of years ago, around the time when complaints to the ombudsman tripled. Clearly, it's not working. Last year, ASIC also announced legal action against AustralianSuper, who has kept 7,000 of its customers waiting years to access their own money. The ASIC claims-handling review has released a landmark report revealing that 78 per cent of reviewed death benefit claim files were delayed by processing issues within the trustee's control. That's important because, while we all understand some cases have complexities that need to be worked through, this shows that nearly 80 per cent of delayed cases are in fact straightforward.
The second point I wish to raise is this. It has also been revealed that a fund may be required to pay death benefits to a person who used domestic violence against the deceased. This is desperately unfair. It is cruel. It is wrong. As part of its December 2024 report into financial abuse, an insidious form of domestic violence, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recommended that superannuation laws be amended to provide a mechanism so that a beneficiary who has perpetrated domestic or family abuse, including financial abuse and domestic violence, against someone who has died as a result of domestic violence related suicide—suicide of the superannuation account holder—be declared an invalid beneficiary. I've read real-life examples of this. They are tragic.
It's time big super was held to account, and it's well past time this government was compelled to act.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak later.
Superannuation gives older Australians dignity and security in retirement. It's the recognition that Australians who have worked hard should be able to enter later life with a decent standard of living. This is, of course, the goal of all retirement income systems, but our Australian way has unique advantages. Savings mandates and concessional tax treatment are prudent mechanisms to encourage self-responsibility. It is Labor that built modern superannuation in this country. In 1991, Paul Keating introduced the legislation underpinning Australia's world-class superannuation system. Our superannuation system is one of the great success stories of the modern Australian economy. It has meant that successive Australian governments have spent less on retirement payments than other countries as a share of GDP, while supporting higher quality of life for older Australians.
Not only does superannuation provide a dignified retirement for individuals; it also benefits our economy. Over the decades since its introduction, contributions have deepened Australia's pool of investment capital over time, reducing the risk premium faced by Australian companies. It has improved our balance of payments when funds invest overseas, and spending out of income derived from superannuation is a large source of demand, powering around five per cent of GDP. Apart from their home, super is often the largest investment that an individual will make over their lifetime.
It was a Labor government that created superannuation, and this Labor government understands its critical importance for individuals and for the broader economy. That's why we've acted to strengthen superannuation, supporting a secure retirement for millions of Australians. The Albanese government is introducing mandatory enforceable service standards for all large APRA regulated superannuation funds. The focus of these standards will be on the areas families rely on during some of the most difficult times in their lives, including timely and compassionate handling of death benefit claims. The government is preparing to release draft legislation for public consultation this year.
We're making sure that super is paid at the same time as wages, closing loopholes that denied workers their entitlements and allowing workers to benefit from more frequent compounding. We have increased the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, a milestone for workers decades in the making, boosting retirement savings for millions of Australians. This government is also boosting the low-income superannuation tax offset to raise eligibility from July next year. This will give low-income workers a fairer tax concession on their super contributions and help deliver a more secure retirement for 1.3 million Australians, and we're improving the sustainability of concessional treatment for very large balances.
These reforms build on a strong record of action to strengthen and modernise Australia's superannuation system. This is work that the opposition neglected to do for years.
The member for Hughes will resume his seat. It being 1.30 pm, the Federation Chamber will suspend until the chair is resumed at 4 pm later today.
Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:00
(): The Australian people want the government to put its foot on the gas and deliver a fair return from our gas exports. In the past five years, Australia has shipped enough gas overseas to cover our own needs for more than 20 years. Here's the kicker: at the same time, households and businesses on the east coast have seen household gas prices triple, breaking household budgets.
Did you know that the gas industry uses 13 times more gas to prepare it for export than Australia's entire manufacturing industry needs each year? That's outrageous! It's boosting the profits of big business and billionaires while short-changing Australians on a national resource that we own. We know that rooftop solar combined with a home battery is the best way to bring down home energy bills, and thousands are making the shift. But, while this happens, many households still rely on gas for their heating, cooking and hot water. A 25 per cent tax on gas exports could return $17 billion a year to the budget. Imagine what this money could deliver for rural health care, for regional hospitals and for roads. Just one year of this revenue could install solar and home batteries on 1.3 million homes. It's time to end the cheap deal for gas giants and make sure our sovereign resources deliver for Australia.
Arabella grew up watching her family volunteer across generations and now does so herself. Geoff is part of the very famous Grumpy Old Men, a support group for blokes in my local electorate that meets at the Sherwood Neighbourhood Centre. They are just two of the people who were awarded Local Heroes awards at Councillor Griffiths's and Councillor Johnston's awards in the lead-in to the Oxley festival. The Oxley Community Festival is a very special event in my community. It's been volunteer run for 14 years by Brian Tovey and the team. Held at the Oxley Bowls Club, the event had rides, food trucks, fireworks and even a dance-off judged by the doctors at Growlife Medical, who run the Oxley urgent care clinic. Congratulations on a great day, and congratulations to all the awardees.
Chuck Berry blared out of the speakers. It was 'Johnny B. Goode', and it was performed by people from the Red Radiant band. This was a very special thing because it was the 10th anniversary of Red Radiant Productions, run by Tim Teh, who is a band member and a drummer. It's got a focus on multicultural artists, with a diversity of acts from K-pop to lion dance, taiko drumming, J-pop and more dance battles. Can I say a very special thankyou to the Australia Malaysia Business Council Qld's Shona and Wai Kiong for their excellent efforts in making sure that that event happened in my community.
Last week, it was reported that, since 2020, Canadian pension funds have invested more in Australian renewable energy projects than Australia's largest 30 super funds—over $400 million more. Isn't that strange? Shouldn't we want our own super funds to be investing in the clean energy assets that are delivering strong risk-adjusted returns for super savers, energy productivity and resilience for all Australians?
That's a simple question in a very strange situation. Australian super funds are required to judge their performance against a narrow benchmark. That prevents them from investing in assets like renewables and affordable housing. Instead of asking whether an investment is good for the future, the test looks at how it performs against assets and companies from the past decade. That means returns from investing in solar farms, large-scale batteries and other emerging assets like affordable housing don't get assessed properly. Even though they are great for super fund members and for the economy, the rules stop super funds from unlocking the private capital that could do the heavy lifting on affordable housing and on clean energy. Thankfully, the government is consulting on changes to this narrow performance test, and I was pleased to make a submission to the inquiry last week. I endorsed a proposal from Climateworks, which puts forward a simple and smart reform design. I urge the government to implement these changes.
I rise today to recognise Richard Hart, who has been a volunteer with the New South Wales State Emergency Service in my electorate of Whitlam for the past 42 years. I was honoured to attend the New South Wales SES Southern Illawarra Cluster awards ceremony last week, an evening which celebrated the wonderful work carried out by our local SES volunteers. At this event, Richard Hart was awarded life membership of the New South Wales SES for his extraordinary service over more than four decades. Richard has acted in a variety of roles at the New South Wales SES Shellharbour City Unit, and he is currently Deputy Unit Commander.
Richard joined the SES when he was just 18 years old, and he epitomises the volunteers who give up so many hours of their time to assist communities before, during and after emergencies, often at risk to their own personal safety. In fact, Richard ended up in hospital with a dislocated shoulder and damaged wrist following his first call-out with the SES in 1984. Thankfully, these injuries did not deter him, and he has given invaluable service to the southern Illawarra community and the state of New South Wales ever since.
Like many SES volunteers, Richard goes about his business quietly, not seeking publicity or attention in any way. I'm delighted to take this opportunity to thank Richard Hart, on behalf of the southern Illawarra community, for helping and protecting us during emergencies for over 40 years.
I got a very warm welcome on a very cold morning when I visited the Brunswick community men's shed back in April. Operating an organisation like this most days of the week is no small task for a regional community group, but they know the important impact that they're having on the community that gives people of all ages the opportunity to participate in a range of activities.
The Brunswick community men's shed is growing, quite literally, and, make no mistake, it is great to see. The grant they received from Lotterywest will go directly towards the essential upgrades to and the extending of their shed that are underway as we speak.
They have a great deal of gratitude after receiving a grant from the Department of Home Affairs to conduct cybersafety awareness. In fact, they were so appreciative that they crafted a handmade wooden plaque of appreciation that I was very pleased to present to the men's shed advocate on the other side of the chamber, the member for Hunter, and I think the locals were so impressed to see that we could have a great deal of bipartisanship when it came to recognising these sorts of achievements in our local communities.
So to Kathryn, who runs the show, and all of the members at the Brunswick community men's shed, because they are proudly open to both men and women: thank you for welcoming me into your shed, and I look forward to coming back in just a few weeks to see these upgrades in all their glory.
I was honoured to attend and to speak at a celebration for Colin McDonald KC at Melaleuca Australia. We recognised his service and his contribution, particularly to the refugee community. Colin was the chair of Melaleuca for many years and has continued as a board member.
I joined Darwin diocese Bishop Emeritus Eugene Hurley and Bishop Charles Gauci to acknowledge Colin's work at Melaleuca and across a range of fields in his distinguished legal career. Colin had an exceptional legal career, across courts up to the High Court. He worked against the death penalty across countries. He worked for youth diversion. He served as the chair of the Royal Darwin Hospital board. He was a champion for the arts, and continues to be—in particular, for First Nations and Indonesian art.
However, Colin's work at Melaleuca, and his dedication to refugees and providing representation, has been his passion and a key cause throughout his career. So we recognised his outstanding contribution to refugees and to humanitarian entrants in the Northern Territory and his many years of dedicated service to Melaleuca Australia and, more broadly, to the Australia-Indonesia relationship, particularly in the fields of human rights and arts. Terima kasih, Bapa Colin.
The further away you live from a city, the shorter your life expectancy—that's the shocking truth about Australian health care. The fact is that people in remote areas are dying 15 years earlier than their city cousins. The sandstone curtain of the Great Dividing Range doesn't just divide city and country; it divides us on our life expectancy and our access to health care.
Last week I met with Mudgee doctors Rebecca Devitt and Tim Jones. They informed me of the immense difficulties in attracting doctors to the bush. The rural doctor shortage crisis is getting worse, and the government needs to act.
One thing the government can do right now is give Charles Sturt University an extra 10 places for its medical school. There's an application in with the health minister as we speak. This game-changing program trains doctors in the bush for practice in the bush. There are only 47 students at present, and more are desperately needed. Government changes to distribution priority areas saw a great movement of overseas-trained doctors away from the bush.
My Doctors for the Bush Bill remedies this, and the government should get behind it. It restores the priority that country areas should have in accessing a GP. Country people demand and deserve nothing less than equality in access to doctors, medical services and affordable health care. We are sick and tired of city-centric health policies. The government must address the rural doctor shortage crisis on the double.
Today I rise to acknowledge three outstanding members of the Bonner community who have been recognised in the 2026 King's Birthday honours. These honours recognise Australians who have made an extraordinary contribution to their communities through service, leadership and dedication to others.
This year Bonner is proud to celebrate Susan Bamford OAM, recognised for her outstanding service to netball as a life member of Netball Queensland. Susan's dedication to the sport has left a lasting impact on generations of players, volunteers and families.
We also celebrate Cornelius Steenland OAM, recognised for his service to youth and sailing through his work with the iconic sail training ship, the South Passage. His efforts have helped young Australians build confidence, resilience and valuable life skills. On a personal note, as someone who has sailed on the South Passage, can I say it is a wonderful experience for young people, and we really recognise his efforts.
And last but certainly not least is David Westlake OAM, whose dedicated service to the Wynnum Manly community includes volunteering with the Wynnum Manly & Districts Men's Shed, serving as a Justice of the Peace and driving for the Lota Police Club school bus program since 1996. His commitment to helping others has touched countless lives across our community. I congratulate them all on this wonderful honour.
8231781. Corporal Cameron Baird VC MG was Australia's 100th Victoria Cross recipient. He was born on 7 June 1981 and killed in battle 22 June 2013, on this very day. Today his family launched the Cameron Baird Foundation honouring a national hero, someone who laid down his life in service of this nation.
On three separate occasions during the battle where Cameron lost his life, he charged an enemy held behind a building who had prepared in a compound. On the first occasion, he charged the door to the building, followed by another team member. Despite being totally exposed and immediately engaged by enemy fire, Corporal Baird pushed forward while firing into the building. This is the bravery of one of ours. This is the bravery of Cameron Baird.
Today his family set up the foundation that allowed Doug Baird, his father, to travel around to at schools and with veterans—with Australians—and talk about the significance of the Victoria Cross, about the significance of military service and about his son. Today here I've got my mates ScoJo and Matty Morris, veterans who've served in battle and combat, honouring Corporal Baird.
The Country Universities Centre Southern Shoalhaven at Ulladulla was absolutely buzzing when I popped in to meet the new manager, Dr Erika Schwarze, last week. It was a great chance to chat to students studying a diverse range of subjects, from medicine, teaching and psychology to medical biotechnology, engineering and cybersecurity. This semester, the centre is providing support to a record 188 local students of all ages, from 7 am till midnight, seven days a week. The centre makes study accessible for school-leavers as well as working people with children, including many mature-aged students. It was really great to see Ulladulla High School students visiting the centre as well so they could be inspired and learn about the career pathways available to them locally. It's so fantastic that we have a country university centre in Ulladulla to help local people gain a university degree or to upskill, knowing they have passionate mentors and social and economic support at hand if they need it.
As a mum and a former TAFE and uni teacher, I am so passionate about providing opportunities to help local people learn, thrive and build their future locally. Importantly, by supporting these centres, we are helping to train more doctors, nurses, allied health workers, and aged-care and childcare educators to help fill the employment gaps in our region.
In 2019, Labor infamously stated, 'If you don't like our policies, don't vote for us.' And guess what? Australians didn't. Currently they hold a 94-seat majority in the House. But I could make a small prediction that, after the next election, Labor tacticians will be sitting there and going, 'Where did it all go wrong? How did we lose so many seats?'
On 12 May on the ABC, the Treasurer walked into the studios and said, 'We know we're going to lose some political paint. We know there's going to be some political damage from this budget.' 'My word is my bond' was a phrase touted by the Prime Minister before the election. 'I didn't fall off the stage'—when all of Australia witnessed it. 'You'll get a $275 reduction in your electricity bill.' 'For the 50th time, we are not touching negative gearing and we're not touching capital gains tax.'
The political paint that is going to be lost at the next election is by Labor betraying the trust of the Australian public, saying one thing before an election and doing another. It will come home to roost. As for the Treasurer then also stating that we're going to be voting against tax cuts, that is another mistruth. We supported those. We asked Labor to split the bill, and they didn't.
What do Mr Salvatore Ciccarello, Professor David Findlay, Dr Julja Szuster, Mr Raymond Tanner, Professor Jozef Gecz, the Hon. Rob Kerin, Professor Michael Young, Ms Joanne Hill, Dr Noemi Horvath, Mr Silvio Iadarola, Mr Stefano Marafiote, Mr David Morgan, Professor Susan Sheridan, Ms Kathryn Strohm, Mr Carmine Zollo, Ms Janice Silby and Mrs Dianne Simmons have in common? They are all residents of Sturt, and their incredible contributions to our community were recognised in the recent King's Birthday awards. That's 17 award winners in Sturt, with the winners coming from many industries.
That is the beauty of my highly engaged and educated community. It is home to people who have dedicated their lives to sports, music, orthopaedics, social welfare, transport and logistics, genomic research, child health, conservation, tertiary education, basketball, the Italian community and the law and the legal profession. What an incredible range of skills and contributions.
I absolutely loved meeting and celebrating with those award winners at last Friday's King's Birthday morning tea in Sturt. Of course I'm grateful to all of those winners but also to all community members making a contribution in Sturt, regardless of award status, who work in the service of others, our Sturt community and the great state of South Australia.
Our nation stands at a defining moment in energy policy, and O'Connor's regional communities are at its heart. For more than a century, Collie coal has powered Western Australia—built on intergenerational pride, with entire families of power industry workers carrying forward skills, discipline and energy expertise. Collie has established power generation and transmission infrastructure, a proven workforce and an unmatched understanding of what it takes to keep the lights on 24/7. Yet today, Collie faces uncertainty. Decisions by both the WA and federal Labor governments risk putting thousands out of work through premature closures, without a credible, lasting vision for what comes next. WA Labor's Just Transition plan is clearly failing. As Angus Taylor outlined in the budget reply, we must think bigger. Communities like Collie have a high energy IQ. This is where the future should be built, not shut down.
Around the world, advanced economies recognise nuclear energy as essential to any serious transition, delivering reliable, low-emissions base-load power. We are also in an era defined by data centres—critical to our economy but extraordinarily energy intensive. They require power that is reliable, affordable and abundant. Collie should be central to this future. A re-elected coalition government will deliver long-term job security and energy efficiency, ensuring that communities like Collie continue to power Australia for generations to come.
I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable constituent from Bullwinkel, Barry Howard, who recently passed away after a courageous battle with motor neurone disease. He utilised the WA law of voluntary assisted dying. I first met Barry and his wonderful wife, Barbara, when she contacted my office seeking assistance to help them navigate their aged-care packages. I visited Barry and Barbara in their homes several times and had the privilege of learning about his life. It was a quiet life dedicated to service, hard work and deep community spirit.
