I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is the next step in our government's delivery of the most ambitious tax reform package for a quarter of a century.

It's all about helping more people to buy their own home, cutting income taxes for workers again and again, and better aligning the treatment of labour and asset income.

These measures in this bill form a package which is focused on delivering a better tax system for business by encouraging investment and innovation and delivering a simpler and more sustainable system as well.

This bill being introduced today delivers the next important part of our plan.

It backs Australian businesses and it helps them to succeed.

Our plan is good for workers, good for first home buyers and good for the millions of businesses that make such an important contribution to our economy.

It introduces two-year loss carry-back to help encourage sensible risk taking and smooth out difficult periods, and it makes the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent to encourage investment and slash compliance costs.

These measures go hand in hand with the steps we announced last week, which are all about providing more clarity and confidence to investors, more support for small businesses and more incentives for innovation.

We will extend the eligibility of the 50 per cent active asset capital gains tax reduction to more businesses by increasing the turnover threshold from $2 million to $10 million.

That means that all 2.7 million active small businesses and 98 per cent of all active businesses will be eligible for generous CGT concessions.

And we're also consulting on the design of a 50 per cent CGT discount for early-stage investors, including founders and employee share scheme participants in innovative startup businesses.

Altogether, we are proposing over $3.8 billion in new measures that lower taxes for businesses, supporting new and growing businesses at critical stages in their life.

The reforms in this bill support resilience, investment and sensible risk taking by Australian firms.

Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce loss carry-back for companies with annual global income of less than $1 billion from 1 July 2026.

This enables eligible companies to carry back a tax loss and offset it against tax paid up to two years earlier, generating a refundable tax offset.

Schedule 1 applies to revenue losses only and is subject to a company's franking account balance, ensuring refunds are appropriately limited to prior tax paid.

OECD research shows that loss carry-back is an effective policy to improve the neutrality of the tax system and increase the resilience of companies to adverse shocks.

By allowing losses to be recognised against earlier profits, loss carry-back will be particularly valuable for established businesses that have been profitable in recent years but are experiencing a temporary downturn.

It will also support otherwise profitable small companies that incur a tax loss because they have invested in new assets, including those that are eligible for the permanently extended instant asset write-off. I'll come to that in a moment.

This is all about improving cash flow and helping firms remain resilient through periods of adjustment or broader economic shocks.

Loss carry-back is expected to benefit up to 85,000 companies each year, mostly small businesses, with the largest impacts in construction, manufacturing, professional and scientific services, finance and insurance, and wholesale trade.

The government is also making the instant asset write-off permanent to give small businesses the certainty they need and deserve to invest.

This is all about backing small businesses, cutting compliance costs and helping them to invest with confidence.

Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997and the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to permanently extend the $20,000 instant asset write-off from 1 July 2026.

Up to 4.1 million businesses with aggregated annual turnover of less than $10 million will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000 from 1 July 2026.

The $20,000 threshold will continue to apply on a per-asset basis so small businesses can instantly write-off multiple assets.

Assets costing $20,000 or more can be placed into the small-business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each income year thereafter.

The lockout rules, which prevent small businesses from re-entering the simplified depreciation regime for five years if they opt out, will continue to be suspended until 30 June 2027 so that small businesses can take advantage of the measure.

The permanent $20,000 instant asset write-off is estimated to reduce ongoing compliance costs for small business by around $32 million per year.

It's part of our plan in the budget to cut red tape and compliance costs by $10.2 billion a year.

The final schedule in the bill, schedule 3, provides an income tax exemption for income derived in respect of employment with the PNG Chiefs Limited, the new PNG based National Rugby League franchise.

This exemption seeks to ensure that income tax exemptions legislated by the Papua New Guinea government for players and staff of the PNG Chiefs Limited will operate as intended.

Schedule 3 is connected to the government's broader strategy to listen and act on the priorities of our alliance partner and closest neighbour—Papua New Guinea—and support rugby league in the Pacific.

The establishment of a PNG team in the NRL is an important symbol of the deep partnership between Australia and Papua New Guinea. This partnership is underpinned by shared strategic trust and commitment to delivering peace, prosperity and opportunity for the people of PNG and Australia.

Introducing these arrangements as part of this bill will provide certainty and support the effective administration of the tax arrangements that PNG has put in place.

I thank Minister Conroy for working with us closely on that element of the bill. I particularly want to shout-out the small business minister, who's here with us in the House, as well as Assistant Minister Leigh and, in his absence, while he recovers from COVID, Assistant Treasurer Mulino as well. But, particularly thank you so much, Minister, for all of your work on these small-business measures that we are presenting today.

These are sensible changes and ones that I hope this entire chamber can get behind.

But they are changes that took an ambitious Labor government to introduce and an ambitious Labor government to make permanent.

It was Labor that first introduced the instant asset write-off, back in 2011.

And it was Labor that introduced loss carry-back at that time as well.

Disappointingly, these important measures to support business were unwound when the coalition came to office.

It took those opposite years to realise what a mistake they had made and bring these measures back, but, even then, they only did it temporarily.

Now we're making both of these tax measures permanent—because Labor backs Australian businesses and is invested in helping them grow and get ahead.

That's what these measures are all about.

That's what our $3.8 billion in business tax relief is all about.

It's what our plan to create a more productive economy, to cut $10 billion of red tape, to grow GDP by $13 billion by working with the states and to encourage innovation and risk-taking is all about as well. We are proud of this bill, and we are proud of our ambitious tax reform package, and that's why we commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026 will address intergenerational inequity, simplify, and better target the rebate for private health insurance premiums.

Currently, the government provides a rebate that supports Australians to take up and to hold private health insurance.

Each year, government invest approximately $8 billion in the rebate to help keep private health insurance more affordable and to take pressure off our public health system.

In the election environment of 2004, with a boom economy driven by global economic activity, the Howard government increased the private health insurance rebate, but only for people aged 65 and above. In 2026, that is difficult to defend.

The higher rebate for people aged 65 and above means two houses on the same income receive different levels of government rebate based only on their age. This is in addition to older people's health insurance claims already being cross-subsidised by younger policyholders under community rating, which means everyone pays the same premium for the same policy, regardless of their gender or their health status.

Older Australians are more likely to retain private health insurance, and they receive significantly higher benefits on average than younger Australians. This means the inequitable targeting of the rebate simply does not align with its purpose to incentivise take-up.

And the current model is simply not the best way to spend taxpayers' dollars on behalf of older Australians when there is a significant need to expand access to aged-care services.

Therefore, to re-establish intergenerational equity, and to better target and simplify the rebate, this bill will amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, removing the higher rebates paid for people aged 65 and over. The rebate will remain means tested—a change Labor made in 2012 and those opposite opposed—paid at a higher rate for those on lower incomes.

The rebate changes, if passed by the parliament, will take effect on 1 April 2027.

I understand that this will not be a welcome decision for some, but it is the necessary and right thing to do.

It will mean that two households next door to each other on exactly the same income will receive the same support from government for their health insurance—regardless of age.

It also allows us to invest $3 billion in critical funds to deliver more residential aged-care beds, more Support at Home packages, shorter wait times and better care for older Australians.

This investment will:

The change will impact approximately 3.2 million people aged 65 and over who have a taxable income below the rebate cut-off. It's expected the average increased premium for those impacted older Australians will be around $250 per year—or less than $1 per day. For some older Australians who choose more expensive policies, that increase may be higher.

It's expected that the number of older Australians with health insurance will continue to increase, including people aged 65 and above. It's estimated there will be about 44,000 fewer people aged 65 and over insured by 2028-29 than if the rebate had remained unchanged. That is 0.4 per cent fewer insured people than otherwise expected, in a sector that is growing on average by two per cent per year, or five times that amount.

This is a relatively low change in participation compared with the volume of services in hospitals, which means the impact on hospital admissions is expected to be marginal.

The bill will implement the rebate change by amending Part 2-2 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 so the rebate calculation applies in the same way for people aged 65 and above as it does for those aged under 65.

