I present report No. 12 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 29 June 2026. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

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

1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 23 June 2026.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 23 June 2026, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 29 June 2026, as follows:

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MS LE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, and for related purposes. (Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Local Industry Preference) Bill 2026)

(Notice given 22 June 2026.)

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

2 DR M RYAN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, and for related purposes. (Higher Education Support Amendment (Fix HECS) Bill 2026)

(Notice given 23 June 2026.)

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

3 MR KENNEDY: To move:

That this House:

(1) condemns the Government for using sneaky and dishonest tactics to impose higher taxes on Australians, including new and increased taxes that make it harder for families, workers and small businesses to get ahead;

(2) notes the Government's higher tax agenda is punishing aspiration, making it more difficult for Australians to build a business, invest, buy a home, save for retirement or create jobs;

(3) calls out the Government for picking winners and losers in the economy, choosing which businesses are allowed to grow and pursue aspiration while making others carry the burden of higher taxes, more red tape and rising costs;

(4) recognises the Opposition's tax plan is focused on lower, simpler and fairer taxes, rewarding hard work, backing small and family businesses, encouraging investment and helping Australians keep more of what they earn; and

(5) calls on the Government to remove its harmful new taxes, abandon its higher tax agenda and deliver genuine tax relief that supports aspiration, enterprise and economic growth.

(Notice given 23 June 2026.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Kennedy 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.

4 MR GOSLING: To move:

That this House:

(1) welcomes the Government delivering on its promise to open an additional 50 Medicare Urgent Care Clinics, with all 137 Medicare Urgent Care Clinics now operating across Australia, providing bulk billed urgent care;

(2) notes there have been more than 3.2 million presentations to Medicare Urgent Care Clinics nationwide, reducing pressure on local hospital emergency departments; and

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

(Notice given 23 June 2026.)

Time allotted 45 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Gosling 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

1 SEX DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT (SEX-BASED RIGHTS) BILL 2026 (Ms Penfold): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from 25 May 2026).

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

Speech time limits

Ms Penfold 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 DR SCAMPS: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Australia is among the highest producers of single-use plastic waste per capita in the world;

(b) the majority of plastic waste is sent to landfill, causing environmental and public health harm;

(c) there are growing concerns about the health impacts of plastics, including microplastics and associated toxins;

(d) existing voluntary approaches have failed to meaningfully reduce plastic waste or ensure producer accountability for packaging;

(e) there is broad support for a national, mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for plastics and packaging to require producers to take responsibility for the full lifecycle of their products, including from industry, environmental stakeholders and the public; and

(f) multiple Parliamentary inquiry reports have recommended the Government establish a stronger or nationally legislated EPR scheme for plastics and packaging, including the:

(i) Impact of microplastics and other toxics on human health report (2026);

(ii) No Time To Waste report (2025); and

(iii) Drowning in Waste report (2024); and

(2) calls on the Government, as a matter of urgency, to make rules under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 to establish a mandatory, national EPR scheme for plastics, which would include:

(a) binding targets for waste reduction, reuse, recycling and recycled content;

(b) eco-modulated fees based on material type and volume;

(c) a producer-funded soft plastics scheme;

(d) bans on harmful materials and chemicals in plastics; and

(e) independent enforcement mechanisms to monitor compliance and impose penalties for non-compliance.

(Notice given 23 June 2026.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

Dr Scamps 5 minutes..

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

2 MS K COOK: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) from 1 July 2026, families will be eligible to receive 130 days of Parental Leave Pay, an increase from the current 120 days;

(b) from 1 July 2025, eligible parents receiving Parental Leave Pay also receive superannuation contributions, helping to close the gender gap in retirement savings; and

(c) women continue to retire with significantly less superannuation than men, in part due to time taken out of the workforce for caring responsibilities;

(2) commends the Government for expanding Parental Leave Pay and introducing superannuation on Parental Leave Pay, recognising both as landmark steps toward gender equity in the workplace and in retirement; and

(3) recognises that sharing parental leave more equally between mothers and fathers supports women's workforce participation, promotes gender equity, and benefits Australian families and the broader economy, and

(4) supports the Government as it continues to build a world-class paid parental leave scheme that values the work of caring, supports working families, and advances gender equality for all Australians.

(Notice given 4 June 2026.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms K Cook 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

3 MR CALDWELL: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes the:

(a) Government is reducing housing supply in the midst of a housing supply crisis;

(b) Government's higher taxes will lead to 35,000 fewer homes, higher rents, and less housing investment;

(c) Government's higher taxes add to the cost of housing, with existing taxes, fees and charges already adding up to 50 per cent to the cost of a new home; and

(d) Government is already more than 100,000 dwellings behind its own 1.2 million housing target and is projected to miss the target by well over 200,000 dwellings; and

(2) calls on the Government to axe these higher taxes immediately, that are a sledgehammer on the economy.

(Notice given 23 June 2026.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Caldwell 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

4 MS AMBIHAIPAHAR: To move:

That this House:

(1) commends the Government for locking in the 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators, investing a further $3.6 billion over the next two years;

(2) recognises that this will benefit more than 200,000 educators, who had been undervalued for too long, and the families and children who rely on them every day;

(3) acknowledges that, combined with minimum wage increases, a typical full-time educator will earn around $255 a week more since the Government's first pay-rise, and an early childhood teacher around $410 a week more;

(4) welcomes investment that helps keep early learning both affordable and safe, by linking services funding eligibility to a cap on fee increases and a requirement to meet the national safety standard; and

(5) further commends the Government for:

(a) valuing early educators who do some of the most important work in the country;

(b) helping both workers and families with the cost of living; and

(c) building the early education system children deserve.

(Notice given 23 June 2026.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Ambihaipahar 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

5 MR CONAGHAN: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that the Government is failing older Australians with the transition to the new Support at Home aged care program;

(2) recognises the widespread criticism from providers, advocates, recipients and their families;

(3) notes the:

(a) algorithm in the integrated assessment tool is unfit for use and is putting vulnerable older Australians at risk, and is:

(i) producing questionable assessment outcomes such as assigning lower levels of support than needed, including high-needs people, or assessments of ineligibility where there is an obvious need for funding;

(ii) being too rigid, with little or no capacity for assessors to override the results despite clear care needs; and

(iii) resulting in disputes, reassessments and review processes further delaying access to care; and

(b) lack of adequate funding in the 2026-27 budget for additional Support at Home packages to address the long wait times for assessments, approvals and service commencement, which have resulted in unmet care needs for over 200,000 older Australians;

(4) further acknowledges concerns that 60 per cent interim funding arrangements are leaving recipients on partial funding for months and months, with limited access to essential services and adequate supports during the transition period;

(5) further recognises that the removal of regional loadings and rigid pricing structures may reduce provider viability and limit availability of services in rural, regional and remote communities; and

(6) calls on the Government to:

(a) increase the number of packages and reduce waiting times for assessments and approvals;

(b) implement oversight, clinical input, and review mechanisms in the integrated assessment tool; and

(c) treat older Australians with the dignity and respect they deserve.

(Notice given 2 June 2026.)

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

Speech time limits

Mr Conaghan 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices — continued

6 MR M SMITH: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the Government's national leadership in partnering with states and territories to strengthen the Vocational Education and Training (VET) system and help more Australians gain the skills they need for secure, well-paid jobs;

(2) observes this partnership is already delivering results in Queensland, including almost 135,000 enrolments in Free TAFE and 2,000 construction apprentice sign-ups under the Small Business Apprenticeship Pilot Program;

(3) notes that:

(a) with up to $2.52 billion in Commonwealth funding being invested in Queensland over five years, this partnership is well-placed to deliver continued growth in training opportunities and outcomes; and

(b) $85 million has already been delivered under Free TAFE, with a further $188 million in Commonwealth funding committed to Queensland over the next five years;

(4) acknowledges these outcomes demonstrate the Government's commitment in delivering real benefits to Queenslanders; and

(5) affirms that a strong, high-performing VET sector is critical to a fairer society and a more productive economy.

(Notice given 23 June 2026.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr M Smith 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

GOVERNMENT TAXES: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Kennedy—That this House:

(1) condemns the Government for using sneaky and dishonest tactics to impose higher taxes on Australians, including new and increased taxes that make it harder for families, workers and small businesses to get ahead;

(2) notes the Government's higher tax agenda is punishing aspiration, making it more difficult for Australians to build a business, invest, buy a home, save for retirement or create jobs;

(3) calls out the Government for picking winners and losers in the economy, choosing which businesses are allowed to grow and pursue aspiration while making others carry the burden of higher taxes, more red tape and rising costs;

(4) recognises the Opposition's tax plan is focused on lower, simpler and fairer taxes, rewarding hard work, backing small and family businesses, encouraging investment and helping Australians keep more of what they earn; and

(5) calls on the Government to remove its harmful new taxes, abandon its higher tax agenda and deliver genuine tax relief that supports aspiration, enterprise and economic growth.

(Notice given 23 June 2026.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices — continued

7 MS WITTY: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) World Refugee Day is observed on 20 June to honour the strength and courage of people forced to flee their homes because of conflict or persecution;

(b) Refugee Week is being held from 14 to 20 June 2026, marking 40 years of Refugee Week in Australia;

(c) 2026 marks the 75th anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention, a vital international agreement protecting the rights and dignity of refugees;

(d) Australia has now welcomed one million permanent refugee and humanitarian entrants since World War II; and

(e) refugees have made an extraordinary contribution to modern Australia across community life, culture, business, sport and public service; and

(2) acknowledges the Government's commitment to Australia's humanitarian program, including the 20,000-place annual Humanitarian Program, and its ongoing support for refugee protection, international cooperation and the rights and dignity of people forced to flee.

(Notice given 23 June 2026.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Witty 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

8 MR LEESER: To move:

That this House:

(1) supports all schools, regardless of sector, and affirms its commitment to giving all Australian children a world class education regardless of whether they attend government, independent or Catholic schools;

(2) recognises the vital contribution of independent, Catholic and other non-government schools to our education system, including through low-fee schools, regional and remote schools, special assistance schools, faith-based schools, boarding schools and schools supporting students with disability;

(3) affirms that parents, not governments, know what is best for their children and acknowledges that parents choose schools because of the quality, values, opportunity, safety, and the individual needs of their children;

(4) acknowledges that families make significant financial sacrifices to choose the school that is right for them, and affirms that these choices should be supported;

(5) rejects divisive rhetoric that paints families who choose non-government schools as part of a privileged elite;

(6) further affirms that Government funding is about funding for students, not institutions or sectors;

(7) further recognises that Commonwealth school education programs should be sector-neutral and needs-based, rather than being restricted or designed around school sector;

(8) notes the importance of funding certainty for schools and families, including beyond the expiry of the Choice and Affordability Fund in 2029, which supports non-government schools including independent and Catholic schools;

(9) rejects attempts to target non-government schools through special taxes and policy changes, and calls on the Victorian State Government in particular to wind back its divisive and damaging policies which are hurting families who choose non-government schools for their children; and

(10) calls on the Government to:

(a) ensure any future school funding arrangements support:

(i) parent choice;

(ii) affordability;

(iii) regional and remote provision;

(iv) students with disability;

(v) special assistance schools; and

(vi) schools serving disadvantaged communities;

(b) protect parent choice;

(c) treat students fairly; and

(d) ensure school funding policy caters to the full diversity of schools that parents choose for their children.

(Notice given 23 June 2026.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Leeser 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

9 MS TEMPLEMAN: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes the 80th anniversary of the commencement of nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific, during which over 300 nuclear detonations were conducted across the Marshall Islands, French Polynesia, Kiribati and surrounding region;

(2) gives solemn acknowledgment of the harmful and enduring environmental, cultural, and health consequences of cumulative historical United States', French, and British nuclear testing in the region, carried out between 1946 and 1996, including the:

(a) exposure of hundreds of thousands of Marshallese, Ma'ohi, and I-Kiribati people to levels of radiation which have contributed to increased cancer rates and other illnesses related to radiation exposure;

(b) exposure of tens of thousands of military service members and workers to radiation levels which have resulted in ongoing consequences for their health and the health of their families;

(c) loss of culture, health and social cohesion resulting from the forced relocation and displacement that separated Pacific islanders from their families, homes, and ancestral lands; and

(d) widespread environmental impacts which include the contamination of drinking water, food sources and arable land, and the damage to coral reefs and marine ecosystems;

(3) supports the continued strengthening of Australia's deep partnership with the Pacific family and our longstanding regional cooperation, and in this context, recognises the significance of:

(a) Australia's continued efforts to support radiation monitoring and nuclear test site assessment in partnership with Pacific nations while recognising that more work can be done to fully address the fallout that persists at former nuclear test sites; and

(b) Australia's foundational role in and continued implementation of the obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which in December 2026 will mark 40 years since it entered into force;

(4) further notes Australia's history of British nuclear weapons testing in the Monte Bello Islands, Emu Field, and Maralinga, and the disproportionate and ongoing impacts this continues to have on First Nations communities and the environmental and cultural value of their country and the significant impacts on Australian service members and their families;

(5) affirms the importance of sustained international commitment to nuclear non-proliferation through established multilateral frameworks that advance peace and collective security, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons;

(6) commends the advocacy of victims/survivors in Australia and the Pacific for their steadfast commitment to advancing global nuclear disarmament and their leading role in advancing, signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, including its entry into force in 2027; and

(7) emphasises the urgent imperative for all states to refrain from nuclear weapons testing and to engage in genuine, transparent, and verifiable nuclear disarmament efforts in line with their commitments to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty, including its entry into force, which Australia and its Pacific neighbours strongly support.

(Notice given 23 June 2026.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Templeman 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

10 MS ALDRED: To move:

That this House notes the:

(1) $41.9 billion collapse in revenue from tobacco excise in this year's budget, and that downgraded forecasts now reveal the Government expects to collect just $2.1 billion, the lowest tobacco excise collection this century, despite a 282 per cent increase in the excise rate since 2013;

(2) Government's failure to arrest smoking rates;

(3) continued and rapid escalation of violent crime from the illegal tobacco trade, including over 200 firebombings of supermarkets and tobacconists since 2023 under this Government as well as the proceeds funding terrorist activities; and

(4) calls by the New South Wales State Premier Chris Minns and former Deputy Australian Chief Medical Officer Dr Nick Coatsworth for a complete overhaul of tobacco excise and law enforcement resourcing to combat illegal tobacco.

(Notice given 2 June 2026.)

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

Speech time limits

Ms Aldred 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

THE HON D. M. DICK MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

24 June 2026

I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 and Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill.

Today I speak on the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. The coalition will not oppose this bill through the House of Representatives, but we will reserve our position in the Senate. Reducing red tape and unnecessary regulation is something the coalition strongly supports. Good regulation, to the extent it exists, protects Australians, but excessive, complex regulation increases costs for businesses and households. It slows down investment and discourages innovation and, more importantly, it constrains time, investment and building out the future of Australia. Reducing red tape isn't just about removing safeguards; it's about ensuring that regulation serves the public interest efficiently, making sure that capital is deployed and that energy and investment are going where they need to go to build out a better country for us all.

Australia's administrative and regulatory burden is the second-highest in the G7, behind only Japan, and we rank 37th out of 43 on the OECD ranking for administrative and regulatory burden. Small businesses spend the equivalent of nearly a full day each week on business activity statements, wage awards, licences, insurance and privacy obligations. Of course, this is to the advantage of those who are the brokers in these conversations—in particular, trade unionists—but it is not good for Australians or workers. Forty per cent of owners say payroll tax and workplace laws stopped them hiring staff in the past year.

According to the OECD, the cost to businesses of complying with federal regulations has risen to $160 billion, 5.8 per cent of GDP, up from $65 billion, 4.2 per cent of GDP, in 2013. Board time on compliance has doubled from 24 per cent to 55 per cent. So, there you go, half the time of a board is spent focused just on managing regulation and regulatory compliance. That's happened in 10 years, while the external legal spend now sits at $16 billion, up from $6 billion in 2010.

You can see why, prior to the budget, we saw the Alliance of Industry Associations, made up of nearly 30 groups representing small, medium and large businesses and universities, calling on all levels of government to reduce red tape costs and commit to a 25 per cent reduction in unnecessary regulation by 2030. But it fell on deaf ears. As COSBOA CEO Skye Cappuccio said:

For small businesses, red tape often means hours each week spent navigating compliance complexity instead of running their business. That's time taken away from customers, staff and growth. Reducing duplication would ease costs and support stronger productivity growth across the economy.

At a time when productivity is flat and has already fallen more than five per cent under this Labor government, lifting productivity and encouraging growth should be a paramount focus for the government. Labor says this bill, to quote the minister's second reading speech directly, 'will support the government's work to build an economy that is more dynamic, more resilient and more productive for all Australians'. I'd like to believe that, but we know the loose relationship with the truth that this government has.

This bill is a fine step towards simplifying and removing some unnecessary regulation, but it is only a small step. Many of the measures in the bill are modest administrative changes that will benefit specific groups of businesses, individuals and government agencies, but they are not the kind of reforms that will materially shift Australia's productivity or reduce the growth of compliance burden for business. If the government genuinely believes regulatory reform is a key productivity lever, then Australia needs reforms that tackle the major drivers of compliance costs faced by businesses.

Let's look at what this bill actually seeks to achieve. The bill includes 21 measures amending 26 acts and repealing two acts, affecting 19 Commonwealth government agencies. There are sensible measures throughout it. There are provisions that simplify administrative processes, reduce duplication and make government systems work more effectively. The intellectual property reforms, including changes to trademarks and plant breeders' rights, will reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and make it easier for Australian businesses and innovators to protect their ideas and bring new products to market. That's good. Likewise, the antidumping measures will improve the efficiency of Australia's trade remedies system by speeding up decision-making processes and reducing delays for businesses seeking refunds and reviews. We also support the 'tell us once' reforms. The coalition announced a commitment to these principles before the last election. Once again, Labor is following the coalition. So we remain pleased to see the government embrace this idea.

Australians rightly expect government agencies to work together and make better use of information that has already been provided. These are practical reforms that reduce duplication, improve service delivery and make interactions with government less frustrating for individuals and businesses alike. But there are also measures in this bill that simply won't shift the dial. Take, for example, the two measures which repeal the two acts that have been made redundant, two measures that will make the statute book cleaner, but they are not reforms that will materially reduce costs for businesses, households or taxpayers.

While the coalition will not be opposing this bill in the House, there are, however, two measures that are of concern. Part 3 of schedule 2 repeals section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which currently requires Commonwealth entities to disclose payments made to advertising agencies, market research organisations, polling organisations, direct mail organisations and media advertising organisations. The government claims that this reporting requirement is unnecessary because Commonwealth entities are already required to disclose information about advertising campaigns under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, but that is not an equivalent transparency measure. What a shock—this government is trying to hide something again, including the truth. The PGPA reporting requirement only requires departments and agencies to disclose advertising campaigns they have undertaken. They do not explicitly require disclosure of payments made for polling, market research or other related services, which are, of course, something we know the government will have spent an awful lot of money on in the lead-up to the last budget, and no doubt they'll be market testing every other of their—it's too generous to use the word 'ideas'. Let's just say 'positions', because you never quite know when they're going to change next.

The Department of Finance does produce a consolidated report on campaign advertising for all government departments and agencies published in December of each year. However, there are two points to make about these reports. The first is that there is no explicit requirement in the PGPA for disclosure of market research. The coalition would hate to see that being taken advantage of for less information to be provided to the Australian public about the money being spent on government campaigns. The second is that the change makes it more difficult for ordinary Australians to track down how much is being spent on campaigns by the relevant agency or department. So, if an Australian wants to know how much the department of employment spent on a campaign, their first instinct is to look at the department of employment's website. That is not unreasonable. If they want information about a Treasury campaign, they do the same to the Treasury website. That is exactly where the information is available today. This change centralises that reporting into a single annual Finance report, making it harder to find, harder to compare and harder for the public to scrutinise. What a shock—a Labor government hiding information from the Australian people, because how dare Australians ask simple questions!

Transparency is not just about whether information exists somewhere in government; it's about whether that information is accessible, discoverable and easy for Australians to find. Good transparency measures should bring information closer to the public, not move it further away. At a time when trust in institutions is under pressure—that's a very generous way of putting it. When the trust has been utterly destroyed by this Labor government through their betrayal of the Australian people and saying one thing before an election and then doing something explicitly directly after in deceit of the Australian people, we should be making it easier for Australians to see how taxpayers' money is being spent, not requiring them to search through consolidated reports on a different department's website to find answers. Transparency should not be viewed as an administrative burden. It is a fundamental element of public accountability. This proposal is particularly concerning given the government's repeated promises about openness and transparency. But, let's face it, no-one really believes them anymore.

Australians were promised the most transparent government ever. Instead, we continue to see measures that reduce scrutiny and make it harder for the public to understand how taxpayer money is being spent. The government says that this is a minor administrative change, but transparency measures are often only noticed when they are removed. If the government wants to streamline reporting, it should do so without diminishing public scrutiny, while ensuring Australians can easily find information about how taxpayers' money is being spent.

The other item of concern in this bill is contained in schedule 2, part 4. This item removes the requirement of the Australian Human Rights Commission to notify a person when an adverse allegation has been made about them in a discrimination complaint, where they are not themselves a respondent to the complaint. Having been Australia's human rights commissioner, I do have a mild insight into these matters. The government's justification for this change is that its notification process is inefficient, creates confusion and adds administrative burden for the commission. Not unreasonably, I think that, if complaints are made against somebody, they should probably know about them. But procedural fairness should not be sacrificed simply because a process is administratively convenient. Just like the truth and just like a policy one took to the last election, you can't just change your position because it suits you. If an adverse allegation is made about an individual, that person should be made aware of it. That principle should apply regardless of whether they are formally named as a respondent to the complaint.

The explanatory memorandum argues that these individuals are not parties to the complaint and are not subject to legal consequences arising from it, but that misses the point. An allegation can still have serious reputational consequences. It can still concern personal conduct, and it can still form part of a process being considered by a statutory body. At a minimum, individuals should have the opportunity to know that allegations concerning them have been raised. Let's face it; every single Labor member has a right to know that the Australian people currently think that they have a very loose relationship with the truth. If similar allegations are made against others, perhaps they should know as well. Imagine finding out that you've been named in a complaint by doing a Google search of your name. That is a very real risk from this change. While administrative efficiency is important, it cannot be the sole consideration.

Taken together, those transparency and procedural fairness concerns warrant closer examination. That is why the coalition believes this bill should be referred to a Senate inquiry. The coalition supports sensible deregulation. We support reducing unnecessary red tape. We support making it easier for Australians and Australian businesses to interact with government. There are measures in this bill that achieve those objectives, and they deserve support. But there is an important distinction between removing burdensome bureaucracy and removing safeguards that protect transparency and procedural fairness.

The concerns we have raised today are not about preserving unnecessary regulation. They're about preserving accountability and fairness. Australians should be able to see how taxpayers' money is being spent. Individuals should be informed when serious allegations are being made against them. Those are not administrative inconveniences, unless you're a Labor government. They are fundamental principles of good government, which is probably why they're being thrown by the wayside.

This bill contains some worthwhile reforms, but it also demonstrates the limits of the government's approach to regulatory reform. At a time when Australia's productivity challenge is becoming more acute, Australians should expect more than legislative housekeeping dressed up as regulatory reform. At a time when Australian businesses are carrying a regulatory burden worth hundreds of billions of dollars—and, yes, it is that high—and when productivity growth has stalled—yes, it definitely has—this bill represents only a modest step forward or, arguably, more like a single step forward.

Australia needs a more ambitious agenda for deregulation, productivity and economic growth. For those reasons, while the coalition will not oppose this bill in the House of Representatives, we believe the matters raised in relation to transparency and procedural fairness warrant further examination, and we will be seeking a Senate inquiry into this bill to achieve that objective. We all know that if you actually want to achieve regulatory reform, if you want to build a better Australia and if you want to see a change and a direction that builds out the future growth of the Australian economy, we need a change of government. To that end, I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026. The coalition will support the passage of this bill. This is, in broad terms, a technical but practical piece of legislation. It amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate into the act a number of tariff changes that have already been given effect in the parliament through Customs tariff proposals. That is a well-established mechanism in customs law. Tariff changes are often initiated through Customs tariff proposals before being incorporated into the act through subsequent amending legislation. It allows changes to take effect promptly while still ensuring that the parliament has the opportunity to consider and legislate for them.

The bill contains two central measures. The first is the removal of a further 497 so-called nuisance tariffs from 1 July 2026. This follows the first tranche of nuisance tariff removals in 2024, when 457 tariffs were abolished by having their existing rate of duty reset to 'free'. The second is the extension of duty-free treatment for most Ukrainian goods for a further two years to 3 July 2028, and an accompanying extension to 24 October 2027 of the extra 35 per cent Customs duty on goods from Russia and Belarus.

In addition to the nuisance tariff measures, the coalition supports sensible tariff simplification where it reduces unnecessary compliance costs and does not undermine Australian industry. Low-yield tariffs that generate little revenue, provide little or no meaningful protection, and impose disproportionate administrative costs are difficult to justify. In many cases, these tariffs apply to goods that already enter Australia duty-free under free trade agreements or other concession arrangements. That means Australian businesses can still be required to spend time and money navigating paperwork, classification issues or concession arrangements even where the practical value of the tariff is limited. That is not good policy. Australian businesses should not be forced to carry unnecessary compliance burdens where those burdens serve no meaningful economic purpose. Importers, Customs brokers and border agencies should not be made to amend resources dealing with low-yield tariffs that provide little benefit. Where a tariff raises little revenue, does not serve a meaningful industry policy purpose and simply creates unnecessary work, it should indeed be subject to abolition or repeal. That is the basic principle behind this aspect of the bill, and the coalition supports this principle.

We also note that the 2024 Treasury consultation process on these kinds of changes attracted support from major business groups, including the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and a range of other stakeholders also pointed to benefits including lower red tape, consumer benefits, active transport, energy transition, health, and cost-of-living considerations in a general sense. However, the coalition's support for tariff simplification does not mean that every concern raised through that process should be dismissed. Some domestic manufacturing and industry stakeholders identified concerns about the potential impact of tariff removal on local manufacturing, sovereign capability, circular economy outcomes, domestic processing, emerging advanced manufacturing, specialised production and fair competition. These concerns do not justify blocking this bill in its entirety, but they do mean that the government should be clearer than it has been to date about how the final list of nuisance tariffs was chosen, what sectoral modelling was undertaken and how potential impacts on domestic industry were assessed.

The government should also provide more detailed information about the financial impact of these measures. This the bill is intended to produce compliance savings for business and administrative efficiencies for government, and that is welcome, but there remains limited public detail about the overall revenue impact, the sectors most exposed to the changes, and the expected value of the compliance savings for importers and Customs brokers. The government should provide that information. It should also be cautious about overstating any cost-of-living benefits. Tariff removal may reduce costs at the import or wholesale level; however, it is not guaranteed that every saving will flow through to consumers at the checkout. Those are not reasons to halt the passage of the bill through the House, but, to us, they make obvious that there is cause for better clarity to be provided about what this legislation will and will not achieve.

Australian businesses continue to face very significant pressures under the Albanese government, including enormous energy and labour costs, complex regulation and weak productivity growth. Removing nuisance tariffs may help at the margins, but it does not address the deeper economic pressures that are being felt by businesses and households across the country, and it should not be lost on Australians that any benefits from this bill will be completely dwarfed by the tax increases that will hit millions of Australians as a result of Labor's atrocious budget. The Albanese government is seeking to force through tax increases that will hit millions of Australians, and the coalition opposes them. We will scrap Labor's toxic taxes and deliver substantially larger tax cuts for every income earner.

In relation to the Ukraine measure in the bill, the coalition strongly supports the extension of duty-free treatment for most Ukrainian goods. This measure was first established by the former coalition government in 2022, following Russia's military invasion of Ukraine. It was part of Australia's broader response to that invasion, and it was intended to support Ukraine's economy and help maintain Ukraine's participation in international trade at a time of extraordinary national crisis. Australia's support for Ukraine has been bipartisan and should remain bipartisan, and the continuation of tariff relief for Ukrainian goods is both practical and symbolic. It is a practical contribution to Ukraine's economic resilience, which is so important to their overall war effort, and it is also a symbolic demonstration that Australia continues to stand with Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. The measure is appropriately targeted. Excise equivalent goods, including certain alcohol, fuel, tobacco and petroleum products remain outside the general benefit of the concession. For those reasons, the coalition supports this aspect of the bill as well.

In essence, this bill is largely technical, but it gives effect to sensible objectives. It simplifies aspects of Australia's tariff system, removes low yield nuisance tariffs, reduces unnecessary compliance burdens and extends Australia's tariff relief for Ukraine. The coalition will therefore support the passage of the bill through the House. However, we say that the government should also better account for the detail behind it, particularly in relation to any recent consultation; the treatment of domestic industry concerns, especially in relation to advanced manufacturing; and the accuracy of any claims around the overall economic benefits. With that, I thank the House.

Debate adjourned.

This bill should really be called 'Bringing the CFMEU to Canberra', because that is what this bill is all about, and the deceitful and dishonest way the government is ramming this bill through is an utter disgrace. It will have enormous consequences for all major federal government procurement processes. What it will mean is we will see cost blowouts on all of those. We will see cost overruns on all of those. We will see time delays. It will be an absolute debacle. I cannot believe that this government is doing this. It only has to look at where state governments have done this kind of dirty deal to see what the implications are going to be for this nation. Look at Queensland under the previous Labor government, and have a look at the disasters that occurred because of legislation like this. Then go to Victoria, the state which is completely and utterly broke, where we've seen the CFMEU not only infiltrating workplaces but then also bringing with it organised crime into those workplaces. Now, we're seeing from judicial inquiries that there is $15 billion worth of corruption in these major projects in Victoria.

What does the Albanese Labor government do? It decides that it'd better follow what's happening in Victoria and what happened in Queensland. This is appalling. It's atrocious. That is why we will oppose this legislation. We oppose the way the government is going about it as well. Once again, it shows we have a dishonest Prime Minister who says one thing before an election and then does the complete opposite after—but I'll get to that later.

Let's have a look what serious industry groups are saying about what the Labor Party are trying to ram through with this bill. The Business Council of Australia has warned that public money should go to businesses that can deliver, not businesses that have signed the right union agreement. The Ai Group has warned that the proposal risks undermining freedom of association. It undermines freedom of association by opening the door to governments forcing employers and employees to strike deals with unions in order to commercially deal with the government. I wonder who they've got in mind. They're going to force companies to do deals with the CFMEU. Good on you, Albanese Labor government. That's just going to do wonders for value for money for the Australian taxpayer. What does Master Builders Australia say? They've warned that the provisions may unfairly exclude businesses lawfully operating under awards, including small businesses in the building and construction industry.

If you're a business, lawfully going about what you do, but you don't have the preferred union contract that the government wants you to sign up on, then, bad luck, you're not going to get the deal. Why would they be doing this, especially when it comes to the building sector? They want their mates in the CFMEU in on the deal. It's an absolute national disgrace what they're trying to ram through the parliament. What does the Housing Industry Association say? They have raised concerns that the bill effectively fast tracks the Secure Australian Jobs Code while that process is still in consultation and development.

What the government is trying to do is, without even putting in place proper protections, look after their mates. It just goes to show you what the priorities of this government are. Their first priority is to make sure you're taxed more. We've got Sir Tax-a-lot, the Treasurer, wanting to find more and more ways to tax you. That's the first thing they want to do. They want to spend more, and they're trying to find every which way they can to spend the taxpayer dollar. That spending, which is at record levels, is going to increase even more now because they're going to make sure that major projects have a dirty deal with the union movement on them. What's that going to lead to? It's going to lead to time overruns and cost overruns.

If you want an example, have a look at Snowy Hydro. You've got the most incompetent minister the Commonwealth has ever seen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Not only did he change the contract arrangements, which has seen a blow-out from $6 billion to $12 billion, but they're now forecasting it could go as high as $42 billion. Guess what they've done with Snowy? They've also done a workplace relations deal that's likely to add billions and billions of dollars. So you can take what the minister for climate change has done and just say, 'Well, that's what's going to happen across the board now with all these Commonwealth procurement proposals.' It beggars belief that they would want to do it, especially when you can see the damage and the harm that has been done across the nation where state Labor governments have done this type of thing. It beggars belief that they would be trying to do it.

And it not only beggars belief that they're doing it, but so does the way that they're doing it. It's so underhanded. Because guess what they've done. They've put it in with another bill that is about improving the Fair Work Commission and how it goes about its job and trying to make it more timely. And guess what the Prime Minister said about this type of 'wedge-islation'. This is what he said on the record, and he's said it numerous times on the record—and once again it shows you how dishonest he is. This is what he said at his first press conference as Prime Minister on 23 May 2022:

I look forward to leading a Government that makes Australians proud. A Government that doesn't seek to divide, that doesn't seek to have wedges …

That was at his first press conference. Then, when he addressed the caucus, when he addressed all the Labor Party members, this is what he said:

We want to be more inclusive. We want to make sure there's less shouting and more delivery. The former government sat around and talked about how to wedge the other side of politics. We're not really interested in that.

And they just sat back and let him be dishonest. You can't make this stuff up. You cannot make this up. That's at his first caucus meeting as Prime Minister, after his first press conference as Prime Minister.

And then, as opposition leader, in the House of Reps on 17 September 2019 he said:

The objective is not to promote legislation; it's to promote 'wedgislation'—it's about trying to find legislation that the Labor Party will oppose. This is a great example of it. It's a government really in search of an agenda and a plan.

Well, you've been damned by your own words, Prime Minister. This is what he said at a doorstop as opposition leader in May 2022: 'This is a guy who never looks to bring people together, who never looks for unity. It's always just looking for wedges and always looking for division.' Once again, damned by your own words, Prime Minister.

This is what he said on 10 May 2022: 'I want to bring people together. I think we've had a decade of division, a decade of a Prime Minister who is always looking for the wedge. What we need to do is actually work out what our common interests are.' I can tell you: this bill is 'wedge-islation' and there is no common interest in it. And yet you're happy for it to be rammed through the parliament in this form. It is a disgrace.

This is what he said on 3 May 2022: 'For this guy, everything is an opportunity to play politics. He doesn't have legislation, he has "wedge-islation". They sit around the cabinet. They don't think about the national interest. They think about how they can wedge Labor on this issue.' Seriously, the hypocrisy knows no bounds. I can go on and on, but I will give one more example. It's like Pinocchio's nose growing. It's example after example after example; it just grows and grows and grows. He said:

My opponent is always looking for an argument, always looking for a disagreement, never looking for a solution.

…   …   …

I think really people are sick of a government that has 'wedgislation', as I call it, looking to wedge the Opposition rather than legislation.

Talk about damned by your own incompetence. Talk about damned by your own words. Talk about damned by your deceit. Talk about being absolutely damned by your hypocrisy.

I've talked about the 'wedge-islation', and this is where it becomes important as to how the opposition is going to deal with this bill. The coalition supports practical reforms that improve the operation of the Fair Work Commission—we have been clear on that. But we cannot support the bill in its current form while it contains these appalling provisions that will bring the CFMEU to Canberra. We cannot support that.

The government should split the bill. That is why the opposition has circulated detailed amendments to that effect. We don't want the CFMEU coming to Canberra. Why those opposite do is beyond me, but we do not. This is where it goes to the 'wedge-islation'. I want to make very clear what the government has done here. Yesterday's gag motion—this was gagged—from the Leader of the House will mean that there will be no opportunity for the opposition to speak to other amendments. This matters because, at this stage, the opposition has circulated an amendment which tries to achieve the same objectives as the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. I understand that the member for Wentworth's amendment will be considered first, therefore obviating the opposition's amendment. Without Labor's gag, the opposition may have been able to move its amendment first. That's what we were going to do. As it stands, Labor's gag motion prevents the normal consideration-in-detail process from occurring. Still, if our circulated amendment were to pass, the coalition would support this bill because we'd take out the 'bring the CFMEU to Canberra' part and deal with the Fair Work Commission part. But it doesn't. That is why we will not support this bill. We will not stand by and allow the government to rush through under a gag motion this appalling piece of legislation which brings the CFMEU back to Canberra and basically opens the taxpayer up to enormous cost overruns, which is the last thing we need as a country at this moment.

In a surprising moment in this place, the member for Wannon opposes legislation that fundamentally is focused on workplace relations reform. What a shocker! And it's so unsurprising in actual fact because the member for Wannon voted against same job, same pay. He reckons that, if you're working side-by-side, you shouldn't be getting paid the same. The member for Wannon sent manufacturing workers overseas and thought that their jobs should be offshored. These are the architects of WorkChoices. They're the architects of AWAs. They are the people who are the natural enemy of working Australians. And they've got their backs up today because one of their favourite pastimes is giving working people a big kick. Like Dennis Shanahan, I don't think that endless alliteration and the new wordplay that we've heard today is anywhere near sound political strategy, but I'll play along.

The member for Wannon is the worst for workers not only because of the positions that they've taken in terms of workplace relations not just over this term but for decades but also because of what the coalition have stood for when it comes to reforms that help everyday working Australians every day. That's why they voted against a tax cut for every working Australian. That's why they chose to vote against policy that would assist working Australians to get into their very first home. And that's why they voted against every single piece of cost-of-living relief moved by this Labor government.

Across my electorate on Brisbane's south side, people work hard for their families. Whether it's a tradie from Coopers Plains heading out before dawn, a nurse at the QEII hospital finishing a long shift or a barista in Sunnybank, people want the same thing. They want a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, they want secure employment and they want a workplace relations system that works for them. A system that protects workers, a system that supports business, a system that rewards productivity and helps people get ahead—that's what this bill is about.

The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026 makes a series of practical improvements to Australia's workplace relations framework. These changes are designed to ensure Australia's workplace relations system remains fair and is efficient and capable of delivering better outcomes for workers, employers and indeed the broader economy. Legislation such as this is often portrayed by those opposite as a choice between supporting workers and supporting business, but the reality is that strong economies and strong workplaces depend on both of those things. They depend on workers having secure jobs, fair wages and confidence in their rights at work, and they depend on businesses having the certainty to invest, to innovate and to create opportunities.

My local electorate is full of fantastic small businesses. The other day I was at French & Mor cafe in Sunnybank with Bianca. I was also at Endua in Archerfield, which specialises in electrolyser technology. I was talking to Richard Huang, who heads up the Taiwanese Chamber of Commerce. They're all on the south side and all running strong small businesses. What they all have in common is that they want certainty for those businesses and a workplace relations system that is fair, that is effective and that is fit for purpose and helps make that possible. That's why it's important that our workplace laws and institutions continue to evolve alongside the workplaces, the industries and the technologies that they are designed to support. This bill contains a series of practical reforms designed to strengthen that system—so, no, it is not surprising that those opposite don't support it.

The Fair Work Commission sits at the core of Australia's workplace relations system. Every year, it assists thousands of workers and employers to resolve disputes, to negotiate agreements and to access workplace protections. When the commission works well, disputes are resolved more quickly, uncertainty is reduced and workplaces can move forward. But, when delays occur, the consequences are felt by everyone. Workers can be left waiting months for certainty about their future, businesses can be left navigating lengthy and costly processes, and resources that should be directed towards resolving disputes can instead be consumed by procedural issues.

I cut my teeth representing working people in the manufacturing industry. When you sit down with someone who doesn't know what's going to happen with their job, who's not sure where their next pay cheque might come from, who can't plan for what their family might be able to do in the months and years ahead—that's a problem. This bill responds to those challenges. It introduces a series of practical reforms that will help the commission manage its workload more effectively and resolve those kinds of matters more efficiently.

Importantly, these reforms are not about reducing workplace protections, nor are they about limiting access to the commission. They are about ensuring the commission can focus its time and resources where they matter the most—resolving disputes, supporting bargaining and delivering outcomes. The bill streamlines a number of administrative processes and provides additional mechanisms to deal with applications that are frivolous, are vexatious or have no reasonable prospects of success. That matters and it matters because every hour spent dealing with matters that have little prospect of success is an hour that cannot be spent assisting workers and employers with genuine workplace disputes that need to be resolved so that all parties can move forward.

The bill also responds to practical challenges that have emerged in recent years, including growing workloads and increasing complexity across the workplace relations system. Following a Federal Court decision several years ago, the commission has often been required to determine complex jurisdictional questions before parties can even begin the process of conciliation or mediation. The complexity starts before they even get to the table to try and work things through. In practical terms, this can mean that workers and employers spend additional time and resources arguing about whether a matter can be heard before they've even had an opportunity to attempt to resolve the dispute itself.

This bill restores a much more practical approach. It allows the commission to move more quickly to assisting parties to resolve disputes through conciliation and mediation, while preserving that ability for substantive issues to be properly considered if a matter proceeds further. That is sensible reform. It would allow the commission to focus its resources on helping parties reach outcomes, rather than getting bogged down in procedural questions. Fair outcomes are what's important here. That's what this legislation is about. We know it impacts on livelihoods. We know it impacts on family planning. We know that it goes beyond the worker and the business. It goes to the people surrounding them. For working people, it goes to the impact on their families. For businesses, it goes to the aftermarket and their employees. Ensuring that that is resolved as soon as possible is surely a logical, simple and straightforward reform that the Australian people need.

As we've said, the bill also strengthens the commission's ability to deal with applications that are frivolous. The overwhelming majority of people who engage with the Fair Work Commission do so legitimately and in good faith, but where processes are misused, it places additional pressure on the system and it delays outcomes for others wanting to use the system to resolve their challenges. These measures will help protect the integrity of the commission while ensuring genuine applicants continue to have access to workplace protections and dispute resolution mechanisms. Labor understands that workers deserve timely outcomes, that employers deserve timely outcomes and that the Fair Work Commission deserves the tools necessary to perform its role effectively for everyone.

One of the most effective ways of building productive and cooperative workplaces is through good-faith bargaining. Enterprise bargaining allows workers and employees to negotiate arrangements that reflect the particular needs of that workplace. When bargaining works well, workers can secure improved wages and conditions, employers can secure arrangements that support productivity, flexibility and long-term planning, and workplaces can develop solutions that benefit both parties.

This bill also includes practical reforms designed to streamline bargaining processes in circumstances where parties have already established successful bargaining relationships. We don't want things to get bogged down. We want to make sure that, if people can come to the table, they can find fair outcomes. Rather than requiring workers and employers to repeat unnecessary procedural steps over and over, these changes allow bargaining to proceed more efficiently, where appropriate safeguards are already in place. This is not about changing the fundamental principles of bargaining. It's about reducing unnecessary duplication and allowing parties to focus on reaching agreements and, again, to focus on reaching outcomes.

This bill also includes a practical change to bargaining arrangements. Where employers and workers have already successfully negotiated a supported bargaining agreement and wish to bargain for a replacement agreement covering substantially the same cohort, the legislation creates a more streamlined pathway to recommence that bargaining. At present, parties can be required to repeat that again and again. It means that additional administrative burden for employers, employee representatives and the commission can come off.

The reforms before the House recognise that, where bargaining relationships are already established and already functioning effectively, unnecessary procedural duplication serves little purpose. Instead, parties should be able to focus their efforts on negotiating those outcomes. This is a practical example of the broader purpose of this bill: protecting rights and maintaining safeguards while ensuring that the workplace relations system operates as efficiently as possible.

The bill also removes an outdated restriction that currently prevents the Commonwealth from considering enterprise agreements when making certain procurement and funding decisions. Importantly, this does not require businesses to have enterprise agreements; nor does it override value-for-money requirements. This bill forms part of the Albanese Labor government's broader commitment to supporting workers. That's in our blood; it's in our DNA. We have always been the party that backs workers in when they need it most, and strengthening job security and helping Australians to manage cost-of-living pressures is an important part of that.

That's why this government has strengthened job security. It's why we delivered same job, same pay. We've criminalised wage theft. We've introduced the right to disconnect. We've expanded paid parental leave. In one week's time, mums and dads across this nation will be able to access 26 weeks of paid parental leave. These reforms are designed to help Australians, and, at its core, this bill is about ensuring that Australia's workplace relations system continues to work as intended and continues to work for everyday working Australians.

It gives me great pleasure to speak after that ideological sermon that we had to just witness here from the former secretary of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland.

The ideology of treating workers well?

What that ideological sermon failed to do was speak about half of this bill, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. It spoke about only one part, which was very convenient, and it's the part of this legislation that is non-controversial. I say to those opposite that you should be absolutely ashamed of what you're trying to do. You're bringing the CFMEU to Canberra, and this is all about politics. It's all politics, despite the fact that we've got a prime minister, a treasurer and a government who have continuously said that they're going to do politics differently and that they're going to work in the interests of the Australian people. It's all rubbish, and we're seeing that today in this legislation.

The coalition has long said that it will support practical reforms that help the Fair Work Commission deal with its workload. There are some serious issues that the Fair Work Commission has encountered over the last couple of years, and part of this legislation is designed to address that. But the government shouldn't be using those sensible Fair Work Commission reforms as cover for passing other, unrelated, procurement changes that are going to mean Australians and the Australian taxpayer are worse off. The bill should be split.

I don't know how many times I've come into this chamber in the 12 months that I've been here and had this same conversation, time and time again, where the government finds some legislation that they know is going to have support from the opposition because it's reasonable. And what do they do? They find something that is going to give them a political strategic benefit or ideological advantage and put it through the same legislation and try and ram it through the parliament. That's what we're seeing here today.

Let's talk about the process. The Parliament of Australia is a place of debate, and it should be a debate that is free flowing. It should be a debate where we consider the detail of what is proposed by the government of the day. But what did we see yesterday? We saw the Leader of the House come in here and announce a suspension motion which, in effect, guillotines debate on the bill. It wasn't only relevant to this bill, but it also contained a series of gags on other controversial legislation.

How does this compare to what the Prime Minister has said in the past about how he's going to do business differently and how he's going to conduct himself as Prime Minister of this country? In his very first press conference, the Prime Minister said:

I look forward to leading a Government that makes Australians proud. A Government that doesn't seek to divide, that doesn't seek to have wedges …

In his very first caucus address as Prime Minister, he said:

We want to be more inclusive. We want to make sure there's less shouting and more delivery. The former government sat around and talked about how to wedge the other side of politics.

There's a theme here. As opposition leader, even before he came into government, in relation to our side of politics he said:

He doesn't have legislation. He has wedge-islation.

They sit around the Cabinet, they don't think about the national interest.

Something must have happened when this prime minister was elected. What's happened is we've got a prime minister who said one thing before and who did the exact opposite afterwards. It's not just in relation to process that he does that. It's also in relation to policy. We've seen that in its finest form, as a case study, after the most recent budget: the Prime Minister went to the Australian people no fewer than 50 times saying he wasn't going to make changes to negative gearing policy in this country, and what did he do? He made those changes and he looked down—

He changed his mind.

He changed his mind. Apparently, you can do that if you're the Prime Minister! That's ridiculous, and Australians are seeing through this. That's why, if you look around social media—and I'm sure the Prime Minister tries to keep off social media, because it's not his friend right now—if you actually get out and speak to people in your electorates—and I'm sure that the members of the backbench who are here today and who are watching from their offices have all got their heads down, because in their electorates they have seen the consequence of this prime minister's incompetence and inability to maintain the truth. That is something that is resonating with the Australian public right now. When you put through legislation like this, what do you expect? What do you expect?

Let's have a look at what the actual issue is. Like I said, the previous speaker on this debate only spoke about the good parts that we've all said we agree with anyway. She failed to speak to the controversial provisions in relation to procurement bargaining. How does this work? Currently, the Fair Work Act prohibits discrimination against an employer because of whether its employees are or are not covered by certain industrial instruments. I think that's fair. We shouldn't be giving preferential treatment. This includes the National Employment Standards, workplace instruments or enterprise agreements. In practice that means that no-one, including the Commonwealth, can prefer one company over another just because it has a union affiliated enterprise agreement. What does this bill do? The bill creates an exemption that would allow the Commonwealth to preference employers whose employees are covered by a union covered enterprise agreement. Put simply, it's actually allowing discrimination where the employer's employees are not covered by an enterprise agreement or a kind of enterprise agreement or are covered by an enterprise agreement that does not cover a union.

I hope that the teal party representatives in this place walk in here and speak to this bill. This is something that should raise serious alarm bells. Where is the National Anti-Corruption Commission when we need it? Because what this legislation is doing is wedging Australians, is wedging businesses and saying to them, 'If you don't tie yourself to a union, we're not going to help you.' That's wrong. It's wrong fundamentally and in principle, and it's yet again an example of the Labor Party at its worst.

If you ask around, it's not just the public that is starting to notice this government's failures; it's not just members on this side of the House who are pointing them out. It's people across the sector and across industry in this country. And I note the stakeholders who have contributed to this debate—none of whom were quoted by the member who spoke previously, by the way, who failed to focus on the controversial parts of this legislation. The Business Council of Australia said:

Public money should go to businesses that can deliver, not businesses that have signed the right union agreement.

The reach goes far beyond a single contract. A single Commonwealth project could impose these conditions on every business in its supply chain. The consequences would ripple through entire industries. 

But it's not just the Business Council of Australia. The Ai group said:

A cornerstone of our workplace relations system is the principle of 'freedom of association', which is the idea that workers a have right to join or not to join a union. Legislation introduced into the parliament today completely risks undermining this vital principle by opening the door to either the current or future governments forcing employers and their employees to strike deals with unions in order to commercially deal with the Government. … The simplest course would be to just abandon the proposal entirely.

But instead of abandoning the proposal, what has the government done? They've tied it in to something we fundamentally support, because on this side of the House we are prepared to work with the government on reasonable reforms in relation to the Fair Work Commission. But the government—again, in fine form and in typical form of this Prime Minister—is wedging us, and the government is trying to play politics yet again, instead of determining good policy.

I represent the southern Gold Coast, and I acknowledge that there's another Queenslander in the room here in the member for Wide Bay. And I will say that we've gone through this Labor Party obsession with the CFMEU and with trade unions who are not doing the right thing time and time again, and we've gone through a decade of incompetent Labor governments at a state level. We've seen the Deputy Premier of Queensland, who was elected only in the last two years, having to come in and fix some of the mess that was left behind in Queensland. What has he said in relation to this legislation? He wrote to the minister, accusing the Albanese government of trying to revive Queensland's most controversial construction policy on a national scale, jeopardising the 2032 games delivery. In the letter he declared that Queensland would not back proposed workplace law changes that he claims would nationalise the former best-practice industry conditions, or BPIC, policy—dubbed the CFMEU tax.

Now, I know I'm a federal politician, but I tell you, ever since Queensland addressed BPIC, the number of small businesses and their employees who are coming up to me and saying, 'That was one of the best decisions of the Crisafulli government' is endless. The reason I say that is, again: where is the National Anti-Corruption Commission when we need it? What we're seeing here is a government that is intent on playing politics, and they're not doing what's in the national interest.

In this place I always like to reflect, because I think we have a duty to do so, on the implications of legislation on the Australian taxpayer. What the government is asking us to sign off on today is a situation where the Australian taxpayer is paying to preference producers of goods or services who are affiliated with certain unions. The consequence of that, at a time when we need to manage our national finances far better than we're doing, is that the prices of things are going to go up. We're not going to get the most cost-effective, the most value-for-money situation or solution, but we are going to get the most Labor aligned solution. That is not what the Australian taxpayer deserves.

We know that this government is struggling. They are really struggling to manage the economy. They don't know how, quite frankly. They don't know how to generate wealth. So what they're doing, and we're seeing this across the board, is that they're finding pockets of our community that have generated wealth—those who have invested, who have worked hard, who have saved, who are retirees now—and they're saying, 'We're going to take the wealth from you, and we're going to reallocate it to somewhere else, because we don't know how to grow the economy ourselves.' That's the ethic of this government, and that's the ethic of Labor. It's fundamentally a Labor Party value, I'd say.

We're now also seeing a government who, as a consequence of not being able to manage the economy, is desperate for money. What they're doing is they're spending more at a time when we actually need to be spending less as a country. We're fuelling inflation. This government's fuelling inflation, and they're doing that through this legislation, because we're not going to be putting the principle of value for money at the centre of Commonwealth procurement policy. If we're not doing that, why should anybody in this House be asked to support this legislation?

As I said, the coalition supports the practical reforms that will help the Fair Work Commission deal with its workload. If the Prime Minister and those opposite had any respect for the Australian people, any respect for the people in the galleries today, what he would do and what they would do is they would separate this bill into two parts. They would take out the procurement bargaining sections and separate them from the reasonable reforms to the Fair Work Commission. I note that none of the contributions of those opposite are focused on the procurement bargaining provisions. They're all focused on the Fair Work Commission side. Those opposite would find that they would get support to put through the appropriate legislation, and then we could have a proper discussion about the bits that are controversial. This goes to the hide of this government. It goes to their irreverence and their inability to do what's right in the national interest. I say that the bill in its current form should be voted down.

I rise in support of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. This bill makes practical improvements to the workplace relations framework. It supports the Fair Work Commission to manage its workload, improves supported bargaining, allows Commonwealth procurement to promote secure jobs and fair conditions, and provides better support for truckies and road transport businesses. Some of these reforms are technical, but they are not minor. In workplace relations, procedure counts. It determines whether a worker can access a remedy, whether an employer can get certainty, whether a union can progress bargaining and whether the independent umpire can deal with disputes efficiently.

I come to this debate with a practical view of industrial relations. I was a qualified electrician before I became an industrial lawyer. I represented electricians for the Electrical Trades Union and firefighters for the United Professional Firefighters Union. I've been covered by industrial agreements. I've relied on them, I've enforced them and I've helped negotiate them. That experience gives me a clear view of what is important. Workplace rights must be strong, but they must also be usable. A right buried behind a delay, cost or procedural obstruction is not much comfort to the person who needs it.

The Fair Work Commission is central to this system. Its workload has increased substantially, including through the growth of paid agents, the rise of artificial intelligence in the preparation and filing of materials, and the consequences of the Milford decision, which affected how some general protections and unlawful termination disputes are processed. The commission needs to be fair, but it also needs to be able to move. A system that is too slow is not fair. A system too easily clogged by procedural arguments is not fair. A system that allows hopeless claims to consume time that should be spent on genuine disputes is not fair.

One of the key reforms in this bill concerns jurisdictional objections in general protections dismissal disputes and unlawful termination disputes. At present, where a jurisdictional objection is raised about whether a dismissal or termination actually occurred, the commission may have to determine that issue before it can proceed to conciliation or mediation. I've seen what that kind of procedural fight can do. When I worked as an industrial lawyer for the firefighters union, jurisdictional issues arose in proceedings in the state industrial system. That's not the federal system affected by this bill, but the practical effect is similar. The parties can spend time and money arguing about whether the umpire can deal with the dispute before anyone gets near the substance of the dispute itself.

Sometimes a jurisdictional objection is properly taken. Parties are entitled to run legitimate arguments about jurisdiction. Those arguments can be important, and they should remain available. But when a dispute becomes locked in a preliminary jurisdictional contest, the process can slow down, costs can increase and the focus can shift away from resolving the workplace issue. This bill addresses the unintended consequences of Milford by allowing the Fair Work Commission to move to conciliation or mediation without having to first determine the jurisdictional issues as a preliminary step. That does not remove the jurisdictional argument. It does not stop a party from maintaining its position. It does not prevent the issue being determined later if required. It simply allows the commission to get the parties into a dispute resolution process and test whether the dispute can be resolved.

I just want to wish WA's professional firefighters well in their ongoing pay and conditions dispute with the state government. Firefighters do difficult and dangerous work. They are relied upon by the community in the worst moments of people's lives. Their bargaining campaign is a reminder that industrial relations is about whether the people who protect us are properly valued, properly staffed and properly supported.

This bill also allows the president of the Fair Work Commission to delegate the power to certify that a general protections dispute is unlikely to be resolved by conciliation. Those certificates allow parties to take the next step, including consent arbitration or court proceedings. Where a trained commission staff member has handled the conciliation and dealt directly with the parties, it is practical for that person to issue the certificate. That is not a final determination of rights. It is an administrative step that allows the dispute to progress.

The bill also gives the commission stronger powers to deal with claims that are frivolous, vexatious or have no reasonable prospects of success. Access to justice counts, but access to justice does not mean allowing the commission's processes to be misused. The commission must be available to genuine applicants, but it also has to protect respondents and its own resources from claims that are plainly hopeless or brought for an improper purpose.

The bill also expands the circumstances in which the commission can decide a dispute on the papers without holding a hearing or conducting a conference. Importantly, the final bill requires the consent of the parties before the commission can determine certain contested disputes on the papers. That was an important change following consultation. Efficiency is being improved without removing procedural fairness. Not every dispute requires an oral hearing. Some disputes can be fairly determined on documents or agreed facts. If the parties consent and the commission is satisfied the dispute can properly determine that way, the system should allow it.

The bill also improves supported bargaining. Supported bargaining is particularly important in sectors where workers are lower paid, workforces are fragmented or traditional single-enterprise bargaining is difficult. If the commission has already authorised bargaining for substantially the same group of employees and employers, the law should not force everyone to repeat unnecessary procedural steps.

The next major part of this bill concerns enterprise agreements and Commonwealth procurement. The government has committed to developing a secure Australian jobs code to ensure Commonwealth spending supports secure jobs and fair pay and conditions. Public money should not drive a race to the bottom. It should support decent employment practices, lawful conduct and fair standards. I'm in this place today because of what those opposite did when they had total control of the industrial relations system, and I would like to remind everyone that they would implement Work Choices again if given the chance.

Enterprise agreements that are genuinely agreed and negotiated in good faith are a transparent and effective way of delivering secure jobs and fair conditions to workers. They can also deliver flexibility and productivity for employers. A good enterprise agreement is not just about wages, although wages do count. It can deal with classifications, rosters, allowances, dispute resolution, redundancy, training, travel, accommodation and safety. It gives workers a structured voice and it gives employers certainty about the rules of the workplace. This bill allows government purchasing power to promote fairer wages and more secure jobs through enterprise agreements where it is appropriate to do so. It does not impose an obligation on the Commonwealth to do this in every case. Commonwealth entities will still need to comply with procurement rules, grant guidelines, value-for-money requirements and delivery obligations.

I want to acknowledge the current bargaining being undertaken by the Electrical Trades Union with BHP in the Pilbara, and I wish them well. That bargaining involves workers performing skilled and demanding work in one of the most economically significant regions in the country. Electricians, technicians, maintenance workers and other tradespeople keep critical operations running. The work is complex. The environment is demanding. Their contribution should be reflected in the agreements that cover them. I understand from my own working life what those kinds of rosters mean. During my time as a construction electrician, I worked a four weeks on, one week off roster. From outside the industry, people just see the headline wages. They do not see the cost of being away for long stretches—missed birthdays, pressure placed on partners, strain on children and the difficulty of coming home and trying to fit back into family routines before leaving again.

The research into FIFO mental health has made those issues plain. The Western Australian report into FIFO arrangements found that FIFO workers and their partners are an at-risk group for mental ill health. It also identified the importance of roster design, workplace culture, accommodation, bullying, stigma and support services. That is why bargaining is important. It is not only about the hourly rate. It is about the structure of work. It is about rosters, fatigue management, travel, accommodation, consultation, dispute resolution and safety. It is about whether workers have a real and lawful mechanism to raise issues before they become crises.

The bill also supports the National Construction Industry Forum. The forum is a tripartite body that brings together government, employers and workers to provide advice on work in the building and construction industry. This bill updates the ministerial membership of the forum to reflect the machinery-of-government changes and recognises the strong skills component of its work. That is sensible. You cannot have a serious discussion about construction without discussing skills. Apprenticeships, training quality, workforce shortages and pathways into trades are central to the future of the industry.

The final major area of the bill concerns road transport. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring truckies get a fair go. This bill allows a new road transport industry high-income threshold to be made for contractors in the transport industry. That is necessary because conventional high-income thresholds are not fit for purpose in road transport. A contractor may appear to have a higher income on paper, but the reality is different once fuel, tires, maintenance, insurance, finance, registration, compliance and downtime are all taken into account. Gross income is not the same as take-home income. In road transport, that distinction counts.

The purpose of this reform is to ensure more truckies can access the quick and practical process in the Fair Work Commission to challenge unfair contracts. For many road transport contractors and small transport businesses, unfair contract terms and unfair termination can have serious consequences. A truck is a major capital investment. If a contract is terminated unfairly or unfair terms shift too much risk down the chain, the impact can be immediate and severe. Road transport is essential to the Australian economy. Goods move because truck drivers and transport businesses do the work. The law should reflect the commercial reality they face.

I also note that this bill has been subject to consultation. The department has consulted with state and territory government officials, the Fair Work Commission and key stakeholders, including the ACTU, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia. As a result of that consultation, the bill was refined. Party consent is now required before the commission can determine certain contested disputes on the papers. Proposed expanded grounds for dismissing applications were not proceeded with. That is what consultation should do. It should test the drafting, identify the risks and improve the final bill.

The financial impact of this bill is modest, and no additional funding is provided. Measures supporting the more efficient commission processes are expected to have a minor positive impact on the commission and help it respond to increased lodgements.

The common thread through this bill is practical improvement. It helps the Fair Work Commission deal with disputes more efficiently. It supports enterprise bargaining and supported bargaining. It allows Commonwealth purchasing power to promote fairer wages and secure jobs where appropriate. It recognises the real economics of road transport. It supports tripartite consultation in construction. A fair workplace relations system must protect workers, give employers certainty, support bargaining and equip the independent umpire to resolve disputes properly.

Those opposite no doubt say this bill is about favouring unions, and that is the usual line. It misses the point entirely. This bill is not about punishing businesses; it is about recognising businesses that do the right thing. If an employer sits down with its workforce, bargains in good faith, reaches a genuine enterprise agreement, pays fair wages, provides secure conditions and gives workers a voice, why should the Commonwealth be prevented from taking that into account? The Liberal Party says it supports business, but too often what it supports is the lowest common denominator. It should not be controversial to say that public money should support employers who bargain properly, comply with the law and provide decent jobs. The businesses that do the right thing should not be undercut by competitors whose business models rely on minimum standards, insecure work and avoiding bargaining wherever possible.

This is where the opposition's arguments fall apart. They say they are standing up for business, but, in opposing this bill, they are standing against the businesses that have done the work to negotiate proper agreements with their employees. They are standing against employers who value certainty. They are standing against employers who understand that good wages, proper consultation and safe systems of work are not obstacles to productivity but part of productivity. They are standing against the small transport businesses and owner-drivers who need a fairer threshold because gross income is not the same as take-home income. They are standing against a more efficient Fair Work Commission, even though delay hurts workers and employers alike.

This bill does not ask employers to do anything unreasonable. It says that, where employers bargain properly, where they provide secure jobs and fair conditions and where they contribute more to a cooperative workplace relations system, that should be recognised. That is not anti-business; that is pro-business. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the government's Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. The bill amends the now tome-like Fair Work Act 2009, the Independent Contractors Act 2006 and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. Schedule 1 parts 5 to 8 seek to make it easier for the Fair Work Commission to determine or dismiss applications to the commission. The president of the commission, as well as near any practitioner in this area, will tell you that the commission has been inundated with applications composed by generative AI, like ChatGPT or Claude. Earlier this year, Justice Adam Hatcher, president of the commission, announced that, by the end of the financial year, the commission's total workload will have increased by over 70 per cent in the space of three years and that this is principally being caused by the increasing use of AI tools by potential litigants. In testimony before senate estimates recently, representatives of the commission advised that early indications are that around 40 per cent to 50 per cent of people were telling them that AI had been used to make an application to the commission.