Born in the Wheatbelt town of Dalwallinu, Barry was a true jack of all trades. He dedicated 32 years to Transperth, earned a diploma in transport management and never met a problem he couldn't fix. He met Barbara in 1957 and was married in 1964, raising three beautiful children. Barry's life was defined by helping others. He was a lifelong St John's ambulance officer, an Army Reserve medic and a life member of the Gidgegannup Agricultural Society. Even in retirement, he was happiest on his 135 Fergie tractor, weeding the garden and volunteering.
Barry was diagnosed at 80 with MND, and he faced this cruel disease with dignity. His voluntary passing, along with the recent deeply felt loss of AFL legend and MND champion Neale Daniher, reminds us all of the urgent need to find a cure for MND. Rest in peace, Barry.
Every month when I go doorknocking, I ask the people of Curtin to give me three words to describe the Australia they want to live in. These are the words that I hear the most often: fair, safe, inclusive, compassionate, prosperous and sustainable. These are the values that I bring into this parliament on their behalf.
My community does not want to live in a monoculture. We know that half of us were born overseas or have a parent born overseas, and we understand that this is not a threat to the Australian story; this is the Australian story. We want a fair go for everyone, not just our own tribe. We value expertise and evidence, even when it shows an inconvenient truth about the warming of our planet. And we understand that the complex challenges Australia faces will not be solved by angry slogans.
My community is frustrated by political parties more focused on scoring points than planning for the long term. But, when faced with that frustration, Curtin did not reach for the fear and division of Trump-style politics; the people of Curtin responded in a uniquely Australian way, by returning to the basics and choosing a representative who's answerable to them, driven by their values and not told by any party boss how to vote or which flags to fly. At a time of increasing polarisation, I'm proud that my community has sent me here to represent the values of a modern, inclusive Australia.
Last week was Men's Health Week. It's an important week in the calendar for Melbourne's western suburbs. We're a community full of men who play a vital role in our community—fathers, sons, grandfathers, uncles, brothers and friends. But still we see that men continue to experience higher rates of chronic disease, preventable illness and premature death. Too many men put off seeking help when something doesn't feel right. Too many men wait until a small problem becomes a big problem. Research shows that around 60 per cent of men wait more than a week to see a doctor when they've got symptoms. One in three wait more than an entire month. This simply isn't good enough.
Last week, the Albanese Labor government launched 101 Reasons to See Your GP—not why men shouldn't, like most blokes think, but why they should. It could be anything—anxiety, mental health, sexual health, fertility, family lifestyle, ongoing illness, overlooked symptoms or preventable health. If we can get more blokes to their GP and to get a blood test every 12 months, we will literally save thousands of lives in this country. There are 101 reasons to see a GP. You probably already know yours. Men's Health Week 2026 is your reminder to use it.
Today I rise to pay tribute to the life of Patricia Ilhan, a mother, philanthropist and woman of extraordinary gifts. I first met Trish many years ago when I first ran for parliament. She was a true believer in the Brighton community. After one of her children suffered a serious allergic reaction, she and her late husband, John, established the Ilhan Food Allergy Foundation in 2006, turning a frightening family experience into support, research and advocacy for others. Patricia took personal hardship and used it to make other people safer, more informed and less alone. I witnessed as she worked with others in her community who had suffered from breast cancer and built a group called Breast Friends to turn that difficulty into opportunity.
Hardship, of course, was a significant part of Patricia's life because she lost her husband at such a young age, leaving her and her children. She carried warmth, courage and a deep commitment to family, friends and the causes she championed. I was privileged to be with her at her second wedding, on the Mornington Peninsula, to her husband, Chris Blackman.
To Yasmin, Hannah, Jaida, Aydin and of course Chris, we send our deepest condolences and thoughts at this difficult time. Patricia leaves behind not just the organisations she supported but also her generosity and kindness of spirit. Vale, Patricia, 62 years young. You will be missed by the entire community.
Buona sera, Deputy Speaker Swanson. The Veneto Club has been an institution in my community of Bulleen for over 50 years. It's a hub not just for people from the Veneto region of Italy and our local Italian community but for the wider community, who come for the delicious, authentic food; the wonderful company; and the rich culture. It's home to the FC Bulleen Lions, a salami festa, the men's shed and so many other community activities.
It was a pleasure to join the Veneto Club at their 2026 President's Dinner last Friday evening at the invitation of President Louis Crema. The Sala Venezia room was full of locals and people who had come from across Melbourne to celebrate another successful year. A particular shout-out goes to the Veneto Club Choir, who had the whole room singing along to some classic Italian songs—bravissimo! A particularly moving piece spoke about the hardworking migrants who came to Australia, who celebrate their culture and who pass on traditions to the next generation.
I particularly want to thank the club's committee for their extraordinary generosity in awarding me an honorary membership to the club. I look forward to continuing to support them to ensure the club remains a strong and vibrant centre of our community for years to come. Thank you again to Louis, Frank and all the committee members for a wonderful evening full of music, food and dancing. Grazie.
Back in 2019, I caught up with members of the Animal Justice Party because we'd worked together to ban cosmetic testing on animals, and there was a little bit of a celebration in Berwick. They're all vegans, as you can imagine, and they had a cashew dip. My little daughter, Jasmine, was there, and she's allergic to cashew nuts and had a reaction to it. We had to urgently go down to the Casey Hospital. The great news for Jasmine was she was fine, but the awful situation we saw was the emergency department was overflowing outside, basically to the front doors, and this was in the afternoon.
I spoke to the Minister for Health at the time, Greg Hunt, and by working with the state we committed funding to have a dedicated children's emergency department there. The most crazy situation we now have is that, even after the state Labor government committed funding to the emergency department there—and La Trobe has been one of the fastest-growing growth corridors in the entire country—work has just finally commenced. It is an absolutely disgraceful shame that state Labor in Victoria has taken several years to start this project. I've been calling on them year after year to start the project. They had the federal funding there, and finally they've started. Shame on state Labor. They need to go.
One thing that I've witnessed in coming to the parliament is that, whilst talent is spread evenly, opportunity is not. From the moment that I was elected, I have absolutely stood by my community to ensure that they get the same opportunities, regardless of which postcode they are in, that our inner-city counterparts have. Being periurban, a little bit out of the metro area, certainly has seen some shortfalls in the past, but thanks to Labor, both federal and state, we are absolutely catching up.
Around education, in particular, it's really noticeable. We have done some transformational programs and initiatives under the Australian Labor government, kicking off with early education. We've ensured that three days of subsidised early education is guaranteed and that childcare workers themselves are paid according to the absolute worth that they carry and the importance that they have for the children in our world—with a 15 per cent pay rise.
We now have public schools being fully resource funded to 100 per cent, which was a promise from the Gonski period, and it's taken Labor to deliver on that. In TAFE, most of the courses that are being offered at the North Metropolitan TAFE in Midland are free, and Labor has now made that a permanent feature.
Then we have study hubs. We have a study hub out in Ellenbrook that's about to celebrate its first anniversary—a huge success again.
No number of carve-outs can fix a bad tax. The only solution is to scrap it, and that's never been clearer than it is today with Labor's toxic taxes. I've heard from a 73-year-old widow on Phillip Island, in my electorate, who has worked hard all her life. She's paid her taxes, invested for retirement and simply wants to leave something behind for her family. Instead, she's worried this federal government's tax changes will punish the very people she has spent decades trying to provide for.
I've also heard from grandparents in my electorate who are concerned about what these changes mean for some of the most vulnerable members of their family. Think about that for a moment. It is families who will suffer the most. Indeed, one family contacted me about their daughter who lives with a intellectual disability. Under normal circumstances, she would inherit directly from her parents, but, because she needs support managing her affairs, her inheritance must be held in a testamentary trust. Labor now wants to tax that arrangement.
This is unfair and unjust, and there are many other cases of families in my electorate of Monash who deserve so much better from this federal Labor government.
Bowel cancer is one of those things that a lot of people don't like talking about. It's not exactly the best pub conversation, but the truth is it affects thousands of Aussie families every year and too many lives are being lost because people put off getting checked. The good news is that bowel cancer is one of the most treatable cancers if it's found early, and that's why the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program is so important. The test is simple. It can be done at home and it could save your life. We all know someone who reckons they'll get around to it later. They feel fine, they're busy and they don't think it'll happen to them. But bowel cancer does not wait for a convenient time.
So my message is pretty simple: if the kit turns up in your letterbox, use it. Don't put it in the drawer. Don't leave it on the kitchen bench. Do the test, and send it back. It's one of the only times you can put some crap in an envelope and send it back to government and it actually might save your life.
If something doesn't feel right, make sure you go and talk to your doctor. You're never too young to have bowel cancer. Don't tough it out. Don't ignore the signs. Unfortunately, only 41.7 per cent of those test kits get sent back to government for us to check. And, unfortunately, too many people are getting checked too late and finding out they do have bowel cancer.
If having one uncomfortable conversation today means more Aussies get checked, then it's a conversation worth having. Make sure you check your bowels.
I want to thank the Leader of the Nationals, Senator Matt Canavan, for visiting the Hinkler electorate last week. Together we hosted small-business and agricultural roundtables amid rising concerns over Labor's budget, which is full of chaos, confusion and broken promises. We visited Cheshire Machinery, in Bundaberg, a family owned and renowned specialist in farming equipment. Owner Ross Cheshire expressed deep concerns around the rising electricity price pressure that is crippling the business and agricultural industries. Ross is backing the coalition plan to scrap net zero, which will reduce electricity prices. He says, as it stands, if farmers can't afford to irrigate or grow a decent crop, they're not going to buy a new tractor.
It was also important to hear from a range of other small-business owners at the roundtable, and I thank the sports store operators, hairdressers, cafe owners, local engineering firms and all who attended. Unfortunately, what we heard loud and clear is that these people are working hard, taking risks and investing in their future but that all that is growing for them is a lack of confidence.
Labor's policy settings and new taxes are making it harder to invest, employ people, build business and create wealth. Prosperity is not created by taxing success. It's created by encouraging productivity, investment and enterprise. The government should axe these taxes and go back to the drawing board. They should put in the hard work and go through the budget line by line to find efficiencies, like every family and small business is doing in these uncertain times.
I rise to celebrate Boss Cat, the first feature film from Bus Stop Films. Bus Stop Films is a disability-led, not-for-profit social enterprise. It has a large reach across the nation, but I'm very proud that it's based in my electorate of Barton. For years, Bus Stop Films has pioneered inclusive filmmaking. It has opened doors for people with disability to access training, employment and real opportunity across the arts and media sectors. But its work does more than create pathways. It changes attitudes. It changes how people think about disability, creativity, independence and contribution.
Now, it has premiered its first feature film, Boss Cat. Written and directed by Bus Stop Films co-founder Genevieve Clay-Smith, Boss Cat follows 23-year-old Sonja as she fights to hold on to her independence and identity while becoming a renowned krumper. Olivia Hargroder is an outstanding actor, particularly in her role as lead actress. She absolutely steals the show. I was very honoured to attend the premiere as part of the Sydney Film Festival. I hope this is the first of many feature films to come. Congratulations to the Boss Cat team and everyone at Bus Stop Films.
I rise to speak on the growing lack of accountability within this government and its funded bodies. When government promises something, Australians expect it to deliver. And when taxpayer dollars are spent, it's expected that they reach their intended recipients.
Creative Australia says its Australian Cultural Fund is '100 per cent for artists, 100 per cent to artists'. So how did a political blog receive more than $669,000 through this scheme? Well, maybe it comes down to the fact that Creative Australia staff were caught coaching them through their second application attempt, to help them 'fit' into the criteria. Emails from Creative Australia show that the application hit a roadblock because it had nothing to do with arts or culture. By any commonsense reading, this blog does not meet the intent of the funding. It has even admitted it does not pay its writers—or so-called artists—despite the fund's purpose of directly supporting artists.
Meanwhile, genuine artists, performers and writers are competing for limited support while a politically aligned publication enjoys the benefits of an arts funding scheme. Is this yet another example of Labor's jobs for mates? We don't know, since the Minister for the Arts has failed to respond to my letter, now more than two weeks old. Real artists deserve support and Australian taxpayers deserve accountability from their government.
An upgrade to the Mount Crosby interchange on the Warrego Highway is critical to the lives, lifestyle and livelihoods of the people of Ipswich. Last night, I was appalled to hear media reports that the Queensland LNP government is proposing in this week's budget to cut funding for the Mount Crosby interchange in my electorate. On last assessment, nearly a decade ago, 58,000 vehicles a day go through that interchange. In 2004, the then state Labor candidate for Ipswich West, Wendy Bourne, now the state member for Ipswich West, and I secured fifty-fifty funding from the Albanese Labor government and the former state Labor government for this vital upgrade—$138.5 million each, for a total of $277 million.
In a sneaky budget move, it looks like the Crisafulli LNP government is proposing to shelve the project by stealth. It's not good enough. Media reports are saying that the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads' capital program concerning this interchange is being reduced by $170.7 million. It's time for the Queensland Premier to explain to the people of Ipswich what's happening to the money and what he proposes to do with this much needed upgrade for the Ipswich region. I'm looking forward to the Queensland budget this week, and I hope they deliver the funding we need.
Today, I was delighted and honoured to meet with bowel cancer survivors Tegan and Scott, who are here with us in the Federation Chamber. I know Tegan very well because she's from my electorate; she's in Kilmore. She is one of the bravest and most optimistic people I've ever met in my life. Tegan was diagnosed at age 39 and is a mother of three young children. Scott was just 35 years old when he was diagnosed. Thankfully, both are well after treatment.
June is Bowel Cancer Awareness Month. Bowel cancer is Australia's fourth most diagnosed cancer and the second deadliest. Early detection, as the member for Hunter said earlier, matters a great deal; 99 per cent of cases can be treated successfully when they're detected in their earliest stage. Tegan and Scott have both told me: whatever age you are, know the symptoms, and, if you notice a change in your bowel, see your doctor. They also pointed to a significant increase in young people—those under 40—being diagnosed with bowel cancer. There has been a significant spike in the number of people being diagnosed at that age since the early 2000s. We need to understand what is causing that and we need to focus our research efforts. Those of us who are over 50 get the test automatically, but we need more access for people who are younger than that.
I rise to speak about the devastating cuts being inflicted on our local NBN News following its takeover by WIN Television. For generations, NBN News has been much more than a television bulletin; it has been a trusted institution in Newcastle and across the Hunter. When disaster struck during the 1989 earthquake, when the Pasha Bulker ran aground off our coast and throughout the uncertainty of the COVID pandemic, NBN News was there, helping keep our community informed.
Now, that legacy is under threat. In recent days, I've spoken directly with journalists and camera operators whose jobs are on the line. These are dedicated local professionals who have spent years telling stories of our region. They are fearful, anxious and deeply concerned about what comes next. What makes this situation even more extraordinary is that WIN is actually claiming that these changes will somehow deliver more local content. Novocastrians can see through that nonsense. You certainly don't increase local content by abolishing local weekend news. Yet, last night, that's exactly what happened in Newcastle when the weekend bulletin team signed off for the last time. You do not increase local content by slashing weeknight news to just 30 minutes, and you certainly do not strengthen local journalism by cutting the very people who produce it. These decisions are not about serving local communities; they are about cutting costs.
Regional and local news matters. Novocastrians deserve better than this, and WIN should be ashamed and reverse these callous cuts to local jobs and local content.
Picture the moment the emergency pager starts beeping at two in the morning. Somewhere in Alligator Creek, near Townsville, a rural firey is pulling on their boots to protect a neighbour in need. You can train someone to handle a high-pressure hose, but you cannot train the heart it takes to run towards a blazing fire front when the natural instinct is to run away.
Last week, I joined the Nome District Rural Fire Brigade for their community information day and was handed a hose by one of the volunteer firefighters, Lachlan. Talking to him and fellow local firies Callum, Tyson and Joshua, I instantly saw their dedication. Having grown up on cattle and cane properties, Lachlan's practical firefighting knowledge was a spark that had him smouldering long before he commenced training. It is because of people like him that this brigade has grown to 30 volunteers—absolute proof that in Alligator Creek community spirit spreads a lot faster than any wildfire.
But the heat is still on, and Nome needs more hands on deck. It is time we answer the call for people that answer ours. These volunteers are on call for emergencies that they hope will never come. Let's make sure that these local heroes, who are there for us each and every day, never stand alone.
I love doorknocking in Swan. Last week, we were doorknocking in Cannington, and the team met a fabulous woman called Laura, who is a phenomenal mental health advocate. Laura works for Consumers of Mental Health WA, the state's peak body run entirely by people with lived experience of mental illness. She also helps run the Listening Lounge, a free peer support group where people can turn up exactly as they are and be met by people who have lived experience.
Laura told us that this kind of peer support had made a real difference to her own life, and it's why she now dedicates some of her time to helping others access this kind of support. She told us that the same sense of welcome is what her colleagues described about the new Medicare mental health centres open all across Western Australia. We have these in Mirrabooka, Northam, Armadale, Gosnells and Midland, and soon we will have one in Belmont as well.