The bill will also make a technical amendment to the Age Discrimination Act 2004, removing a reference to an exemption previously required for the discriminatory operation of those higher rebates for older Australians, protecting the Commonwealth, as they did at the time, from legal action from younger Australians based on the obvious differential treatment based on age.

While this will remove the current preferential rebate for older Australians, they will continue to be supported through the rebate of up to 24 per cent off their premiums. They'll be supported through community rating and through indexation of the rebate, which this government reintroduced, of course, after it was frozen under the previous Liberal government. All of this will help keep private health insurance more affordable.

The Australian government has to balance its support for privately insured patients with the funding it provides right across the health, disability and aged care systems. Savings from this rebate change will provide important support for older people through improvements that are absolutely necessary to aged care. This decision reflects responsible budget management in challenging times.

The government will invest the $3 billion in estimated savings from this measure in delivering more aged-care beds, more packages, and better care for older Australians.

This will enable more people to access aged care, address delayed discharge from hospital and provide dignity and care to older Australians towards the end of their lives. Reinvesting the savings from the rebate in aged care capacity will relieve pressure on the public hospital system.

Although the rebate change is not expected to have a substantial impact on private hospitals, the government does recognise that some private hospitals are experiencing ongoing viability concerns. We are considering a range of reform options identified in consultation with the sector to modernise private health and to better support the public-private health system that has made Australia's health system one of the best in the world. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Statute Update Bill 2026 amends 42 Commonwealth acts to make minor, technical amendments across the Commonwealth statute book, including to fix errors, remove spent and obsolete provisions, and update references to align with modern legislative drafting practice. The bill also repeals 106 spent or obsolete acts. Such amendments would improve the quality of legislation and ensure it can be more easily understood.

Statute law revision acts and statute stocktake acts have been passed since 1934 to remove obsolete and spent provisions from the statute book and correct drafting mistakes. They are traditionally non-controversial and are essential to keep the Commonwealth statute book accurate and up-to-date.

Statute law revision and updated bills aim to enhance the clarity and efficiency of the statute book. The amendments are minor and technical in nature and either make no change, or only minor changes, to the substance of the law, and only in ways that are consistent with the scope and intention of the relevant provisions.

This bill contains two schedules. Schedule 1 contains general amendments to 42 acts across the Commonwealth statute book. These are intended to enhance readability, facilitate interpretation and administration and promote consistency across the Commonwealth statute book.

Amendments in this schedule correct typographical errors and minor inconsistencies, update references and repeal spent or obsolete provisions within acts. Schedule 1 also makes minor updates to reflect modern drafting practices. The amendments are minor and technical in nature, and either make no change or only minor changes to the substance of the law.

Schedule 2 repeals 106 acts. The amendments relate to acts that are spent or redundant and do not alter the current or future effect of the law in any way.

These ongoing improvements to legislation are important to ensure that the Commonwealth statute book remains up to date, accurate and accessible.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

On election night four years ago the Prime Minister talked about opening the doors of opportunity—the great mission of Labor governments.

He said, 'I want every parent to be able to tell their child no matter where you live or where you come from, in Australia the doors of opportunity are open to us all.'

'And like every other Labor government, we'll just widen that door a bit more.'

More than anything else, it's education that does that, that opens doors, that changes lives and that changes countries.

And that's what the changes we are making to the education system are all about: the changes to early education that get rid of the barriers that have stopped a lot of children from poor families from accessing early education and care.

That's what the three-day guarantee does.

We changed the law to guarantee access to three days a week of government supported early education and care for every child who needs it.

We did that because we know it's kids from the most disadvantaged backgrounds who get the most out of early education and care—and who are the least likely to get it.

The way the law used to work meant their parents couldn't get the subsidy and so their kids couldn't get the sort of early education that other kids get.

They were shut out.

That's now changed.

The three-day guarantee started a few months ago and for those kids it opens that door of opportunity a little wider.

So does what we're doing in schools, in particular fixing the funding of our public schools.

These are the schools that do a lot of the heavy lifting, that play an outsized role in educating the most disadvantaged children in this country, the children who are the most likely to start behind or fall behind.

The children who need our help the most.

And these are also the schools that are the most underfunded—until now, until this government, until the agreements we've struck with every state and territory.

It means an extra $20 billion in our public schools over the next decade.

But it's more than that because this funding is tied to reform—the sort of reform that's needed to help more children to catch up, to keep up and to finish high school.

That's what things like evidence based teaching, phonics checks, numeracy checks and small-group tutoring are all about.

They all help to open those doors of opportunity wider.

And that's what this bill does too.

Today close to 50 percent of Australians in their 30s have a university degree, but not everywhere.

It's about half that if you grew up in a poor family or in the regions. It's even less in the bush.

Basically, young people who grow up in poor families or outside our big cities are less likely to get a crack at uni than other Australians.

And, if they start it, they're less likely to finish it.

I want to change that.

The universities accord says that we need to change that.

The accord is the biggest review of our higher education system since Bradley, almost 20 years ago.

It's a blueprint for the next twenty years.

What it says is that, by 2050, we're going to need a workforce where 80 percent have a TAFE qualification or a uni degree and that the only way to do that is to break down the barriers that stop so many young people from poor families, from regional Australia and from the bush from getting to university.

That's what this bill is about.

It's the seventh accord bill that I've introduced.

The first six created the Student Ombudsman, paid prac, and FEE-FREE Uni Ready courses.

They cut student debt by 20 percent, changed the indexation and repayment rules for HELP loans, and established the Australian Tertiary Education Commission.

This bill implements two more important changes recommended by the accord.

The first will help more people from poor families and the regions and the bush to get into university.

In simple terms, if you get the marks or you've got what it takes, you'll get a place—a Commonwealth supported place.

We've already done this for Indigenous students. We passed that legislation in 2023.

This will do the same sort of thing for all students from poor families, from the regions and from the bush.

It's part of the new managed growth funding system created by this bill.

There are more Australians at university today than ever before.

And it's going to continue to grow.

Next year there will be 16,000 more places for more students in the system.

The year after that, there will be another 16,000.

The year after that—another 16,000.

In 2030, this increases to 19,000 additional fully funded Commonwealth supported places.

Over the next decade, we expect to fund an extra 230,000 commencing students at university.

This bill gives the ATEC the tools it needs to manage all of that growth, to grow the system where it's needed.

As part of this, it'll end the 'hunger games' that exist at the moment, where, in the desperate competition for students, some universities enrol students they don't get Commonwealth funding for, something that the accord said is undermining the whole system.

This is how the bill works.

It gives the Minister for Education the power to set a total allocation pool.

That's the total number of fully funded Commonwealth supported places allocated each year.

It gives the ATEC the responsibility for allocating these places to universities and other eligible providers.

Because this is about managing growth and building a bigger and better and fairer system, the total number of Commonwealth supported places each university receives will be made up of two things: first, what's called their core student load to make sure they do not go backwards; and, second, an additional growth allocation.

This gives the ATEC the ability to allocate additional places where it thinks they're needed, including for students from low-SES backgrounds and from the regions and the bush.

The ATEC will do this every year.

It's this second part, the additional growth allocation, that really gives the ATEC the ability to open the doors of opportunity to more Australians.

And, if the ATEC believes that the total allocation pool isn't big enough to meet the demand from students from poor families, from the regions and from the bush, then they can ask the minister to increase it, effectively uncapping the system for these students.

If you've got what it takes, you get a place.

The bill also provides support to assist universities to transition to this new system.

Underenrolled universities will be able to access a temporary funding floor to the end of 2031.

Overenrolled universities will be able to keep student contributions above their cap, but only up to a maximum amount.

As part of fixing this, the ATEC anticipates it will allocate approximately 20,000 more Commonwealth supported places to overenrolled universities next year, where they currently receive only the student contribution.

The second part of this bill puts in place needs based funding—think Gonski for universities.

The school funding system provides schools with extra funding based on where they're located and the needs of the students they educate.

Students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds receive additional support.

So do schools in the regions and the bush.