This bill expands the commission's capacity to dismiss applications that are, in their view, frivolous, vexatious or lacking reasonable prospects of success and empowers the commission to make orders restricting vexatious litigants from filing further applications without permission. Certain matters will now be able to be determined on the papers by consent, without the need for hearings or conferences.

In my consultation since taking on the role as shadow assistant minister for industrial relations, I have met widely with stakeholders across the spectrum of IR interests, from the president of the commission to daily practitioners before the commission. I have been somewhat taken aback by the uniformity in views that something must be done about the avalanche of cases being brought before the commission, well written, yes, but often riddled with false facts or assertions rather than borne out in the applicant's actual workplace experience. Given this change in the nature of the work, as well as the constrained resources of the commission, these changes all seem sensible. We hope it will do something to produce a more manageable workload at the commission while retaining applicants' and respondents' rights for proper consideration of workplace matters and a right to be heard, in respect of cases which should be heard.

A second measure to streamline the work of the commission is to enable it to deal with matters involving an alleged dismissal without first having to determine whether an actual dismissal has occurred. This is in response to the case of Coles Supply Chain v Milford back in 2020, which has effectively required the commission to determine if a dismissal had occurred as a threshold issue, thereby increasing the commission's workload before the somewhat preliminary processes of conciliation and mediation could begin. The bill therefore addresses an issue which, according to its own testimony, the commission has been raising with this Albanese government for some three years. These are reasonably sensible reforms, which the coalition supports.

This brings me to the part of the bill which the coalition cannot and will not support, which goes to the Commonwealth preferencing employers with enterprise agreements in relation to grants, procurements or other contractual purposes. Here is where the devil is to be found in the detail, hidden behind a cloak of Orwellian language, such as 'preference enterprise agreements negotiated in good faith and genuinely agreed' or 'support enterprise bargaining that promotes job security and fair conditions'.

I have found myself in recent months needing to go back to Orwell's 1984 and the principles of newspeak that were espoused in it. You might remember that newspeak was the language of Oceania, the totalitarian superstate invented to meet the needs of English socialism, known in the book as Ingsoc. Newspeak is a controlled language with a simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary so as to minimise critical thinking and critique and, indeed, to deny the neurological path to criticism itself. In Orwell's appendix to 1984, when commenting on the methodology of newspeak, he described it as follows:

Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods.

The appendix goes on to say:

It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or Standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050.

With the members for Rankin and Kingston in their current roles, we are well on our way to newspeak by 2050. Indeed, one might give the minister's second reading speech on this bill an encouraging B+ in the dialect.

These provisions do not elevate or incentivise job security, fair conditions, good faith and genuine agreement. They entrench union power, effectively operating to let the Commonwealth grant lucrative contracts to enterprises in a union headlock. Currently, discrimination is not allowed to preference or punish employers whose employees are covered by an enterprise agreement, but this bill creates exceptions to make that discrimination not only acceptable but encouraged, to increase participation in enterprise bargaining.

Item 55 in the bill inserts proposed subsections 354(2A) to (2D) and effectively says it's okay to discriminate on the basis of coverage or noncoverage of an industrial agreement. In plain language, which, may I say, even defied the writers of the Bills Digest in this instance, discrimination will be allowed where employees are not covered by an enterprise agreement, where employees are covered by an enterprise agreement that does not cover an employee organisation—also known as a union—or where employees are the subject of proposed coverage or noncoverage.

Who is allowed to do the discriminating? The Commonwealth or 'a person acting as required or authorised under a contractual arrangement with a Commonwealth entity'—which, itself, is defined as the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority—'or in a Commonwealth contractual arrangement chain'. When is this discrimination allowed? In relation to 'making or administering a grant of financial assistance', 'procuring or providing goods or services' and 'entering into or fulfilling the terms and conditions of a contract of a type determined under proposed subsection 354(2C)'.

If that's not enough, then there's a catch-all clause in item 55, which gives the minister power to determine any contractual arrangements to enliven the permission to discriminate against employers whose employees are not covered by a union agreement. The bill's digest, almost hiding its own discomfort, states:

The EM does not provide guidance on which types of contractual arrangements might be the subject of such determinations.

Then, for good measure, the Albanese government throws in a definition of contractual arrangement: 'any deed, contract, undertaking or any other form of legally binding arrangement'. I'll paraphrase in oldspeak: 'Dear taxpayer, from now on we are only going to spend your money if, at the end of the day, the recipient has a union deal in the bag—one which our masters in the union movement tell us is good enough.'

It is unsurprising, therefore, that Australian industry's response to this part of the bill has been nothing short of well-founded outrage. The Australian Industry Group said:

Federal Government legislation that opens the door to favouring employers who have enterprise agreements with unions for taxpayer-funded procurement services is both deeply alarming and concerning.

They say the bill 'completely risks' undermining the principle of freedom of association 'by opening the door to either the current government or future governments forcing employers and their employees to strike deals with unions in order to commercially deal with the government'. Yesterday, in the Australian, chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andrew McKellar, pointed out:

There are nearly one million employing businesses in Australia that operate without a union-negotiated enterprise agreement. This legislation marks every one of them as a second-class citizen in the eyes of the commonwealth, pushing them out of consideration and out of employment opportunities and revenue streams.

The Business Council of Australia condemned the legislation, saying, 'It would corrupt the integrity of Commonwealth procurement by allowing discrimination against businesses without union covered enterprise agreements,' which should alarm every Australian business and taxpayer. Bran Black, the CEO, summarised the provisions thus:

"This would give unions effective control over where taxpayer money goes. It is being introduced against every lesson the country has learned from the recent CFMEU investigations," Mr Black said. 

"Geoffrey Watson SC found some enterprise agreements in construction were bought for cash and awarded to criminals, and that these practices could drive legitimate businesses out of the market."

"Now, the Federal Government wants to make those same agreements a gateway to public contracts and grants. That creates a major corruption risk."

…      …   …

"Public money should go to businesses that can deliver, not businesses that have signed the right union agreement," Mr Black said. 

"The reach goes far beyond a single contract. A single Commonwealth project could impose these conditions on every business in its supply chain. The consequences would ripple through entire industries."

Master Builders addressed the proposed reforms with their typical plain speaking:

In the end, this provision will send a message that if you don't have a union backed bid then don't bother lodging a tender.

More importantly, Master Builders reminded the Albanese government of the potential backwards impact this will have on the building industry, where 98 per cent of building and construction is made up of small businesses who typically do not rely on enterprise agreements.

Finally, this bill lessens the requirements on the CFMEU administrator, which were set down when the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU was placed into administration in August 2024. Under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act of 2009, the CFMEU administrator is required to prepare and submit reports to the minister regarding the performance of the administration, including detailed financial reporting requirements, which failed to include the requisite level of financial reporting. This bill reduces the rigour required of that financial reporting, and no longer will the administrator be required to provide a financial report—but rather a scheme operation report. A financial report will still be required, albeit on a much looser timeframe. Yet again, this government is loosening the expectations placed on the CFMEU at precisely the time those demands for accountability and transparency should be getting louder each day.

The Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU in Queensland reveals more corruption linked to the CMFEU's conduct in my home state that had an estimated cost of $15 billion to Victorian taxpayers. Despite all that evidence, this government continues to sing to the CFMEU's tune. Yesterday the Australian Chamber of Commerce tallied up the number of demands this government had met from the CFMEU's 2018 manifesto, Goodbye neoliberalismpenned by John Falzon but fully endorsed by the National Secretary of the CFMEU at the time—in which they stressed that the moral responsibility of government is to solidify the proper role of organised labour in a democratic society. The document has an 18-point plan and, for anyone wondering how it's relevant to this bill today, the bill is represented in point 5 of the document, which demands that the next federal government:

Implement Government Procurement rules that support trade unionism. Government should use their procurement decisions to achieve broader policy objectives that support the economy, jobs and working people.

As such, Labor should implement procurement rules that require tenderers to meet conditions of participation in order to qualify for government work, including having a unionised workforce/union agreement.

There it is.

This follows Labor's compliance with at least half the orders listed in the CFMEU's manifesto. The ABCC and ROC must be abolished. Tick. Make industry assistance conditional upon having a unionised workforce. Tick. Define casual work, rather than leaving it up to employers and employees. Tick. Encourage superannuation funds to promote unionism and direct their investments accordingly. Tick. Hold a referendum—can you believe this is in here?—to constitutionally enshrine a First Nations Voice to Parliament. Tick. Allow bargaining at any level: enterprise, industry, regional and national. Yes, that's in their pattern bargaining laws, so it's a tick. Unions must have free access to workplaces to represent and protect workers. Tick, tick, tick. The list goes on; it's all here.

The member for Watson got most of this manifesto implemented, and a couple more were done by Senator Watt in the other place. Now it falls to the member for Kingston to get the rest of the CFMEU wish list done. All the while, the evidence of CFMEU corruption continues to build up. The CFMEU has allowed rival bikie gangs to compete for control over drug dealing on government construction sites in my home state of Victoria. The CFMEU allegedly required workers to pay $100 in cash to former CFMEU officials under the guise of a charitable donation in order to be allocated a shift, generating $10,000 per occasion. The CFMEU has bullied and intimidated its way through the Labor caucus to the point where, despite clear evidence from Victoria Police, a royal commission into union corruption on taxpayer funded worksites remains unthinkable in my home state of Victoria. Rather than clamp down on the CFMEU, this bill continues that union's grip on this country's public policy agenda. Why? Because Labor is the political arm of the CFMEU.

My dad got up every morning and was at work by seven or 7.30 at the latest. He worked overtime. He was on call regularly, and quite often he got home when I was going to school. He worked hard. When he got home he told stories of his day. Sometimes maybe there was an injury; maybe there was a fight with the boss. More often than not it was a great day doing what he loved: being a sparky. He knew what he would bring home in his pay packet most weeks, which helped mum plan for meals and buy medicines and schoolbooks.

But part of his working life also included the infamous Queensland SEQEB dispute. Basically, that dispute was an attempt by the South East Queensland Electricity Board to replace permanent workers with contract labour. The Electrical Trade Union members went on strike to defend jobs and security, and, not long after that strike began, the government declared a state of emergency. It rushed in a series of anti-union/anti-strike laws, making picket lines illegal. The dispute stretched over the following months, and the striking workers held out with a lot of community support. My parents were involved in that dispute. They were on the picket lines and were part of the community that coordinated food and financial support for families who were affected. As children, we saw the tears and the hardship facing mums and dads when the workplace and industrial system broke down and when the community those workers had created was threatened.

This is just one story based on the memories of me as a small child whose family relied on her dad having a safe and fair workplace. There are many more such stories, and that's why we need workplace laws that promote such values—and that's what this bill, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, is about. There is dignity in work. On average, we spend about a third of our lives at work, and that equates to roughly 90,000 hours. While this reality often sparks discussions about work-life balance, meaning, purpose and burnout, employment can also provide critical financial independence, social cohesion and a sense of purpose.

According to the ABS, there are currently 14.73 million people employed in this country. Governments can play an active role in making sure workplaces are safe, jobs are secure and wages are fair. In this government's first term, workplace reforms have been the most significant since the Fair Work Act commenced almost 17 years ago, and these reforms have delivered on our objectives to promote job security and gender equality, get wages moving, improve workplace safety, and address loopholes that have undermined fairness in the workplace. Some of those key industrial relations achievements include criminalising wage theft. It is now a crime to intentionally underpay workers. You can get penalties of up to 10 years in prison and fines of almost $8 million for businesses. There's a right to disconnect. We can go home from work. Employees can go home from work and they have a statutory protection to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact from employers. Pay secrecy clauses have been banned and the gender pay gap has been driven to a record low. Minimum-wage earners have seen historic boosts, resulting in substantial increases to hourly rates and the nation experiencing multiple consecutive quarters of real-wage growth.

More recently, the government supported the 4.75 per cent increase in the modern award minimum wage and a six per cent increase to the national minimum wage, which means national minimum wages will now be almost $1,005 per week, or $26.44 an hour. This month, the government also announced a $3.6 billion, two-year extension to the work retention payment to continue subsidising a historic 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators. Starting in July, the payment will also be available to family day care and the home care sector. Combined with minimum-wage adjustments, this ensures a typical full-time educator sees an increase of $255 or more per week compared to December 2024, with teachers receiving up to an extra $410 per week.

The Fair Work Commission's landmark work value cases have delivered award wage increases for approximately 400,000 aged-care workers, with further phase pay jumps rolling out for nurses and direct care staff. There have been changes to help the gig economy and labour hire protections. New standards ensure same job, same pay for labour hire workers, and they've introduced a baseline protection and standard-setting powers for gig workers. Laws have expanded the scope for multi-employer agreements, helping small businesses and workers in fragmented industries negotiate enterprise agreements collectively. The government changed the definition of 'casual employment', offering clearer pathways for casuals to convert to permanent roles should they desire to do so, and we saw the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission.

These are big changes that the government has implemented since coming into power in 2022, and with this bill our government builds on those reforms with a package of practical measures to further improve the operation of the workplace relations system and to support more cooperative and productive workplaces. These include amendments designed to: enable the Fair Work Commission to more effectively perform its vital function; support good-faith bargaining which delivers benefits for employees and employers alike, not to mention for our economy; ensure road transport contractors can access protections with the new fit-for-purpose high-income threshold'; clarify reporting requirements for the CFMEU administration; and support the effective operation of important tripartite advisory bodies in the workplace relations system.

This bill has six important administrative measures which will streamline the operations of the Fair Work Commission to assist it in managing its workload. The commission plays a critical role supporting workers and employers, setting minimum-wage conditions, approving workplace agreements, and resolving disputes between employers and employees. The government remains committed to ensuring it continues delivering efficient dispute resolution services for both workers and employers. The first measure removes the need for a formal hearing to decide whether an applicant in a general protection case has been dismissed. Instead, the commission will now be able to hold a conference aimed at resolving the dispute, saving time and resources for the commission, workers and their bosses. Second, the bill enables the president of the commission to delegate certain responsibilities to staff. This includes issuing basic things like certificates confirming that parties in a general protection dispute have made reasonable efforts to resolve the matter, but were unsuccessful. What these certificates do is allow the cases to move forward to consent arbitration or court proceedings. This delegation will help ensure the president and staff's time is used more efficiently.

Third, the bill grants the commission greater flexibility to decide matters on papers without requiring a formal hearing or conference and, where appropriate, with the parties' consent. Fourth, it strengthens the commission's ability to deal with vexatious or frivolous applications, including the power to prevent individuals from lodging further claims without permission. Fifth, this bill allows the commission to dismiss unfair termination and unfair deactivation applications that are frivolous or vexatious or lack reasonable prospects of success. Finally, this bill simplifies the process for obtaining supported bargaining authorisations. This change will reduce administrative burdens where a new agreement largely covers the same employees and employers as an existing one, provided the application is made within the specified timeframe of three months before or two years after the previous agreement's nominal expiry. It also allows the commission to remove employers from an authorisation, either before or after it's granted, if their circumstances have changed. All these changes may seem small, but together they will make the system fairer, easier and more efficient, not just for workers but for their bosses as well.

Bargaining is another critical component of our industrial relations system. It allows businesses and employees to design unique working arrangements like specific rostering or flexible work-from-home rights and allowances—things that fit the exact operations of the business. Again, this is good for workers, but it's also good for the business. When this government came into office in 2022, it inherited a bargaining system that had long been ineffective. In fact, participation had declined to a point where fewer than 15 per cent of employees were covered by a current federal enterprise agreement. Reforms implemented during the government's first term have revitalised the system, removing barriers and making it easier for employers and employees to negotiate agreements that suit their workplace and needs. As a result, there are now a record number of employees covered by enterprise agreements delivering genuine wage growth for workers alongside increased productivity and flexibility for employers. This is a good thing for workers, their bosses and our economy.

The bill also introduces measures to support the use of good-faith bargaining through Commonwealth spending. It enables government procurement and funding decisions, where appropriate, to give preference to employers that have negotiated agreements in good faith and with genuine agreement. Despite what the member for Flinders was saying, importantly, this bill does not mandate this approach. Decisions on when and how it should be applied are carefully considered as part of the development of the secure Australian jobs code, alongside existing requirements to ensure value for money and the delivery of high-quality, timely outcomes. All Commonwealth entities will continue to operate in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and the Commonwealth grant rules and guidelines.

I now want to cover two key sectors that are also covered in the bill. The first is road transport contractors. In 2024, this government introduced new protections through the Fair Work Commission for truck drivers and small road transport businesses, safeguarding them from unfair contract terminations and inequitable contract terms. Our truck drivers drive our goods around our country; we need a viable transport system. However, access to these protections is currently restricted by a high-income threshold, and, due to the significant operating costs faced by road transport contractors—such as fuel expenses and vehicle maintenance, particularly for long-distance owner-drivers—the existing threshold does not adequately reflect their circumstances. This reform will establish a separate, more appropriate high-income threshold for road transport contractors, ensuring hardworking Australian truck drivers and small transport businesses can access protections against unfair termination and unfair contract terms. This recognises that truckies have high out-of-pocket costs and conventional high-income thresholds are not fit for purpose. We will consult on what the new threshold should be.

Second is the reporting requirements for the CFMEU. The Australian Labor government acted decisively by legislating for the appointment of an administrator to the Construction and General division of the CFMEU. This government will not tolerate corruption, criminality or violence in any workplace, and that includes the construction industry. The union movement doesn't want this either. But what we will tolerate is a strong and effective union movement that looks after workers and stops them being exploited.

You can tell from the story I started these comments with that I am a proud unionist. I come from a union family. I see what a positive difference they make to individuals and their families. The problems we see in the construction industry are not the norm in the union movement. They've been there a long time, and they will not be solved overnight, but the government is taking decisive action. Mr Mark Irving KC has made significant progress in improving the culture of the construction industry and addressing criminality and corruption with the CFMEU, and this bill provides the administrator with an appropriate timeframe to prepare and submit the required biennial financial report to the minister under the Fair Work Act.

Lastly, the government has strongly supported cooperative and productive approaches to workplace relations, including through tripartite arrangements that bring together employers, workers and government. One such tripartite body is the National Construction Industry Forum, which provides advice to the Australian government on matters relating to building and construction, a big part of our economy at the moment. The bill makes minor updates to the ministerial memberships of the NCIF and allows travel allowances for non-ministerial members to be determined in line with Remuneration Tribunal determinations. It also confirms that Road Transport Advisory Group members are eligible to receive travel allowances consistent with other consultative bodies and clarifies that ATAG members, including the chair and the subcommittee members, are not otherwise entitled to remuneration or additional allowances.

Our landmark secure jobs, better pay bills and closing loophole reforms laid the foundations for a strong and efficient industrial relations system, and this bill builds on that. This bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring our workplace relations framework supports cooperative and productive workplaces, the kinds of workplaces that work for businesses, for workers and for our economy. Labor is the party of workers. We're proud of that. The Australian Labor Party was born out of the labour movement. We will always stand up for working people, and I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. This bill bundles together measures with very different impacts. It gives the Fair Work Commission tools to manage a rising tide of applications, a tide now driven in part by paid agents and by artificial intelligence generating claims at volume. It streamlines how dismissal disputes are handled, restoring a more efficient process. It allows the commission to decide certain matters on the papers—that is, on written submissions without a hearing—where both parties agree. It also establishes a separate, more appropriate income threshold for low paid owner-drivers in road transport, whose high operating costs can make them look better paid than they really are, giving them access to unfair termination and unfair contract protections that they would otherwise be denied. And the bill tidies up the timing of CFMEU construction division financial reports.

I'm broadly supportive of these measures. They address real pressures and they deserve to be passed. The commission is under genuine strain, and these measures respond to it directly. Until the 2020 Federal Court decision in Coles Supply Chain Pty Ltd v Milford, also called Milford, when a worker brought a general protections claim and the employer argued that no dismissal had actually occurred, the commission could simply move the matter to conciliation and try to resolve it. After Milford, the commission first had to run a full arbitrated hearing just to decide the threshold question of whether a dismissal had happened at all before it could even begin to deal with the dispute, and that's slow and expensive for everyone. This bill restores the earlier, more sensible process: the commission can proceed straight to conciliation, and the question of whether a dismissal occurred can still be worked through there, or later in arbitration or in court if the matter can't be resolved. Empowering the commission to dismiss frivolous, vexatious or hopeless applications and to rein in repeat applicants who clog the system is a reasonable response to a real problem.

I don't pretend that these measures are cost-free. They touch on procedural rights, and the government acknowledges as much. But they come with safeguards. Vexatious orders may be made only by a full bench. Matters proceed on the papers only with the parties' consent, and judicial review remains.

On balance, this is the unglamorous legislative work of making an institution function, and it deserves to pass. But—and there is a 'but'—one part of this bill is doing a great deal of quiet work for a so-called efficiency measure. There's been a longstanding prohibition on discriminating between employers based on the industrial instruments covering their workers. But part 9 of this bill creates an exemption to this prohibition. That means the Commonwealth could give preference to businesses whose employees are covered by an enterprise agreement, often a union agreement, when awarding grants and contracts. And it potentially reaches down supply chains. A single Commonwealth project could impose these conditions on every business beneath it.

This is a significant change in how we decide how taxpayer money is spent. Bundling it into a bill that is otherwise about commission housekeeping, under the reassuring banner of 'building cooperative workplaces', understates what it does. This is precisely the kind of opaque process I've consistently criticised in this place. And there's not a lot of relevant detail about how this might work that's actually written into the bill. The bill tells us that the Commonwealth may preference employers that are covered by an enterprise agreement, but the crucial detail of exactly which contractual arrangements this power reaches and how far down a supply chain it extends isn't settled in the act itself; it's left to be determined by the minister, by legislative instrument.

So parliament is being asked to approve the principle while the substance—the part that determines who is caught and how heavily—is deferred to ministerial decision after the fact. A change of this significance deserves far more scrutiny. If the Commonwealth wants the power to steer public money in this way so it's spent on the basis of how businesses contract with their employees rather than value for money or ability to fulfil the contract, the boundaries of that power should be debated and fixed here in the primary legislation, not filled in by instrument once the bill has passed.

Industry has raised serious concerns about this aspect of the bill. The Australian Industry Group warns that it undermines freedom of association, the right of workers to join a union or not. They point to a parade of scandals and billions wasted where procurement was bent to industrial objectives at a state level. The Business Council and Master Builders go further, to integrity.

We don't have to reach back very far for the relevant lesson. Geoffrey Watson SC, examining the construction sector, found that some enterprise agreements were bought for cash and awarded to criminals and that practices like these could drive legitimate businesses out of the market altogether. This is not a hypothetical risk; it's a documented finding about the very sector this measure would touch most directly. The timing makes it sharper still. The CFMEU's construction division is at this moment under administration, in fact dealt with separately in this bill. So, at the same time as we're cleaning up after corruption in construction enterprise agreements, part 9 would elevate the role of these agreements in the awarding of public contracts and grants.

If public money is to be steered towards companies that hold a particular type of agreement in a sector with this recent history, the safeguards against that money flowing to the wrong hands should be spelled out, and here they are not. This also lands awkwardly against the government's own statement on 1 May this year that it had no intention of requiring union agreements as a condition of construction funding. The government must reconcile that commitment with what part 9 actually does. If businesses are complying with our very complex industrial relations laws then they should be able to compete with other businesses on a level playing field for government contracts on the basis of their ability to fulfil that contract and give value for money. The government has said it may carve out the construction industry, but that's not what's being put before the House and not what I'm being asked to vote on.

So this is a bill of good measures and one serious problem, and my position follows from that. I support the objectives of the commission efficiency reforms; the road transport income threshold, which is a fair fix for low-paid owners-drivers; and the supported bargaining streamlining, which is a sensible administrative simplification. I'd back these readily on their own. But the principle underpinning part 9, that government should discriminate on the basis of the existence of an enterprise agreement, appears to be targeted at elevating the role of unions. For example, small and medium-sized businesses that make up the overwhelming majority of the construction industry largely operate under awards, not enterprise agreements. They should be treated no less favourably than those with union-negotiated enterprise agreements.

So I move a second reading amendment as circulated in my name:

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the bill contains a range of measures, most of which are sensible and warrant support, including efficiency reforms to the operation of the Fair Work Commission, a fairer high income threshold for road transport contractors, and administrative changes to reporting requirements;

(b) Part 9 of Schedule 1 would allow the Commonwealth, and parties within a Commonwealth contractual chain, to discriminate between businesses in awarding grants or procuring goods and services on the basis of their enterprise agreement arrangements;

(c) the integrity of public spending depends on decisions about grants and procurement being made transparently and on their merits, including value for money, capability, delivery and compliance, rather than on factors unrelated to a business's ability to do the work;

(d) Part 9 would weaken that principle by making a business's industrial arrangements a permissible basis for preferencing in the allocation of public money; and

(e) these provisions would also confer a broad power on the Minister to extend or modify their operation by legislative instrument, with limited parliamentary oversight; and

(2) calls on the Government to remove such measures from the bill that would allow the Commonwealth to discriminate against businesses on the basis of their enterprise agreement arrangements".

This amendment does not decline the bill a second reading—the sensible measures in it deserve to pass—but it puts on the record my concern with part 9, which is that allowing a business's enterprise agreement arrangements to determine its access to grants and contracts cuts against the principle that public money should be allocated transparently and on merit—on value, capability, delivery and compliance—and that these provisions, with their broad ministerial power to extend their reach by instrument, should be removed from the bill. I will not let a significant corruption-sensitive procurement change ride through on the coat-tails of sensible reform. If this procurement prioritisation remains, I'll vote against this bill.

Is the amendment seconded?

():  I second the member for Curtin's amendment, and I have some brief remarks. Like the member for Curtin, I support many aspects of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, including changes to allow the Fair Work Commission to operate more efficiently and establishing a new high-income threshold for road transport contractors.

However, this bill also amends existing antidiscrimination provisions so that the government can give preference to employers whose employees are covered by an enterprise agreement in contracts, procurements and grants of financial assistance. I'm not opposed to enterprise agreements, but this bill would effectively enable the government to force employers to make agreements with unions if they want to have any chance of getting a tender or contract. This is ripe for misuse. It raises significant integrity and corruption concerns, especially in light of what we've seen with the CFMEU in Queensland and Victoria.

In relation to grants, I'm especially worried that this would undermine the principles of open, merit-based competitive funding rounds. Organisations who seek funding in good faith deserve to have their applications assessed on their merits alone. Public spending should be based on need, merit, effectiveness and value for money, not on other irrelevant factors. So I join the member for Curtin in calling on the government to remove these measures from this bill.

I think we should all be very proud of our enterprise bargaining system in Australia, which has provided for good outcomes for workers and for employers, and we should do what we can to defend this important system. Having said that, I'm very pleased to rise to speak on this important legislation today, which is legislation that builds on the Albanese Labor government's previous and important workplace reforms. Of course, ensuring that we have a strong workplace relations system has long been the focus of the Australian Labor Party.

The purpose of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026 is to amend the Fair Work Act to make improvements to industrial relations arrangements. The building cooperative workplaces bill progresses important improvements to the workplace relations framework. Our landmark secure jobs, better pay and closing loopholes reforms laid the foundations, and I am pleased to inform the House that our work on these important reforms will continue with the passage of this bill.

On this side of the House, we are absolutely committed to ensuring our workplace relations framework supports cooperative and productive workplaces. Unfortunately, many of the speakers on the other side of the chamber have missed the important emphasis on cooperative workplaces in the title of this bill. Cooperative workplaces include the kind of workplaces that we know will work for businesses, workers and the broader economy for our communities. It's important to highlight that our reforms are essential in ensuring that our workplace relations framework continues to be fit for purpose, continues to deliver fairer wages and secure jobs not just in my electorate of Chisholm but right across Australia.

Part of delivering these reforms also means ensuring that the Fair Work Commission processes continue to be effective and efficient. I'm proud to say that this legislation includes an amendment to enable progress to be made on our election commitment to develop the secure Australian jobs code. I think this code has been misunderstood by a number of those speaking on the opposite side of the chamber in that it focuses on making sure that taxpayer funds go to support good, secure jobs in our communities. I don't think that's controversial at all.

We know the Fair Work Commission plays a critical role as our national workplace relations tribunal, and our government is committed to ensuring that it continues to provide efficient dispute resolution services to workers and employers across Australia. One of the realities that we have come to understand about the Fair Work Commission's workload is that it has been really steadily increasing in recent years. As the minister has previously outlined in this place, the emerging challenges such as the rise of artificial intelligence, the prevalence of paid agents and the flow-on implications of the recent Milford court decision have been impacting the commission's processing times and requirements. Significantly, the measures included in this bill are designed to assist the commission to better manage its workload and to support a more efficient and effective workplace relations framework. Of course, we seek to do this without reducing protections for workers.

Through this legislation we will save not only the Fair Work Commission's time but also that of relevant parties involved in matters before the commission. We'll also save them money. We'll do this by ensuring that the commission can deal with the substance of a general protections dismissal matter without first having to deal with jurisdictional issues. This element of the bill seeks to deal with the unintended consequences of a Federal Court decision. I've referred to it already, the Milford decision, which is placing unnecessary additional burden on the Fair Work Commission as well as on employers, workers and their unions.

It will allow the president of the commission to delegate their power to certify that a general protections matter is unlikely to be resolved by conciliation. It will allow the commission to dismiss unfair termination and unfair deactivation applications that are frivolous or vexatious or have no reasonable prospect of success. It will enable the commission to prevent vexatious litigants from making further applications, and it will expand the circumstances in which the commission can decide a matter on the papers where the parties consent without holding a hearing or conducting a conference. It will also allow the recommencement of supported bargaining without the need for a new authorisation, where an authorisation has already been made less than two years ago. Again, this will save the Fair Work Commission and parties involved both time and money.

Our government has committed to develop a secure Australian jobs code to ensure that Commonwealth government spending supports secure jobs and fair conditions in all of our communities right across Australia. We know that enterprise agreements that are genuinely agreed and negotiated in good faith can be a really important, transparent and effective way of delivering secure jobs and fair conditions for workers as well as delivering flexibility and productivity for employers. Subsequently, the bill under consideration will allow the Commonwealth to preference enterprise agreements that have been negotiated in good faith and genuinely agreed, where appropriate to do so, building cooperative workplaces as the title of the bill suggests. This is the right thing to do.

Of course, value for money, quality and timeliness will absolutely remain front and centre of all government spending decisions and considerations and, as already announced, a different approach will be taken in the construction industry. Consistent with the recommendations of the NCIF, the government has announced consultation on the development of strong standalone standards aimed at ensuring government spending drives lawful and productive behaviour in the construction industry. As the minister has already made crystal clear, the government has no intention of replicating BPIC and under no circumstances will employers be required to be covered by an enterprise agreement covered by a union as a condition of receiving government funding.

The bill will make minor but important changes to support the government's tripartite National Construction Industry Forum and the CFMEU administration in their ongoing and really important work of reforming the construction industry. Clarifying the travel allowance rate for NCIF members, replacing Minister Ayres with Minister O'Neill to reflect machinery-of-government changes and adding Minister Giles as a permanent member due to the strong skills component of the forum's Blueprint for the future is also really essential here. We're also clarifying the CFMEU administrator's biannual financial reporting requirements, which currently require a report effectively immediately at the conclusion of a given financial year.

In this bill, we're also committed to ensuring truckies get a fair go. The bill will allow a new road transport industry high-income threshold to be made, and that will apply to contractors in the road transport industry, which we know is an incredibly important industry to our nation. This recognises that truck drivers have high out-of-pocket costs and that conventional high-income thresholds are simply not fit for purpose for this sector. We will consult on what this new threshold should be. That should come as no surprise, because our government has worked really hard to consult with relevant parties when making important decisions like this. The intention here is to ensure that more truck drivers can access our quick and easy process to challenge an unfair contract in the Fair Work Commission.

This clearly builds on the important reforms we've already made to back truck drivers and our trucking industry, including the fairer fuel act, which creates an urgent pathway with a high threshold that allows truck drivers and transport operators to argue for a fairer share. This is in addition to our world-leading laws laying the foundations for gig workers to achieve, for the first time, minimum standards.

It should come as absolutely no surprise to anybody in this place that the Albanese Labor government stands with workers, communities and employers to build cooperative workplaces that seek to provide good outcomes for workers, businesses and our communities. We know that secure jobs drive participation in communities. I spoke about this in my very first speech—that, when people have certainty over hours and wages, they can make commitments to their local communities. They can put down roots. They can know that on their weekends they'll have time to give to their local sporting clubs. They can be involved in local parent groups. They can make those kinds of decisions because they have the security of a job that they can count on. This is an extension of the work we as a government already did in our first term and are building on here in our second term.

It should, as I've said before in my speech today, be uncontroversial that a government would seek to ensure that Commonwealth funds are able to provide good, secure jobs for people in our communities. This should be something that we all aspire to achieve for every worker in our electorates. It is disappointing that some in this chamber don't understand this point or seem not to understand this point. I hope that we can continue to work as a parliament, and certainly we on this side of the House will continue to work as a government, to provide good, secure, well-paying jobs for workers. We know this is the foundation of building a good life in this country, and I'm very, very proud to be part of a government that understands how important this objective is.

The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026 makes several changes to the Fair Work Act and related legislation. Most I support; one I specifically do not.

This bill ensures road transport contractors can access workplace protections through a new industry-specific high-income threshold that reflects their actual cost structure. It fixes a practical impossibility in the CFMEU's administrator reporting requirements. And, significantly, it enables the Fair Work Commission to manage a case load that has grown by 70 per cent in three years. The commission's president, Justice Hatcher, has said publicly that this surge is principally driven by the use of AI tools by potential litigants. Research presented at Senate estimates in June this year found that 40 to 50 per cent of applicants reported using AI to prepare their applications. Paid agents lodging speculative claims are compounding the problem.

The bill responds by reversing the Federal Court's decision in Coles Supply Chain Pty Ltd v Milford, which required the commission to hold a formal hearing on whether a dismissal actually occurred before it could even begin conciliation. That procedural requirement turned many matters into two hearings instead of one. The bill also expands powers to dismiss frivolous and vexatious applications, creates a vexatious litigant order, allows matters to be determined on the papers with the parties consent and permits greater delegation of procedural functions to commission staff. These are sensible reforms and I support them.

But within these practical measures is something that has nothing to do with practicality and everything to do with industrial politics and is one that I reject. Part 9 creates new exceptions for the Fair Work Act's prohibitions on discrimination. It gives the Commonwealth a legal basis to favour one business over another—not because of their capability, not because of compliance, not because of price but because of the industrial instrument that covers its workforce. A business with a union covered enterprise agreement could be preferred over an identical competitor that pays the same wages and meets every legal obligation but whose agreement does not name a union or that relies on an award, as most small businesses do because the industrial relations system, the awards and the EBAs are so complicated that it is extremely difficult for smaller businesses to negotiate EBAs.

The powers are broad. They flow into Commonwealth linked supply chains. The minister can determine, by legislative instrument, additional contractual arrangements that fall within the exception. The explanatory memorandum gives no guidance on scope. The secure Australian jobs code is still in development. The practical reach of this measure is entirely uncertain and will sit well beyond the ongoing oversight of parliament.

Now, I support genuine enterprise bargaining. I wish it was actually easier for companies and unions and workers to come up with agreements that benefit them both, and I continue to urge, as I have since the day I was elected, the government to help people simplify the awards because that would make it easier for people to come up with enterprise bargaining agreements that are genuinely beneficial to all parties and that would genuinely actually improve the lives of workers. But what I oppose is a government using its growing economic footprint to compel a particular industrial model without adequate safeguards against corruption that has already been documented in this system, and in a way that is going to make it harder for smaller businesses and newer businesses to potentially access government contracts. I reject that completely.

The contradiction is striking. On 1 May this year, five weeks before the bill was introduced, the minister stated:

The government has no intention of requiring employers to enter an enterprise agreement covered by a registered employee organisation as a condition of receiving Commonwealth government funding in the construction industry.

And:

… has no intention of replicating Queensland's former Best Practice Industry Conditions Scheme.

Five weeks later, we've got this legislation and it gives the government exactly this power. The government will say: 'Well, we don't have to require it. This is not a requirement; it just is a consideration.' Just think of how this is going to play out. If this is something that could be positively taken into account, what do you think businesses will think they need to do? They will obviously think, 'Oh, well, if some organisations will get preferenced if they have an EBA or the government can preference them because they have an EBA versus others, well then I need to enter an EBA.' What do you think unions will do? They will say, 'We need to have EBAs.' Again, I support this, but you might as well say that you require it, because, if this power that the government is intent on creating is used, that will be the difference that it makes.

Let's put this in an economic context. Productivity is flatlining. Businesses are facing compounding pressures—inflation, regulatory expansion, complexity in industrial relations—which this government has not addressed. Even when it would be beneficial to workers to simplify the awards, the government has failed to do so. The answer is not more government prescriptions attached to a growing share of government directed spending.

This concern is not hypothetical. The Watson report, Rotting from the top, examined the CFMEU in the Victorian construction industry. Watson found the enterprise agreement system had been thoroughly corrupted by what he called 'old-fashioned pay-to-play corruption'. There was no genuine bargaining. Agreements were awarded to friends of union officials and to known criminals in return for cash. Labour hire agreements were sold for up to $1 million. The CFMEU punished its enemies by refusing to issue agreements with no reason and no review. Watson found that the denial of an agreement could drive a decent contractor out of business.

Watson conservatively estimated that this corruption cost Victorian taxpayers $15 billion. A 15 per cent cost increase applied to the $100 billion big build. Fifteen billion dollars—that is what happens when enterprise agreements become commercial assets to be bought and sold, rather than genuine instruments of collective bargaining, and that is the system that this bill proposes to reward with preferential access to public money.

Commonwealth government spending for 2026-27 is $830 billion, which is 26.8 per cent of GDP. That is a record. Those billions are drawn from the taxes and borrowings of Australians, who expect it to be spent in their interests. Every dollar that doesn't go as far as it could is inflationary. In that environment, procurement cannot be filtered through an industrial relations test, and the Queensland experience shows where this leads. It's all very well for the minister to say, 'Well, we're not going to do this.' This is exactly the legislation that provides the environment in which the minister can do this.

The best-practice industry conditions scheme used procurement policy to embed preferred industrial conditions into government funded construction. That sounds very similar to what we're trying to do here. The Queensland Productivity Commission found that the BPIC likely reduced construction productivity, which fell by nine per cent over six years. The commission modelled that, if left in place till 2029-2030, it could have increased project costs by 10 to 25 per cent, reducing housing supply by up to 26,500 homes and imposing net community costs of $5.7 billion to $20.6 billion. The Queensland government itself acknowledged that BPIC contributed to delays and cost overruns. It was paused in November 2024 and then permanently abolished. This bill creates a similar risk at the Commonwealth level.

I have heard some of the people opposite argue for this bill on the basis that people should have secure jobs and that that is a positive thing. Now, I support secure jobs, but we have an economy and a lot of industrial relations legislation that enshrines a lot of secure jobs across the economy. The government doesn't need to enshrine secure jobs through its own procurement practices. It can employ its people how it wants. It has the overarching environment for the economy, but it doesn't need to add this legislation, and it doesn't need to exclude small businesses or make it harder for small businesses to access government contracts.

I genuinely say: if you've got a problem with secure jobs, show me in the economy where you want to make those jobs more secure, rather than using industrial relations instruments, because there is a real risk here of corruption. We have seen this play out. In saying, 'We're going to exclude the construction industry,' there is a real risk of corruption, and the government has not got the safeguards in place to make sure that this doesn't happen. To then provide this and say, 'We'll carve this bit out. It will be okay,' is naive and is not in the interest of the Australian taxpayer. The level of organised crime and issues related to the CFMEU is an enormous burden on the entire country. Government should be very, very cautious about going ahead with legislation that could add to corruption in the procurement of public services, and this is quite reckless.

Again, I support the elements of this bill that strengthen the Fair Work Commission, protect road transport contractors and fix the CFMEU reporting requirements; those reforms are practical and proportionate. But I cannot support legislation that creates the legal framework to preference union interests in the allocation of public money—not when documented corruption has turned parts of the enterprise agreement system into a vehicle for organised crime; not when the government said, five weeks before introducing this bill, that they didn't have any intention of doing what this bill empowers—or allows them, at least—to do; and not when one jurisdiction that tried a comparable scheme found it destroyed productivity, inflated costs and reduced housing supply.

Incentives matter. When access to public money depends on having the right enterprise agreement, you create the conditions for the very corruption Watson documented: agreements as currency, access as leverage and corruption as the cost of doing business. At the same time, you exclude those businesses who, because of the labyrinthine complexity of the EBAs and the award system which the government has failed miserably to deal with, find it much harder to develop EBAs. So I will not support that, and the public of Australia deserves better.

I rise to speak in support of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, and I do so with a particular sense of purpose. Before I came to this place, I spent more than 10 years in the workplace relations and employment law trenches. I worked for the Electrical Trades Union, standing beside electricians and apprentices who had been shortchanged, underpaid or dismissed without cause. I also worked with the Nurses and Midwives Association, representing nurses working double shifts in understaffed wards who came to me pretty much exhausted and afraid of what would happen if they did speak up. I also worked for the Australian Hotels Association and their legal firm, advising employers in the hospitality sector—some were small, family-run operations who were trying to navigate a system that can feel complex and overwhelming. I regularly appeared in front of the Fair Work Commission as well as the Federal Circuit Court. I say this not to pad out my biography but more in relation to this particular bill not being an academic one. Every provision in it corresponds to something I have seen with my own eyes, experienced in real time and felt the weight of on behalf of real people.

Let me start with the Fair Work Commission, because I think we sometimes forget what an extraordinary institution it is and what we ask of it. When I was appearing in the commission proceedings as a young lawyer—whether it was a general protections application for an ETU member who had been sacked after raising a safety concern or an unfair dismissal matter for a hospitality business owner—I saw firsthand how important it was that the commission could operate efficiently. When a worker is dismissed, every week that passes without resolution is another week of financial stress, anxiety and uncertainty. And for employers, too—unresolved disputes hanging over a business creates uncertainty. It adds to costs and impacts operations significantly not only financially but also through the added pressure for other team members in the business. The commission's workload has grown substantially, and the bill before us identifies several new pressures: the rising prevalence of paid agents making applications of very questionable merit; the emergence of artificial intelligence being used to generate applications that are misconceived or frivolous; and consequences of the Milford decision, which has imposed significant additional procedural burdens on the commission that were never intended.

I want to speak to each of these, because each reflects something I recognise from practice. On the Milford decision—when I was appearing in general protections matters, one of the things I valued about that jurisdiction was that it was nimble. The general protection provisions of the Fair Work Act exist to protect some of the most fundamental rights of a worker: the right to exercise a workplace right, the right to take industrial action and the right to be free from adverse action. These are serious protections, but the commission's ability to deal efficiently with these matters has been disrupted by the unintended consequences of the Milford decision, which now requires the commission to address the jurisdictional issues before getting to the substance of the actual dispute. This bill corrects that, and it is the right thing to do.

On the question of artificial intelligence and misconceived applications, this is a genuinely new challenge. The bill's response is measured and very sensible. In my time at the bar table, I encountered applications that lacked merit, and that is inevitable in any legal system. Not every claim succeeds—and not every claim should—but there is a meaningful difference between a claim that fails on merits and a claim that was never a legitimate claim at all. The commission's current powers to dismiss applications that are misconceived or lacking in substance are being tested by the volume and the character of some of the applications now being generated, sometimes with the assistance of AI tools that can produce plausible-looking documents without any genuine legal foundation beneath them. The bill broadens the grounds on which the commission may dismiss such applications and, critically, enables the commission to prevent vexatious litigants from making further applications.

This is a proportionate response. It protects the integrity of the system. It protects respondents, often small businesses, from the time and cost of defending claims that should never have been brought. It frees up the commission's capacity to focus on matters that genuinely require its attention. I want to emphasise that strengthening the commission's ability to deal with vexatious or misconceived applications is not about limiting workers' access to justice; it is about protecting that access. It's ensuring that a system is not so clogged with bad-faith or AI generated noise that genuine claims cannot be heard. The workers I represented deserved a commission that had the time and resources to properly hear their cases, and so do the workers of today.

The bill also removes a Howard-era prohibition on the Commonwealth considering whether to preference employers with enterprise agreements when making funding and procurement decisions, and I want to spend a moment on this because I think it goes to something fundamental about what enterprise agreements are and what they represent. In my experience, I've been able to see both sides of this table. A genuine enterprise agreement, bargained in good faith, is one of the most effective mechanisms we have for delivering fair wages, secure jobs and workplace flexibility simultaneously. When I worked at the ETU, we bargained enterprise agreements that gave electricians certainty about their rosters, their allowances and other employment conditions. When I worked at the AHA, we helped employers, particularly small businesses, use enterprise agreements to structure their workforce in ways that made business sense while providing workers with above-award conditions and attracting skilled employees.

I must highlight that I heard the contributions from the member for Wentworth, and I refute some of those bold assertions by the member for Wentworth. I've had really good experiences of the use of EBAs, particularly for small businesses. Enterprise agreements work because they require genuine engagement between employers and employees. They are transparent, they are registered, they are enforceable and they create a shared stake in the success of that enterprise.

The previous government's prohibition on the Commonwealth considering enterprise agreements in procurement decisions was a peculiar difference, a legislative restraint that prevented the Australian government from using its own purchasing power to support the very outcomes it said it valued. This bill removes that prohibition. It does not mandate that the Commonwealth must preference enterprise agreement employers; it simply removes the legal barrier to doing so where appropriate. The Secure Australian Jobs Code will develop the policy framework for how and when such preferencing occurs, and that is the right sequencing: remove the legal obstacle now and develop the policy settings carefully.

The bill also contains provisions supporting the National Construction Industry Forum and clarifying aspects of the CFMEU administration's reporting obligations. The construction industry has had troubled periods, and I think it's fair to say that is something that we can agree on. But the tripartite National Construction Industry Forum, bringing together governments, employers and unions, represents a serious attempt to chart a different course, one that is based on lawful behaviour, genuine cooperation and a shared commitment to a construction industry that is productive, safe and fair.

Minor but meaningful amendments in this bill clarifying travel allowances for NCIF members, updating ministerial membership to reflect mechanism-of-government changes and adding the Minister for Skills and Training as a permanent member reflect the genuine work the forum is doing and the importance that government places on it. The skills component of the forum's Blueprint for the future is not incidental; it is very much central. A construction industry that invests in training, apprenticeships and the development of its workforce is one that can be genuinely productive and genuinely safe.

Finally, I just want to speak to the road transport provisions because I think they are something very much overlooked in the broader discussion of this bill, and they should not be. We know truckies occupy a unique position in our economy and in our national life. They are the people who move our goods, stock our shelves and keep our supply chains running. They are often owner-operators or small contractors. They are their own boss in name but are often subject to commercial pressures that leave them with little real bargaining power. The cost structures they face are genuinely different from other industries'. With fuel, maintenance and insurance compliance, the out-of-pocket expenses of running a truck are significant and ongoing.

The existing high-income threshold that determines access to the Fair Work Commission's unfair contract jurisdiction was designed for employees, not for contractors who may have a turnover that looks substantial on paper but a take-home income that tells a very different story. So this bill will allow a new road transport industry high-income threshold to be developed in consultation, one that actually reflects the economic realities of this industry. I think of contractors, small operators, who have taken on work under contracts that gave them very little protection and found themselves locked in arrangements that were generally unfair but with no practical avenue to challenge them. This reform changes that. It says to those contractors that they deserve access to the same quick and accessible process that others can use to challenge an unfair contract.

When I left practice and came to this place, I brought with me a conviction that the workplace relations system is one of the most significant things a government manages. It shapes the conditions under which millions of Australians spend a third of their waking lives. It determines whether work is secure or precarious, fairly rewarded or exploited, safe or dangerous. This bill is definitely not a headline-grabbing piece of legislation, but it is exactly the kind of careful, evidence based, consultatively developed reform that makes a system that works better and that ensures the institutions and mechanisms we rely on are fit for purpose.

I think of workers I represented—electricians and nurses. I think of hospitality and hotel employers I advised and supported who wanted to do the right thing and needed the system to help them do it. I think this bill is for all of them. It is for the Fair Work Commission, which needs these tools to manage its workload and deliver timely justice, it's for the workers, who need the commission to hear their cases on merit without unnecessary delay, it is for the truckies, who deserve a fair go when they challenge an unfair contract, and it is for the principle that government procurement, the spending of public money, should, where appropriate, promote the standards we want to set across the economy.

At a time when Australia faces clear productivity challenges, this parliament should be asking a simple question of every piece of legislation—will it lift productivity or will it lower it? Productivity is not an abstract economic concept. It is the foundation of higher wages, lower costs, which Australians need during Labor's homegrown cost-of-living crisis, and stronger living standards for Australian families. The procurement provisions in this bill fail the productivity test. Australia's 20-year average labour productivity growth has fallen from 1.8 to 0.8 per cent, more than half. The Reserve Bank of Australia has revised medium-term productivity growth down to 0.7 per cent per year. Under Labor, five of the last seven quarters have seen negative GDP, gross domestic product, per capita. What that means in everyday terms is that, even as the economy struggles to grow, population growth is running too fast—migration, anyone? Living standards are also slipping consequently.

Despite lagging productivity and falling living standards, Labor's plan is to abandon the fight against the inflation dragon, step aside from governing and let unions like the CFMEU take charge. That is what the Albanese government is wanting to do—bring the CFMEU to Canberra, because that has worked so well in Victoria! This bill does two very different things. It is yet another cunning Labor piece of 'wedge-islation', a term that the current prime minister used when he was Leader of the Opposition. And he stated repeatedly that he would not be doing this very thing—wedging a less controversial aspect of the IR law with a highly controversial one. The PM misled Australia again by promising not to wedge the coalition in bringing legislation to the House with tricky double purposes, but here we are.

First, and less controversially, this bill introduces practical reforms to help the Fair Work Commission manage a growing and increasingly complex caseload—fair enough. The coalition does not have a problem with this aspect. The evidence is clear: the Fair Work Commission's workload is projected to increase by over 70 per cent within three years, with 40 to 50 per cent of applications involving AI assisted claims. In that environment, measures to streamline processes, dismiss unmeritorious claims earlier and improve administrative efficiency are sensible reforms. As I say, we in the coalition support them.

But the second part of the bill is entirely different. The bill would allow the Albanese government to preference employers with enterprise agreements in procurement, in grants, in other contracts, preferring businesses that have—get this!—union arrangements. What a surprise! What a surprise to everyone on the coalition benches! 'Nothing to see here.' Let's be honest: this provision has nothing to do with productivity or efficiency; it is a kickback to Labor's union backers. Labor proposes using taxpayer funded procurement to advance the union franchise. In Albanese's socialist dystopia, this is a fundamental—

I ask the member to refer to members of this chamber by their correct title.

Yes, Deputy Speaker. In the Albanese Labor government's socialist dystopia, this is a fundamental shift in how government spends taxpayer money. Currently, the law prohibits discrimination against businesses based on whether their employees are covered by particular industrial instruments. This bill changes that. This is Labor doing Labor things.

As one of my many constituent small-business owners said to me earlier this month, 'We don't need this; employers already have agreements with staff.' Labor wants to explicitly empower the Commonwealth to favour businesses with union backed enterprise agreements when allocating contracts and grants. Critically, those preferences will flow through supply chains. So that's Mallee's local construction firms, family owned civil contractors, telecommunications installation and maintenance providers, machinery or service firms, employment service providers. The hammer blow of Labor's cave-in to the unions in Commonwealth procurement will hit regional businesses and communities.

This is not a minor change. It is a structural shift in how taxpayer money is distributed across the economy. When access to government work no longer depends on capability, efficiency or value for money but rather on industrial alignment, guess what? Productivity suffers. Let's imagine what this means for Snowy 2.0, already a disastrous budget blowout—unconscionably over budget. And what do the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy want to do? They want to bring in the CFMEU. We all know how that will work. Resources are no longer allocated to the most efficient businesses. They are allocated to the ones with unions most embedded in their operations—in other words, the big institutions with sweetheart union deals. That leads directly to higher input costs, reduced competition and lower economic efficiency. When productivity falls, Australian households ultimately pay the price through higher taxes, higher infrastructure costs and higher cost-of-living pressures. You can imagine, with Snowy 2.0, how high electricity bills will become.

This is the very painful lived experience in my home state of Victoria, with the Allan Labor government a puppet for the disgraced CFMEU, with its tentacles all through the big cost blowouts of the Big Build, including the suburban rail loop, adding to taxpayer costs. Remember: the Watson inquiry indicated $15 billion of taxpayer money to additional costs in major projects in Victoria due to the CFMEU, with suggestions that it could be significantly higher.

On Monday, Robert Gottliebsen warned that embedding union driven structures into major infrastructure projects such as Snowy 2.0 could cost as much as $1 trillion in additional network charges for energy consumers. We've seen the energy minister hopping about this morning with regard to the proposed new energy bill supply charges from 1 July. Well, that will pale into insignificance if the CFMEU based costs embedded in Snowy 2.0 are passed on to consumers. The CFMEU's involvement in Snowy 2.0 will significantly increase long-term network costs, driven by cost-plus contracts, governance arrangements and reduced incentives for cost control. That is where bad bills like this one—bad 'wedge-islation'—hit working families through higher costs in their energy bills and everywhere in the economy when they go to the supermarket checkout or try to build a home.

Labor takes Australians for fools, but I can tell you Australians are totally awake to the deceit, failures and incompetence of this Labor government and this Prime Minister. A constituent from Horsham wrote to me recently and said:

… deeply concerned by the serious and ongoing allegations of corruption, fraud, and organised criminal involvement linked to major infrastructure projects under the Big Build, and the role of the CFMEU within that system. The volume of reporting, arrests, and independent findings now in the public domain paints a picture of systemic misconduct that appears to have gone unchecked for years—at enormous cost to taxpayers and to public trust in government. The suggestion that criminal networks were able to operate within publicly funded projects is profoundly alarming.

I agree with him.

Union driven plummeting productivity concerns are not theoretical; industry is raising it right now. The Business Council of Australia's Bran Black warned on 4 June about the proposals in this bill:

This would give unions effective control over where taxpayer money goes. It is being introduced against every lesson the country has learned from the recent CFMEU investigations.

Further, he said:

Public money should go to businesses that can deliver, not businesses that have signed the right union agreement.

I couldn't agree with him more.

We already have excessive government spending driving inflation. Remember the inflation dragon the Treasurer promised to slay? He's given up. He's handed control over to Labor's union masters as if they will be the dragon slayer. But, no, they will only fan the flames from this dragon's mouth. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry went further, stating that 'up to 99 per cent of Australian-employing businesses would be sidelined.'

Around 982,500 of Australia's 994,000 employing businesses do not have enterprise agreements. This exposes Labor's poorly veiled pathological hatred of small business. If this bill passes, the overwhelming majority of Australian businesses, most of them small or family run, will face a major structural disadvantage in securing Commonwealth work.

Small businesses are not marginal participants in the economy. They are its backbone, and they are already under pressure. Recent evidence shows that 64 per cent of businesses say industrial relations changes have made running their businesses harder, and around one-quarter say it's harder to grow or adapt under Labor. At the same time, many businesses are spending over $20,000 a year simply on compliance costs. Productivity depends on small businesses being able to innovate, compete and allocate resources efficiently. Let's not forget the $77 billion toxic taxes this government didn't have the courage to take to an election, which have shocked the innovative and business sectors, as they punish innovation and aspiration. Recent reporting on ongoing investigations into conduct within the construction sector show the CFMEU has used enterprise agreements strategically to generate revenue and control the construction industry.

In many respects, this is not new. Australians have known this for some time, particularly Victorians. The same inquiry has examined financial irregularities, the use of agreements as leverage and broader concerns about CFMEU influence in the sector. These are not historical issues—they are current—yet Labor's approach with this very dark cloud hanging over our construction sector is to enable more of the same. Procurement systems must remain transparent, competitive and grounded in value for money.

There is a consistent theme across Labor's workplace relations agenda. We hear much about secure jobs, bargaining and industrial structure, but we hear far less about productivity. Labor wants to elevate industrial arrangements as a determinant of access to government work without demonstrating how those arrangements improve efficiency, output or value for money. Productivity is not mentioned as the central test, and it ought to be. Productivity is not an academic measure. It determines whether wages can rise sustainably, whether projects can be delivered efficiently and whether households will face higher costs. If productivity weakens, construction costs rise, energy costs increase, infrastructure becomes more expensive and government budgets are stretched.

The problem with this bill is not its entirety; it is its 'wedge-islation' structure, trying to wedge us on this side of the house, putting the arguably good with the demonstrably bad. The Fair Work Commission reforms are necessary, are evidence base and respond to a clear operational problem, but they have been bundled with procurement provisions that introduce significant economic risk, lack clear evidence of benefit and have attracted widespread stakeholder concern. Australia cannot afford to ignore productivity. It is the single most important driver of long-term prosperity. This bill contains measures that will help the Fair Work Commission operate more efficiently—and those measures should pass—but it also contains provisions that risk distorting procurement, reducing competition and embedding higher costs in major projects.

On the central question of if this legislation will lift productivity or lower it, the answer is clear. It won't.

A secure job changes everything. It is the difference between building a life and just getting by. It is what lets someone take out a mortgage without laying awake over it or decide that it's finally the right time to start a family. When your job is secure, you stop bracing for next month. You can actually plan for it. This is what people want. It's not much when you think about it, a fair day's pay and a job you can count on. That is what the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026 sets out to deliver.

When we came to office, insecure work was already on the rise, and for years it had been allowed to spread, as if that was just how things worked: casual jobs that were permanent in everything but name and came without the entitlements that should have gone with them; contracts that loaded every risk onto the worker; wages that went nowhere while the price of everything went up. None of that was by accident; it was a choice—one that those opposite made year after year—to leave working people with less power and fewer protections. It is a choice we are undoing, piece by piece, and this bill is the next piece.

When government puts the nation's money to work it should make sure that the money backs secure jobs and a workplace relations system that protects the fair go. The Australian government is the biggest customer in the country. Every year we invest in everything from construction to transport to security to catering to IT to the care of our loved ones. There is no bigger buyer of goods and services anywhere in Australia. So this bill asks a fair question: when we spend all that money, what kind of work are we paying for, and what is the standard we seek to set? Every dollar is a choice, and I think we should spend hours investing in the employers who are doing the right thing—those who pay properly and who sit down with their workers in good faith to secure genuine agreements.

Australians want their government to set the example. They do not want their money fuelling a race to the bottom. So this bill lets us use our purchasing power to promote fairer wages and more-secure jobs through enterprise agreements where it makes sense to do so. It doesn't compel the Commonwealth to do anything, but it gives us the option. How and when we use it is being worked through carefully through the secure Australian jobs code. As a responsible government, we are taking the time to get it right.

I sat through a few enterprise agreement negotiations myself in my years at the United Workers Union. Done properly, they work for everyone in the room, providing security and fair conditions for workers as well as flexibility and productivity for business. They work precisely because both sides have hammered them across the table in good faith. That is what makes them one of the best tools we have. And it is worth saying plainly that an employer who signs an enterprise agreement is signing up to better pay and conditions for their people. That is the whole point.

Think about what this means in practice. When we build a road or a house, who do we want building it? When we pay for a hospital to be cleaned or for older Australians to be cared for, what kind of businesses do we want on the other end of that contract? I want it to be the one that looks after their workers, not the one whose priority is to undercut their workers if they think being able to do that gets them a government contract because they are paying their workers less. When taxpayers are footing the bill they are entitled to expect quality delivered by people who are treated decently. Value for money and on-time delivery are our priorities. But let's be clear. Businesses who do the right thing by their workers are the ones delivering value for money.

This bill also stands up for a group of workers that the system has too often let slip through the cracks: our truckies. Drive through the north-west of my electorate and you'll see trucks rolling out before dawn, the men and women behind the wheel keeping this country running. We saw it most clearly during the pandemic. When almost everything else stopped, they didn't. The trouble is that owner-drivers and contractors carry enormous costs before they've even had the opportunity to earn a cent—the truck, the fuel, the insurance, the rego. The margins are wafer thin, and when a contract treats them unfairly, too many have had nowhere to go.

We have already given drivers a quick and simple way to challenge an unfair contract at the Fair Work Commission. But the high income threshold, the way it works now, was never built with a truckie in mind; it bears no relation to the way their costs and their earnings actually stack up. This bill fixes that, with a new threshold designed for the road transport industry—one that reflects what it really costs to keep a truck on the road. We will settle the right figure in consultation, but the aim is simple enough. When a truckie has been done over, they get a fast, fair process to put it right.

This is not where we started, though. Our fairer fuel reforms have already given drivers and operators a fast track to claw back a fairer share when their costs have spiked. Our gig work laws, the first of their kind anywhere in the world, finally give employee-like workers a floor of minimum standards to stand on. This bill carries on that work for the people who keep the country fed, stocked and moving.

The bill also turns to the Fair Work Commission. When a workplace dispute needs settling, the commission is who settles it, and right now it needs a hand. Its case load has been climbing for years, and the pressures keep piling on. There are more paid agents in the system than ever before, and AI, as we've heard so many times before, is driving more disputes through the door and trickier ones at that.

On top of all of that, a recent decision of the full Federal Court now forces the commission to work through technical jurisdictional questions before it can even begin on the substance of a general protections claim. Anyone who has dealt with the commission knows how that goes. Time and money is burnt for everyone involved. This bill does something practical about that without stripping away a single protection for workers. We want the commission free to get straight to the substance of a matter, rather than being bogged down by technicalities first. It can move quickly on claims that are frivolous or vexatious or have no reasonable prospect of success. It can decide more matters on the papers, but only where both parties agree. It cuts the red tape so supported bargaining can start back up without a fresh round of paperwork, where an authorisation is already in place.

Those opposite will predictably use this debate to have another go at the union movement and the workers who join it, but let's take the politics out of it. These are sensible, practical changes that make the system fairer for everyone who uses it. A quick, certain outcome matters to a small-business owner every bit as much as it matters to a worker. Underneath all of it is something this side of the House has always believed in: that working people do best when they have a voice, when they can bargain for a fair deal directly through their union. This is not new ground for us. The Labor Party was formed from the union movement, and we've never been shy about that.

Nearly every protection a worker is afforded today was won the hard way by ordinary people who organised and stood together, and nearly every one of them was resisted at the time by the conservative side of this parliament. The eight-hour day was won by the stonemasons in Melbourne in 1856, among the very first workers anywhere in the world to do so. The weekend, the minimum wage, paid leave, superannuation—none of this was a gift handed down from above. Every one of those was fought for, and in almost every case it was fought against by the same people who now come into this chamber to cry foul about workers' rights and the unions that stand up for them. When we move to make our work more secure, we are not breaking new ground. We are doing what Labor governments have always done, and the reforms in this bill are a reflection of listening to workers, to employers and to the people who represent working people.

No bill like this stands on its own. To see why this work matters, we have to remember where we are coming from. Those opposite have form. Under their idol John Howard, we got Work Choices, a calculated attempt to strip away the protections and the bargaining power of ordinary working people. When penalty rates were cut for some of our lowest paid workers, those opposite didn't lift a finger to reverse it. In fact, they have voted against every attempt we have made to protect take-home pay. When wages would not budge, one of their own senior ministers at the time told us why. Low wage growth, he said, was a deliberate design feature of their economic plan. That is what working people are up against—a political party hell-bent on stripping the rights of workers and the unions that defend them. We reject that completely.