The Albanese Labor government has done this because we want to lower the barriers to make it easier for people to access mental health support. People don't require a mental health treatment plan or a referral, which makes it easier to actually go in and speak to a professional. Hearing from people like Laura is a reminder that what we do is really important and makes a strong impact in this community.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I 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.
Walking the pavement, riding a bike with the wind in your hair, hearing your breath puff because your heart's pumping—that is what active transport is about. Our bodies were designed to move—walking, cycling, jogging, scooting—so that's what we should do. Last year we introduced something called the Active Transport Fund because we want to see more people moving. This was initially a $100 million fund, but at this federal budget we delivered an extra $500 million to this fund to deliver $50 million each year over a 10-year period. This is about building stronger, safer, more connected communities to make it easier and cheaper for people to get around.
I'll start by sharing a story. I used to work on St Georges Terrace in Perth for a long period of time, and I always used to watch from the bus all of these people riding their bikes to the city. I wanted to be one of those people, but I never prioritised that. The thing that started me wanting to actually become a cyclist was when I became a mother. I had a one-year-old child and I was returning from maternity leave, and the quickest way for me to get to work and do childcare drop-off was to ride my bike, so that's what I did. What was wonderful about riding my bike to day care and work is you get to see your community in high resolution. I get to chat with my son and spend this wonderful time talking about the world around us. I get to see my neighbourhood in high resolution. The other thing that I didn't expect—people expect you to have baby brain when you come back from maternity leave, but when you start with a really great workout in the morning, riding along the Derbarl Yerrigan, the great Swan River, it's a really great way to start the work day.
One particular afternoon, I was going to pick up my son, and on Albany Highway there was a single lane of traffic and cars parked to the side. As a cyclist, you don't ride right next to the car doors, because a car door can open at any stage; you ride in the middle of the road. I was about to turn right, and there was this big four-wheel drive behind me, honking at me despite the fact that I had a child seat on the back of my bike and continuing to honk at me as we turned into the car park of my childcare centre. I got off my bike and I was a bit rude to him because I was a bit shaken up. I spoke to another dad and I was kind of like, 'I just got abused on the street for riding on the road.' That didn't stop me from riding. What I realised is that people want safer, easier streets to actually be able to do active transport.
That's fundamentally what this fund is about. We want to make it easier for pedestrians and cyclists to be connected to their community and to be safe as well. In my community of Swan, the Active Transport Fund is in the process of delivering a shared-use pathway from the Cannington train station all the way to the Canning River. This will improve active transport for two local schools, Queens Park Primary School and Cannington Community College, and the Cannington Leisureplex. This is going to be something that really makes a huge difference. Basically, I see it as a rail-to-river pathway, and it makes tangible improvements to my local community, making it easier for kids to get to school.
It's interesting, because cars do many short trips that could be partially replaced by active transport, whether that be walking, riding or scooting. This is good for the environment and good for your health, but it's also good for your hip pocket. It's also great for road congestion, which is why we saw, in the first round, 81 projects supported across the country. It's interesting, because in my community I've seen community leaders like David Linder, Jane Kircher-Linder, Lana Snook, Tony Cronk, David and Di Crabb, who started riding cargo bikes, and that started to become more mainstream in our community. Other people followed, like me and Councillor Sky Croeser and also other parents like Julie.
We're seeing people continue to want to do active transport. As we build the infrastructure, we will see more parents, more families, more commuters, more workers and more children do active transport. I commend this motion.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member for Swan for bringing this motion. In the 2026-27 budget, the Australian government has committed ongoing funding for the Active Transport Fund. It's $500 million over 10 years from 2026-27 to support construction of and upgrades to bicycle and walking paths across Australia.
This commitment builds on the $100 million over four years delivered in the 2024-25 budget. Due to strong competition and high demand from communities across the country, that earlier tranche of funding was quickly exhausted, which was a clear sign that Australians want better cycling and walking infrastructure and that local governments and community organisations are very ready to deliver it. I, along with other members of the crossbench, wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in February of this year asking her for additional investment in this fund, so I'm really pleased that the government has responded to calls for that. The fund is an important investment into reducing transport emissions and promoting liveability and public health across our country.
The department responsible for the Active Transport Fund has advised that program guidelines are currently being revised and will be published ahead of the next tranche opening for applications, which is expected shortly. It's not clear at this stage whether that revision of the guidelines will be open for public submission. I call on the government to open up this process to local communities so they can contribute their needs and their desires.
I'm calling on the government to expand the eligibility parameters for the fund. Currently only publicly owned road assets or corridors are eligible for funding under the Active Transport Fund. To meet existing eligibility requirements, active pathways must be on or immediately adjacent to road assets or corridors as defined by the National Land Transport Act. This is an unnecessarily narrow definition. It excludes some of the most valuable and well-used active transport infrastructure in our communities—pathways, for example, like the trail from Box Hill to Hawthorn, in Kooyong, which I've spoken about repeatedly in this place. It's an ideal candidate for federal and state funding to decrease traffic congestion, decrease emissions, improve commuters' health and increase the safety of pedestrians, bike riders and scooter riders as well. But the project is not currently eligible for funding under this scheme, because some sections of the trail aren't immediately adjacent to a road. This is exactly the sort of off-road greenway infrastructure which encourages people to choose cycling or walking over driving. It's the sort of route that feels pleasant, safe, green, connected to nature. It's a route that has birdlife, where you might enjoy a ride or a walk to work in fresh, clean air. You can see the odd kangaroo and sometimes even a seal in the Yarra.
Many active transport paths run through bush, park or lakeside settings. They're deliberately separated from traffic for safety and for amenity. There's a reason why we don't necessarily want them to be immediately adjacent to roads. Excluding them makes little sense if our goal is genuinely to grow safe, clean, quiet, low-emission active transport options. I call on the government to reconsider eligibility criteria for this fund and to revise them such that they reflect the full diversity of active transport infrastructure that communities want.
While I'm here, I'm pleased that the government has invested $500 million over 10 years, but think about how much more we could invest if we didn't give hundreds of millions of dollars to fossil fuel subsidies. The last budget shows that, in the next financial year, the Commonwealth will provide nearly $11 billion to off-road diesel users alone. By 2029-2030 that will increase to nearly $30 billion. Some of those tax credits are legitimately helping farmers and other people in the agricultural sector, but nearly half are going to the mining sector to help it continue its fossil fuel use, rather than helping it to decarbonise. So, as we invest $500 million in sustainable transport over a decade, I ask the government whether giving $5 billion in diesel subsidies to mining companies every year is the right set of priorities for our country's future.
I'm really pleased to second this private members' business motion in support of the Active Transport Fund because my electorate of Gilmore spans a 200-kilometre stretch of coastline on the New South Wales South Coast and is home to more than 180 towns and villages. Shared pathways are essential to link communities in the region, whether that's along the coast, through bushland or into our more rural areas. Pathways improve pedestrian and cyclist safety and help create healthier, safer and more connected communities.
In Gilmore, we're fortunate to have many proactive community groups that are leading the advocacy of these shared pathway projects in areas like Jamberoo, Mollymook, Bawley Point, Kings Point and Currarong. Recently I joined with the Bawley Point and Kioloa communities to celebrate the completion of the pathway that connects the two coastal villages. It's a project that has taken decades and has been completed in stages, but the community pushed on because they knew how much it was needed. I joined with local families, kids and dogs to celebrate the culmination of an incredible community project. I congratulate and thank the people of Kioloa and Bawley Point for their determination and hard work.
I have thrown my support behind another local community group, who are working towards the construction of the 3C Connect Pathway to link the beachside villages of Culburra Beach, Currarong and Callala. This is such an important project for these small communities and the many visitors to the Jervis Bay region.
I was saddened when the Jamberoo cycleway was shelved last year due to an inability to match funding from the state government. This cycleway has been in the pipeline for two decades and will meander through rolling farmland, linking the rural township of Jamberoo with Kiama's network of paths as well.
We need to help more communities with projects like this, which is why I welcome more funding flowing into them through the Active Transport Fund. With an ageing population in Gilmore, safe pathways are essential for walking to the shops, medical appointments or the local bowling club. I've seen in my own village how shared pathways encourage our older residents to keep active. They also open up social opportunities for people that may be feeling lonely or isolated. At the other end of the scale, we have many young families that are encouraged to walk with prams or venture out with young kids on scooters or bikes to safely walk or ride to the local park, school or sporting fields.
The South Coast is a hugely popular tourist destination, and the provision of shared pathways encourages visitors to get out and explore our beautiful region. A walk to the local coffee shop, or cafe, supports our local economy, which relies heavily on the tourist dollar. There's nothing better than going for a morning or evening walk, which I often do with my dog, and seeing families with kids running and riding along pathways, couples walking hand in hand and people out running with their furry friends. It's just really great to see people outdoors, breathing fresh air and embracing a healthy lifestyle.
Covering three local government areas of Kiama, Shoalhaven and the Eurobodalla, I know that new or improved footpaths and cycleways are at the top of the wish list for many communities, but council funding is limited. That's why I'm proud to be part of a government that is committed to improving road safety and fostering more connected, liveable communities, through continued investment in active transport infrastructure.
I'm pleased that the 2026-27 budget is delivering an additional $500 million in new funding for the Active Transport Fund, bringing the total investment in active transport infrastructure to $600 million, and $50 million will be made available each year for the next 10 years to support the construction of new and upgraded walking and cycling infrastructure. This funding will support the construction and upgrade of shared paths and cycleways that connect schools, public transport hubs, activity centres and community facilities.
Active Transport Fund projects fit into this government's broader objectives of reducing transport emissions, improving public health outcomes and easing congestion. As an avid walker and cyclist, I really do welcome the funding increase, and I'm sure people in communities right across Australia will too.
I rise to speak on the government's motion commending the Active Transport Fund—$600 million for bike paths and walking trails, to 'support the Australian government's commitment to reducing transport emissions and support active and liveable communities'. Well, that sounds amazing.
I have read this motion, and I must ask the government: have they ever looked at a map of the electorate of Grey? It covers 92 per cent of South Australia. The only way we stay connected is by phone, satphone, car, truck, chopper or aeroplane. Under this fund, I suppose the government expects pastoralists to ditch their utes, strap a haybale on the mountain bike and make their way down to feed the cattle. I mean, our farmers are tough, but this is just ridiculous. Imagine the sheer fitness of our rural workforce if they just cycled down the Oodnadatta Track for their morning commute! I mean, 2028 Olympics here we come!
But the reality is that, for regional South Australians, road infrastructure is no laughing matter at all. While Labor throws half a billion bucks at bike lanes, our regional road network is crumbling. On mainland Australia, South Australia receives the lowest federal road funding per kilometre. And I tell you what: it shows. My constituents are not asking for dedicated cycling infrastructure to get to work; they want roads that are actually passable.
Here is what is happening in the real world. I, myself, drive road trains, and I welcome any member of this government or any bureaucrat from the infrastructure department to come and sit in the truck with me and drive on our roads in our electorate. There are numerous unsafe roads. I want to call out a few of them: the Flinders Highway on the west coast and pretty much any road on the Lower Yorke Peninsula, or any road in the Adelaide Plains. And it's not just me saying this. A Clare constituent recently told me that the Cattle Track Road is beyond a joke. They drive on the wrong side of the road just to avoid the dozens of deep potholes. There's the Augusta Highway, Highway 1; Robin, a truckie from Booleroo Centre, is disgusted that an upgraded section started falling apart after just six months.
And you know what? It's the same in the outback too. At Braemar Station, Leesa Breeding tells me, they have gone without mail for extended periods because Australia Post cannot access the officially closed roads. Up in Anna Creek, Tony, a northern pastoralist, notes that 10 years ago they had five road gangs operating two graders; now it's just one service crew, which services 10,000 kilometres of outback roads.
And what was the government's solution to these fundamental failures? Drop the regional speed limit to 80 kilometres an hour! Thankfully, that nonsense came and it went.
But maybe they have a better idea now, and maybe this motion gives us some insight into what that is. Perhaps they want us all to ride bicycles! That will surely drop the road toll and make even the worst roads somewhat passable!
Instead of fixing the roads, the Albanese government has delivered cuts and confusion for our local road networks. This has been amplified by the 80-20 funding split shifting to a fifty-fifty model with the states—absolutely outrageous. South Australia's supplementary road funding has been frozen since 2017, silently cut by inflation, while councils struggle heavily under the immense weight of maintaining vital regional road network freight routes and key local roads.
We have some small victories. Following strong local advocacy, we secured disaster recovery funding for flood damaged roads across remote councils from Ceduna to Coober Pedy to Quorn. It proves we can fight for our fair share. But should we have to fight? Emergency relief is just a temporary bandaid on a systematic failure. We desperately need performance based contracts where builders guarantee their work instead of taxpayers footing the bill when a road fails after two years. I say to this government: keep your shiny new bike paths, keep your connected communities, keep your e-bike access, keep your emissions reduction targets, and when a boilermaker in Roxby Downs works out exactly how to secure a plasma cutter and an ARC welder to an e-bike I'll be the very first to let you know.
I understand the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into Hansard, in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025. I thank the member for Pearce and I acknowledge her contribution to this place.
The incorporated speech read as follows
Today I would like to commend the Albanese Labor government for its ongoing commitment to improving road safety for vulnerable road users and for building more connected and liveable communities through continued investment in active transport infrastructure. This is a practical investment in the everyday lives of Australians. It is about making it safer and easier for people to walk, ride and move around their communities. It is about giving families more transport choices, and it is about building communities where people can get to school, work, shops, services and local facilities without always relying on the car.
Pearce is one of the largest- and fastest-growing electorates, stretching across outer suburban and semi-rural communities in northern Perth and into some of Western Australia's growing areas. In communities like ours, transport connections are not just about getting from one place to another; they are about safety, access and liveability. For example, when there are missing footpaths, unsafe crossings or poor links to public transport, people feel it every day.
The 2026-27 budget delivers an additional $500 million for the Active Transport Fund, bringing the Albanese Labor government's total commitment to active transport infrastructure to $600 million. That means $50 million will be available each year for the next 10 years to support new and upgraded walking and cycling infrastructure across Australia. This is the kind of long-term planning communities need. It gives local councils and state governments certainty to plan, design and deliver projects properly. It also recognises that infrastructure is not just about major roads and bridges; it is also about the local paths, crossings and connections people rely on every day. In a place like Pearce, that matters just as much as anywhere else.
This announcement builds on the success of the first round of the Active Transport Fund, launched in 2024, which delivered $100 million for safer, connected and accessible transport infrastructure projects. Those projects supported 81 initiatives across every state and territory, helping local councils and state and territory governments improve connections to schools, workplaces, services and recreational areas. That is exactly the sort of practical, local infrastructure that makes a real difference. A safer shared path to a school, a better crossing near a shopping precinct, a cycling connection to a train station, improved lighting and accessibility on a well-used walking route—these may sound like small projects, but in a local community they can transform how people move and how safe they feel doing it.
For Pearce and for communities across Western Australia, this is especially important. We know our suburbs are growing, we know people want more local options for travel and we know active transport has a role to play in helping communities stay connected while reducing pressure on our roads. It also helps make new housing developments more liveable from the start, rather than trying to retrofit safety and access later.
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. That means fewer conflicts on our roads, safer street crossings and infrastructure that helps children get to school more safely, helps older Australians stay active and helps families make shorter trips without getting in the car. This fund also supports the government's broader objectives of reducing transport emissions, improving public health outcomes, easing congestion and creating safer, more connected and more sustainable communities.
From my previous role as mayor of the city of Wanneroo, in Pearce, I know the role of local government is so important. Councils know where the gaps are. They know which crossings are unsafe, which footpaths are incomplete and where communities are being held back by poor connections. Labor recognises the important role councils play in identifying local infrastructure priorities and delivering projects that improve community wellbeing and connectivity. In Pearce, local councils are often the first to hear where people feel unsafe or disconnected. The Active Transport Fund gives them another source of support to fix those local problems and improve everyday life.
I commend the Albanese Labor government for this important commitment and for continuing to build the safer, more connected communities Australians deserve.
Let me say from the outset that every member of this House supports safer roads, safer pathways and safer communities. We all want Australians to be able to walk, ride and exercise safely in their local communities, getting you home sooner and safer. But what Australians are looking for is not another Labor announcement; they are looking for results. While the government wants to talk about active transport, communities like mine on the Sunshine Coast are asking a much more fundamental question: why are our roads becoming less safe under Labor?
The facts are deeply concerning. Road fatalities across Australia continue to rise. The National Road Safety Strategy set an ambitious target of halving road deaths by 2030. Yet since that strategy commenced, the national road toll has gone backwards, not forwards. In Queensland alone, 158 people have already lost their lives on our roads just this calendar year. Tragically, we are tracking above last year's figures, which were the worst in more than 16 years. Behind every one of those statistics is a devastated family, a grieving community and a life cut short. That's why road safety must always be about outcomes, not announcements.