The Universities Accord recommends that we do the same sort of thing for universities, and it does that for a reason.

The evidence tells us that students from low-SES backgrounds and students from the regions and the bush are less likely to start a university degree.

They're also less likely to finish it.

The data indicates they're up to twice as likely to drop out after their first year at university than other students.

That's why needs based funding is important.

It will provide funding for things like tutoring, mentoring and other academic support and direct financial assistance like scholarships and emergency grants.

There were previous programs, like HEPPP, that did this.

But funding for those programs was capped. This is different.

Like needs based funding for schools, this will be demand driven.

The more students a university has that meet the criteria, the more funding they'll receive.

The more students there are at a regional campus, the more funding that university will receive as well.

To give you an idea of what this will mean in practice, under the old HEPPP the average amount provided to universities per student last year was $600.

Under this new needs based funding system it will be more than double that.

The bill sets the base equity amount at $1,535 and the base regional amount at $1,398.

Both of those will be indexed each year.

It's not just extra funding, though. It's what it will be used for that helps more students who start a degree to finish it.

It's real reform.

The bill does one more thing.

It sets out a framework for the ATEC to exercise its existing power to allocate international student numbers.

As members would know, the government currently manages international student numbers through an annual national planning level.

Under the national planning level, the government sets indicative allocations of new overseas student commencements that may start at individual universities.

These indicative allocations are used to guide the visa processing work of the Department of Home Affairs.

There is currently no statutory cap on international students, and this legislation does not change that.

But we are putting the power to set international student allocations for higher education providers into the hands of the independent ATEC.

In other words, where the government sets a national planning level, the ATEC will allocate the places to individual universities and other higher education providers.

The minister will do this by making an international allocation pool determination, setting out the overall number of planned commencements.

The minister's determination may also require ATEC to take into account government priorities, such as student housing and market diversification, when they make their allocations.

However, it will be the ATEC that makes the decision about allocations to universities, in consultation with the universities through the process for negotiating mission based compacts.

This change responds to feedback from our universities.

They told us that this power—to set individual allocations within the national planning level—should be exercised by the independent ATEC, and I agree.

To help the ATEC with this work, the ATEC will be given access to international student and provider information collected under the ESOS Act.

The National Student Ombudsman will also be provided with access to this information.

The bill also enables information collected by the Ombudsman and TEQSA to be shared with the ATEC to inform their work.

This is an important bill.

It's the engine the ATEC can use to bring the Accord to life, to make the big structural changes the Accord talks about and to open the doors of opportunity.

Talent is everywhere. It's opportunity that's not, and this bill will help change that.

It will mean that more young people from poor families and from the regions and the bush get a crack at university and that they get the support they need when they get there.

It will change lives.

For universities it means more students and more funding.

For the whole system, it means an extra $3.6 billion over the next decade.

Is it everything we have to do? No. There is a lot more we need to do make our education system better and fairer, but this is the next step.

It will help to open the doors of opportunity wider.

I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014 to modernise Australia's framework for protecting the commercial rights associated with major sporting events.

Major sporting events create 'where were you when?' moments.

They create 'hug a stranger' moments.

They get us up, they get us together, often in the dark of night or at the crack of dawn to cheer, to chant and to cherish those heart-stopping moments as chapters in our nation's history are written in real time.

Seventy years ago, on a warm November day, more than 107,000 people packed into the Melbourne Cricket Ground for the opening ceremony of the 1956 Olympic Games.

Thousands of others watched on brand new television sets—a few at home, but mostly in community halls and in shopfront windows, as the ABC, TCN9 and HS7 were launched, bringing TV to Australians for the very first time.

The Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games wrote new chapters: Cathy, Thorpey, Louise, Gazey, and the Oarsome Foursome.

Through Sydney 2000, our athletes galvanised the country in such a way that they are known simply by first names—or, in the great Australian tradition, nicknames.

Future MSEs and support for athletes

On June 17 our government announced a commitment of $513 million over two years from the Albanese government to support Australia's athletes in the lead-up to the LA 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

This funding lays the foundation and provides stability ahead of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, where new chapters will be written.

It goes without saying that the Games will look different to Melbourne and Sydney. The Brisbane 2032 stories will be of a modern Australia in a growing cosmopolitan city and state.

Hosting major sporting events offers so much more than feel-good moments and real-life dramas.

They are an important part of Australia's cultural, social and economic landscape.

Major sporting events provide opportunities to showcase Australia to the world, drive tourism and trade, and connect us with our Pacific neighbours and beyond.

They inspire participation in sport and physical activity across our communities, through inspiring moments, grassroots legacy programs, and talent identification programs.

BILL DETAIL

A critical element in securing and successfully hosting these events is ensuring event owners and their commercial partners can protect the emblems and images that are associated with events, the event intellectual property rights.

This bill introduces a more flexible and efficient approach for Australia's hosting of major sporting events.

The current act provides important protections but relies on schedules within the legislation to prescribe individual events. This requires amendments to primary legislation every time protections are to be extended to a new event.

This bill establishes a rules based framework that enables major sporting events and associated protections to be prescribed by legislative instrument by the minister, rather than through amendments to primary legislation.

The minister must be satisfied the event is:

A central element of this framework is the introduction of clear statutory criteria to guide the declaration of major sporting events.

These criteria ensure protections are applied in a transparent, consistent and targeted way.

This includes protection against what is known as 'ambush marketing by association', where a business seeks to promote itself by creating a misleading impression of an association with a major sporting event without authorisation.

When fans pay good money to pull on jerseys, T-shirts, scarves or hats to support a major event, they need to know they are wearing the real deal.

Ambush marketing also undermines the value of official sponsorship arrangements, reduces private investment in major events, and can increase the financial burden on governments to support the delivery of those events.

Under this framework, key elements of protections—including the declaration of major sporting events, the identification of authorising and event bodies, the specification of protected indicia and images, and applicable protection periods—will be set out in rules made under the act.

Clarifying that unauthorised commercial use of protected indicia and images in these contexts can constitute advertising for the purposes of the act will help ensure the legislation remains effective and fit for purpose.

INVESTMENT IN MAJOR EVENTS

Since 2022, more than $189 million has been delivered by the Albanese government in support of major sporting events here in Australia.

The 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup brought Sam, Courtnee, Mackenzie and Mary onto our pitches, and into our living rooms and pubs.

'Tillies' is the most recognisable national team nickname in our sporting lexicon, and the fields of dreams they played on in 2023 have genuinely inspired a new generation of Australians to play the round ball game—so many of them girls and women.

Along with event delivery partners and international sporting bodies, we are working to ensure future events are supported by the highest standards of integrity.

This bill will improve responsiveness to an evolving major event calendar, reduce the need for repeated legislative amendments and ensure protections can be implemented in a timely and proportionate manner.

Importantly, appropriate safeguards will remain in place.

Rules made under the act will be legislative instruments subject to parliamentary scrutiny, including disallowance, and the declaration of major sporting events will be guided by clear statutory criteria set out in the act.

In addition, the bill removes outdated provisions relating to historical events.

The framework maintains a balanced approach to the protection of rights. Restrictions will apply only to unauthorised commercial use of protected indicia and images.

Existing exemptions will continue to apply, including for the purposes of reporting, criticism, review and the provision of information.

COMMUNITY IMPACT OF HOSTING MSEs

In the past four years, the Albanese government has committed to support more than 15 major sporting events here in Australia.

Australians can be proud of the impact these events have had so far.

Not only did the 2022 FIBA Women's Basketball world Cup inspire the legendary Lauren Jackson to return to the court, but it prompted the expansion and reach of the 'She Hoops' initiative for women and girls, created and fostered by Lauren herself, along with some of her incredible Opals team-mates.

The community legacy of other recent events includes:

I touched earlier on the power of the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, and the numbers don't lie. With legacy support from our government, there has been:

Driven by this growing demand, the Albanese government invested $200 million in the historic Play Our Way program. There are almost 300 community projects as part of Play Our Way that are improving facilities, creating programs and enabling the purchase of equipment to help more girls and women play and stay in sport.