From our first months in office, we have set about turning it around through our secure jobs, better pay reforms and then our closing loopholes laws. Between them, they shut down the rorts that have been used to undercut workers' pay. Penalty rate protections went into law for the first time, and some of the lowest paid workers in this country got a pay rise out of it. Every single time those measures came up to vote, those opposite voted against it. That is why we have been so determined to undo the damage of their decade in power, and it is why we bring forward this bill today.

This bill is not complicated. It backs secure work, gives workers who have been shut out a way back in and lets our commission get on with their job. Those opposite will predictably whinge about it. They always rail against every protection working people have ever won, but we do not accept that insecure work and flat wages are just how it should be. We are proud to stand with working people, backing them in on higher wages and more secure work, giving them the tax cuts that they want and need and helping most of them get into their own home easier. Every day we are in this place, we focus on how we can advance the lives of working people, whereas those opposite—all three right-wing parties that we now have in this place—spend every day trying to make life harder for working people. While those opposite stand against workers, we on this side of the House stand with them. That's why I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill, which is intended to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and the Independent Contractors Act 2006. The government claims this is supposed to improve the operation of the workplace relations framework. The government says the bill introduces measures that will streamline the processes of the Fair Work Commission and ensure the Fair Work Act can operate more effectively. The government also says it will encourage enterprise bargaining and deliver better protections for contractors, particularly those in the road transport sector. This is to be achieved by removing some of the red tape around the Fair Work Act to allow the Fair Work Commission to be more efficient, particularly in matters relating to dismissal or unlawful termination disputes, and enabling the commission to dismiss or prevent frivolous, vexatious or unreasonable cases and applications.

There are four key policy objectives in the bill. The first is to make dispute resolution faster and more efficient and reduce the delays, costs and administrative burden for workers, employers and the commission. It all sounds very good, doesn't it? The second is to promote enterprise bargaining and improve workplace outcomes to deliver higher wages, increased productivity and tailored workplace arrangements through collective bargaining, higher wages and increased productivity. That also sounds good—too good, actually. The third is to improve fairness to contractors, especially in the road transport sector, by extending protections for unfair termination and contract thresholds. The fourth is intended to modernise the system and remove some of the technical flaws in the existing legislation.

This sounds like quite an innocuous and reasonable bill that will deliver improvements for workers and their employers, but, like with everything this government does, there is a hidden agenda. While the majority of the bill deals with the procedural aspects of the functioning of the Fair Work Commission, there is a ticking time bomb within that will fundamentally change the future of Australia's industrial landscape and the economy generally. Disguised as part of the enterprise bargaining and improved workplace outcomes mechanisms are the procurement and funding incentives, which give the government the power to lawfully favour employers with enterprise agreements when awarding contracts and giving financial assistance.

This proposed amendment is designed to give the trade union movement even more power over the Australian economy and create an anticompetitive environment that permits the Labor government to openly favour tenders for government contracts from businesses that have a trade-union backed enterprise agreement. Business owners in Wide Bay have expressed their concerns to me personally about this aspect of the bill and they are very worried and they're rightfully very worried. One local business is in the midst of a multimillion-dollar project that will deliver important new regional infrastructure. They don't have any unions in their business and they are, rightly, worried how this bill will impact their competitiveness when tendering for government projects and grants.

One of the key elements of Australia's industrial relations system has always been the right of freedom of association for employers and employees. This was entrenched in the Fair Work Act in 2009, giving workers the right to choose to be in a union member or not. This bill allows the government or a Commonwealth authority to choose who gets contracts or grants based on whether a business has a union enterprise agreement. The amendment goes further by allowing the government to exclude businesses that are planning to make an enterprise agreement, but haven't yet, or that already have one but without union involvement. These rules could affect the whole supply chain, because government contracts often require all contractors and subcontractors to have agreement terms that are at least as good as those of the main contractor. This cascading effect means that employers who have no direct contractual relationship with the government could be forced to enter into an enterprise agreement with a union in order to secure a contract with another business many levels from the head contract. It will influence the wider economy far greater than the original government contracts.

The Fair Work Commission reforms contained in this bill seem to be warranted, but the procurement bargaining provisions will only further this government's aim to entrench union controlled enterprise agreement structures into the workplace landscape. This bill should be split so this House can pass the Fair Work Commission reforms while the implications of the procurement amendments can be properly examined. As it stands, I cannot give my support to this bill.

I rise to speak in support of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. This bill is about making our workplace system work better. It's about fairness, it's about secure jobs, and it's about sure making the system works for workers and employers alike.

Let me tell you a bit about myself and my first job, as some of my colleagues here have done in contributing to today's debate. As a teenager, I worked at a local burger joint. I was young, I was in my first job, and I was enthusiastic to get it right. I believed that if you do the right thing and you work hard, you should be getting paid fairly. Meanwhile, my employers signed workers like me up to dodgy traineeships, which was designed to justify low wages. I learned back then—and I continue to understand now—that fair wages and conditions are not something to be taken for granted. They're not something that has always been a given in this country. They're something that need to be fought for, and that's why I joined the Australian Labor Party and why I couldn't be prouder to be part of the Albanese Labor government, because we are a government that has delivered the biggest workplace reforms in a generation. We have closed loopholes, we've strengthened job security and we've helped get wages moving again. But reform isn't something you do once and walk away from. We need to keep improving the system where we see the gaps, and this is exactly what this bill does.

One important part of this bill is supporting the work of the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission plays a vital role in Australia's workplace relations system. It helps resolve disputes, it helps protect workers, and it provides certainty for businesses, but its workload has increased significantly. This bill includes practical changes to help the commission work more efficiently. It will reduce unnecessary delays, it will deal with vexatious claims, and it will make sure that workers and employers can have their matters resolved more quickly.

It's important to note that these changes don't reduce protections for workers, they simply make the system work better. A strong workplace relations system should be accessible, and it should be efficient. That is exactly what these reforms are about.

This bill also supports good-faith bargaining. Enterprise agreements can deliver higher wages, secure jobs and better conditions. They can also deliver flexibility and productivity for employers. When workers and employers sit down together and negotiate in good faith, everybody benefits. This bill removes a barrier that prevents government spending from supporting employers who negotiate enterprise agreements in good faith. Importantly, there's normally a requirement for this to happen, but it gives government the ability to support fair wages and secure jobs where appropriate. Labor believes good jobs are good for workers, and we believe good jobs are good for productivity as well.

This bill is important, and I know the effects of what we vote on in this chamber will be felt right across the country. I know it will be felt in my electorate in Melbourne's western suburbs. Gorton is one of the fastest growing electorates in the country. There are about 80 babies born a week in the city of Melton alone. We are young, with an average age of 35, many with young families, and we're really diverse as well. In so many ways, my electorate is a microcosm of multicultural Australia with its vitality, its rich cultural and linguistic makeup, and its aspirations for the future. A good, hardworking community like mine deserves good measures to ensure that the Fair Work Act is working for them—for the Fair Work Commission to perform its vital functions effectively, for good-faith bargaining to be supported for employers and employees alike and for road transport contractors to be able to access proper protections.

Another really important measure of this bill is support for truckies. Our truck drivers keep Australia moving. They deliver the goods our households and businesses rely on every single day. In 2024, we introduced new protections in the Fair Work Commission for regulated road transport contractors, including truckies and small road transport businesses. Previously, it was hard for truck drivers working as independent contractors to challenge unfair conduct by contracting companies. Their contracts could be terminated without good reason, and they had a few ways to challenge contracts with unfair terms. Our closing loopholes reforms made recourse through the Fair Work Commission available to these workers so that if they were unfairly terminated or entered a contract with unfair terms, it was a way to make things right. But something still wasn't quite right. Truck drivers face significant costs to do their jobs: fuel, maintenance, insurance. For many owner-drivers, those costs are substantial, and, for that reason, conventional high-income thresholds don't always reflect the reality of the industry. The closing loopholes reforms created a contractor high-income threshold, which meant that some road transport contractors couldn't access recourse through the Fair Work Commission because their income was too high.

This bill recognises that this threshold didn't reflect the real situation for road transport contractors and amends that, allowing a separate high-income threshold for road transport contractors, meaning more truckies and small-road businesses will be able to access protections against unfair contracts and unfair termination. This bill reflects our broader commitment to supporting truckies. It's a tough time for every Australian on our roads, especially for those of us who are making their living from the road transport industry. Truckies deserve a fair go, and that's why we've extended the fuel excise relief for the month of July and slashed the heavy vehicle road user charge by 16 cents for the same period. It's why we've paved the way for the Fair Work Commission fuel cost recovery chain order, which requires parties across the road transport contractual chains to pay more to providers of road transport services, shielding road transport workers from the full brunt of increases to fuel prices. It's why we've amended the Fair Work Act to allow emergency powers to deal with surging fuel prices causing imminent risk to transport businesses and our national supply chains. It's why we've extended debt repayment arrangements available for businesses facing fuel-related financial pressures and started the $1 billion Economic Resilience Program under the National Reconstruction Fund to provide zero-interest loans to SMEs, including heavy-vehicle operators.

It's also why we're focused on improving road infrastructure around the country, including in my electorate of Gorton in the western suburbs of Melbourne. I know how important quality road infrastructure is for those in my community. It's important for mums and dads driving their kids to school; it's important for workers, who need good roads to deliver them safely from their place of work; and it's important for truckies, who absolutely rely on quality road infrastructure to make their jobs possible. It's why we're fixing the Western Freeway between Caroline Springs and Melton, investing a billion dollars for more lanes and better interchanges, improving the commute for the over 86,000 vehicles travelling on this stretch of road on the Western Freeway every single day. I'm laser focused on doing better for the west on road infrastructure and making sure that our truckies can deliver the goods Aussie households and businesses rely on safely and efficiently on our roads.

I'm also a proud member of the Transport Workers' Union, a union that represents over 20,000 members in Victoria and Tasmania, many of whom are truck drivers. I'm so proud to be part of this union that's dedicated to a fair go for truckies. I thank them for all of their work and advocacy and all they do to make sure that they represent the voices of workers. Labor will always stand with transport workers, because these are the workers who spend long hours away from their families, workers who keep our supermarkets stocked, workers who keep our businesses running and workers who keep our economy moving.

This bill also makes some practical changes to support reform in the construction industry. The Albanese Labor government took the strongest possible action to address serious issues within the CFMEU by legislating for the appointment of an administrator to the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, and these changes will help support that important work. This bill gives the administrator an appropriate timeframe to prepare and submit a biannual financial report to the minister, as required under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. Enterprise agreements that are genuinely agreed and negotiated in good faith can be a very transparent and effective way of delivering secure jobs and fair conditions for workers, as well as flexibility and productivity for employers.

Under current legislation, the Commonwealth is legally prohibited from considering preferencing employers with enterprise agreements when making funding decisions. We're removing that barrier, allowing government purchasing power to promote fairer wages and more secure jobs through enterprise agreements where it is appropriate to do so. This bill also supports the National Construction Industry Forum because cooperation between workers, employers and government matters. When people work together, we get better outcomes. When we tackle problems together, we build a stronger industry and a stronger economy as well. This builds on a number of other workplace reforms this Labor government has made for Australians across the country. We delivered same job, same pay; we closed loopholes that undermined wages and conditions; we strengthened protections against wage theft; and we have helped deliver real wage growth.

For too long, workers were told they should be grateful just to have a job. Meanwhile, wages were stagnant, job security declined and people were working harder and falling behind. Unlike the three right-wing parties of Australia, we believe that hardworking Aussies deserve secure work and hardworking Aussies deserve decent pay and dignity at work. Our same job, same pay laws have benefited thousands of workers across the country with pay increases, because our government identified something important. If you're doing the same job with the same experience while wearing the same uniform, it's only fair you should get paid the same. Our payday super reforms are once-in-a-generation reforms to fix unpaid super, because workers deserve to get paid for their full entitlements, and Australians deserve to retire with confidence and financial security as well.

It's no surprise that the three right-wing parties of Australia have not in the past or here today supported our workplace reforms and workers' protections. Take our recent tax cuts. Our budget is ensuring that all 13 million workers in Australia are getting a tax cut, with the working Australians tax offset and the thousand-dollar instant tax deduction, as well as better pay for workers and a fair go for first home buyers. These are tax cuts that put more money in the pockets of everyday Australians. Combined, we've cut income taxes five times in three different ways, putting nearly $3,000 a year in the pockets of the average worker by 2028.

Those opposite talk about helping workers, but, when push comes to shove, they vote against it on the floor of parliament. The same can be said for our minimum wage increase. The Fair Work Commission goes through a lot of deliberation about how to set this minimum wage. It looks at business conditions. It looks at profitability as well as the needs of working people. It's settled on what I think is a really responsible wage increase. It's a real wage increase for workers. We've got to remember these are the lowest paid workers in the country, and they deserve a real wage increase. The fact that the right-wing parties of Australia cannot bring themselves to back a minimum wage increase is really appalling. They do not represent the interests of workers. Let me tell you, the protections for workers happen in this chamber, not just with words but with votes on bills like this one.

This bill is about practical changes that make the system work better, changes that support workers and changes that support businesses. I think of our nurses in our community, our hospitality workers, our teachers, our truck drivers, our warehouse workers, our tradies and our small-business owners. I think of these workers in our community because they work hard and they do the right thing. But that's not always enough. You need the right systems in place to support you. That's what this bill is about. If you want workers to be treated fairly, then you've got to fight for it, and in this chamber, we're fighting for the protection of workers. Fairness matters. Secure jobs matter. A fair go matters. That is why we on this side of the chamber will always fight for that—because Labor is the party of secure jobs, fair wages and safe workplaces. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise with great interest in the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, as someone who made a living out of the construction sector for 35-odd years before I came into this place, as a carpenter and joiner, as a registered builder and as a construction lawyer. There are some good elements in this bill that the opposition is happy to support, but there are some terrible elements of this bill, which I will leave to my discussions later on. Firstly, let's just have a quick look at some of the good aspects of this bill. The bill is basically in two main thematic parts. There are some changes to the Fair Work Commission and changes relating to enterprise agreements in Commonwealth procurement.

They're the two main issues, the two themes of this bill. The first one we support; the second one we do not support. In relation to the four main Fair Work Commission changes—the jurisdictional objections, the delegations, the vexatious litigants and determining matters on the papers—these are all are relatively sensible reforms, and the coalition is happy to support those. The coalition would like to see the government act responsibly and split the bill into these two main themes.

I recall, back in 2022, when this Prime Minister first won office, in one of his first speeches, he stood up and said, 'I'm going to be a prime minister for the whole of this country. I'm not going to create any wedges in legislation. I'm going to ensure that this government is open and transparent and honest and all that sort of stuff.' Well, we all know now, after four years, that anything could be further from the truth. This government continues, almost on a daily basis, to try and sneak stuff into what might otherwise be uncontentious legislation. It's hoping that the coalition will miss the insidious aspects of this bill.

In relation to the jurisdictional objections, this is an issue that we don't have a problem with. The jurisdictional objections clutter up the Fair Work Commission on the basis of arguments between employer and employee about whether someone was terminated or whether their position was terminated or not. There needs to be a specific or an individual hearing like a threshold hearing on that point. To do away with that jurisdictional issue is reasonable, given the massive backload in the Fair Work Commission that this government finds itself with. We think that that's a reasonable way to help ease the burden on the Fair Work Commission. The practical effect of this change is to reduce the unnecessary preliminary hearings, and it will allow the Fair Work Commission to get on with doing its job: helping parties to resolve their disputes.

The bill also creates a framework for the President of the Fair Work Commission to delegate certain procedural powers in unresolved dismissal and unlawful termination disputes to senior commission staff. Similarly, we don't have an issue with that.

Thirdly, the bill allows the Fair Work Commission to dismiss unfair deactivation and unfair termination applications where they're frivolous, vexatious or have no reasonable prospects of success—fair enough.

Fourthly, the bill also allows the Fair Work Commission to decide certain contested matters on the papers. I had the privilege of being an adjudicator for many years in my legal profession, where I determined matters on the papers. There are many instances where judicial officers or quasi-judicial officers have the benefit or the ability to be able to determine disputes on the papers—that is, without having an oral hearing. It saves the parties money and saves the parties time, so we don't have a problem with that.

There are some other minor amendments, which I won't take up the time of the chamber with. Needless to say, those minor amendments have the support of the coalition.

But I want to turn to the insidious nature of this bill, the insidious aspect that those members opposite don't really want to talk about, and that is in relation to the procurement bargaining involving the Commonwealth. Madam Deputy Speaker, as someone who worked as a young lad on building sites across Victoria—your state—on the first day of my apprenticeship, I was bullied relentlessly by members of the then Builders Labourers Federation, now the CFMEU. It was the first day of my apprenticeship on a building site. I would have been 18 years old and 70 kilos wringing wet, and I was apparently sweeping the floor too quickly for the liking of these two CFMEU goons. That started my significant distrust in the CFMEU.

What the changes in this legislation will effectively do is allow the Commonwealth to ensure that, in contracts that the Commonwealth enters into, contractors who are aligned with the CFMEU or have a particular arrangement with the CFMEU can be preferred to other contractors. Let that sink in for a moment. How could it be that, in 2026, this government, after everything that has happened with the royal commission into the building industry, with what's going on with the Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU in Queensland right now and with all of the graft and corruption—the federal Labor Party have had their eyes opened just in the last 18 months. Now they've seen the light and they realise just how corrupt the CFMEU is, and they want to provide a means by which they can provide preferential treatment for unions who have particular enterprise bargaining agreements that provide preferential treatment to the CFMEU. How can that be? How can it be, when Geoffrey Watson SC recently identified $15 billion worth of graft and corruption in the Victorian construction sector—just in Victoria—involving the CFMEU?

When I was a lad, when we walked up to building sites there used to be a huge sign on the front gate, and that sign said 'No ticket, no start'—meaning that if you weren't a member of the then Builders Labourers Federation you could not get a job on that building site. Thankfully John Howard, when he was the Prime Minister, outlawed that practice through his freedom-of-association rules and laws. But unfortunately it has crept back in. The unofficial practice of 'no ticket, no start', whilst it was illegal, is effectively what unions like the CFMEU did. They introduced these rules: 'Sunshine, if you want a job doing the traffic control on this site, if you want a job doing the form work on this site, if you want a job doing the steelwork on this site, you've got to sign a CFMEU approved EBA. And if you don't, not only will we not allow you on this site but we will black ban every single one of the sites you are working on throughout this country.'

Apparently, according to members opposite who received very generous donations from the CFMEU, this all came as some great revelation. They had no idea that this was going on, despite my banging on about it for eight years beforehand. For eight years I've been talking about this in this place. The member for Watson, who was then responsible for it, came into the chamber about 18 months ago and said, 'Oh, we had no idea about this graft and corruption!' What a load of rubbish.

This bill effectively provides the Commonwealth with the ability to provide preferred treatment to enter into contracts with the Commonwealth to businesses who have approved EBAs with the CFMEU. To anybody who is listening to this from any building site around the country—and I know you are listening—what you should read from that is that if you don't have an EBA that is approved by the CFMEU you will no longer get Commonwealth government contracts; you will be locked out. This is effectively the way this government operates to control the construction sector, which has tens of billions of dollars worth of contracts each and every year. This is the payback for their CFMEU mates. This is how this government looks after their CFMEU mates.

The evidence is incontrovertible, whether it's the best-practice industry conditions in Queensland or whether it's the $15 billion worth of graft and corruption in the construction sector in Victoria, and there is so much more evidence to come out. It means that everyday mums and dads are paying more money, more taxes, to pay for roads, bridges and buildings—but not just public buildings. For every public building that's being built by those contractors that I spoke about earlier—the plumbers, sparkies, carpenters, formworkers and concreters—if they can get 150 bucks an hour on a CFMEU job, why would they want to take on another job for less? Why would they? That drives up the cost of the construction sector. It drives up the cost of building things in Australia. It drives up the cost of infrastructure. What that means is that we all pay more tax. We wonder why this government is looking for another $280 billion to take from the Australian taxpayer to pay for this sort of shenanigans. It is unfathomable that those members opposite can stand in here—

That's what same job, same pay is about.

I'll take the interjection from the member from Moreton, who obviously doesn't care about spending taxpayers' money carefully, because taxpayers are being cruelled by this federal government. There's another $280 billion in this budget of additional taxes, and those additional taxes will go to building things in this country but only by CFMEU approved contractors. That is the reality of it. The reality is that everyday Australians will be paying much more not just on their public works but on their private works as well.

This government does not give a damn about the costs of construction, as long as it looks after its mates in the unions. That's what this is all about. This is all about running a protection racket for the CFMEU just so that the government can keep getting their very generous political donations from the CFMEU. It's just a perpetual cycle of dependency between the CFMEU and this government. This government stands condemned as a result. (Time expired)

In my remarks—and I don't intend to take my full allocated time—I want to concentrate on a couple of key areas, particularly as a Victorian who's very concerned about the rife CFMEU corruption in my state and the impact that that is having not just on our level of debt but on our level of government integrity and on small and family operated businesses not just in Melbourne but across regional Victoria as well.

The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026 seeks to address some necessary change, it seeks to address some unnecessary change and it seeks to implement, I think, some bad change as well. I will run through those concerns. First up, this bill is the government's response to recent backlogs and a surge in cases at the Fair Work Commission, and that is fair enough. There are many instances, if you look through news reports, of backlogs as a result of the proliferation of generative AI tools. There is a record-high number of cases, 44,000, in recent reporting at the commission. Some of those cases are meritorious. Some of them are not. Unfortunately, a growing number are as a result of AI technology and they are flawed or faulty applications.

Deputy President Colman recently dismissed a claim. It was the fifth claim in two years by this applicant. The deputy president found that it was faulty and it was flawed and made some remarks about the impact of AI in building some of these applications. There's been some commentary around the fact that there's an $89.70 fee to lodge a complaint. In 40 per cent of cases, the Fair Work Commission waives it or reduces it. It has to be said, I think, with 50,000 unfair and general protection claims anticipated for this year, the issue of AI and a very low fee should be taken into account when dealing with looking at the impact administratively and certainly in the pursuit of natural justice at the commission. The Fair Work Commission has made some public commentary on that workload crisis. As I've said, AI assisted tools are a big part of that. The Fair Work Commission president, Justice Adam Hatcher, released a statement at the end of 2025 saying that the workload has become unsustainable and that modest levels of legislative change were needed to help. And that is a fair point.

What does this bill do? The bill has two main thematic parts to it: changes to the Fair Work Commission and changes relating to enterprise agreements in Commonwealth procurement. That second part is where I want to address some of my concerns. The reforms, generally, are fair enough, but I do not support the enterprise bargaining procurement changes. As a number of my colleagues and the crossbench on this side of the chamber have raised, there are serious concerns around the CFMEU and its ability to infiltrate, orchestrate and manipulate enterprise bargaining arrangements and negotiations, and the way that businesses are able to fairly go about these issues.

I want to refresh people's knowledge about some of these key concerns raised about the CFMEU, some of which go back a couple of years and some a couple of days. Recently, I was most alarmed to read:

Criminologists have told a Queensland inquiry the CFMEU likely used organised crime style methods to control the construction industry.

I know Geoffrey Watson's report to the Queensland government Rotting from the top has been referenced a number of times in this debate, and I think it is worth mentioning for a couple of reasons. The corruption induced by the CFMEU in Victoria has cost the taxpayer $15 billion, and that's a conservative estimation.

I represent a regional area; I represent a rural community. That $15 billion could go a long way to fixing roads, schools and hospitals in my electorate. I think, most particularly, of the West Gippsland Hospital, which the state government has promised to deliver for time after time. The money hasn't yet hit the ground in our community. Those are the services and infrastructure that that $15 billion of CFMEU linked corruption is costing Victorian taxpayers. It is costing Victorian communities. It is costing every taxpayer right across Victoria their ability to access the frontline services and amenities that they should, quite rightly, expect.

I've paid a lot of attention to the illegal tobacco market in recent times. You don't need to scroll very far down in the report by Geoffrey Watson to read the dot point on the link between the CFMEU and the illegal tobacco trade in Australia. That is deeply alarming. The proceeds of this are going to organised crime and bikie gangs, as in the case of the firebombing of the Melbourne synagogue linked to Kazem Hamad. These are very bad, dangerous activities. The fear is that that is now spreading out into the illegal alcohol industry as well. Anecdotally, there is some CFMEU linked influence over that as well.

I have deep concerns when looking at this bill—and the way that it constructs amendments around negotiations for enterprise agreements and procurement—that the CFMEU can get its hands all over this as well. I think taxpayers deserve better. I think our community deserves far better. That is why I stand in this place very strongly against what this bill seeks to do in relation to that. I will conclude my remarks early, and I thank the House.

I, too, rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. Like so many pieces of legislation, the name defies what's actually in the bill. We support sensible reforms that help the Fair Work Commission to do its job more effectively. We support measures that reduce unnecessary delays, measures that help workers and employers resolve disputes faster and practical changes that respond to the very real workload pressures that currently face the Fair Work Commission. What we don't support is the government using those sensible reforms as a vehicle for unrelated and highly controversial changes to Commonwealth procurement policy. That's why the coalition will be moving amendments. If those amendments are not accepted, the coalition will oppose the bill.

Like a lot of the bills that have come into this place since I've been here, this bill should be two bills. It contains two completely separate policy agendas. One part of it deals with Fair Work Commission efficiency and case management, and I'll talk a bit about that. There are some reasonable reforms in that part of the legislation that I think are fair enough. But the other part creates a legal framework for allowing Commonwealth procurement processes to preference businesses that have particular forms of enterprise agreements. We know what that means, don't we? These issues are not connected. They solve different problems. One of them creates huge amounts of problems. They affect different stakeholders, and they deserve separate parliamentary scrutiny.

The government says this bill is about helping the Fair Work Commission manage its workload. If that's the objective, let us pass that part of the bill and those reforms immediately. But, instead, the government has trickily attached a second industrial relations agenda that has significant consequences for Commonwealth contracting, procurement and processes and supply chains across Australia. The fact that these provisions have been bundled together raises an obvious question: if procurement measures are so sensible, why not put them before the parliament as a standalone bill? Why hide them amongst otherwise uncontroversial Fair Work Commission reforms?

The Fair Work Commission has been very public about the challenges it's facing. Its president has warned about unprecedented workloads. Applications have surged, processing times are increasing, resources are under pressure, and the commission has called for modest legislative changes to help manage the caseload. One example involves jurisdictional objections. Following the Milford decision, the commission has increasingly been required to determine threshold legal questions before moving to conciliation and dispute resolution, and that means more hearings, more lawyers, more delays and more cost. The original purpose of these processes was to resolve the disputes quickly and informally, and this amendment restores that practical approach. It allows the commission to commence conciliation where an applicant alleges dismissal or unlawful termination, rather than requiring lengthy arguments about jurisdiction even before the sensible discussions can take place. That's practical, and I support it.

The bill also allows certain procedural powers to be delegated to senior commission staff, which is again intended to streamline administrative functions and reduce unnecessary delays. If appropriate safeguards remain in place, then they are reasonable reforms. The coalition supports measures dealing with vexatious and frivolous claims. Likewise, allowing certain matters to be determined on the papers without the consent of parties is simply common sense. Not every matter is going to require a hearing. Not every matter requires people to travel, engage representatives and wait months for listing dates. If disputes can be fairly determined through written submissions, then the law should permit it, and that's a practical reform.

There is another element in the bill dealing with road transport contractors and the proposed high-income threshold, and the coalition has an open mind about the challenges facing owner-drivers and the transport contractors. But, with this section of it, we do believe that further scrutiny is required. Stakeholders themselves have expressed mixed views. That is why the provisions warrant closer examination through Senate committee processes.

These issues are all worthy of consideration. Most of them are very sensible reforms. But the next bit is where it descends into abject nonsense. The most controversial part of this bill is not those Fair Work Commission reforms that I spoke about. It's the other provisions, and they represent a fundamental change. Currently, the Fair Work Act protects against discrimination based on whether a business has particular workplace instruments or enterprise agreements. The government now proposes an exemption to that. That exemption would permit Commonwealth agencies to preference businesses with particular kinds of enterprise agreements in relation to procurement. Now, let's call this what it is: a deliberate legislative pathway for industrial relations arrangements to become a factor in Commonwealth procurement.

Procurement should be about value for money, and value for money for the taxpayer should be based on these principles: value for money, capability, performance, delivery and compliance with the law. That's what taxpayers expect and what businesses expect, and it's what governments should deliver. It shouldn't be based on whether a business has negotiated a union-covered enterprise agreement or not. That shouldn't be a deciding factor in the ability to compete for government work. This is particularly relevant for regional businesses and regional projects, because of what this will mean for really good regional projects. An example is the Shepparton to Melbourne rail line, stage 3 of which was 80 per cent funded, to the tune of $320 million, by the previous coalition government. I'm still waiting for it to finish, but maybe the Allan government can answer as to why it hasn't been finished yet. That's Commonwealth funding.

If regional businesses that don't have certain types of enterprise bargaining agreements with unions can't compete for that work, then we've really lost something in this country. Some of these smaller businesses have wonderful relations with their employees, their workers. They all live in the same town, so they all want these businesses to work. They all want to see the infrastructure that is being funded. Now they can't compete for that work, because of the types of industrial relations enterprise bargaining agreements that they have. It really is a kick in the guts for smaller regional companies, and the Commonwealth should not be picking winners and losers based on industrial relations preferences.

The government argues that these powers merely create an option, but the legislation goes further than creating an option. The provisions extend beyond the primary contractor. They can flow down supply chains. A subcontractor may face pressure because the head contractor seeks to satisfy procurement requirements, and that pressure can cascade through the multiple layers of commercial relationships. Today it might be a preference. Tomorrow it might become an expectation. Eventually, it risks becoming a de facto requirement. That's why businesses are concerned and why industry groups are concerned, and it's why we are concerned.

The unions have a lot of influence in this country. Some unions—and I do say 'some unions'—have been shown to be less than worthy of that influence that they have in this country. I'm a Victorian, and recent events in Victoria have demonstrated why parliament should proceed cautiously whenever access to work becomes linked to obtaining the 'right'—the correct—industrial relations arrangements. The Watson report has exposed deeply troubling allegations regarding corruption and misconduct within the Victorian CFMEU construction branch. There is an estimate that that has cost the taxpayer an extra $15 billion. I note that the Victorian Premier has disputed that, but when pressed last week on 7.30 with, 'What do you think the number is?', she absolutely refused to answer. If she's saying it's not $15 billion, then how much is it?

The lesson is not that enterprise agreements are inherently wrong. The lesson is that whenever market access becomes dependent on obtaining a preferred industrial relations agreement serious risks emerge. There are risks of coercion, risks of exclusion, risks of inflated costs—inflated costs for the taxpayer, and that's who we all should be working for. They work really hard to earn that money and pay those taxes, and we should treat that money with the respect that it deserves. There are also risks of corruption, and that should concern every member of this parliament. The Commonwealth should not be creating incentives that move us further in that direction.

We could learn from Queensland, and I say that as a proud Victorian. The former best practice industry conditions policy sought to embed industrial relations outcomes into government procurement. The Queensland government ultimately abandoned that policy. Why? It did because of concerns about cost pressures, project delivery and market distortions. The lesson is straightforward. Governments should focus on outcomes. Projects should be awarded to businesses that can deliver. Many businesses in regional Australia that have different industrial relations agreements are fantastic at delivering because they know the projects and they know the communities they're dealing with in many cases. It shouldn't just be businesses that simply satisfy an industrial relations preference.

What is industry saying about this? It's not just the coalition raising concerns. Industry stakeholders from across the economy have expressed strong reservations. Business groups have warned that public contracts should be awarded on merit, not on industrial affiliation. Builders have warned about impacts on small business. Industry associations have warned about reduced competition, and we know what reduced competition leads to. Others have warned that these changes undermine the principle of freedom of association. It's not a niche concern; it's a broad concern.

The coalition believes that this parliament can do two things at once. We should be able to support the sensible Fair Work Commission reforms. Many of them are contained in this legislation. But we should be able to reject the flawed procurement amendments. The Fair Work Commission reforms and Commonwealth procurement for certain types of industrial relations don't have anything to do with each other, and they shouldn't be in the same bill. So the government should separate these measures and bring forward the Fair Work Commission reforms as a standalone package. We can support them and we can get those important reforms. I congratulate the government on coming up with those reforms. We could get those through. But don't use those reforms as a cover for industrial relations changes that risk distorting procurement, reducing competition and increasing costs for taxpayers.

The coalition will move amendments to remove those procurement bargaining provisions to allow the parliament to deal with the Fair Work Commission reforms on their merits, and then we can debate as to whether the Commonwealth should be saying: 'Well, you've got a certain type of EBA with the unions; you can have this Commonwealth project. But whilst you treat your workers absolutely fairly and pay them well and work with them, you don't have that type of EBA, so we're not going to give you any chance to participate in a Commonwealth contract.' That's not the way Australia should work. If the government refuses to separate these issues, the coalition cannot support this bill in its current form.

Here is more legislation from this Labor government. The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026 is the government's response to a surging backlog at the Fair Work Commission. Officially, it's about the concept of cooperative workplaces. But let us be honest—beneath these necessary administrative fixes lies a union agenda. Separately, this bill makes aggressive amendments to the Fair Work Act, allowing the Commonwealth to actively preference companies that hold enterprise agreements with unions in government contracting. These reforms are unlinked. One is an administrative necessity; the other is a brazen ideological stitch up by Labor.

This is classic Labor. They favour big businesses who can afford massive compliance departments, and they overwhelmingly favour the union bosses who fund their campaigns. Speaking of which, you have to marvel at the enduring romance between the Labor Party and the CFMEU. It is truly the great love story. Romeo and Juliet had Verona; Labor and the CFMEU have construction sites and slush funds. They are like a couple who keeps breaking up in public, deleting the photos off Instagram but then secretly texting each other late at night when the campaign bills are due.

Yesterday, the Labor Party rammed through a motion which effectively guillotines debate on this profoundly consequential bill. The suspension motion itself is a pathetic, cynical wedge. It was supposedly moved to enable members to attend yesterday evening's solemn ceremony at the War Memorial and yet it conveniently contained a series of gags on highly controversial legislation. When the manager and deputy manager of opposition business rightfully tried to move amendments, Labor mercilessly gagged the debate.

The Leader of the House's motion means debate on the second reading is abruptly cut off at 5.30. This is undemocratic. Furthermore, it aggressively limits debate on the consideration in detail stage, allowing the maximum time of a mere 10 minutes per detailed amendment. Consideration in detail is precisely when we get to apply the blowtorch to the technical elements of a bill but we will not get to do that here. Why? Because the Labor Party fundamentally does not want parliamentary scrutiny. Genuine scrutiny will clearly expose that this is a complete love-in with the unions. Just as we saw with Labor's massive industrial relations agenda last term, they are up to their exact same old trick again—ramming bad legislation through our parliament. What's new?

Now while the coalition supports the vast majority of the practical elements within this bill, Labor have deliberately shoehorned in bad faith provisions, essentially forcing the opposition into a position where we must oppose it. The hypocrisy from the Prime Minister on this issue is staggering. Let us look at his own words regarding what he famously called 'wedge-islation'. In his very first press conference as Prime Minister he sanctimoniously declared he 'looked forward to leading a government that makes Australians proud, one that does not seek to divide or wedge, but seeks to bring people together peacefully.'

In his very first caucus address, he stated Labor wanted to be inclusive, claiming:

The former government sat around and talked about how to wedge the other side of politics.

As opposition leader, he constantly accused the coalition of trying to promote 'wedge-islation'. He claimed we were 'a government in search of an agenda'—always looking for division, never looking for unity. He was in the media claiming he wanted to bring people together after a decade of division. He repeated this exact same script ad nauseam.

Yet, exactly what do we have before us here today in this parliament? We have the absolute textbook definition of 'wedge-islation'. The government has explicitly warned that legislative changes were desperately needed to address the Fair Work Commission workload crisis, but they deliberately bundled these sensible reforms with extreme ideological procurement amendments they fully knew the coalition would never support. Because, of course, the coalition supports practical, common sense reforms that help the Fair Work Commission deal with this crippling workload. We fundamentally believe that justice delayed is justice denied. However, the government should not use sensible commission reforms as a convenient cover for passing entirely unrelated, highly damaging, radical union-centric procurement and contracting changes.

Our demand is simple, and it is reasonable. The bill must be split: pass the Fair Work Commission reforms immediately, and separately scrutinise the procurement bargaining provisions. Commonwealth procurement should always be based on value for money, capability and compliance with the law, not on whether it's a union. It should never be based on whether a business has signed the preferred industrial instrument of the Labor Party's militant union mates. We have seen exactly what happens when procurement policy is ruthlessly used to advantage union controlled arrangements. It inevitably risks higher costs for taxpayers, significantly reduced market competition and a highly toxic pay-to-play workplace culture. This culture actively entrenches corruption and maliciously shouts out lawful, hardworking businesses. The procurement provisions risk pushing union covered agreements straight through Commonwealth contracting and cascading brutally down the entire supply chain.

Let me outline the specific Fair Work Commission reforms that we do support. Up until the consequential court case involving Coles Supply Chain and Milford, the normal way the commissioner conducted general protections or unlawful termination cases was to proceed straight to the early dispute resolution stage. Even if an employer vehemently claimed there'd been no dismissal, the commission did not need to formally resolve these complex disputes upfront immediately. Milford disastrously changed this procedure, resulting in the commission having to deal with threshold jurisdictional legal obligations first. This made the entire process considerably slower, highly formal and excruciatingly expensive. The president estimates that about 600 cases a year now suffer through this delayed process.

The amendments here sensibly clarify the position, allowing the commission to reduce unnecessary preliminary legal arguments and to genuinely help parties resolve disputes efficiently. The bill also practically creates a framework for the president to delegate certain procedural powers in unresolved dismissal and unlawful termination disputes to senior commission staff, which is of course helpful. This allows many simple admin tasks to be handled swiftly, allowing matters to proceed to consent, arbitration or court. The bill powerfully allows the commission to dismiss unfair deactivation and unfair termination applications where they are demonstrated to be frivolous or vexatious or clearly have no reasonable prospects of success. Crucially, it allows the commission to make orders preventing relentless litigants from making further specified applications once their substantive application has already been decisively dismissed, preventing a massive waste of public resources.

Furthermore, the bill allows the commission to intelligently decide certain contested matters strictly on the papers without holding formal contested hearings. This saves valuable time and money while rigorously preserving procedural fairness, provided that both involved parties explicitly consent. We also acknowledge the minor amendments such as updating the National Construction Industry Forum membership, providing travel allowances for the Road Transport Advisory Group and granting more time for the administrator of the CFMEU to prepare vital financial statements.

However, we maintain deep reservations regarding the new standalone road transport contractor high-income threshold. These existing high-income thresholds deliberately exclude workers who are deemed to have sufficient bargaining power to seamlessly manage their own commercial arrangements outside of the strictly regulated statutory industrial safety net. Creating an industry-specific carve out purely for road transport contractors effectively pulls a defined class of independent commercial contractors unwillingly back into the complex Fair Work system. We are yet to see any credible evidence to support these specific provisions, which is why they should be subject to a Senate inquiry.

I turn to the most controversial, destructive part of this bill: the massive sweeping changes to government procurement preferencing. In the October budget, the government committed to establishing a secure jobs code. The consultation paper heavily hinted at radically altering public contracting. It suggested requiring entities to 'ensure that enterprise agreements used on government-funded projects are genuinely agreed'. Yet, since submissions closed in February, there has been absolute deafening silence—until now. The Gillard government introduced similar fair work principles in 2009, making compliance a condition for participation in procurement. The Abbott government rightly repealed those restrictive principles. Now this bill makes dangerous amendments to the Fair Work Act, allowing government to explicitly preference companies with enterprise agreements tied directly to employee organisations and unions.

Currently, the Fair Work Act strictly prohibits discrimination against an employer during public procurement. This means no-one, literally not even the mighty Commonwealth, can legally prefer one company over another simply because it has a union affiliated enterprise agreement. This bill shatters that vital protection. It deliberately creates a massive exemption allowing the Commonwealth to aggressively preference employers whose employees are covered by a union covered enterprise agreement. Critically, this is shockingly one-directional. It only excuses discrimination that inherently favours enterprise agreement coverage. There is absolutely no equivalent exemption for preferencing a non-agreement employer.

Worse still, this bill creates a terrifying new concept called a Commonwealth contractual arrangement chain to brutally enforce these new laws. If the Commonwealth contracts company A and company A subcontracts company B, company B is legally protected if it brutally preferences an employee with a union covered enterprise agreement, because its overarching contract demands it. This means this insidious bargaining incentive can aggressively flow down the entire supply chain, completely infecting every single level of contracting. Why are these provisions so terrifyingly concerning? Because they limit fundamental freedom of association and completely obliterate the central procurement principle of value for taxpayer money. They transform Commonwealth procurement into a blunt weapon for pushing union agreements onto fiercely independent, local small businesses.

Let me return to Labor's romantic partner, the CFMEU. If you want to know what this bill achieves, you only need to look at the explosive Watson report into the horrific corruption and misconduct in the CFMEU's Victorian construction branch, Rotting from the top. Watson systematically found that the enterprise agreement system thoroughly corrupted, describing it as utterly brazen, old-fashioned, pay-to-play corruption. Watson found there was absolutely no genuine bargaining occurring. A CFMEU official arrogantly told a contractor executive that nothing would be changed in the agreement, proudly proving that no actual genuine negotiation happened.

Independent Treasury modelling estimated it skyrocketed project costs by 25 per cent. Stakeholders are absolutely united in their profound alarm. Split the bill now. (Time expired)

There's a lot not to like about this bill, and you can tell there's a lot not to like about a bill when no Labor member has their name on the present speaker's list to defend the bill, to spruik the bill or to promote the bill. And I ask: why? Where are the Labor members when it comes to talking about the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026? They're missing in action. There's a reason why they're missing in action. We just heard from the member for Grey, talking about the particular report by no less than Geoffrey Watson SC entitled Rotting from the top. He investigated the corruption and the misconduct in the notorious CFMEU's Victorian construction branch. This report became public because it was tendered at Queensland's commission of inquiry into that union and its activities. We learned that there was $15 billion of misappropriation. Let's call it that. It was $15 billion of taxpayers' money. It was $15 billion of funds that could have and should have been spent on things other than just going into union thugs' pockets. Let's call them what they are; they are union thugs. They are ruling the roost in Victoria. The sooner the Labor government is jettisoned from the Treasury benches in Victoria the better. The sooner they are a long way away from Spring Street the better off the nation will be—not just Victoria and not just Melbourne but, indeed, the country.

Geoffrey Watson SC found the enterprise agreement system in Victorian construction had been 'thoroughly corrupted', describing it as old-fashioned 'pay to play' corruption. It's not good. It's simply not good enough. When I was the infrastructure minister, I worked with—and worked well, I might add—the now Victorian Premier, Jacinta Allan, and we got some good things done. But, particularly in recent years, the CFMEU has become out of control. We hear terrible stories about the strong-arm tactics and the bully-boy worksite tactics used by John Setka and others. It's shameful. It's just not good enough.

The date 6 December 2022 was a dark day in the construction sector, particularly in Victoria, because that was the day when the Albanese federal Labor government put through the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022. What that did was it dismantled the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the cops on the beat, those who at worksites made sure that everything was as it should be in a fair and disciplined way. One would ask why an organisation such as the ABCC should be abolished. I have to give it to the Labor legislation title writers; they whacked in 'secure jobs, better pay' as if it were necessary, fair and much-wanted legislation. They've got a clever way of disguising what really is in the detail of any particular bill. That was one of the best examples of the worst kinds of bills. It was going to dismantle a group which was having such a positive and profound outcome on building sites.

The ABCC was a necessary watchdog. It truly was. It prevented unlawful union behaviour, the sorts of which are now on an industrial scale by the CFMEU. The ABCC also reduced project delivery costs for taxpayer funded infrastructure. When I refer to taxpayer funded infrastructure, I particularly refer to schools and to hospitals—those things which educate our children, those things which keep all of us alive—as well as roads. We know that we pay too much for roads. That's if we could get it in regional Australia, Member for Parkes. Your electorate is massive. So is mine. The upkeep, just the maintenance, of our roads has slipped markedly under this Labor government, let alone the construction of our roads. We know that when there's a Labor government in Canberra the split between federal and state is fifty-fifty. When there's a coalition government in Canberra, it's 80-20. So it's little wonder why the states delay construction on some of the bigger projects, particularly roads.

And, of course, the unions are always in there, trying to get their chop. They're always in there, trying to make sure that they can elicit funds, somehow, some way, from those big taxpayer funded projects so that they can stay in business—the business of being thugs on worksites. I was a union member once. I was a union member for 21 years with, firstly, the Australian Journalists Association, which then became the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. I ran into the new head of the MEAA in the corridors this week, and I will say this. I don't wish my colleagues to think any less of me, but unions have a role to play. They do.

I always knew you were a good man, Michael.

Thank you, Member for Kingsford Smith. I like to think I'm a good man—but in balance. But it's not with the CFMEU doing what they do on workplace sites, particularly in Melbourne and throughout Victoria, at the behest and the coercion and the cooperation and the collaboration of the Australian Labor Party in that state.

Watson found there was no genuine bargaining. A CFMEU official told the contractor executive:

There is no bargaining—no, nothing will be changed in this agreement.

It's a shameful episode in what can happen when you let the criminal elements of a union take over, take charge, because it is criminal. They'll get away with it, as they often do, but it stops more hospitals being built. It stops more bitumen being put down on roads and saving people's lives. It does, particularly in Victoria, where they are in urgent and desperate need of a government that actually looks after the people who keep the lights on.

Member for McEwen!

He's a recidivist in that regard, Deputy Speaker.

Tell them the truth—

Member for McEwen, please, you'll have other opportunities in the House—

Can you make him withdraw that? He's telling me to tell the truth. Can you make him withdraw that, please, Deputy Speaker?

I didn't even hear what he said; I'm sorry.

He told me to tell the truth, and I am telling the truth.

Anyway, let's not repeat offences here.

You're not telling the truth.

Member for McEwen!

He's easily stirred up because he knows what I'm saying is correct, particularly when it comes to the CFMEU. He probably came in deliberately to try to put me off my flow—

Let's not do much more provocation as well.

which was referring to the importance of fairness in the workplace, on the worksite, particularly when our construction sector is in freefall under those opposite. When it comes to insolvencies and bankruptcies, it's the transport sector and the construction sector that are the highest. They're doing it the toughest. So many hardworking companies and businesspeople are going out backwards because of the policies of the federal Labor Party and government, which brings into this place legislation such as that, and then nobody is prepared to speak about it. We've got members, such as the member for McEwen, who are prepared to interject on those who are actually standing at the dispatch box and speaking about the legislation but not prepared to talk on the legislation.

It being 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

I rise to speak about the corrosive influence of the gas lobby. It's a very simple proposal: get gas lobbyists out of parliament. Ban them. It's that simple. Our politicians seem to be completely incapable of resisting the relentless lobbying, the spin, the threats, the pressure and the dossiers of talking points handed to them and their staff. It really is simple: politicians shouldn't be meeting with gas lobbyists; they should be meeting with the people who elected them.

The Greens just put forward this simple proposal, and guess what? Labor, the Liberals and One Nation all voted against it. Why? Well, this is also really simple: the current status quo suits them. A lot of MPs and staffers are friends and ex-colleagues of gas lobbyists. Some of them are ex-lobbyists themselves, and some will go on to be lobbyists. It's a revolving door. It's clear that we have a lot of work to do, people—a lot of work. We need them to fear everyday people more than they like their gas lobby mates, so get out there and build the movement for a gas tax. Talk to your friends, your colleagues and your neighbours about it. And, if politicians can't resist the gas lobby's influence, then let's replace them.

I rise today to celebrate the life of Trish Crossin AM. On this day 28 years ago, Trish stood in the Senate to deliver her first speech, championing social justice, First Nations rights and the advancement of women across the nation. I only met Trish once. She shook my hand, and I knew immediately that she was a force—a force of kindness, a force of strength and a force of action. We were at a barbecue. We had a great chat, but it was what she did when no-one was watching. At the end of the event, Trish gathered up the leftovers and made sure they went to a guest who really needed them. It was a small act, but it told me everything about the person she was. Trish saw people. She noticed need, and she quietly got on with helping.

I came to know Trish especially through her daughter Amanda, who works in my office. Trish was always there in the background offering advice, sharing wisdom and helping Amanda navigate politics. In doing so she was helping me too—although, I didn't fully appreciate it at the time. It wasn't until her passing that I realised just how much she had helped me through her daughter. Through Amanda, I saw Trish's generosity, strength and compassion. Since her passing, I've heard many stories of her impact, from her work in the Northern Territory to her lifelong advocacy for community. She stood up, she showed up and she never gave up. That was Trish Crossin.

Labor's disgraceful deal with the Greens hit the headlines spectacularly yesterday as the latest entry of an ever-increasing list of broken promises from this taxmaxxing treasurer and a prime minister who has a questionable relationship with the truth. 'My word is my bond,' the Prime Minister said—the same man who said 50 times there would be no changes to negative gearing and CGT and that he wouldn't do a deal with the Greens. Well, it seems that his bond is about as heavy duty as Scotch tape.

Targeting self-managed super funds by removing limited recourse borrowing is as bizarre as it is ineffectual and will only serve to kill off the SMSFs in favour of the industry funds conveniently run by Labor's union overlords. A brief chat with any financial adviser would have revealed the average person who uses this strategy to build their own wealth isn't a fat cat or a multiproperty owner. They're a woman over 55 going through divorce or a retiree with a below-average balance.

The Liberals and the Nationals will reverse these punitive taxes and take a plan for a fairer, freer and better tax system to an election so that Australians can see for themselves that we won't change our position after gaining power. Australians don't deserve to have the goalposts continually moved without consultation.

I rise today to acknowledge the passing of a remarkable member of our community, Mr Don Drummond of Woodend. Don and his late wife, Sheila, were founding members of the re-established Woodend ALP branch in 2004. They welcomed members into their home with great hospitality, mulled wine and lively conversation.

He was a staunch and loyal supporter of the area's elected representatives and the first to volunteer his time. I remember him as a charismatic man of integrity and loyalty with an encyclopaedic knowledge of Labor policy and history. Even in his 90s and in care, he would still let me know what he thought via email.

Don was a founding member of the committee for the Woodend Winter Arts Festival and played an essential role in the establishment of the words and ideas event, attracting big thinkers like Barry Jones, Don Watson and David Marr. Let me tell you, it was always a challenge to speak after one of those three.

Those who knew Don remember not only his vast knowledge but his kindness, humility and willingness to help others. He understood that life is about people, their stories and their connections. That's what binds us together. Our community will sadly miss Don, and I know that they share their condolences with Don's family and friends and all those who loved him. Don was a truly great man and a great friend. He will be greatly missed. Vale Don Drummond.

Over the past week or so, I've enjoyed celebrating some fabulous achievements in the Tasmanian community. For instance, on the weekend before last, I was privileged to be invited to Margaret Elliott's 100th birthday party at the Brighton RSL near Hobart. Margaret is the last living member of the Australian Women's Land Army in Tasmania. The event was a wonderful celebration of her life, the great work the land army did and the important role Margaret played in it.

At the other end of the age spectrum, last week I also had the lovely opportunity of speaking with students from years 4, 5 and 6 at Mount Stuart Primary School. I was greatly impressed by this happy, bright bunch of kids and their enthusiasm for learning. It fills me with confidence in younger Australians.

Finally, I was also thrilled last week to present more than 80 students at Hobart City High School with their bronze level Duke of Edinburgh awards. I understand Hobart high is the first Tasmanian school to make the award available to all students in the same year, providing a wonderful opportunity for learning, development and skill building. Good on them all!

These three events reminded me of the richness of the Tasmanian community. It was wonderful to celebrate the achievements of its residents, from some of the youngest to one of the oldest.

I want to recognise and thank Margaret and John Wilson, who retire this month after 22 years running the Branxton post office. In 2003 they moved from Sydney to Branxton and took on a business that became much more than a workplace. For more than two decades they were familiar faces in the community, helping locals with postal services and building friendships along the way. During that time, they've seen the post office change from passports, book banking and letters to a hub for online shopping and parcel deliveries, while the growth of Branxton and Huntlee brought many more customers through the door.

Many locals will remember John continuing to serve customers while receiving treatment for bowel cancer during COVID, reflecting the dedication and resilience that both he and Margaret brought to their work. Like many small business owners, they made sacrifices, missing family events to keep serving their community. While this marks the end of an era for the post office in Drinan Street, postal services will continue, with Piggott's pharmacy at Huntlee taking on the licence and ensuring the important service remains available locally.

On behalf of the people of the Hunter electorate, I want to thank Margaret and John for their service and contribution to the Branxton area and wish them a long and happy retirement. Just like Margaret and John have done for 22 years, the Albanese Labor government is delivering. It is delivering cheaper medicines, cheaper child care and a tax break for every single working Australian. We'll keep delivering, and thank you, John and Margaret, for what you do.

The Prime Minister and every Labor member of this parliament went to the last election asking the Australian people to trust them. What has the Albanese Labor government given the Australian people in return? Broken promises and betrayal in the form of tax increases on savings, investments, housing and small business. They didn't have the guts to tell us about their so-called reforms before the election, and now they won't take their new taxes to an election. Instead, Labor with their political soulmates the Greens have done a deal that attacks aspiration and punishes young Australians who are trying to get ahead.

Labor's tax grabs are designed to hurt people who are trying to get ahead by using the same taxation arrangements that their parents had access to and the Prime Minister had access to, to secure his financial future. The government's failure to get its spending and borrowing under control means higher taxes, higher inflation and higher interest rates to come as it hobbles future generations with Labor's trillion dollars of debt. The coalition will get Labor's expenditure under control and axe Labor's toxic taxes.

Last Friday, I attended Robertson Barracks in my electorate of Solomon to attend the 5th/7th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment—or 5/7 RAR—parade commemorating the 57th anniversary of the Battle of Binh Ba in the Vietnam War. The name Binh Ba honours the historic Battle of Binh Ba fought by the 5th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment in June 1969. It was over two days, 6 July through to 8 July, in 1969 in Phuoc Tuy Province in South Vietnam. 5RAR, alongside their brothers from the 6th Battalion, supported by tanks from 1 Armoured Regiment and APCs from 3 Cavalry, confronted a well-entrenched enemy force. One Australian soldier was killed in action, Private Wayne Edward Teeling. Lest we forget. Ten Australians were wounded in action, with Viet Cong losses estimated to be around 100 soldiers. It was young Australians doing their job for their country.

It was a fantastic parade out at Robbo. I want to thank and acknowledge the Pipes and Drums, who were brilliant. It was great to see some of the veterans from 1969 there—in particular, Jeff Dennis. I want to congratulate the CEO and the RSM and acknowledge 5/7 RAR veteran Sam Weston, who's with us in the chamber today.

This year's King's Birthday Honours list includes five people from the mighty Parkes electorate who live inspiring lives. They include Juley Clarke of Forbes, a teacher and founder of the Forbes North Public School Wiradjuri Choir and part of the Forbes School Artwork Show Society. She has been recognised with an OAM for service to primary education. Susan Hood of Dubbo has been recognised with an OAM for service to regional agricultural shows and to the youth for her role in the Agricultural Societies Council of New South Wales, Dubbo Show Society, the Wongarbon Girl Guides Group and the American Field Service. Susie Lyle of Gunnedah has been recognised with an OAM for service to the community of Gunnedah. Mrs Lyle has long been part of the Red Cross, Gunnedah Nursing Home and the Caroona Coal Action Group.

Michael Lynch of Parkes has been recognised with an OAM for service to the community of Parkes through St Vincent de Paul, the diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes, the Parkes Prostate Cancer Support Group and the Parkes Veteran Golf Club. Kenneth Harrison of Dubbo has been recognised with a Public Service Medal for outstanding public service to emergency response and management after dedicating more than 30 years of his life to service.

I congratulate these amazing people on being among the outstanding Australians in this year's King's Honour List.

There are over 22,000 small businesses in Menzies. They are the tradie in Doncaster who built his business from the back of a ute, the family running the restaurant in Box Hill that has fed the community for decades, the accountant in Templestowe who has set up her own practice and the pharmacist in Donvale who provides health care to the community. They take risks. They back themselves. They employ our neighbours, and they anchor our local communities.

On budget night, the Treasurer said that we would consult with small businesses and startups, and that's exactly what we've done. I reached out to my community and hosted a small business roundtable, and I heard from business owners from right across my community. The message was the same: 'Back us in, cut our costs, support us to keep serving our customers and the community.' This tax reform package delivers exactly that. We are extending the 50 per cent active asset CGT reduction to businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million. We are making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent, delivering $890 million in cash-flow support and saving small businesses 366,000 hours in record keeping. We are delivering a permanent two-year loss carry back so businesses can return to profitability faster.

Those opposite had every chance to deliver reforms like these, and they chose not to. For the businesses in Box Hill, Doncaster, Templestowe and Donvale, this is a government that has their backs.

It's been just over six weeks since this government handed down a budget which could only be described as being as popular as the pox. In a time of a cost-of-living crisis, when Australians were looking for hope and they were looking for honesty, all they got was more taxes. Australians deserve better from a government that's out of touch in understanding the pain that's being felt out there. They were looking for honesty from a government. Instead they got more tax.

What a coalition government will do is make three main commitments to the Australian people. We will give you a tax cut every year by pegging inflation to every one of those tax brackets so that inflation doesn't eat away at your wage and you pay more tax. We're going to scrap the negative gearing. We're going to scrap capital gains and these other taxes on trusts that take away aspiration and inspiration to go out and have a go. That's what our country was built on, and that's what this government ripped away six weeks ago.

We're also going to tackle migration. We're going to make sure we have an immigration policy that works for this country. We've had one that's had too many and to not a high enough standard. We should choose who comes to this country, the skills they have and where we want them to live, because we're giving the greatest gift we can give to any person on this planet. We're going to fix the energy grid. We're not going to let net zero determine what our energy grid should be. It'll be the most affordable energy because energy is the economy. If you don't fix the fundamentals, give the economy what it needs and give people the hope and the honesty, our country will continue to go backwards.

The Albanese government promised that we would back in our lowest paid workers—our retail workers, our hospitality, our care workers, the workers that keep our society moving—and we have done just that. Since the Albanese government came to office, we've advocated for Australian workers at every single annual wage review, five years in a row. Our advocacy has seen the national minimum wage increase by more than $6 per hour, $230 per week and more than $12,000 per year, or a 30.1 per cent increase. This is on top of the tax cuts that the Albanese government has delivered, not just committed to, for all working Australians.

I also want to acknowledge the SDA for their successful campaign on the 'Adult Age = Adult Wage' campaign. I've had this week to meet with young workers who've advocated for these changes and heard about the difference that this has made to their lives. There is more work to do in this space, and I commend the SDA for continuing the fight, particularly their focus on ensuring that younger workers get access to the same superannuation entitlements as other workers. Your bills aren't different, your rent isn't different, your groceries aren't different, so your pay or your rights shouldn't be different. This government will continue to deliver for working people and their families right across this nation.

Visitors in the gallery are about to see the rather combative nature of this place. I want to tell a story of something rather different, about when this place works and how that matters for local communities. Reyna Nangan and Karin Yechoku are two locals who came to this country with the desire to have a go, to work and to make a better life for themselves. They came to Australia and, through no fault of their own, got caught up in our immigration system. This case shows to anyone interested just how difficult it is for people to work their way and navigate their way through our immigration system. But, for 10 years, these guys, Raina and Corin have fought and tried to make their case because they wanted to be here. They wanted to be Australians. I was very, very pleased this week to receive a call from Minister Burke that he'd just signed permanent residency papers for these people. This was a case that my office had worked very closely with the minister's office on, and I could not be more grateful for this outcome. This is a family that my community got behind. This is a family that started a business, employs locals and helps out at the soup kitchen. They're engaged in their community. They're the people that we need. In a time when there's a conversation about monoculture, I say this: these are the people that I am so proud to represent. They've come here and they've contributed and they're a part of my community, and I am so grateful for the way that my community got around them.

Twenty-one years old, first job, first home—that's not a fantasy. That is actually possible thanks to Labor's five per cent deposit scheme for first home buyers. Zeke and Emma from my electorate of Dickson are two 21-year-old super savers who, after 12 months of searching, have managed to buy their first home using Labor's five per cent deposit scheme. Their purchase is just one of 1,846 by first home buyers in my electorate of Dickson who have taken advantage of our five per cent deposit scheme. I met Zeke a couple of months ago at his workplace in Brendale. He's a 21-year-old fourth-year apprentice metal fabricator. He said:

If we didn't have access to the 5% deposit scheme, we would not have the house we're in now.

For too long, young Australians have felt that homeownership is out of reach. Labor is changing that. We're changing that with our five per cent deposit scheme, our help to buy scheme and record investment in social and affordable housing, as well as investment in new housing infrastructure and, of course, tax reform on negative gearing and CGT which means first home buyers no longer have to compete against investors for existing housing. We're levelling the playing field for people like Zeke and Emma.

I appreciate the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has a lot on her plate with the avian flu situation at the moment—and I commend her for her work to ensure that we are, as a country, on top of that—but, Minister, why oh why, through the chair, have you cut, in the budget, $191.6 million for pest eradication? There are more feral pigs than there are people in this country. We've got a mouse plague in Western Australia. We've got rabbits everywhere and foxes out of control—and what does the Labor government do? Well, it cuts money away from—

It's true, Minister—eradication measures through the states and through councils and through regional areas. And, not only that, we had a prime minister who told the public one thing prior to the election, and then the Treasurer did another thing on budget night. This is hard labour, and the government is inflicting it upon the people of Australia—the small-business people, the farmers, those people who keep the lights on, our miners. Indeed, it is a budget which has caused so much hardship and so much heartache, particularly in regional Australia. And last week—

Prime Minister, I know you're interjecting on me, and I'll take the interjection. But last week why did you spend $430 million buying more water out of productive use for our farmers that could have used it to grow food?

This country has always relied on early childhood educators, but you wouldn't know it from what they've been paid. Our government is changing that and last week committed a further $3.6 billion to secure the 15 per cent pay rise into the future. We're backing a workforce, a profession, that has been underpaid and undervalued for simply too long, brushed aside as glorified babysitters.

Unfortunately, we heard this tired old view again just recently at the National Press Club in the idea that you shouldn't need 'some sort of qualification' to look after a child. As a parent—and I know many parents stand with me—I utterly reject this notion, as does this government. Every parent who has seen the difference that their child's educator has made in either their son's or their daughter's life knows exactly how fundamental this work is. A qualification—the skills and training—keeps our children safe and makes sure that the quiet one, the anxious one and the one bursting with questions each get exactly what they need.

Educators have been fighting to be recognised and valued for decades. I'm proud to stand with them and their union, the United Workers Union, every step of the way, and now I'm proud to be a member of a government that has delivered for educators the pay rise that they deserve but that also recognises there's more work to do. To every early childhood educator out there: I see you, our government values you and we'll keep delivering for you.