Unfortunately, we've seen from the Albanese government a pattern of cuts, delays and broken promises when it comes to transport infrastructure. Since coming to office, Labor has cancelled, cut or delayed more than $30 billion worth of transport infrastructure projects across this country. In this year's budget alone, the government cut a further $3.9 billion in payments to the states and territories for road infrastructure. At the same time, Labor continues to collect billions more in fuel excise from Australian motorists. Australians are paying more at the bowser and getting less investment in the roads they rely upon every day.
Nowhere is this more evident than in my electorate of Fisher. The Sunshine Coast is one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia. Our population continues to grow, but the infrastructure needed to support that growth is simply not keeping pace. For local residents, traffic congestion is worsening, travel times are increasing and critical road upgrades continue to face delays.
We've seen cuts and delays to projects that our community desperately needs. We've seen cuts to funding that the member for Fairfax and I worked so hard to get for projects like the Mooloolah River Interchange and roads like the second access route into Caloundra—both cut by the member for Ballarat, the infrastructure minister. Two major projects on the Sunshine Coast that I fought for and secured funding for were cut by this Labor government. Why? Because Labor doesn't care about the Sunshine Coast. We've seen uncertainty around every major transport investment from this federal government on the Sunshine Coast. We've seen local motorists left wondering when the infrastructure that they were promised will finally be delivered. Thankfully, the Queensland LNP government has stepped up where the Albanese government has stepped back. The Crisafulli government has been forced to pick up the tab and pick up the slack to keep these critical projects moving and improve road safety outcomes for Queenslanders.
There's one consistent thing when it comes to road infrastructure. When we were in government at a federal level, we supported projects in Queensland that we didn't have to, when the Labor government were in power. We needed to prop up the Labor government because they weren't spending money on the Sunshine Coast. Now that Labor are in government at a federal level, the LNP state government are once again having to pick up where this Labor government have stepped back. Labor doesn't care about the Sunshine Coast. I'll continue to harangue them every step of the way until they pick up their game on road and infrastructure spend.
Our government is building safer and more connected communities that are making it easier and cheaper for Australians to get around. We have a big nation. There are a lot of roads. There are a lot more people taking bikes, which is a healthier option when it is an option for people in their communities, and I commend people who are doing that. But we need to make sure that the arteries going through our country work for communities, for industry and for every Australian. We are committed to improving road safety so that, when people are on our roads, they get home to their families safe and sound.
We are creating more connected and liveable communities whilst also reducing emissions. In the budget just gone, there was an additional $500 million delivered for the Active Transport Fund, bringing the total investment in active transport by the Albanese government to $600 million. That is nothing to sneeze at, given that the broader objectives are reducing transport emissions; improving those public health outcomes; easing congestion, particularly in the cities; and creating safer, more connected and more sustainable urban and regional communities.
There are two cities in my electorate—small cities by the big-city standard. But this is important not only to people that live in Darwin and Palmerston but to people that live in the regional communities of the Northern Territory as well. The projects funded through the ATF aim to improve safety for all road users by separating cyclists and pedestrians from traffic whenever possible and providing safer street crossings.
Labor recognises the important role that our local governments, our councils, play in identifying local infrastructure priorities and delivering projects that do improve community wellbeing and connectivity. The budget delivers an ongoing investment, and applications for the next round will be open to local, state and territory governments very soon. I encourage the local councils of Darwin and Palmerston, who are, in fact, visiting this House today, to apply for those rounds. The Australian government is investing over $120 billion over 10 years in the infrastructure investment pipeline to improve productivity, resilience, safety and liveability for communities around the country.
In the time remaining, I just want to quickly reflect on the importance of road safety in my community, Darwin and Palmerston. It is really essential. We are doing a lot of work, particularly on Bagot Road, to address it. Thanks very much.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes 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.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Every Australian knows that taxpayer dollars should be allocated to policies that best enhance our chances for a prosperous future, that align with our Australian values that protect our sovereignty and our people—coincidentally, the very things that our brave men and women in the armed forces signed up for: our values, our sovereignty and our prosperous future. On that note, I'd like to acknowledge the member for Solomon and his service to our country. He's sitting in the Chamber at this time.
I have the privilege to represent a region that is home to more than 9,000 veterans and their families. It is the largest cohort in New South Wales. Over the past seven years, as their local MP, I've had hundreds of individual conversations with them and heard firsthand about the challenges that they may have or have, having served our country and returned to everyday civilian life. The consistent piece that I hear from them is that we have to remove the barriers to support and any treatment that they may need in the future—those supports that they earned and so much deserve.
That is why the proposed introduction of a $5,000 cap on veterans' allied health services from 1 July 2027 is so baffling. To me, this is cruel and unusual punishment to those who served our country. This punitive cap will apply to physiotherapy, psychology, exercise physiology and occupational therapy, which are the most basic levels that our veteran community can access to manage pain, recover from injury, deal with trauma and be able to function day to day while rebuilding their lives. How can putting a cap on these services help our veterans? It makes absolutely no sense. I don't know which bureaucrat thought of this for saving money, but it's not going to work; it's going to cost lives and livelihoods.
It's going to cost veterans like Richard Snape from Port Macquarie, better known as Bruce. Bruce served his nation proudly for 20 years in the military, including time served in the Vietnam War. Bruce endured significant injuries over his 20 years of service and has subsequently been classified with an 80 per cent level of permanent impairment. He currently attends two sessions of exercise physiology and one approved pilates session every week as a preventative measure for further degradation of his condition. These weekly sessions play a critical role in maintaining his current quality of life, but Bruce is now understandably frightened for his future. He very eloquently said to me:
A country that fails its Veterans weakens the very pact that underpins service. You cannot ask Australians to serve, sacrifice, and carry the cost of duty, then place a cap on their recovery when they come home injured. In my case, as I am aging and my capabilities deteriorate, I am more dependant on my weekly sessions than ever. I am anxious about my future should this cap come into effect. My physical therapy not only keeps me going in body, but also in mind. I don't want to think about my prospects without it.
And there are thousands of these stories around Australia.
The questions each one of my affected constituents has posed are: What happens when a veteran has reached their cap amount? Will they be forced to choose between care and the cost of living? Will they be able to continue to see their trusted clinicians? And will you, Labor, bear the responsibility for what happens next?
Now, I note that the minister has said DVA will fund allied health services above this cap, but I ask these questions: How will that process work? What are the definitions for valid clinical needs? How can veterans apply for their claims to be considered once they've hit their cap? How long will the process take? And, while they're waiting for determination, will they be unable to access care if they cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs?
There are three things that our federal budget should strive for, and it's time this government canned this policy.
As a fourth-generation veteran—my great-grandfather served on the Somme in World War I, my grandfather served in the Second World War, my father served in Vietnam, and my two brothers and I all served in Timor-Leste with the ADF—I hold a veterans card. I've had treatment that's been covered by that card, so I know personally and in my family what it means to come home from service and need that system to work.
I recommend—even though he's left—that the mover of the motion, the member for Cowper, speak to the veterans minister, the member for Burt, and ask him those questions so that he can allay the fears that Bruce in Port Macquarie has. And I go further in saying that it's his personal responsibility not to increase the level of anxiety in his electorate, as some—namely, the member for Herbert—have been doing for their own grandstanding. Indeed, it is the member for Cowper's responsibility to Bruce and the other veterans in his electorate to reduce the level of anxiety, because Bruce will get all the treatment that he requires. I think it's important to put that on the record and to speak to this—I think the member for Cowper comes from a good place; others, I'm not too sure about. But I think this motion is dressed up as concerns to take political advantage and is pretty disingenuous.
Let's look at the mess that the coalition made of veterans affairs. When we, the Albanese federal Labor government, came to government in 2022, the Department of Veterans' Affairs was not just underfunded; worse, it was completely broken. There was a backlog of almost 42,000 new veteran claims that had not been looked at. The then secretary of DVA, Major General Liz Cosson, said plainly that, under the coalition's resourcing, that backlog would never be cleared. So there are tens of thousands of veterans that would never have even received someone to look through their case so that their case could be resolved. The ambivalence and indifference of those opposite, their negligence when they were last in government, including members who are speaking on this bill—they decided that the extra resources for DVA weren't worth it. They fought against a royal commission into defence and veteran suicide. Just let that sink in for a sec. Over a prolonged period of time, the coalition argued against the royal commission that has led to drastically increased resources going into this sector, including to meet recommendations that give more support to allied health providers so that they can give our veterans what they need. That's what we inherited—a shamefully broken system.
And, just weeks before the election, the coalition's then shadow finance minister, Senator Jane Hume—now deputy leader of the coalition—was questioned on national radio as to whether DVA even needed the extra staff that our government had funded to clear the backlog. She was questioning that—whether it should actually occur or not. I don't know where she was getting her advice. Maybe from the member for Herbert, who's busily trying to write down some things at the moment in order to reject what I'm saying.
Address the MPI! You haven't spoken about this at all.
I just say: bring it on. This is a very, very important topic. It is important that there is a realisation that it's easy to whip up concern in the veteran community, but you have to be personally responsible for the anxiety that it causes. You might get 100 likes on your LinkedIn post, but you aren't giving the full story if you aren't reassuring people that no changes come into place until 1 July next year or letting them know that if there is a need—a clinical need—those veterans who have served our nation are going to get all the assistance they need.
I thoroughly endorse this motion moved by the member for Cowper, and it's my pleasure to second the motion. It is not a spurious—
An honourable member interjecting—
The member is being disorderly by speaking out of his seat.
It is not a spurious motion, and we are not the ones who have caused the concerns. We did not put this policy in. The coalition didn't put this policy in. Labor has put a $5,000 cap on allied health care. That's what we should be talking about—how that works. Why is the cap there? Why are veterans who are suffering from PTSD, service related injuries and requiring ongoing rehabilitation being hit with a limit of $5,000 in a matter of months? That is the point, not the back and forth between personalities on this. The important thing is that there are people in our communities who are concerned. They're not concerned because we're whipping up fear; they're concerned because of the policy. It is the government's job to explain the policy, and they have not done so yet.
In my electorate, the president of Seymour RSL, Matt McLaughlin, wrote to me and said:
Many veterans rely heavily on ongoing allied health services—such as physiotherapy, psychology, occupational therapy, and exercise physiology—to manage service-related injuries and long-term health conditions. For a significant number, these needs are complex and chronic. A capped annual limit is unlikely to reflect the real cost of maintaining their health, function, and quality of life.
I'm not making that up. That is from a person in my electorate who served this country who's very concerned. The same concern has been widely expressed within the veteran community.
The government has confirmed that DVA will fund allied services above the $5,000 cap where there is a valid clinical need. But there are no details on this. How will that process work? What is the definition of 'valid clinical needs'? How are they going to apply for these claims? How will they be considered? How will DVA assess their claims? These are not unreasonable questions for the opposition to ask.
The government's saying, 'Trust us.' Well, we've just had a budget where it's been shown that we can't trust them. Veterans don't know what the process for seeking treatment and supports above the $5,000 cap will be. It could be as simple as a letter from their GP, but it could be a complex and contestable process. In effect, it could force veterans with an ongoing condition to prove it again and again—every 12 months—just to justify spending above $5,000. I quote again from Matt McLaughlin, president of Seymour RSL:
Veterans should not be placed in a position where financial limits determine access to clinically necessary care, particularly when that care relates directly to injuries sustained through service.
Our veterans committed to serve our country and I honour those—including those opposite—who have done so. In return, a grateful nation has always committed to looking after those veterans and their families. I condemn the defunding and discontinuation of veteran support and education programs which have provided essential services including mental health support.
What this debate in the Federation Chamber should be about—again I commend the member for Cowper for bringing it on—is how this is going to work so that the veterans who need that care, often well above $5,000 in value, are going to get it. It's the government's job to go and explain how that process works, to work out if there are any gaps in that process and to make sure that our veterans don't have to go through the bureaucratic nightmare and all the health assessments and everything to get above $5,000. If it works like that, I'll come in here and congratulate you. I worry that it's not going to work like that, and I call on this government to properly fund services and programs to ensure veterans and their families receive the support, respect and care they deserve.
We're coming in here to ask questions and stand up for them. The discussion should be: 'This is how it's going to work. Is it going to make life easier or harder for them?' They did a lot of hard things for this country. Not capping their entitlements and making it more difficult for them to get the service and the care they need is the least we can do.
Before I call the next member, I remind all members that it is highly disorderly to make interjections while out of your seat.
There is no greater responsibility than ensuring we honour the commitment and sacrifice that men and women have made to defend our nation. Every Australian who has ever worn the uniforms of the Australian Defence Force has answered the call to serve something greater than themselves. Not only have they earned our gratitude; they also deserve our unwavering support. That support must be reflected not just in a speech but in the decisions we make and the investments we deliver to veterans services.
When the Albanese Labor government came to office, the Department of Veterans' Affairs was under enormous pressure. Years of underresourcing had left almost 42,000 claims sitting unallocated. Imagine serving your country and then waiting months, if you're lucky, but more often years for someone to simply begin looking at your claim. The previous secretary of DVA, Major General Liz Cosson, made it clear that, under the previous coalition government's resourcing, that backlog would never have cleared. Veterans deserve better, and this government has acted. We invested in DVA, employed additional staff and properly resourced the department so veterans could receive the health care, compensation and support they deserve. As a result, all cases have been allocated, and the backlog is being cleared.
Today, new claims are allocated within 14 days and many common claims under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are now processed within months. That is what happens when the government chooses to invest in veterans rather than leaving them waiting. Our commitment is backed by record funding. During the first three years of the Albanese government, spending on veteran compensation and treatment reached $37.9 billion, compared with the $31.1 billion over the final three years of the former coalition government. This financial year alone, spending is expected to exceed $15 billion—almost $5 billion more than in the final year of the former coalition government.
Now, it is clear that there are people trying to create concern and panic about allied health services, but the facts tell a different story. This government is delivering the biggest increase in allied health fees in more than two decades. From 1 July 2027, physiotherapy consultations will increase to $110, podiatry consultations to $110 and longer psychology consultations to $260. These increases respond directly to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and to the feedback from veterans who told us that it was becoming increasingly difficult to find providers willing to offer treatment. Better funding means better access to care.
Instead of requiring veterans to obtain a new referral every 12 sessions—something the former coalition government introduced—our reforms introduce an annual mandatory limit of $5,000, providing better flexibility and meaning less time going to a GP for what is ultimately an unnecessary tick of a box. Veterans with acute and complex needs will continue to receive treatment beyond that amount where clinically appropriate. These reforms reduce red tape; they do not add to it.
I want to make something very clear. Veterans with critical or acute health needs that would take them over the $5,000 annual monetary amount will continue to be supported. These new arrangements have received a lot of attention in and out of this chamber—rightly so. That is why members of the government, like me, are consulting with the veteran community to ensure veterans are getting the best out of these reforms.
In the electorate of Petrie, which I am proud to represent, I have already started meeting with veterans about these reforms. Petrie has over 5,500 veterans, one of the largest groupings of veterans in any one electorate, and this is something that I am honoured to have. These veterans served our country, and I have the honour of representing them in this building. Over the past month, I have met with every veteran who has asked for a meeting, and time and time again I've heard stories that outline just how incredibly important it is that we get these reforms right.
Debates like this matter, because the Albanese Labor government is a government that listens to the concerns of communities such as veterans and acts on them. We are a government that will always back our veterans. This is why we have delivered record investment. We are clearing the backlog that we inherited from those opposite, strengthened health care, improved claims processing, implemented the royal commission's recommendations and reformed the veteran support system to better meet the needs of those who served our nation.
I still, after all the Labor members' speeches, haven't heard them talk in detail about the $5,000 cap. The member for Solomon spoke about the royal commission—and rightly so, as he was here through the whole process—but he didn't talk about the substance of this motion, which is the $5,000 cap. The member for Petrie said that the facts around this are about service fees, which were in the recommendations of the royal commission, but none of the recommendations of the royal commission spoke about a $5,000 cap—nowhere, nothing. Having a cap is not going to give you ease of access.
I'll give the former speaker some credit for saying that, if someone's going to exceed it, or if they regularly exceed it, then they should get the support that they deserve. I agree. But how? Do you have to go to your GP and pre-empt an injury or illness? Do you have to wait till you're in a very dark place and then somehow find the magic number to call to get it extended? There is no detail here. Veterans around the country are rightly questioning this Labor government about what the cap is, how to do it and what happens if it runs out. What happens if you're in a dark place? You're going through something tough and you've fallen over—it's happening. You've hit your $5,000 target, and the only light at the end of the tunnel was the services that you were getting to get yourself back together. What happens when you get the letter or the phone call to say the appointment's cancelled because you've reached the limit? What happens then? How does this person get the support and services that they need? What do they do? They may not be in the frame of mind to be able to navigate the hours and hours of wait times when calling the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Then what do you do?