Uniting Force o f Major Events

Recently, 4.78 million Australians tuned in to SBS, our national multicultural broadcaster, to watch the Socceroos defeat Türkiye. Thousands more gathered in city squares, community football clubs and pubs around the country. These are Australians from all walks of life—different backgrounds, different languages, different lives yet united, not divided and not seeking to divide.

The fans—just like the Socceroos themselves—are all of us.

They're Aussie born.

They're immigrants.

They're refugees.

They're hugging strangers.

This is the power of sport.

Conclusion

Next month we'll celebrate six years to go until the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games.

And, following the passage of this bill, rules will be developed to support that and other upcoming major sporting events.

This bill ensures our legislative framework remains fit for purpose, efficient and adaptable to future needs.

It reflects the Albanese government's commitment to deliver incredible major sporting events and the chance for every Australian to benefit from their legacy and to unearth their own 'where were you when moments'. I thank the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I'm pleased to present the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026. This bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to responding to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. On 9 September 2024, the royal commission delivered its final report, making 122 recommendations. The government agreed to, or agreed-in-principle to, 104 of those recommendations.

This bill directly implements 15 of those recommendations and supports a further 20 recommendations focused on strengthening health and wellbeing outcomes, improving suicide prevention and information sharing, supporting defence families, enhancing transition and continuity of care and modernising governance and accountability arrangements.

Broadly, the reforms in the bill support the health, wellbeing and safety of current and former ADF members, and their families, prioritising these matters in both Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA), supporting information sharing for these purposes, establishing more robust frameworks for defence health services, enhancing family supports and ensuring people who have been imprisoned for serious violence and sexual offences can never serve in the Defence Force.

The bill provides clear statutory authority for entrusted persons to collect, use and disclose information for research, data analysis and evaluation relating to health, wellbeing and safety outcomes. These powers are balanced by strong privacy safeguards, including compliance with ministerial guidelines, requirements for deidentification where practicable and alignment with the Privacy Act framework.

Critically, the bill supports a more integrated approach across Defence, DVA and other portfolio agencies, including the new veteran and family wellbeing agency. It enables more efficient and effective information sharing to support continuity of care, proactive outreach and improved transition arrangements, including the earlier transfer of relevant information from Defence to DVA. This will support timely claims processing, compensation and tailored support for individuals identified as being at increased risk, consistent with royal commission recommendations 78, 80, 87 and 102 regarding moral injury, transition support, a veterans wellbeing agency, and family and domestic violence.

Together with other royal commission related reforms, this bill delivers further practical, system-wide change aimed at reducing harm, supporting families and ensuring Defence is better equipped to intervene earlier and more effectively when members, veterans and families are at risk.

Specifically, the bill contains five schedules.

Schedule 1 — Information sharing to improve wellbeing, health and safety outcomes

Schedule 1 of the bill inserts a new part in the Defence Act 1903 focused on health and wellbeing support for Defence Force members, veterans and their families, and amends the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to enhance the Repatriation Commission's functions to include the provision of wellbeing supports for Defence Force members, veterans and their families, including during transition out of the Defence Force. It establishes new arrangements to support the lawful, ethical and proportionate collection, use and disclosure of information to enhance health, wellbeing and safety outcomes for Defence members, veterans and their families.

The royal commission identified that Defence and veterans systems hold critical information, but systemic deficiencies in information sharing and data integration have led to information siloes, delays or gaps in access. These issues have been significant barriers to identifying risks and providing proactive support where needed, evaluating what works and strengthening suicide prevention.

Schedule 1 addresses these issues by creating clear, transparent and proportionate authority for information sharing in critical areas of focus for the royal commission.

Schedule 1 supports the implementation of several royal commission recommendations, including 74, 80, 87, 107, 110, and 116 regarding privacy legislation, transition, wellbeing, a national veterans data asset, Defence data and research, by striking the right balance between protecting privacy and enabling disclosure of information where a member or veteran may be at risk or in distress, supporting wellbeing during transition from service and underpinning the operation of the new Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency and the new National Veterans' Data Asset. It will also enhance research and data capabilities, improve timeliness of information sharing between Defence and DVA to support claims-processing efficiency, and strengthen the quality, integration and use of data, particularly in relation to preventing suicide and suicidality.

Defence and DVA are only able to collect personal information where it is reasonably necessary for the performance of their functions. Use and disclosure will be limited to legislative purposes and safeguards—primarily health, wellbeing and safety of members, veterans and their families.

These reforms will enable Defence and DVA to better understand suicide risk factors and deliver a more responsive and integrated experience for those across the Defence and DVA ecosystem, supporting earlier, proactive interventions for individuals assessed as vulnerable.

Faster access to ADF members' information will mean DVA can process claims from those members as they arise.

This will directly address recommendations 94 and 98 of the royal commission regarding data sharing and DVA claim processing times. The new wellbeing and transition support functions will enable the Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency to connect individuals with tailored supports and services appropriate to their individual needs whether or not they have started a claim with DVA.

Schedule 2 — Defence health services

Schedule 2 modernises and clarifies the legislative framework for Defence health services in direct response to several royal commission recommendations, including recommendations 67, 68, 76, 78, 113 and 116 regarding clinical governance frameworks, beneficial disclosures, postvention, moral injury, continuous improvement and research.

The Defence health system performs a unique role. It ensures members are fit to serve, supports operational capability, and underpins long-term health and wellbeing. The royal commission found that the legal framework governing this system has not kept pace with contemporary clinical practice, particularly in relation to mental health, data use and clinical governance.

Schedule 2 addresses this by clearly defining the Defence health system, those who work within it, the services it provides and the information it generates, and by clarifying how that information may be collected, used and disclosed. This clarification will improve access to timely mental health screening and enable the appropriate use of health information for system monitoring, quality assurance and continuous improvement.

The schedule allows Defence to collect, use and disclose health information for population-level monitoring and evaluation while embedding safeguards and strengthening legal protections for health practitioners involved in approved quality assurance and improvement activities. This ensures clinicians can engage openly and candidly in safety and quality assurance processes, mirroring best practice in civilian health systems.

This will, for the first time, provide a clear statutory framework governing how health information may be collected, used and disclosed within the Defence health system.

It ensures members receive earlier, better coordinated care, while enabling command to make safe and appropriate fitness-for-duty decisions based on limited, relevant information.

Critically, the framework is calibrated to member interests. Statutory authority is provided for uses that support member health and operational readiness. This principled approach reflects the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's recognition that ADF members' right to privacy and confidentiality must be respected alongside the health and operational needs of the force.

The bill also supports alignment with the National Model Clinical Governance Framework, enabling Defence to actively manage clinical safety, monitor effectiveness and improve service quality in line with national standards.

These arrangements for Defence health services align with civilian settings and are tailored to the unique requirements of the ADF.

For example, key decisions about which health conditions to monitor, what quality assurance activities to undertake and how state and territory requirements apply in the Defence health system are decisions made by the Surgeon-General of the ADF as the ADF officer with responsibility for delivery of the Defence health system.

These reforms respond directly to the royal commission's finding that data relevant to suicide, suicidality and health is often fragmented or unavailable when needed.

Schedule 3 — Information sharing to support ADF families

Schedule 3 of the bill strengthens legislative support for Defence families, recognising their critical role in the health, wellbeing and safety of Defence members. It gives effect to royal commission recommendations 102 and 103 regarding family and domestic violence and support for Defence families by improving support, communication and services provided to Defence families, including through the Defence Strategy for Preventing and Responding to Family and Domestic Violence.

The royal commission identified a clear nexus between family and domestic violence and suicide risk and emphasised the need for Defence to address family violence as part of its broader suicide prevention framework.

Service in the ADF can place significant strain on members and their families. Family and relationship breakdowns, particularly when compounded by the pressures of service life, can increase the risk of harm, including suicidality, for serving and ex-serving members.

Schedule 3 responds by ensuring systems are in place to communicate directly with families about available services, payments and supports. It allows for information sharing so that families are better informed and better supported and ensures that former partners impacted by family and domestic violence are not excluded from assistance during separation.