Australians have one simple question for this prime minister: when will the Prime Minister stop breaking his promises and actually start telling the truth to the Australian people? After four years of the Albanese government, the family budgets of everyday Australians are going backwards with a severe decline in living standards. The Prime Minister promised before the election that Australians would be better off under this government. It's just another broken promise from a prime minister who is allergic to telling the truth to the Australian people.

The Prime Minister told Australians 50 times that he wouldn't change capital gains tax and negative gearing. When the Prime Minister fell off a stage, he said: 'No. I stepped back one step. I didn't fall off the stage.' And Australians are still waiting for the $275 reduction in power bills the Prime Minister promised 97 times. Who would believe another promise this prime minister makes? This is a prime minister who was elected on deceit, broken promises and trickery, and now he's doing deals with the Greens to ram his budget of broken promises and higher taxes through the parliament. The budget confirmed the great deception at the heart of this government. The Prime Minister also said to the Australian people, 'My word is my bond, and I won't BS people.' Prime Minister, when will you actually start telling the truth?

The housing market in Australia has been broken for too long, but this Labor government is taking action. The Albanese government is delivering a fairer tax system for working Australians so that more first home buyers are able to get into a home of their own, and it builds on the work that we've already done. In my electorate of Hughes, in southern Sydney, 965 people have used a five per cent deposit to own their first home. That's almost 1,000 people building a better life for their family and taking ownership stakes in homes from Menai to Macquarie Fields.

We know that housing isn't the only cost-of-living pressure that families are facing. It's why we're taking action on energy too. Our Cheaper Home Batteries Program has helped almost 4,000 households in my community reduce their energy bills with a solar battery of their own. It's also why we've reduced barriers to seeing a GP after those opposite maintained a decade-long freeze on GP bulk-billing rates. This government is focused on serious reform to help families in my community with the cost of living while the three right-wing parties opposite focus on how to divide modern Australia. After a decade of neglect, our community now has 23 Medicare bulk-billing practices—a majority of clinics across my community—and, after they see a GP, they're saving money on scripts with $13,351,481 on PBS medications saved since 2022 in my community under this government's cheaper medicines policy. We're delivering for communities right across Australia. Their focus is on division across modern Australia.

Honourable members interjecting—

I know this might be a rehearsal for question time, but I'm going to ask for all of that interjecting to please stop.

Before the last election, the Prime Minister ruled out changes to taxes not once, not twice, not three times. In his own words, he ruled out tax changes 50 times. The Prime Minister was clear as day—no new taxes. People took him at his word because, apparently, his word is his bond. The Australian people trusted him, and how did the Prime Minister repay their trust? He betrayed them with an attack on aspiration. He betrayed them with a war on creative, hardworking, risk-taking Australians. Labor's budget revealed the truth—that there are new taxes on housing, new taxes on small business, new taxes on savings, new taxes on startups, new taxes on families and new taxes on the people who build up Australia, the pioneers, the risk takers and the nation builders. Labor's new taxes will send our best talent overseas. Labor has kickstarted a massive brain drain, and we will pay the price in prosperity.

But we've learned something else, and it's that this prime minister will say anything to stay in power. That approach has consequences. Australians will pay more taxes. We will all be less productive, less competitive and less secure. Australians will be poorer, and our nation will be weaker. But the worst part of all of this is that the Labor government has no plan or ambition for Australia. Even with the world changing around us, we see no vision, no drive and no ticker, only new taxes and broken trust from this prime minister.

My family came to this country as a mix of migrants and refugees. Some spoke English; some didn't. Some held citizenships; some were stateless. But all of my family understood that the rights, freedoms and opportunities that Australia afforded were precious. All worked hard every single day to create a life for our family and to give back to our incredible country. Yet none forgot the countries and the history that shaped who they are, because the beauty of Australia is that they never had to. Australia is the greatest country on earth not despite our multiculturalism but because of it. Australia is a rich tapestry of cultures, faiths and traditions. It has made us more diverse, more resilient, more appealing and more prosperous. And, just like my family, thousands of others around the country have also given back. It is why we need to make sure that they have access to the basics so they can give everything back to our country—like access to buy their family a home, access to see a doctor and access to world-class education. We don't need to imagine what a monocultural Australia is. We have lived it, and we have said that we should never live it again. We are home to people born in 200 countries with 300 ancestries, and we speak more than 300 languages. That is something that we should all take great pride in.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor's wasteful spending is fuelling core inflation. Labor's taxes are punishing aspiration, and Australians have suffered the worst collapse in living standards in the developed world. Why are Australians continuing to pay the price for Labor's economic incompetence?

I thank you for the question. We had inflation figures earlier today that showed a rate of four per cent, down from 4.2 per cent. We continue to work on the cost of living as our No. 1 priority. Today of all days, just one week from when a whole lot of those measures cut in, is an appropriate time to answer a question about living standards, because next week every Australian worker will get a tax cut, including a significant increase for those who are on the minimum wage. We know that those opposite were opposed to that and were going to repeal the legislation, just like they're saying they'll repeal the legislation that's currently before the Senate. On 1 July next week, we have another tax cut for every single taxpayer. They'll get another one the following July. We have super paid on pay day—important reform.

Importantly, today I met with a lovely couple and their young bub who are getting the expansion of paid parental leave to a full 26 weeks and superannuation paid on paid parental leave, something that some of the leaders of the right-wing parties over there and in the other place have said is a waste. One of the right-wing leaders has actually said that paid parental leave is bad because people will get pregnant and have a baby just to get paid parental leave—an extraordinary statement that I don't think has been repudiated yet. We made sure that every single one of our 137 urgent care clinics would be open well before 1 July, and they will become a permanent part of Medicare after 1 July.

Our 22 endo and pelvic pain clinics will be expanded to include services for menopause and perimenopause on 1 July. Our record hospital funding through the National Health Reform Agreement will be delivered—$25 billion. The $20,000 instant asset write-off for small business will be made permanent. Next week, we'll also mark one year since the launch of our Cheaper Home Batteries Program. Our goal was a million batteries by 2030. We've seen an extraordinary 450,000 installs. Families and small businesses are permanently cutting their power bills. Next week, we'll deliver our ban on supermarket price gouging. All of these measures are about the cost of living. All of them show what the priorities of this government are, and all of them are opposed by those opposite.

My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What does the official opening of the atrium and Anzac Hall at the Australian War Memorial last night mean for Australia's commemoration of our military service?

I thank the member for his question and his important connection himself to that sacred place, the Australian War Memorial. It was wonderful to welcome so many from across our parliament to the Australian War Memorial last night to mark the official opening of Anzac Hall and the atrium, along with the Governor-General. Most importantly, we were joined by many ADF members and veterans, all with a very special connection to the memorial.

The Australian War Memorial is our national home of commemoration, a sacred place. The roll of honour on the walls of the War Memorial features the names of over 103,000 Australians who have lost their lives in war, conflict and peacekeeping operations. Behind each of those names is a person and families who loved them. The Australian War Memorial shares their stories and the stories of all those who have served in our nation's uniform.

This expansion of the War Memorial provides the opportunity to properly tell the stories of modern conflicts, such as Afghanistan, peacekeeping operations and the Middle East, their causes, conduct and consequences. This has been a nationally significant project, supported by the opposition and government. This expansion to the War Memorial delivers on the vision of the memorial's founder, Charles Bean, for a shrine, an archive and a museum. The expansion has been achieved through the work and vision of many. There were almost 2,000 workers on the project, and more than 100 of those were veterans continuing their service through this project that commemorates their mates. They've not just expanded what was there; they've painstakingly repaired and replaced what was needed to preserve a memorial built during the Depression for generations to come. This also included the installation of the largest geothermal system in the Southern Hemisphere to regulate the temperature in the memorial and to protect its artefacts—as well as those of us there on a cold Canberra night!

Despite the scale of the construction that's taken place over the years, they've kept the doors open 364 days a year, even through the depths of COVID, always being conscious that for anyone who seeks to visit the memorial to learn and commemorate the service of our nation they should be able to do so. I thank all of those that have been part of this important national project and look forward to the final elements coming together by 2028—the pre-1914 galleries and an interactive learning centre—to make sure generations to come can learn our nation's history of service and sacrifice and to never forget the great cost of war. Lest we forget.

on indulgence—I acknowledge the Prime Minister and the opposition leader for making sure that all parliamentarians were able to attend what was a nationally significant event. All of us who went to that special event will remember the fine words spoken by each and every body but particularly Matt Anderson, the Australian War Memorial director. He has overseen the construction of something very, very special to our nation's heart. He's done so with COVID and so many other setbacks, but done it he has. There are 103,000 names of men—and women, too—on the roll of honour. We should never forget that the front doors of the parliament—indeed, from the Prime Minister's office right through—line up with the front doors of the War Memorial, right through to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. That war memorial has been made an even more special place of remembrance because of the construction work that has gone on. To each and every person who has had some large or small part I say, 'Congratulations.' Lest we forget.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Core inflation has risen from three per cent to 3.6 per cent over the last year. Under this Treasurer, interest rates have gone up 15 times, increasing the cost of a typical new mortgage by $30,000 a year. Following the Treasurer's failed budget of broken promises and higher taxes, was the Treasurer's promise that 'inflation has turned the corner' a further broken promise, or is it just due to economic incompetence?

Nothing darkens their mood like another fall in inflation, and that's what we saw in the figures today. For the second consecutive month we saw inflation go down in our economy, which is terribly inconvenient to those opposite but a welcome outcome nonetheless.

There are inflationary pressures in our economy, and they're made worse by the war in the Middle East, and this is a point that was endorsed by the shadow Treasurer on social media this morning. The shadow Treasurer, in agreeing that there are inflationary pressures out there—and obviously we're not complacent about the inflationary pressures that are still in our economy—conceded on social media today that the war in the Middle East has made our inflation challenge worse. I'm told that he agreed with that on social media today.

But, more than that, in his typically helpful way, the shadow Treasurer pointed out on social media this morning that inflation has come down substantially, and he attributes that to the budget settings. I'm not saying he does that deliberately; he does it accidentally. But he says that the war in Iran has pushed up inflation in our economy. He points out that it has come down substantially; that's also true. And, in his usual ham-fisted way, he attributes that to my budget settings. I'm not sure if that was the point he was trying to make, but it is very kind of him nonetheless. I appreciate him every day but particularly today, for making that point.

The second point I'd make is that if the shadow Treasurer wants to conflate inflationary pressures in our economy—

Mr Speaker—

Order! Member for Leichhardt, the manager is entitled to—

Member for Hunter! When I'm speaking, do not interject. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

It goes to relevance. Core inflation has risen from three per cent to 3.6 per cent in the last 12 months. That's what the question was about.

I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

Just in case the Manager of Opposition missed the question, it referred to core inflation, to interest rates, to the entire budget and to inflation again.

The question did contain interest rates, the rising cost of a mortgage and also the Treasurer's budget and tax. So there was quite a little bit more in that question than just what the Manager of Opposition Business had indicated to the House. But the Treasurer was just about to talk about inflation, so I'm going to listen carefully to make sure that, if he's talking about inflation, he's talking about the question he was asked, not another topic. The Treasurer has the call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm asked about inflation and budget settings. I've pointed out that inflation came down again today for the second consecutive month, and I ran through all the other figures in a press conference earlier today. If the shadow Treasurer wants to say that all the inflationary pressures in our economy are about government spending then, by his own admission, the extra $110 billion in commitments that they have made over the next four years would mean higher inflation and higher interest rates. So he has to choose.

The final point I'd make is this. Yesterday I said that one of the reasons the Liberal Party is dying in the arms of the opposition leader is that he's trying to out-One-Nation One Nation, and that's increasingly the perspective. To be fair to him, there is a second reason the Liberal Party is dying in his arms, and that's the member for Goldstein.

The member for Isaacs and the member for Calwell are now warned. I'm trying to give the call to the member for Bean, and you're not helping.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to help Australians into a home of their own? What policies would make homeownership harder for Australians?

I thank the member for Bean for his question and I want to acknowledge the fantastic advocacy that he undertakes in this parliament for his community. There is a really important bill before our parliament. This is a bill that is going to deliver a tax cut for every single working Australian and a bill that will help level the playing field for the first time for Australia's first home buyers. These are urgent and important changes for our country to make. If we just step back from the political debate that we're all engaged in, at a time when homeownership rates are falling through the floor for Australia's young people, our country simply cannot keep tilting the playing field away from first home buyers. That's exactly what our tax reforms are seeking to change.

When members vote on this legislation on Thursday, they're going to face a pretty simple choice: who are they here to fight for? Is it working Australians and aspiring homeowners, or is it the people who already have the system stacked in their favour? For me and for the members behind me, this is not a complicated question. We are on the side of first home buyers and we are on the side of working Australians who are trying to get ahead.

Now, I'm asked about alternatives. The Liberals and the Nationals have already made their choice. They did it before they even bothered to read the legislation. They are going to come into the parliament tomorrow and they are going to vote against a tax cut for every single working Australian. And not just that—they're going to come into this parliament and vote against every single aspiring first home buyer in our country. That comes on top of the years that they have spent attacking everything that our government is doing to help young people get into the market. I shake my head and wonder what has happened to the party of Robert Menzies. This is a party that once said that it stood up for first homeownership. Today, they are a pathetic shadow of what they once were. I want to just remind you—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order. The interjections coming to this minister are unacceptable. I'm not going to tolerate it. And the yelling while she's on her feet is not on. So everyone has a fair warning. I just want to hear what the minister is saying for the remainder of this answer.

I was just taking the parliament through where those opposite have got themselves in terms of first home buyers. I want to give you the list. They want to scrap Help to Buy, a program that does nothing more than help 10,000 first home owners get into the market every year. They've told us that they want to wind back the five per cent deposit program, a program that has helped 260,000 Australians get into a home of their own. Now they're saying that, if they win the next election, they're going to come into this parliament and they're going to choose to use taxpayer dollars to subsidise investors over first home buyers at every single auction across this country.

Those opposite are competing on outrage. We are focused on opportunity. They're the only ones left defending a housing system that isn't working. We're getting on with the job of making it better.

I'm pleased to inform the House that in the gallery today is the Hon. Enver Erdogan, minister in the parliament of Victoria, and also participants of the Leadership Illawarra Program, a two-year learning program for the region's emerging leaders, as guests of the member for Cunningham. As Local Government Week continues to roll through. I've got some more councillors to acknowledge today. I'll do them in batches; I won't do them all now. Councillor Jill Whittaker, the Mayor of Campbelltown City Council, is with us. Councillor Dr Simone Zmood, the Mayor of the City of Glen Eira, and Councillor Sue Baker, the Mayor of Frankston City Council, are with us today.

My question is to the Treasurer. Today, all of Australia's councils undertook the extraordinary step of writing to every federal parliamentarian to warn of the funding crisis affecting local governments across the country. Due to the lack of untied federal funding, councils are struggling to deliver essential services and infrastructure and are resorting to large rate rises, including in my electorate of Mackellar. Councils are asking that the financial assistance grants be restored to one per cent of federal taxation. Will the government consider this?

Thank you to the honourable member for her important question. I hope she won't mind me also acknowledging the representatives of local government who are in the House today and in the building this week as well. I am aware of the funding ask from the local government community. It's not unusual for local governments or for other important parts of our community to be seeking additional Commonwealth funding. We are big and enthusiastic backers of local governments. We've got a wonderful minister for local government in Minister McBain, and every one of us is a big supporter of local governments. That's because they play a vital role in providing the services and infrastructure that Australians need.

We're backing councils with new funding in the budget already. Just last week we delivered $2.9 billion in financial assistance grants for councils for roads and other services and infrastructure. We brought that forward to help councils manage the impact of the fuel crisis, in particular. In the budget, we're boosting funding for councils and communities in a range of other ways. The $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund is to help local governments get more housing projects over the line. I pay tribute to the housing and infrastructure ministers for that. We've got an additional $780 million for thriving suburbs and growing regions programs—bringing our total investment to over $1.7 billion. We've got the Stronger Communities Program and the Active Transport Fund, which is another $500 million to invest in community road safety. That's on top of the Roads to Recovery Program funding. Again, I pay tribute to the transport and infrastructure ministers for that billion dollars a year. That's direct funding for councils to fix and upgrade local roads.

I am aware of that additional funding request, and I engage with councils and local governments in good faith. We value the important work that they do in every single community represented here. But we are already providing substantial new funding for councils in the budget, which was only six weeks or so ago.

My question is to the Treasurer. What do today's inflation figures tell us about the cost-of-living pressures facing Australians? What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to help people get ahead, and what resistance has there been?

The member for Chisholm is a wonderful representative of that proud multicultural community in Melbourne that she represents so well. New data, as I said before, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that headline inflation fell in both monthly and annual terms once again today. Inflation came off substantially in the month of May and it also moderated in annual terms. This is the second consecutive month that we have seen inflation fall in our economy. We welcome that development, but we're not complacent about that. Even though today's data was much better than the market expected, much better than forecast, we do recognise that people are still under pressure in our communities and in our economy. That's why helping with the cost of living and helping people get ahead are central priorities of this Albanese Labor government.

As the Prime Minister said a moment ago, if you just think about the real change that we are delivering next Wednesday—just the change that we are delivering from 1 July—more than 14 million Australians will get another tax cut from this Labor government, opposed by those opposite. The national minimum wage will increase by six per cent. Modern award wages will increase by 4¾ per cent following our submission to the Annual wage review. Parents will get 26 weeks of paid parental leave, up from 24 weeks. There'll be the regular indexation. There'll also be Australian workers benefiting, for the first time, from having their super paid at the same time as their salary and their wages. There'll be the new ban on excessive pricing of groceries. This is on top of the substantial tax reforms that we put in the budget before the parliament to give every working taxpayer two more tax cuts in the form of the working Australians tax offset and the standard deduction that those opposite voted against, and those on top of the extension to the fuel excise relief that the Prime Minister announced on the weekend.

This goes to a very important difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. This side of the House is delivering cost-of-living relief and delivering real change. The three right-wing parties over there are standing in the way of that cost-of-living help that we are delivering. They are all united by a divisive antiworker agenda, all three of them. But whether it's tax cuts for every taxpayer, higher wages for workers or help for first home buyers, we are on the side of workers and first home buyers on this side of the House, and those opposite are against them.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. This morning, the Minister told the ABC that the housing sector was facing—

Order! The member for Leichhardt will leave the chamber under standing order 94. You don't interject while people are simply asking questions. I don't know why this is so complicated for people. It applies to both sides of the House. People asking questions will be shown respect, and we'll keep doing it if we need to. The member for Casey can continue his question.

This morning, the Minister for Housing told the ABC the housing sector was facing a market correction. A couple of hours later the Treasurer said the housing sector was not facing a market correction, with auction clearance rates now at their lowest levels since the pandemic. Who is telling the truth: the housing minister or the Treasurer?

Opposition members interjecting—

I'm just laughing at how they have to egg each other on here. 'Great question! Great question!' It's not a great question, and I think those opposite know it.

I want to come back to the central point here, because it is a really important one. House prices in our country have risen by 400 per cent in the last 25 years. I want to be really clear and direct with the parliament. We cannot allow that to happen again for another generation. If we do, our country will be unrecognisable to us. This has already radically transformed what it means to be aspirational in our country. We've got a generation of young people who tell us repeatedly in polling that they don't think they will ever be able to afford a house in our country. Any government with any sense of integrity and belief is going to stand up and do something about that.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The minister will pause. She is one minute into her answer. I want to hear the Manager of Opposition Business' point of order.

On relevance—the minister hasn't addressed the question. The question is, 'Who was telling the truth, you or the Treasurer?' I know you've got a thing about corrections, but we need to hear the truth.

I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

It's completely reasonable in response to a question like that to be talking about what's driving the prices in the market, and that's exactly what's being said.

Yes. The manager is entitled to raise his point of order. He is correct that the minister was asked a question at the end, but you can't selectively phrase bits of the question that you like. Unfortunately, if it's all in there, the minister's going to have a go, probably at all parts of the question. I'll make it be directly relevant. She has had a preamble. I'm going to ask her to return to the question.

I think we see that point of order getting taken because they don't like to hear the reality of what they've done to themselves. That is, that they are the last people standing in this country who can't see that this housing market is broken. If only those opposite had done something about this problem in the nine years that they sat on the Treasury benches then we might be in a different position, but they chose not to. What you chose to do—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The member for Casey, the member for Maranoa, the member for Herbert, the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the Opposition all simply yelling at once is not going to get the answer you want and it's not going to help the parliament. So can I just ask everyone here, from the member for Goldstein down, to just take a breath? No-one else is yelling as much as everyone else is here in the front row. I need everyone, particularly when the minister is on her feet—and if the minister can help the house also by returning to the question, the House will be a lot better for it.

Instead of choosing to do something about this problem, they so vacated the field that they chose, for the majority of their nine years in government, to not even bother having a Commonwealth housing minister. I want to remind the parliament of how many social and affordable homes they built around our country in that time, in nine long years. It was 373. That is a national outrage. We've got people across that side of the parliament who think that they speak for regional Australia. They chose to build not a single social and affordable home across the entirety of regional and rural Australia.

We take a different view. We see the pain this is causing in the lives not just of the people that we represent but of the people that those opposite us represent. That's why we're standing up and acting. We are pulling every lever that the Commonwealth has available to it. And I say again to those opposite: the leadership of the member for Hume is going to be inauspicious and short, I can see that. Let's hope that the leader that follows him takes a different approach to the matter of housing.

We're joined today by Councillor Sophie Tan, the mayor of the city of Greater Dandenong; Councillor Stefan Koomen, the mayor of the City of Casey; Councillor Bilal El-Hayek, the mayor of Canterbury Bankstown; Councillor Paige Kennett, the mayor of Knox City Council; and Kevin Lam and councillors from the Fairfield City Council.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering higher wages? Who has stood in the way of higher wages for Australians?

I'd like to thank the member for Brisbane not only for that question but for her ongoing advocacy for getting wages moving for Australians. This Labor government is absolutely committed to boosting the pay packets of everyday hardworking Australians.

Our government has advocated year on year for a wage increase for our lowest-paid workers who rely on minimum award wages. We have legislated to protect penalty and overtime rates for modern award reliant workers and, of course, we've prioritised fixing a broken bargaining system to improve wages, especially for undervalued feminised sectors of the economy such as early education. As the Prime Minister has said on so many occasions, early childhood educators deserve more than our thanks; they deserve a pay rise. That is why the Albanese government continues to back our early educators by locking in a 15 per cent pay rise. Liz, an early educator, said that this pay increase—and I quote—'makes a lot of difference so that we can stay in the industry for longer because it's good pay'.

This Labor government has put gender equality at the heart of the workplace relations system by making it an object of the Fair Work Act, ensuring more women are getting fairer pay for the work that they do. Our laws led to historic wage increases for our aged-care workers, most of whom are women. Our government backed and funded these pay rises to recognise the important work they do. I'm pleased to report to the House that the gender pay gap is now at its lowest on record, at 11.5 per cent.

I am asked about who has tried to stand in the way of our plan to get wages moving. Of course, it's the three right-wing parties over there. The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation have stood in the way of our efforts to get wages moving. Together, they've opposed our minimum award wage advocacy. Together they voted against higher wages for early educators and aged carers, and together they voted to erode penalty rates in this country.

And what would the cost to ordinary workers have been if the three right-wing parties had got their way? Evidence published in news.com today demonstrates that an aged-care worker would be $20,000 worse off if those opposite had got their way. It is clear that it is only Labor that stands up for ordinary workers in this country. Let's ensure that they are protected from these three right-wing parties.

My question is to the Prime Minister. A new report shows the Prime Minister saved around $200,000 on the sale of three investment properties under existing capital gains tax rules. In last month's budget, the Prime Minister broke his promise and changed those rules. Given the Prime Minister's investment success, can he explain why it's fair for him to personally pocket $200,000 and then pull up this ladder of opportunity for millions of aspirational Australians?

I'm ruling that question out of order. It is not within the standing orders and it is not within ministerial responsibility. I'm moving to the next question.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister update the House on the government's efforts to end violence against women and children?

I thank the member for Bonner for her question. We know that she is one of the people—and I accept that it's right across the parliament here—who understand that violence against women and children is a national scourge. It shatters too many families. It devastates too many communities. One life lost to violence is one too many. With advocates and frontline workers, we've worked hard to make a difference with better services and better laws. We have seen some progress, but we know there is so much more to do.

At last Monday's National Cabinet meeting, I put this on the agenda for the next face-to-face meeting so we can have a report back from states and territories about the progress that has been made as a result of the face-to-face special meeting of the National Cabinet that I convened during the last term to deal with these issues.

We are listening to experts, to frontline workers and to victim-survivors as we consult on the second National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. That work is being led by the Minister for Social Services in partnership, particularly, with the Minister for Women in the other place.

Since 2022, we have delivered a record $4.4 billion to tackle family, domestic and sexual violence. There have been 1,400 organisations funded, helping almost half a million Australians. We've made the leaving violence payment permanent, helping nearly 20,000 people, who have been assisted to leave a violent situation. Ten days paid domestic and family violence leave is now law. We've recruited over 500 new frontline domestic, family and sexual violence workers. This was a commitment that I made as Leader of the Opposition during the term in which I held that office. And we've invested $1 billion in more crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence.

Given that so much violence does start online, our social media ban for under-16s, along with restricting AI nudify apps and stalking tools, is important here. But there will be more to do as AI continues to become more widespread. This is a challenge for all of us as decision-makers, but, importantly, it's a challenge for all of us as a society.

Men have an important role to play in supporting women and children in this situation and in calling out behaviour from fellow men. We all have a part in addressing this issue and in taking action. Every one of us must work together to end violence against women and children and towards a future that is better, safer and without violence, which will be a better society for all of us.

on indulgence—I'd like to associate the coalition with the Prime Minister's words. Sadly, it's our electorate offices that are often the front line of domestic violence—a number of women have sat in tears in my office trying to seek a safe place—and it shouldn't be like that. It doesn't matter how much money we are throwing at this issue, it is not going away. It is the role of every single member in this place to do more and to listen to those families that are doing it so tough.

Although we don't agree on everything, the coalition will stand with the government to try to do our best, in our generation, to end violence against women and children.

My question is to the Prime Minister. A new report shows the Prime Minister saved around $200,000 on the sale of three investment properties under existing capital gains tax rules. In last month's budget, the Prime Minister broke his promise and changed those rules. Given the Prime Minister's investment success, can he explain why it's fair for him to make $200,000 and then pull up this ladder of opportunity for millions of aspirational Australians?

I'll hear from the hear from the Leader of the House. We'll get through this.

I refer to standing order 100(c), that 'questions must not reflect on or be critical of the character or conduct of'—and it goes through a range of categories including every member here. There are certain things that can be challenged in the House but only on a substantive motion. That's reflected on page 555 of Practice.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order. We're just going to hear the Leader of the House, and then I'll hear the manager as well, but I'd like everyone to be silent on this matter so I can hear and make informed decisions.

There is a similar reference on page 555 of Practice which refers to the private affairs of a minister, which follows with 'ministers' conduct can only be challenged on a substantive motion.' It's always been the case.

Yes, and I'll hear now from the manager.

There are a number of points for why this is in order. First, the Prime Minister has made statements in this House previously on this matter, including on 14 May 2026. It's always been held by Speakers past, it's confirmed in practice and has been argued by the now Leader of the House that questions are allowed to be asked of ministers about statements they have made in this place. Secondly, as the Leader of the House knows, standing order 98(c) says questions can be asked to ministers provided they are officially connected to matters of public affairs. The question directly references a media report—actually, two media reports—which go to the Prime Minister's handling of taxation policy. Obviously, it stands to reason that there wouldn't be such a report if he wasn't the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister wants to dispute elements of the question, he can do so, but members should be entitled to raise questions about the interaction between tax policy and a minister's own arrangements, which I note also goes to the operation of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

This is different from the earlier question because it's been rephrased. I was not happy with the direct imputing of the motive for the last question, but this is about a media report, and I've checked that. But, the Leader of the House, it says it's not in order for questions to reflect on or be critical of the character—hear me out—or conduct of the private affairs of a minister. On page 554, also, when it lists the form and content of question relating to a minister's public responsibilities, matters of a private nature not related to the public duties of a minister—but the question has been rephrased. I just want to tell the House I'm not comfortable with this kind of language, because you open up a can of worms for everyone to be criticised and discussing personal affairs. That's the issue.

Leader of the Opposition, I'm going to allow the question, but I'm just going to remind the House that I like language to be not personal in its nature and to be on the subject and the topic. The member for Lyne has rephrased her question. I thank her for that. The Prime Minister has been asked this question. He can answer in a very broad manner about the media reports there, and he may have additional information for the House, but I'll give him some latitude regarding the leeway with which the question was asked.

I haven't seen the media report, but someone in the media weeks ago was good enough to forward to me the document that was provided by the Liberal Party to them with details before they chose not to run the article, because of its nature and its inaccuracies. I simply say this: all of my arrangements have been declared appropriately.

What we are doing here, when it comes to housing, is wanting to make sure that, just as I had the opportunity way back in my 20s to own my own home, a roof over my head, when I purchased a property—to save the researchers—in Beauchamp Street, Marrickville, I want young Australians and people who are now in their 20s and in their 30s to have the same opportunity. The truth is that I didn't inherit wealth. What I did was work hard, save for a deposit and buy my own home. I want—

The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting immediately.

If the Leader of the Opposition wanted to participate, he could have asked the question. I make that point. They didn't have the ticker. They gave it to someone up the back.

I make this point: Paula Pearce, a real estate agent in Griffith, said this about someone who bought a unit on the weekend: 'Her and her partner are in their 20s, and it's their first home. She told me she had always loved the complex. First home buyers in their mid to late 20s dominated inspection numbers.' In the electorate of Fraser, in Melbourne, Justin Luciew, a selling agent, said there were four active bidders, all young professionals, first home buyers, who took part in an auction. In the electorate of the member for Banks, a first home buyer outbid seven other parties in Mortdale on Saturday. The successful bidder was a young man buying his first home. He intends to move in.

We are the party of aspirations. We are the party that want Australians to have access to their own home. Those opposite show just how desperate they are.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government's investment in defence delivering well-paid, secure jobs after a wasted decade in the defence industry?

I thank the member for his question and acknowledge the incredible and proud way that he represents the beautiful suburbs of Tangney in this parliament. I got a bit of a taste of that last week when I went with the honourable member to visit a company in his electorate—Australian Safety Engineers, in Canning Vale. ASE make breathing apparatus and air compressors they supply to our special forces. They built an incredible unit which was used at the docking of HMS Anson, the UK Astute class submarine, which visited HMAS Stirling in February and March this year for its successful maintenance period. ASE mainly supplies to the Defence Force. It's not a large company; it has about 30 employees, but in the field in which it operates it is absolutely world class.

We are building very large industrial sites, like the Osborne Naval Shipyard and Henderson, where thousands of people are employed. But so much of Australia's defence industry now is small and medium businesses which have incredible capability that are supporting our Defence Force. They are benefiting from the fact that, in the last two financial years, we have had the two biggest spends on record in defence procurement, and in the financial year that we are in right now, which will finish next week, that spend will be even bigger again. Since coming to office, we've seen employment in defence manufacturing increase by 11 per cent, and that's because we now have a clear strategic direction. We are building a defence force in accordance with that and we're putting real dollars behind that bill.

That could not be more different from the way in which the Liberals ran Defence during their wasteful decade. They presided over $42 billion of unfunded Defence commitments, and that meant that, for a full quarter of what Defence was expected to procure, they had no money for them—an absolute disgrace. The Liberals were really big on Defence press releases, but they went completely missing when it came to following that through with action. As it turns out, press releases don't employ people, defence industry does.

Australia's defence industry well knows that, under this Prime Minister, they have a government which is backing them in supporting the Australian Defence Force in keeping Australians safe.

Before I call the member for Mayo, I'll do my final welcomes for local government. We have Councillor Jeff Marriott from the Yarra Ranges Council, a delegation of Wellington Shire councillors from the electorate of Gippsland, Councillor Tim McMahon and Councillor Edwina Farquhar from the Toowoomba Regional Council and, finally, councillors from the City of Darwin: Councillor Sam Weston, Councillor Jimmy Bouhoris and Councillor Shani Carson.

My question is to the Prime Minister. In South Australia, we're dealing with the effects of the algal bloom. It's now reported in the media that we have two suspected cases of H5N1 bird flu. Such an outbreak, much like the algal bloom, would risk environmental, tourism and agriculture communities. What rapid support will be provided to any impact to primary producers, tourism operators and environmental groups?

I thank the member for her question. As she'd be aware, with the algal bloom, we worked very closely with the Malinauskas government to provide support for industry and to provide the sort of research that, frankly, will help not just people in South Australia but is, indeed, world-leading research to deal with the challenge that came from the algal bloom. I visited Kangaroo Island in the member's electorate to see firsthand the issues, and I met with local fishers and local producers in the primary sector. That's what our government does. When a challenge happens, we work across the board with industry, with different levels of government, and the member and I had conversations at that time. We'll continue to work on this challenge as well, and I'd ask the minister to update the House.

Thanks to the Prime Minister for handing that over for an update on bird flu, and I thank the local member for her interest. She, like many members in this place, is obviously concerned about this not unexpected but still concerning development in H5 bird flu detections. What I can say, of course, is that I've been really clear that we can't stop the spread of this globally, because we can't stop migratory birds coming to Australia, but what we can do is be prepared, and that's exactly what we've done with our early investments—over $113 million that we have invested in preparedness.

We've done this really closely with the states and territories. We already have agreements in place with states and territories for biosecurity incursions, and we already have one in place for bird flu incursions. We have already come to those arrangements and provided monies to states and territories to be prepared, as I said, in this place earlier in the week. That has helped them in laboratory testing, surveillance equipment and for a whole range of equipment that they need on the ground to respond. That has already been provided to states and territories as part of that $113 million.

I have today been on the phone to both the Western Australian minister for agriculture and the South Australian minister for primary industries in relation to bird flu and cooperation that we are having with their governments. We continue to work very closely with both the Cook and the Malinauskas governments on these detections. Can I say that they're undertaking testing in their jurisdictions, and as you would expect, given the calls and the publicity, we have had an increased number of reports, and they are triaging those reports. They are doing local testing, then, if anything comes up, they then go to the CSIRO lab for confirmatory testing. As I indicated, we have had two confirmed tests from the Western Australian region in migratory birds, and I was informed just before question time that we have had another positive test from the CSIRO lab, and I'll be receiving an update from the chief veterinary officer just after question time, and then I'll provide an update to the public, as you would expect us to do. Again, I do want to thank the public for their diligence.

My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering critical defence capability at the same time as creating jobs for Australians? How does this compare to what the government inherited?

I thank the member for Spence for his question and his strong advocacy for defence industry and jobs in his electorate. Delivering for Australians today and setting Australians up for a more secure future is the government's top priority, and a critical part of that is building our sovereign defence industry so that we can produce the capabilities we need to keep us safe right here at home. I'm pleased to inform the House that, since coming to government, defence industry jobs in SA have increased by 40 per cent—high-skilled jobs in trades, engineering and research, supporting the development of world-leading capabilities, building bright futures for South Australian families and supporting A Future Made in Australia.

This future is even brighter this week after the announcement of the biggest defence export deal ever with a $2½ billion deal to sell the JORN radar to Canada. This will support a thousand jobs, with many of them in the member for Spence's electorate. But our investment is not just limited to SA. We've also signed a $1 billion export deal to sell Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles to Germany, supporting over a thousand direct and indirect jobs, mostly in your electorate, Mr Speaker. And there is $7 billion we're putting into advanced counterdrone capabilities, starting with contracts with AIM Defence for their lasers and SYPAQ for their kamikaze drones. We've built a factory that is producing the world-leading Ghost Sharks right now in Sydney, creating just under a thousand direct and indirect jobs. Last week, I christened the first of 40 new Bluebottle drone boats built in Morisset in the member for Hunter's electorate. When complete, the fleet of 55 Bluebottles will be the largest fleet of autonomous surface vessels in the world.

These aren't isolated examples. Our record investment in defence is leading to an expansion of our sovereign defence industry. Defence manufacturing output has grown by 35 per cent since we came to government, and, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, defence manufacturing jobs have grown by 11 per cent last year alone. This compares to the chaos and spin of the last Liberal government. Defence manufacturing fell by 18 per cent, while consultants grew by 15 per cent. This was typical of a government that was all announcement and zero delivery—all red carpets and Top Gun music. They produced media releases; we're producing missiles. They built consultancies; we're building drones. They closed shipyards; we're opening factories. Only Labor can be trusted with defence.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. According to media reports, the Minister for Housing negatively geared an investment property, which was sold in 2023 for $1.375 million. In the last month's budget, the government broke its promise and changed the negative gearing rules. Can the minister explain why it's fair and financially sensible for her to have benefited from access to negative gearing but then pull up this ladder of opportunity from millions of aspirational Australians?

I thank the member for Flinders for her question, but I will say I respect her, and this is beneath her. It is truly beneath her, as was the question from the member for Lyne.

Does the Manager of Opposition Business have a point of order?

I thought you were going to deal with it, Speaker. You're impugning motive on the person asking the question.

It's a bit of a long bow—that point of order—if you're going to ask that question involving a minister's own arrangements, which I've already told the House I'm not particularly comfortable with. It just opens up this can of worms. As I mentioned yesterday, the dignity and respect of the House is important. Fair go, Manager. If you're going to ask that question, the minister is quite rightly going to respond in a fairly forceful way. She is entitled to do so. She has the call.

The reforms that are before the parliament with regard to housing are not about the 150 people who sit in this chamber. They are about the 28 million outside of this chamber. I think that the member is trying to make a point—

You said you weren't going to do it!

Order. The member for Cowper is warned.

that she feels is about hypocrisy. But I tell you what would be really hypocritical. It would be a person like me, who is lucky enough to live in the home that I own, creating and perpetuating a system that leaves behind the generation—

The minister will pause. The member for Cowper's going to have to leave the chamber under 94(a). Like everyone else, he heard me say, 'You're on a warning.'

The member for Cowper then left the chamber.

And I don't know why someone is saying, 'Well done.' It's not a badge of honour to be disrespectful! Whoever said 'Well done' is not respecting this House. It's not a prize or a badge; it's a mark of disrespect! The minister will continue.

Again, what is truly hypocritical here is the group of people who sit opposite me—the vast majority of whom own their own home, many of whom own investment properties—and who are continuing to lock generations of young people out of the housing market.

It's really quite simple. You're either on the side of change and you're on the side of first home buyers, or you're the last man standing defending a broken housing market in our country. We are all going to get the chance on Thursday to come into the parliament and to again express our views on this issue. And I'll tell you what the Labor Party will be doing. The Labor Party will be coming into this parliament and we will be voting for a tax cut for every single one of Australia's 13 million workers. We will be voting to create a fairer housing market for Australians. I say again to those opposite: you must be blind if you cannot see how much our broken housing market is hurting Australians. How can you come into this House, again and again, defend the status quo and say that nothing needs to change?

I've spoken to the parliament before about the fact that a low-income young person in our country today is half as likely to own their own home than they were in the year that I was born. And do you know what those opposite want to do about that? Precisely nothing. Well, we have a different point of view. We see how much pain this is causing Australians. And to Australians who are watching at home, I want to say to you directly: 'We see you. We see the pain this is causing for you. We see you doing all the right things and trying to get ahead and not being able to do so.' That is why we are standing up and making a change, and if those opposite had any concern for the housing needs of Australians they would come with us.

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

It was so lovely to see the member for Canberra this morning with beautiful little baby Joseph. And we had baby Augie and baby Zoe visiting us this morning as well. We were talking about the fact that, in a week's time, from 1 July, paid parental leave will increase again for Australian families.

It's hard to remember that, before the Rudd and Gillard governments, Australia was one of the very few developed countries in the world that didn't have a paid parental leave scheme. Labor introduced it, Labor built it and its Labor that continues to expand it. From 1 July, so next week, parents with new beautiful little babies will get more time off with those babies. We're going to that full six months of paid parental leave. They'll receive more money. The actual rate, week on week, is going up, so they'll receive more than $1,000 a week when they're home with their babies. As well, since last year, those parents on paid parental leave have been getting superannuation so that they won't see that big gender pay gap in super. Of course, more people will also be eligible as we increase the thresholds for eligibility.

Thanks to this Labor government under this Prime Minister, families will receive almost $30,000 during that six months of paid leave, more than doubling what they were getting under those opposite. But those opposite have always been a bit of a mixed picture when it comes to paid parental leave. The former treasurer Joe Hockey called mothers 'double dippers' on Mother's Day. The former prime minister Scott Morrison called them 'rorters'. The member for Goldstein, of course, said, 'It's not my choice that women have children. It's genetic.' And now we've got—

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

Of course, it's on relevance. There was no mention of the coalition, and the coalition, in fact, has—

Resume your seat. No-one heard that end bit, because that wasn't within the standing orders. Once I say, 'Resume your seat,' no-one hears what you're saying, so that's fine. The person next to you can, but no-one else can. The question was about what the risks are to this policy. We'll listen carefully and I'll hear what the minister has to say and see what she says.

The member for Goldstein doesn't. And now we've got Pauline Hanson and One Nation saying that they want to strip away workers' rights and roll back paid parental leave. Since 2017, Senator Hanson has been saying she doesn't support paid parental leave. More than a decade ago she said that women get themselves pregnant for the money. More recently, a couple of weeks ago, she said: 'You have the equipment. That's what you're here for.' Then, at the Press Club, when she was asked twice if she supported it—the ABC checked with her—she said she didn't support it. But now that she's had pushback from Australian families, suddenly she's on board. Well, when someone who has been opposed to paid parental leave for a decade now says, 'Oh, no. They misunderstood me when I said again and again that I don't support it,' no-one believes it.

We know that Australians want paid parental leave. It's only Labor that backs it. (Time expired)

My question is for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The government's Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026 would allow the Commonwealth to legally discriminate against businesses without an enterprise agreement or those without a union named. But a not dissimilar scheme in Victoria was found by the Watson report to have been used and weaponised by the CFMEU, costing taxpayers billions and supporting organised crime. My question is: how can these provisions be a good idea from the point of view of either preventing corruption or getting value for money for government spending?

I'd like to thank the member for her question. I will go through a couple of elements of her question. Firstly, I would say that our reforms in the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026 will allow Commonwealth government spending to support secure jobs and fair working conditions by preferencing enterprise agreements negotiated in good faith and genuinely agreed to, where it is appropriate to do so. Enterprise agreements are a transparent and effective way of delivering secure jobs and fair conditions for workers, as well as flexibility and productivity for employers. Importantly, the bill does not impose any obligations on the Commonwealth to do anything, such as require an enterprise agreement.

When it comes to construction, though, there has been no government that has taken more action to stamp out corruption in the construction industry than this government. In recognition of that, as we develop our secure jobs code, we have recognised that a different approach is required in construction. That is why, at the same time as I announced this bill, I also announced the construction code consultation that will clearly outline what good behaviour looks like when we, as the Commonwealth, procure in the construction industry.

I have to say we are doing a lot of diligent work. We are working through the National Construction Industry Forum, which is a tripartite forum. Our government has taken tripartism very seriously. We are not shutting out employers. We're not shutting out unions. We are bringing people together. That is why the bill is called the cooperative workplaces bill. This is very important, and no other government, as I said, has taken this issue as seriously as we have. I'm happy to work with the member in the future to make sure we get those good outcomes that workers deserve, that taxpayers deserve and that we will work towards.

My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for local governments across Australia, and what approaches would leave local government worse off?

I thank the member for Barton, someone who has served her community as a member of the Georges River Council and a strong advocate for local council as well. Can I shout out all of the mayors and councillors who have been in Canberra this week for the national general assembly. There are some mayors from the Eyre Peninsula up there behind us. I know there was the mayor and councillors from Cocos (Keeling) Islands behind us too, which I know the member for Lingiari was keen on. It was a real honour to stand with local governments on Monday night at the national awards, talking about the incredible work that they're doing in their local communities, and I've had the pleasure of meeting many local councils across the country this week. They play a critical and trusted role providing services in our communities, and we know our communities rely on those.

The Albanese government has a longstanding commitment to local councils, and our budget reaffirms that. We've committed over $3.6 billion through financial assistance grants, and that's an increase of over five per cent from last year.

How does that compare with other options? Well, I heard the member for Parkes say it's not enough. He might want to remember that when those opposite were in government they froze indexation on financial assistance grants, ripping $1 billion out of a sector that provides services and infrastructure in communities that our members rely on. We want to help communities who have got cash-flow pressures now, which is why we've advanced financial assistance grants. In the budget, we've committed $2 billion through our Local Infrastructure Fund, and that's on top of the $1.5 billion from the Housing Support Program in the last term—things that fund footpaths, cycleways, lighting, bridges, culverts, stormwater, drainage works, water and wastewater infrastructure. We've doubled Roads to Recovery to $1 billion a year to support every local council to build, maintain and upgrade roads.

Order! The member for Parkes is warned.

There's $200 million through our Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program and $150 million through our road black-spot funding, targeting significant measures that do great work in our local communities. Last week, $3½ million in road safety upgrades were announced across Tassie. This includes $437,000 for a new roundabout in Devonport. These investments help communities right across the country. Our government is all about delivering programs, services and infrastructure that support local communities, because supporting local communities is something that this side of the House is all about. We won't rip money out of the local government sector like those opposite did the last time they were in government.

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

This is, I promise, my final local government representatives acknowledgement: Councillor Janet Swain from Byron Shire Council, Mayor Andrew McLeod from the District Council of Elliston and Mayor Geoff Churchett from the District Council of Tumby Bay.

I wish to make a personal explanation.

Does the member for Goldstein claim to have been misrepresented?

I do indeed.

You may proceed.

In question time today, once again, the Treasurer has misled the House, stating:

… the shadow Treasurer pointed out on social media this morning that inflation has come down substantially, and he attributes that to the budget settings.

I will point out the social media post to which he refers, which says:

Inflation data out. Pre-Iran inflation was 3.7%. Iran lifted it to 4.6%. Today it is 4%. Jim Chalmers' spending addiction is the inflation culprit. It was too high before Iran, and Australia has been left with an inflation problem.

I seek leave to table the tweet, or the X post, to inform the accuracy of the House and to correct the dishonesty of the Treasurer.

Standing order 68 doesn't provide for tabling. It doesn't.

There you go. You can have that.

No. The member for Goldstein, take that back. You're not going to start that behaviour. Just resume your seat. The House has given you the courtesy. Don't push the friendship. Honestly!

I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 41 of 2025-26 entitled Department of the Treasury's readiness to implement the Scams Prevention Framework: Department of the Treasury.

Document made a parliamentary paper.

():  I also present the report of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner, incorporating the report of the Parliamentary Service Merit Protection Commissioner, for 2024-25.

Document made a parliamentary paper.

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

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

The urgent need for the Government to ensure AI data centres are built on Australia's terms by managing local community impacts, mandating developers to fund clean energy, transmission and water infrastructure, and ensuring the benefits of AI are shared across society.

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

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

AI data centres are not just warehouses full of servers. They are the physical infrastructure of the future economy. Like all transformative technology, AI presents extraordinary opportunities alongside significant risks that must be managed. Data centres draw on our energy system, water resources and local communities. If global hyperscalers want access to Australian resources, they must help build the clean energy, transmission and water infrastructure their projects depend upon. The government's data centre voluntary expectations document is a start, but expectations are simply not enough. They should be mandatory, enforceable and transparent.

AI is often viewed as software, but the technology that enables it has profound impacts on the physical world. Demand is accelerating rapidly as generative AI expands and more advanced, agentic systems emerge. This presents a genuine opportunity for Australia. We have abundant renewable resources and world-class research institutions. If AI infrastructure is built here, we gain a seat at the table where the rules, standards and governance frameworks of the AI age are being written, rather than leaving those decisions to others in other nations.

The risks are equally real. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has warned data centres could account for up to 11 per cent of Australia's electricity consumption by 2035. Without matching investment in new generation, storage and transmission, households and businesses will face higher costs and our net zero ambitions will become harder to achieve. Communities are also raising legitimate concerns about land use, noise and environmental impacts.

The key question is whether Australia is prepared to set the rules before the concrete is poured on new centres and the cables are laid. There currently are simply insufficient protections in place for Australian communities. The government's expectations document points in the right direction, but it is an expectations document. It has no bite and no real strength to it. It doesn't actually provide any protections to the Australian people. Major AI data centres should proceed only where developers can demonstrate they will bring the necessary infrastructure with them. Households should not subsidise hyperscalers.

This debate is also about more than just energy, water and planning approvals. The other question is of sovereignty and the right to scrape public data and make sure that appropriate remuneration and sovereign control over our Australian data is ensured. Foreign laws such as the US CLOUD Act can extend beyond national borders. Australia should welcome AI investment, but critical data and infrastructure must remain governed by Australian law. This means stronger standards, audit rights and encryption controls.

AI is also built on data, much of it created through human effort—journalism, writing, creative, music, film, image and culture. A practical licensing or levy framework can support innovation while ensuring that creators share in the value they help generate. We cannot let this become another situation where an Australian resource—our public data—is used for profit by others without proper remuneration domestically. So, that practical licensing or levy framework must be established.

As a high-skill, service based economy, Australia is particularly exposed to AI-driven disruption across professional industries. If we get this wrong—and this is on the Albanese government—productivity gains will flow to a smaller number of global technology companies while Australian workers carry the disruption. The challenge of AI is that, by the time regulators understand today's technology, tomorrow's technology has already arrived. We should be honest that the social impacts of AI are not yet fully knowable. AI will affect more than productivity. It will shape how people learn, work, trust, form relationships and participate in civic life.

The lesson from social media is that a non-independent AI Safety Institute with inadequate separation from the department of industry and far less technical expertise than its US and UK counterparts leaves Australia dangerously exposed. That is why Australia must ensure that the AI age is built on our terms, with safeguards and for our people, not just focusing, as I understand the minister has, in roundtables, on seeking to ensure investment but not the protections necessary for the Australian people.

I thank the member for Warringah for this matter of public importance, and I thank her and many members of the crossbench for the way they've engaged in this issue, balancing both the risks and the opportunities. The question of how Australia approaches data centres is an important one for our nation. It's important in part because of what's inside those data centres: artificial intelligence, which is going to be one of the most consequential technologies in our economy over the next several decades. In the 19th century, economic power rested on coal and in the 20th century on oil, and in the 21st century it will rest on computation. AI is the issue; data centres are simply where the AI happens.

The Albanese Labor government is determined to ensure that all Australians benefit from AI. To get those benefits we need to shape and shepherd AI to make sure that it works for Australians and not the other way around. Late last year the government released its National AI Plan. It set out a simple proposition that the role of government is neither to stand back and hope nor to stand in the way; our role is to ensure that AI develops in line with Australian values, Australian laws and Australian interests. As part of that plan, we've set out a set of clear expectations for the companies building the physical foundation of the AI economy: data centres. Those expectations include what I call a triple lock on energy. There'll be members of this parliament who want to pretend that we can stop or ignore AI. I think that's irresponsible. AI is here. The arrow is loose from the bow. Our job is to make sure we benefit from it.

It's important to note that the AI boom is no small thing. The investment now flowing into data centres is on a scale that is difficult to overstate. Moody's expects global data centre investment to reach $3 trillion in the next five years. For Australia, this boom could ultimately prove to be bigger and more consequential than the mining boom—a boom that shaped our prosperity for a generation. The question isn't whether the boom is coming; the question is: on what terms do we let it in? The government's approach is not to be boosters of AI and not to be naysayers. We want to be pragmatic, and we need to be clear-eyed about both the big risks and the big opportunities that flow from this boom.

Let me be clear about the risks first, because they are real and Australians can see them. First, let's talk about energy. Around the world, data centres are pushing up prices in countries where these centres have not been well managed. In the United States, it's already happening. In the PJM grid, one of the largest in the country, the Independent Market Monitor attributed more than half of one year's surge in capacity prices to data centres—more than US$9 billion in additional power prices billed straight back to households. We cannot let this happen in Australia, and we need to act early to make sure that it doesn't. Today, data centres use around two per cent of the electricity in our National Electricity Market. That sounds modest, but the trajectory is steep and, if demand arrives faster than new supply, the consequence is obvious: prices rise and households feel it.

There are also concerns about water. Nationally, the volume is still small. Data centres use around one-one-hundredth of what mining uses, but that use can be locally acute, and some communities overseas found that out when taps ran dry during construction of data centres near them. There are also community concerns about the noise of data centre clusters, their visual impact and industrial sites built close to homes. These are real concerns and they deserve real answers. We've seen it here in Sydney. A single proposed data centre in suburban Sydney drew a record 374 objections and just nine submissions in support. Residents were worried about noise, diesel generators and a facility that is barely 160 metres from a local primary school.

These risks from data centres are not theoretical. They are materialising around the world, and almost every country that was slow to address the data centre boom has had problems caused by it. The United States let the market lead and is now improvising after-the-fact fixes amid a huge public backlash. Ireland let data centres pass 10 per cent of national energy demand before the grid around Dublin seized up and new connections were frozen. Singapore has had to halt approvals. The pattern around the world is unmistakeable. The countries that were slow to manage the costs were the ones that faced the worst consequences, so that's exactly what our approach in Australia addresses.

Under the National AI plan 2025, we've released our expectations of data centres and AI infrastructure developers. These are not red tape. They are the foundation of the sector's social licence to operate here. They are a plain statement of what we expect in return for access to our grid, our land and our market. They're framed as expectations, as the honourable member pointed out, because they cover areas of responsibility that intersect with state, territory and local governments. For that reason, as a federal government, our approach has been to outline our expectations first, which we've done, and then work with other jurisdictions to create alignment and certainty to make these expectations binding across the Commonwealth. That is the path we have laid out and the path we are making progress on.

Let me lay out what these five expectations do. The first expectation is the national interest. We expect that this investment will build genuine Australian industrial and technological capacity, advancing our sovereignty and security, not simply adding floor space and consuming our resources. The second expectation is energy, and it's at the heart of this framework. Here we are applying our triple lock. The first component of that lock is that we require data centres to bring their own renewable energy supply, underwriting fresh generation rather than drawing down power that households and businesses are relying on. Second, we expect them to pay their full share of grid connection to cover the cost of the poles, wires and transformers they require and make sure that those costs are not passed on to people's bills. And we expect them to be demand flexible, working with market operators to dial their consumption up and down so they strengthen the grid rather than strain it. These three things—bring your own supply, cover your network costs and be demand flexible—are the triple lock. These are the things that enable us to look Australians in the eye and say that the growth of data centres will not push up your power prices. Energy ministers across the Commonwealth, states and territories are now working together to embed it.

The third expectation is water. We expect operators to use efficient, modern cooling systems to draw on recycled and non-potable sources wherever they can.

The fourth expectation is workforce and skills. We expect this build-out to invest in Australians through apprenticeships, training and partnerships with our colleges and universities, so the boom leaves behind a deeper pool of local capability than it found.

And the fifth expectation is innovation. We expect the global operators to make their computing power available to Australian start-ups and to partner with Australian researchers, so the benefits of this build out flow to Australian ideas, not merely Australian real estate.

This last expectation matters a lot, because it goes to the question underneath all of this: why are we all doing this? The AI economy is coming, whether we are ready or not. What is not settled is our place in that economy. We can be a country that rents intelligence by the month from foreigners on terms set in another hemisphere, or we can be a country that helps build it, owns the infrastructure, trains the people and shapes and regulates the technology to our own values and our own interests.

The choice is not whether the boom arrives; it is whether Australians end up as tenants in someone else's digital future or owners of our own. At its heart, whether we have AI in Australia or not is an issue of sovereignty. When our government activities, our research and our AI models run on Australian soil, we are not a tenant in someone else's economy. And, in a contested region, that is not a luxury. It is about national resilience.

That's why this debate matters so much. We must be clear eyed about the risks and the opportunities and make sure that data centres and artificial intelligence benefit all Australians.

Thank you to the member for Warringah for bringing forward this matter of public importance to the parliament. The National AI Plan commits to capturing the opportunity of AI, spreading the benefits and keeping Australians safe. My concern today is whether we really have the policy settings to achieve all three, or whether we are trading long-term sovereignty for a short-term sugar hit.

Let's be honest: the opportunity is real. Australia has genuine competitive advantages, abundant renewable energy, land, geopolitical stability and proximity to the Indo-Pacific market. In 2024, we ranked second globally as the most attractive destination for data centre investment. Data centre investment has kept GDP out of negative territory, so this really matters, and AI data centres have been and will be an important part of our economy.

And be honest: megabytes are far easier to export than hydrogen. Unlike our earlier superpower ambitions, digital infrastructure doesn't need a port, but it still needs power, and there is a strong sovereign capability case for having AI training and inferencing happening here on Australian soil. This case was made sharply when the US issued an export-control directive to Anthropic, cutting off Australia's access to frontier AI models overnight.

Australia already has more than 160 operational data centres, and there are more than 90 in the pipeline. In New South Wales alone, there are 44 projects totalling 11.4 gigawatts, equivalent to nearly four Eraring coal stations. It's a dominant driver of new electricity demand, and there are many people concerned that we can have the clean energy transition, or we can have data centres, but we can't have both. But we need to have both.

AI has voracious appetite for land, energy, water and construction. Other countries have acted. Singapore imposed a moratorium. The US had tech companies sign a ratepayer protection pledge. Ireland now requires data centres to source 80 per cent of demand from new renewable energy. The public is right to be concerned. No-one wants big tech put before the planet or corporations put before Australians. Trust that the government will defend Australia's interests is fraying.

Let's start with energy consumption. I recognise that the government has put in a statement of expectations and that this sends an important signal. I note the minister's comments that this is partly because of the different jurisdictional challenges in Australia and the roles of local, state and federal government. But businesses need certainty, and so do Australians. The work that the government is doing in this space needs to speed up so that we have greater certainty about what we are going to get as a nation when these data centres are being put in every single day.

The point that we also need to make is that the broader energy framework is not coherent, and that is a problem too for data centres. Centralised data centres must bring their own renewable energy under the statement of expectations, but the same compute distributed across office buildings carries no equivalent obligation, despite being less efficient. The treatment of new versus existing industrial demand is equally arbitrary when it comes to electricity. Tomago Aluminium draws close to a gigawatt—roughly 10 per cent of New South Wales electricity supply—and not only faces no BYO requirement of renewable energy but will actually have its energy use subsidised. There may be good reasons for these distinctions, but the government hasn't articulated them, and we do need a coherent approach in terms of industrial-scale energy requirements.

The deeper problem is that the government is approving demand that, at the moment, we cannot supply. New South Wales solar projects now average 1,384 days to clear planning—almost double 2023 levels and more than 10 times Western Australia's 94-day average. Data centres can be built far faster than the renewable energy to power them. That temporal mismatch is where the anxiety lies. If it isn't closed, Australians will pay through higher emissions, higher prices or both. Unlike approval, global demand for compute cannot be paused. Refuse the investment and it simply moves beyond Australia's reach. The answer is faster infrastructure approvals, locational price signals that guide investment to where the grid really can support it and the discipline that supply must precede demand, not chase it.

Australia has been here before. We've extracted gas, exported it and watched Australian industry pay some of the highest gas prices in the world for a domestic resource when we had expanded supply. We must not make the same mistake with compute. Australian energy should benefit Australians. That means energy abundance, with industry that follows, not competes with, households. It means sharing the productivity gains from the technology and building domestic sovereignty. We can't hold back AI; we need to build with it.

Artificial intelligence is no longer a future concept. It is here, it is growing rapidly and it is reshaping our economy in real time. This discussion is not just about AI as a technology and what it can do. It is about the infrastructure behind it—the data centres and AI facilities—and ensuring that they are built and maintained in Australia's national interest and in the interests of the Australian people. AI must work for Australians, our economy, our communities and our future.

There is no question that AI brings with it enormous opportunity. When harnessed for constructive purposes, it drives productivity, supports innovation, strengthens industries and enables world-leading research. Data centres are a part of this. They operate to power the digital services Australians rely on every day. They create jobs and they support a modern economy. But with that growth comes responsibility. That is why the Albanese Labor government has a clear national expectation for data centres and AI infrastructure developers to ensure this investment delivers shared benefits, not just shared costs.

At its core, this is about making sure AI infrastructure in Australia serves our national interest. These facilities are not just commercial assets, they are strategic. They go to data sovereignty, national security and community trust. We expect developers to engage openly with local communities, businesses and government to minimise impacts and operate in ways that deliver real benefits for Australians. Equally important is how this infrastructure interacts with our energy system. AI data centres are highly energy intensive, and it would not be acceptable for that demand to place upward pressure on prices for Australian households and small businesses. Our approach is clear: new developments must support, not undermine, Australia's clean energy transition. That means securing additional renewable energy, contributing fairly to transmission and grid infrastructure, improving efficiency and supporting grid stability.

Those who benefit from this growth must also help build the system that sustains it. They must understand that although government wants to encourage innovation and AI development, there does need to be regulation, with the role of government being to strike that careful and precise balance between encouraging growth and not paralysing business, at the same time as protecting the Australian people and our natural resources. This applies strongly to water, a precious resource that must be carefully managed. We expect data centre operators to adopt efficient cooling technologies, minimise reliance on potable water and engage early with communities, utilities and stakeholders. Transparency and long-term planning are essential to ensuring that these developments are sustainable and resilient.

This is also fundamentally about people—about Australian workers and the economic opportunities that come with this transition. As a Labor government, we will always stand with workers. Labor is the party of workers, and we are determined that the growth of AI infrastructure must translate into secure, well-paid jobs alongside real investment in skills, apprenticeships and training pathways. Australians should not just host this infrastructure; they should build it, operate it and benefit from it. A Future Made in Australia means we are a centre of capability where research and innovation is supported, enabling Australian startups and small businesses to access the computing power they need.

In my home state of South Australia, the state Labor government is taking a proactive approach, making it clear the state is open to AI investment—but not at any cost. With plans to attract data centres, particularly in regional areas, the focus is on creating jobs and economic opportunity while putting in place legislation to manage energy and water use responsibly. We are reflecting the same principle at the federal level. Growth must be carefully managed with clear guardrails so that communities benefit alongside industry.

All of this reflects the broader principle that has guided our approach to AI from the beginning. When it is done properly, there are real opportunities for Australians. The role of government is to regulate without paralysing innovation, to enable growth while ensuring that it is safe, sustainable and fair. We welcome investment, we support innovation, and we want Australia to lead.

I'm pleased to support this matter of public importance regarding AI data centres and fully agree with demands for developers to fund the mitigation of their projects' harms. Thirsty for water and hungry for power—that's how the new AI data centres springing up across Australia are being described, and for good reason. Big tech companies are taking advantage of Australia's resources, imposing their damaging data centres on our communities and consolidating their control of our personal data and our economy.

While the government seems okay with Australian land being covered in AI data centres, everyday people are rightly asking serious questions: Why are these data centres being forced on us? What risks do they pose, and what safeguards are actually in place? People want answers and proper regulation of this industry. Australia is already No. 8 in the world for the total number of operational and proposed data centres. We were behind only the USA for new proposals in 2024, with new projects proposed every week. One site, just 30 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD, would occupy 350 hectares. That's larger than many suburbs. Another 52-hectare site in Western Sydney would be Australia's single largest energy consumer.