Well, right now, if you call DVA, you would wait for about 52 minutes. The member for Solomon is rightly concerned about this, and I take his concerns, but the problem here is this is going to cause more harm. A $5,000 cap is not what the royal commission said. It is not what veterans want. There is nowhere that I have been or spoken where a veteran has organisation has said, 'We're extremely happy about this.' I was at the Cameron Baird Foundation launch today, and all the veterans there were rightly concerned. To gaslight them, to stand up in the chamber and say, 'Everything's fine. It's everyone else's fault. Everyone's just whipping up concern'—it's just simply not true. It is not good enough that this Labor government has this cap that is going to make veterans worse off. It's simply mind boggling how you can somehow quantify this as the right thing to do.
I would challenge any member in this place that says they haven't received messages on their social media about this cap. I got one just the other day, and it reads: 'I spend $336 on psychology every two to three weeks. Sometimes it's a double session, which is $672, for EMDR treatment for PTSD, as one hour isn't enough for those sessions. I've got physio twice a week at $110 per session—so that's $220 a week. I see a chiropractor once a week at $75 a session. The $5,000 cap will last me three months.' Another person said that they have psychology treatment, they have physio, they have chiropractic—'What happens when this runs out? I don't want to be a burden on my family.' That is terrifying, and it's terrifying because the government isn't giving answers to the questions that veterans have.
No speaker has said, 'This is how the $5,000 cap will work.' No speaker from the government has stood up in parliament, and the minister really should—it's his responsibility—stand up and outline it all. But, once again, veterans are left to try and decipher it, to try and understand it. Most fear it because it hasn't been clearly communicated. The tens of thousands of those that reach out to me and to other offices have been asking questions. No-one has told them how it will work. I did expect better from the member for Solomon. A veteran himself, he once again just gets up and gaslights the world. He should be asking these hard questions.
Before I start, I want to acknowledge the member for Solomon, the member for Petrie and the member for Herbert and thank them for their service to this country.
After years of underinvestment, those opposite had left the Department of Veterans' Affairs struggling to meet demand, with almost 42,000 claims—that's right, 42,000 claims—sitting unallocated in the system. Behind every one of those claims was a veteran or family member waiting for compensation or support. No Australian who has served under the flag of this great nation should be left waiting indefinitely for help. That's why one of this government's earliest priorities was properly resourcing the Department of Veterans' Affairs and ensuring support could reach veterans faster. Additional staffing and sustained investment have helped clear the backlog we inherited and improve the speed at which claims are entering the system. Today, new claims are being allocated within days rather than sitting untouched for months. That means veterans are receiving support sooner and gaining earlier access to services they need.
Yet improving outcomes for veterans is about far more than processing claims. A support system can only be considered effective if the care it provides is accessible, affordable and available when they need it. For many veterans, allied health services play a critical role in maintaining physical health, supporting recovery from injury and addressing the impacts that service can have on mental wellbeing. Access to services such as physiotherapy, psychology or podiatry should never be determined by whether a provider can afford to offer treatment under the existing funding arrangements.
That is why the Albanese Labor government is delivering the largest increase to allied health funding for veterans in more than two decades. These changes respond directly to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and reflect the experiences shared by veterans and providers across the country. Time and again, veterans told the royal commission that access to allied health services was becoming more difficult. This government listened.
From 1 July next year—2027—significantly increased payments will help ensure veterans can continue accessing the support and treatment they deserve. Funding for physiotherapy and exercise physiology consultations will increase from $75.10 to $110. Standard podiatry consultations will increase to $110. Psychology services will receive some of the most substantial improvements, with a standard consultation of more than 50 minutes increasing from $163.40 up to $260. These changes represent a significant investment in the wellbeing of veterans and a recognition of the important role allied health professionals play in supporting those who have served. Better funding means a stronger network of providers. A stronger network of providers means improved access to care. Improved access to care means veterans can receive support earlier and closer to home.
Just as importantly, the government is reducing unnecessary red tape that too often frustrates veterans trying to access treatment. Under the current arrangements, veterans can find themselves navigating repeated referral requirements and administrative processes simply to continue receiving care. That can create barriers at exactly the moment people should be focused on recovery and rehabilitation. The new arrangements will replace the strict 12-session treatment cycle with a more flexible annual monetary limit of $5,000. This change will allow veterans to access more appointments without the need for repeated referrals and unnecessary paperwork. It will reduce administrative burdens while giving veterans greater certainty about their ongoing treatment. Importantly, veterans experiencing acute or complex health needs will continue to receive support above that threshold where clinically appropriate.
The objective is not to limit or take away necessary care. The objective is to ensure care is easier to access and better tailored for individual circumstances. These reforms form part of a broader effort to build a veterans' support system that is responsive, modern and centred on wellbeing, recognising that getting support early often prevents more serious problems from developing later and that rehabilitation and treatment are most effective when barriers to access are removed. Most importantly, they recognise that veterans deserve a system that works for them, not the other way around. The men and women who have served our nation answered the call when Australia asked. They accepted responsibilities that most Australians will never be required to carry. Our responsibility is to ensure that, when support is needed, it is available without delay and without unnecessary obstacles. And that is exactly what we are doing.
I rise in support of the motion moved by the member for Cowper, and I thank him for standing up for our veterans. Courage and sacrifice should never be forgotten. Aussies, many young and afraid, have been into battle across many wars and many years, often with an unseen enemy. And they fought to protect the rest of us—to fight for our freedom.
This is why the government must scrap the $5,000 allied health cap, a cap Labor has imposed on veterans as a part of its chaotic, broken-promises budget. Veterans in my electorate of Hinkler, like those across the entire country, are feeling forgotten, stressed and confused. I support this motion that notes that the government's decision in the 2026-27 budget fails to support Australian veterans and their families and that the introduction of a $5,000 cap on allied health services places a significant limitation on veterans' access to essential rehabilitation, mental health and ongoing care.
Take Keith for an example. He provided me with a picture of his current situation: a 71-year-old Army veteran, a gold-card, totally and permanently incapacitated veteran, who is now increasingly clinically required to access allied health support in a bid to deal with his 39 years of loyal service to our nation. Keith says visiting one allied health therapist once a week for half an hour and for approximately 38 weeks will see him reach his new annual $5,000 limit. But he needs a mix of support: podiatry, physiotherapy and psychology, the kind of help that this new cap won't allow.
In Bundaberg, ex Navy Petty Officer, veteran Max Francis, has gathered hundreds of signatures from local veterans and their families. That's people putting their name on paper in strong opposition to this ill-informed change. Max and other veterans held a peaceful protest at the new ANZAC Park in Bundaberg last month. This protest, like the motion I stand here and support, acknowledges that many veterans rely on ongoing and specialist allied health support and that imposing a cap on these services will place many veterans at risk of delaying treatment and worsening health outcomes.
It will simply put greater pressure on an already clogged and broken healthcare system, just like the scrapping of the private healthcare rebate for over 65s. This Labor government is making it worse for everyone who needs access to health care. Where is the fair go? Vicki tells me her husband served for 41½ years, all the way from school to retirement. She says this cap is a kick in the guts for him and all veterans. Pieter says veterans are not here to fix years of the Labor government overspending, and Pieter is concerned with the amount of extra stress and hardship this will put on our veterans, who are already struggling.
DES spent 20 years in Defence. He says this Labor budget of broken promises will deprive veterans of serious medical treatment. This motion I support recognises that veteran families often experience emotional, financial and social pressures which are not adequately addressed in the budget. We cannot allow the defunding and discontinuation of veteran support and education programs. These initiatives have provided essential services, including mental health support, transition programs, community connection and education programs.
The answer is simple: the government must 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, not just defer these cuts for another 12 months. Don't clog up the health system even more. In Hervey Bay, Denzil and Sue Potter both served. I met with them on multiple occasions in the past few weeks, and they've urged me to deliver this point: that veterans should not be asked to bear the cost of Labor's budget repair. As another constituent wrote in an email: 'Veterans are not a line item. They are Australians who put their lives, bodies and futures on the line for this country.'
Tomorrow many of us will have the honour of attending the opening of the new Anzac Atrium and Anzac Hall galleries at the Australian War Memorial. This showcases the stories of Australian service in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East and other peacekeeping operations. It's a showcase that allows us to respectfully reflect on Australian service with the dignity, depth and significance that our veterans deserve—a tribute to the sons and daughters who answered the call. Let us remember that their courage and sacrifice will never be forgotten. Our veterans didn't cap their service to Australia, so we should never cap their care.
Support for veterans and their families is one of the most serious responsibilities that we have as a government. When we came to office, the system supporting veterans was under considerable strain—I think that's the polite way of putting it. There was a significant backlog of claims, including 42,000 claims that had not even been looked at by anyone in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Previous Secretary of the DVA, Major General Liz Cosson, said that with the resourcing provided by the previous government, the backlog would never be cleared. We didn't think that was good enough, so we've increased funding to not only ensure claims are assessed but so that DVA has the funding for health care, support and the compensation that veterans deserve.
I'd like to talk specifics. In this financial year alone, we expect to spend nearly $5 billion more on compensation and treatment for veterans than the Morrison government spent in their last year of government. They spent $10.05 billion. By the end of June next week, we expect to have spent $15.05 billion. The Albanese government is also making allied health more accessible with increased funding and payments for services. It's the biggest increase in funding in 20 years and will come into effect from July next year. As an example, physio standard consultations which are currently paid at $75.10 will increase to $110. A standard podiatry consultation will increase to $110, and a standard 50-minute psychology consultation will increase to $260.
The need to increase the fees that are paid to providers was a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and it's the result of feedback from the veteran community that the current fees limit their access to allied health services. The strict 12-session treatment cycle is being removed in favour of an annual monetary limit of $5,000, so veterans can access more appointments without needing a new referral, but, where a veteran requires additional support due to the complex or acute nature of their needs, there will continue to be pathways for care beyond the standard threshold. We'll be talking to the veteran community over the coming months to design this system and other aspects of the new arrangements so it works for them.
I think it's worth remembering that of the 122 recommendations in the royal commission's final report, 32 were implemented by the end of last year, and we expect two-thirds of the government's response will be implemented by the end of this year. In the 2026 budget, $770 million was allocated to specifically address royal commission recommendations, including that biggest increase in 20 years in allied health fees paid to providers to support veterans.
An important component of the effort that we're making is the creation of the veteran and family wellbeing agency, which commences operations from 1 July. Its role is to bring a more coordinated and proactive focus to the wellbeing of veterans and their families, particularly during the transition from military life to civilian life. As part of standing up the agency, the government is transitioning funding for a broad range of existing wellbeing support for veterans and families into the new agency, and that includes funding for organisations like Invictus Australia, Bravery Trust and the wonderful Kookaburra Kids. Families are really key. The Veterans' Children Education Scheme has also been rolled into the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme. This is another way in which we support kids. And eligibility has been retained. Anyone in receipt of VCES is keeping access to all their payments. At the local level, we have the Hawkesbury Veteran and Family Hub operating while its permanent home in Richmond is being renovated. And, as we hit 1 July, all compensation and rehabilitation claims will be determined under a single ongoing act, the improved MRCA.
So what you have is a system that's being strengthened across multiple fronts, and I'm very proud of the work that we've done. Not every veteran is broken. The vast majority go on to have amazing careers in the civilian world. But they all need our support to do their very best.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
As Australians tune in to the FIFA World Cup, we are reminded of something simple but powerful: no team succeeds alone. You need a strong defence. You need discipline. You need trust between teammates. And, when the pressure is on, you need to know who is standing beside you. That is true on the football pitch, but it is even truer in our region and on the global stage. Australia is living through one of the most challenging strategic circumstances in decades. The rules and norms that have underpinned peace, security and prosperity are coming under pressure. The world is more uncertain, threats are more complex, and many of the challenges we face do not stop at borders. That is why Australia cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. Under our prime minister and Foreign minister, our government is getting Australia match-fit for the challenges ahead. In March this year, the Prime Minister and the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, announced the Australia-European Union Security and Defence Partnership. This is an important step forward in a strategic partnership with the EU. Australia and the EU have a longstanding relationship built on shared values of peace, security, democracy and prosperity. Under this Albanese Labor government, that relationship is going from strength to strength.
This security and defence partnership builds on other important areas of cooperation, including the Australia-EU free trade agreement and negotiations for Australia's association with the Horizon Europe research fund. Together, these efforts show strong momentum in one of Australia's most important international relationships, and, as a middle power, Australia needs as many strong and reliable partners as possible. We need to work with like-minded partners, we need to build common ground, and we need to make sure Australia has more options, more resilience and more capability in an uncertain world. This is about strengthening global responses to the volatility, hostility and conflict we are seeing across the world. We see it in Europe, where the Ukrainian people continue to show extraordinary courage in the face of Russia's illegal and immoral invasion. We see it in the Middle East, where the people of Iran continue to face a brutal and oppressive regime. And we see it in the growing use of cyberattacks, disinformation, foreign interference and economic pressure as tools of modern conflict. That is why this partnership matters. It will boost cooperation across defence industry, cybersecurity, economic security, counterterrorism, combating hatred and countering hybrid threats. It will support increased information sharing to respond to global threats. It will help build the capacity and resilience of Australia and the European Union to withstand complex security challenges in our respective regions. It will deepen cooperation to combat online radicalisation and terrorism financing, and it will establish a new space security dialogue.
These are practical steps that make Australia more secure in a less predictable world. They are about protecting our national interests, and they are about ensuring Australia is not isolated but connected to partners who share our commitment to peace, security and stability. Just like at the World Cup, the countries that succeed are the ones that prepare, build strong teams, understand the conditions and know how to respond when the game changes. That is what the Albanese Labor government is doing. We are acting with intention and purpose. We are deepening existing relationships. We are working with partners in our region and around the world, and we are practising what the Foreign minister has described as 'amplified middle-power diplomacy'.
Australia cannot approach the shifts in global power passively. We must be active, engaged and prepared. This partnership with the EU is another example of our government doing the serious work of defending Australia's interests and contributing to a safer and more stable world.
On the member for Reid's contribution about the European Union and trade, to her analogy with the World Cup football being played at the moment, there are also referees. When it comes to trade, we need good, strong referees; in the instance of trade, it's the World Trade Organization. When countries want to go and slap tariffs on you, and, also, when there are examples of countries not playing by the trade rules by which they are bound, then we need a good strong referee, an arbiter, to make sure that fairness is prevailing. What we also need, and what any football team needs, is common sense.
With the European Union, Australia's two-way trade is valued at $110.7 billion annually. I'll just give you four examples of this. With Germany, our two-way trade is about $29 billion annually; Australia exports coal, canola and copper ore. With the United Kingdom, our two-way trade is approximately $31.2 billion annually; our exports are metals, lead, coal and meat. With France, our two-way trade is about $14.4 billion; our exports are coal, canola, aircraft parts and seeds. With Italy, our two-way trade is about $12.37 billion, and Australia's exports to Italy are predominantly hot-rolled iron steel, wool—very valuable at the moment—gold and agricultural products. Services such as education and recreational travel also make up a significant portion.
With the EU, at least with Germany, France and Italy—and of course the UK, but we're talking about the EU here—in each of the two-way trade references I gave, I referred to agriculture. You can't have agriculture if you don't have good water policy. Whilst Labor might crow about trade and making sure that trade is what it should be, you're not going to have continued and expanding trade opportunities if you don't provide the water policy that is going to enable our irrigators to grow the food and the fibre to ensure that we have balance of trade and balance of payments. We just need to be using more common sense in this regard.
I've just come from a meeting with a group of southern connected irrigators. The theme of the meeting was 'Food for thought: can Australia protect both its environment and its food security?' When it comes to trade, food security equals trade security equals national security. At the moment, we don't have balance in the Murray-Darling Basin and with the plan. The plan, this group that I just met say, is 'destroying our nation's important economic staple food production capabilities and failing to protect our rural communities'.
What the EU trade arrangements do is build on the work of the coalition. The partnership builds on the framework agreement signed in 2017 under the coalition government. The coalition has long championed deeper Australian-EU cooperation on security and defence. I appreciate we've had some important visits lately—not just political heads. There are also, obviously, always those negotiations between key stakeholders, between government and those captains of industry, that are going to enhance these arrangements and ensure that they are put in place. But we have to be sensible when it comes to making sure that we can grow the amount of food available to such partnerships as this.
Australia and the EU, we know, share values. We share heritage and history. There's a common commitment to democracy and to human rights. The member for Reid mentioned Ukraine. I support her 100 per cent in that regard. The EU, along with the UK, has been a leader in supporting Ukraine in its defence against Russian aggression.
But we have to be sensible. We have to make sure that we've got better water policy. Not only will I always talk this up; I will make a plea to the government to ensure that more money is put into infrastructure as far as water is concerned and not water buybacks—$340 million again last week. Buying water out of productive use doesn't make sense.
I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Sturt and express my support for the Australia-European Union Security and Defence Partnership. This partnership reflects a simple reality in an increasingly contested, uncertain and hard world: Australia is more secure when we work alongside trusted partners who share our commitment to peace, stability and the global rules-based order.
As a regional power, Australia has a profound interest in shaping the strategic environment around us. We cannot afford to be passive observers of global events; nor can we assume that our security will be guaranteed by geography alone. The challenges we face today are increasingly transnational. Cyberattacks do not stop at national borders. Foreign interference campaigns operate across continents. Terrorist-financing networks span jurisdictions. Emerging technologies present opportunities and risks that no country can effectively manage in isolation. Partnerships like this one are important to counter these emerging transnational security risks.