In practice this will enable provision of a payment or benefit to a former partner in relation to family or domestic violence to assist the safe separation of the former partner and the member.

Schedule 4 — Requirements to serve in the Defence Force

Schedule 4 introduces clearer and fairer end-of-service provisions to strengthen integrity, accountability and procedural fairness within Defence. It implements royal commission recommendation 22 by establishing more transparent and consistent arrangements for mandatory end of service where members are convicted of certain offences, while preserving appropriate safeguards and review mechanisms.

The royal commission emphasised that Defence decision-making affecting a person's service must be clear, proportionate and consistent with contemporary community expectations. Schedule 4 responds by modernising legislative arrangements governing acceptance into service, continuation of service and termination, ensuring decisions are made on a sound statutory footing and with appropriate procedural protections. These reforms provide greater clarity for members and decision-makers, reduce the risk of inconsistent and ad hoc outcomes, and ensure that decisions to enter, continue or leave service are made in a way that is transparent, fair and aligned with contemporary standards.

Critically, these changes strengthen fitness for service and end-of-service provisions to make clear that anyone who is imprisoned for an act of serious violence or a sexual offence will automatically be separated from service and will not be accepted back into service in the Defence Force.

Schedule 5 — Other amendments

Schedule 5 makes a number of minor amendments that support the independence of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission and its ability to undertake its role consistently with royal commission recommendation 122. These changes improve transparency, strengthen accountability mechanisms and ensure that inquiry powers and reporting processes function as intended.

This bill represents a considered, comprehensive and necessary response to the findings of the royal commission. It supports better health, wellbeing and safety outcomes for members, veterans and families. It strengthens information sharing to support prevention and early intervention, modernises Defence health governance, improves support for families and ensures service entry and exit arrangements are grounded in safety, integrity and accountability.

Above all, it ensures that Defence and DVA systems are fit for purpose, designed to protect the health, wellbeing and safety of those who serve, have served and those who support them, and to give practical, lasting effect to the findings and intent of the royal commission.

I'd like to acknowledge, in the complexity of this legislation, the need to get this right, and I thank the opposition and the crossbench, as well as ex-service organisations, for their engagement on this bill and continued engagement. We will be referring this bill for a Senate inquiry.

I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That sessional order 65A be amended to read as follows:

65A Opportunities for crossbench Members

Consistent with the principle that the call should alternate between government and non-government Members and to enable crossbench Members to receive the call in accordance with the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House:

(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to:

(i) a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth, seventeenth and twenty-first questions; and

(ii) an opposition Member seeking the call on the first, third, seventh, ninth, eleventh, fifteenth, nineteenth, twenty-third, twenty-fifth, twenty-seventh and twenty-ninth questions.

(b) During each period of Members' statements in the House, priority shall be given to at least three crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(c) During each period of Members' statements in the Federation Chamber on Mondays, priority shall be given to at least four crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(d) During each 30 minute period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least one crossbench Member seeking the call (standing order 193).

(e) During each one hour period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least three crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 193).

(f) During the grievance debate in the Federation Chamber, every Tuesday priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 192B).

(g) During the adjournment debate in the House, on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 31).

(h) During the adjournment debate in the Federation Chamber, every Thursday priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 191).

(i) For the matter of public importance discussion, the Speaker shall have regard to the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House in selecting matters proposed (standing order 46).

For the information of members across the non-government benches, there's a series of aspects to the sessional order that basically deal with the proportion of how many questions and other things go to the opposition versus the crossbench. Since the Farrer by election, the mathematics on that have changed. There's no actual change to question time, but there are changes to constituency statements and 90-second statements.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Aquarium Redevelopment project, Townsville, Queensland.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority seeks parliament's approval to redevelop the Great Barrier Reef Aquarium, the national education centre for the Great Barrier Reef, at 2-36 Kelleher Place, Townsville, Queensland. This project is a key deliverable of the Townsville City Deal signed in 2016. The scope of works includes significant architectural works and redevelopment of the existing building, living and thematic exhibitions, filtration and life support systems, and remediation of dilapidated structural, electrical, mechanical services and civil foundation works. The estimated total cost of the works is $161.1 million (excluding GST).

The proposed works were referred to the Public Works Committee on 25 November 2025. Following its inquiry, the committee recommended that the House of Representatives resolve that it is expedient to carry out the proposed works. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction and major works are scheduled to commence in the 2026-27 financial year, with re-opening scheduled for 2029. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Makin, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Defence—9 Molonglo Drive Project, Brindabella Park, Australian Capital Territory.

The Department of Defence seeks parliamentary approval to fit out newly leased premises at 9 Molonglo Drive, Brindabella Park, ACT to enable the department to consolidate four existing leases at Brindabella Park which have aged office fit-outs that are now beyond end of life. The scope of works includes the construction of workstations, individual offices, meeting and conference rooms, utility and storage spaces, secure rooms, training rooms, breakout spaces, an emergency operations centre and ICT help desk space. The estimated total cost of the works is $103.9 million, excluding GST. The proposed works were referred to the Public Works Committee on 3 November 2024. Following its inquiry, the committee recommended that the House of Representatives resolve that it is expedient to carry out the proposed works. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in mid-2026 for completion by late 2027. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Makin, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Refurbishment of Australian High Commission Staff Residential Compound, Konedobu, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade seeks parliamentary approval to refurbish 39 of the 45 staff residences located at the Australian High Commission's staff residential compound in Konedobu, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. The scope of works is for fit-out works only, including the demolition of internal services and fittings, removal of redundant services, new wall and ceiling linings, a full refurbishment of wet areas and kitchens, replacement flooring, upgrades to building services and safety upgrades to staircases. The estimated total cost of the works is $37.3 million, excluding GST but including Papua New Guinean value-added tax. The proposed works were referred to the Public Works Committee on 25 November 2025. Following its inquiry, the committee recommended that the House of Representatives resolve that it is expedient to carry out the proposed works. Subject to parliamentary approval, including resolution of any outstanding requirements, construction is expected to commence in 2026 and be completed in 2029. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Makin, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at One City Hill, Canberra City.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts seeks parliamentary approval to fit out levels 1 to 6 in new leased premises at One City Hill, Canberra City. The proposed work will comprise predominantly open-plan and modular workstations, meeting and breakout areas, and support facilities. The work will conform to the department's operational requirements, including physical and electronic security, with higher security zones and secure lift lobbies to each floor. The total project cost is estimated to be $46.4 million excluding GST. The proposed works were referred to the public works committee on 25 November 2025. Following its inquiry, the committee recommended that the House of Representatives resolve that it is expedient to carry out the proposed works. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in October 2026 for completion in May 2027. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Makin, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 7 of 2026.

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

by leave—I am pleased to present report 7 of 2026 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was tabled out of sitting on 12 June 2026.

In this report, the committee considers one new bill and 17 new legislative instruments. It has commented on three pieces of legislation.

The focus of this report is the committee's consideration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. This bill seeks to make several significant amendments to the operation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, broadly aimed at managing the financial stability of the scheme. The bill aims to secure the future of the NDIS through measures to tackle fraud, improve compliance, slow rapid cost increases and make eligibility requirements clearer, and deliver quality services and support to participants.

The committee has commented on six measures that appear to most directly engage and limit human rights. These measures are:

The combined impact of these measures may affect the rights of people with disability and the rights of the child, including their right to an adequate standard of living, equality and nondiscrimination, health, privacy and social security.

In general, the explanatory materials do not clearly identify the objective of each of the measures in the bill, making it difficult for the committee to assess the legitimacy for the purpose of international human rights law. The committee also has questions about whether the measures would be effective to achieve the objectives and whether the measures represent a proportionate limitation on human rights.

The committee is therefore seeking further information from ministers to assess the compatibility of the measures in the bills with human rights.

I hope the NDIS is and will remain the government's largest social program outside the age pension and the centrepiece of a comprehensive suite of support for people with disability. Given it's significant, it's important that the parliament carefully considers both the policy objectives of these measures and their implications for human rights.