And it's the energy consumption of these sites that is so alarming. Data centres will account for more than 10 per cent of Australia's energy consumption within a decade, jeopardising our energy transition. They're already boosting fossil fuel demand, absorbing half of one year's total rooftop solar growth. Without proper safeguards, data centres are going to drive up retail power prices, increase climate pollution and use up our scarce water. You might have seen the advocates of these data centres saying Australia was the perfect host due to its renewable energy potential. Note that key word: 'potential'. Isn't this an amazing change of heart! Big business now wants renewables when it suits them. They don't care about the climate or the fires and floods that we suffer each year. No, American executives only want renewables when it serves their business interests.

I don't support these data centres and certainly not while the regulation is so poor. Like many Australians, I'm completely at a loss regarding what benefits they would actually bring to Australians. At the very least, the government must force companies to contribute renewable energy to the grid, not compete with households for energy during a fuel crisis. There are several other major problems with AI data centres, including their use of otherwise productive agricultural and industrial land, their environmental degradation and water consumption, their noise pollution in close proximity to residential areas and the job cuts they actually cause.

So what's the government doing about them, you may ask? They're welcoming them with open arms, signing deals with Amazon, Anthropic and Microsoft in recent weeks. We are repeating the very same mistakes we made during the resources boom. Big companies set up shop here, we failed to tax them properly and we watched their profits sail away overseas, leaving behind a wrecked environment and no economic benefit. Is that the future we really want? Is that the best the government can do—our precious resources extracted and big tech companies making huge profits? All the government has to offer is a set of non-binding expectations for AI companies. Rather than imposing legal regulations on their activities, Labor's acting nicely and hoping for the best. Is it cynical of me not to trust these companies to do the right thing in Australia? We've seen this story before with the tobacco, gambling and fossil fuel industries. Big corporations use donors and lobbyists to influence government policy. The government is either being recklessly slow to regulate AI companies or it is doing their bidding, and I do not know which is worse.

The good news is that there is hope. Communities are sounding the alarm, rallying together and standing up against these dangerous megaprojects. In May, one development in Perth faced overwhelming opposition due to impacts on schools, residences and cultural heritage sites. The Greens have established a Senate inquiry into these data centres, and we will call on the government to pass a comprehensive AI bill. The government should consider a moratorium on new data centres until proper regulations have been enshrined into law.

I thank the member for Warringah for raising this matter. It's an issue I myself am particularly passionate about. AI is here and it is rapidly changing how we work, what we see, how we engage online and what future tech advances and economic opportunities can look like. Our Labor government seeks to take every opportunity to ensure that we can shape this revolution on our own terms rather than on someone else's. We will always back team Australia, and that's exactly why we've already got a plan on the table.

We know this is ours to get right, and getting it right means listening to the people it affects. Plenty of people are uneasy about AI, and I appreciate why. They are worried about their jobs. They are worried about having these enormous companies on the other side of the world calling all the shots. They worry about knowing what's real, what's genuine and what's artificial, what's mis- or disinformation. These are fair and genuine concerns, and some of what the critics say is true. But I don't talk AI down, because the opportunities are just as real. We can build this industry instead of rent it, and barely a country on Earth is better placed to do it than Australia. We have the land, we have the natural resources, we have the researchers and 1,500 AI startups already at it. So our job is to be straight about both and drive what is in the best interest of Australians.

What people feel first is what is happening in their suburbs. Data centres are significant industrial operations going up where people live, near schools and near homes in places like mine. We've seen overseas, in parts of the US, how badly this can go when it is rushed. Sites are thrown up fast, soaking up enormous amounts of resources, and working people are left to foot the bill. Well, I'm not having that here, and neither is our government.

The people in my community have every right to expect that the project down the road will not push up their power bills or take their water. That's why, back in March, our government set out five clear expectations for anyone who wants to build them here. We are doing the work with the state and local governments to set in these frameworks. On energy, we're acting to make them an asset to our energy grid, not something that puts a strain on it. If a data centre wants to benefit from Australia's energy grid, then it must pay its full share of the network infrastructure costs, to ensure those are not passed on to consumers or businesses, and provide demand flexibility and cooperate with market operators to strengthen the energy grid. On top of that, they must look after their water.

We're not doing this without listening to our communities. Our plan is backed by the ACTU, the Smart Energy Council and the Water Services Association of Australia, who are key leaders in their fields. As I said, AI is here, and we should do everything we can, in terms of the data centres that are required, to ensure that they are built in our interests. That's why energy ministers met in May. They're back at it next month, and the water ministers are sitting down in August to lock it down with the rest of the states. For me, the real test is pretty simple. As AI grows, who's better off? That's why we are already expecting companies to open up computing power to Australian startups and to work with our researchers, because we absolutely want to back in Australian innovation as part of this tech revolution. We want them training Australians and giving our kids a way into skilled, well-paid jobs.

We're not only chasing the upside; we're acting on those worries I raised at the start too. That's why we launched the AI Safety Institute—to test the systems and to make sure the rules around this technology are written here and are in our national interest.

In the end, it comes down to a choice. We can be a country that buys its intelligence off the shelf from somewhere else and rents it forever, or we can be a country that builds the thing, owns it and trains our people to run it—shaped around our values, not somebody else's. I know which one I want for the kids growing up in my community. I don't want them to be tenants in someone else's future. I want them owning a piece of their own. That's why this government is getting in early and doing it properly on Australia's terms and in our national interest.

I thank the member for Warringah for bringing this matter of public importance before the House. It's a timely debate about a matter on which this federal government appears to be slow off the mark. Yes, the government has laid out five expectations for data centres, but the government really should be going much further and establishing clear rules and limits which prioritise Australia's environment and national interests and provide a reasonable return for the Australian community.

I'm not against data centres in principle—not at all—because housing data centres in Australia has the potential to be a really good thing. They are the engine of much of the digital world, underpinning the operation of things like cloud computing and, of course, artificial intelligence. The fact is that Australia already has about 162 operational data centres, with at least another 90 in the pipeline. In fact, Australia is consistently recognised as one of the most attractive locations for investment in data centres, and many companies want to build here because we're close to the growing demand in South-East Asia. We've got a lot of land, significant renewable energy potential and relative geologic, economic and political stability. Moreover, if we plan it right, being a significant centre for this infrastructure could actually provide us leverage and even some steps towards digital sovereignty in what is an increasingly competitive and sometimes dangerous global AI race. It also brings investment, economic activity and jobs, though the number of long-term jobs is obviously considerably less than during the brief construction phase.

But the truth is that, at the same time, there are also a lot of reasonable community concerns about the proliferation of these centres, not least to do with the environmental impact they have, consuming vast quantities of power, water and land as they do. Indeed, by some estimates, by about 2030 data centres in Australia will use about as much energy as all the homes in Victoria. Without additional energy in the grid and renewable energy in particular, emissions and power prices will rise. Data centres also use a significant amount of water. While they may not use as much as some industries, on the driest inhabited continent on Earth any proposal placing additional pressure on water resources does need to be scrutinised and managed carefully.

There are also concerns about lack of proper community engagement and a lack of consideration about the long-term economic return to the community. The centres are increasingly big and sometimes pretty ugly. They can be noisy and could impact power prices, land prices, local water resources and the general amenity of communities. There's a reasonable expectation on the part of communities that proponents should be made to demonstrate that all these concerns will be addressed before approvals are granted.

These facilities are not being built in a vacuum. They rely on Australian land, Australian infrastructure, Australian energy networks and Australian water resources. Increasingly, they are being developed by some of the largest and most profitable multinational corporations in history, so it is entirely reasonable for Australians to ask: what are we getting in return? Our return should include requirements to invest in additional renewable energy generation, contribute to local infrastructure upgrades, support skills and training programs, and provide other direct benefits to the communities hosting these developments. For, if we roll out the red carpet without demanding proper safeguards and dividends, we risk giving away too much for too little, and that's a habit in this country. We do it with too many industries, and, once they're in, it's hard to roll anything back. That's why the government's current political approach feels inadequate.

We need a framework that recognises the opportunities and the risks—one that welcomes investment but on our terms, one that encourages sovereignty and economic growth while ensuring that environmental impacts are properly managed and that communities have a genuine say in developments that affect them, one that secures a fair return for Australian people from the use of our resources and infrastructure. Data centres will undoubtedly play a major role in the economy of the future. I think it's right we build them, but that means we should be paying closer attention and setting stricter limits on how they are built, where they are built and under what conditions they are built. Frankly, the Australian people expect their government to plan ahead, to set clear rules and to stand up for the national interest. When it comes to the proliferation of data centres, that means ensuring that growth is sustainable, communities are respected and the public receives a fair return on the investment.

I welcome this opportunity to debate the future of artificial intelligence data centres in Australia and in particular what role the federal government should play as the world scales up investment in this critical digital infrastructure.

In speaking on this, I'd particularly like to acknowledge Minister Ayres and the assistant minister, the member for Parramatta, for their mountain of work in this space juggling the real opportunities of this digital revolution but also the real and genuine concerns of local communities just like mine. As a former mayor and someone who has always been adjacent to planning processes, I can tell you that the construction of data centres in local communities is overwhelmingly a state issue. Applications are made through various planning systems on industrial land often zoned by state and local governments and assessed and determined at either the state or local level. Where those local and state governments have not used the planning system to prohibit or regulate their construction, they are essentially permissible.

For that reason, it would have been very easy for this federal government to wash their hands of responsibility here, to simply say: 'You know what? This is a state issue, a planning issue, and not our problem.' But this government has not chosen that path. In fact, much of the urgent action that the member for Warringah is calling for in her MPI is already underway by this federal Labor government. In December last year, the government announced our national AI plan. The plan has three goals: to capture the opportunities, to share the benefits and to keep Australians safe. One of the earliest priorities of that plan was developing clear data centre expectations, which were released only a few months ago.

Over the last two years, data centres have become one of the most contested pieces of economic infrastructure globally. Advocates call them the factories of a new age and a great tool for productivity. Critics call them giant sheds full of computers that consume electricity and water and create few jobs. They say that we risk the same mistakes that we made in resources. Both these views contain truths, and our job as a government is to assess both of these views openly with honesty and make decisions in the national interest. The AI economy is arriving whether we are ready or not. That much is settled. What is not settled is the federal government's place in it. The position of this government is that it is far better to set the terms of a boom at the outset than to fix the consequences a decade later, which is why we have released five key expectations. I'll focus on a few.

Labor expects that data centres must bring their own new renewable energy supply to offset their demand, so they are not drawing down power that should go to households and businesses. That's important. Labor expects that data centres must pay their full share of network infrastructure costs, so those burdens are not passed on to consumers. And Labor expects that data centres should use innovative, efficient and sustainable solutions to minimise fresh water use. These expectations have been backed by the Water Services Association of Australia, the Smart Energy Council and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Engagements from the states, who control many of these levers, has been positive to date and is ongoing.

Labor also expects global operators to make their computing power available to Australian startups and to partner with Australian researchers so that the benefits are to Australian businesses. This matters, because it goes to the question underneath the entire debate. We can be a country that merely consumes intelligence built elsewhere, or we can be a country that helps build it, that owns the infrastructure and that trains the people that grow our local economy.

In Lane Cove West, residents are writing to me about the proposed data centre at Mars Road. They have genuine concerns about the impact of this data centre on their community. Their local concerns are the frontline indicators of whether our state planning systems can manage this boom, and they are exactly the types of examples as to why the federal government should and has stepped in. We cannot allow a 'build first, ask questions later' approach. Energy security, water sustainability and community impact need to align with our national interests and our community values. The Albanese Labor government will keep working across this parliament, the states and territories to get this right.

We've seen this all before: a big multinational company comes to town, brings 'thousands' of jobs to 'boost' the economy, then takes the resources, sends the profit offshore and pays next to no tax, all while the temporary construction jobs dry up. We've seen it with gas, and we're seeing it again with data centres. Big tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft are desperate to build data centres here in Australia. We have it all: tonnes of renewable energy potential, wide open spaces and a relatively stable democracy. Microsoft wants to invest $25 billion and Amazon $20 billion. It's the mining boom all over again.

But where does this money go? Who benefits? Tech companies claim that these investments are good for the punter, but that's by no means guaranteed. For every $100 invested here by a company like Amazon or Google, $70 to $80 flows overseas straightaway to purchase equipment that we don't manufacture here, like semiconductors and servers. The profits fly offshore too, particularly into the pockets of Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. These tech companies are experts at tax minimisation, being rivalled only, perhaps, by gas companies. Data centres are being built on the North Shore. We already have several data centres in Artarmon and St Leonards, and there are more cropping up in and around my electorate and, as we heard from the member for Bennelong, in places like Lane Cove West and Macquarie Park.

I surveyed my electorate about these issues, and 750 people responded. Their views were unambiguous. Over half felt negatively about the growth of data centres, over 80 per cent were not confident the government will effectively regulate data centres and three-fifths were worried about a repeat of the gas industry experience and being ripped off. People were most concerned by the impacts on water supply and the energy transition, and rightfully so, because the numbers are astounding. We're a dry country, but data centres can use up to 40 million litres a day. The UN predicts that data centres will use more water by 2030 than every person on earth uses for drinking. Australia's largest proposed data centre in Western Sydney would use as much energy as two million Australian homes and generate the emissions of 560,000 petrol cars every year. This is a massive addition to energy demand at a time when we're asking Australians to help fund the build-out of our updated energy system—one that's reliable, cheap, clean and sovereign. The only way data centres can support the energy transition is if they build more renewables than they use. Otherwise, they're just sucking up new power faster than we can build it.

I want to be clear that AI offers significant economic opportunities, but we have to ensure that the build-out of AI data centres avoids these problems. So what is the government doing about it? They've issued some voluntary expectations for companies to demonstrate national interest, support the energy transition, use water responsibly, create local jobs and meaningfully engage with communities. The assistant minister Andrew Charlton, who's leading the government's data centre policy, said earlier this month:

… my view, is not that Australia should blindly accept or reject investment—Rather, Australia should actively set the terms on which that investment occurs…

I couldn't agree more, but non-binding expectations just aren't going to cut it. The government needs to make those standards binding, and that's a first step. More broadly, we need to critically engage with the data centre boom and the rise of AI.

The narrative we're being fed is that it's all about urgency. We're told that we don't have time to lose, otherwise the data centres will go elsewhere. It's the same playbook as the gas lobby. Yes, some data centres will get built elsewhere if we slow down, but there's a reason that Amazon and Google are so keen to build here, and that is they'll struggle to find anywhere half as good. If data centres really represent such an enormous economic opportunity, the opportunity is not going to go away, and we can afford to take time to get this policy right.

So we're faced with some important questions. Are we going to use our finite potable water to keep people and our environment healthy or to power AI slop? Are we going to let big tech bleed our communities dry or secure a fair return for the punter? Are we going to let data centres make climate change worse or ensure they boost clean energy supply? I think the answers are pretty clear, and my community agrees. It's up to government to slow tech companies down and ensure they deliver for us.

When you want something to work—when you want to shape it and when you want to have a stake in it—you can't bury your head in the sand. You can't close your eyes and pretend it isn't already happening. AI isn't coming soon. AI isn't a vision that's for the future. AI is here, and, because it's here, we now have a very important question that we need to answer. What is our role, not just as a government or as a country but as every single Australian, in that AI journey? I thank the member for Warringah for that question, because it's incredibly important. It's something that people are talking about in communities across our nation, and it's something that this Labor government is acting on right now.

In December last year, this Albanese Labor government announced the National AI Plan. That plan has three really clear goals. The first is to capture the opportunities, and the opportunities are many. We know that there are huge opportunities in terms of making the economy grow. We know that there are enormous opportunities in terms of productivity. We know that there are big opportunities in the aftermarket of data centres and AI. The second is that we have to share in the benefits. The benefits are many, but those benefits need to flow into everyday Australians every day. The third is to keep Australians safe, because we know that disinformation and misinformation are things that people are concerned about in our local communities, and we must protect Australians from them.

When there is a big digital transition like this and infrastructure is rolling out, we have to be in the ring. But we have to be in the ring with some conditions. The first is that, when it comes to data centres, we need them to reflect our Australian values. We need to ensure that our values as a nation are implemented when we talk about rollout, and we also need to ensure that those data centres are advancing Australia's interests and our people's interests.

I know that data centres have been something that have been very hotly contested, not just here but across the globe. For some people it's a new age. It's the new industrial revolution. It's something that's big and exciting. For others they're big, gargantuan sheds that suck energy. The truth is, when we decide our role in this space, we need to make sure that we account for all those arguments and set a framework to ensure that our country gets the best out of these. That's why in late March, the government's data centre expectations were rolled out. It's why what we set were some very clear expectations that you've got to bring your own supply, that you've got to cover your grid connection costs and that you have to co-operate with market operators to strengthen the energy grid.

This is not about moving forward at any cost. It's about making sure that, when these critical decisions are made and that economic impact rolls in, we are not passengers. We cannot be price takers. We cannot be people who sit on this side of the world and aren't in the game for the benefit of everyday Australians. Instead, what we must do is ensure that data centre providers pull their weight. Instead, what we must do is make sure that, as the scale-up happens, workers are supported and are not casualties of this work. We must make sure that there are frameworks for community engagement, because the concerns that people raise around water and energy are legitimate. The way to address those concerns is to set clear expectations for what we need as a country when it comes to data centres.

We want to be masters of our own destiny in this place. We don't want to bury our head in the sand on this, and we have a choice. That choice is for an Albanese Labor government to ensure that we are.

I thank the member for Warringah for bringing this matter forward. Data centres being built across this country right now are reshaping our energy grid, our water resources and potentially our communities. At the moment Australians have almost no say in whether they deliver us any benefit at all. Australia is one of the most attractive destinations in the world for this investment. We have a stable democracy, available land and the potential for abundant, cheap renewable energy. When the big AI and cloud companies talk about investing in Australia, this is largely what they mean. Amazon has committed $20 billion to data centres here, and Microsoft has committed $25 billion. That investment is coming whether we set the terms or not, so we'd better set them.

In March, the government released its data centre expectations. They ask operators to support our energy transition, use water responsibly, create local jobs and engage with affected communities. They're sensible asks, but that is in fact all they are—asks. Developers are not required to comply. A company can secure fast-tracked approval, consume gigawatts of our electricity, draw down our water, employ a few dozen workers and face no consequences for failure to meet a single one of those expectations. This is a wish list rather than a national interest framework, and the costs are real. Reporting suggests that between 70 and 80 per cent of the money committed to Australian data centres flows straight back overseas, while Australians provide the land, the energy and the water, and carry the risk.

The issue raised by the member for Warringah is the right one. We welcome the investment, but these companies must build on terms that leave Australians better, not worse, off. That means converting the government's expectations into a binding framework through cooperation with the states, a credible plan to run on 100 per cent additional renewable energy, binding water efficiency standards, real commitment on local jobs and training, and genuine community consultation before approval, not after the concrete's poured. The member for Warringah's MPI also refers to the need to ensure that the benefits of AI are shared across society, and this includes ensuring that, when these models are trained on the work of Australian writers, musicians, journalists and artists, those creators are actually paid for their work not stripped for free while the value flows offshore.

The matter of data centres, important as it is, is one piece of a much larger picture. I've just released an AI discussion paper setting out 18 practical policies the government should act on now. This MPI concerns one of them—data centres—and this cannot be the only priority that we pursue. We need an honest conversation about tax. AI companies will generate enormous value from Australian users' data, energy and land, and right now we have no mechanism to ensure any of it stays here. We already know this playbook. In 2025 alone, Google and Meta moved almost $11 billion to offshore entities and paid just $140 million in tax. We cannot let AI replicate that.

We need to prepare for the harder questions. My paper calls for scenario analysis of AI's impact on jobs and the economy so government is ready, whatever happens. It calls for a digital duty of care to protect Australians and especially children from real harms happening now. It calls for national AI literacy programs so every Australian can use this technology and protect themselves from its risks. It calls for properly funding the institutions, like the AI Safety Institute, which are meant to keep pace with all of this. These are not competing priorities. They're the same project: making sure AI delivers for Australians rather than at their expense.

Uncertainty about AI is no excuse to wait to act. We don't know exactly how fast or far this technology will go, but we know that data centres are being approved today, models are being trained today and value is being banked offshore today. We made this mistake with gas. We let companies invest under a generous regime and then were told it was unfair to change the rules. The result? A prolonged fight, delayed reform and billions forgone. We cannot repeat this with AI. So I support this matter wholeheartedly and I urge the government to treat it not as a standalone fix but as part of the urgent need to consider the impact of AI on the Australian economy and society and to regulate appropriately now. I commend the matter to the House.

This discussion has concluded.

The Housing Industry Association's executive director for compliance and workplace relations, Stuart Collins, has some advice for this Labor government. He said:

This bill—

the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026—

is being sold as a modest administrative tidy-up of the Fair Work Commission. It is not.

He's right. Mr Collins said:

It contains wide-ranging reforms with significant implications for the residential construction industry, procurement frameworks, workforce costs and the capacity of builders to deliver the homes Australians need.

There's a lot in that sentence, and there are a lot of construction companies going out backwards thanks to the policies of this failed Labor government. What our small-business sector does not need right now is more onerous costs and compliance. On the capacity of builders to deliver the homes Australians need, how many homes was it that this Labor government said they were going to build? Was it a million? Then they changed the figure. But, on their watch, they've built hardly a home.

Mr Collins added this:

The Federal Government is making a bad habit of tabling substantial workplace relations reforms with no notice, no industry engagement and no consideration of cumulative impact.

This is particularly concerning given the large number of legislative reviews currently underway that will impose future workplace relations reforms.

HIA's immediate concerns with this Bill are numerous.

But it's not just the HIA; it is so many other stakeholders besides. And yet this government just want to ram onerous legislation that is going to make it so much more difficult, particularly in the small-business sector, through the House of Representatives because they can and because they have the majority. They think that that mandate gives them permission to ride roughshod over stakeholders who happen to employ a lot of Australians and are sick to the back teeth of compliance and costs and regulation and union activity on their worksites and in their workplaces.

This is the modern Australia. This is Australia in 2026. This is the Australia governed by this Australian Labor Party, which has no modicum of care for small business or for getting out of the way and out of the road to make sure that small business can succeed and prosper. This is the Australian Labor Party that has overseen a cost-of-living crisis and has done nothing to fix it, bar bringing in legislation which just makes it more difficult for more people more often.

The government would do well to go back to the drawing board, look at this legislation and review it. And yet there are no Labor speakers on this bill. Labor members so quickly and readily want to talk about unionising and making sure their unions get their fair share, but, when it comes to small business, to the construction sector and to the transport sector, they are nowhere to be seen defending their shoddy legislation.

I congratulate the member for Riverina. As always, that was a fine contribution to an important debate. We heard a discussion in this House earlier about artificial intelligence and, specifically, data centres. The reality is that, more and more in this House, we are going to see conversations, debate and legislation about the impacts of artificial intelligence on our community, organisations and sectors. AI and the discussion on artificial intelligence will impact everything and everyone. So, as bills relating to AI come to the House, it is important that, where we can, we speak in a bipartisan way with one voice to give the community and the private sector—and the public sector and organisations—confidence and certainty about how we will approach legislation and how we will approach artificial intelligence.

It is so disappointing that, like so many bills from this government, this bill, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, contains measures that have no connection and no relationship with each other at all. One measure is around artificial intelligence, and specifically how the Fair Work Commission has seen a significant increase in applications, and also in the length of applications, because applicants have been able to use artificial intelligence to write submissions so easily and in such detail. That is a genuine concern and a genuine issue that needs to be addressed and is being addressed by this legislation. And it is legislation, to give the Fair Work Commission the support they need, that the coalition supports.

But, like so many pieces of legislation that were debating this week and that we have debated in the four years that I've been a member of this House, this government seeks to play wedge politics and has included a provision in the bill that is not related to AI but furthers their agenda and is so egregious that they know the coalition cannot support it. That is what they have done with this piece of legislation. They have added procurement requirements for the Public Service. One of the biggest drivers of opportunity in our country is procurement of government services, and this bill provides for unions and the union movement through enterprise bargaining agreements to get special treatment when it comes to procurement. I will touch on how egregious that is later in this speech, but, if you want to see how bad it is when you have unions controlling procurement, come and visit Victoria and see the $15 billion that has been rorted from taxpayers by the CFMEU. We have a premier, Jacinta Allan, who does not even want to investigate that $15 billion. That number, $15 billion of taxpayer money rorted and wasted in Victoria with the premier that won't look at it, will follow that premier to the election in November. It will follow every member of the Labor Party at a state and federal level in Victoria because they refuse to investigate and lift the lid on that $15 billion of taxpayer money that has been rorted out of the system.

To make it so typical of this prime minister—this is a prime minister that always says one thing and does another when it comes to wedging. Let me quote the Prime Minister in his very first press conference as Prime Minister on 22 May 2022:

I look forward to leading a Government that makes Australians proud. A Government that doesn't seek to divide, that doesn't seek to have wedges, but seeks to bring people together for our common interest and our common purpose.

This is another example of this prime minister saying one thing before an election or when he was just elected and delivering the complete opposite afterwards. It is no wonder that the Australian people have worked this prime minister out. It is literally harder to find a quote from the Prime Minister that is consistent with his actions today. I've not been able to find one thing where this prime minister and his actions today have been consistent with what he has said previously. That legacy will haunt this prime minister to the next election. We look at these examples that we're dealing with. Governments have choices.

We support the Fair Work Commission part of this. But, when it comes to procurement, that is one of the largest levers of opportunity government has, if not the largest—directing the public service and directing government bodies in how they spend taxpayer money to procure services for the taxpayer. They should always make sure that value for money for the taxpayer is first there. But the other opportunity they have is that they can choose to support their union mates or they can choose to support small businesses. They can support Australian businesses by putting requirements into that legislation that they're doing now to support Australian businesses and small businesses, but this government chose to support unions and their union mates over the small businesses of this country. I'm proud to represent a community where small business is at the heart of our community. It is at the heart of everything that we do in Casey. It supports our sporting clubs, our volunteer groups and our community groups, and we're here to be the voice of our small businesses.

I want to read a letter from Candice, who is a small-business owner in my community. She directed this to the Prime Minister. It's so important that her words are heard today, and her words represent so many small businesses across the country. She says: 'Dear Prime Minister, I am writing not as an economist or politician but as a fourth-generation small-business owner who is becoming increasingly concerned about the future of Australian family businesses. For generations, our jewellery business has proudly served our community, employed local people and contributed to the Australian economy.

Today, however, we are struggling under the weight of rising costs, increasing wages, soaring utility bills, insurance premiums, rent and countless other expenses that continue to grow while consumer spending slows. Small-business owners are resilient people, but many of us are reaching breaking point. We hear a lot about cost-of-living pressures on households, but where is the support for the people who provide jobs and keep our local community alive? Where is the assistance for small businesses trying to survive? Where is the recognition that behind every small business is a family carrying enormous burdens and responsibilities? And where is the support for the mental health of business owners who lie awake at night wondering how they will pay suppliers, cover wages and provide security, not only for their own families but for the families of their employees as well? Small business owners don't clock off. We carry the responsibility every day. We celebrate our staff's successes, worry about their livelihoods and often put ourselves last to ensure everyone else gets paid. Yet many of us feel forgotten. We are not asking for handouts. We are asking for understanding, practical assistance and policies that recognise the essential role small businesses play in Australia's economy and communities.

Australian small businesses are hurting. Many are on their knees. Rising living costs, increased operating expenses and mounting pressures are pushing longstanding family businesses to the brink. If fourth-generation businesses that have survived wars, recessions and countless challenges are now questioning whether they can continue, surely something is wrong. Please don't let small businesses become an afterthought. We need genuine support, meaningful conversations and a government that understands that, when small businesses suffer, entire communities suffer with them. Australia was built on hard work, aspiration and family enterprise. We simply ask that those values are not forgotten.

Yours sincerely, Candice.'

Candice, it was a privilege and an honour to read your words into the Hansard so that all Australians could hear your story. You said it perfectly. I couldn't have said it better myself. The coalition sees you. We hear you. We support small business. We know that strong small businesses means that families are strong, communities are strong and our country is strong. That's why, as a coalition, we want to support small business, not just with words but with policies and actions.

We want to allow any business with a turnover of less than $10 million to immediately deduct assets of up to $50,000 on a permanent basis, supporting businesses to invest. This is going to help tradies to buy tools, farmers to buy equipment, cafes to upgrade kitchens and small businesses—like Candice's—to invest with confidence. We're going to rewrite and simplify the legislative rulebook, including the Corporations Act, the tax act, the competition act, the National Construction Code and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It's so important. You shouldn't have to need a lawyer to run a small business and understand legislation. A coalition government will impose new responsibilities on regulators by law. We will require regulators to act in a way that encourages competition, nurtures investment, increases productivity, boosts wages and grows the economy. We will axe Labor's toxic taxes—taxes on ambition and every small business in my community of Casey and across the country.

We will consult on a small business act. We are proposing at least four key pillars. Firstly, there will be a single definition; all Commonwealth law will refer to one definition of a small business. This will provide simplicity for business owners so they can understand straightaway whether they will be impacted by legislative changes. Then there will be a right to be paid. Cash is king. Cash flow is the lifeblood of a business. It's not the profit and loss sheet that kills a business. It's the cash balance, and cash is king. We will have a legal maximum payment term to small business from government and big business to make sure that you get paid and you get paid as soon as possible. We will also have a right to be heard. As appropriate, each new law should require a small-business regulatory impact statement, and there should be pathways for feedback to the RBA, ASIC, the ATO and Fair Work so that small-business voices can be heard. Lastly, we will have a right to bid. There will be new and expanded minimum requirements for government procurement that must come from small business.

This is the choice. This bill, in many ways, sums up the difference between the coalition and the Liberal Party, and the Labor Party and the government. We want to back small business. We want to give you the opportunity to benefit from government contracts. We want to make less red tape for you. We want to get out of your way and allow you to thrive.

But what does this government choose to do? This government chooses to write legislation to back the CFMEU and the unions, and the scary part is that it's about to get worse. Andrew McKellar, the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, wrote yesterday in the Australian about the 2018 CFMEU manifesto titled Goodbye neoliberalism. It had 18 sweeping recommendations for reshaping Australia's economy.

The scary part about this CFMEU wish list of Goodbye neoliberalism is that at least half of that agenda has been implemented by the Albanese Labor government, the same Labor government that is happy to back the CFMEU and Jacinta Allan in Victoria and does not even want to look into the $15 billion of taxpayer money that was rorted by the CFMEU. It refuses to look into where that money went. The scary part for Australians is that they're halfway through. They're nine down; there are nine to go. Conveniently for them, that report was scrubbed off the CFMEU website.

The coalition will always back Australians. We'll always back small businesses, just as they deserve.

This bill, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, asks parliament to consider two very different propositions cynically tied together. The first is sensible. It deals with the workload facing the Fair Work Commission. They are under water and we need to help them. We fully support the government in this aim. This seeks to make the system faster, more practical and less bogged down in process. Justice delayed is justice not done. Sadly, right now, people are not getting their cases heard before the Fair Work Commission, and we need to rectify this. When a worker or an employer is caught in a workplace dispute, delay isn't an administrative inconvenience; it's stressful, costly and deeply personal and it can often lead to unjust outcomes.

The second proposition is very, very different. It's going to create a framework that will allow the Commonwealth, the federal government, to preference businesses in procurement because of some random industrial instrument they have. This is a major change and deserves a lot of scrutiny. It shouldn't be bundled together with this Fair Work Commission reform. This is why the position should be very straightforward. Let's help the Fair Work Commission and, having done that, let's have a real, honest debate about what we should do about this second element of the bill.

In my electorate of Cook, this isn't an abstract debate. We have thousands of small and medium businesses across San Souci, Gymea, Jannali, Caringbah, Miranda, Sutherland, Kirrawee, Taren Point and the surrounding suburbs. We've got builders, electricians, plumbers, civil contractors, family retailers, professional service firms, transport operators, suppliers and subcontractors. Small and medium enterprises employee 70 per cent of Australia, and in Cook it's even higher than that.

I've got businesses like Shire Pool Care, Little's cafe, Loftus Pies and AP Performers. These businesses don't have large legal departments. They don't have endless time to navigate industrial complexity. They're already dealing with higher power prices, higher insurance, higher rents, higher material costs and higher inflation under this government. All they want is for rules to be fair, clear and workable so they can go about their business, serving their community and doing it in a professional way. They want to compete on the quality of their work, their reliability, their price and their ability to deliver.

Instead, we've got a government that's turned procurement into a system where they can rig procurements if you have the right industrial instrument. It's not just punishing small businesses; there are businesses like Amazon Australia—I was just speaking to them in my office earlier today—and AWS building the data centres of tomorrow.

Right now they choose not to use collective bargaining industrial instruments because they want to bring in the best and brightest. They want to be able to move them around the world. We're saying we're not going to preference Amazon in government procurements. We'll go and find some of the Labor Party's mates who've got the right industrial instrument and get them to build a data centre. AWS may have the best prices and the absolute best technology to be building the best data centres of tomorrow, but, because they don't have this government's preferred collective bargaining agreement, we're going to give it to somebody else. This is absolutely ludicrous, and it needs proper debate. To tie this to the Fair Work Commission, which is absolutely denying justice to people by delaying their cases, is cynical. We should fix it and split apart this bill.

The Fair Work Commission amendments in the bill are largely practical. The commission has been under serious workload pressure. Applications have surged, cases are taking longer, and the system's being placed under strain. We can't ignore this, and a workplace tribunal that cannot deal with matters efficiently does not serve workers, employers or the broader economy. For many people, the early dispute resolution stage is the best chance of resolving a matter quickly, and that's in the best interests of both the business and the worker. We're on the side of helping both the businesses and the workers. It's meant to be practical, it's meant to be quick and it's meant to avoid drawn-out, costly delays and often litigation. If these parties can sit down early, understand each other's position and reach a fair settlement, that's the best outcome for the business, the best outcome for the worker and the best outcome for society. This bill would allow the commission to get on with that early dispute resolution process without first having to resolve every threshold argument. Those questions can still be dealt with later, if they need to be, but they should not automatically stop the commission from trying to help the parties resolve the dispute.

For the small and medium businesses in Cook and the more than 70 per cent of hardworking employees of those small and medium enterprises, these changes matter. A local cafe in Oyster Bay, a builder in Caringbah, a mechanic in Kurnell or a medical practice in Miranda can't afford to have a workplace dispute drag on unnecessarily. Equally, a worker who believes they've been unfairly treated shouldn't have to wait months and months for the system to move. These people might be struggling to make rent—the increased cost of rent that's gone up since these new budgetary changes. Justice delayed is justice denied, and this principle applies to both sides—both employees and employers. So we will support where this bill helps the Fair Work Commission deal with these matters more quickly.

But the government has chosen to attach something else. These procurement bargaining powers provisions aren't administrative. These go to the heart of how the Commonwealth government may operate. Again, we've got a government choosing their preferred industrial relations instrument over the substance of what the procurement is trying to do. Should we be building the data centres of tomorrow, the AI of tomorrow, Australia's competitive advantage, just because they've dealt with the right unions, or do we want the best technology for Australian businesses to use AI to harness that productivity? Our productivity is dropping through the floor. It's been hit and has a crater in it. We need to be procuring from the best and brightest.

Commonwealth procurements should be based on value for money, capability, compliance with the law, safety, quality and integrity. Taxpayers need to get the best outcomes for their dollars, and they're not. That's one of the reasons this side of politics is having to increase taxes so strongly. It's why we have the highest taxing budget of all time. Income has never been taxed more strongly than it is right now under this government. And the only time it's going to be taxed more than it is right now is next year, and the only time after next year is the year after and all the way to 2030. Thanks to their bracket creep tax, it's going to get worse.

What we should be doing is reducing government spending, and one of the ways to do that is to have a procurement process that focuses on outcomes, cost and quality, not a preferred industrial relations instrument. The businesses of Australia should understand this. What we are doing here today is going to add cost to the Australian budget, which means this government will tax the businesses out there watching this more. You will be paying more to find their preferred suppliers who use their preferred union mates and supplying those industrial instruments. That is what this legislation will do.

There are over 23,000 businesses in Cook. Most of them are small and medium sized. Many operate under awards; many pay above award rates. Many have flexible arrangements for their staff and their businesses because it suits their staff better. Many don't have the enterprise agreement because it's not necessary or practical for them and often not in the employee's best interest. This doesn't make them bad employees; it doesn't make them bad employers. It doesn't mean they're less capable, and it doesn't mean they should be excluded from government work. A procurement system that says, 'You may be lawful, you may be capable, you may be the best person for the job, and you may be the best person for the Australian people,' and then says to them, 'You don't have the preferred employer agreement, and, therefore, we're not going to give you that job,' is not fair. Not only is it not fair, it doesn't make economic sense, and it's narrowing competition, increases costs and means this government will tax hardworking Australians more.

When the costs rise on the Commonwealth funded projects, taxpayers pay, businesses pay and employees pay in higher tax take, and that is what we are living right now. We are in this cost-of-living crisis, Australians are paying more for everyday goods to other firms—groceries, energy, insurance, rent and mortgages—but you're also paying more to your government. Australians are paying more than they have ever. Income tax has never been taxed higher as a percentage of GDP than now. Company and business income tax has never been taxed higher as a percentage of GDP than now, and it's forecast to go higher as soon as they ram through the Labor-Greens deal to tax Australians more.

In Cook, these people know what happens when government gets infrastructure wrong. In Cook, we see roads under pressure; we see local facilities stretched; we see a lack of sporting fields; we see overdevelopment with no new schools; we see no new roads, no new metros and no new light rail; we see projects delayed and made more expensive; and we see housing supply not being addressed. We want the roads, schools and services to keep up. Cook was one of the few local councils in Sydney that exceeded its housing targets last term, but we had no new infrastructure to show for it—lots of new houses, no new schools, no new roads, no new metros and no new light rails, but we exceeded our housing targets. How is that fair?

There is also much more broad concern about competition in the Australian economy. We need more competition, not less. We need procurements that encourage more people to compete, not fewer. We need to make it easier for capable businesses to participate in government work, not harder. We must open the doors for local firms, not create another barrier that favours those with big resources and big industrial arrangements that are preferred by this government.

The construction sector is a clear example. Across the Sutherland Shire, people understand the importance of tradies and contractors. These are the people who are building our homes. These are the people who maintain our schools, improve our roads and fix things. Many of them are small businesses; many of them are family businesses. Many of them started with one ute, one apprentice and years of hard work. These businesses should not be told that Commonwealth work is effectively out of reach for them unless they adopt this government's preferred industrial models. This is not pro worker, it's not pro small business, and, I'll tell you what, it's definitely not pro taxpayer.

It is particularly concerning because, once these procurement settings are created, they flow down supply chains. Let me explain what I mean. A Commonwealth contract may be awarded to a head contractor—maybe the M6 that the state Labor government's awarded, which is now closed because they can't complete the project—but the conditions they sign with that head contractor affect the subcontractors and the subbies to the subbies. It flows all the way down the chain. So, while a local business may not be contracting directly with the Commonwealth, if they're out there subcontracted to someone who does have that head contract with the Commonwealth, they can still be caught by the practical consequences of these rules.

To all the businesses out there—all the tradies in Cook who are listening to this—even if you don't have the contract with the Commonwealth, if your head contractor or the contractor above your contractor does, you may get caught up in this and be excluded from providing work underneath Commonwealth funded projects. This is how a policy that looks technical in Canberra can land directly on a small business in Taren Point, Kirrawee, Como or Oyster Bay.

If this government believes it's justified, it should make this case openly and have the debate about this bill. Don't cynically tie it to what is actually a good piece of legislation about the Fair Work Commission. Let's get that bill passed and let's have an honest and open debate. This is trickery. This is beltway-bandit politics in Canberra to trick the Australian small businesses that they are hoping are not watching. Well, we are going to hold them to account for this. The government believes it's justified—well, make the case openly. Let's pull this legislation apart and have a debate.

The coalition won't oppose practical reform. We will say yes to good legislation and we will say yes to half of this. What we are saying is don't bundle good reform with cynical reform that's going to hurt small businesses, that's going to hurt the tradies in my electorate, that's going to hurt the small businesses in my electorate and that's going to hurt the taxpayers in my electorate, who are going to have to pay more for your preferred cynical industrial arrangements.

'Beltway banditry', as the member for Cook describes, is the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. Let's strap in and continue to examine exactly what is going on here. It sounds innocuous enough, 'building cooperative workplaces'. On this side of the chamber, we believe in that. We believe that employees and employers should be empowered to come to an arrangement at their workplace that delivers value for both parties. However, what this bill seeks to do, in a sneaky and underhanded way, is to require the Commonwealth to prefer its procurement to those contractors and suppliers who have union based agreements. If that was argument they wanted to make, they could have made it before the election. But this just continues a pattern that we see of a government that does one thing before the election and then rams through some 'wedge-islation' later—and from a prime minister who promised he was going to end 'wedge-islation' because he cited the Australian people as having combat fatigue. Well, here we go again.

So why is it a problem? The 2022-23 October budget, the first of the Albanese government, included a buy Australian plan committed to establishing the so-called secure jobs code. That, ostensibly, was to prioritise secure work in government contracts and ensure that government purchasing power is used to support businesses that engage in lawful, fair, equitable, ethical and sustainable practices. So the fluffy-sounding, nice things that we can all agree to can continue. The consultation paper invited comment on whether that so-called secure jobs code could require contracting entities to demonstrate, amongst other things, that they 'support freedom of association and representation in the workplace' and 'ensure that enterprise agreements used on government funded projects are genuinely agreed'. The issue with that is that, if you actually believe in the freedom of association, you accept that employees have a right not to be part of a union and a union based agreement just as much as they have a right to be part of such a collective agreement. What we're seeing here is, a couple of years down the track, the government trying to take away that very fundamental freedom for Australians en masse.

The submissions on that paper closed on 20 February, and there have been no further announcements since. That was until the government released a media statement saying that the bill 'does not impose any obligation on the Commonwealth to require enterprise agreements in contracting, but how and when to do so is being carefully considered as part of the development of the Secure Australian Jobs Code', notwithstanding that we're in 2026. The reality—the simple reality; we see this time and time again—is that union donations go into the Labor Party and Labor Party policy reflects the union demands. That's how it works—union donations in; union policy out. We've seen it time and time again. So it's a little bit cute to say that this wouldn't be a mandatory requirement of the legislation if it were passed, because we know very clearly what the Labor Party will do in government. They will absolutely enforce this sort of preferment to the union cartel in Australia. We've seen that in the state of Victoria—the formerly great state of Victoria, I would say—where some $15 billion to $30 billion at the moment has been squirrelled away into organised crime and union facilitated corruption. That's just unacceptable. For it to be included, as the member for Cook rightly said, as some beltway banditry in this bill is not something that we will let slide.

The Gillard government's 2009 introduction to the Fair Work Act, including principles that made a condition for participation as part of the federal government's procurement principles, included a requirement that tenderers for government work operate under an enterprise agreement containing a dispute resolution procedure that allows the settlement of disputes by Fair Work Australia. The government in 2014, the then Abbott government, repealed those. Here we go, 12 years later, because this bill is seeking to make amendments to the Fair Work Act regarding exactly that—discrimination in procurement related to bargaining. But I thought it was called the 'building cooperative workplaces No.1 bill'! Well, this is because you've got to look at the detail. The so-called end of legislation, which was promised by the Prime Minister, has gone exactly the same way as all of his other promises. It has been broken. So, currently, the Fair Work Act prohibits discrimination against an employer based on whether or not its employees are or are not covered by certain industrial instruments, including the National Employment Standards, workplace instruments and enterprise agreements. That's a reasonable position because it means that no-one in Australia, including the Commonwealth government, can prefer one company over another just because it has union affiliated enterprise agreements. But this bill creates an exemption that would allow the Commonwealth to do exactly that, to discriminate, and allow the Commonwealth to prefer procurement from a supplier whose employees are covered by a union covered enterprise agreement. Put simply, the bill is creating an exemption by allowing discrimination where the employer's employees—that is, their workers—are not covered by an enterprise agreement or a kind of enterprise agreement that does not reflect the union coverage. That's one-directional. It only excuses discrimination that favours union dominated enterprise agreement coverage in workforces.

Shouldn't that be, if we refer to those earlier comments where we believed in the freedom of association, as the government says that it does, a complete contradiction in terms? As I said, that freedom applies both ways—the freedom to associate and the freedom not to associate. Again, I turn to the claim that we hear from the government that it doesn't force any agency or entity to use those provisions. This would be the only such discrimination that would be allowed under the act, and it would permit the government to do something that is currently prohibited by the Gillard government's Fair Work Act 2009. The government claims that the secure jobs code will provide the detail on how this will be used in practice. But let's not skip past the fundamental point. In this country, we believe in Australians making the right decisions for themselves. Here, the government is creating a loophole for itself, and itself only, to provide taxpayer funded support in union preferred procurement. It is an outrageous and blatant attempt to curry favour with their union mates. We understand why. Union donations in; union policy out—I get how it works. But they should look the Australian taxpayer in the eye and explain that that is what they are doing. They shouldn't bury it at the back of the so-called Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. It should be called the 'giving taxpayer money to our union mates bill'. In that case, we could have a rip-roaring debate in this place about what they are trying to do.

These provisions are particularly concerning because they allow—and the moment you allow something when you've got the Labor party in charge you know that it will result in Commonwealth procurement contracting processes that will preference employers with union covered enterprise agreements. If you are a small or family owned business in Australia who's done the right thing, who's sat down with your employees and negotiated individual agreements, for instance, that might best reflect the skills and experience and the particularly productive employees in your workplace, you've got no chance now. The Commonwealth government is not going to use the taxpayer money they take from you to enable you to bid for work and to supply the Commonwealth, because they've gone and slammed the door shut so that they can shovel that money off to their union mates. That is limiting freedom of association. It is a conflict of the very central procurement principle that the Commonwealth should be focused on value for money. It also risks turning Commonwealth procurement into a mechanism for pushing union covered enterprise agreements across government contracts and down through supply chains.

When you consider just how big the federal government has got under this current government—at some 27.1 per cent of GDP on the government's own budget papers—it should be gravely concerning that they're opening the door to this sort of discrimination. It would be gravely concerning on a point of fundamental value, but it is particularly concerning in the wake of the Watson report, which I know previous coalition speakers have touched on. The title of that report Rotting from the top by Geoffrey Watson, SC should say it all. It is a looking glass into what would happen if we allowed this sort of legislation to go through without belling the cat. Watson found that the enterprise agreement system in Victorian construction had been so thoroughly corrupted that he described it as an old-fashioned 'pay to play' corruption. There was no genuine bargaining under that system. A CFMEU official told a contractor executive:

There is no bargaining—no, nothing will be changed in this agreement.

The quotes continue:

… they control the market. The Big Build is theirs. You can't get in if you don't know someone.

An individual being recorded in an undercover sting, and who described himself as a fixer, said about the price of entry:

There's a fee to get an EBA.

I think the upfront fee is cash.

Is this the sort of thing that we should be encouraging the Commonwealth government to be setting as a national standard for procurement? On this side of the House, we actually don't believe in that. We don't believe in taking taxpayer money off hardworking Australians and funnelling it straight into that sort of corruption. But, because we're dancing to the tune of union paymasters, it would seem, this bill, the workplace relations legislation amendment bill, which has been very cutely named, as I said, is a trojan horse for an absolutely egregious assault on freedom of association in Australia and a complete perversion of any decency when it comes to Commonwealth government procurement.

We could have looked not just at Victoria but also at Queensland to learn some lessons here from the so-called Queensland best practice industry conditions. I guess this is a bit of a trend we've got here. It sounds great—best practice industry conditions. What could possibly go wrong with something like that? We actually know. Having booted the then Queensland Labor government out, Queenslanders are now discovering that the project costs in their state were inflated by some 25 per cent, creating a blowout of $17.1 billion. This is on top of the $15 billion to $30 billion that we saw squirrelled away into organised crime and the union corruption racket that we had in Victoria. So to see that the best-practice industry conditions, having been abolished in Queensland, are now being resuscitated by the backdoor with this federal legislation and put on steroids—given the government's addiction to spending—we should be gravely concerned.

But it's not just the coalition members of this place that are concerned; it's stakeholders across the board. The Housing Industry Association are particularly concerned, of course, because those who have been at the coalface of construction know just how bad this can be. They're joined by the Master Builders of Australia, who said:

The potential exclusion of those legally operating under an industrial award, including those providing above award conditions, is fundamentally unfair, particularly for small businesses operating in the building and construction industry who make up 98 per cent of the industry and generally do not rely on an enterprise agreement.

Well, we're seeing what the Labor government are planning for those small and family-owned businesses; they're going to crush them out of existence. They are going to mandate a union cartel across the construction sector in Australia and funnel taxpayer money into it accordingly. It is a disgrace that it's dressed up under the Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1 bill title. As I said, it should be the 'racketeering and union rorts bill of 2026' instead, because then the Australian people would have a real sense of what their government is trying to do here today.

As coalition members have said previously, when it comes to the sensible parts of this bill that were put forward, we could absolutely support those any day. But the fact that they have been tied together with such an egregious assault on our freedoms is unacceptable.

I rise to speak to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. The coalition supports practical reforms that help the Fair Work Commission deal with its workload, but here we go again: this Labor government is presenting a rushed and convoluted bill—a bill that should be split. We say, 'Pass the Fair Work Commission reforms and separately scrutinise the procurement bargaining provisions.' This is, to be frank, a sneaky move to aid union mates, and it will structurally shift contracting away from best-practice arrangements to inefficient, union-friendly arrangements.

This Labor government should not give itself the ability to discriminate against businesses that don't have union endorsed arrangements. This isn't just a concern of those on this side of the House; it is exactly what has been made very clear by industry, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They're not alone, either. Take the Business Council of Australia. They rightly point out that public money should go to businesses that can deliver, not businesses that have signed the right union agreement. The problem here is that a single Commonwealth project could impose these conditions on every business in its supply chain. The consequences would ripple through entire industries. Justice delayed is justice denied. This Labor government should not use the sensible reforms within the Fair Work Commission as cover for passing unrelated procurement changes. Where is the fair go? Commonwealth procurement should be based on value for money, capability and compliance with the law, not on whether a business has the preferred industrial instrument.

We've all read the newspapers and seen the TV news. The CFMEU are on the nose big time in my home state of Queensland and in Victoria. Now, thanks to this Labor government rolling out the welcome mat and getting the floodgates wide open, they're on the march to Canberra. Let's keep the spotlight on Queensland. Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie is on the record correctly outlining exactly how the Labor government is trying to revive Queensland's most controversial construction policy on a national scale. This, the Deputy Premier has declared, is jeopardising the state's 2032 Olympic Games delivery. In a letter to the federal minister, Mr Bleijie said that Queensland would not back proposed workplace law changes that nationalise the former Best Practice Industry Conditions—which he called BPIC—policy, dubbed the 'CFMEU tax.' Let me acknowledge the Queensland Major Contractors Association. They share our view that the wording of the legislation before us is eerily similar to that now defunct BPIC policy. These laws risk the rise of BPIC 2.0 and, combined with the proposed secure Australia jobs code, could make union negotiated enterprise agreements a de facto requirement for contractors seeking federally funded work.

We've all seen what happens when procurement policy is used to advantage union controlled arrangements. It risks higher costs for taxpayers, reduced competition and a pay-to-play culture that entrenches corruption and shuts out lawful businesses. The procurement provisions risk pushing union covered enterprise agreements through Commonwealth contracting and down supply chains. It's so easy to get a case of deja vu in this place—rushed bills and attempts to cover up the details, where the devil lies. Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Labor is all about jobs for unions, and now the march to Canberra is on.

The bill before us has two main points: changes to the Fair Work Commission and changes relating to enterprise agreements in Commonwealth procurement. It's a 'tick, tick, tick' for jurisdictional objections, delegation of powers to staff, dismissing applications and vexatious litigants, and determining matters on the papers without holding a conference or hearing. These reforms are practical and should be supported. The problem is that the government has attached unrelated and controversial procurement-bargaining provisions to this bill as well. I can't see how forcing employers and their employees to strike deals with unions to commercially deal with this government makes any sense. It's not fair, and it's not practical.

I refer to the Watson report, Rotting from the top. It's a report by Geoffrey Watson SC into corruption and misconduct in the CFMEU's Victorian construction branch. The report became public because it was tendered to the Queensland Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU. Watson found the enterprise agreement system in Victorian construction has been thoroughly corrupted, describing it as old-fashioned, pay-to-play corruption. Watson found there was no genuine bargaining. A CFMEU official told a contracting executive: 'There is no bargaining. No, nothing will be changed in this agreement.' Watson found EBAs were awarded corruptly in return for cash to friends of union officials and to known criminals.

Labour hire EBAs were said to have been sold for up to $1 million. Watson found the CFMEU punished enemies by refusing EBAs with no reasons given and no avenue for review, and that denial of an agreement can drive a decent contractor out of a business. The lesson is not that enterprise agreements are inherently improper; the lesson is that, where market access depends on obtaining the right union covered agreement, there is a real risk of coercion, exclusion, inflated costs and corruption. That is why Commonwealth procurement should not be used to create incentives for union covered enterprise agreements unless there is a clear, transparent and evidence-based connection to value for money, delivery capability, lawful compliance and productivity.

The Queensland best practice industry conditions, or BPIC, experience is a useful warning. BPIC used procurement policy to embed preferred industrial conditions into major government funded construction projects. The Queensland government has since said that BPIC contributed to project delays and cost increases. It was paused in November 2024 and permanently abolished through the Queensland procurement policy in 2026. Independent Queensland Treasury modelling cited by the Queensland government estimates BPICs were likely to increase project costs by up to 25 per cent and create a net economic cost of up to $17.1 billion over the period of 2024 to 2030. This bill creates a similar policy risk. It would allow enterprise agreement coverage, including union covered enterprise agreements, to influence access to Commonwealth procurement and grants without requiring a demonstrated link to value for money, capability, delivery or compliance. I must note there are reasonable amendments in this bill to help Fair Work operate more smoothly: changing who sits on the National Construction Industry Forum, or NCIF, from the industry minister to the minister responsible for the construction industry; adding the minister responsible for skills to the NCIF; giving more time for the administrator of the CFMEU to prepare financial statements; providing a travel allowance for members of the Road Transport Advisory Group; and creating a faster process for obtaining a new supported bargaining authorisation where the parties already have an existing supported bargaining agreement. All of these amendments do make sense. But a bill like this, when presented, like it has been, with too many flags—we cannot support it as it is. It needs to be split and properly scrutinised.

The peak building and construction bodies agree. They say that, given the purchasing power of the Commonwealth government, it should act as a model client in this matter and seek to uphold freedom of association—not lessen it. The bill would bring about a fundamental change to Australian workplace law and should not proceed through the parliament without the appropriate levels of scrutiny.

Ultimately, the provisions that are really concerning are those which allow Commonwealth procurement and contracting processes to preference employers with union-covered enterprise agreements. It will limit freedom of association and conflict with the central procurement principle of value for money. We simply cannot support a move that turns Commonwealth procurement into a mechanism for pushing union-covered enterprise agreements through government contracts and down supply chains.

We support the Fair Work Commission reforms but do not support the enterprise bargaining procurement changes. We call on the government to separate the two from the bill, and we'll support the Fair Work changes alone. If the government does not do this, we cannot support this bill as unamended.

The coalition supports practical reforms that improve the efficiency of our workplace relations system; we support reforms that ensure disputes are resolved quickly; we support reforms that reduce unnecessary bureaucracy; and we support reforms that allow the Fair Work Commission to focus on its core task of resolving workplace disputes fairly and efficiently—because justice delayed is, indeed, justice denied.

When an employee has lost their job, they deserve a timely resolution. When a small business is defending a claim, they deserve certainty and an efficient process; there's no doubt. No-one benefits from a system weighed down by unnecessary delay.

Unfortunately, this bill asks the parliament to support two completely different agendas wrapped up into one piece of legislation. On one hand, it contains sensible practical reforms requested by the Fair Work Commission itself. On the other hand, it contains significant and controversial changes that would allow the Commonwealth to preference businesses with union-covered enterprise agreements when awarding its contracts and grants. These issues are completely unrelated, so they should be considered separately.

It's no secret that Labor and the unions are one and the same, but the government should not be using sensible reforms as a cover to introduce dodgy changes to Commonwealth procurement. The Fair Work Commission has made it abundantly clear that it's facing an unprecedented workload crisis. Applications are projected to increase by more than 70 per cent within just three years. The commission has spoken publicly about the growing pressures on its resources and the need for legislative changes to help it operate more efficiently. The president of the commission himself described the workload as becoming unsustainable.

So, when practical solutions are proposed, they deserve support, and there are a number of provisions in this bill that we on this side of the House will gladly get behind. The first concerns jurisdictional objections. Until the Coles Supply Chain Pty Ltd v Milford decision, the commission would generally move straight into conciliation or mediation when someone lodged a general protections or unlawful termination application. That made sense. The purpose of the commission at that early stage is to help parties resolve disputes quickly and informally. But, following the court decision, the commission has often been forced to determine complex legal questions before it can even begin helping the parties to resolve the dispute. Employers can argue there was no dismissal or that the person was never an employee. The commission must then hold hearings and determine those issues before any conciliation can occur. The result is more legal argument, more cost and more delay. The commission estimates around 600 cases each year are now caught up in this process.

This bill restores the previous approach. If a person alleges they were dismissed unlawfully, the commission can proceed directly to dispute resolution without first determining every jurisdictional question, and those issues can still be determined later, if necessary. That is a practical reform. It reduces unnecessary process without removing anyone's legal rights, and the coalition supports it.

The second reform allows limited delegation of procedural functions to senior commission staff. So, rather than requiring commission members to perform purely administrative tasks, appropriately qualified staff will be able to undertake certain procedural functions in unresolved dismissal matters. Again, this is a sensible, efficient measure. It allows commission members to focus on substantive disputes rather than administrative paperwork. The commission itself sought this flexibility, and we on this side support that too.

The third reform deals with vexatious litigants. Every tribunal and court must have the ability to protect processes from abuse. Where applications are frivolous, vexatious or have no reasonable prospects of success, resources should not be wasted pursuing them indefinitely. This bill allows the commission to dismiss such applications and, in appropriate circumstances, prevent serial applicants from repeatedly lodging substantially similar claims. Importantly, safeguards exist. A full bench must make the order, and the individual must have an opportunity to make submissions. That strikes an appropriate balance between access to justice and protecting the integrity of the system.

The fourth reform allows certain matters to be determined on the papers. So, where parties consent and the commission considers a hearing unnecessary, matters can be resolved through written submissions. That saves time, that saves money and it avoids scheduling hearings where no practical purpose would be served. Again, this is a sensible modernisation that improves efficiency while preserving procedural fairness.

There are also several smaller amendments that are entirely reasonable, and I'll point to those now. There are changes to the National Construction Industry Forum, additional time for the CFMEU administrator to prepare financial statements, travel allowances for members of the Road Transport Advisory Group and streamlined supported bargaining authorisations. These are practical housekeeping measures. None of these provisions are controversial.

But, unfortunately, that's not where the bill ends. Australians need to know this about the Labor Party. This is what they often do—put something that is acceptable and something that is completely not acceptable all into one bill together. That is why we would like them to split the bill. Hidden amongst those sensible reforms in this bill is a completely different policy agenda. I'll explain. It's an agenda that fundamentally changes Commonwealth procurement. It is this part of the bill we are most concerned about.

Currently, the Fair Work Act prevents discrimination against employers based on whether their employees are covered by particular industrial instruments, including enterprise agreements. That principle protects freedom of association. It means businesses compete based on capability, performance and value for money, not whether they have negotiated the government's preferred industrial arrangement. This bill actually changes that. It creates an exemption allowing the Commonwealth to preference businesses whose employees are covered by union covered enterprise agreements. I'll say that again: this bill creates an exemption allowing the Commonwealth—that is, the government—to preference businesses whose employees are covered by union covered enterprise agreements. It permits the government to favour one lawful business over another based solely on the industrial instrument under which it operates—not because it delivers better outcomes, not because it provides better value and not because it has a stronger safety record but because it has the preferred enterprise agreement.

This preference does not stop with the primary contractor. The bill extends throughout the Commonwealth contractual arrangement chain. If company A wins a Commonwealth contract and subcontracts work to company B, company B may also be expected to preference businesses operating under union-covered enterprise agreements. The incentive cascades through the entire supply chain. It has the potential to reshape markets, it has the potential to disadvantage perfectly lawful businesses and it risks creating a procurement system based on industrial ideology rather than merit.

Commonwealth procurement should always be guided by three principles: (1) value for money, (2) capability and (3) compliance with the law—nothing more. Taxpayer dollars should purchase the best possible outcome for Australian taxpayers, not reward businesses simply because they've signed a particular industrial agreement that the Labor government likes. Recent history demonstrates exactly why this matters. The Geoffrey Watson SC report into corruption within the Victorian construction branch of the CFMEU painted a deeply troubling picture. We've seen it on the news. It described an enterprise bargaining system that had become, in its words, 'thoroughly corrupted'. It described a system where access to enterprise agreements became a form of market access, where contractors allegedly paid enormous sums simply to obtain agreements where refusing an agreement could drive a legitimate business out of the market.

The lesson is not that enterprise agreements are inherently improper. Many operate perfectly well. The lesson is that, when commercial opportunity becomes dependent upon obtaining the right enterprise agreement, the risks of coercion, exclusion and corruption increase significantly. That is precisely why governments should not use procurement policy to create artificial incentives for one particular industrial model.

My home state of Queensland provides another warning. Best practice industry conditions sought to embed preferred industrial arrangements into government procurement. The Queensland government concluded the policy contributed to delays and, more importantly, increased costs. Independent Treasury modelling estimated project costs could increase by up to 25 per cent and impose a net economic cost of up to $17 billion. That policy, I'm pleased to say, has now been abolished. Yet this legislation risks the very same inflated taxpayer costs at a Commonwealth level.

It is little wonder that industry groups have raised the alarm. The Housing Industry Association has expressed their concern. The Business Council of Australia, the BCA, has warned public money should go to businesses that can deliver, not businesses with the preferred union agreement of this government. Ai Group has warned these provisions risk undermining freedom of association. Currently, in the Fair Work Act 2009, there are specific statutory protections to join or not join industrial associations like unions. This bill exempts the Commonwealth from this, which is why it is so outrageous. Those on the other side are looking at me like I'm a whiny cow or something. Well, I am whining because what this government is doing is completely and utterly out of order.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has called the proposal a structural shift away from best practice contracting. Master Builders Australia has warned small businesses will be unfairly disadvantaged. Small businesses in my electorate and many electorates around the country will be unfairly disadvantaged. Queensland's deputy premier has described the proposal as a national version of Queensland's former BPIC policy—the so-called CFMEU—there's the word that Labor love—tax!

These are serious concerns. They deserve serious scrutiny. There are also provisions establishing a separate high-income threshold for road transport contractors. The government argues that high operating costs justify a special carve-out, but stakeholder views are mixed and the evidence to back it up remains incomplete. Creating industry specific exceptions to longstanding legislative principles should never occur without careful examination. That too deserves proper scrutiny.

The coalition's position is pretty straightforward on this bill, but, as I said, this Labor government likes to roll some good reform policy in with very, very bad policy. We as a coalition cannot—

Order! I apologise to the member for Moncrieff, but the debate is interrupted. In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 23 June 2026, the time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.