The Australia-European Union Security and Defence Partnership will deepen cooperation across defence industry, cybersecurity, counterterrorism, economic security, maritime security and emerging technologies. It will strengthen information sharing, build resilience against complex threats and create new opportunities for collaboration between Australian and European industries.
Importantly, this partnership demonstrates an understanding that security in the 21st century is not a zero sum game. When Australia and the European Union cooperate to strengthen cyber-resilience, both become more secure. When we collaborate on defence innovation, similarly, both benefit. When we work together to counter terrorism, foreign interference and online radicalisation, we strengthen the security of our respective regions and contribute to global stability. This is a positive sum partnership that advances our shared interests while respecting our respective sovereignty.
It also reflects the broader approach to statecraft pursued by our Albanese Labor government. The American scholar Joseph Nye described successful foreign policy as the effective combination of hard power and soft power—a concept that he called 'smart power'. And that's what our government is doing. On one hand, Labor is investing in Australia's hard power. We are delivering the most significant uplift in Australia's defence capability in generations through AUKUS, through long-range strike capabilities, through guided weapons manufacturing and through implementation of the National Defence Strategy and the Integrated Investment Program. On the other hand, we are investing in the relationships, partnerships and diplomatic engagement that amplify Australia's influence and expand our strategic options. We have rebuilt relationships across the Pacific, after years of the coalition neglecting and, at times, openly disparaging key regional partners. We have deepened engagement with South-East Asia, we have strengthened our relationships with partners across Europe and we have pursued what Foreign Minister Penny Wong has described as 'amplified middle-power diplomacy'. Together, these efforts represent smart power in action.
Every day, up in Darwin, I see the strategic importance of northern Australia in this endeavour. Darwin hosts the US Marines in the Marine Rotational Force-Darwin, bringing together Australian and United States personnel in support of regional stability. Darwin is also home to Exercise Pitch Black, which is kicking off very soon—one of the world's premier air-combat exercises, bringing together air forces from across the Indo-Pacific and beyond. In previous years we've even had the Luftwaffe from Germany come and contribute to those exercises, and it was great to meet them.
These activities demonstrate that Australia's security is built not only through the capabilities we possess, but through the partnerships that we cultivate. The Australia-European Union Security and Defence Partnership is another important step in that direction. It strengthens Australia's security, expands opportunities for Australian industry, reinforces our commitment to working with like-minded nations and demonstrates that, in a world of growing complexity, cooperation remains one of the most powerful tools available to enhance our nation's interests.
I rise to support the principles which underpin this motion by the member for Sturt in regard to the Australia-European Union Security and Defence Partnership. Together with the member for Sturt, I serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which will explore our relationship with Europe through our examination of the Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement. Since being elected to this place, I have co-chaired the Parliamentary Friends of the European Parliament. I have lived, worked and studied in the EU. I speak three of the union's languages—or four, I suppose, given that English still counts as one. Without trying to do the government's publicity, it does need to be said that the Australian and European relationship has reached a high-water mark in recent years, with Australia having concluded the free trade agreement and the security and defence partnership, with our participation in Horizon Europe and with the strategic partnership on sustainable critical minerals value chains signed back in 2024.
Our relationship with Europe as a trade, investment and strategic partner is essential. As a bloc, the EU is our third-largest trading partner and second-largest source of foreign investment. The free trade agreement provides a starting point in terms of building a bigger market with Europe's 450 million consumers. While more could and should have been achieved for red meat, the deal will prove beneficial for our fruit and vegetable exporters, as well as those who produce our high-quality seafood, nuts, wine, critical minerals and advanced manufacturing goods. Horizon Europe will shepherd collaboration between Australia's top researchers and those from Europe across new technologies, advanced computing, clean energy, health, and critical minerals, bringing our research institutions and shared curiosity closer together.
The security and defence partnership with Europe is timely. The world is becoming a more dangerous and less predictable place. Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine continues; it is now into its fifth year. Conflict rages in the Middle East and its social and economic effects spill over into our supply chains and domestic politics. In such an enduring and destabilised environment, Australia needs like-minded friends—reliable, constant, predictable, like-minded friends.
In February, I was able to visit Australia's mission to the European Union, and I spent time with Australia's ambassador to the EU, Belgium, Luxembourg and NATO, His Excellency General Angus Campbell, AO, DSC, and his deputy head of mission, David Brightling. It's hard to imagine better mentors in the matters of EU-Australia strategic and trade partnership, and I take this opportunity to thank Angus and David and their teams for the impact that they are having in building an already strong relationship into one which is even deeper and enhances our shared commitment to the rules based international order.
This partnership establishes cooperation across a broad range of areas, including cybersecurity, maritime security, defence-industry collaboration, counterterrorism, space and emerging technologies. These are the front lines of modern conflict. Today's strategic competition is not fought solely by armies; it is fought through critical minerals, satellite networks, artificial intelligence, supply chains, cybersystems and economic coercion.
One of the most encouraging aspects of this partnership is the opportunity it creates for Australian businesses developing cutting-edge defence technologies and sovereign capability. Australian innovators are already producing world-class solutions in advanced manufacturing, autonomous systems, cybersecurity and aerospace technology. The challenge is ensuring that those businesses can access markets, investment and partnerships that allow them to continue to grow. This agreement can help achieve exactly that. But, to do so, our capability must match the aspirations in this document.
In a few weeks, I will have the opportunity to participate in the ADF's Exercise Pitch Black in the Northern Territory. Pitch Black is the Royal Australian Air Force's premier international air combat exercise. This year, it will bring together more than 100 aircraft and personnel from 19 allied and partner nations to train in complex, realistic scenarios. But what makes Pitch Black so important is not simply the aircraft involved but the relationships built, including with our NATO allies, who typically participate in this biannual event in Darwin. This is exactly what the Australia-European Union partnership seeks to strengthen.
Deterrence works best when potential adversaries understand that democratic nations are coordinated, capable and united. Australia's prosperity and security depend upon a stable international environment and strong partnerships with like-minded nations. This agreement is another step in that direction, and I support stronger cooperation with our European partners and the accompanying efforts to combat terrorism, foreign interference and online radicalisation. In a world becoming more contested, more competitive and more dangerous, Australia cannot stand alone.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that 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) acknowledges the Government's reannouncement of the 2022 election commitment to increase the roads to recovery funding program;
(3) recognises 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 recognises 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.
This week, while this parliament sits, more than a thousand mayors, councillors, shire presidents and executive staff are gathering in Canberra for the National General Assembly of Local Government under the Australian Local Government Association's theme of Stronger Together.
As human beings, some of our most basic needs are clean water, reliable sanitation and shelter. These are mostly the domain of local government. We have a need for human connection that relies on local roads to bring us together. This is also the responsibility of local government. Take a look at the parks where we played as children and have spent time with family and achieved our sporting goals. Again, this is the work of local government. And who maintains the footpaths, ensures pets are part of our community and guides the planning and development of the towns and cities in which we live? Local government—the very same organisations that ensure there are cemeteries where our loved ones can visit us once we have gone.
Which tier of government has been systematically underfunded and ignored in the recent budget? Which tier of government is collapsing under the weight of cost shifting and price increases? And which tier of government has no grant fund available to plan for communities' futures? The answer, again, is local government.
Today, I move that this chamber notes that local government is a critical tier of government in Australia that deserves the respect and trust of this federal government. Local government employs more than 213,000 local residents in communities throughout the 538 councils within Australia. Yet, in the recent budget alone, we saw exactly what level of respect the Albanese Labor government has for local government—and that's zero. The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program and the Urban Precincts and Partnerships Program have all been cut and replaced with one program, the growing regions and thriving suburbs program. This is an impressive sounding program that actually translates to our regional councils as 'your funding has been cut'. Instead of the dedicated regional funding and non-contestable programs, every local government across Australia—city or country—will be competing for the same dollars. Our small councils don't stand a chance.
While we're talking about a severe lack of respect for the tier of government that provides services essential for our survival, let's talk about the government's approach to housing support. The Labor government has allocated $2 billion in the Local Infrastructure Fund under the Housing Support Program, with only $500 million dedicated to local infrastructure for regional communities. There are 410 regional, rural and remote councils in Australia and just 138 metropolitan councils. The bottom line of this housing support is that the cities are allocated nine times the amount that has been allocated to regional councils. In this competitive program, what chance does a small council, like Walgett or Central Darling Shire or Brewarrina in my electorate, have?
This government has also quietly cut $41.7 million from the Fee-Free TAFE Skills Agreement. This is yet another blow for equity in our regions and yet another blow for growth and sustainability. Last year, the federal parliament's own Interim report into local government sustainability found councils, municipalities and shires played an essential role. The report noted increased service delivery obligations and cost shifting. It found responsibility for services and management of complex infrastructure assets had shifted from state and territory and federal governments onto local government. It also found councils' funding and ability to raise revenue had deteriorated.
This concerning report has been followed up, after the federal election, by a renewed inquiry into local government sustainability. Already, that inquiry has received more than 250 submissions from Carnarvon, Parkes, Huon Valley, Balonne, Kangaroo Island—from right across Australia. The Greater Ballarat Alliance of Councils—councils within the Minister for Local Government's own electorate—has written in its submission that its councils, like many others, are facing increased demands for growth infrastructure and heightened community services expectations amid financial constraints.
The cry is universal; councils are underfunded, and this Labor government is not delivering. These are the same councils who are already, according to the 2024 National state of the assets report, groaning under the weight of a shortfall of $50 billion to $55 billion to replace existing infrastructure reaching its end of life. Our local governments deserve more certainty, more sustainability and a lot more respect, and I commend the motion to this chamber.
Is the motion seconded?
The motion is seconded and I reserve my right to speak.
I understand the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into Hansard in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.
() (): The incorporated speech read as follows—
I would like to speak against this motion. I do so not just as a member of this House but as someone who spent six years as a councillor and two years as a deputy mayor, culminating in nearly 12 years as Mayor of the City of Wanneroo in my electorate of Pearce, working for 20 years at the very coalface of local government.
I do agree with parts of this motion. Local government is indeed a critical tier of government. It is closest to the community. It builds and maintains our roads, manages our waste and water, cares for our parks and public spaces, and plans for the growth of our suburbs and regions. It employs hundreds of thousands of Australians and delivers the services people rely on every single day.
But, if we are going to stand here and acknowledge the importance of local government, then we also need to be honest about how it has been treated, because this motion tells only half the story. It speaks about trust and recognition but it ignores the reality that, under the coalition, local government funding was cut and councils were left to do more with less. The coalition's 2014 decision to freeze indexation on financial assistance grants for three years reduced funding by an estimated 13 per cent—around $925 million taken out of local communities—and, when indexation returned, it was from a lower base, locking in that loss. That is not trust. That is not partnership. The consequences are still being felt, particularly in regional and outer suburban councils.
Now compare that with what we are seeing under the Albanese Labor government. We are delivering record investment in local government because we understand the role councils play in building strong, connected communities. Since coming to office, financial assistance grants have grown by five per cent in the last year alone and by 35 per cent since 2021-22. That is an increase from $2.6 billion to $3.6 billion in 2026-27. Across our first term, more than $16 billion will have flowed directly to local councils. That is not rhetoric; that is real support on the ground.
It does not stop there. In 2023-24 alone, almost $6 billion flowed from the Commonwealth to local government, supporting local jobs, local infrastructure, and local services every single day. We have doubled funding for Roads to Recovery to $4.4 billion over five years, ensuring councils can continue to maintain and upgrade the roads their communities depend on. We are investing in enabling infrastructure through the $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund. We are supporting safer roads, active transport, and growing communities through long-term, predictable funding streams. And, critically, we are listening. By restoring the Australian Council of Local Government, we have ensured councils once again have a seat at the table. Respect for local government is not just about words; it is about partnership.
This motion points to individual programs and funding lines, but it ignores the bigger picture. Overall investment in local government is increasing substantially. Financial assistance grants alone are growing at more than 2½ times the rate seen under the coalition, and they are projected to exceed $4 billion annually by the end of the decade, providing the certainty councils need to plan, invest, and deliver.
As someone who has sat in the mayor's chair for many years, I can say this with certainty: what councils value most is stability, respect, and a genuine partnership with the Commonwealth. That is exactly what this government is delivering. So yes, local government matters. But, if we are serious about backing councils, then we must also be honest about the record. Under the coalition, funding was cut and councils were left behind. Under Labor, funding is growing, engagement has been restored, and communities are seeing the benefit. For those reasons, I oppose this motion.
I'm pleased to second this motion supporting local government. After all, local government is the level of government closest to the people, but I believe many in this place have completely forgotten this. Earlier today in the House of Representatives, during question time, in response to a question asked by the member for Fowler, the Prime Minister said:
This isn't a council. This is a serious parliament …
This just goes to show how out of touch the Prime Minister really is. Does the Prime Minister realise it's local councils who actually do the heavy lifting? They build and maintain tens of thousands of kilometres of rural roads and local roads. They provide the vital sewerage, water and waste management services. Can you imagine if there were no sewer, if there were no water, if there were no waste? You couldn't get a good drink of water. Your bin couldn't get emptied. You couldn't go to the bathroom. Councils maintain the parks, the gardens and the sporting fields that our families rely on, and they manage libraries, halls, civic centres and cultural hubs. Councils maintain the very essential services that our community cannot do without.
The Prime Minister then went on to say:
No-one has done more for local government in this House than me.
The audacity of that statement is staggering. The member for Parkes, who presented this motion, served as Mayor of the Gunnedah Shire in New South Wales for eight years before entering federal parliament. I spent 10 years in local government, four years as a councillor and six years as Mayor of the Whitsundays. I can guarantee the Prime Minister that there are many more people in this place who have done a heck of a lot more for local government than he ever will. This Labor government doesn't back local councils; it abandons them. We're talking about the exact same prime minister who just slashed the federal government's contribution to disaster funding, of all things. The uncomfortable truth is that local government receives only three per cent of all tax revenue—that's derived from rates, fees and charges—the state receives around 16 per cent and the feds receive a whopping 81 per cent, mainly through income tax. Yet despite only receiving three per cent of tax revenue, local governments are forced to manage 33 per cent of all public infrastructure assets. How is that fair?
To add insult to injury, the latest federal budget has slashed financial assistance grants to just 0.49 per cent of Commonwealth tax revenue, down from 0.51 per cent. This financial assistance grant is so important to local councils because it's untied funding, so the councils get to determine what is the best use for that money. Let me tell you, they use it very, very wisely.
The Albanese Labor government has completely defunded and eliminated the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program. This has been used for priority local roads and priority infrastructure programs. They've also made cuts to the Regional Precincts and Partnerships program and the Urban Precincts and Partnerships program.
In its latest stunt, the Albanese government recently announced a massive overhaul to the disaster recovery arrangements, the DRFA, reducing the Commonwealth funding share to a split of fifty-fifty with state and territory governments. This is a huge loss in particular for Queensland councils. Under the historical model, the federal government picked up approximately 64 per cent, capping out at 75 per cent, of the major infrastructure costs. Shifting to a fifty-fifty model strips millions out of disaster recovery budgets and pushes the financial burden directly onto the state and the local ratepayers—just another example of 'when Labor runs out of their money, they come after yours'.
This disaster funding cut represents a massive betrayal of Queensland, where 74 out of the 77 local government areas were formally disaster declared following recent cyclones. For every natural disaster event, a small regional council is now required to pay $130,000 upfront. That is not fair, and it needs to change.
I rise today to oppose this motion. I spent eight years on the ground as a local councillor for the Shire of Mundaring and served proudly as the deputy shire president before coming into this place. Today I'm proud to continue that advocacy right here in federal parliament as the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Local Government group. I know firsthand the financial pressures that councils face, the critical reliance on federal funding partnerships and the deep frustration in dealing with a federal government that leaves you behind—and that is exactly what the coalition did for a decade.
The reality is quite simple: the Albanese Labor government is delivering for local government, while the coalition spent a decade leaving them behind. Local councils are the lifeblood of our communities. They build the roads we drive on and the libraries where our kids learn, and they manage waste and a whole lot more besides. They need a federal partner that they can trust, and that's exactly what they have under this Labor government.
We are delivering record Commonwealth investment to the sector. Since coming to office, Labor has delivered more than $16 billion in financial assistance grants directly to local councils. This financial year, those grants have increased by five per cent and they're up a massive 35 per cent since 2021-22. That means they've grown from $2.6 billion to $3.6 billion.
Let's compare the records. In the coalition's last five years in office, the financial assistance grants increased by $368 million. In Labor's first five years, they have increased by $943 million. That is more than two-and-a-half times the growth that the opposition achieved. We are providing long-term certainty, with funding projected to exceed $4 billion annually by 2029-30. We hear the coalition complaining bitterly about the conclusion of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program—the LRCI program—but they're crying crocodile tears, completely ignoring the fact that it was the Liberals and the Nationals who made the decision not to fund future rounds of the LRCI. Under their watch, the program was set to expire completely in 2023-24. If they wanted to make it ongoing, they could have done so, but they didn't. Instead, it was this Albanese Labor government that stepped up at the 2022 election, committing an additional $250 million to councils in regional and outer urban areas and extending the LRCI until June 2026. Thanks to Labor, 466 of Australia's 550 councils benefited from this extra funding. If the Liberals and Nationals had their way, regional councils, whom they pretend to represent, would have had $250 million less funding than over the last few years. They are quite literally complaining about the consequences of their own decision.