I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. With these comments, I commend the committee's scrutiny report 7 of 2026 to the House.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's Report 233: agreement on the social security between Australia and the Oriental Public of Uruguay.

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

I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Is leave granted?

Leave is granted.

Thank you, Member for Bowman. We miss you on the committee. I rise today to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 233 into the social security agreement between Australia and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay. Australia and Uruguay share a friendly and cooperative bilateral relationship grounded in mutual respect and common interests. It is also supported by practical cooperation through agreements such as this, such as social security arrangements.

This agreement that the committee considered is an important development in our bilateral relationship with Uruguay and will provide tangible benefits to people who have lived and worked in both countries.

During the inquiry, the committee heard that the agreement is expected to make 290 additional people eligible for the age pension. This will also occur by allowing periods of Australian residence and Uruguayan insurance contributions to be counted together, enabling individuals to access entitlements on a proportional basis. This ensures that people receive appropriate recognition for their working lives, regardless of the country in which those contributions were made in.

Furthermore, this agreement allows people entitled to certain Australian and Uruguayan benefits to continue to receive these when they move overseas. This means that individuals entitled to the Australian aged pension can continue to receive the age pension even after moving to Uruguay.

The agreement also provides clarity for businesses and employees undertaking temporary work across borders by determining which country's system applies. This aims to prevent double contributions and lowers administrative complexity and offers clarity. By doing so, this agreement will reduce barriers to doing business across both countries and strengthens Australian business connections to Uruguay.

This agreement is Australia's 33rd bilateral social security agreement of this nature and our second with Latin America. The committee is satisfied that the agreement is consistent with past agreements and reflects a balanced and reciprocal approach.

This report I'm tabling today also includes a minor treaty action in relation to the amendment to the Agreement Establishing the Asian Development Bank. This amendment removes the Asian Development Bank's lending limits, as set out in the initial agreement. Removing the limit will boost the bank's financial capacity and maximise development impact. This supports Australia's commitment to growth and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

The committee would like to thank the Department of Social Services, the Treasury and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for their engagement throughout the inquiry that we held. I'd also like to thank fellow committee members for their contributions and to all those who participated in the inquiry.

The committee supports the agreement on the social security between Australia and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and recommends that binding treaty be actioned. The committee also recommends that minor treaty action be taken in relation to the amendment to the Agreement Establishing the Asian Development Bank. On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House.

It's an absolute pleasure to do this speech in front of so many of my colleagues. I am standing here today in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. At its core, this bill is about something pretty simple. It's about making sure Aussies know what they are going to be paying for their health care. It's about giving people confidence in their private health insurance and it's about making sure the system is fair. Right now, for too many people, it unfortunately is not.

While we're focused on making the system fairer and more transparent, those opposite have been very clear about their views on Medicare. They have argued that the system is unsustainable and that more of the burden should fall on individuals. I've spoken to plenty of people across the Hunter who have walked out of a GP appointment with their referral to a specialist only to hesitate, not because they don't want the care but because they don't know what it's going to cost them. That uncertainty is a real problem. We know that more than 800,000 Australians have delayed or missed specialist care because of cost. That is not just a number. That is people putting off treatment, and that is conditions getting worse. It is families worrying about bills instead of focusing on getting better.

As somebody who serves as Special Envoy for Men's Health, I see this play out in a very real way. Blokes are already less likely to go to their doctor. They already tend to put things off. If you add in cost uncertainty on top of that, it becomes another reason to delay, another reason to say, 'I'll deal with this later.' I've had men in my electorate tell me straight up they did not follow through with a specialist appointment because they were worried about getting hit with a bill they just couldn't afford.

Tim, a young bloke from Kurri Kurri, told me he was referred to a cardiologist. He had a young family, a mortgage and rising bills. He asked what it would cost. He couldn't get a straight answer, so he waited. That's not good enough. Health care should not come with that kind of guesswork.

Alex from Morisset needed a knee procedure after years of working on the tools. He had private health insurance. He thought it was covered. But when he started asking questions, he realised that there were multiple gaps, with different fees for the surgeon, the anaesthetist and the hospital. He said, 'It felt like trying to price a job without a quote.' That's the reality that people are dealing with.

I will give you another example. I spoke with Pete from Cessnock, who had just been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Like a lot of men, he had not been for regular check-ups. When he finally did, it was serious. He did the right thing. He got the referral. He was ready to act. But when the questions came of how much it would cost, what is covered and what is not, he told me that he felt overwhelmed not just by the diagnosis but by the financial uncertainty that came with it. He said to me, 'I just want to focus on getting better and not having to worry about the bill.'

This is the kind of uncertainty that is not accidental. When more of the burden is pushed onto individuals and people are expected to navigate the costs on their own, this is exactly what happens. There is confusion, delay and people missing out on care. That's exactly why transparency matters so much, and it's exactly why this bill is actually trying to fix this. It improves transparency. It gives Australians access to clear, comparable information about what medical services actually cost. Through changes to the law, it allows the Medical Costs Finder website to publish real data on what specialists charge and what out-of-pocket costs patients can expect.

Importantly, this information will not rely on doctors voluntarily uploading it. We tried that, and it simply didn't work. Out of thousands of eligible specialists, only a handful chose to share their fees. That is not transparency. That is a system that leaves patients in the dark. This bill fixes it by using data we already have—medical data, hospital billing data, insurer data. It brings it together and makes it available so people can compare costs and make informed decisions.

We believe in strengthening Medicare and helping people navigate the system. Those opposite have argued that the current model cannot continue and that Australians will either have to pay more or face reduced access to care. This bill takes a much different approach. It puts the information in the hands of patients. That means someone in the Hunter can look up what a procedure might cost in Newcastle compared to somewhere else. They can see whether a doctor participates in gap-cover arrangements. They can understand what their insurer is likely to cover. This is common sense. It's something that people expect.

This bill also provides transparency around hospitals and insurers. It will show which doctors operate at which facilities. It will show which insurers have arrangements with those facilities, and it will show the proportion of policy-holders facing different out-of-pocket costs. All of that matters when people are making decisions about their health. At the same time, it protects patient privacy. No personal information will be published. This is about system transparency, not individual exposure. And there will be a process for medical practitioners to review and query the data that's published about them. So this is balanced. It's practical and it's most certainly overdue

I want to spend a bit more time on why this transparency matters in the real world. When people cannot see the cost up front, they're making decisions in the dark. They might pick the first specialist they referred to without knowing that there are more affordable ones right near them. They might assume their insurance will cover more than it actually does, or they might avoid care altogether. That's not a system working for patients. With better information, people can ask better questions. They can ring around; they can compare, and they can make a choice that suits their situation. That's empowering for patients. It also encourages fair pricing across the whole system, because when fees are visible, there is more pressure to keep them at a reasonable cost, and that benefits everyone.

I've spoken to a family in Singleton whose teenage daughter needed a specialist consultation. They were trying to do the right thing, following the medical advice they were given, and get Olivia the care she needed, but they were given very little clarity on the cost. They rang three different clinics and got three very different answers. They ended up delaying the appointment while they tried to work out exactly what they could and couldn't afford. That delay should not happen. Another local, a retiree, Jane from Branxton, told me she felt embarrassed about asking about the costs when speaking to a specialist office. She said she felt like she was being difficult just for wanting to understand how that bill worked. No-one should feel that way. Transparency should be the norm, not something people have to push for. This bill helps change that culture. It sends a clear message that patients have the right to know, and it makes that information easier to access.

The second part of this bill deals with something that has been chipping away at the confidence in private health insurance. That's a practice known as product phoenixing. It sounds technical, but it's pretty straightforward. An insurer closes a product and then opens a very similar one at a higher price or with reduced value, and they avoid proper scrutiny in this process. That is not fair on consumers. That is not fair for the people of the Hunter. People think they are comparing apples with apples, but they are not. It undermines trust. This bill closes that loophole. It requires insurers to seek approval for premiums, not just when they change an existing product but also when they introduce a new one and when they make changes that reduce the cover or the benefits. It brings those decisions under proper oversight. It also strengthens the process around premium approvals. It formalises the premium round. It introduces a clearer public-interest test. It allows the minister to ask for more information and require insurers to justify their applications. All of that is about one thing: making sure Australians are getting value for money.