The question before the House is the bill be agreed to. In accordance with the resolution agreed to yesterday, the question now is the amendments circulated by the member for Wentworth be agreed to.

Before I call the member for Wentworth, I'll just explain to the House that we did receive identical amendments from the member for Wannon and the member for Wentworth. The member for Wentworth's amendments were the first to be circulated, so this means they will be dealt with first, as are the traditions and customs of the House. When the House has made a decision on the member for Wentworth's amendments, the member for Wannon's amendments may not be considered by the House, because they're the same piece of work. That's in accordance with standing order 150(e)—if people want to follow where we're at, that's what we're dealing with—and House of Representatives Practice on page 299 and page 375.

Member for Wentworth 's circulated amendment s

(1) Schedule 1, Part 9, page 18 (line 1) to page 21 (line 25), omit the Part. [exemption from general protections in certain circumstances]

(2) Schedule 1, item 62, page 26 (lines 8 to 15), omit Division 7. [exemption from general protections in certain circumstances]

The problem the amendments address is that part 9 of the bill hands the minister sweeping new powers with no statutory limits, no required consultation and no meaningful parliamentary oversight to determine who can access Commonwealth grants, procurement contracts and funding arrangements across an $830 billion annual budget. That is 26.8 per cent of GDP. It is a record, and this bill enables it to be filtered through an industrial relations test. My amendments would omit this part, retaining the other practical measures of the bill.

Even though the government is not compelled to use these powers and has indicated it does not plan to use them for the construction industry, I am concerned. I am concerned that, by creating new exceptions to the Fair Work Act's prohibition on discrimination, this legislation gives the Commonwealth legal basis to favour one business over another, not on capability, not on compliance, not on price, not on delivery but on the industrial instrument covering its workforce. These powers extend to grants and the procurement of goods and services and flow through Commonwealth contractual chains. A small business that is a third-tier subcontractor on a government funded project could find itself subject to this test without ever dealing directly with the Commonwealth. This bill is explicit about this.

The businesses that are most exposed are small businesses. Most operate under awards, not enterprise agreements, in part because negotiating an agreement and navigating the full complexity of the awards as they are currently written requires resources that many simply do not have. They comply with every legal obligation. Under this bill, there may not be enough.

As I flagged in the second reading debate, the policy framework intended to govern this, the secure Australian jobs code, doesn't exist. Submissions closed in February. There is no draft. On 1 May, five weeks before this bill was introduced, the minister stated that the government had no intention of requiring employers to hold a union-covered enterprise agreement as a condition of Commonwealth construction funding and no intention of replicating Queensland's Best Practice Industry Conditions scheme. But this legislation creates the power to do precisely that.

At best, this bill risks limiting who can deliver government objectives, reducing competition and value for money. It risks locking productive, innovative businesses out of grants and tenders. Queensland's Best Practice Industry Conditions scheme was used as a procurement policy to embed preferred conditions. It was found by its own productivity commission to have reduced construction productivity by nine per cent, increasing costs and reducing housing supply. The government should be listening to this, because they should care that construction productivity is down by nine per cent because of the actions of the government. This matters. We do care about construction productivity, because we can't deliver housing unless we get construction productivity moving.

At worst, this bill risks creating the conditions for the enterprise agreement system to be a vehicle for organised crime. These risks are not hypothetical. The Watson report found that Victoria's enterprise agreement system had been thoroughly corrupted—agreements sold for cash, awarded to criminals, used to punish competitors. Watson estimated that corruption costs Victorian taxpayers $15 billion.

I want to be clear: I support enterprise bargaining—

Order! If members could limit their conversations in the chamber—

Member for Cunningham, while I'm speaking—perhaps we can show some courtesy and respect to the member for Wentworth. If people wish to be here for that, that's okay, but I'd just ask them to limit their conversations. The member for Wentworth in continuation.

Thank you. Now that it's slightly quieter, I'd like to make the point as to why this matters. These sorts of arrangements have been used in Queensland, and it has reduced productivity in the construction industry, which is holding back housing supply in this country. So this really matters. It matters because these sorts of provisions were used and abused by the CFMEU in terms of driving organised crime and corruption that cost the taxpayer in Victoria an estimated $15 billion. These are big numbers, and this really matters. So this legislation matters. There are not the safeguards there to stop it affecting the construction industry; it's just an assertion by the minister. That is not good enough, and it exposes other parts of our government to the sorts of enterprise agreements that have happened in the past.

I support enterprise agreements. I wish the government would simplify the awards to make it easier for good businesses to do good enterprise agreements, particularly small businesses, because the awards are so complicated that it's impossible. But we should be using government money to get value for taxpayers, not to support industrial relations arrangements that you guys support. Thank you.

I thank the member for Wentworth for her amendment, but the government will be opposing this amendment, which seeks to siphon out our reforms to reinvigorate enterprise bargaining. These reforms will allow Commonwealth government spending to support secure jobs and fair working conditions through the ability to preference enterprise agreements negotiated in good faith and genuinely agreed, where appropriate, to do so. Enterprise agreements are a transparent and effective way of delivering secure jobs and fair conditions for workers as well as flexibility and productivity for employers.

Importantly, I would make clear that the bill does not impose any obligations on the Commonwealth to do anything. How the Commonwealth government does its spending should support secure jobs and fair working conditions, and how this will be done is being carefully considered as part of the development of the secure Australian jobs code. Value for money and quality, timely delivery will remain front and centre of all government spending decisions.

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

The question is that the bill be agreed to.

The question now is that this bill be read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I have received advice from the honourable Prime Minister nominating a member to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

by leave—I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Mr Wallace be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Question agreed to.

I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Farley to be a member of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries in place of Ms Sharkie.

by leave—I move:

That Ms Sharkie be discharged from the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and that, in her place, Mr Farley be appointed a member of the committee.

Question agreed to.

I rise today to speak on a bill that is fundamentally about fairness, transparency and the restoration of trust in our healthcare system: the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. For too many Australians, a visit to the specialist is preceded by a calculation of fear, not just for their health but of the fees that they cannot predict. This bill delivers on the Albanese Labor government's rock-solid commitment to strengthening Medicare.

To summarise briefly, this bill fixes two things. It increases transparency in our healthcare system and outlaws product phoenixing, which is a deceptive practice where an insurer closes an existing product only to open another one immediately which is identical except for a higher premium. This is done by insurers specifically to bypass ministerial scrutiny. We are ensuring that when Australians need medical advice they have the power to find the best value and when they pay their private health premiums they have the confidence that they are not being played for fools by corporate loopholes.

This contrasts with the rhetoric that we've heard from the shadow treasurer, the member for Goldstein. While we are here trying to lower out-of-pocket costs, he's been in this chamber describing our health investments as debt petrol on an inflation fire. He claims to care about cost of living, yet he stands with a party that presided over a decade of Medicare neglect. He calls our targeted cost-saving measures 'wasteful spending' but ignores the waste created by a system that leaves patients in the dark. The Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms that medical and hospital services are the primary drivers of inflation for consumers. We see fees for the very same procedure vary wildly and sometimes by thousands of dollars, and that's between specialists within the same cities. This is called the cost lottery.

This bill fixes the failed attempts of the past. The previous government spent a whopping $24 million on the Medical Costs Finder website. That was a ghost town. It relied on doctors voluntarily uploading their fees. Out of 11,000 specialists, how many signed up? Seven. Seven individual doctors. This failure isn't a surprise when you look at the ideology of the man who now holds the coalition's purse strings. The shadow treasurer has previously advocated for the transfer of health financing from government to individuals. He suggested that every Australian should have an individual health account to pay for their own care. That's not a healthcare system; that's an invoice system. It's an American-style version where your health is determined by your bank balance. It's no wonder they couldn't get a transparency tool to work. They don't want you to see the bill until it's too late to pay it.

Our amendments on this bill will allow the Medical Costs Finder to publish data drawn directly from Medicare, hospitals and insurance billing data. We are shining a light into the black box of medical pricing because informed patients make for a healthier Australia. I speak on this not just as the member for Bullwinkel but as a nurse who has spent decades on the front line. I have stood in clinics from the Perth foothills and the Perth Hills to the Kimberley and the Pilbara, and I have seen and experienced the referral barrier first-hand. As nurses, our role is to advocate for the patient, but it is heartbreakingly difficult to advocate for a patient's health when they are terrified of the cost.

I have seen patients walk out of a specialist referral holding a piece of paper that looks like they've received a debt notice rather than a lifeline. When a patient doctor-shops or delays a procedure because they can't get a straight answer on out-of-pocket costs, their condition can worsen. As a nurse, I know that delayed care is denied care. By automating the Medical Costs Finder system, we are removing the financial triage that patients are currently forced to perform. We are ensuring that the clinical pathway isn't blocked by a lack of data. This bill allows the healthcare team, the GPs, the nurses and the patients to focus on the recovery and not the invoice.

But transparency about fees is only half the battle. We must also address the transparency of the insurers. There is this deceptive practice that I mentioned earlier known as product phoenixing. This occurs when an insurer closes an existing product only to immediately open an identical one at a higher premium rate specifically to bypass ministerial scrutiny. Currently, insurers may seek approval to raise premiums on existing products, but, by killing off the old product and birthing a new one, they avoid this law. This bill slams that loophole shut. We are requiring approval for any proposed new product and any change that reduces value.

Just last month, the shadow treasurer was out there decrying the 4.41 per cent premium increase, an increase that was necessary partly because his party had left the private hospital system on the brink of collapse. He talked about inflation clangers, but where was his voice when insurance were using phoenixing to hike prices without any oversight? He wants deregulation; this bill offers protection. He wants the market to rip; we want the family budget to rest. Some on the opposition side might call ministerial oversight 'red tape', but, as a nurse, I call it patient safety. In a hospital, we have protocols to ensure transparency and accountability. Why should the insurance market be any different?

Let's be clear about how the bait and switch of product phoenixing works. An insurer would see a product that was perhaps too good for the consumer. Maybe it had low gaps or high coverage. To raise the price, they would have to justify that to the minister and, to avoid that, they would simply sunset the product. They'd send a letter to my constituents in High Wycombe or Mundaring and say: 'Your plan is retiring. Here are your new options.' And, like a phoenix rises from the ashes, a new plan, extremely similar to the previous one, appears. It looks the same and it smells the same, but it costs 10 per cent more. Because it's new, it bypasses the minister's desk. That's unfair. This bill ensures that the Minister for Health and Ageing, not a corporate board in an offshore office, is the final gatekeeper for the value of Australians' policies. We are bringing the same level of clinical accountability we expect in our hospital wards to the boardrooms of insurers.

The member for Goldstein recently claimed in this House that he doesn't want to privatise Medicare, but his records and his writings tell a different story. He has spent his career arguing against a 'nanny state', which in his vocabulary seems to include the basic safety net that keeps Australians alive and healthy. When the shadow treasurer talks about ambition, he means the ambition for individuals to shoulder the burden for a failing system. When we talk about ambition, we mean the ambition of a government that uses its power to protect its citizens from predatory pricing. The coalition's view on Medicare is out of step with Australian values. They see Medicare as a line to be cut in the budget, and we see it as promises to be kept. They want to protect the flexibility of insurers to hike prices; we want to protect the flexibility of families to pay their rent.

In conclusion, this bill is a clear-eyed response to the cost-of-living pressures that are facing Australians. It empowers patients with data on specialist fees, protects consumers from corporate trickery and reinforces our longstanding commitment to a Medicare system that is strong and fair. I commend the bill to the House.

To hear those members opposite in 2026 constantly bang on about 'Mediscare' campaigns is really getting just a little bit beyond the pale. They tried it in all of the last few elections. I don't know how many times I have to say this—in the words of the Prime Minister: 'How many times do I have to say this? Fifty times?'—this coalition is committed to Medicare. I am committed to Medicare. The last thing I want to see, as someone who has had two very, very dangerously life-threatening illnesses befall two of my four kids, is a US-style health system in this country. The coalition is absolutely committed to ensuring that it doesn't matter where you live, what your postcode is or what your income is—if you are an Australian citizen or permanent resident, you should be able to get access to Medicare and be treated for whatever illness or injury you have by world-leading doctors and hospitals. I don't know how many times I have to say that, because those Labor members opposite just seem to think, 'We'll rattle out this old Medicare trope.' It's BS, and it should be treated as such and called out for what it is. Anyway, I digress.

Let me be clear on this bill, the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. The coalition supports the intent behind the bill. We support greater transparency in healthcare pricing. We support protecting consumers from unfair premium increases. We support giving Australians the information they need to make informed decisions about their health care. Nobody on this side of the chamber disputes those objectives. But supporting an objective and waving through legislation that is not ready to deliver that objective are two very different things, and this bill, despite being announced more than a year ago, is still not ready.

Approximately 15 million Australians hold private health cover. The private health system does not operate in isolation from our public hospitals, particularly in rural and regional Australia; it works alongside them. When the private system is strong, it relieves pressure on public hospitals. When Australians drop or downgrade their cover, they shift onto public waiting lists already under severe strain. We're already seeing record levels of ambulance ramping and increasing waiting times at hospitals across this country. Any reform in this space carries real consequences, and those consequences must be weighed very carefully.

As a result of what this government did in the budget, more than 8,000 Australians have signed my petition opposing Labor's decision to strip private health insurance rebates from older Australians, and each and every one of these people deserves to be taken seriously. You're probably too young to remember this, Madam Deputy Speaker Garland. When I was a young lad, I remember sitting across the kitchen table from my wife. John Howard was talking about how you needed to sign up to private health insurance before you turned 30. If you didn't, then, if you wanted to come into the private health insurance system later, you were going to pay a premium. But if you signed up before you turned 30, you'd get concessional rates for the rest of your life, provided you kept doing it.

This government is now ripping that away from people aged 65 and over. That is exactly true. At a cost of $1,600 for a couple on the gold rate, that is absolutely true. You can try to pull the wool over people's eyes, as this government tries to do all the time. The misinformation, the mistruths, the dishonesty coming from that side of the House on everything in relation to this budget just beggars belief.

Australians will need private health insurance the most when they are aged over 65. That's when they need medical assistance the most. Now this government has changed the rules on them. They've ripped that rug from underneath them, and they are angry. My electorate is an older electorate. They still call me 'the young fella', so it must be an older electorate. They are angry. They feel like they have been misled. This commitment that was provided to Australians was provided by multiple governments of all varying colours, but this government is the first to breach that trust, and I've got to tell you that those pitchforks are being sharpened by the 65-and-overs. They cannot wait for the opportunity for this election to come around.

But I digress. This is exactly why the coalition supported referring this bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs for greater scrutiny. The inquiry confirmed what we suspected: key operational details remain unresolved and the department was either unable to answer some of the bill's most fundamental questions or had not yet considered their responses. That matters because changes to the way private health insurance products are approved and changes to how specialist fees are published affect the decisions of real people and how they go about making their healthcare decisions every single day. When legislation is poorly designed, real people bear the consequences.

Schedule 1 of this bill deals with transparency by default. The bill would allow the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing to publish individual specialist fee data on the Medical Costs Finder website, drawing on Medicare hospital insurance billing data already held by government. The coalition established the Medical Costs Finder website. We believe transparency in medical pricing is worthwhile and necessary. Australians deserve to know what they are likely to pay before they walk into a specialist's room.

But the volume of data involved here is significant and the risk of errors is a real concern. Speaking of doctors, a clinician's fees, published incorrectly on a government website, can cause immediate and potentially lasting reputational damage. Despite the government announcing these changes more than a year ago, the Senate committee received no satisfactory answers to several fundamental questions: How dated will the information on the website be at the time of publication? How regularly will it be updated? Will clinicians be able to upload and amend their own fee information to ensure accuracy? What will the error correction process look like in practice, and will this have a quick turnaround or will it be a typically glacial response at the expense of the clinician—someone just like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander?

What makes this more troubling is a provision buried in this legislation that grants the department immunity from civil liability for loss, damage or injury arising from the publication of medical fees. You heard that right. The government is holding individual clinicians to strict compliance obligations while exempting itself from equivalent accountability when things go wrong. It is entirely appropriate that one of the country's leading paediatricians happens to be in the chair right now. Mr Deputy Speaker, this government is going to hold you and your colleagues to a different standard from the one to which it holds itself. That may cause you some consternation and may cause you to rethink my suggestion to you: that you might best serve your community by going back and being a great paediatrician. But I'll continue.

You're very kind, Member for Fisher—

I am. If you say it enough and if I say it enough, people might believe it.

but I am the Deputy Speaker and completely neutral on this issue.

This is a troubling double standard. You don't build in immunity provisions unless you anticipate errors. The government appears to have accepted that it is going to make inevitable errors. Rather than designing a system robust enough to prevent reputational harm to clinicians, its preference is to protect itself from legal consequences. The parliament cannot make a fully informed decision on schedule 1 until the government provides clear answers on data currency, update frequency, clinician input mechanisms and the error correction process. The coalition will press for those answers and seek amendments to address these gaps when this bill comes before the Senate.

I turn now to schedule 2, which deals with regulating premiums. The bill would require insurers to seek ministerial approval for new products and for existing products where certain changes are proposed. This extends the existing approval process to new products. The objective of addressing product phoenixing is one the coalition supports. Product phoenixing is the practice of closing an existing insurance product and reopening an essentially identical product at a higher premium, circumventing the requirement for premium change approval. It's a practice that undermines the intent of premium regulation, and it harms consumers. The coalition supports closing that loophole. However, evidence presented to the Senate committee indicated that product phoenixing primarily involves gold-tier products. These are the same people I spoke about earlier—those who are going to be paying $1,600 a year extra on their premiums if they're over 65.

The bill as drafted imposes the new approval requirement broadly across all new products, including extras policies. That is a much wider net than the problem requires. Requiring ministerial approval for every new extras policy creates red tape for insurers, with minimal consumer benefit. It risks slowing the introduction of innovative new products. The approval requirement should be targeted to the products and market behaviour actually driving the problem. Applying it broadly is ministerial overreach, and it will generate compliance costs that will ultimately be borne by consumers.

The committee also received no satisfactory answers to several critical operational questions: How many applications does the department expect to receive? Does it have the resources to process them? Will insurers face application fees and, if so, what limit will apply? What statutory timeframes will ensure decisions are made promptly and efficiently? An insurer left waiting indefinitely for approval of a new product cannot respond to the market. These are the practical questions any competent legislator would want answered before voting for a bill. The fact that many remain unanswered, despite a year of lead time, reflects poorly on the government's preparation. This legislation has all the hallmarks of a policy announced prematurely with critical detail never properly examined. Fancy that.

The bill's stated purpose is to improve choice and transparency for private health consumers. That goal requires honesty—fancy that—about the state of those consumers right now. According to the government's own most recent Medicare data, the bulk-billing rate for specialist attendances is 28.2 per cent—28.2 per cent for bulk-billing for specialist attendances—with an average out-of-pocket cost, and I don't know where these figures are coming from, of $123.48. It seems pretty generous to me. For anaesthetists, the bulk-billing rate is 8.7 per cent with an average out-of-pocket cost of $244.49. Out-of-pocket costs to see a GP have reached more than $50, the highest level on record.

Research conducted by Redbridge showed that three in 10 Australians referred to a specialist did not go because they simply couldn't afford it. Australian families have been forced to choose between seeing a doctor and paying the bills. Publishing fee information on a website, however well-designed, will not put money back into Australians pockets. It will not drive specialists to lower their fees. It may help some patients make better informed decisions, but it will not address the underlying affordability crisis.

There is also a broader issue of trust that the government appears to have overlooked. Transparency only works when consumers have confidence that the information they are receiving is complete, current and meaningful. A specialist fee published on a government website may provide part of the picture but patients are often faced with a range of costs that extend beyond a single consultation.

We're not opposing this bill. We are doing what an opposition should do. We're insisting that legislation affecting 15 million Australians and the clinicians who serve them is properly designed before it becomes law. The government has had more than a year to work out the details of this policy. The fact that so many fundamental questions remain unanswered is not good enough. The coalition will strive to make this bill better.

I rise to speak in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. There are two key purposes to this bill. Firstly, it amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to allow the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing to publish information for consumers on medical fees charged by medical practitioners, including specialists and general practitioners, together with the likely out-of-pocket costs for their private healthcare experience. The purpose is to support greater transparency and healthcare pricing, helping consumers make informed decisions about their health care and obtain better value from private health insurers.

Secondly, it amends the Private Health Insurance Act to require insurers to seek ministerial premium approval for new products and existing products where certain changes are proposed. The new premium approval process provided in the bill broadly aligns with the current process for premium changes for existing products. The purpose of these provisions is to expand and formalise ministerial oversights of premium setting for private health insurance products.

Overall, the bill aims to strengthen transparency and improve patients understanding of their health care and private health insurance arrangements which can often be very complex, difficult to understand and difficult to apply. Measures that facilitate greater transparency from private health insurance regarding what policies include, how agreements with providers operate and how arrangements affect patients and hospitals, together with measures requiring private health insurance to clearly explain what is and what isn't covered, are critical. People often access their private health cover during times of illness and stress, and they should not be left navigating complexity alone during this time. Anything that helps patients understand what they're paying for and why something is included or not included is something that should be prosecuted, as should the provision of genuine help for patients to assist them to anticipate their out-of-pocket costs.

Furthermore, this bill will outlaw the practice that is known as product phoenixing, where private health insurers close a product and then reopen an identical one at a higher price or reduce the value of a product. This is designed to close a pre-existing loophole.

We know that many Australians choose to take out private health insurance for personal, individual reasons. Private health insurance, especially hospital cover, provides security. It's peace of mind knowing you and your family will be cared for if you're injured or have a health condition. Having private hospital insurance means that, even if the worst happens, there is a security blanket. Hospital cover can provide that security. Private health insurance can also mean more choice in your healthcare, in that you have more choice when it comes to choosing the doctors, surgeons and specialists who might treat you.

Then there is time. Depending on your cover, private health insurance may help avoid public hospital waiting lists so you can access the care that you need more quickly. That being said, in Australia, although our public health system is very good, there are challenges, and there can be long wait times to get elective surgery. Having private hospital cover means you might get faster treatment for elective surgery, unlike those who rely only on the public system. Extras are another important part of private health insurance, and, depending on the type of cover, you may then be able to claim back money for a range of health services that might not be covered by Medicare up to your yearly cover limits.

Many Australians take out private health insurance because they want more security, more choice and quicker treatment than what the public system is able to offer. They also take it out because they know that sometimes lightning strikes. Nobody has a crystal ball about what future health issues might affect them, and many people just want to be prepared. Given its importance as well as the cost, the private health insurance system needs to be transparent and clear about what is covered and at what cost. It also needs to be sustainable and equitable for everyone. In a health system where it's important to have a balance between private and public health services, it is a disincentive to take up private health insurance if costs are opaque, hard to understand or not available until after the event.

This bill, the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026, will enable Australians to make informed decisions about their health care and their private health insurance. It will enable them to weigh up the factors that underpin a decision to take up private health insurance or not. Schedule 1 of the bill is dedicated to this in that it provides consumers with more detailed information on the expected medical fees charged and the likely out-of-pocket costs for a private healthcare experience. The schedule will facilitate the publication of the relevant data on the Medical Costs Finder without the need for input from specialists, as it will be drawn from Medicare, hospital and insurer billing data already collected by the government.

The Medical Costs Finder, operated under the auspices of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, is a tool to find and understand costs for GP and medical specialist services across Australia, because it can't be right that patients who need treatment are required to commit to that treatment without knowing what the cost of the treatment will be and without being equipped with the tools to enable them to compare those costs with costs charged by other like providers.

When you go to a restaurant, the prices are on the menu. You know what you're up for before you place an order, and no-one would go to a restaurant and order dinner without knowing what it was going to cost. Now, no-one is saying that the provision of highly skilled surgery by incredibly well-trained and intelligent medical professionals is the same as eating a meal in a restaurant, but the principle of transparency before the event is the same. People need to know if they can afford a service before they commit to it—what savings and sacrifices they may have to make to pay for the health care that they need, what they might need to give up or go without in order to fund the health care that they need.

The fees and charges applied by surgeons and specialists are what they are because the work is incredibly skilled, performed by clinicians who have spent years and years training and honing their craft in order to provide the best possible outcomes to their patients in often incredibly difficult, complex and challenging environments. This bill recognises that, but all it seeks to do is to make sure that patients understand what those costs are prior to incurring them and that patients have had the opportunity to compare the costs of multiple skilled providers. Comparison might not matter to some patients; they know who their preferred surgeon is, and that is the end of the matter. But others do want to investigate and explore, just to be sure, and the capacity for patients to do that on the basis of accurate data is completely reasonable.

The private health system also relies on private health insurers operating with integrity and incentivising people in a fair and transparent and ethical way to take up or maintain private health insurance for themselves and their families. Schedule 2 of the bill is directed at this, and that is relevant to changes to strengthen ministerial oversight of private health insurance premiums to better protect consumers.

Without schedule 2, the status quo would remain, and that status quo is that private health insurers are required to apply to the minister if they wish to change the premium for an existing product, which typically occurs annually as part of the annual premium round process. Currently, there is no requirement for insurers to seek approval for the premium charged for new products, and what has happened in some instances is that this loophole has been used to bypass the intent of the premium round by closing an existing product to new members and then launching a new but very similar product at a higher price than was previously authorised by the minister for the existing product.

This process, known as phoenixing, has driven up the cost of private health insurance policies, far exceeding government-approved average increases. Phoenixing means that some Australians end up paying more than they need to, especially those on newer or top-tier policies. These steep hikes don't just increase costs. They also discourage tailored health care because many policyholders choose to stay on older, cheaper plans to avoid sudden price jumps, which limits their options and may result in them not actually enjoying the benefit of the most appropriate policy for them. Other consumers might then elect to downgrade their cover, which ultimately leads to the risk that they will be underinsured and exposed if their cheaper policy does not include the treatment they actually need, rendering it useless in terms of value for money.

Schedule 2 of the bill addresses this issue through amendments to the Private Health Insurance Act that will require insurers to apply to the minister for approval for the premiums for new and existing products. In addition to requiring ministerial approval for proposed premium changes, insurers will have to apply if they open a new product or they reduce the cover, benefit or other term or condition of an existing product. If a product is genuinely unsustainable, not being taken up or genuinely loss-making, with few available mitigation strategies to counter this, then a new product can still be initiated, just not without the minister's prior approval on the associated premium, making it fairer for consumers.

This is an important reform that has at its heart the purpose of ensuring the private health insurance industry is operating to the benefit of consumers and for the purpose of ensuring consumers are able to make informed decisions and select policies that are appropriately tailored for their individual healthcare needs, all underpinned by accurate and contemporary data.

The government values the private health insurance industry and will always look to implement reforms that ensure the industry delivers value for money and transparency for consumers in a way that facilitates consumers having choice and agency over their healthcare decisions. That is what this bill does, and I commend the bill to the house.

I rise to speak to this health legislation amendment, but right from the outset I want to acknowledge your decades of service to improving the health of Australians, Deputy Speaker Freelander. In my humble opinion, you are a great Australian.

Well, thank you, Member for Solomon.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the achievements of our Albanese federal Labor government in relation to this legislation, improving choice and transparency for private health consumers and the many achievements of our government around health in my electorate of Solomon.

The Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026 represents the first significant step in taking action to address the impact of specialist fee charging and the consequential out-of-pocket costs for consumers. It delivers on two election commitments: to expand ministerial scrutiny of premiums to provide assurance around the cost and value of private health insurance by driving more transparency on patient medical fees and a commitment to outlaw product phoenixing. The legislation further strengthens Medicare by helping Australians find the best value when they need specialist medical advice and treatment and provides more confidence in their private health insurance by outlawing, as I said, product phoenixing. It will enable Australians to make more informed decisions about their health care and private health insurance.

The proposed amendments will allow for the Medical Costs Finder website to publish individual medical practitioner fees and insurer out-of-pocket data for common medical services. Medical practitioners will no longer need to upload their billing information, as it will be drawn from Medicare, hospitals and insurer billing data already collected by our government.

The bill will also deliver on an election commitment to outlaw product phoenixing. This is where an insurer closes an existing product and opens an identical or similar new product at a higher premium or even reduces the value of the product without ministerial scrutiny. Product phoenixing behaviour was contributing to declining consumer confidence in private health insurance. Currently, private health insurers are required to apply to the Minister for Health if they wish to change the premium for an existing product. The main requirement of the bill will be to amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to require an insurer to seek ministerial approval for the premium charge for a proposed new product and where changes are made that reduce cover, a benefit or a term of conditions of an existing product.

According to the ABS, the cost of medical and hospital services is a key driver of health inflation for consumers, which feeds into higher out-of-pocket costs and higher private health insurance premiums. Fees can vary widely across specialists even for the same procedure in the same part of Australia. This bill will ensure that Australian patients will have the power to compare costs and make informed choices about their medical care while not imposing any administrative burden on our doctors.

The Albanese government's focus on strengthening Medicare has delivered on a range of commitments to benefit Territorians. The Darwin Medicare Urgent Care Clinic has opened near the airport, on Osgood Drive, just adjacent to the ice-skating rink. All Territorians know where that is. It's a cool place! The clinic complements the existing Palmerston Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, which is one of the most successful in the nation. There have been close to 40,000 visits to the Palmerston Medicare Urgent Care Clinic since its opening in October 2023.

Last month's budget made our Medicare urgent care clinics permanent, providing funding certainty for the urgent care clinics in Darwin and Palmerston. These clinics provide walk-in care for urgent, non-emergency medical needs. They are open seven days a week. Medicare-eligible patients are bulk-billed. No appointments are required in order to get the care you need when you need it. I've had so much positive feedback already about the urgent care clinic in Darwin, as I have for some time now around the one in Palmerston.

When it comes to aged care, which takes pressure off our Royal Darwin Hospital and Palmerston Regional Hospital, we've announced the successful tenderer for the 120- to 150-bed aged-care facility to serve Darwin and Palmerston—the rural area in the Top End. The not-for-profit Ozcare has been selected to build and operate this residential aged-care home. As I mentioned, it's going to, importantly, free up beds in our hospital system that are currently taken up by aged-care demands, when those senior Territorians should be in a more comfortable place in residential aged care. Ozcare is a very experienced provider that has done a lot of work, particularly in Queensland, and it will make an enormous difference to the provision of health services and the provision of quality residential aged-care services in my electorate and in the NT generally.

Our government has also delivered a once-in-a-generation change to bulk-billing, which means that more Territorians can see a doctor for free with no out-of-pocket expenses. There are now 25 Medicare bulk-billing GP practices across Darwin and Palmerson, which is an increase of 17 clinics offering bulk-billing services since our changes came into place. More than 70 per cent of all local GP practices are now registered as Medicare bulk-billing practices. We've also launched services like 1800MEDICARE, helping keep people out of emergency departments.

Investments in the PBS will mean that Australians continue to benefit from life-changing medications at lower prices. We have capped PBS medicines at $25, saving Territorians real dollars. The Albanese Labor government's cheaper medicines reforms have already saved Australians more than $2.5 billion since 2022, and there have been more than 1.4 million cheaper scripts in my electorate, Darwin and Palmerston, under Labor's cheaper medicines policies, with two million across the Northern Territory.

We continue to add and amend medicine listings on the PBS, including for cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, various cancers and much more. We've also put in place measures to increase childhood vaccination rates through an enhanced immunisation campaign—sending SMS reminders and growing the National Immunisation Program in our pharmacies. The Albanese Labor government has delivered record hospital funding for the Territory: $3.5 billion over five years from 2026-27, which is an additional—'additional' being the key word—$741 million over those five years. This latest budget also announced $95.5 million over two years from 2026-27 for primary healthcare services in remote Northern Territory and a one-time fixed funding amount of $66 million in 2026-27 for the NT to address the challenges smaller jurisdictions face in delivering health services. As someone who, before politics, worked in the provision of health care in remote areas of the NT, I know this is all very good news for Territorians living in those regional areas.

We're also growing the health workforce to deliver more doctors and nurses than ever before, including the largest GP training program in Australian history and hundreds of scholarships for nurses and midwives to extend their skills and qualifications. We're also building the local Northern Territory long-term health workforce, with our own medical school opening at Charles Darwin University—housed in a brand-new building called Garrwa; its other name is the Better Health Futures Building—which is being funded by our government.

The first cohort of students commenced at Charles Darwin University Medical School in February, delivering a major boost to medical training and the doctor pipeline in the Northern Territory. This delivers on a plan to double permanent medical students in the NT to 200 by the year 2030, enhancing long-term staffing for hospitals like Royal Darwin Hospital. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the long-time provision of a medical program by Flinders University, which partnered with the Menzies School of Health Research and CDU.

Labor is providing Australian women with more choice and better treatment at low cost, making contraceptives cheaper and funding more treatments for menopause. We're helping Australian women suffering from endometriosis and complex gynaecological conditions so that they have access to longer specialist consultations covered under Medicare. This includes funding an endo and pelvic pain clinic in Coconut Grove in Darwin, meaning that more Territory women can access the care they need closer to home. The clinic provides expert multidisciplinary services and care for women with endometriosis and pelvic pain.

Soon, Territory women will have better access to safe, affordable, long-acting, reversible contraception, or LARC, with the Northern Territory selected to host one of eight new LARC centres of excellence being established across Australia. Our government is investing $25.6 million to establish a national network of centres that will provide free advice, support and access to services such as IUDs and contraceptive implants delivered by skilled healthcare professionals at no cost to patients. The centre will also provide outreach services and hands-on training for healthcare professionals, helping to increase access to long-acting contraception in regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory. The announcement builds on reforms introduced by our government on 1 November 2025 that made long-acting, reversible contraception more affordable through Medicare.

The Albanese Labor government recognises the complexity of issues that young people face and the demands within Darwin, the greater Darwin region and the Territory. Darwin headspace has been uplifted to the new headspace Plus, along with a youth specialist care centre in Darwin for young people with complex needs. The existing Darwin headspace centre will be upgraded over the coming period, and there will be a new centre in the NT for people with those very complex needs, whether it be psychotic disorders, personality disorders or complex eating disorders. We need to do much better and provide more support in the Territory for young people and anyone dealing with those serious health challenges.

The service in Darwin complements headspace in Palmerston, which provides young people with access to vital mental health support close to home. These services are open to young Territorians aged 12 to 25, and the centre offers mental health and related physical health, substance misuse and social and vocational support. The Medicare mental health centre in Casuarina has also expanded its hours and provides a welcoming place for people to access mental health information services and supports from qualified professionals. Anyone can reach out for support for themselves, a loved one or a patient that they know about. It's free and no appointment or referral is needed. It's truly a great service that's available to anyone in the Northern Territory.

The Australian government provided $30 million to build acute mental health service capacity in the Top End. Royal Darwin Hospital's brand new mental health inpatient unit with a stabilisation, assessment and referral area will bolster capacity at the hospital and provide a more therapeutic environment for mental health patients. The new three-level building houses the mental health inpatient unit, with 18 inpatient beds, support services and a six-bed stabilisation, assessment and referral area also known as SARA.

The Albanese Labor government also delivered a $27 million operational cyclotron for local cancer care, producing locally made radioisotopes for PET scans. This was something I campaigned for, for many years because for a long period of time we were getting our radioisotopes made interstate. There was a long air journey, which reduces the half-life, and locally made is the way to go. We're very proud of our centre there. The Albanese Labor government has also delivered on a permanent home for the Darwin veterans' and families' hub, providing $5 million to build the centre to help support the 10,000 veterans and families in the Northern Territory. In the not-too-distant future we will be establishing some veteran accommodation as well in my electorate—all aimed, as all of our veterans improvements are, in improving the health and wellbeing of our veterans who have served our nation. I commend this legislation to the House.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. It's fitting to speak on a health bill with you in the Chair, given your 37 years as a paediatrician in Campbelltown and your lifelong work helping children and families get the care that they need. I thank you for your contribution to paediatrics and also to the many, many thousands of patients that you have cared for over the years.

When Australians make decisions about their health care, they should be able to understand the costs before them, not discover them after the bill arrives. This legislation is about making the private health system clearer, fairer and easier to navigate by improving the information available to patients about specialist fees and out-of-pocket costs and by closing a loophole that has allowed some private health insurance products to be repackaged in ways that undermine consumer trust. For people in my community of Griffith, these issues are felt in the everyday pressures families are managing—paying the mortgage or rent, keeping up with groceries or school costs, caring for children or ageing parents and trying to make sure that, when someone they love needs care, they can make an informed decision with confidence. Across Griffith, more than half of my constituents are covered by private health insurance because they want an additional measure of security and certainty.

Medicare is a cornerstone of fairness, providing universal access to essential care and forming the foundation of our healthcare system. Many Australians choose to complement that strong base with private insurance to provide additional options and reassurance, particularly for specialist care and elective procedures. When doing so, they want to know that if they need treatment, if their child needs a specialist referral, if their partner needs surgery or if a parent needs support, they will have choices available to them. Too often, people's experience with the private health system falls short of that standard. We hear the same story from colleagues, friends and family members. Someone trying to navigate the next step in their care, whether choosing a specialist, arranging tests, considering treatment options or preparing for a procedure, find themselves dealing with a system that feels complicated, opaque and just too hard to compare.

At the very moment when people should be focused on their health, they are also left trying to work out what Medicare will cover, what the fund will pay and whether there will be an out-of-pocket cost. All the while, they are frustrated by the fact that it's so difficult to get a straight answer before the bill arrives. This uncertainty is not just an inconvenience; it can have serious repercussions. It causes real stress, can lead to delayed treatment and may contribute to poorer health outcomes. It can leave families putting off care while they reshuffle the household budget or worrying that, at the end of a difficult health journey, they may be hit with costs that they simply did not anticipate. No-one should have to make a medical decision in the dark or only discover the price of their care after the fact. People should be able to ask a plain question and get a plain answer, and that is the context behind this bill.

This bill is about helping Australians make informed decisions when they need specialist advice or treatment. It's about strengthening confidence in private health insurance by improving transparency, and it's about closing loopholes that have undermined trust. My electorate of Griffith is young, diverse and a growing community. It is home to young families, older residents, renters, students, health workers, carers and small business owners. We are also home to some of Queensland's most important health institutions, including the Princess Alexandra Hospital, the Mater precinct and the Queensland Children's Hospital. Our community understands the value of good care, but we also understand the pressure that comes when people cannot clearly see what that care might cost.

Griffith is one of the nation's youngest electorates, with a median age of 34, and, with 48 per cent of private dwellings rented, there is not much room in household budgets for a surprise invoice. If someone in Griffith is referred to a specialist, they should not have to spend hours sifting through bits and pieces of information on top of the stress of a diagnosis or procedure. They should be able to make that decision with confidence.

At a national level, around 12.6 million Australians have some form of hospital cover, equal to 45.6 per cent of the population, according to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. In the December quarter of 2025, the average out-of-pocket cost for hospital admission was $471.29, with an average medical gap of $277.36. For many households, that's the difference between going ahead with the care or putting it off. In Queensland alone, nearly half of the state is covered by private health insurance. Within the Brisbane City Council region, including my community of Griffith, the ABS recorded 499,000 people with private health insurance in 2022. So, when we speak about transparency and fair value for people footing the bill, we are talking about millions of Australians and thousands of families in places like Griffith who need to plan for the cost of their care with the right information in front of them.

Schedule 1 of this bill is aimed at giving consumers clearer information about those medical fees that they can expect to be charged and the likely out-of-pocket costs associated with their private health care. In 2024-25, 8.6 per cent of Australians delayed or went without specialist care because of cost, which equates to more than 800,000 Australians each year delaying or forgoing the care that they need. One of the most common sources of out-of-pocket healthcare costs is specialist fees, and that is why transparency is so important. When someone is referred to a specialist, they should not be left trying to piece together what Medicare will cover, what their private health insurer will contribute and how much they may be expected to pay out of their own pocket and nor should they have to wait until after an appointment, test or procedure to find out that the cost is much higher than they had expected.

The Medical Costs Finder launched under the Morrison government was intended to give patients a way to compare costs, understand likely out-of-pocket expenses and make more informed choices about their care. In all fairness, the intent behind the Medical Costs Finder was a good one. The problem was not the intention; the problem was in the design. The model was built entirely on voluntary disclosure, relying on specialists and insurers choosing to come forward and provide the data needed to make that website useful. That approach by the former Morrison government was destined to fail in delivering meaningful transparency, and the results are proof of this. By the end of 2022, across some 6,300 eligible specialists and the 11 specialties listed on the site, just six individual doctors had listed their fees on that website. Even now, only around 88 have done so, because the website those opposite created was based entirely on voluntary disclosure. This is not simply a case of $24 million being spent on a website that failed to meet expectations. It means patients were left without the clear, practical information they need to understand likely costs, compare their options and make informed decisions about their care. It offers no help to a parent trying to find out the cost of an ENT appointment for their child or for a young person seeking clarity on what they might pay to see a psychiatrist for an ADHD diagnosis.

Rather than relying on voluntary disclosure, this amendment will allow the Medical Costs Finder to use Medicare, hospital and private health insurer billing data already collected by the government, making it more practical, more comprehensive and far more likely to produce a tool ordinary Australians can actually use. The principle is straightforward: transparency should be the norm. Patients should be able to see typical fees, likely out-of-pocket costs, Medicare rebates and relevant insurer contributions. Clearer information gives people the confidence to ask better questions, helps GPs and referrers have better conversations with patients, supports informed financial consent and reduces the risk of bill shock at that very moment when people should be focused on their health.

We also know that fees can vary significantly, even for the same procedure in the same city, and that variation is exactly why transparency is needed. If one patient may face a very low out-of-pocket cost and another may face hundreds of dollars for a similar service, people deserve to know that before they commit, not after. This amendment will help make that information easier to find.

The second major part of this bill goes to fairness in private health insurance by tackling a practice known as product phoenixing, a practice that has been eroding trust in this area. Product phoenixing occurs when a private health insurer closes a product and reopens an identical or very similar product at a higher price or reduces the value of the product without the usual scrutiny or oversight. Consumers who pay for private health insurance expect the system to be fair. They expect a policy to deliver what it promises, and they should not be sold a supposedly new product that is little more than the same old cover repackaged at a higher price, nor should they be left wondering whether the complexity of the system is being used to their disadvantage.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman has examined the impact of product phoenixing, including on top-tier gold products. The issue is that new customers or existing customers trying to upgrade may be pushed onto a more expensive product while very similar, older products remain closed to them. That cuts across the purpose of the standard annual premium review process, which exists to provide scrutiny of premium increases and ensure changes are assessed in the public interest. If insurers can avoid that scrutiny by closing one product and opening another that is substantially the same, then the system is not working as it should. This bill closes that loophole by requiring insurers to seek ministerial approval not just for premium changes to existing products but also for premiums charged for proposed new products and for certain changes that reduce cover, benefits, terms or conditions.

This reform has been welcomed by consumer advocates and health sector voices who understand that the status quo has not served patients well enough. The AMA has supported action to stop product phoenixing while also making it clear that the Medical Costs Finder must be implemented carefully so information is accurate, meaningful and fair. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has also supported reforms that improve transparency and inform financial consent while making the point that transparency should apply across the whole patient cost pathway, including practitioner fees, insurer rebates and benefit design.

The patient experience through the health system can be seen as a pathway—a GP appointment, a referral, a specialist consultation, a scan, a procedure, an anaesthetist, a hospital stay, a bill from one provider, a bill from another, until finally a gap they did not expect or a far greater one than that which they had budgeted for. If we want people to navigate that pathway with confidence, we need transparency at every point where cost can affect choice, and that's what this legislation is targeted to address.

This bill forms part of the Albanese government's wider efforts to improve affordability, accessibility and clarity within the health system. We have strengthened Medicare because we believe every Australian should be able to see a doctor when they need one, not just when they can afford one. The government has invested to support more bulk-billing, including expanding bulk-billing incentives to all Australians and supporting fully bulk-billing practices through the Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program. In Griffith, that work is already making a difference. Bulk-billing rates increased to 63.5 per cent in March 2026, up from 58.7 per cent in October 2025, meaning more people in my community can get the care they need without having to worry about the cost. We have also expanded access to Medicare urgent care clinics so people with urgent but non-life-threatening conditions can get the care they need without having to wait in a hospital emergency department. In Griffith, our three Medicare urgent care clinics, South Brisbane, Coorparoo and Carina, have now seen more than 43,000 presentations, taking pressure off hospitals and helping families access timely bulk-billed care closer to home.

We've also continued to make medicines cheaper. The maximum PBS co-payment for Medicare cardholders was reduced from $31.60 to just $25 at the start of this year, while the concessional co-payment remains frozen to $7.70 until 2030. These changes are making a real difference in communities like Griffith. They help the parent filling a script for their child, the older resident managing a chronic illness, the student or renter weighing up every dollar at the pharmacy counter and the person who might otherwise delay filling a prescription because the cost is too high. Since July 2022, Griffith residents have saved more than $18.2 million on more than 2.1 million scripts. That is more money staying in household budgets, money that can go towards groceries, rent, school costs, transport and all the other everyday expenses that families are facing. Most importantly, it means people are less likely to delay or skip the medicines they need because of the cost.

Strengthening Medicare is not just about bulk-billing, urgent care and cheaper medicines, as important as all of those are; it's also about what happens when people move into specialist care, private treatment and surgery. It is about whether people can understand the costs in front of them, whether insurance products are fair and whether the system treats people with the respect that they deserve. Health reform should make the system easier to understand at every point, not just at one part of it. We know an increasing number of Australians are not taking up referrals from their GP to see a specialist due to concerns about cost. This legislation will give hardworking Australians the clarity they deserve about costs and more choice in their health care.

This bill legislates wider scrutiny of premiums so consumers can be more confident in the value of their private health insurance. This bill begins to put that right by giving patients better information when making decisions about specialist care, strengthening informed financial consent, closing a loophole that has undermined confidence in private health insurance and providing stronger safeguards against unregulated charging behaviour. It builds on the Albanese Labor government's broader work to strengthen Medicare, lower health costs and make our health system fairer for all Australians to navigate. For families across Griffith, that means better information, stronger protections and even more confidence in the choices before them.

I rise to support the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. I particularly want to congratulate the Minister for Health and Ageing for the work that he has done on this bill but also for the work that he has done leading the health strategy, along with the economic team led by the Treasurer and the government led by the Prime Minister. Health is very much at the heart of the Labor story. It's very much at the heart of what I want to do in my community, as it is for so many people in this place—that is, to listen to our community, to fight for our community and to deliver for our community. I think health care is the best received work the Labor Party does.

There are two elements to this bill—but I don't think I've got the full 15 minutes. I particularly wanted to focus on insurance and talk a little bit generally about what I think insurance is really there for. It could be because of the German last name that I have, Holzberger, that I'll always have a bit of an interest in German history. German history and the history of insurance are very much intertwined. In fact, there are two really great insurance markets in the world. In Germany, there are the great reinsurers of Hannover Re and of Munich Re. There's also the market of Lloyd's—Lloyd's of London. Those two markets tell a fascinating story of the history of what insurance is.

Ultimately, in Germany, sometime around the 1400s—or whenever it was—farmers decided to collectivise their risk.

Or shortly after that.

Trying to mansplain this to the doctor in the chair is probably a little bit difficult! Farmers got together to collectivise their risk. If a barn burnt down or if a mob of cows just happened to keel over and die, there was this idea that nobody should be disadvantaged by what was, effectively, an unlucky event. Everybody pooled the resources, and, if somebody was unlucky, there'd be that pool there to get that person out of trouble. There was never an intention, from that attitude to insurance, to make a spectacular profit.

On the other hand, Lloyd's of London was very much founded in the days of, for want of a better word, 'exploration' around the world, as the European countries set sail to colonise other countries. You had these quite dangerous voyages that were being undertaken. The phrase 'to underwrite' literally comes from the idea that there would be a board for the voyages that were going, and you would write your name underneath a voyage, effectively betting whether or not that ship would make it safely. Quite often they didn't, so it was a high-risk bet. Accordingly, you'd want a high-risk return.

As I say, it could be a predilection of having 'Holzberger' as a last name, but, for me, it's the former—that model of taking a more collective approach to risk and taking a more collective approach to looking after people who, effectively, through no fault of their own, find themselves either sick or injured. So it is that sometimes, in order to make sure that insurers aren't out there trying to maximise their profits, it is up to government to save them from themselves.

The government has put the insurance industry on notice for this despicable practice of phoenixing a health insurance product so that they can, effectively, circumvent the law, up the premium, make more money and leave the poor consumer either worse off financially or not insured. That despicable practice is coming to an end. They've been put on notice, they haven't changed their ways and this government is not going to put up with that sort of attitude.

Again, this sits very much with the philosophy of this government, which is about real change—about actually making an impact where it needs to be made and not resting on our laurels. I commend the bill on the basis that this is going to fix this problem. It is going to save insurers from themselves, and it is going to mean that Australian consumers can get the insurance that they need at the cost that is fair and reasonable.

The second thing that this bill does is put the specialists on notice. For too long now, we have seen that gap between what the Medicare rebate pays and what some specialists can charge to be completely out of proportion to, well, anything, whereas with GPs you saw maybe a gap fee of 30 bucks or 40 bucks or 50 bucks or something. It was enough for people not to go and see their GP, by the way. It was enough for people to decide to put food on the table rather than go and look after their health. But, for 30 bucks, 40 bucks or 50 bucks, at least there was some sort of explicable consistency to it all. In specialist fees, it's all over the place. Why will one specialist doing a colonoscopy have a gap fee of 50 bucks and another one have a gap fee of $700? It really doesn't make any sense. This puts the specialists on notice.

This legislation will give consumers an opportunity to see what they're up for before they even go in for the operation or before they go and see their specialist. That in itself is going to have some benefit, for sure, and it will, I think, give specialists a bit of a chance to think about what they are charging. There's nothing like letting a bit of sunlight in as disinfectant.

While doing a little bit of reading for this contribution tonight, I came across the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, on 30 April this year, being interviewed by Hamish Macdonald on ABC Sydney. He was talking about this subject of specialist fees, and a caller called in. I'm not sure how Hansard will handle my reading out of this transcript, but it goes:

MACDONALD: We've got Steve here from the Southern Highlands. Good morning to you, Steve.

CALLER STEVE: How are you? How are you doing?

MACDONALD: You've got a knee replacement coming up, I think.

CALLER STEVE: I've got a total knee replacement coming up in about three weeks' time. My out-of-pockets- and I'm in the top health cover, my out-of-pockets are nearly $8000.

MACDONALD: Wow. And can you afford that?

CALLER STEVE: [Laughs] Not on top of the elbow operation that I've got to have at the end of the year as well …

MACDONALD: Yeah, right.

CALLER STEVE: I mean, I'm not a self-funded retiree by any stretch of the imagination.

MACDONALD: And did you go into this knowing that you'd be facing those sorts of costs?

CALLER STEVE: Look, before Christmas last year, I had a massive accident where I fell over and I damaged nearly every bone in my body. And I broke my kneecap and I tore my, what's that little cartilage thing, the meniscus. And I damaged an already replaced metal elbow. So I've got to have them all replaced again. You know, and it's just a frightening expense, I can tell you.

And so, in the 21st century, why should people be choosing between $8,000 or putting up with the pain? How have we got to that situation?

I commend the bill to this House. It is not going to do everything, but it is going to do something. Just as this Albanese Labor government is focused on change, this will change and be real change.

We are now more than 100 days into the catastrophic, indefinite closure of the Great Western Highway at Victoria Pass. This is no longer a short-term disruption. It's a drawn-out economic execution of our region, and it's happening because of sheer, unadulterated government neglect. Let's be real about this. If a private corporation had caused this closure and shut down a major economic artery for over three months, starving our towns of customers and destroying local livelihoods, we wouldn't just be angry; we would be suing them into oblivion. Yet, when the government admits this disaster was a failure of government because of their inaction and negligence, what do we get? Accountability? Real compensation? No. The best the government can offer our struggling business owners is a pat on the head, a few crumbs and a recommendation to call a helpline. It's an insult, a sick joke. Are we seriously at the point where we need to sue our own governments just to get them to fix a disaster that they admitted that they created?

Main Street Lithgow is being bled dry and businesses are going broke. I've been out on Chifley Road talking to hardworking business owners who are staring down the barrel of financial ruin. Greg Nelson from Lithgow Tyre Service told me the drive-in trade has almost completely vanished, because people are terrified of being trapped in traffic gridlock for hours. Rod and Anne Gurney from R&A Chainsaw and Mower Supplies are watching cars and trucks shake their building every single day, but no-one can stop in. The regular customers from the Blue Mountains can't reach them. Rod's words should haunt this parliament. He told me: 'We have got to the stage where we really need to just move out, lock up and go. We've got no choice.' After 30 years in business, they have been forced to shut down.

There are many others who are simply going broke. The impacts are felt across the Central West. Tourism is down right across the region. This is the heartbreaking reality on the ground. And how does the New South Wales government respond? With a pathetic business support package that is woefully, hopelessly inadequate, which barely extends past Hartley and completely abandons Lithgow and beyond. We're told that we can't get disaster relief, because this isn't a natural disaster. Well, I've got news for you: we shouldn't need to wait for a bushfire, flood or act of God to get access to government support. This is a government made disaster. Government inaction caused it. They've admitted it and they just need to take responsibility, open the coffers and spend the money, but they won't do it. They won't do it, because they're too busy hoarding billions of dollars for their gold-plated vanity projects in Sydney and Newcastle, such as $7.4 billion for the Western Harbour Tunnel, $2.1 billion for the expressway to the new Sydney airport, $3.1 billion for the M6 Motorway in Sydney's south, $2.2 billion for the M1 extension to Raymond Terrace, $440 million for Windsor Road and up to $90 billion for high-speed rail to Newcastle. Meanwhile, our communities on the other side of the sandstone curtain are left with empty words and small change.

This is an absolute fiasco. Offering tiny, one-off grants that businesses can't even access until late June, forcing them to jump through bureaucratic hoops for a drip-fed pittance, is an insulting disgrace. We don't need more phone numbers and helplines. We want economic justice. We demand an ongoing, structured support package, a JobKeeper-style lifeline that matches the scale of the damage that this government has inflicted upon us. We want the Convict Bridge fixed and we want new, genuine high-speed access to Sydney.

How many more shops and businesses need to close before you wake up? How many more families have to lose everything before this government steps up, takes responsibility and pays for its own failures? We've had a gutful. It's the oldest rule in the book: you break it, you buy it. You knew the bridge was crumbling. You failed to upgrade it. Your neglect broke our economy, and now it's time to pay up. Do your jobs. Start governing for people west of the Great Dividing Range.

Yesterday was an unusual day, but a special day, for this parliament. The parliament was adjourned early so that we could all attend the opening of the new additions at the Australian War Memorial, the Anzac Atrium and Anzac Hall. For me, this was particularly momentous as I was on the public works committee at the time the project was approved. It was not without its controversy, and those who were in this place at that time would remember the very public campaign that was being run to stop the project.

Labor was in opposition, but I and the other Labor MPs on the public works committee took the time to meet with the team at the Australian War Memorial and to learn from them why they believed the project was necessary. And while we'd all been to the War Memorial prior to that particular event, during that visit we heard why they wanted to build purpose built galleries. They wanted to recognise the contribution of our peacekeepers, to help tell the story of our soldiers and our ADF personnel who were deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. So last night was special. It was a moment where we could join with the Australian defence community—with veterans and with current serving soldiers, but also with the many people who work in the Australian War Memorial—to recognise and to officially open these new spaces.

One of the additions in these new spaces was the Bendigo built Bushmaster Debbie. Many in this place may not know the story of Debbie, but she and her crew, six Australian soldiers, were damaged whilst on deployment in Afghanistan. Two people were seriously injured when the driver of the Bushmaster hit an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan in 2012 but, thanks to the unique shape of the Bushmaster hull which deflects the force of the explosion, all six soldiers survived the blast.

The driver, Private Matthew Clarke, sustained significant leg injuries. Last night he was in Canberra. I'd met Matt previously. Matt, who is now retired and living in the Hunter region, visited Bendigo last year to see the Bushmasters being made, to speak to the men and women who build them and to share his story of resilience, his story of survival. He thanked them for their work and what they do. To be there and to see Matt tell the story in front of Debbie was a very special moment, and I want to thank him for the privilege and honour of being there to see him when he walked into the new gallery spaces at the War Memorial to see Debbie in her new home. The damage to the vehicle is profound, and it is truly a credit to Matt's driving and to the entire crew that they were able to get out safely. But it's also a credit to Debbie, the vehicle that save their lives.

Defence manufacturing is important. It's important that we have that sovereign capability in our country, and it is what we continue to do in Bendigo. We are proud that Bendigo built Bushmasters are credited with saving Australian soldiers lives, and we are really proud that our government has seen the merit in continuing to manufacture Bushmasters and committing to investing a further $750 million into Bendigo to build more Bushmasters—a pipeline to upgrade the fleet.

This continues the 20 years of production of this world-leading capability that saves Australian lives. Designed in Australia, built in Australia for Australian men and women serving in the armed forces. These are the kinds of things that we can do together. It's the modernisation of our defence procurement strategy that will continue to see good jobs in the region. I know that all the men and women in Bendigo that work at Thales and their families are overjoyed to know that work at the site will continue, and we'll continue to welcome amazing veterans like Matt back to Bendigo so they can share with us their stories as well.

You might not have heard, but east coast activists are trying to get rid of the fuel tax credits that our farmers, freight companies, builders and fishers in the Forrest electorate depend on. Fuel tax credits simply refund a road tax on fuel that is not used on roads. These activists are supported by the senator for Canberra in the other place just over here, whose answer to everything is a new tax and the solution to every problem is simply more government spending. They don't understand that getting rid of fuel tax credits just means another cost to the small businesses in our community at a time when they can't afford to pay more in tax. Enough is enough. It's time regional WA stands up against the east coast on this, so go to the website and sign the petition to keep their hands off our fuel.

I've spoken about the damage that east coast activists will cause if they succeed in getting rid of the fuel tax credits for our farmers, builders, fishers and miners. A new Parliamentary Budget Office report shows that it isn't just small businesses who'll be impacted. If these east coast activists get their way, it is you who will pay more. The impact will flow through the economy with higher costs for your food, freight, housing and local services. It will put further pressure on jobs, investment and our regional community. It's time we stood up and told the influencers and activists from the east to bugger off, so go to the website and sign the petition to keep their hands off our fuel.

Too often in this place, in response to some issue or another, the answer is always the same—more government programs, more rules and more spending. It is this exact instinct that has plagued our nation in recent times and exacerbated the issues we seek to confront. But what if reaching for an expansion of the state was replaced with backing the strength, the judgement and the responsibility of our Australian people? Australia is at its best not in the halls of this building or in the bureaucracy around it but in each of its citizens. It is our people who must grow for our nation to thrive, because to grow the government the people themselves must wither, because the state is inherently parasitic. This is about building a society of responsibility, not one of dependency.

No government could ever replace the judgement collectively of our Australians, and that judgement must again lead the way forward. When the state does overreach, not only does it grow in size, but it shrinks the space in which those individual Aussies can act, thrive and grow. That's the fundamental principle that we seem to have forgotten in this place. A strong society is not built by a bigger government. It is not grown by expanding the reach of career politicians who've never worked a real day in their lives. It is built by stronger citizens who make the best decisions they can, who take responsibility for their lives, who jump on opportunity, who build, who create, who participate—not because the government tells them so but because they choose to.

The challenge facing us as Australians is to once again define government properly. A government that attempts to do everything will ultimately achieve little and come at great cost to those who support it. We need to focus government on its core functions—to protect Australians, maintain our sovereignty and set out the framework for opportunity. That's the type of government that enables Australians to flourish. We need to find that balance between support and independence because it's in that sweet spot that the best growth exists for our country. When we allow those decent people of Australia to grow and to get on with their own lives, they build the nation with us. Growth therefore is defined by the people who live it every day. It's something that the people themselves create, and it's why ownership matters.

When we allow people the chance to determine their destiny, they seize it. They take responsibility. They invest and build. They dream. And every possible reality may well be within reach when they work like nothing else until their ambition is met. These people are not spectators in their nation, but they are active participants building it and pushing it ever on. Of course, we shouldn't be turning our backs on those who need support, but we must have regard to those for whom ambition is everything. The goal must always be to lift the Australian people from dependence and deliver them towards independence. That's backing Australians to do the right thing, and that's what so easily forgotten in this place.

The importance of education has been instilled in me from my earliest years, and my time in Australia's education system as a student and then as a researcher and lecturer has given me an even deeper appreciation for high-quality and well-resourced education. It means security for teachers—and I have a lot of teachers in my family and see how hard they work. It means safety and opportunity for students, and it means a more cohesive society that we all benefit from. I'm so lucky in this job to have the opportunity to see this firsthand in schools all over the electorate of Chisholm. I've seen students engage in civic education in a way that makes me absolutely sure that our future in their hands will be one of care, humility and fairness. This government is giving them the tools to do just that, and I'm really proud to be able to represent so many bright young people in this place.

Just last week, I had the great pleasure of visiting St Roch's Catholic Primary School in Glen Iris as a guest adjudicator for their year 6 civics and citizenship debating competition. St Roch's primary school embodies community spirit and civic education. Indeed, it was only last month that the Speaker and I visited their students for the Parliament in Schools program, where we unveiled one of the flags at once flew above this place. You could see in every student's face how proud they were to have been able to touch a piece of Australian history, and I'm sure that they will carry the memory of that experience for years. I thank the Speaker for sharing in that special moment.

Having seen them again last week, I can say the students of St Roch's are absolutely leaders. They debated whether video games should be an official sport, if plastic packaging on all food items should be banned, whether museums should return ancient artefacts to countries of origin and whether smartwatches should be banned in the classroom. I might have been the adjudicator, but I was also a student. I had the opportunity to learn about what our future holds under their leadership, and it shows nothing but promise. I want to thank and congratulate Conner, Marianna, Jacob, George, Charlie, Dom, Matilda, Mia, Harper, Margot, Matthew, Grace, Harriet, Walter, Luka, Marcus, Kathryn, Rose, Aira, Leo, Olivia, Richard and Scarlett. I'm sure at least one of them may one day take a seat here in this place. I look forward to seeing them again soon. They are organising a dog parade. St Roch was the patron saint of dogs, and I will not be missing an opportunity to see that.

Every school in my electorate, though, embodies the spirit of democracy and care for community. Recently, four very passionate year 6 students from Mount Waverley Heights Primary School presented my office with a petition that called on us to make healthy food options cheaper. Together, they collected 80 signatures from the school community. One of my most favourite things to do as the federal member of Chisholm is to hear from young people about their passions and hopes for Australia's future. I think our country is safer, smarter and kinder when young people speak up. It certainly makes it easier to do my job. I wish all of the students who organised the petition the very best of luck in their last year of primary school and encourage them to continue to follow their passions and to involve themselves in their community as leaders.

I encourage all students right across my electorate to get involved in the life of their school and their community, whether it be through debating, whether it be by putting their hand up to be a student representative or helping out at local sports clubs and art groups and many other community organisations. I encourage all students to be brave and be themselves.

Our role in this place has always been to look ahead and consider the effect that the decisions we make today will have on students like those from St Roch's and Mount Waverley Heights in years to come. That principle stands at the centre of this government's policies and, indeed, it guides everything that I do in this place every single day. It's why we're acting on our intergenerational responsibilities through the budget and making sure that those young students who I had the absolute pleasure of meeting recently will have a fair shot at owning their own home in the future and accessing an incredible education, whether that be through the vocational education system or through our universities. I want to do everything I can to make sure that the system for education and for everything else that we do in this place is fair and is sustainable for those generations that will come after us.