Our support goes far beyond this. We have given local government a permanent seat at the table by restoring the Australian Council of Local Government. In 2023-24 alone, almost $6 billion flowed from the Commonwealth to local governments—that's equivalent to $16 million every single day, supporting local jobs and infrastructure. We've doubled the funding for the Roads to Recovery Program, committing $4.4 billion nationally, which is a 76 per cent increase. We have also introduced the landmark $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund to help councils deliver the enabling infrastructure that they need for new housing. ALGA President Matt Burnett warmly welcomed this, praising the government's trust in local councils. Labor is backing our councils to build stronger communities based on local priorities. We are restoring the funding, the certainty and the respect that was stripped away during the coalition years. I urge the house to reject this hypocritical motion, and I commend our record to the House.
I'm incredibly disappointed at the last speaker's attempt to try and justify this government's support of councils. As the Deputy Chair of the Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport Committee, who's participating in an inquiry on the financial sustainability of local government, let me say that local governments are, frankly, sick and tired of the political arguments. They are responsible for a third of this nation's public infrastructure. They're responsible for delivering and supporting liveable communities.
As someone who represents a regional community, one that was smashed by a disaster just over 12 months ago, I think the days of trying to score political points around who's funding our local government more over the years—frankly, right now, what we're hearing from local governments is they just don't have enough funding. It's no use standing here and saying, 'We're delivering more than the coalition.' If you listen to what local governments are saying, they're genuinely wanting to deliver real upgrades in community infrastructure: roads, bridges, community facilities and sporting facilities. They just want government to stop. They want parliament to listen to their needs. They're here in their droves over the course of this week, debating these issues. This is a serious problem. This is a crisis of federation. When we're dealing with something of this order, what we need is less of the politics, more of the active listening and more of the consideration of how we support our local communities—how I, and how we all get together and support communities.
I have five local councils across the Lyne electorate: Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, Mid-Coast Council, Dungog Shire Council, Maitland City Council and Port Stephens Council. They are all trying their hardest to make sure that the citizens, the ratepayers in their communities, have the support, have the facilities and have the roads that they deserve and they expect. They play such an important role as the tier of government closest to the people.
Councils are raising a number of issues in the context of the inquiry. Concerns include cost shifting, where more federal and state responsibilities like aged care, GP care and child care are being pushed onto local government without the funding required to deliver them. They're also raising concerns about aging infrastructure and workforce shortages. And they're raising concerns about a disaster funding system that too often rebuilds assets to yesterday's standards.
We've had many councils appear and talk about the challenges they have in securing betterment funding. Indeed, in my own electorate, where the bike bridge has been completely washed out as a result of the May floods, the council there cannot get betterment funding to raise the height of the bridge. They can build the bridge back at the same height to a better engineering standard, but that still puts it in frame for a one-in-100-year flood, which means that Wingham and communities such as Tinonee and surrounding areas are disconnected from schools, GPs, pharmacies and their workplaces. This is why betterment funding matters. In terms of the Lyne electorate, the Prime Minister came and said the May flood was due to climate change. Well, if that's the case, that's a stronger argument for betterment funding. Yet what do we see? No funding for betterment.
The other issue that's been raised, of course, is the issue of financial assistance grants. The fact of the matter is that there was a promise to move towards one per cent. That was a promise that the minister for local government made. And yet, in this budget, we see it at 0.49 per cent. Now, I don't want to play politics. We all need to do better at ensuring that our local governments have financial sustainability. We can't call them a tier of government and not give them the financial autonomy that they need to deliver the services for their communities. I commend this motion.
The coalition put this motion before the chamber—and don't tell us about politics. That's their motion. The coalition is so enamoured with local government that they campaigned ferociously when the Hawke government put up a proposal to recognise local government in our Australian constitution in 1988. In 2013, the coalition scuttled, by the way, the bipartisan approach that the Gillard government wanted to take in recognising local government through a proposed referendum.
Local government in this country is recognised by state legislation, and the coalition has an appalling record when it comes to local government. Who could ever forget Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey's infamous 2014 horror budget? The coalition broke an election promise. They froze indexation of financial assistance grants for three years. At the time, the Australian Local Government Association, ALGA, estimated the freeze caused a permanent 13 per cent reduction in the total grants base, compounding the shortfall for local councils nationwide. It was a politically disastrous budget and a shocking decision. It severely damaged Joe Hockey's relationship with ALGA and the coalition's standing with local government after they opposed the two referenda that were going to be put to them, one by Hawke and one by Gillard. I think in large part this really destroyed Joe Hockey's aspirations for prime ministership.
In contrast, when we came to office, we provided assistance, for example, in natural disasters. We heard the previous speaker speaking about natural disasters. I remember being in this House, in this parliament, when the coalition voted against the natural disaster funding, much of which was going to local councils in Queensland. It cost $11 billion of taxpayers' funding to rebuild Queensland after the 2011 floods. The coalition voted against the funding to provide support for local councils and local communities. So don't give us this nonsense, the complete nonsense that we've got in this motion, that somehow the coalition is supportive of local government. Look at how they voted. They opposed the referendum to recognise local government. They opposed the funding to provide support to recover from the floods in my home state of Queensland. When we put it up, they opposed it. This was money going to councils, and we had to bring forward other money to councils to help them to rebuild.
Also, of course, during the global financial crisis, when we rolled out extra support for councils, for community infrastructure, the coalition voted against the money again. Again in federal parliament they voted against it. So don't give us this rank, faux worry that somehow we're not supporting local government when we've actually doubled the Roads to Recovery funding from $500 million to $1 billion, and we've increased Black Spot funding from $110 million to $150 million per year. That's what we've done. We've also brought forward assistance with financial assistance grants. Look at what the Labor government does and what Labor governments have done, and look at what the coalition governments have failed to do or opposed. This motion here is just full of nonsense—absolute nonsense.
I've had the honour and privilege of representing all or part of Ipswich and Brisbane councils, the Scenic Rim and Lockyer Valley, as well as the Somerset region. I can tell you that it's been Labor governments that have made huge differences, like the Robelle Domain parklands, the upgrades to the civic centre in Ipswich and other projects, like the Orion pool in Springfield in Ipswich; and other projects all up the Brisbane Valley Highway, like the Esk community and civic centre up there in Somerset and also things like the art gallery in Toogoolawah. Recently, as part of Thriving Suburbs, we provided $5 million for tourism, for the environment, for medical rooms and for library facilities in Esk and Toogoolawah. These are things that Labor governments have done—not coalition governments, who actually oppose these things. The Kilcoy information centre is funded by the federal Labor government—also, upgrades to the Kilcoy showgrounds and other showgrounds. The coalition has opposed this again and again and again.
To come into this place and provide this type of motion—it is exactly the opposite of what coalition governments have done, which is exactly the opposite of the incredible commitment that Labor governments have to local government.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Housing is one of the great challenges facing our country. It is a challenge I hear about every week in Holt. I hear it from young people who are working hard and saving carefully but still feel the dream of owning a home is moving further away. I hear it from families who want security, stability and a place to put down their roots. And I hear it from parents who worry their children may not have the same opportunities they had. A generation ago, buying a home was not easy. It took time, sacrifice and careful saving. But for many Australians it felt possible. Today too many people are doing everything right and still cannot get into the market. That is why this government is acting.
The long-term answer is clear: we have to build more homes. More homes mean more choice, more affordability and more Australians getting the chance to live near work, family, school and community. But housing does not get built by words alone. It needs roads. It needs water. It needs drainage, utilities and local infrastructure. It needs the practical work that turns land into liveable communities. That is why the Albanese Labor government is investing a further $2 billion through the Local Infrastructure Fund. This funding will help deliver the pipes, pavements and powerlines needed to unlock new housing projects. It is about unlocking the last-mile infrastructure that can hold back housing projects that are otherwise ready to go. This investment will support up to 65,000 new homes over the next decade. It is practical, it is targeted and it is exactly the kind of work that growing communities like Holt need.
This investment is part of our broader $47 billion Homes for Australia plan. We are making it easier to buy and better to rent, and we are building more homes. We have expanded the five per cent deposit scheme to all first home buyers. In Holt, around 2,747 people have bought their first home because of this scheme. Those 2,747 are families, couples and young Australians who have been able to get into the market sooner. This is what good governments should do—back people who are working hard and help them get ahead. We are also rolling out Help to Buy, supporting 10,000 low- and middle-income Australians into homeownership each year. We are delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes across the country.
But we also have to confront the parts of the system that have made it harder for first home buyers. For too long, the tax system has given investors an advantage over young Australians trying to buy their first home. It should not be easier for someone to buy their fifth property than it is for a nurse, a teacher, a tradie or a young family to buy their first. That is why we are levelling the playing field through capital gains tax and negative gearing changes. This is not about attacking aspiration; it is about backing the aspiration of working people. It is about saying the dream of homeownership should not be reserved for those who already own property.
And that is the difference between this government and those opposite. They had nearly a decade in government to act on housing, and they failed. They invested just $123 million in housing-enabling infrastructure. They said no to the Housing Australia Future Fund. They said no to Help to Buy. They said no to Build to Rent. They said no to Labor's five per cent deposit scheme. In government they even said no to having a housing minister. Now they are saying no to giving first home buyers a fairer chance. Their record is clear: when it comes to housing, they do not build; they block.
I want to thank the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities, the Hon. Clare O'Neil MP, for her work and leadership in driving this housing agenda.
I support the government's efforts to make housing more affordable, but I stress that far more needs to be done to address our housing crisis. Let's look at one important piece of the puzzle for affordable housing. The government aims to deliver 55,000 social and affordable homes, and I welcome that. But this commitment doesn't mean anything if those homes aren't actually affordable for the people who need them. The question here is the meaning of 'affordable', because at the moment governments can't seem to agree. Let's run through some of the inconsistent definitions that we're dealing with today.
To the Housing Australia Future Fund, the federal government's main housing investment body, 'affordable' means 74.9 per cent or less of market rent. To the Department of Social Services, 'affordable' means 75 to 80 per cent of market rent. To the New South Wales government, it means less than 30 per cent of gross income, and, to the Willoughby City Council, it means up to 30 per cent of a household's income for very low to moderate income households. It's a mess, and this mess has real-world impacts.
Take the '30 per cent of gross income' definition. For most young people in my electorate—young people working in nursing, teaching, hospitality and retail—there just isn't anything available to rent for 30 per cent of your income. They end up paying more like 50 per cent, and they can't sustain that. So they move away—away from their families, their workplaces and the places that they love. The 20 to 25 per cent discount on market rent isn't necessarily any better either in an electorate with such high market rents.
This patchwork system simply isn't working. That's why I'm running a campaign to establish a nationally consistent definition of 'affordable housing'.
The first step is to craft the best definition we can. I'm consulting with experts on this subject right now, and we'll have something to report very soon.
The next step is to get governments to cooperate. Now, that's a tricky part at the best of times, let alone on an issue as vexed as housing. But it's essential that we find a way to work together. The federal government has a unique position to lead on this, because of the leverage it wields through the GST, through the National Housing Accord and through programs like the special investment vehicle, the Housing Australia Future Fund. I'm also convening a roundtable in parliament in August, bringing together industry, parliamentarians, civil society organisations and academics, to drive the conversation on affordable housing and push us closer to real solutions.
This is complicated, and it's difficult work, but, with your support, we can make it happen. Already, over 5,000 people have signed on to this campaign. So please join us. My goal is to ensure that, when governments talk about funding affordable homes, we actually understand what they're talking about and intend to deliver, and we can hold them to account.
But, of course, there is more to the housing crisis, as the member for Adelaide's motion points to. Boosting housing supply isn't just about building houses; it's about building the infrastructure that underpins those houses. It's the roads, the cycle paths and the footpaths; it's the water and sewerage infrastructure; it's the electricity connections and public transport stops; it's open spaces, recreational facilities and cultural centres—all the things you need to make new housing development places that people can actually live. In the budget, the government announced $2 billion for these infrastructure improvements. I welcome this, and I want to see it flowing into housing developments that build genuinely affordable housing supply where it is needed most.
Between the two LGAs that make up my federal electorate, we're working hard to deliver 11,000 new homes, slated for development over the next three years. I want to see a fair share of this $2 billion directed to Ku-ring-gai Council and Willoughby City Council to support that effort. These councils are already pulling their weight in building more housing supply, and they need assistance from the federal government to do this. I've already met with the minister to discuss this funding, and I'll keep pushing until we see that the funding that my electorate deserves and needs goes there, so that we have liveable places that people can call home, no matter what stage of their life they are in.
I rise to support the motion from the member for Adelaide, and, in doing so, I reflect on something which I remember coming across many years ago, which is that, when we think about the Whitlam government, we think about this reforming government and the 'crash through or crash' style of Gough Whitlam. But one of the central election commitments that the Labor Party made in the 1972 election was to put sewerage in Western Sydney—hardly radical; hardly 'crash through or crash'. Something as practical as putting sewerage into the western suburbs of Sydney opened that community up to decades of prosperity.
So it is with the Albanese government's commitment of $2 billion in this budget, building on $6-plus billion to unlock that sort of infrastructure, which is just basic and fundamental to developing our outer suburbs for housing. I think, back in 2024, the Albanese government committed something like $40 million to unlock, effectively, 500 dwellings in Meadowbrook, a suburb that I represent, in Logan, and it was able to reduce the time needed for approvals from 12 months to 12 weeks.
When you see that sort of multiplier impact that a small investment can have across the whole economy, it really does show, I think, the fundamental philosophy of this Albanese government, which is about rejecting 'business as usual'. I think that we have seen, as the housing minister says, that the housing crisis that we have today is something that is 40 years in the making. It was effectively neglected, particularly over the previous 10 years, where you had something like $130 million going into development of infrastructure under the previous government, which is something like 50 times less than what this government is spending.
Something else they neglected was public housing. It's disappointing that the modern day coalition has walked away from something which they did for many years. This as a bit of a surprise to people sometimes, but in many ways my economic role model is Thomas Playford, who was a Liberal premier for decades in South Australia. I think the best example that you could show for him was that he built the suburb of Elizabeth and public housing around car plants, around Holden, in order to keep the cost of living down, keep rents down and keep the pressure off wages. That was able to attract manufacturing industries, and one of the reasons why we've lost manufacturing in this country today is that we don't have affordable housing. We see this sort of spiral of wages and rents, and it becomes unaffordable for people to live and it becomes unaffordable for companies to do business.
So providing public housing, I've long believed, is probably the most significant productivity measure that a government can take. That's why I think that is a second thing that the Albanese government needs to be commended for. As this motion says, it's delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes. In fact, in the 10 years of the previous government, they delivered something like 373 public housing dwellings over nine years. Right now in one suburb in the electorate I represent, Forde, there's 206 public housing dwellings being built as part of those 55,000 social and affordable homes.
Finally, I say that the tax system, which has been for over 20 years incentivised to treat housing as an investment and not as a family home, is something that this government is prepared to tackle. We're not just going to throw our hands up in the air and say, 'I wish we could do something about it, but we're only the government.' The third thing I'd say is that we are tackling that tax system to even it out for first home buyers at the same time that we're also supporting an increase in wages to help people get into their first homes. Accordingly, I commend the motion to the House.
I rise to speak on this debate in relation to housing investment. As the opposition, it's our responsibility to hold this government to account, but what frustrates me time and time again—we've seen it just now from the member for Forde and we've seen it in the content of this motion—is it is not the responsibility of the government to spend their time talking about what's happened in the past with former governments. But all we're seeing is a government that doesn't have its own plan that it's actually able to execute. They speak about a further $2 billion of investment. It's all well and good to talk about money that's being thrown at different issues, but when Australians don't actually see the benefit and when Australians don't see the outcome, there's something seriously wrong.
I also want to use this opportunity to point out something else that we're seeing in this housing debate. There's a lot of focus from those opposite on social housing. There is a role for social housing; I'm not denying that. What I am denying are the figures that are being constantly used by members of the government in relation to how we compare homes being built now as opposed to previously, because it's one thing for government to build social housing; it's another for government to create the economic conditions to enable the private sector to do what it does best and build new properties and build new houses. What we're seeing at the moment is a government that is not making any inroads whatsoever when it comes to the removal of regulation and red tape in the housing industry, something that will actually bring down the cost and reduce the delays associated with new builds.
We're not seeing a government that's making meaningful action to build new homes quickly. We're not seeing anything from the government that is going to incentivise investment in new builds—new builds that are affordable, and I do make that distinction. The coalition, by alternative, has spoken about a $5 billion infrastructure plan. I do think that the infrastructure plan to invest in enabling infrastructure that's been spoken of is important, but it doesn't go far enough. When I speak to developers, they often say one of the biggest obstacles in producing new builds is the enabling infrastructure. It's the cost of the roads, the cost of the sewerage, the water, the powerlines—all of that. That is something the federal government can assist with, but we're not seeing any of those long-term approaches from this government.