I've had people in my electorate tell me they feel like their premiums keep going up but their cover does not feel like it's keeping up with that pace. The frustration is real. Families are making tough choices about what they can and can't afford, and, when they do pay for private health insurance, they want to know it's worth it. This bill helps rebuild that trust. It puts stronger checks in place, makes the system more transparent and makes insurers more accountable. I've also heard from younger families in Cameron Park who are weighing up whether to keep their private health cover at all. They are looking at rising premiums and uncertain benefits and wondering if it's worth it. If we want people to stay in the system, we have to make sure the system is fair and clear. This bill is part of that.

From a men's health perspective, transparency and confidence matter. We know that men are less likely to engage with the health system. We know they are more likely to delay. If we make the system clearer, simpler and easier to understand, we remove more barriers. We make it more likely that they will actually take that next step, book the appointment, follow through with treatment and get checked early instead of late. That saves lives. And it's not just about physical health. When people avoid care because of cost concerns, it adds to stress. It weighs on them. It affects their mental health as well. I've spoken to blokes who say they worry about their bills and it keeps them up at night. That's part of the picture too. Clear information helps take some of that pressure away. It gives people a sense of control, and that really does matter.

I also want to touch on the broader context. Health costs are one of the biggest pressures that people are feeling right now. The cost of living is tight. Families are budgeting carefully. When health costs are uncertain, it creates anxiety. This bill does not solve every issue in this system, but it's a practical step in the right direction. It gives people more control, more information and more confidence, and it holds parts of the system to account. That is what good reform should do. I want to go back to something very simple. If you were getting work done in your house, you would expect a quote. If you were getting your car fixed, you would expect a price. You would not agree to a job without knowing what the actual cost is going to be. But in health care too many people are asked to do exactly that—sign up for treatment without knowing the full picture. That is what this bill changes. It puts information back in the hands of patients. It gives them the ability to compare and contrast, to ask questions, to make choices and to make the system more accountable.

I've spoken to older residents in places like Cessnock and Singleton who are trying to manage on fixed incomes. They tell me they worry about needing specialist care, because they are not sure what it will cost them. That uncertainty should not be there. Health care should be about getting better, not about guessing what the bill will be. This bill helps address that. It strengthens Medicare by supporting better decision-making. It improves private health insurance by closing loopholes and increasing oversight. And it delivers on a clear commitment to transparency.

There is still more work to do on health. There always will be. But this is a solid step forward. It is practical. It focuses on the consumers and it responds to real issues that people are facing. As somebody who spends a lot of time talking to people about their health, especially men, who do not always engage early, I know how important it is to remove barriers. Cost uncertainty is a barrier. Lack of information is a barrier. This bill tackles both of those. It also sends a broader message about the kind of health system we want in this country—one that is fair, one that is clear and one that puts patients first.

At the end of the day, that is what this is all about. It is about patients. It is about helping people get the care they need when they need it without unnecessary stress or confusion. That is something that everyone in this House should support, and I really hope those opposite get onboard and support this, because at the end of the day the people in the Hunter and the people all around Australia want to see us work together. They want an opposition that works with us in government so we can make Australia a better and fairer place. That is why this bill is so important and that is why I support this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

I also rise today to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. Now, it would not shock anyone in this House that I believe that the Morrison government made many mistakes and missteps in their term of government. Whilst a lot of time could be spent discussing those that made major headlines, one that did not receive as much attention was their failed price disclosure tool, Medical Costs Finder.

The Morrison government spent $24 million setting up the Medical Costs Finder website, which they claimed would use Medicare data to display the cost of common medical services alongside the fees that individual specialists voluntarily shared on the website. But how did this work out in practice? By the end of 2022, out of the approximately 6,300 eligible specialists registered to practise in the 11 specialities covered on Medical Costs Finder, just six doctors had chosen to display their fee information—six out of more than 6,000. But that was in 2022. Maybe it improved over time. But, even three years later, only 88 doctors have voluntarily displayed their fee information—just 88. It is clear that the system was not working and that this was preventing Australians from accessing information that they needed when making decisions regarding their health care. This bill before the House fixes that.

It is simply unjustifiable to expect Australians to commit to a medical treatment without knowing the cost of that treatment. It is unjustifiable to expect Australians to commit to a medical treatment without being able to compare those costs against the fees charged by other providers. Australians have the right to know the level of support that is provided by their private health insurer so they can determine from the outset their likely out-of-pocket costs. This bill will allow the government to publish details about what individual specialists charge for particular medical services.

This information is already collected by government. It's just a matter of allowing it to be published. This move will improve transparency and take the guesswork out of health care, helping to ensure that Australians have all the information they need when making choices concerning the health of themselves and their loved ones. And it does this without increasing the administrative burden on our doctors.

This bill also outlaws another practice that is becoming increasingly problematic in the insurance system, which is the practice of product phoenixing. For those who are unaware, product phoenixing is when an insurer closes an existing product and then opens an identical or similar new product at a higher premium. We know that this practice is hurting the hip pockets of Australians and damaging their confidence in the insurance system. That is why we promised at the last election to address it, and that's why we are delivering on that promise. Not only does this provide more protections to Australians; it also provides them with assurance that our insurance system is working as it should and is there to support them.

This doesn't protect only new entrants to private health insurance but also the 15.3 million people who currently hold private health insurance policies, who are currently left unprotected from this practice. The bill will achieve this by amending the approvals that insurers are required to receive from the minister for health. Currently, private health insurers are required to apply to the minister for health if they wish to change the premium for an existing product. This creates loopholes that have been exploited by providers to maximise their profits and hurt the Australian people. This bill before the House creates changes that will require an insurer to seek ministerial approval for the premium charged for a proposed new product and, importantly, where changes are made that reduce cover, a benefit or a term of condition of an existing product.

We know that the cost of medical and hospital services is a key driver of health inflation for consumers, which ultimately feeds into higher out-of-pocket costs and higher private health insurance premiums. We know that fees can vary widely across specialists, even for the same procedure in the same part of Australia. And we know that this is hurting Australians. That is why we promised to address this issue, and that is why we are delivering on this promise and advocating the passing of this bill.

On this side of the chamber we are dedicated to working for the Australian people to ensure that our healthcare system is strong, transparent and accessible for all. If only that was the case for everyone in this chamber, though. Can we really be shocked that we are still here cleaning up the mess of the previous government when they have members on their front bench who still believe that our Medicare system should be privatised, stripping Australians of the quality health care they deserve? Can we be shocked when they have members on their front bench who are committed to talking down Australia and Australians and members who are willing to bet against the Australian economy and people?

The member for Goldstein has gone on record in this House declaring that Australia runs an 'illness system', not a healthcare system, stating that it is a system designed to keep people ill to feed the benefits of the unions and the people they are paid to represent and to maintain the political control of the Australian Labor Party. He is more obsessed with grand political conspiracy theories and union bashing than with the health care of the Australian people. The only thing the member champions in health care is the privatisation of Medicare. But on this side of the House we will champion all aspects of our public healthcare system. That's why I'm proud to stand for this bill.

In more specifics, this bill will amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to allow for the publication of information about medical practitioners and their billing, including names, locations, fees charged by location, and their utilisation of gap cover arrangements with insurers, where insurers pay a medical practitioner more if they agree to charge no or fixed out-of-pocket costs. It will allow for the publication of information about hospitals, including medical practitioners who provide services at the facility and insurers that have gap cover or contracting arrangements with the facility. And it will allow for the publication of information about insurers, including the proportion of policyholders who experience different gap cover arrangements and the out-of-pocket costs under those arrangements.