I thank the member for Chisholm for inviting me to a great school of St Roch.

Yesterday I raised the alarm about the SA Labor government's failure to properly address birthing service shortages in Crystal Brook, Jamestown and Kapunda. Expecting mothers across the mid-north are being forced to travel long distances to give birth, and the decision to divert birthing staff has destroyed their continuity of care. You would think this terrible situation might motivate the federal and state Labor governments to put some long-term solutions on the table to address this issue, but, Mr Speaker, you would be very, very wrong. Instead, the federal government is doing the exact opposite by actively making it harder to attract and retain midwives and birthing staff in regional South Australia.

Kate Edwards is a registered midwife working in the Whyalla hospital. What she is experiencing right now is absolutely shocking. Kate is amazing. Kate answered Australia's call for skilled healthcare workers. She packed up her life in the UK, moved to regional South Australia and filled a critical skills gap in Whyalla's maternity services. Eighteen months ago, Kate bought into the Australian dream when she purchased her first home. For those of you playing at home, what do you think this Labor government has done to thank her? If your answer was slapping her with an $89,000 fee in taxes and charges, you would be right. It's all because of admin errors that weren't her fault. To make a bad situation even worse, Kate was threatened with a $100,000 fine if she didn't pay up. When a fee waiver was sought, Kate was refused on the basis that she was deemed by this government to be a foreign investor and that it was not in the national interest. I say Kate's work is in the national interest, and shame on those of you who say otherwise. We need more people like her.

Because of this madness, Kate feels conned by this government. Kate was forced to use her inheritance, obtained from her grandmother, to cover these unfair costs to stay in Whyalla. Frankly, I was embarrassed to learn of the story of what Kate has experienced. She has given up so much to move to Australia and fill a critical skills gap. I had to apologise to her on behalf of our federal and state Labor governments. It is absolutely outrageous. This type of treatment of essential birthing staff in regional SA is completely unacceptable, and it sends the wrong message. The birthing service of Whyalla, a town of 22,000 people, was forced to close in 2023 because of critical staff shortages. It only reopened after determined recruitment efforts secured experienced professionals like Kate Edwards. Kate's permanent role provides women in Whyalla with dependable maternity care they otherwise would not have access to. Even South Australia's then Labor health minister Chris Picton wrote to our treasurer requesting a fee waiver. How has the Treasurer responded? Absolute crickets.

It gets worse. While Minister Picton has asked the federal Labor government to waive their fees, his own state Labor government have served up more than $28,000 in their own taxes in the worst case of hypocrisy I have ever seen. Despite our calls, the federal Labor government has ignored Kate and persisted with a system that penalises the very people regional Australia are trying to attract. It's absolute madness. The irony is impossible to ignore. Governments spend millions recruiting skilled healthcare workers from overseas only to burden them with punitive charges and make staying in regional Australia more difficult. Regional communities deserve better than this. This is not simply about Cate Edwards. It is about every nurse, doctor, midwife and allied health professional considering whether to call Australia home. If the federal government is serious about strengthening regional health care, it cannot continue to discourage the very workforce we rely upon. When a highly skilled midwife chooses Whyalla, chooses regional South Australia and chooses to make Australia their home, our government should be opening the door, not slamming it shut and handing them a bill.

There is an old saying that, if you repeat something often enough, people will eventually accept it as fact. These days, that appears to be the business model of large sections of the political commentary industry—not journalism and not analysis but commentary. Every budget, every reform and every proposal is pushed through the same narrow filter. If working people benefit, it is somehow irresponsible; if investors receive a tax concession, it is somehow economic genius. If wages go up, it is inflationary; if profits go up, it is market efficiency. If government attempts to deal with problems that have been building for decades, we are told civilisation itself is on the edge of collapse.

The reality is less dramatic. Budgets involve choices. Governments have a responsibility not to the next headline but to the next generation, and Australians deserve better than a permanent panic campaign from people who often have a direct interest in nothing changing. If housing remains unaffordable, some people make money. If wages remain suppressed, some people make money. If inequality grows, some people make money. When the government tries to change those outcomes, we are suddenly told the sky is falling while those people who make money shoot themselves into the sky. This budget reflects a simple principle: Australia should remain a country where hard work is rewarded, where a young person can realistically aspire to own their own home, where wages grow, where public service remains strong and where opportunity is not reserved for those fortunate enough to already have wealth. That is the Australia I believe in.

I was an apprentice electrician, I've worked on construction sites in the resources sector and in labour hire, I've been a publican, I went to university, and I studied law and worked in an industrial office at an employment lawyer. That is what Australia is supposed to be, not 'the lucky country' where people usually use that phrase. The author never intended it as a compliment. Australia succeeds when it is the land of opportunity—a country where people can reinvent themselves and a country where your starting point does not determine your destination. That is worth protecting. In Western Australia, we are seeing a familiar political cycle emerge. The Liberal Party has discovered hospitals! The Liberal Party has discovered schools! The Liberal Party has discovered public services! Apparently, every problem can be solved with a new building, a new announcement and an artist's impression, but hospitals do not operate themselves, schools do not teach themselves, buildings are not health care, and buildings are not education, people are.

The challenge facing Western Australia is not only infrastructure, it is workforce. You can announce a hospital every week, if you like, but where are the doctors coming from? Where are the nurses coming from? Where are the allied health workers coming from? Where are the teachers coming from? Where are the electricians, plumbers and construction workers coming from? Last time I checked, none of those professions could be manufactured in a press release. They require training, they require investment, and they require decent wages and decent conditions, yet the same political movement now promising miracles spent decades attacking both. Western Australians remember wage suppression, they remember privatisation, they remember outsourcing, and they remember being told that private operators could somehow deliver better services while paying workers less.

That theory never quite survived contact with reality. Whenever conservatives speak warmly about efficiency, workers have learned to check whether their pay packet is about to become more efficient as well. There is a broader lesson in the politics of grievance. If you spend years telling people that institutions cannot be trusted, eventually, they stop trusting yours. If you spend years telling people that every reform is a conspiracy, eventually, conspiracy becomes your policy platform. If you spend years feeding anger, eventually, someone else harvests it. Many Australians are genuinely worried. They are worried about housing, they are worried about the cost of living, and they are worried about whether their children will have the same opportunities they had. Those concerns are real, and they deserve respect, but concern is not a policy, anger is not a plan, and slogans are not solutions.

Australia faces serious challenges: housing affordability, skills shortages, health workforce shortages, productivity, energy transition and defence capability. They require serious responses, not memes, not outrage and not slogans. We cannot assume the opportunities available to the previous generations will automatically remain for the next. They will not without action, without reform and without political courage.

Question agreed to.

House adjourned at 20: 00

Six months ago, communities in my electorate were absolutely devastated by two fires that destroyed more than 300 homes and burnt hundreds of thousands of hectares. The impacts on the municipalities of Strathbogie, Murrindindi and Towong were severe. It was described in the media as an 'apocalyptic inferno' with scenes of 'utter devastation', and entire communities were left unrecognisable. But, because the smoke didn't linger, the national attention moved on quickly. For those communities, however, cleaning up, rebuilding and recovering is a long, painful and difficult road.

I've spoken too much about disaster in this place because for my communities it's not a blip; it's a severe threat most bushfire seasons. In recent months, I've spent time in the affected communities, working with local government in the aftermath, and I've made a submission to the Victorian government's inquiry into bushfires. I've taken what I've heard directly from fire affected communities to the federal government and developed a practical plan to improve how we prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters. I'm also part of an inquiry into the financial sustainability of local governments, which is hearing consistently that the impact of disasters is one of the greatest pressures local governments face.

Councils in my electorate navigate complex and, at times, infuriating disaster recovery funding arrangements. I've heard from councils time and time again that the DRFA is hard to navigate, with bureaucratic complexity placing significant additional strain and stress on already stretched local councils. So when the government proposed changes to the disaster recovery funding arrangements—which they say will be simpler, fairer and faster—that was welcome news. But it's clear that we need more detail about what these changes mean in practice for communities, councils and state governments. We're already hearing concern from other parts of the country. In Queensland, communities are highly agitated about these changes, worried that they may in fact be worse off. Their concerns must be taken seriously, particularly as disasters are more frequent and severe.

In my electorate of Indi, fire affected communities want to know what this will mean for the next time disaster strikes. Will councils have to pay more? What emergency support can residents rely on? Will the rules around eligibility be easier to navigate? And, crucially for these communities, can they build back better, or will we continue repeating the mistakes of the past?

I'll be meeting with the Minister for Emergency Management in coming weeks to discuss these proposed changes, and I will continue to stand up for my communities to ensure we are better prepared, better supported and better able to recover from the next fire or flood. It's what our communities deserve and what we must deliver.

Labor is the party of education. The Albanese Labor government is building the education infrastructure we need in my electorate and building a better and fairer education system from preschool to tertiary.

This month I was delighted to open upgrades to two schools in Blair that were funded under the second round of the Albanese government's Schools Upgrade Fund. The first project involved $800,000 for Riverview State School, in the eastern suburbs of Ipswich, to refurb old classrooms and staffrooms and install improved learning and teaching spaces, including storage and sinks, and new technology, including smartboards.

The second capital upgrade involved $850,000 for a new custom amenities block at Linville State School, a little country school in the northern Somerset region, which has delivered modern facilities to ensure students' health and safety needs are met. The new amenities block, with facilities for staff and access for students with disabilities, is appropriately elevated to avoid local reptilian fauna. It was wonderful to see firsthand what a difference the funding is making to these schools and to hear from staff and students about just how proud they are of the facilities.

It's all part of our commitment to build a better and fairer education system. It builds on our landmark schools funding agreement with the Queensland government to provide a record $2.8 billion in additional Commonwealth funding to Queensland state schools over the next 10 years, all tied to reforms to lift education standards.

When it comes to early education, our government is also investing in the needs of my local community. In April, I was delighted to join the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator the Hon. Jess Walsh, to announce $9 million for a new early learning service in Rosewood, in a rural part of Ipswich, to improve access to quality early education and child care in this fast-growing country town just outside the Ipswich CBD. The new service will be built at Rosewood State School to help local families avoid the double drop-off in the morning—and in the afternoon, I might add—and help students to make a smoother transition to school. Only three in 10 students living in Rosewood get access to this kind of education before they go to school, so this will make a big difference to those children. It's part of an almost $45 million package for five new early learning services across Queensland.

Of course, this complements the Albanese Labor government's $3.6 billion investment—announced just last week—to lock in an historic 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators for the next two years, building on an initial pay rise in 2024. It goes to show that Labor is the party of education.

In Fowler, more than 13,000 people rely on payments like JobSeeker and youth allowance. They are families in Prairiewood and Cabramatta. They are young people in Bonnyrigg and Liverpool. They are looking for work and trying to stay afloat. For many, JobSeeker is not a choice. It has become the main income for whole families because a tough job market has left them no other option. People in Fowler are doing it tougher than most. Nationally, unemployment sits at around 4.5 per cent. In the Fairfield local government area, which covers most of my electorate, it is around 7.5 per cent. That is three points higher than the national average. There are more people out of work and more people relying on a payment that has not kept up with the real cost of living.

Across Western Sydney, that pressure is felt every day. Parents decide which bill to pay. People skip meals. Households fall behind on rent because their income does not stretch far enough. A payment that once carried a single person through a short gap between jobs now has to cover children, high rents, fuel that is still expensive and energy prices as well. Families in Fowler are carrying that burden. All the while, the government repeats its motto: no-one left behind. We hear it in speeches and at press conferences, but, in Fowler, thousands of people look at that slogan against their bank balance and know that they're being left behind.

The government has been given clear advice. Its own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee found that JobSeeker has fallen well below changes in living standards. While wages have grown far more strongly this century—and we've just heard of the increased wages for childcare workers, which is fantastic—across four reports, the committee has said that the JobSeeker payment is below the poverty line. It recommended lifting it to around 90 per cent of the age pension. That is about $272 more a fortnight. The committee also showed how to pay for it responsibly through fairer tax concessions, better targeted spending and increases over time.

In a community like Fowler, that advice would reduce deep poverty and give people a fair chance to find work, study and retrain. Instead, the government has relied on routine indexation and left the payment below the poverty line. That hits communities like Fowler the most. If this government truly believes that no-one is left behind, it must follow its own expert advice. Raise JobSeeker. Bring people above the poverty line. The people of Fowler deserve a fair go.

Today, I want to give a massive shout-out to a Shoalhaven legend, Ian Usher—better known locally as 'Pig'—who has raised more than $2 million for charities. For more than 40 years, Pig, a retired interstate truck driver, has been raising funds for a whole range of organisations, including the Shoalhaven hospital, Variety kids charity and, most recently, Beyond Blue as part of Team Shoalhaven in the Beyond Bitumen Rally. Pig is one of those down-to-earth genuine blokes who would give the shirt off his back to help others in need, and that's the way he's always been.

At just 18 years old, along with a then sergeant at Nowra Police Station, Pig started fundraising to buy the land to build the Shoalhaven PCYC in the early 1980s. When the club was finally built, Pig donated his gym equipment for kids to use. For the past 26 years, Pig has been involved in charity car rallies, and in 1992 he hosted the first Nowra truck show, which raised $15,000 for the family of a fellow truckie who was tragically killed in a truck accident in Cobargo. Pig was one of the people behind the amazing Shoalhaven Spring Festival Parade in Nowra, and the hospital bed race, and that ran for a few years. He also organised car shows at the Nowra Speedway. In 2015, Pig became involved with KidzFix Shoalhaven, a charity to help sick and disadvantaged children. He took over the speedway canteen, with all funds raised donated to KidzFix and Shoalhaven hospital.

In March, Pig, along with Team Shoalhaven BBR members Michael, Peter and Andy, raised more than $22,000 for Beyond Blue when they took part in the Beyond Bitumen rally from Canberra to Cowra. The team took on bush roads while raising funds to support men with mental health issues throughout Australia, as well as in our own community.

Pig is proud and humble and isn't too keen on fanfare, but he really is a legend in our community. He has been nominated for numerous volunteer, community and seniors awards, and was honoured with the 2024 Peta Murphy memorial trophy at the Beyond Bitumen rally. Just last month I was delighted to attend the Team Shoalhaven BBR Annual Truck Show. It was two days of revved-up family fun, with heaps of shiny big rigs, food and live entertainment at the Shoalhaven City Turf Club. An enormous thankyou to Pig—he insists we call him that—and his amazing team for all you do in our community and for bringing smiles to so many faces.

Over the past two weeks, I've been out meeting with the hardworking small businesses that are the backbone of my local community. I had the pleasure of visiting Hudson and Rosie's Table, Nerang's Highland Park Bakery, Coffee Brothers in Merrimac and Papa Rolly's in Carrara, as well as dozens of other small and family businesses. I also want to thank every small-business owner, worker and customer who took the time to speak with me at Highland Park Shopping Plaza, at Carrara Village, at Nerang Fair and at Benowa Gardens. The message was consistent wherever I went, and that is that these are incredibly tough times for customers and for small businesses alike.

After four years of this bad Labor government, Australians are paying more for almost everything. Insurance is up 39 per cent, energy is up 38 per cent, rents are up 22 per cent and food prices are up 16 per cent. Small-business operating costs continue to rise, while families facing their own cost-of-living pressure simply cannot spend like they once did. With record small-business insolvencies, many local business owners told me they are working longer hours for less reward just to keep the doors open and the lights on. More than 41,000 Australian small businesses have collapsed just in the last four years.

But, despite these challenges, what stood out most was the resilience and generosity of our community. I saw neighbours choosing to buy local; families stopping in for a coffee, a loaf of bread or lunch; and business owners who knew their customers by name and are always willing to lend a hand. These are the people who sponsor our junior sporting teams, support local charities and create local jobs. When small businesses succeed, our entire community succeeds.

Last week I had the great honour of sponsoring and attending the Gold Coast Primary Schools Boccia Competition. Participating schools included Surfers Paradise, Benowa and Ashmore. It was fantastic to see students from across our community sharing the court, encouraging one another and giving every match their absolute best. Boccia creates opportunities for children of all abilities to participate, build confidence, form friendships and be part of a team—be part of something much bigger. It was a wonderful reminder of the inclusive spirit that makes our community so special.

Last week our community proudly hosted the Bowls Australia 2026 Australian Open at the Broadbeach bowls club. This event welcomed competitors and visitors from across Australia and from around the world. Thank you to all of the event's sponsors and the City of Gold Coast for supporting this great event. Congratulations to every participant and every winner. I hope you loved your time on the Gold Coast. A very special shout-out to Pierre Westerveld, president of the Broadbeach bowls club, for all the work he and his team did to make this event a great success.

Singing 'You are my Sunshine' in Auslan with the two-year-old class at Wattle Planet Early Learning Centre in Rockbank was definitely a highlight of my recent visit. The poster made by the four-year-old kinder class was another one, where they shared what they'd like to see in our community, from fruit and veggie shops to more swings and monkey bars in our local parks and even fish in our swimming pools. It was also great to chat to educators about our local issues like the safety of Leakes Road, Rockbank station car parking, the Western Freeway and the Rockbank town centre as well. A huge congratulations to this wonderful centre on their one-year anniversary. A massive thank you to Sonia, Miranda and the entire team for your warm welcome and all you do to support our local families.

At Kings Park Primary School, community is central to everything they do. It was a pleasure joining their morning assembly to talk with students about what makes our community so incredibly special. It was great chatting with the grade 5 and 6 students about Australia's system of government and joining the preppies for their reading time. Kings Park Primary has a strong phonics program that has been in place for many years, and it shows in their fantastic reading and writing scores—something the entire school should be proud of. From the wonderful student artwork on display to the children's chickens in Kings Patch, their school kitchen garden, there really is so much to love about this wonderful school community. The talent of the children in our growing suburbs is something truly special, and I cannot wait to see these young people continue to grow and be the future of Australia. A big thank you to Principal Jodi Park, the school captains, staff and the entire Kings Park Primary community for the important work you do every single day.

The Hare Krishna community in Melbourne's western suburbs is an incredibly warm and inclusive group of people who welcome participants from all walks of life. I was so pleased to join the opening of Srilia Prabhupada Castle in Keilor in early June. The former Overnewton Castle in Keilor will provide a beautiful new space for the wonderful community to gather and practice. It really was such an honour to have the opportunity to participate in the community's rich traditions at the opening, including the sacred fire ceremony and kirtan procession as well. A big thank you to Ajay Bansal along with the entire community for the warm welcome. Acquiring this historic new location has not been an easy feat. Congratulations to the Hare Krishna community, and I can't wait to see what this next chapter will bring.

Over the weekend, a legend of the Macleay celebrated a milestone birthday with family and friends. Mr Ray Harman Walkden turned 80, and, while I don't generally acknowledge birthdays in this place, Ray's 80 years on this earth have been pretty exceptional. Aside from his years as the local cop shop and local council brown bomber, earning him the name 'Chalkie', the name the community gave to parking officers—but nobody's perfect, Chalkie! Seriously though, Ray has given a lifetime of service to the Macleay Valley, and his standing in the Kempsey community is well earned.

With more than 37 years of volunteer service through the Lions Club and the local SES crews, Ray has played a critical role in emergency response and disaster recovery in a region prone to flood, fire and road accidents. In fact, Ray was one of the first responders on the scene at the Clybucca bus crash on 22 December 1989, the worst single road fatality incident in Australian history and an event that has left a deep scar on the wider Macleay community and beyond.

Ray was the Kempsey SES duty officer who received the call to attend the scene at 3.20 am and on arrival was faced with a level of devastation that would cause most to break. The crash left 35 people dead and 41 injured, and the mental toll that this single event inflicted on those involved in the recovery efforts can't be understated. It saw many leave the emergency services and some leave the area altogether, but not Ray. It only served to steel his resolve to assist his community in any way he could, and he's done that every day since. That's the man he is. Happy birthday, Chalkie. You deserve every bit of recognition for a life well spent.

Speaking of strong histories, last week I had the pleasure of being invited to the Talarm Community Hall, in the beautiful Nambucca Valley, for a flag presentation with the volunteer committee members. These presentations are always a great excuse to share a bit of ceremony and tradition, and this visit was particularly special, with Judi Liddell there to receive the flag. Now, Judi wasn't born a Liddell; she was originally a Nash, and everybody who lives in Talarm and the wider Nambucca Valley knows of the Nash family and their contributions to the region and service to our country in times of conflict. Judi's grandfather originally donated the land for the Talarm Community Hall back in 1914, with the intention that it serve as the town's meeting place, a safe place where the township could come together. I know that the family legacy of contributing to the community will continue through Judi, her children and her great-grandchildren, and it's great to see.

Yesterday I met a brave young boy from my electorate, Henry Cox, and his mum, Phillippa. Henry, aged 12, is dealing resiliently with an incredibly debilitating and chronic skin condition, having lived with severe eczema his entire childhood. He has endured daily bleach baths, creams, wet dressings, frequent infections and long courses of antibiotics that affected his broader health. His condition limited his ability to participate in school and led to him being bullied at school. Henry mentioned to me what it meant to him to miss out on learning to swim and riding his bike while his friends were.

Throughout his childhood up to age nine, the severity of his eczema was distressing and emotionally exhausting for him; his mum, Phillippa; and the whole family. Two years ago, Henry received compassionate access to a biologic treatment, and, having turned 12, he can access this treatment via the PBS. Since receiving this treatment, his severe eczema is under control. He has regained confidence and is actively involved in his school community as a member of the SRC and has been invited to represent the ACT at the national chess championships.

I'm delighted to say that Henry was in Parliament House this week raising awareness of severe eczema and the impact that it has on children, families and the health system. He gave me a letter, which was very moving, detailing the impact the eczema had had on his life and how transformative this new treatment had been. Henry and his family are advocating for this drug to be added to the PBS for children under 12 as well, in the hope that more families' lives can be changed, and I was pleased to discuss this with him yesterday.

I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that has made the single largest investment in Medicare ever and reduced the cost of everyday medicines on the PBS to just $25—or $7.70 for those with a concession card. The PBS is a critical part of our healthcare system, and I know that new drugs are added all the time. I wish Henry and his family all the best in their advocacy.

Last week I attended HelpingACT's JuneroCity fundraising event and was able to see their founder, Mohammed Ali, there and congratulate him on recently being awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia—a well-deserved award. Mohammed is well known in the Canberra community. He founded HelpingACT in 2018, and since that time it has made such a difference to thousands of people through providing food and other services to people in need. His vision is that no Canberran goes hungry or has nowhere to sleep, and he has taken that into his own hands with his very supportive team of volunteers and supporters, who are making a huge difference. It was really great to see that well-deserved recognition. Congratulations to you, Mohammed, and all your team. Keep up the great work.

I rise today to add my voice to concerns about the thousands of older Australians facing significantly higher private health insurance costs under the Albanese Labor government's proposed cuts to the private health insurance rebate. Around 23,300 Barker residents aged 65 and over currently hold health cover and stand to be significantly impacted by Labor's changes, facing increases per year of between $807 for singles and $1,614 for couples. The Albanese government is now winding back support that helped them maintain their cover, at a time when many seniors are facing rising housing costs. Older Australians who have worked hard, planned for their retirement and maintained private health insurance should be supported, not penalised. Many seniors will be left facing difficult choices, forced to cut spending elsewhere, downgrade their cover or abandon it altogether. One constituent from Mannum has told me:

My husband & I have private health insurance but taking away the rebate will make it extremely difficult if not impossible to pay. We have maintained private health insurance for over 50 years.

Another couple from Blanchetown have said to me:

We are extremely concerned about the proposed Medicare Rebate changes for Seniors. We are on the Pension and we have made it a priority to keep our Medical Insurance at the cost of cutting out food supplies, clothing etc. We are struggling! We have paid all our lives and now treated like this.

The consequences of this policy extend beyond those directly affected. Labor's cuts will not reduce demand for health care; they will simply shift more Australians from private health to the public system. That means greater pressure on public hospitals and health services that are already under strain. I want to conclude with another email from a constituent. This one is from someone in my home town of Mount Gambier. The constituent said:

I have paid for top tier private health insurance since 1977, which together with my wife and family, has ensured we have not been a burden on the public health system. If the Albanese Government is successful in getting these rebates removed, I will likely be forced into the public system because I fear it will no longer be financially viable; right at the stage of life where we are most susceptible to health care needs.

This policy is both unfair and short sighted. Anthony Albanese says he's focused on cost-of-living relief, but this policy does exactly the opposite for Barker seniors. I'll continue to fight these changes and let the government know they have the wrong priorities for seniors, for taxpayers and for our health system.

A couple of weeks ago, I joined the Bulleen-Templestowe Basketball Club at their Big Freeze at the B to raise funds to fight MND. Coaches, clubs, volunteers and, yes, even their local federal MP put their hands up for the ice bucket challenge. I give a big thankyou to David, Stav and Mitch, who obviously enjoyed tipping an especially big bucket of ice water on me, as well as to all the volunteers for organising this amazing event again this year and cooking up a delicious spaghetti dinner to help us warm up afterwards and keep the young players fed. I also got a chance to meet the young women's team and see how badly needed our federal government investment of $3.5 million is for building female-friendly change rooms. The Big Freeze at the B came only a few weeks after the passing of the great Neale Daniher. This year's event was the perfect opportunity to honour Neale's legacy of courage, selflessness and hope. Congratulations to the club for raising over $4,200 for such an important cause.

The Box Hill Silk Road Lions Club is a fantastic community organisation in Menzies that brings together the Asian Australian community across Box Hill and eastern Melbourne to do real-world good. It was wonderful to join them at the Gardiners Creek Reserve for their five-kilometre fun run alongside 300 other participants, including those from the Box Hill Hawks and the Melbourne Loong Football Club, who came out on a chilly morning for a very worthy cause. Childhood cancer is the leading cause of death amongst children in Australia—a confronting fact, especially for those of us who are parents. The good news is that survival rates have dramatically improved, with over 80 per cent of children surviving with treatment. That progress is a direct result of research, funding and the dedication of clinicians and scientists. This is why it was important to join the fun run, as every dollar raised went to the Cancer in Kids Auxiliary at the Royal Children's Hospital, who are transforming how we understand and treat childhood cancer. Thanks to everyone who took part, particularly to President Wendy Yang and the Box Hill Silk Road Lions Club, for raising over $8,000. Every dollar brings us one step closer to a future where no family has to face childhood cancer without hope.

Templestowe Heights Primary School is one of our fantastic schools in Menzies that are leading the way in evidence based teaching. It was wonderful to visit La Trobe University's Science of Language and Reading, or SOLAR, Lab recently with the Minister for Education, Jason Clare; the Assistant Minister for Social Services, Ged Kearney; and some of our Victorian state colleagues. The SOLAR Lab provides the opportunity for researchers and teaching students to observe and learn the latest in educational innovation. We got the opportunity to watch one of the outstanding teachers from Templestowe Heights applying these techniques in practice. The real stars, though, were the Templestowe Heights students, who were doing an amazing job applying their learning by reading passages from Hatchet, a book so old that even I studied it at school.

I rise today to take up the series of complaints in my electorate about the Telstra coverage and ongoing service-related issues in relation to mobile phone reception in the Hills District. I remind the House that my electorate is in a major metropolitan city, Sydney, in the middle of a really urbanised area. This is an ongoing concern, because, in spite of my—as the federal member—and others' raising this directly with Telstra, we're receiving a series of inadequate responses about very low and unacceptably weak signal in the middle of urban Sydney.

My constituents have raised with me these matters, and they've taken up the complaints with the telecommunications ombudsman, and other matters, as they're entitled to do. Indeed, Telstra has been recommending to them—and I'm going to go through this specifically for one case in my electorate—the purchasing of an additional antenna at their own cost. It doesn't sound too unreasonable when you think about it for a moment. However, this antenna has a minimum cost of $2,568 over 24 months—the Telstra GO G41 Stationary Yagi and Panel Antenna Bundle. The other advice my constituent received was to move to the north-eastern corner of his less-than-700-square-metre property to make his phone calls—or to buy a $2½ thousand antenna for his service. I remind the House that this is in the middle of suburban Sydney.

We need to explore why this is happening. The reason why I'm raising it to the House's and the government's attention today is that, when the original NBN Co was created by the previous Labor government, there were these contractual clauses written into the legislation about denying Telstra the ability to offer the same services as NBN Co and, indeed, denying Telstra—and I spoke about this at the time—the ability to research or upgrade or do certain things which conflict with the NBN. I wonder what's happening, because, as service degrades in urban centres—and this is not the only constituent. We've tested it even in my own electorate office. We get a single bar—and I've raised that directly with Telstra as well—in the middle of Castle Hill, in the middle of an urban area. We're seeing degradation of service across the board.

I asked Telstra, and I do say to the government we need to start taking quite seriously the ongoing arrangements between NBN Co and Telstra—whether this is denying reasonable service to everyday Australians. The idea that a person is told to spend $2,500 on an antenna at their property to get mobile reception in the middle of a major city is, really, I think, unacceptable to most members of this House. The idea that you'd have to stand in the back corner of your property in the middle of a major centre as well and still receive weak service—this simply isn't good enough. So I do say to Telstra again—in the parliament, before we take this further—this matter is serious. It has many people affected in a major urban centre, and I'm sure this is happening in more parts of Sydney. This is a cause we will continue to raise.

This is a statement about a constituent who came to my office in August 2022 seeking assistance. He told me at that time that his privacy had been seriously breached and that he had been sexually assaulted. He told me that the person who had assaulted him and breached his privacy worked at American Express, where my constituent had an account. My constituent had met the accused on a dating app. They'd been dating for about 90 days. My constituent ended that contact after the alleged assault, reported it to American Express and to the police and stopped using his Amex card.

Two days prior to the alleged assault, I was informed by my constituent that the person who worked for Amex had told him that he knew where my constituent had bought his morning coffee and knew about several purchases he'd made that day. He had been using the Amex card to stalk my constituent. My constituent reported this to the police and to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority—the regulator for financial consumers. After five months, AFCA found that my constituent's privacy had indeed been breached under federal legislation, but it chose not to publish its determination. AFCA concluded, I understand, that Amex produced evidence that Amex had zero controls over its systems. That meant that any Amex employee basically anywhere in the world could access information on pretty much any Amex customer without any real controls and without traceability of who had been accessing those records. This is very concerning.

My constituent then went on to complain to the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner has upheld that his information has been inappropriately accessed, but the Privacy Commissioner has prevented the publication of her detailed report into this issue. It is very concerning because it is apparent that Amex has no reliable way of detecting employees, or preventing employees from, misusing their access to customer data. Roughly one million Australians hold an Amex card. That data is not fully deleted when their cards are no longer used. I raise this issue here because it is important that we have full transparency around issues of privacy such as this.

I rise today to congratulate GenesisCare Rockhampton on a very special milestone—10 years of caring for cancer patients in Central Queensland and more than 100,000 treatments delivered right here in our region. That is something worth celebrating because anyone who lives in regional Queensland knows how important it is to have quality health care close to home. When someone receives a cancer diagnosis, life changes in an instant. The last thing patients and their families need is the extra stress of travelling hundreds of kilometres for treatment, finding accommodation away from home or being separated from the people who support them most.

For patients from Rockhampton, Gladstone, the Capricorn Coast, Emerald and all the communities in between, having radiation therapy available locally has meant less time on the road, less time away from work and family, and more time focused on getting well. GenesisCare Rockhampton has played a vital role in making that possible. Based at Rockhampton Hospital, it has helped ensure Central Queenslanders can access high-quality evidence based radiation therapy without having to travel to Brisbane or other major centres.

I've been proud to support this service over many years. In 2015 I had the privilege of being involved in the opening of the new cancer services building at Rockhampton Hospital. At the time it was a major step forward for cancer care in Central Queensland. A decade later it is wonderful to see how much that service has grown, how many local people have been helped and how dedicated the GenesisCare team remains to patients across our region.

On a recent visit to the Rockhampton centre I was again struck by the professionalism and compassion of the staff. The milestone of 100,000 treatments is impressive, but behind that number are real people who have been able to receive treatment closer to home. That is exactly the kind of service regional communities need—practical, compassionate care delivered locally by people who understand the patients and families they are supporting.

I recognise the specialist doctors who have helped make this level of care possible, including Dr Marie Burke, radiation oncologist and medical director for Queensland; Dr Tuan Ha, radiation oncologist for Queensland; and Rockhampton based radiation oncologists Dr Grant Buchanan and Dr Rodrigo Diaz. Their expertise, leadership and commitment to regional cancer care are an important part of why patients in Central Queensland can receive high-quality treatment closer to home. I also acknowledge the leadership and support of David Watts, the general manager in Queensland; Linda Feeney, the centre leader in Rockhampton; and the nurses, radiation therapists, administration staff, allied health teams, support workers and local health partners who have contributed to the success of GenesisCare Rockhampton over the last 10 years. Your care, skill and dedication have made a real difference to thousands of Central Queensland families.

On behalf of the people of Capricornia, I congratulate GenesisCare Rockhampton on 10 years of service and the incredible achievement of delivering more than 100,000 treatments.

Some meetings change the way you see the world. This week I sat down with Melissa Dunmore, from Bacchus Marsh in our community, who travelled all the way to Canberra with Bowel Cancer Australia for their Call on Canberra advocacy event. Melissa wrote to me wanting to share her story, and I'm so glad she did because it's a story we all need to hear.

A week before her 33rd birthday, Melissa's life looked like that of any young mum. She was raising two children, just two and six years old, married to a local sparky and juggling work, study and family life the way so many of us do. Then everything changed. She was diagnosed with stage 3 bowel cancer.

In the lead-up to that diagnosis, her fatigue and anaemia were put down to women's health issues, a reflection of just how deeply the assumption runs that bowel cancer is an older person's disease and of just how hard women still have to fight to have their health taken seriously. As her condition worsened, she ended up in the resuscitation room at Sunshine Hospital, having lost a significant amount of blood. Even then, her age and lack of family history meant cancer simply wasn't on anyone's radar. She was placed on a waiting list for a colonoscopy. When the colonoscopy finally happened, Melissa woke up to four words that no 33-year-old person should have to hear: 'You have bowel cancer.'

What followed was surgery to remove her entire large colon, then six months of chemotherapy at the Melton Health Hub. For a while, the scans were clear, and Melissa began the hard work of learning to live, work and parent without a bowel. Then, 12 months later, the cancer came back. It had spread to her liver. At 35, Melissa now lives with a stage 4 diagnosis and is waiting on scan results that will shape whatever comes next for her and her family.

Sadly, Melissa is not alone in this. Fifteen thousand Australians are diagnosed with bowel cancer every year. One in eight Australians diagnosed with bowel cancer are under the age of 50, and those rates are increasing on a trajectory that looks like a mountain. It's the second-leading cause of cancer death in our country and the deadliest cancer for Australians aged 25 to 54, yet awareness of that fact still lags well behind the reality.

That gap between what we assume and what the data tells us is exactly what advocates like Melissa are working so hard to close. What strikes me most about Melissa's story is her insistence on being heard, on trusting what her body was telling her even when others didn't, and that's a lesson we should take notes from. Young people shouldn't just accept that they're too young to have bowel cancer as an explanation for their symptoms. If something feels wrong, advocate for yourself. Speak until you're taken seriously. Keep knocking on doors until you get the tests, the explanations and the treatments you need.

Melissa, your strength is extraordinary. The relentlessly practical way that you just get on with everything and the courage with which you use your experience to spread awareness for others says everything about who you are. Our community is proud of you, and I'll carry your story with me in this place.

I'd like to congratulate all the award winners from Elouera Surf Life Saving Club on another fantastic year of achievement. Specifically, I'd like to celebrate the under-14 male beach relay champions: Joshua Malouf, Pryce Adams, Tyler Parnell and Oliver Robertson—as well as the open male short-course surfboat 2025 winners: Grant Wilkinson, David Frew, Matt Norton, Matt Guy and Dan Ellice-Flint.

The most outstanding masters competitor award went to the 180s men's boat crew Greatmen. The Most Outstanding Boat Competitor went to Matt Norton, and the Most Outstanding Boat Crew went to the open men's Elouera Wilko: Matt Norton, Matt Guy, Dave Frew, Dan Ellice-Flint and Grant Wilkinson. The Most Improved Boat Crew went to the under-23 women's crew Fancy Pants: Tahlia Ingram, Casey Mood, Sienna Smith, Caitlin Smith and Grant Wilkinson. The Tim Nesbitt Rookie of the Year was Sienna Smith. The Most Outstanding Trainer was Justin Cooper, and the most improved was Khristina Verstraete. The David Chandler Award for Junior Patrol Person of the Year went to Ruby Kelly.

The Daile Banning Award for the Under 17's Athlete of the Year went to Zane Panckhurst. The Terry Trevillian Award for the Under 19's Athlete of the Year went to Bailey Duncan. The Rick Pallister Award went to the open men's boat crew Elouera Wilko. The Robert Chapman Award for the Water Man of the Year went to Nathan Neale. The Sharon Muddle Award for Water Woman of the Year went to under-23 women's boat crew Fancy Pants. The Gilchrist family awards for the most outstanding male and female beach athletes went to Peter Thoroughgood and Natalie Hay.

Patrol Person of the Year went to Khristina Verstraete, and the Patrol of the Year went to Patrol 7. The Rookie Lifesaver of the Year was Finlay Tanger. The Most Outstanding IRB Member was Amelia Kirby. The Most Improved IRB Member was Neill Hunt. The Most Outstanding U15 Club Person went to Eva Dorling, the Most Outstanding U17 Club Person was Declan Noonan, and the Most Outstanding U19 Club Person was Kaitlyn Burns.

The President's Trophy for the Most Outstanding Club Person went to Patrick Hughes. The Belinda Emmerson Franke Encouragement Award went to Bob Lees and Brett Martin. And the Ted Brooker Memorial Trophy for Outstanding Contribution in club competition and service went to Caitlin Smith.

Congratulations to everyone involved. Here's to another great year for Elouera.

Recently, I welcomed the Treasurer of Australia, Dr Jim Chalmers, to the Central Coast upon invitation from Business NSW to participate in a business breakfast at the Mingara Recreation Club. The Treasurer was the keynote speaker and discussed several aspects of the 2026 budget, including our reforms to the taxation system in relation to negative gearing and capital gains. These important reforms aim to help level the playing field for first home buyers entering the property market and to increase the supply of housing under construction across the country. Housing remains the absolute focus of the federal Labor government because access to housing is a fundamental need.

On the Central Coast, this concept is well understood by our community. Access to, and the affordability of, housing continues to be raised with me as I meet with constituents across the electorate, and I'm pleased to see significant investments being made by the federal government in this policy area, including the recently announced $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund, aimed at helping local councils and state owned utilities build essential last-mile infrastructure to unlock and accelerate housing supply.

This is on top of our already established $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which is supporting the construction of social and affordable housing across the regions of the country in desperate need of more housing supply—which brings me to my electorate on the Central Coast. The Housing Australia Future Fund is helping to deliver 21 new social and affordable housing places in Woy Woy. This exciting project, being delivered in collaboration with a Tier 1 housing provider, Pacific Link Housing, and building company Skope Constructions, will ensure desperately needed housing supply will be available to community members from mid-2027. The Treasurer, along with Assistant Minister Emma McBride and me, inspected the construction site and the progress being made to deliver these new homes, and I'm pleased to report that progress is going well and that the project will be delivered on time and within budget.

The federal Labor government continues to take a multifaceted approach to helping first home buyers enter the property market. As well as all the progress that I have mentioned in this speech, I can also update the parliament that there have now been 1,230 first home buyers in my electorate who have been able to access Labor's five per cent deposit scheme. This is a fantastic result, which our government continues to work and build upon. Whether it's through taxation reform, investments in social and affordable housing or changes to overall federal housing policy, it is really only a federal Labor government—it is this Albanese Labor government—that is taking the issues of housing affordability, housing supply and housing construction more seriously.

I want to begin by saying how immensely proud I am to represent the third-largest Persian community in the country. I'm proud of their passion not only for our country, Australia, but for their friends, their family and the fellow countrymen that they've left behind in Iran. I share their dream, the dream that one day the darkness will lift and we will be able to see a free, democratic Iran emerge.

Right now, the United States and the Iranian regime are in peace talks in Switzerland, with a 60-day negotiation underway towards a lasting agreement. Australia wants to see peace in the Middle East. But we shouldn't be naive about who sits on the other side of that table, because, at the very moment that this regime tries desperately to present itself to the world as a partner for peace, it continues to show us exactly what it is: a regime that waged war on our own country, Australia, in a violent firebombing campaign which shook our community for months. This is a regime that rapes, beheads and massacres its own people, including children and pregnant women. Days ago, an Iranian court sentenced a young singer, Parastoo Ahmadi, to 74 lashes. Her crime was singing a patriotic song without wearing a hijab in a video she shared online. Parastoo is 29 years old. Her aunt lives in Dural, in my electorate. Members of my own community know her. They've spoken with her and fear deeply for her.

When our parliament and this government make decisions about Iran, we must make those decisions on the best information available. Few people across the world understand the truth of this regime better than Reza Pahlavi. He spent decades advocating for a free, secular and democratic Iran. He has immense credibility with the Persian diaspora, which I've seen firsthand as I've met with the community. Just as in earlier times with different conflicts—we had people like Desmond Tutu coming to talk to us about South Africa and Xanana Gusmao and Jose Ramos-Horta talk to us about East Timor, pre-independence—Australia needs to hear the voice of Reza Pahlavi, and this parliament does too. He's been welcomed in the US, the UK, France, Israel and Germany.

A few weeks ago I launched a petition calling on the government to invite Reza Pahlavi to Australia. More than 1,500 people have signed it in the past two weeks. Let me share just a few of those comments: 'The government needs to invite Reza Pahlavi as a gesture of support and goodwill for the Australian Persian community. Given his growing international profile and the strong support he receives, such a visit would be highly meaningful.' 'Inviting Reza Pahlavi to Australia is a great step towards a peaceful Middle East.' 'Reza Pahlavi should be invited as a guest of our parliament so he can share his own understanding of the regime with us and meet the Persian community here who've waited so long to welcome him.'

Freedom from a regime like Iran's is never handed over; it's won when enough people refuse to stay quiet. So today I make a simple ask: sign the petition, add your name and share it with the community. I'll keep collecting signatures and making the case for as long as it takes, because Iran will one day be free. And I want Australia to be remembered as a country that stood on the right side of history with the free Iranian people.

If you want to know what makes the Hunter so special, you definitely don't start with a brochure. You start with a glass of the world's finest. Back home, we've always known the Hunter makes the best wine in the world, and the trophies are proving it again.

At the 2026 National Wine Show of Australia, De Bortoli wines won the Sweet White Trophy with its 2022 Noble One. Tyrrell's Vineyards won the semillon trophy with its 2017 Vat 1 Semillon. To the people of the Hunter, the last result feels about right. Semillon is not just something we make; it is part of our story.

What we love and what I love about the Hunter is that these wines don't happen by accident. They come from generations of families working on this land, who get up before sunrise, who watch the weather like a hawk, and who put their heart and soul into every single vintage. These awards are not just a win for a winery; they are a win for our whole community.

This year at the Hunter Valley Legends Awards, John Hordern and Brett Keeping were named Hunter Valley Wine Industry Living Legends, and Greg West was named Hunter Valley Tourism Industry Living Legend. These are people who have put the hard yards in for decades. They've grown the grapes. They've made the wine. They've opened the doors for visitors and backed the region when it really mattered.

John built Horseshoe Vineyard and helped establish Hunter Wine Services. Brett helped drive vineyard expansion right across the Upper Hunter and stood up for this amazing industry. Greg spent decades promoting the Hunter through wineries, cellar door and development and tourism events.

And the good news is the next crew is carrying on in this style as well. Stuart Hordern from Brokenwood Wines was named Winemaker of the Year. Jerome Scarborough and Liz Riley from Scarborough Wine Co. were named Viticulturalists of the Year. Ollie Margan from Margan Family Wines was named Young Achiever of the Year. Wine Fairy Events was named Tourism Operator of the Year. Rydges Resort Hunter Valley won the Accommodation Operator of the Year for the second year in a row. And Tommo and his team at Thomas Wines were also named Cellar Door of the Year.

I want to congratulate every single one of you—John Hordern, Brett Keeping, Greg West, Stuart Hordern, Jerome Scarborough, Liz Riley, Ollie Margan, the team at Wine Fairy Events, Rydges Resort Hunter Valley, Thomas Wines and, of course, De Bortoli and Tyrrell's—for those national wins. wins. This is what the Hunter does. We work hard, we keep it real, and we produce something that is world class. To all the growers, to all the winemakers, to the cellar door staff, to the tourism operators, to the families behind these wines: we say thank you.

And you know who else we say thank you to? We say thank you to the people buying these wines, giving this employment out there and getting in that little sip in of the Hunter's best and the world's best wines. Thank you for what you do. You make our region proud. Cheers!

In my electorate of Cowper, we have the largest cohort of veterans in New South Wales. There are 9,000 veterans and their families in my electorate, and I talk to them regularly. We need to acknowledge the service that they have given to our country and the freedoms that we enjoy today. We acknowledge that by going to services for Anzac Day, Remembrance Day and Vietnam Veterans' Day. We say, 'Lest we forget,' and we say, 'Thank you for your service.' But now our veterans are being thanked for their service by this government capping allied health services at $5,000 a year.

Not all veterans are broken when they come back from service, but many of them are, and many of them are ageing. I've had a waterfall of emails, phone calls and visits at my mobile offices from these veterans who are terrified that they are not going to be able to access their allied health services, physiotherapy, physiology, psychology—one of the most important things you would think this government would recognise for our veterans. This is not the way we should be treating our veterans. I urge the minister and I urge the government to reverse the decision, to scrap it, to remove the cap on allied services.

Speaking of people who have contributed to this country over the years, I note the government's decision to now reduce the private health rebate for people over 65. This is no way to thank our Australian citizens who have borne the burden and borne the costs of private health care for the entirety of their lives. They are now being told by the Australian government: 'Well, you're over 65. Thanks very much for not clogging the public health system for the past 40 years, but we're going to reduce the rebate, and it's going to cost you, as a couple, up to $1,600 a year more in a cost-of-living crisis.' I had a mobile office last week and again I received a waterfall, a deluge, of emails and phone calls. I received a visit from Mr and Mrs Spagnolo at my mobile office. They said that when this comes in, they're going to go down and cancel their health insurance and put more pressure on the system. You need to change this decision as well.

Two weeks ago, I attended Mary MacKillop College in my electorate of Sturt to witness a beautiful celebration of multiculturalism told through the stories of migration. Year 10 Mary MacKillop and Rostrevor College students collaborated to celebrate cultural diversity, share family migration histories and engage in the Italian language. Students reflected on and presented the migration journeys, struggles and triumphs of their own parents and grandparents, some of whom were in the room and who were not only deeply proud of their grandchildren but whose stories and values had shaped the students in a positive way by teaching confidence, courage, resilience and tolerance, as well as the gift of a second language. The partnership between the two colleges for this event also encouraged the students to build empathy, increase their understanding of identity and belonging, and connect with a broader cross-section of the community.

This is what migration and multiculturalism can do for us. This was multiculturalism at its best, showcased by the intelligent, kind and respectful students from Mary MacKillop College and Rostrevor College who will be our future community leaders. These students understand you can be Australian at the same time as embracing multiculturalism. The students understand that multiculturalism has shaped Australia and that multiculturalism can speak to, complement and work with core Australian values of tolerance, respect, a fair go and an open mind. I congratulate the students and their wonderful leaders, Jasmin Eckert and Shana Bennett, on what was a thought-provoking and intelligent morning.

Then, last Friday, I had the privilege of attending the assembly at the East Torrens Primary School, in Sturt, run by the reception class, to present student executives Anish and Sarah with new Australian, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. But these are not the only flags proudly displayed at East Torrens Primary School; the school is home to students from over 40 nationalities, and all the flags are proudly displayed. Students from all across the world make up this community, including students from India, Nepal, Iran, Sri Lanka and China, many of whom speak a language other than English at home. Under the leadership of principal Ms Lynette Simons, the school is building a community of successful learners through its successful intensive English language program, which offers English language support to eligible students who were born overseas in a non-English speaking country. The program helps to prepare students for a successful transition into mainstream schooling and assists them in building the confidence they need to live in Australia. At East Torrens Primary School, multicultural students know you can be Australian and speak English at the same time as celebrating all your country of birth has to offer.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

The Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 passed the Senate six months ago. I mention this because the passage of that bill was an important step in the Albanese Labor government's regulatory reform agenda. It contained 60 measures that improved efficiencies in 13 different government agencies, and these measures were designed to decrease the day-to-day regulatory burden on Australians, on industry and on service providers, and to increase government efficiency. And here we are again today for a very similar reason—to debate the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026.

Like its predecessor, this is a comprehensive bill. It contains 21 measures, amends 26 different acts, repeals two acts and will enhance the operation of 19 different government agencies. It's focused on increasing regulatory certainty and decreasing the cost of compliance for Australian businesses. The need for this was affirmed by the 2025 Economic Reform Roundtable and the Productivity Commission, and it's part of Labor's strategy to boost a more agile, robust and efficient economy. Regulatory reform like this might not be the No. 1 thing on everyone's discussion list, but it is important because it helps Australians access the essential services that they rely on more quickly and more easily.

It's useful to look at this bill in the context of the current economic debate, the current economic climate and the current economic landscape, which has been affected by the global oil shock and events beyond our shores and beyond our control. Last month the Treasurer laid down the 2026-27 federal budget. He set out the government's approach to tackling the challenges facing us by promoting responsible savings, improving intergenerational fairness and building a stronger, more productive and more resilient economy. The keyword here is 'productive'. Increased productivity is how we will boost wages and incomes, leading to improving living standards. It's how we'll grow our economy sustainably and put downward pressure on prices, by improving efficiency and by lowering costs for everyday Australians. And it's how we will strengthen our economic resilience, helping businesses and workers better adapt to global shocks and changes.

A key mechanism for achieving these aims is better regulation. The rules which people follow need to promote a fair and streamlined system. This is where this bill comes in. Let's take a look at some of the specific measures in this bill. First, the bill will update Australia's trademark and intellectual property laws to make them fit for purpose. It will implement an enhanced system for registration and management, making it less onerous for small businesses to protect their brands. In a trademark dispute, the register of trademarks is currently limited to a fixed schedule of costs to be awarded, regardless of the amount spent in legal fees. The amendments in this bill will give the registrar flexibility to determine costs, which will provide business with confidence in the system and deter poor behaviour. To maintain public confidence in the IP attorney profession, the bill will ensure that investigations and discipline of patent and trademark attorneys can progress, even if an attorney deregisters. If an IP attorney is found guilty of misconduct, it will be harder for them to reregister.

The bill also grants plant breeders a six-month grace period to renew their rights if they are behind in their annual renewal fee. Plant breeders currently lose their rights automatically if that payment is late. The amendment means that these valuable rights are not automatically lost due to a timing error due to an administrative error.

A second focus of this bill is workplace gender equality reporting. This reporting is important because it promotes transparency and accountability. We know that when women participate in our society—in our workforces—the economy does better, and it is a driver of better economic outcomes. By requiring employers to collect and publish data on pay, workforce composition and policies, it encourages organisations to identify and address gender gaps such as pay inequality and underrepresentation in leadership.

Having women in leadership roles isn't just about equality. We know that businesses that have diversity in their leadership go better. They have better outcomes and therefore become better drivers of our nation's economy. This is a practical tool for improving both workplace culture and economic outcomes. We know that advancing gender equality boosts workforce participation, improves productivity and contributes to stronger long-term economic growth.

However, this reporting can also be complex for businesses, many of whom are struggling with time. There is currently added regulatory pressure at the end of a target cycle. Businesses must complete and submit their data for the current cycle but also set new targets for the next one at the same time, increasing the overall administrative workload. This bill simplifies this process by adding a 12-month period at the end of a target cycle. This will give employers time and space to develop well-considered meaningful targets. It allows more time for a detailed review of the previous cycle, which will lead to better informed planning. Ultimately this will drive more lasting progress toward gender equality in our workplaces across this nation.

The Regulatory Reform Omnibus Act 2025 focused on promoting a 'tell us once' framework for dealing with government services. This bill backs in that concept and extends it. For example, it removes the requirement to cancel nominee arrangements with Services Australia in writing. Nominees are authorised individuals who support people receiving social security, family assistance or paid parental leave by helping them manage their dealings with Services Australia. The changes in this bill mean that nominees who wish to cancel their nominee appointment do not need to follow up a phone call with written notification. Instead, they can simply 'tell us once'. It also improves the experience of certain Commonwealth pension recipients aged 80 and over who have lived outside Australia for two or more consecutive years. The amendments mean that Services Australia will, in some instances, be able to use information it has already obtained from other sources instead. This will reduce the administrative demands on older Australians as well as on Australian consular staff, who are often involved in helping complete those certificates. These are just a few examples of the amendments contained in this bill, amendments that reduce compliance time and costs and improve Australians' experience of dealing with government services. Australians come to governments when they need help. Australians come to governments when things might not be going well. That experience should be a good one, should be an effective one, should be an efficient one. That's what this bill does.

The work doesn't stop here, however. As part of Labor's commitment to continuous improvement, the government will continue to bring forward omnibus reform bills regularly. Our work is not done in this space. We know that, where administrative burden can be removed, we know that, where costs can be made more affordable, and we know that, where pathways can be streamlined, that work must be done. As I said at the outset, it might not be the most interesting topic for many people, but it's important because it impacts on people's lives every single day.

The government is also instigating targeted reviews of sectors where there are overlapping or duplicate regulatory burdens on businesses. There are six reviews currently underway. The first is the Council of Financial Regulators investigation into financial sector regulation, which is expected to result in $961 million in regulatory burden reduction. Another example is the 'white tape' review being driven by the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. This review will identify processes that have excessive administrative and compliance burdens. It will also look into burdens imposed by larger organisations onto smaller businesses, such as contractual terms and proprietary platforms. Thirdly, the Treasury is conducting a project to modernise the National Construction Code with the aim of decreasing the number of state-by-state variations and testing AI tools. The next review concerns the Board of Taxation's Red Tape Reduction Review, which will provide a report to the Treasury by 30 June this year on ways to reduce red tape in our taxation system. In the meantime, the Council on Federal Financial Relations is reviewing approval pathways for data centres and seeking to reduce barriers to setting up new data centres. Finally, the Better Regulation Working Group is examining regulatory requirements and red tape within the higher education sector and will develop practical actions to reduce regulatory burden.

What we have seen is technology change and systems move. We have more tools at our disposal now than ever. That means making sure that, where we have the opportunity to remove barriers, to take down roadblocks, to take down administrative burdens that are in place, we do take them down. And that's what this work is. It is part of a systematic working through of so many bills, so many departments, across this very big and broad Australian government, and we're taking the barriers down. We're taking them down so that people can use government as they intend. We know that people are busy. They have busy lives. They have kids to look after. They have parents to care for. They have jobs to go to. Finding even the smallest ways to make their lives easier is important. It's not just important; it's worthwhile.

Bills such as the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 may not make the headlines tonight, but they're vital for our economy. Regulatory reform enables productivity growth. It boosts labour and it boosts capital availability for ongoing growth. Regulatory reform also directly improves people's lives in small ways that add up to big ways, with streamlined experiences meaning that people are spending less time dealing with those government services. This bill will ensure safeguards are maintained for the community, while delivering sensible and practical amendments that will positively impact individuals, that will positively impact businesses and that will positively impact government agencies and their staff. The Albanese Labor government is looking at the big picture of regulatory reform, from small daily improvements which make things simpler for everyone and everyday Australians through to the unlocking of productivity and economic growth.

This bill advances four key priorities designed to modernise and improve that regulatory environment. It aims to reduce complexity by simplifying requirements for business, making it easier for them to understand and comply with their obligations. At the same time, it seeks to improve the efficiency of government operations by streamlining regulatory and administrative processes. Ultimately, workhorses such as this bill have an important role to play in the journey of so many Australians.

I have just a few remarks on this bill. I rise to speak on the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. Specifically, I want to focus on part 3 of schedule 2 of the bill. Part 3 of schedule 2 would repeal provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act that require government departments to report advertising related expenditure in their annual reports. Now, the rationale for this is that these provisions overlap with other requirements under the PGPA rule and are duplicative. While I'm in favour of streamlining and consolidation, I'm not convinced that what's being removed here is truly redundant.

My concerns about this change are twofold. Firstly, the electoral act requires departments to provide detailed disclosure of amounts paid to advertising agencies, market research firms, polling organisations, direct-mail providers and media outlets. By contrast, the PGPA rule requires only a high-level statement confirming whether any advertising campaigns were conducted. If the answer is yes, there's a reference to whole-of-government reporting published by the Department of Finance. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with that whole-of-government report. It's valuable, it's comprehensive—but it's not the same. Anyone reading a department's annual report will no longer get insight into what's been spent on advertising, on polling and on research. They'll have to go to a second source. They'll also have to wait a couple of months because the Finance report typically isn't published until December. That delay matters. Transparency delayed is transparency diminished.

It's also not clear that this change would deliver a meaningful reduction in administrative burden, because departments will still need to collect, verify and transmit data to Finance. I acknowledge there would be some saving in not having to report under two different frameworks, multiplied by every single department. But, truly, I'm not convinced it outweighs the reduction in transparency.

My second concern is that the disclosure requirements would no longer be in primary legislation and would rely entirely on the PGPA rule, reducing the level of parliamentary oversight if they are modified or in fact removed in the future.

While there is much to welcome in this omnibus bill—there are many things in bills such as this, by their very nature—my concerns remain because they're significant. My concern about the change to disclosure requirements would make it difficult, ultimately, for me to support the bill in its current form. So I'm very pleased to note that the government has listened to my concerns and had a look at the amendments I proposed, and will now move its own amendment to remove part 3 of schedule 2. I thank the government for their constructive engagement with me when I raised this and proposed a remedy to it. I particularly want to thank Minister Farrell, Minister Gallagher and their offices. I look forward to supporting the government's amendment when I see it and, provided that's there, I will ultimately be supporting this bill.

I rise today to speak in support of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. Regulatory reform has a broad meaning. It includes changes that improve regulatory quality by enhancing the performance, cost-effectiveness or legal quality of regulations and regulated government formalities. It might involve revision of a single regulation, the scrapping and rebuilding of an entire regulatory regime and its institutions, or the improvement of processes for making regulations and managing reform.

This bill delivers regulatory reform with four themes that have efficiency and effectiveness at their heart. Firstly, schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments to support a 'tell us once' approach to government service delivery. Schedule 2 sets out amendments to improve or maintain access to government services. Schedule 3 is directed at amendments to reduce regulatory burdens, and schedule 4 is directed at amendments to increase government efficiency and improve productivity.

Effective regulation is a powerful tool for addressing challenges that are big or small. We know that this is crucial, now more than ever, for tackling things like climate change, online gambling and social media, and for unlocking the benefits of the artificial intelligence technological transition whilst managing the risks. From a reform perspective, the AI challenge in particular is difficult, because government needs to support and encourage innovation and embrace new technologies without paralysing business at the same time as it ensures appropriate oversight and regulation.

Having good processes for developing, implementing and reviewing regulation is vital to ensuring regulatory policies achieve policy goals that maximise benefits for the Australian people and minimise costs for all. Poorly designed digital regulations can both stifle regulation and fail to protect consumers. An action on environmental reforms, for example, can be compromised by overly complex regulations or regulations that are not aligned with the contemporary policy goal that is desired.

So policies have to work to their fullest capabilities and be implemented following consultation and due process—ideally, working backwards from the desired outcome. What do we need to do? How can we best achieve it? How can we ensure regulation is fit for purpose by striking the balance between protecting the Australian people and letting business get on with it in a fair environment that rewards innovation and risk taking? This is an important balance because it results in good regulation when it is struck, and good regulation helps economies succeed by setting a framework where there is alignment between business practices and societal values and goals. Good regulation also helps businesses and individuals embark on short-, medium- and long-term operational planning.

Because regulation is, first and foremost, a tool of government, it can only be most successful where there is trust in public institutions. Businesses and citizens will not be inclined to follow the rules if they don't have trust in public institutions. This is always an ongoing challenge, given fiscal pressures and the current political climate that demands urgent yet perfect action—that works perfectly for everyone all the time. This is not realistic, but it underscores the need to have clear and transparent processes, pursuant to which policy is made, which are followed consistently. A decision, regulation, policy or piece of reform may not please everyone all of the time, but, if that decision, regulation, policy or reform can be justified on the basis of solid, transparent and broad-reaching policy processes, then trust can remain even if the reaction to the outcome is mixed. An approach to regulation that is results oriented with a clear outcome is what is needed to maintain trust in government and in public institutions.

Governments came unstuck during the COVID-19 pandemic because they could not clearly communicate the outcome that the plethora of regulations and rules that faced the Australian people were designed to achieve. The policy and decision-making process was not sufficiently transparent, meaning trust was lost and the regulations that were being implemented came across as heavy handed or as regulation for the sake of it. Regulation and reform 'for the sake of it' is damaging and pointless. Regulation and reform must be anchored in a clearly defined policy outcome. Well-designed, transparent and effectively enforced rules resulting from transparent policy development illustrate the benefits of government, ultimately enhancing stability and prosperity.

The federal government's 2025 Economic Reform Roundtable is one example of policy development. It had three themes: making the Australian economy more productive; building resilience in the face of global uncertainty; and strengthening the budget and making it more sustainable

Another example of broad stakeholder consultation in policy development is that, on 4 July 2025, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance asked Commonwealth regulators to suggest simple and useful ways to improve productivity, with a focus on how businesses could better invest, grow and use new products and services, and a focus on cutting rules that were not needed.

Around 400 responses were received, with six areas of consistent feedback emerging, including regulatory simplification, making approvals and processes faster and easier to follow; the improvement of rules, guidance and forms; the enabling of digital and data capability, meaning the application of AI and other digital solutions to work more efficiently and support innovation and growth; better engagement by working closely with stakeholders through co-design, better consultation and stronger feedback loops; improved transparency and performance, involving the sharing of work plans and the use of tools to measure and report on performance; and promoting greater collaboration through aligning registers and standards and reducing barriers to sharing data between agencies. Finally, recommendations included targeted reforms directed at making changes in specific sectors that support innovation and efficiency whilst maintaining public trust.

One of the responses that was received was from the Regulator Leadership Cohort, which is made up of the heads of 22 Commonwealth regulators. The cohort identified that information sharing to enable a 'tell us once' model of connected service delivery and regulation was necessary. It identified that many businesses and individuals were still being required to supply the same information to multiple regulators and that reusing information already held by government would plainly result in lower compliance costs and faster, more consistent regulatory decisions. Then, in January 2026, the Australian Industry Group said:

Mounting regulatory burdens are adding to cost pressures at a time when business can least afford it. No amount of tech investment can compensate for poorly designed regulation …

The message from industry leaders is clear. Regulatory reform is essential if we are to deliver the higher investment levels needed to drive a return to productivity and robust growth.