In fact, Labor, keep in mind, promised Australians more homes at the last election, but they're already around 80,000 to 100,000 homes behind target, with no state or territory meeting their share. Despite these billions of dollars on housing programs, Australians aren't able to see the homes that are being delivered. When we were in government, under the coalition, around 200,000 homes were built each year. Under Labor we're seeing completions running around 170,000 per year. Despite around $80 billion for housing programs under Labor, fewer homes are being built than under the former coalition government. So if we're actually holding government to account and if we're actually looking at whether or not taxpayer funds are being used to create more houses and more opportunities for young people in particular to enter the housing market, they're not. That's really concerning. We've seen the Housing Australia Future Fund absolute failure, with $11.4 billion tied up but—get this—only 895 homes delivered in 2½ years. If we've seen barely any homes being built but billions of dollars committed, again, something is seriously wrong. Australians deserve delivery, not delay.
I've spoken in this place before about the National Construction Code, which has now expanded to more than 2,000 pages. This adds tens of thousands of dollars to new builds. There's no effort from this government to address that. There's no effort to rein in the regulation and speed up the progress when it comes to building new homes. It's great for the government to come in here yet again and congratulate itself on investing in certain areas. But I think when we will have a reason to congratulate this government will be the day that they come in here and announce the delivery of new houses. That is something that, from my perspective, is very far away.
I thank the member for Adelaide for bringing forward this motion. He understands, and the Albanese government understands, that housing is about much more than bricks and mortar; it is about security, opportunity and belonging. Owning a home—a place to raise a family, put down roots and be part of a community—has always been at the heart of the Australian dream. For many Australians, that dream represents security, independence and the opportunity to build a future for themselves and their families. That's why helping more Australians into a home of their own is such an important priority for the Albanese Labor government.
It's a priority that's delivering results for locals in my electorate of Corangamite in Victoria—locals who, last week, welcomed the Prime Minister to their new home. The Prime Minister travelled to Clifton Springs, where I introduced him to Brooklyn, Lochie and their dog, Rosco. Brooklyn and Lochie are just so overjoyed to have accessed the first home buyer five per cent deposit scheme. They told us about how they have worked hard, saved hard and, for a long time, have dreamt of building a future in the community they know and love. But, like many young Australians, they wondered whether owning a home of their own would ever be possible. Now, through the Albanese Labor government's expanded five per cent deposit scheme, they have been able to realise their dream of homeownership. Instead of paying for someone else's mortgage, they're investing in their own future. Alongside Brooklyn and Lochie, around 4,000 locals across the Geelong region have benefited from the scheme. This is what good housing policy is about—good housing policy from a reforming government. It is about giving people the opportunity to build a place, a life, that they can call home. I know just how much this matters to my electorate. Corangamite is one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia. We have families moving in to Clifton Springs, Armstrong Creek, Ocean Grove, Mount Duneed, Torquay and right across the Bellarine Peninsula because they want to be part of our community.
But, as a growing region, we also know that growth brings challenges. One of those challenges is making sure infrastructure keeps pace with the homes we need to build. Building homes is not just about putting up houses; before a family can move into a new home, there needs to be infrastructure that makes that home possible. That's why our government is rolling out the $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund. This fund will help unlock much-needed infrastructure by investing in water connections and powerlines that allow new homes to be built. It will support local governments and utility providers to deliver the projects needed to get housing moving. Importantly, it will help unlock up to 65,000 new homes over the next decade. It builds on the significant infrastructure investments the Albanese government is making on the Bellarine, the Surf Coast and across the Geelong region, with projects like the $680 million Barwon Heads Road upgrade that will be transformative to Armstrong Creek, one of the nation's fastest-growing suburbs.
These investments in infrastructure and the Local Infrastructure Fund build on our government's broader Homes for Australia plan. We are rolling out help to buy, investing in more social and affordable housing through the Housing Australia Future Fund, supporting renters and working to massively increase housing supply so that more Australians have the opportunity to have a place to call home. The previous government spent almost a decade failing to address this challenge. They opposed every measure that is now helping Australians get into homes. But the Albanese government knows the housing challenge cannot be solved by standing back, doing nothing and hoping the market fixes itself. It requires government to play its part, and that's exactly what we are doing.
In closing, the Prime Minister's visit was a great opportunity to highlight the difference these investments are making for local families today and the difference they will make for generations to come. Everyone deserves the opportunity to have a safe place to call home, and, through our Homes for Australia plan, that is exactly what we are working to deliver.
Housing is an important issue in my community in south-west Sydney. The government throws around big numbers—$47 billion in housing investment, $6.3 billion for infrastructure, a promise of 55,000 social and affordable homes. It sounds impressive, but my community does not live in a press release; they live in overcrowded houses, in garages turned into bedrooms and in rentals where the rent rises faster than the pay.
The government keeps promising 1.2 million new homes by the middle of 2029. But its own expert body, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, forecasts a shortfall of 262,000 homes, with no state on track to build its share. The government has already shown it cannot keep its word on housing, so why should Fowler believe this time is different?
Announcements do not lay a single brick. Homes are built by tradies, and we do not have enough of them. Yet from January this year the government halved apprenticeship support for many trades, cutting the payment to both apprentice and employer from $5,000 to $2,500. It says it's protected housing and construction apprentices—and, on paper, it has. But our building industry draws on the whole skills pipeline, and employer groups warn that these cuts will deepen the shortage. So when the government promises 55,000 homes, I ask, 'With which workforce?'
In Fowler, housing projects are already stalling under the rising cost of construction, materials and labour. The biggest cost of all is one we rarely talk about—tax. On a new house and land package in Sydney, government taxes, charges and regulatory costs now add up to around $576,000, according to the Housing Industry Association. That is close to half the price of an average new home of about $1.2 million; half the cost before a family even moves in goes to the government. If the government is serious about affordability, this is where it should start.
Working Australians are taxed when they earn, taxed when they shop, taxed when they drink, taxed when they drive and taxed on the very roof they sleep under. Then they're offered a small tax cut and told to be grateful. But a small cut does not touch the half a million dollars built into the price of a home. Real relief means lifting the burden of the homes our families are trying to build.
There is also the $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund for the roads and services new homes need. How it's shared out matters because not all councils start from the same place. Growth areas like Fowler carry some of the highest housing stress in the country. Our infrastructure is already stretched. South-west Sydney is one of the fastest-growing regions in the nation. We are not starting from zero; we are starting from behind. Households spend more than 30 per cent of their income on rent—sometimes 40 per cent. People come into my office in tears sometimes because they can't afford rent or don't have a house to live in.
This points to a deeper problem. At every election, the major parties pour funding into the seats they want to win, but governing for all Australians has to mean more than a chequebook at election time. The independent Grattan Institute examined billions in federal grants and found a clear pattern: government held and marginal seats received far more than the rest, while worthy projects elsewhere missed out. This is not one side of politics. Both major parties, federal and state, have done it for years. Fowler knows how this feels. For years it was treated as a safe seat, and a safe seat is one that gets taken for granted. Roads, schools and hospitals should be funded on need, not on how a seat is likely to vote. My community should not have to become marginal just to be heard.
I want more social and affordable housing, better infrastructure and a fair chance for young people to own a home and for families to rent securely. I will support any serious policy that gets us there, but I will not congratulate the government for a plan that does not guarantee a fair share for Fowler, does not prioritise growth areas and does not fix the workforce, cost and tax barriers holding back construction. My constituents deserve more than slogans. They deserve a housing system that works for them in their streets, in their suburbs and in their lifetime.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes 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.
I rise to pay tribute to Katie Allen, my dear friend, former colleague and former member for Higgins, who was taken way too soon from us through aggressive illness. Before I talk about Katie's multitude of achievements as a spectacular human who lived life to the fullest, I simply want to talk about my friend DK, short for Dr Katie. Katie; Celia Hammond, known as CC, the previous member for Curtin; and I came to this place together in 2019, and we formed a very, very special friendship immediately. We went through a whole term of ups and downs together. We endured COVID together. We were indeed in government together.
I was on the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport with Katie, Trent Zimmerman and Dr Freelander, who's in the chamber, when we worked on the inquiry report Walking the allergy tightropeKatie's speciality.
And he's waving it about; thank you. It was about the rise of allergies and anaphylaxis in Australia. Through it all, DK was always a positive force. She was full of energy and vitality. She was a thought pioneer and a staunch advocate for what she considered was right. She was never backwards in coming forwards, our DK. Katie was always willing to give her view, her support and her friendship.
Even after Katie was not successful at the 2022 and 2025 elections, she would come and see me in my office and start with, 'You're doing so well, AB; I'm so proud of you.' She was always a ray of light, our Katie, leading the way to a better day. She was brave and fierce but kind. DK was a leader cut down way too soon, taken from us at just 59.
I always believed that she had what it took to be the Prime Minister. Tragically, we'll never see that come to be. The intellect, the empathy, the compassion, the drive, the determination, the knowledge and the experience she contributed in every forum she was in was immense. She was an academic and fellow with more than 400 papers published, a researcher, a paediatrician, a scientist, a politician, a wife and a mum. But I will remember Katie as first and foremost my very good friend and confidant. I would just like to read a few words from the former opposition leader and first female Liberal Party leader, Sussan Ley:
Katie was a pioneer in every sense of the word. Long before she entered public life, she had already distinguished herself as an outstanding doctor, academic and leader in women's health. She broke barriers in medicine, championed better outcomes for mothers and children, and earned deep respect for her expertise, compassion and integrity.
When Katie stepped into politics, she brought with her the same sense of purpose that defined her professional life. She believed deeply in service. Not service for status or recognition, but service grounded in a genuine desire to improve the lives of others. She listened carefully, she worked tirelessly, and she never forgot that behind every policy debate were real people and real families.
As a woman in public life, Katie led by example. She showed that strength and kindness were not opposites, that leadership could be both principled and humane, and that conviction need not veer towards cruelty. She encouraged women to back themselves, to speak up, to support each other, and to believe that their voices mattered. Many young women—
though not just young women—
saw in Katie not just a role model, but a pathway.
Her funeral at St Paul's Cathedral Melbourne was the most beautiful service I've ever been to, befitting of our Katie, where hundreds of mourners gathered to celebrate her life. Professor Katie Allen was posthumously appointed as an Officer of the Order of Australia, an AO, in the King's Birthday 2026 Honours List. She was recognised for her distinguished service to medical research as a paediatric allergist and gastroenterologist and for her contributions to the Australian parliament as the member for Higgins from 2019 to 2022, and she thoroughly deserved it.
From those Katie lived with during the Canberra sittings—Birmo, Marise, James and Trent—and from CC and AB to those closest to dear Katie—Malcolm, Monty, Jemima, Arabella and Archie: our thoughts are with you, and may our dearest DK rest in peace forevermore. Vale, Professor Katrina Allen, 24 February 1966 to 29 January 2026.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I knew Katie Allen in a professional capacity prior to her entering this place as the second paediatrician to be elected to the House of Representatives. I dealt with her professionally in her role as the head of the Centre for Food and Allergy Research in the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. She had a national and, indeed, a worldwide reputation as a paediatric allergist and paediatric gastroenterologist. She specialised in allergy and, in particular, some of the rarer manifestations of allergies, such as eosinophilic enteritis and anaphylaxis. She had qualifications far greater than mine in an academic capacity. She was an inaugural fellow of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences. She started the longest and biggest prospective study of allergy and anaphylaxis in the developed world, called HealthNuts, which is still ongoing. She had a PhD, and her PhD thesis was on liver cell transplantation using a mouse model of Wilson's disease, a very rare but well-known cause of liver failure. She, as has been mentioned, had an Order of Australia given posthumously, which was well deserved and only a small recognition of her talents.
I respected her greatly prior to her coming here, and, when she came here, I respected her even more. I was expecting a rather patrician, aloof person elected as the member for Higgins, but what I found was just a really decent, lovely person, willing to engage on all levels, even though we represented different parties and had different political views. She was a really deep thinker, a really decent person and someone—like many paediatricians—who understood the implications of the social determinants of health and was willing to work hard to make sure that Australia led the way in paediatric health care.
She was brave and she was steadfast. She was someone who stood up for her views. I well remember the fight she had in this place with one of my colleagues, where she stood her ground—
An honourable member interjecting—
Well, it was certainly one particular one, and she stood her ground very, very strongly. I respected her views, and I think she respected mine.
We were both placed on the national COVID-19 health and medical research advisory committee run by the NHMRC, appointed by Professor Michael Kidd, the then deputy director of Health. She served wonderfully on that committee. Her insights and her views on the management of the COVID-19 pandemic were very well respected across the parliament, across the medical research group and across the state healthcare systems. She had some incredible input into that committee and did a lot to help manage the pandemic in its most acute phase. I think those in parliament at that stage recognised her contributions.
In the wider field of paediatric allergy, she provided a huge amount of input to our report delivered early in 2020, Walking the allergy tightrope. Some of her recommendations—part of our wider recommendations—are in place today and helping manage paediatric allergy across the country. It's just one of her many, many contributions to health care in this country.
I had many discussions with her about health care. We thought it was rather ironic that, of the two paediatricians in the place, I was the one that would have loved her family history of being part of the Morris family, famous in winemaking. Katie was a non-drinker, and I could have drunk the cellar dry, I'm sure, many times over.
She made a wonderful contribution while she was in this parliament and afterwards. She was incredibly brave. To her husband, Malcolm, and her children, Monty, Jemima, Arabella and Archie: I would like to let you know that I won't forget her, and neither will anyone who worked in health care during the pandemic in those years. She was taken far too young.
I'd also like to rise to pay recognition to the memory of the life of Katie Allen, the former member for Higgins. I first met Katie when she was running for the state seat of Prahran. In that feisty election, she of course put up a valiant fight against the Greens and the Labor Party, having been endorsed as the Liberal candidate for the state seat—one, of course, we were hoping to pick up, but she was not successful. But in doing so, it led to other things—let's put it that way, with respect to the great people of Prahran.
She was somebody who had a long history and a lot to contribute to this nation's parliament. Well before I knew her, she was a medical researcher, a paediatrician and a university professor, and she was involved particularly with the Australian Food Allergy Foundation—with which one of my late constituents who I spoke about earlier today, Patricia Ilhan, was actively involved. She always committed herself to advancing the best interests and wellbeing of the Australian people, in her fields of medical discipline. To be blunt, her list of publications is slightly intimidating, I suspect, for every single member of this House.
Her professional success was also matched by her private success with her family. While the member for Macarthur mentioned previously that she was a teetotaller, there was a time before that, where she met her husband—and I believe the imbibing of liquids was part of the process—at the Melbourne Cup carnival. Of course, she and Malcolm lived a very happy and long life together—but, tragically, not long enough.
Her lack of success in the state seat of Prahran—backed up by, or armed though, the experience of that, as well as her professional background—led her to this place. I still remember when Kelly O'Dwyer did a public press conference announcing her retirement from parliament. I was driving the car down the Mornington Peninsula, and I immediately picked up the phone to Katie and said, 'I think this might be your chance, Katie, to be able to stand for the federal parliament.' Quick smart, she was in the race.
She ended up serving here from 2019 to 2022. That was a very challenging term for any member who was here at that time, as I was. It was essentially the COVID term. In addition to state blockages and the various restrictions that were imposed, it was a particularly odd term, but it was like it was a term made for Katie. When issues of health rose to national prominence and all of a sudden we needed medical expertise to inform the decision-making of elected representatives, she was certainly on hand to offer her opinion to the government and to then health minister Greg Hunt, who actively used her to work with different medical agencies and to guide discussions and inform decision-making. So she might have only had one term, but I can assure you it was definitely the right term for Katie to serve in the federal parliament. She made an enormous contribution in a very short period of time.
There are a lot of personal stories that I have about Katie, but really, when it came down to it, she was spirited. She certainly made her views known. No-one's trying to pretend otherwise. But she was always actively encouraging as well in the contribution that she made in this parliament to others. And for that she'll always have our eternal respect and love. Tragically, just before she passed away towards the end of 2025, I organised with my husband, my dear friend Phil and his partner Susie to be able to catch up with Katie. Unfortunately, diary commitments clashed and meant that I wasn't able to do so, so we rescheduled to catch up early in the year. Tragically, it ended up being the date of her funeral because she passed around Christmas last year. It was a devastating blow for many people because her passing came a lot faster than we and I think she as well initially expected.
Her funeral at St Paul's was beautiful. It was, of course, an incredible celebration of her full life; 59 years in, most of us would be jealous to have achieved that much. And, of course, she's since been posthumously honoured with an Officer of the Order of Australia, which is justly and appropriately awarded. To her family and particularly to her lovely husband, Malcolm, to Monty, Jemima, Arabella and Archie, we just express our most incredible condolences. Fifty-nine—too soon. But vale, Katie Allen.
Thank you. Vale, Dr Katie Allen.
Federation C hamber adjourned at 19:28