Schedule 1 of this bill, therefore, is directed at the 'tell us once' approach. In doing so, it is also directed at reducing compliance costs. Australia's privacy laws and other legislative frameworks already contain important information-sharing restrictions which are vital to protecting the privacy of Australians. But settings that are too restrictive can affect the efficiency and quality of the services Australians receive when they are in need. Current legislation is too restrictive and includes unnecessarily narrow information-sharing provisions that prevent or complicate government agencies sharing information to provide services across different programs. Repeatedly having to provide the same information, tell the same story or go over the same factual history is not only annoying; it can be stressful and cause delay to the access of essential government services. Services Australia, which runs many programs that Australians rely on, is an agency that is particularly encumbered by the restrictive information-sharing settings.

Under the amendments in schedule 1 of this bill, Services Australia will have a wider set of circumstances where it's able to share information within the agency for the purposes of administering certain programs like Centrelink, Medicare and child support. This information might include name, address, bank account details, relationship status, partner details, childcare details, children's details or information about a person's circumstances or vulnerabilities. In short, schedule 1 of the bill simplifies the arrangements for sharing information between Centrelink, Medicare and child support programs so that Services Australia can provide an improved customer experience and Australians can get the support that they need.

Schedule 4 is directed at improving government efficiency and improving productivity. When individuals and businesses have to spend disproportionate amounts of time navigating regulation, it's a downward drag on productivity. The same issues are faced by Commonwealth agencies; when time is spent on layered or overly bureaucratic tasks that do not achieve proportionate outcomes, time and costs are wasted. By amending certain regulatory provisions, schedule 4 seeks to free up time and resources away from compliance and bureaucracy and redirect them into more productive measures.

An important example in this bill are the amendments to the Commonwealth's regulation of critical fuels to enable more targeted responses to shortages. This is timely and contemporary regulation, because it goes without saying that Australia's economy and economic growth depend on a consistent and reliable supply of critical fuels. Legislation currently provides several mechanisms to support the Commonwealth to ensure this reliable supply, including through the minimum stockholding obligation, which was recently raised to 50 days. Schedule 4 does two important things in this respect. Firstly, it amends the minimum stockholding obligation for fuel importers and refiners to provide the relevant minister with additional tools to manage critical fuel shortages and to ensure Australia is not hampered by temporary fuel shortages. Secondly, it facilitates information gathering to enable the Commonwealth to monitor and regulate fuel security, with the result that fuel related products critical to Australia's trucking industry—diesel exhaust fluid and technical-grade urea—will be brought within mandatory reporting requirements, and information about Australia's fuel markets and stocks will be able to be collected by the Commonwealth where there is a threat to Australia's national fuel security.

Our economy, our businesses, our primary producers, our critical emergency services and Australian citizens depend on reliable supplies of fuel. These amendments are designed to identify and eliminate potential challenges, disruptions and shortfalls in supply. Consistent regulatory reform is essential, as is the consistent testing and measuring of regulatory settings to identify areas for improvement, to ensure things are fit for purpose and to ensure regulation is efficient. This is most successful when the testing and measuring are done in consultation with key stakeholders who actually operate within the regulatory environment. The 'tell us once' aspect of this bill, part of a suite of measures the government has introduced and will continue to introduce on this theme, came about following sustained consultation with regulators and industry through the productivity roundtable.

This bill is an example of targeted regulatory reform, following solid policy development underpinned by stakeholder consultation. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 contains four schedules, but it's interesting to note that the cost of complying with federal regulation has increased from $65 billion in 2013 to $160 billion today. We have four schedules before us—amendments to simplify business regulation, amendments to streamline regulation, amendments to support a 'tell us once' approach, and technical and other amendments. There is so much to unpack in this legislation. It's a shame we don't have more speakers on this particular bill, because while it might sound fairly mundane and perfunctory—some might even cruelly suggest 'boring'—it's important. It's interesting that the government is bringing this forward when the cost of just doing business is so much more these days than it was when the coalition was in government, than it ever was before.

To the recent federal budget, if you were a businessperson and you were trying to comply and do the right thing amongst myriad regulations, amongst the mountain of paperwork, could you possibly imagine this: you hear the budget; you see the member for Rankin, the Treasurer, produce his economic blueprint for the nation; he talks about capital gains, about trust—trusts, sorry; I won't say 'trust' because there's no trust in this budget—and the changes; and then, just a few short weeks later, there's this whole raft of amendments and changes. If you're a businessperson, you're about to approach the end of the financial year and you're worrying about how to make sure you're doing everything right by your business activity statement, by the Australian Taxation Office and all the rest, and then you hear the budget and that it's changed—it's enough to send people spare.

The amount of compliance—consider, for example, the National Construction Code. The primary regulatory framework which governs building compliance in Australia spans roughly—wait for this—2,000 pages across three volumes, including the building and plumbing codes. Imagine you're a chippie, a builder, a sparky or a plumber. I know they're not all supposed to read the 2,000 pages. I tell you what; if they're working for someone, that someone has to comply and they have to meet the codes. They have to do the right thing according to the National Construction Code.

These three volumes cover commercial and multi-residential building standards, residential housing and BCA provisions, and the Plumbing Code. That sort of reading would be enough to send somebody to sleep. But, I tell you what, if you're a construction company—and it's no wonder the construction companies are going backwards, by the way—and you are running that company, you've got to comply. It's no wonder that much of the employment in this country in small businesses, medium-sized firms and particularly large businesses is taken up by people who do nothing more than compliance. That's all their jobs are—just making sure that they tick every box. Is it productive? Probably not, I would argue.

The member for Sturt, in her contribution—I've got a bit of time for the member for Sturt. She speaks on just about every piece of legislation, and that's commendable; like I said, it's a shame we haven't got more people on both sides speaking on this particular omnibus bill before us. She referred to the productivity summit—the roundtable, the big productivity roundtable. I don't know whether people remember this: it was a productivity roundtable, but, all of a sudden, the name was changed to the 'Economic Reform Roundtable'. You can't call it 'productivity', because it was just a gabfest. It was just a talkfest. It was just an excuse for the unions to come to Canberra to tell the Labor Party what it needs to be doing.

Anyway, supposedly, it 'built consensus on ways to improve productivity, enhance economic resilience and strengthen budget sustainability'. Yeah, right! It says:

It brought together a mix of leaders from business unions—

do you remember those unions? They are the ones that all you people opposite have to agree with and pay suitable tribute to—

civil society, government and other experts.

Experts—my father used to tell me an expert was a drip under pressure, but, anyway, we digress.

It was held from 19 to 21 August in Parliament House, 'led by the Treasurer and supported by other key ministers':

It focused on lifting living standards for Australians by looking at 3 main themes:

yeah, right—

yes, we do have that; we do have a lot of global uncertainty—

strengthening the budget? Let's not even go there. That budget—what a joke that was, just a few short weeks ago—

and making it more sustainable.

That was the Economic Reform Roundtable, once called 'the productivity boosting gathering'.

I'll tell you what, here are a few tips for the Treasurer and anybody who cares to listen about making sure that we get productivity—maybe block your ears for a while, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, because you're from South Australia, and you might not agree with what I'm about to say next. How you're going to boost productivity is not by buying $430 million of water out of mostly the southern connected system of the Murray-Darling Basin and then expecting to boost productivity. That water is going to flow out of the mouth of the Murray. Deputy Speaker Sharkie, I'm not verballing you. You're a good person. I know you're a rational and balanced person, a practical person, who wants the best for this country. I acknowledge that. But, sometimes, South Australians and I have different views on what we need to do in the Murray-Darling Basin. I'll tell you what we do need: we need a better, more balanced and fairer approach. When we talk productivity, when we talk compliance and when we talk regulatory reform, regulatory reform and compliance and balance and fairness do not equate to buying 86 additional gigalitres out of mainly the southern connected system and flushing it down the river system under the guise of better environmental outcomes. They do not. That equates to 34,400 Olympic-sized swimming pool equivalents. When you take 34,400 Olympic-sized swimming pools out of productive farming and agricultural use and you're still expected to grow as much food, what is that going to lead to? What do you reckon it's going to lead to? I'll tell you what it's going to lead to: it's going to lead to less food, and, when you've got less food, that equates to higher grocery prices.

None of us want to pay more for our groceries. We do not. But this is the Labor way. And yet this is just a portent of what is to come, because the Labor Party says it's going to deliver the basin plan in full and on time. That just equates to taking more and more and more water out of the river system and flushing it down the mouth of the Murray. Already, some of those river gum forests have had so much water through them that the river gums, I'm told, are dying because they've had too much water. The Australian landscape was not designed that way. It was not. The early explorers, quite often, when they were doing their explorations, carried their river craft more often than they paddled it down the streams because, at the time, many of them were experiencing a drought. We are not Europe. We cannot design our Murray-Darling system on what is in Europe.

I was just talking to Michael Murray, the general manager of Cotton Australia, before I came in here to speak, and he reminded me of the fact that many soldier settlers got in trouble in some cases and had to forfeit the blocks that they were allocated because they hadn't cleared them in time. Yet, if you're a farmer now and you're trying to clear a property, trying to get rid of a tree, good luck! You'll get in trouble through the EPBC Act. You'll get in trouble from every single angle. We've got drones overhead monitoring what you're doing on your own property. You can't do anything in this country unless you fill out a form, unless you tick all these boxes. There's a myriad of paperwork that you've got to fill out. It is just ridiculous. It is just nonsensical.

We are faced, here, with these four schedules to the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill. What we should be doing is making it easier for businesses to do business. What we should be doing is making it easier for farmers to farm. What we should be doing is making it easier for everyday, ordinary Australians to just get about their business with less government, not more. I'm not quite convinced that this omnibus bill achieves that.

This book, written by Ernestine Hill—

I've been wondering!

You've been wondering what I've been holding! It's interesting. It should actually be required reading in our schools. It's Water into Gold. It's the seventh edition, from 1946. The first edition—the subscriber's edition—was published in June 1937. Coincidentally, it's actually water damaged. Anyway, it's a really good book and it details how our irrigation systems were constructed. It talks about trade. It refers to the efforts that so many people went to to make sure that we had productivity in this nation. It is brilliant reading. I particularly like the reference to the amount of water that rolled down the Murray and past Mildura. George Chaffey, one of the early water pioneers—this figure that was given was 1,088 followed by nine zeros. That was how many gallons of it rolled past every year.

I tell you what, that amount of water these days would not be available for growing the fruits, making sure that the permanent plantings are watered and making sure that we actually provide exports for other nations to enjoy the cleanest, greenest and best produce in all of the world. That is in your state, Deputy Speaker; that is in my state; that is in the state of the member just behind me—Queensland—and, indeed, in Victoria as well. Even though the member for Corangamite sits over there, opposite, she's nodding. She understands that our states, through the Murray-Darling system, provide the world's best food. They do! And not just for global supply but for domestic supply as well.

When we talk compliance and when we talk productivity, I say this again. I heard the member for Sturt talking about climate action and that we're all obsessed—or some are—about this. The greatest moral challenge of our times is not to bedevil our farmers and to take away their water and to ruin our landscapes with wind turbines and solar factories; it's actually to grow food, because too many people in this world go to bed hungry. They do. And we can grow our food. We could grow the best food available if we only had the political will to do so.

There should be much more in this bill. I'd love another 15 minutes, although I'm probably not going to get an extension of time. I'd love to have more time to talk about what we should be doing to lift the burden on our farmers, to lift the burden on our irrigators and to lift the burden on our small business operators who need help. This bill does not provide that. That said, there are some good elements to this bill, but it doesn't go anywhere near the way it needs to to help lift compliance for our hardworking Australians.

I thank the member for Riverina for providing a bit of guidance, after he's spent so long in this place, that when you're talking about legislation you don't necessarily need to talk about the specifics of the legislation—just where it fits within the wider picture. The other thing I appreciate from the member for Riverina is a chance to talk about my farming experience again because, any chance I get, I love to talk about that.

While I run my own little contract mustering business—when I say that, I mean my bike, a ute and a pack of dogs—I also spent six or seven months driving tractors in Mildura, so I saw literally the greening of the desert. Mildura is only 300 kays from Broken Hill; it's really smack bang in the middle of the desert. It is amazing what water can do. What we have in our country is an enormous amount of land, and I think that land gives us both our productive capacity and our national spirit and that spirit of having a go. You don't want government getting in the way, and government absolutely can get in the way and hold you back, and it drives people crazy, not just on the land. We see a world these days where we fill out other people's web forms and we're doing all of their paperwork for them online.

In many ways, I think there are two types of people in the world: entrepreneurs and bureaucrats. You need both, but it is definitely the job of the government to create the conditions for those bureaucrats to thrive—and here it is. This is why I rise in support of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. I commend Minister Gallagher for the work that she has done with this bill and recognise that this work does indeed sit within the wider strategy of the Albanese government. It's a strategy that I think is summed up very much by what the Prime Minister says drives him—it's something that drives all of us in this place but that's exemplified by this government—which is 'nobody held back and nobody left behind'.

This work, even though it may not be getting the media attention that other pieces of legislation do, sits at the very heart of the government's strategy to lift living standards and, in that sense, lower the cost of living. If you can create an environment where businesses are able to provide goods or services more cheaply, you're actually helping the consumer at the same time. I think that this bill is to be commended in the sense that it fits within that wider strategy.

One thing I've come to realise after being in this place for 12 months is that it may sometimes feel like you're speaking to an empty room—even though I know the opposition are always listening very carefully just in case one of us slip up and they can use a line to bash us over the head with! Apart from that, sometimes it feels like we're speaking to an empty room. But I've figured out that configurations change. Deputy Speaker Sharkie, you're often here to listen to our speeches, and somehow the member for Dawson has been here a fair bit lately to listen to some of my orations; I'm not sure about the member for Corangamite—this could be a first!

On occasions.

On occasions—yes. I don't feel constrained to never repeat a story that I've told before, and there is an important story that I'd like to tell and that I think demonstrates what regulation is, what regulation means and why we need to be ever vigilant and to weed it out when it becomes irrelevant. It's a story I was told ages ago about a little boy that watched his grandfather cook a lamb roast. Every Sunday he'd come over and watch his grandfather prepare the roast. The grandfather would cut the two ends off the leg of lamb, put it in the oven tray and then put that in the oven. Of course, it was a beautiful thing to eat, and they were such fond memories.

One day that little boy grew up, and his grandfather came around for dinner. He said: 'You know what, Grandad? I'm going to cook you a lamb roast just like you used to cook.' And so he got out the lamb roast, cut the ends off and put it into the tray, and the grandfather said, 'Why did you cut the ends off?' And the little boy said, 'Well, Grandfather, that's what you always did when you did the lamb roast.' And he said, 'No, that's only because the pan I had was too small to fit the roast.'

And so it is with regulation. There are things we do because of tradition, because it's always been done like that, but you need to realise you need to always question, 'Why are we doing this?' This bill goes some way towards dealing with some of those old traditions. At the heart of our democratic system, to be honest, is a belief in the spirit of business and the spirit of entrepreneurialism.

I think that is why we all essentially believe in that one shared democratic experience of the expression of the individual, which, to me, is what business is. It really inspired me in business. The really good businesspeople that I that I admired weren't ever really interested in the money. The money was—someone described it to me this way—a way of keeping score. It's because they had this incredible passion, this idea to do something, and that something was always a good or a service which improved other people's lives.

The heart of this legislation and this government is to create those conditions for entrepreneurs to succeed. In one of my previous business experiences in construction I had the 'pleasure' of running a construction company. I didn't own it. In fact, the owners who had built this business long before I came along were a typical Gold Coast entrepreneurial family. They were also from the bush. They were literal cowboys who found themselves in construction, and they'd come up with this idea.

Anyone who worked in construction or engineering might know of sheet piling. Essentially, when you're digging out a basement, we come along and put in the shoring. That was theoretically to stop the hole from falling in on itself when it was dug out. It didn't always work out like that in practice, of course, but theoretically the sheet piling was there to keep the ground solid.

And they had come up with this idea. In fact, they had developed their own system, their own design, which they manufactured and installed. They spent tens of thousands of dollars securing the intellectual property, which has relevance to what I'm talking about here: providing more reliable and predictable systems for registering and managing trademarks and IP rights. They had this intellectual property, which they spent tens of thousands or more—hundreds of thousands—of dollars developing and patenting.

The point of those patents was not just to protect their business and their intellectual property; it was also to protect consumers. There was an example I remember of a competitor who had tried to copy their system, didn't get it right and had put these sheets into the ground. I can remember this story got a bit of media at the time. They were working next to a post office in Sydney somewhere, and the ground started to cave in. There was a post office next door, and the building started to literally shake. As the glass windows were smashing around these poor workers and customers as they fled the building, the hole started to fall in on itself. And that's because they were using a ripped-off system that provided no protection to the consumer and no protection to the business. Fundamentally, intellectual property is so important for those two reasons. It is not only there to protect your business; it is also there to protect the consumer from cheap imports.

I think it is also worth mentioning that this bill is not just about business, however. It is also about dealing with Centrelink and making it easier for people to deal with Services Australia. Again, it is about helping the provider, in this case the government, Services Australia, and helping the consumer, in this case the customer of Services Australia. All of us in my electorate know how frustrating it is, and that's why it is good to see that this sits in the overall strategy of this 'tell us once' approach to Services Australia. We all know, from dealing with constituents, just how frustrating it is when you're dealing with Centrelink at the best of times, but, when you've got to keep going back and giving them information that Centrelink really should be able to get from somewhere else, it's incredibly frustrating. In fact, it can be more than frustrating. It can be really quite psychologically debilitating. I'm sure we've all got constituents who come to us at the end of their tether because Services Australia have just been obtuse, I guess, in the way that they deal with people. This is going to, as I say, make it easier for Services Australia. It's going to provide relief to that operation and to the people working in that operation, but it's also going to provide relief to the people that actually have to deal with superannuation.

While the configuration of this chamber has changed midspeech, it's good to see there are some people here who may not be elected here but are here and might be able to follow the flow of the story. But I think it is fundamental to the Albanese Labor government's philosophy of 'nobody held back and nobody left behind' that we take this approach to make life easy for business, to make life easy for consumers, to make life easy for government departments and to make life easy for clients of government departments. At the heart of the Albanese government's strategy is to not rest on our laurels.

Incidentally, the member for Riverina left at one point, but, for those who have been following along, he made a point about business costs, and he used 2013 as a base. I can't remember the exact number he said, but they started off at about $60 billion, and now it's grown since 2013. It just made me wonder: why did he use 2013 as a base? That was actually when they took office last time. So, if business costs grew to such a big number that he felt it worth mentioning in this chamber, why didn't he use 2022 as the base? Why did he go back to 2013? It makes me think that the greatest rise was in that period from 2013. Now, I don't know for sure, but it is curious why he used that as a base.

This is where I'd like to finish. Fundamentally what this government are dealing with is not just problems that we've been left with from 2013 but also problems that we've been left with from over the last 30 years of mainly coalition rule. We have seen in general where this legislation sits. We have seen coalition governments follow a policy of neoliberalism—essentially privatisation—economic rationalism and unfettered free trade that has left working-class communities struggling. It has been left to the Albanese government to try and fix that up. So we are not only using legislation like this to make life easier for business but also making it easier for workers to find affordable housing, which ultimately will help business. We're making it easier for businesses to use cheaper energy—through renewable energy, mind you—and we are making it easier for our businesses, our foundational manufacturing, to compete against state owned enterprises.

I commend the bill to this House in the context in which it sits, which is the Albanese government's philosophy of nobody left behind and nobody held back.

I rise to support the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026, and I accept at the outset that the words 'regulatory reform omnibus bill' are unlikely to start a stampede in the public gallery. They do not sound like the beginning of a great national moment. They sound like something you might be prescribed if sleep has become a problem. But for anyone who has run a business, worked in a trade, dealt with a government form, waited on a refund or had to tell the same thing to three different parts of the same system, this bill is real and matters more than I think anyone will fully understand. This is about making the machinery of government a bit less painful, and that is not a bad ambition.

I come to this debate as someone who has spent most of my time, most of my working life, dealing with systems from the outside. I've said three times this week, I think, that I was an electrician before I became a lawyer. I've pulled cable through commercial buildings, underground car parks and mine sites, and I have worked with people who did not have the time for forms that asked the same question three times in slightly different ways, specifically take 5s. I've also worked as an industrial lawyer, where I saw how the rules protect people when they are clear, enforceable and properly targeted, and how they can become a burden when they are outdated, duplicated or badly designed.

Good regulation is not about having more rules for the sake of it; it is about having rules that do the job. A good switchboard does not need every circuit doubled up just because someone was nervous in 1993. It needs to be safe, clear, labelled properly and capable of doing what it was designed to do. The same principle applies here. Good regulation protects people. It supports fair competition. It gives workers, consumers and businesses confidence.

Bad regulation does something else. It protects no-one, helps no-one and survives mainly because everyone assumes someone else understands why it is there. That is how you end up with rules that require people to repeat information, wait out appeal periods that no-one is using or comply with reporting cycles that do not align with the real world. At that point, the process has stopped serving the public and has started serving itself, which is usually the first sign that parliament should get involved with a mop and a screwdriver.

This bill is part of the government's broader work to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, improve productivity and make Commonwealth administration work better for Australians and Australian businesses. There is a habit in this place of talking about productivity as though it is created by saying 'productivity' loudly enough, but productivity is not created by slogans. It is created by practical changes, faster decisions, clearer rules, fewer duplicated processes and less time spent asking people to provide information the government already holds. Every unnecessary form, every avoidable delay, every duplicative reporting obligation is not just a nuisance; it is time and money that could have been spent serving customers, paying workers, investing in equipment or simply getting home on time.

That is why this bill is worth supporting. It does not pretend that regulatory reform is exciting. It just accepts that the boring bits of government still have to work. This amends a range of Commonwealth acts. Some of those amendments are technical, some are administrative and some will only affect a small number of people, but that is often how good government works. It is not always a press conference. Sometimes it is fixing the clause that has been annoying everyone for 15 years.

The first set of reforms deals with intellectual property. For small businesses, intellectual property can be the difference between having a defensible product and watching someone else trade off their work. It gives the registrar of trademarks greater flexibility to award costs in contested trademark proceedings. At the moment, the registrar is generally limited to scheduled amounts, and that can be fine in ordinary processes, but it is not fine when a party behaves unreasonably, drags out the process or uses volume and delay as a commercial tactic. Anyone who has been near litigation knows the strategy. You bury the other side in paper, increase the cost and hope they give up before the merits of the case are properly tested. That is not justice; that is just attrition with a letterhead. These amendments will allow costs to be awarded in a way that better responds to poor conduct in the proceedings. That is a sensible safeguard for businesses that rely on the trademark system.

The bill also closes a loophole for patent and trademark lawyers. If a lawyer is subject to disciplinary action, they should not be able to avoid scrutiny by simply deregistering. A professional standards regime that can be escaped by walking out the door is not much of a regime at all. These amendments allow complaints and disciplinary processes to continue in relation to conduct that happened while the person was registered. They also allow different re-registration requirements where appropriate. That is a basic integrity measure.

The bill also makes sensible changes for plant breeders' rights. I will concede plant breeders' rights are not the subject most people in Moore raise with me while I'm at the shops. No-one has stopped me near the apples at Coles to demand urgent reform on the PBR renewal arrangements. But, for people who use the system, it is important. Under the current framework, a missed renewal payment can have serious consequences. This bill introduces a grace period and simplifies the process. That is fair. Missing an administrative deadline should not automatically wipe out years of work where the problem can be fixed in a reasonable way.

The bill also modernises references to international trademark arrangements, including the Madrid protocol and the Nice Classification system, so that Australian law remains aligned with systems used internationally. Again, that is not glamourous but it is necessary. Businesses operating across borders should not be forced through avoidable legislative lag because our references have not kept up with the international framework.

The bill also streamlines the duty assessment process for importers. At the moment, where an importer receives a negative preliminary decision from an antidumping commissioner in relation to a partial refund, there can be a mandatory 30-day appeal period even where the importer has made clear they do not intend to appeal. In practical terms, everyone knows the importer is not appealing, but the system still stands around for a month looking at its watch. This bill allows the process to move on when the importer confirms they will not seek a review. That means faster finalisation and faster refunds where the importer is entitled to a payment. For a business managing cash flow, 30 days can be significant. It can be the difference between paying suppliers comfortably and making the awkward phone call no business owner wants to make. This is the kind of reform that should not be controversial. If the appeal is not happening, stop pretending we need to wait for it.

The bill also makes changes to business reporting. It aligns reporting under the New Eligible Drama Expenditure scheme, with calendar-year reporting used in other Australian content arrangements. That might sound small, but everyone who has had to report under overlapping schemes knows the irritation of different reporting periods that serve no obvious purpose. If one part of the system asks for the calendar year and another part asks for the financial year, the result is not better regulation; it is just more spreadsheets. I am not opposed to spreadsheets, but, like most things in life, they should exist for a reason.

The bill also improves workplace gender equality reporting. It introduces a 12-month window between target cycles, so employers have time to assess the results of one cycle before setting the next. That is sensible. Gender equality targets should not be rushed out as a box-ticking exercise. Employers should be looking at their data, understanding what worked and what did not, and then setting targets that mean something. A target with proper analysis is more useful than a target set because the form is due on Friday.

The bill also harmonises reporting periods for public sector and private sector employers. It will allow for more comparable data across sectors. Better data should lead to better decisions, and that is the point.

The next part of the bill continues the government's move towards a 'tell us once' approach. That phrase should be understood in plain English. If you've already told the Commonwealth something and the Commonwealth is able to lawfully and securely use that information, you should not have to keep telling it again. People in my electorate office in Joondalup do not come in because they are excited about an administrative process; they come in because something has gone wrong, something is delayed or they cannot get a clear answer. Often, the problem is not that the government has no information; the problem is that the information is sitting in the wrong part of the system behind the wrong door, requiring the person to prove the same thing again. This bill takes further steps to reduce that duplication. It allows certain goods covered by a tariff concession order to be exempt from dumping and countervailing duties in particular circumstances without needing a further administrative decision. Again, the principle is simple: where the substantive basis has already been established, do not build a little administrative roundabout just so everyone has to drive around it.

The bill also improves the operation of the Healthcare Identifiers Act. It allows date of death information to be disclosed in appropriate circumstances to healthcare providers and health administration entities. That allows patient records to be closed properly, and it avoids unnecessary work and cost. This is one of those areas where the law needs to catch up with ordinary reality. If a healthcare provider is trying to maintain accurate records, the system should not force them into a scavenger hunt.

The bill also changes nominee cancellation processes in social security, family assistance and paid parental leave law. At present, a nominee who wants to cancel an arrangement may need to notify Services Australia in writing. That requirement might look tidy on paper, but it can create delay and difficulty in real life. In some situations, including family and domestic violence, a nominee arrangement may no longer be appropriate or safe. The system needs to be able to respond quickly. If a person has clearly communicated that they want an arrangement cancelled, the Commonwealth should not respond by saying, 'Thank you; now please provide that in writing.' That is not accountability; that is bureaucracy doing an encore.

The proof-of-life reforms are also welcome. These requirements apply to certain older pension recipients who have been outside Australia for a continuous period. The purpose is understandable. The Commonwealth must ensure payments are made only where a person remains entitled to them. But the process should not be more burdensome than is necessary. The bill allows Services Australia to rely on information it already holds in certain circumstances and provides more flexibility on how proof-of-life certificates are completed. There is a serious policy objective here, but there is also a very human one. Elderly Australians should not be forced through unnecessary procedural steps if the government already has a reliable basis to verify the information.

The bill also removes redundant legislation. That includes repealing acts that no longer serve a practical function because the schemes or bodies they dealt with have been either merged, sold, deregistered or otherwise overtaken by events. There is no public benefit in keeping dead law on the statute book as a kind of legislative museum exhibit. Parliament should be prepared not only to pass laws but to clean them up.

This bill also improves the Australian Human Rights Commission's complaints process by removing an adverse-allegation notification requirement that has not worked as intended.

Procedural fairness is important. I say that as a lawyer and as someone who has represented working people in workplace disputes. But procedural fairness must be directed to the people who are actually affected by the process and who have a proper role in it. The current notification requirement can cause confusion and stress for people who are not respondents, are not subject to legal consequences and cannot formally respond in the complaint process. Removing that requirement is not weakening fairness; it is recognising that unnecessary notices can create more confusion than protection.

The bill also assists former ADF members by expanding access to an account-based pension product through the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. Former defence personnel should have appropriate choice in managing their retirement income. This amendment gives eligible former ADF members another option without forcing them into it. That is a practical and respectful reform.

Finally, the bill makes several technical amendments to customs and antidumping law. It clarifies the definition of a 'subsidy' to better align with international obligations. It creates a slip rule so that obvious clerical and typographical errors can be corrected without requiring unnecessarily lengthy processes. It also clarifies that weighted average calculations can apply where there is only one transaction in the relevant period.

I appreciate that this may not set hearts racing across the nation. But, for people dealing with custom processes, antidumping reviews and project based transactions, clarity in law is not academic. It affects decisions, costs and certainty. There is something to be said for a parliament that wants to fix the boring bits. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I thank the member for ceding the floor to me for this occasion. I rise to speak in support of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026. This is obviously a practical, targeted bill. It's not likely one that will grab any headlines, but it does some deeply important things—it makes life easier for Australian businesses, supports Australian households and ensures that our trade settings actually reflect both our economic interests and our values.

At its core, this legislation amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to effect a number of tariff changes already progressed through proposals considered by this House. What it means in plain terms is that we are modernising our tariff system. We're removing unnecessary red tape, aligning rates across agreements and ensuring our laws keep pace with the way in which we want to see trade work. That matters because, for communities like mine in Hasluck, trade policy isn't abstract. It shows up in the cost of living, it shows up in the viability of small businesses and it shows up in whether our local economy can grow and compete.

This modernisation of our tariff system is part of a broader agenda of the Albanese government—one that we've been pursuing by recognising that trade policy must be proactive, strategic and grounded in the realities of a changing global economy. We've seen that most clearly through the work of the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Minister Don Farrell, whose efforts to restore and expand Australia's trade relationships have delivered real benefits for Australian exporters and, importantly, for jobs in communities like mine in Hasluck. From rebuilding access to critical markets to advancing new trade opportunities, this government is determined to ensure that Australian businesses aren't left behind but, instead, are positioned to compete and succeed.

These agreements and renewed partnerships are not abstract achievements either. They do translate into opportunity. They mean stronger demand for Australian goods, more certainty for exporters and a more stable environment for investment. Across Western Australia, particularly in a growing electorate like mine in Hasluck, it matters for local jobs, for small and medium enterprises and for future growth.

Since coming to office in May 2022, the Albanese government has driven a renewed trade agenda, bringing into force the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement, the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement and more recently the Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement while advancing, of course, the landmark free trade agreement with the European Union and strengthening our engagement through regional agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. At the same time, we've secured new opportunities beyond traditional trade agreements, including Australia's association with the European Union's Horizon Europe program—the EU's flagship research and innovation fund of 93.5 billion euros—which gives Australian businesses, researchers and industries direct access to one of the most significant pools of global investment and collaboration seen anywhere in the world.

We're also seeing new opportunities emerge from our engagement with partners beyond our traditional markets. Our work with the EU in improving pathways for Australian participation in European funding programs and investment frameworks opens the door for Australian businesses, researchers and industry to access that significant pool of capital and collaboration. This is absolutely more than trade flows; it's about securing Australia's place in the next generation of global economic partnerships.

When we talk about aligning tariffs and our values, we're also talking about ensuring that our domestic settings complement the work that we're actually doing internationally, be it through these agreements, partnerships or strategic engagement. In that way, our businesses can fully take advantage of the opportunities. One of the most significant elements of this tariffs bill is the abolition of what we call 'nuisance tariffs'. These are tariffs that, on paper, sit at around five per cent but in practice are often avoided through concessions or free trade agreements. It means businesses are already spending time and money just to get to what is effectively a zero rate—in fact, I think it costs the government more than what they collect to administer.

This bill cuts through that inefficiency by permanently setting the duty rate to 'free' for around 500 tariff classifications. In doing so, it simplifies the system and it removes the need for businesses to navigate complex admin processes just to achieve an outcome that's already the norm. That might sound technical, but in Hasluck I hear from retailers and importers—we just had a recent delegation of distilleries head to Hong Kong, and they have gone to Singapore in the past. This matters because it reduces that admin burden they would otherwise face. Whether it's a family run business in Midland bringing in homewares, a beauty supplier in Ellenbrook sourcing personal products or a small distributor dealing in everyday goods, these businesses don't have compliance teams; they have owners who are already wearing 10 hats. They've told me consistently that time spent dealing with unnecessary paperwork is time they don't get to then spend on growing their business.

When we simplify tariffs, we're not just adjusting a schedule and legislation; we're freeing up time and reducing costs for real businesses in our community. We should also be clear about the economic intent. By removing these low-value, high-complexity tariffs, we are streamlining Australia's trade framework and reducing compliance burdens across the board. That aligns with what I've said in this place before—that good economic policy is not just about big announcements; it is about removing friction and making it easier for businesses to do business. That is exactly what this bill does.

The bill also addresses issues that go beyond economics and speaks directly to our geopolitical views. It extends the temporary additional duty applied to goods from Russia and Belarus. That measure was introduced in response to the invasion of Ukraine, and it remains part of the international community's broader response. As I say, it's not simply about tariffs; it's about standing with like-minded nations in defence of sovereignty and in support of the rules based international order. It sends a message. At the same time, the bill continues concessional tariff treatment for goods from Ukraine, extending duty-free access for a further period. That ensures Ukraine can continue to participate in international trade while under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

For me and for many in Hasluck, these measures resonate deeply. Our community is diverse. It is multicultural. It includes families with strong connections to Europe, including those affected directly by the conflict in Ukraine. I will mention a lovely elderly woman who attends the Bassendean markets, for every session that is held. She stands there not with an elaborate stall but simply with a tiny trestle table, selling the gorgeous honey cake that is famous in Ukraine. She serves it up by slice and people eagerly purchase it. Every cent she raises from her little tiny stall goes directly back to the families in Ukraine. These gestures, from the very local level to businesses more broadly, all see the value we're speaking to through this bill. It reflects both our economic interests and our humanitarian values.

Finally, there are a number of technical amendments, particularly in relation to goods under agreements such as the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement. These changes remove provisions that have already fulfilled their purpose, ensuring that the legislation remains clear, streamlined and fit for purpose. This reflects a broader theme keeping our laws up to date and eliminating unnecessary complexity.

When I speak in this place, I often return to a simple principle— that we, as a government, should make things easier for people, not harder. For communities like mine in Hasluck, that principle matters, be it running a small business or dealing with cost-of-living pressures. This bill might deal in tariff schedules and technical amendments—I'm sure no-one is going to read these speeches—but it has a real impact that is tangible. It means fewer forms for small business, more opportunity for international oriented manufacturers in Hazelmere and fewer costs passed on to families at the checkout. It is a clearer, more efficient trade system that supports jobs and growth, and it's also a reminder that economic policy and international solidarity can, and should, sit side by side. I support the bill, which, as I said, is another way in which we are making life easier for all Australians.

It is said that one in every four jobs in Australia is reliant on trade, and perhaps, if we really gave that a lot of thought, it would actually be a lot higher. Three million full-time equivalent Australian jobs, or thereabouts, rely on international trade. They're big numbers. Trade related activities underpin more than a third of national economic output and support international supply chains. You have many key sectors in this regard. You've got trade supported employment, including mining and resources. There we had the interesting situation in the parliament this week where the teals and One Nation were lining up to take away the situation where mining gets the diesel fuel rebate. They wanted to cap it.

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. A hundred per cent, Member for O'Connor. Interesting that One Nation would, in fact, do just that. The teals and the Greens wanted to cap the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme for the most profitable mining companies. I don't need to tell you, Member for O'Connor, that the mining industry keeps the lights on. I don't need to tell you that the royalties and the taxes that mining pay keep a lot of state public schools operating and keep a lot of state public hospitals providing health services for Australians in Kalgoorlie, in Wagga Wagga and right across the nation. The mining industry is contributing about 9.9 per cent of the nation's gross domestic product—nearly 10 per cent. I was fascinated to hear Tania Constable's defence and full throated arguments in favour of what the mining industry is doing for this country and, indeed, why capping the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme is such a bad idea, questioning why the teals and Greens and One Nation—One Nation!—are getting in cahoots with one another to do this, or to attempt to do this.

Getting back onto key sectors driving trade supported jobs, there is agriculture. Our farming produce—food and fibre—is the best in the world. Our farmers are the best environmentalists on the planet. They're bedevilled often by those who simply do not understand the efforts they go to to make sure that their land and water is sustainable. If they soil the soil—pardon the pun—then, quite frankly, they're not going to have a future, so they make sure that they are doing the right thing by the dirt underneath their feet and by the water that flows and falls onto their ground.

We should be producing more. We're not going to be producing more to support our trade, to uphold bills such as the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026, if we continue to buy water out of the Murray-Darling Basin. Just last week, another 86 gigalitres were taken out of productive use. It cost the government $430 million at a time when national debt is heading, spiralling, plunging, lurching—call it what you like—towards a trillion dollars.

Education and tourism are crucial service based export sectors bringing international revenue. Logistics and ports—interestingly, the maritime supply chain, on its own, supports nearly 700,000 jobs across this nation. The coalition will support the passage of this bill through the House of Representatives, but we do think it needs more work and we do feel as though it should be referred to a Senate inquiry because, like with a lot of Labor bills, the devil is in the detail. And there are always elements of Labor bills brought forward that you simply can't trust—that you simply know don't pass the sniff test.

Interestingly, though, whilst I went through this particular piece of legislation—as I always do—I found that there was quite some consultation. That's almost rare for Labor. Stakeholder consultation—how interesting! Submissions made to stakeholders involved in the processes overseen by Treasury have been used as the central sources of stakeholder feedback on the measures at the core of this bill, and the list is interesting. There's the Business Council of Australia, looking after big business. There's the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Forest Products Association. Thank you. Well done. We need to consult more with our forestry people. Talking of sectors which get maligned, there's one of them. And it was interesting—I had a very productive meeting with Carlie Porteous from the southern Softwoods Working Group this morning about what we could and should be doing in this regard. There's Bridgestone, Nestle, Levi Strauss, Optical Distributors and Manufacturers Australia, Bicycle Industries Australia, We Ride Australia, Sosteneo Infrastructure Partners, Ecolift, Australian Oilseeds Federation and the Australian Music Association—and that's fair enough too, because we do produce some fine music. That's noting that Daryl Braithwaite is retiring from live performances. That's such a shame. We could all sing along to 'The Horses'—but moving right along. We do export a lot of music, and that's to be admired.

But then there are these two, interestingly. Wait for this one: the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. Of course they were consulted. But it gets better. They consulted the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, the CFMEU. Why they were consulted, I'm not quite sure, although I suspect you're going to talk about maritime and forestry. Well, all well and good. However, interestingly, I also note a report by the ABC—one of the city based ABCs that One Nation wants to stop, but I digress—of Tuesday 16 June, where the second paragraph reads thus:

Criminal activity inside the construction Union …

That's the CFMEU. It goes on:

… had cost taxpayers in Victoria an estimated $15 billion, an investigation by Geoffrey Watson SC found in February.

I don't know why the government would really want to consult the CFMEU on what it claims to be necessary legislation, when the CFMEU are running around the state of Victoria—which is chaotic, by the way—and siphoning, for want of a better word, an estimated $15 billion through criminal activity inside the construction sector. It's no wonder that you can't get anything done or built in Victoria when you've got the union responsible doing those sorts of nefarious activities. It's no wonder. The only way that that's going to be nipped in the bud, although I think the bud is quite large, is to get Jess Wilson and Danny O'Brien from the Liberals and Nationals to lead a coalition government after November.

This bill is largely technical. We heard that from the member for Hasluck in her contribution. It's practical in nature. It incorporates into the Customs Tariff Act 1995 a number of tariff changes that have already been effected through customs tariff proposals. It gives effect from 1 July to the government's second tranche of so-called nuisance tariff removals. There are 497 of these. It follows a first tranche of tariff removals that occurred in 2024, when 457 of them were abolished. The government argues that these tariffs raise minimal revenue and apply to goods that already often enter Australia duty free under free trade arrangements or agreements or other forms of concessions. Secondly, and importantly, the bill extends Australia's duty-free treatment for goods produced or manufactured in Ukraine.

Ukraine was illegally and immorally invaded by Russia on 24 February 2022. A superpower such as Russia would have thought that it could just roll in to little Ukraine and take over within a matter of hours, if not days, if not weeks. There's something to be said for the spirit of Ukrainian people. There's something to be said for the geography of Ukraine. And there's something to be said for the fact that that dispute, that war, is ongoing, four long years after that intrusion. I want to pay tribute to His Excellency Vasyl Myroshnychenko, who is the Ukrainian Ambassador to Australia. I've had a number of discussions with him about providing access to coal of all things to help heat homes and fire up factories in Ukraine—they need every bit of help they can get—and access to the Bendigo built Bushmaster, which would provide them with the military might to repel the dastardly invasion by Russia. Interestingly, in recent times, we've seen a pact between Russia and North Korea. This is not good. The world is a troubled place at the moment. It truly is. We've got the Gazan situation, we've got Iran, we've got Ukraine, and we need strong leadership. We really do. We absolutely do. I wish Andy Burnham all the best if he is to take over from Sir Keir Starmer as the next United Kingdom prime minister, because, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and across Europe—we need strong leadership.

The Morrison government established this tariff relief in relation to Ukraine in 2022. The measure has since been extended, and I acknowledge the government for that. The current bill will continue the duty-free treatment for a further two years, to 3 July 2028. To complement this change, there will be simplification and Ukrainian tariff relief. Notwithstanding that, the instigation of a Senate inquiry should be able to extract significant and worthwhile information about the detail, the timing, the consultation and the benefits or otherwise behind the measures, all the measures, in this particular bill, especially in respect of the hundreds of new tariffs that have been selected for abolition from 1 July 2026—because you can't just take Labor on their word. We can't just roll over and say, 'All's well and good.' There has to be more clarity. Perhaps, if the Labor government weren't so inclined to rush to their union mates in the workers' union, the Manufacturing Workers' Union, and the CFMEU, there'd be a little bit more trust from this side. But there's not, and so we go forward. That's why a Senate inquiry is necessary. That's why there needs to be more detail eked out of the proposal before us.

All that aside, the passage of this bill will go through the House of Representatives. Everything always does if you've got a 50-plus seat majority. But with that majority comes responsibility. And, with that responsibility, it is hoped that, in the upper house, this is put before a Senate inquiry so the customs tariff amendment bill can be properly and appropriately scrutinised.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

I rise today to speak about a fundamental shift in how the government serves the people who live outside of our major cities. I represent the electorate of Bullwinkel, which of course has a peri-urban section and also a rural section. For nearly a decade, regional Australians watched a coalition government treat regional investment like a game of political pork-barrelling. They would drop a chunk of money into a selective seat, issue a breathless press release and call it a day. The tragedy is that so many of those promised projects were never actually delivered. They left behind a mess of unfulfilled promises and neglected infrastructure.

The Albanese Labor government are doing things differently. We don't just build a single road or hand out a single grant and walk away. We believe in systemic, lasting progress. We are delivering across every single program and across every single portfolio to ensure that regional Australians are structurally considered in everything that we do. Our guiding principle is simple: no-one held back and no-one left behind.

Nowhere is this holistic approach more critical than in regional health care. We have committed to the largest investment in the history of Medicare to ensure quality, affordable care is a right and not a privilege, and is not dictated by your postcode. We have expanded bulk-billing incentives, and the results speak for themselves. Before our reforms, only about 2,000 general practices nationwide fully bulk-billed patients. Today that number has grown by 1,300 practices, and it increases every single day. By 2030, nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed.

Furthermore, our Medicare urgent care clinics have been an absolute game changer. All 137 clinics have been opened across the country, and 47 of them are located right in regional, rural and remote areas, and they are providing free top-tier care to families where they need it the most. I'm also very proud to have opened a Medicare urgent care clinic in my own electorate of Bullwinkel, in the Shire of Mundaring and in the suburb of Mundaring. That has now seen well over 3,000 patients since opening only three months ago. Located near the Great Eastern Highway, it services a lot of the peri-urban and regional suburbs where they need it. We know that attracting healthcare professionals like myself to the regions is a long-term challenge, and that is why we're investing more than $600 million to grow the regional workforce, training a record number of GPs and waiving HECS debt for doctors and nurses who commit five years to working in our regional communities.

Our support doesn't stop at health. We are tackling the housing supply crisis head on. In the 2026-27 budget, I'm proud to highlight our new $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund under the Housing Support Program. This includes $500 million specifically dedicated to local enabling infrastructure in regional Australia. This is real, practical support to unlock regional housing supply. We are backing this up with significant infrastructure investments: $7.2 billion for the Bruce Highway, $2.8 billion for the ARTC freight rail projects and a doubling of Roads to Recovery funding to $4.4 billion, with 85 per cent of that funding going directly to our regions.

In my own electorate of Bullwinkel, I was incredibly proud to announce an election commitment to deliver an early childhood education centre in the Shire of Mundaring. For-profit providers often ignore regional areas, but our government is stepping up with capital grants to build not-for-profit centres where they are desperately needed, giving regional kids the best possible start to life.

We know that regional families are feeling the squeeze of the cost of living. This is why our cost-of-living relief is broad and impactful. We have delivered tax cuts for every single worker, every single taxpayer, with another round of relief hitting our pockets in July. We've supported a wage rise for minimum and award wage workers. We've delivered a 20 per cent cut to student debt, helping young people in particular. We've capped all PBS medicines at $25 a script or less. We've also provided a 30 per cent discount on home batteries, to permanently drive down power bills.

For our regional industries and older Australians, we are delivering. We have unlocked a landmark $10 billion fuel security and resilience package to safeguard our energy and fertiliser supply sovereignty, and we're investing an additional $3.7 billion in aged care, supporting the 500,000 older Australians in rural and remote areas with better facilities, including more home-care packages and reduced waiting times.

Productivity and prosperity rely on working smarter. We've invested in regional fee-free TAFE, establishing 56 regional study hubs, including the one at Northam, which I was proud to open with Minister Jason Clare. We're also upgrading digital connectivity through our $1.1 billion Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia, and we're investing heavily in health, housing and education. We're securing the future of regions.

The Albanese Labor government isn't interested in cheap press releases. We are interested in long-lasting real delivery. We are cleaning up the mess of the past—when the regions were forgotten—and building a stronger, fairer regional Australia for tomorrow.

I'd like to add that I have invited ministers to the rural section of my electorate of Bullwinkel, and at least 16 ministers have come out to the region to see it for themselves, including Minister McBain; Senator Don Farrell, to talk to Northam people about trade; Minister Jason Clare, who, as I said, opened the Northam Study Hub together with the York Study Hub; Minister for Agriculture Julie Collins, to see and talk to the grain growers and the farmers in that area about the fuel crisis and the fertiliser issue; Ged Kearney, to look at social services and women's health and refuges; Patrick Gorman, to look at Services Australia; and Jenny McAllister, to talk about the regional aspect of the NDIS program and their outreach program. The Albanese Labor government are getting out and about into regional areas and delivering. I commend these achievements to the House.

I rise to speak about the Regional Ministerial Budget Statement 2026-27. We are seeing a great divide in this country between metropolitan Australia and regional Australia, and no greater is that gap between regional South Australians and metropolitan South Australians than in health care, particularly healthcare outcomes. We're all familiar with the Indigenous healthcare gap and the 14 metrics that this government has set, the majority of which are actually going backwards. But we're seeing a significant growing gap in regional health care. Whether that is access to GPs, access to surgeries, even access to things like pharmacies, we are getting left behind under the Albanese Labor government. Only last week, the birthing services in both Jamestown and Crystal Brook stopped; they are being diverted to Port Pirie. At the same time, we saw a state Labor minister say that your postcode shouldn't determine your healthcare outcomes. Well, that flies in the face of what we're seeing in South Australia right now. We had birthing services close in Kapunda only two months ago, and now we understand that it's permanently closed.

As I said yesterday in the House, I'm calling on Mark Butler and the state health minister to address these issues we see in regional South Australia immediately. It is completely unacceptable that if you grow up in and live in the regions, you have worse healthcare outcomes. You do not live as long if you grow up in regional South Australia today as compared to our city cousins.

Child care is an enormous handbrake on the economic growth in our regions. The electorate of Grey has the lowest access to child care in the entire country. One-third of families in Grey do not have access to child care. As I said before, we have a shortage of nurses in the electorate of Grey. Well, there are plenty of nurses that can't get into the workforce because they can't get their kids into child care. The Albanese Labor government talks about universal child care. Well, it's certainly not the case in my region. The problem is that the economic model of our childcare system is based on fees per kids in a centre. A childcare centre cannot be profitable unless you have a minimum of 60 kids in your centre. Well, in my electorate, we have a lot of towns with between 100 and 500 people. In those towns the childcare model simply does not work. That is why the electorate of Grey has the lowest access to child care in the nation. It's simply not good enough. The one-size-fits-all approach to child care does not work in small communities. We have a universal education system in this country, and I'm proud of that. When a community gets smaller, even if there are eight kids left in that community, we still seem to keep the school open, but it does not apply to our healthcare system. It's not good enough.

I condemn Labor's 2026 budget. For regional South Australians, this is the budget of broken promises. Regional Australians face at least $11 billion of cuts to vital sectors such as infrastructure, trade, drought funding and critical communications. This budget is a clear illustration that Labor has forgotten regional South Australia. It is disappointing to see Labor axe critical communication funding for regional Australia. The previous coalition government delivered 56 mobile phone towers in the electorate of Grey. Two have been delivered in the last four years—two versus 56. They have cut the Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia by reprioritising funding. This comprises $116 million in 2026-27 and a further $49.6 million in the forward estimates. The plan included future rounds of the Mobile Black Spot Program, the Regional Connectivity Program, the On Farm Connectivity Program, disaster and telecommunications resilience measures, the Regional Tech Hub and the National Audit of Mobile Coverage. Regional Australians are crying out for better connectivity, and Labor are not listening.

At a time when we need support for our regions struggling with the impacts of the fuel crisis, Labor has made massive cuts to regional funding. This includes $191.6 million from pest and disease, regional trade and drought funding. There is a $52 million cut to the Future Drought Fund alone, just as farmers battle difficult seasonal conditions across South Australia. Meanwhile, Labor allocated zero additional support for regional tourism operators who are vital small-business owners to small country towns severely impacted by this fuel crisis. I want to add that I recently went up to the northern parts of the electorate, up to Innamincka, to Oodnadatta and to Coober Pedy, and the tourism numbers are much lower than they otherwise would be. And it's not because the price of fuel is keeping away our grey nomads; it's because of the anxiety around access to fuel. Well, to all the tourists out there, there is plenty of fuel up in these remote towns. Get in your camper trailers, get in your Winnebagos and go visit the outback. There is so much water up in Lake Eyre at the moment. It is beautiful. It looks like Florida with the amount of water and greenery up there right now.

Despite receiving a comprehensive, sensible report from the Australian Grape & Wine advocacy group, Labor dedicated no funding to our wine industry. Rather, they decided to phase out the $10 million Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant package. This is the opposite of what they should be doing right now. The wine industry is absolutely on its knees—particularly in the Riverland but also in my electorate in the Clare Valley. This increases the pressure that our regional wine growers are facing. Looking at infrastructure specifically, less than two per cent of the infrastructure projects in Labor's budget are dedicated to the regions. Only two per cent of the budget being dedicated to the regions is absolutely outrageous. Yet Australians will pay $40 million in tax for Labor's Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement, which is not free at all. It's just more carve-outs, including $38.6 million over four years, then $7.1 million annually to implement an agreement that sells out our farmers.

I am pleased that, due to my advocacy, Labor increased supplementary road funding for South Australian councils in line with indexation. However, even with supplementary funding, South Australia remains the lowest-funded state in the nation on a per-kilometre basis. And it shows: the roads in regional South Australia are completely unacceptable. I want to call out a few areas. At the bottom end of the Yorke Peninsula, the roads down there are absolutely terrible. In the Adelaide Plains, the roads are absolutely terrible as well. And, of course, the Flinders Highway, the road that runs from Ceduna down to Port Lincoln, is very narrow and unsafe for the road trains that travel on that road very regularly.

Regarding the Nyrstar lead smelter in Port Pirie, this budget initially contained no new funding to ensure its long-term viability, leaving workers hanging in the balance after the previous $57.5 million package expired on 1 May 2026. I was pleased to see the announcement of a $105 million transitionary funding package for Nyrstar's Hobart and Port Pirie facilities. While this does bring a massive sigh of relief, smelter workers in Port Pirie should never have been left in a state of limbo for over a month, wondering if they had a future. The delay in communications was totally unacceptable. Minister Tim Ayres only found time last week to brief me through his advisers. Premier Malinauskas confirmed this package sustains operations until the end of November, and I hope the next negotiations are resolved before then so Port Pirie avoids another period of uncertainty.

In contrast, Angus Taylor's budget in reply is a much more rounded and commonsense approach to the issues that matter to regional South Australians. He will back small businesses to invest in vital assets through a permanent $50,000 instant asset write-off for anyone with a turnover under $10 million. Furthermore, we will establish a future generations fund to ensure resource windfalls are used responsibly to ensure the future of our children.

For too long, regional Australians have seen governments make big announcements, pose for a photo, issue the press release and then roll on out. Well, the regions aren't just an afterthought for the Albanese government. They're not just a bolt-on pork-barrelling press-call opportunity. Whether it's in Maitland, Port Stephens, Beresfield, Chisholm, Rutherford, Heddon Greta, Anna Bay, Medowie, Lemon Tree Passage or any of the suburbs in my beautiful electorate of Paterson, this government believes in our regions and we are delivering for them—and we're going to continue to do that.

People want practical support that improves their daily lives. They want better roads, better health care, affordable housing, quality child care and secure local jobs. That's what the Albanese regional budget delivers, because Labor understands that supporting regional Australia is about far more than a single infrastructure fund or a handful of announcements—or the odd colour-coded spreadsheet that was a bit of a pork-barrelling exercise. Supporting regional Australia means making sure regional communities are considered in every portfolio and in every policy decision. You don't just tack them on at the end and try and win a few votes; you make sure they're central. It means investing in health, investing in housing and investing in education. It means investing in infrastructure, child care, aged care and regional industries. And it means recognising that, no matter where in Australia you live, you deserve to access the best opportunities and services to help you get ahead. That is the principle at the heart of this budget. We say 'no-one held back and no-one left behind'. We believe in aspiration and we believe in a hand when you need it.

Families across Paterson will benefit from further tax cuts, putting more money back into household budgets. They'll benefit from cheaper medicines through Labor's continued investment in Medicare—something that Labor created and that we stick by and we back. For many families, every trip to the pharmacy matters. Every dollar saved on essential medicines is a dollar that goes back into paying for groceries, school shoes and bills. More than 3.5 million people in my electorate of Paterson have already benefited from these savings, keeping more money in their pockets or more money on the card—these days, it's usually that way; I know, sometimes, people don't carry much cash anymore, but they still do—and that eases the pressure on household costs.

The budget also supports households through Labor's home battery program, helping families lower their power bills while strengthening our energy system. Many of my constituents have shown me the apps on their phone, and they say: 'Meryl, I've got the battery. I can see what's going on at my place.' They show me the energy that's running around in their little house on the app. I love seeing that. More than 2,000 families in my electorate have already installed these more affordable batteries and are benefiting from the lower energy savings. These practical measures make a real difference to regional families.

Health care is another massive issue, and it is where this budget is delivering for our community. One of the achievements I'm most proud of is that Paterson has an urgent care clinic. It's at 555 High Street, Maitland, if you don't know. The clinic is providing free urgent health care close to home and helping take some of the pressure off the very busy emergency departments, including at Maitland and John Hunter, in our region. Parents with a sick child, older Australians needing some urgent treatment or workers who may have been injured can access health care when they need it without worrying about the cost. That's what strengthening Medicare in the regions looks like. This budget continues Labor's investment in Medicare urgent care clinics and bulk-billing and also supports the training of more doctors and healthcare professionals in Australia.

Infrastructure is critical when you live in a regional area, especially a beautiful regional area that is really undergoing a lot of growth, like our region is. One of the most significant projects in my patch is the M1 Pacific Motorway extension to Raymond Terrace. This project will be transformative, not just for the Hunter but for the entire eastern seaboard of Australia. For goods going between Melbourne and Brisbane, this is a game changer. For decades, this section has been the missing link between Sydney and Brisbane—the final pinch point in one of Australia's most important freight corridors.

I want to take you back to 2019 because that was the year when the then shadow minister for infrastructure, transport, cities and regional development, a bloke called Anthony Albanese, now the Prime Minister, backed me in one thousand per cent when I said: 'Mate, we have got to fix this road. It is criminal what's going on here. The whole place has been shut down time and time again, and it's just got to change.' And he said, 'You're right.' We loaded the pressure on the Morrison government. Finally they put it in a budget—actually, they went to the 2019 election with it—and we just absolutely mounted that pressure. Now, I know the Prime Minister loves being the Prime Minister—and he's doing a good job—but, let me tell you, his passion project was infrastructure. He knows the roads and byways of this country like the back of his hand. He backed me in for that M1 extension.

When we came to government in 2022, Catherine King, who then became the infrastructure minister—actually, before that, when she was still the shadow minister, we came to that piece of road and we said, 'Not only are we putting the money in; we're going to do it faster.' In 2022, when we were elected, that's exactly what we did. In the coming months, that piece of road that cost over $1.6 billion with a b will be open because not only did we commit the money, again; we then fast-tracked the project. The project will be over 12 months early in its completion, and it's on budget. That's a testimony to what happens when you back regional Australia.

I want to take a moment to thank all of those people who've worked on that road. It is amazing. People talk to me about it all the time, saying: 'Gee, the road's coming along. We can't wait till it's open.' I know there's been a lot of congestion in places like Raymond Terrace and around the region while we wait for the road to be finished—thanks for your patience on that. The workers who've helped construct that piece of critical national infrastructure have done a great job, and I know our locals are very excited about it being finished.

It matters to the businesses of our region as well. It matters to locals, who are just trying to get about their business, whether it's going to work or taking the kids to school. This is a massive piece of infrastructure, and this is what it looks like when you've got a government who is serious about regions, serious about big pieces of infrastructure and serious about keeping our regional economies growing and moving with the people who are moving to our area.

Again, I am so proud to say that this project will be delivered more than a year ahead of schedule. When do you ever hear of projects coming in over a year early and on budget? Well, this is. It means less congestion, safer journeys, stronger freight connections and better economic opportunities for our region. It means finally completing a nationally significant transport corridor that Australians have waited decades for. It is an Albanese government that is getting on and delivering this.

We're also continuing to invest in safer local roads too, because that matters. Through the Black Spot Program, communities in Raymond Terrace, Anna Bay, Aberglasslyn and Chisholm are benefiting from important safety upgrades that will make local roads safer for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. It is so important.

Housing is the other thing that's so big on the minds of people from the regions. We know the regions are a beautiful place to live. It turns out other people have figured that out too. Since COVID, our region has been absolutely the hottest ticket in town. People have moved there because, thanks to technology, they can work from home more now. A lot of people have moved to the Hunter, and we're glad for that, but we know we need to continue to provide more housing, and we know that that's got to be matched with infrastructure. That's why we've invested $2 billion in the Local Infrastructure Fund. That's important because it's going to help unlock new housing supply by investing in the roads, the engineering and the infrastructure that will be required to build these new communities, which are so important.

In closing, stronger communities need strong local jobs. I also want to say that the Hunter is one of Australia's industrial powerhouses. Our region's workforce, skills and manufacturing capability help drive economic growth across not just the region or the state but our entire nation. That's why supporting businesses like Tomago Aluminium is so important. I am so proud of our federal government for doing that. We are going to continue to back in our regions, back in our industry and say thank you to those people who work so hard to make sure they are a great success.

I want to acknowledge that we work with all levels of government, especially local government. Councillor Race Barstow from Maitland City Council joins us in the gallery today. It's an honour to have you here today, Councillor. Thanks for the hard work that you do in delivering for our communities. More power to the regions.

As special envoy for northern Australia and the federal member for Solomon in the Top End, I'm very proud to speak on our government's focus on building a much stronger and more prosperous regional Australia and, in particular, a much stronger and more prosperous northern Australia. In order to achieve that aim, we are investing over $30 billion in the sustainable and resilient development of northern Australia, which is really important as we play a critical role in delivering on our government's agenda, including delivering a Future Made in Australia, supporting our nation's transition to a net zero economy, developing the critical minerals industry and all the work we're doing in defence as well.

Our government's Northern Australia Action Plan 2024-2029 has a renewed focus on economic opportunities, housing, education and infrastructure in the regions of Northern Australia. We're collaborating with the Queensland, Western Australian and Northern Territory governments through the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum on key issues. In recent times, these have included housing, which everyone agrees is a critical issue, and research, which leads to commercial opportunity, better livelihoods and the all-important economic development, particularly for regions where there are First Nations communities that have traditionally not had access to opportunities in the market. I did attend the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum in April, and our discussions also included insurance affordability, which is a critical issue for us; fuel security; labour data; and future collaboration across northern Australia. Ministers received jurisdictional updates across priorities such as disaster recovery, energy security, critical minerals, tourism, resilience, defence investment and those First Nations employment and housing initiatives that I mentioned previously.

In November last year, our government announced the 10-year extension of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the NAIF. It will continue to invest in projects across Northern Australia well beyond the current investment deadline of 30 June 2026. The continuation of NAIF for another decade will reassure communities and stakeholders in the north, many of whom contributed to the review. The NAIF is here to stay! The 10-year extension will be safeguarded by reviews every five years to ensure that the NAIF remains fit for purpose. It really has seen a great development in opportunities across Northern Australia. They are really important regions of Australia—from Queensland, through the Northern Territory, to north-west WA. We have worked to ensure that the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility is supporting projects that deliver tangible benefits to northern communities.

It was great to meet with the new CEO, Neil MacDonald, in Cairns very recently. He is an impressive bloke who is really getting after the great work that Craig Doyle did as CEO. I acknowledge Craig's fantastic work from when he was the CEO. The NAIF has provided, under Craig's leadership and now Neil's, $4.5 billion of the $7 billion through financing infrastructure developments across the north of Australia to support 35 projects. This includes 16 projects in Queensland with concessional loans of around $1.7 billion, 10 projects in Western Australia with loans of around $1.7 billion and nine projects in the Northern Territory, where I'm proud to represent Territorians, with loans of almost $1 billion. Those projects are forecast to generate more than $33 billion in public benefit and more than 18,000 jobs, which is a big deal for northern Australia. Over $3 billion in NAIF funds has now been drawn down by proponents to deliver on key infrastructure projects in northern Australia. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026, introduced in March, amends that The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act to extend NAIF's investment decision-making period, strengthen accountability for compliance within the investment mandate, establish joint responsibilities for the responsible ministers and refresh statutory review requirements to allow for two future reviews on the operation of the NAIF Act.

I'm sure honourable members will forgive me for talking a bit about the NAIF. When you talk about regional Australia, the north is such a vital engine of resources and of talented humans who really want to make the north stronger and more resilient; we know, in turn, that that will make our nation stronger and more resilient. When it comes to regional Australia, our government—the Albanese Labor federal government—is working collaboratively with states and territories and, as we've seen this week, with local government as well as industry to create the environment in which the regions of Australia can thrive. I'm proud to be part of those efforts.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:51