Transparency and honesty in our medical system are crucial so that Australians and people in my community are able to make fully informed healthcare choices. Honesty in our system and in how we talk about our system matters. Unfortunately, not everyone in this House would seem to agree with that. The member for Goldstein has, in this House, declared that there are no bulk-billed doctors in this capital city. He has come here and claimed that people in my home, in my community, do not have these services. This is a blatant falsehood.

I will not stand here and say that there is not more work to do on the bulk-billing rates in my community, but to exploit the concerns of my community—to which he is a stranger—for his own political gain and narrative is unacceptable. I'll stand here with every opportunity I have, be honest about the challenges we face and fight for my community—not exploit them and the constituencies of others to suit my own narrative. The member for Goldstein has gone on record in this House saying, 'Let's be honest about health care,' and I agree: let's be honest about it.

There is only one side of this chamber that is committed to fighting for Australians' right to access affordable and accessible health care, and it's not just this bill that proves it. We've made record investments in Medicare and bulk-billing, which has worked to ensure that bulk-billing rates Australia-wide are now over 81 per cent and that 97 per cent of Australians live within a 20-minute drive of a registered Medicare bulk-billing practice.

The Albanese government has made record investments in our healthcare system, reaching new agreements with the states and territories to deliver record funding into the hospital system. Here in the ACT, it will mean an additional $557 million boost to hospital funding alongside additional funding of $75 million to assist with the challenges of being a smaller jurisdiction. This is part of a package that is worth over $4 billion in the ACT.

Twelve months after the Albanese government's landmark $792.9 million women's health package, we are seeing real and impactful changes being delivered. This includes the first PBS listing of new contraceptive pills in more than 30 years and the first PBS listing of new menopausal hormone therapies in over 20 years. More than 6,700 women with endometriosis have access to treatment at PBS prices, saving $4.9 million on 26,000 scripts in the past year. Women undergoing in vitro fertilisation are receiving earlier and more affordable access to a form of fertility treatment, with more than 46,000 women with specific low levels of reproductive hormones accessing 273,000 scripts in the past year.

The Albanese government has delivered the largest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the PBS, with the maximum cost of a general script falling from $42.50 to $30 in January 2023 and now to $25. This Albanese government has established 1800MEDICARE, because life isn't nine to five and access to health advice shouldn't be either.. In my community, the Albanese Labor government has invested in and established the Medicare urgent care clinic in Woden and the Tuggeranong Medicare Mental Health Centre in Tuggeranong. (Quorum formed)This bill is another example of the Albanese Labor government's plan to assist Australians with the cost of health care to ensure that the last thing Australians are worrying about when seeking medical treatment is their wallet. This fits into the broader picture of Labor's commitment to stand in the trenches with the Australian people in the fight against the cost of living. That's why we've also cut student debt, cut the cost of PBS medicines, cut 30 per cent off of home batteries to lower power bills, supported apprentices with 10,000 bonuses and introduced paid prac for nursing, teaching, social work and midwifery students. I'm very excited to see this latest commitment be delivered and added to that list. I commend this bill to the House.

We all know that it's Labor that's the party that delivers better, affordable and quality healthcare to Australians. We established Medicare in 1984, and, under the Albanese Labor government, we've delivered expansions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, including $25 scripts. We've rolled out urgent care clinics across the country, including one in my electorate of Kelvin Grove. We've delivered a landmark women's health package, which means more choice, lower costs and better healthcare for women.

Australians know that they can always trust the Labor government to deliver accessible and affordable healthcare. There is no doubt that our system is one of the best in the world, but its trajectory has waxed and waned, reflecting the values of the party in power. Going back to 1972, Labor was elected and promised a universal, compulsory national health insurance scheme, and that was to replace voluntary arrangements. Despite this being met with fierce opposition from the coalition, the AMA and private health insurers, the policy was eventually legislated and Medibank was born. In 1975, the newly elected coalition government gradually dismantled the scheme until it was eventually abolished in 1981. This was despite an election commitment to maintain Medibank.

Various reports show that the Fraser years reduced people's access to the universal scheme and encouraged private health insurance membership, promoting the role of private care as a substitute for a public system for those who could afford to pay. The ideology was to support private funding and the provision of health care and that the government's role was to provide a safety net reserved for the disadvantaged, which saw means testing reintroduced and rebates payable for medical services reduced. After the 1984 election, the re-elected Labor government restored the publicly funded universal scheme under its new name, Medicare—the green and gold card that we all know so well. It was to provide free access to all public hospitals without means testing.

Medicare is a proud Labor legacy. Access to affordable healthcare was not just the right thing to do; it was the fair thing to do, and it was an investment in Australians and in Australia. For decades, private health insurance has continued to operate alongside Medicare as a complement, providing additional cover for services and amenities not covered or reimbursed by Medicare. That's because this Labor government and many Labor governments before us have recognised the importance of a strong and accessible public healthcare system, but Medicare can't do it all.

Private health insurance aims to fill gaps, and, for many, it's about minimising the time you have to sit on a public hospital waiting list. There are two types of private health insurance: hospital cover for things like accommodation and theatre fees, and general treatment for services like maybe dental, maybe physio. Many insurers often combine hospital and general cover, but most private health insurers let you know you can choose your own surgeon or other specialists and have treatment in a private hospital or as a private patient in a public hospital. Insurers can tell you what they'll pay for and how much you'll pay. This will help Australians choose a level of cover that suits their needs and their budget. But often costs can be hidden, leaving us consumers vulnerable to exorbitant specialist fees. So the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill will help transparency in the private insurance area. It will enable Australians to make informed decisions about their health care and their private health insurance. It will also provide clarity on individual medical practitioner fees and out-of-pocket costs.

This bill also protects consumers by prohibiting phoenixing, closing a loophole that allowed private health insurers to discontinue a product and reintroduce an identical one at a higher price or with reduced value without ministerial oversight. Schedule 1 of the bill aims to enhance consumer transparency by requiring clearer information on expected medical fees and likely out-of-pocket costs for private health. An increasing number of Australians are not taking up referrals from their general practitioner to see a specialist due to cost. In fact, data says that in 2024 almost nine per cent of people delayed or missed specialist care. That's over 800,000 people, and the decision was made because of costs. That's simply not good enough. It leads to poorer health outcomes for Australia and higher costs in the long run.

The most common cause of out-of-pocket costs is medical specialist fees. It's unreasonable to require patients to commit to a course of medical treatment without clear, upfront information about the associated costs. Patients should be able to understand what they will be charged and have the opportunity to compare those costs with fees offered by other providers, enabling them to make informed and financially-sound decisions about their care. Understanding the level of support that is provided by their private health insurer is also vital in determining their likely out-of-pocket costs. This bill will provide consumers with the opportunity to plan for upfront costs.

Since 2022, specialists and insurers have been able to participate in the Medicare Costs Finder by voluntarily publishing their fees and their out-of-pocket information. This platform was created to provide transparency for patients seeking clearer information about medical expenses. But guess what? Uptake has been too low, with only one to two per cent of specialists and 10 per cent of insurers participating on the website as of December 2025. That's simply not good enough. There is a product there; there is a system there to provide transparency for patients and it's not being utilised. People deserve to know what their costs will be right from the start. So this legislation will allow for the publication of 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. While the focus is on the charging practices of non-GP specialists, general practitioners and their billing could also be published on the website in future.

Schedule 1 will amend the Health Insurance Act of 1973 and the Private Health Insurance Act of 2007 to do a few things. The first allows for the publication of information about medical practitioners and their billings, including their names, their locations, their fees charged by location and the utilisation of gap cover arrangements with insurers where insurers pay a medical practitioner more if they agree to charge no, or fixed, out pocket costs. The second allows for the publication of information about hospitals, including medical practitioners who provide services at the hospital and insurers that have gap cover or contracting arrangements with that hospital. The third allows for the publication of information about insurers, including the proportion of policyholders who experienced different gap cover arrangements and the out-of-pocket costs. The forth includes an immunity from civil proceedings, and the fifth modernises the secrecy regimes that make it consistent with the amendments to secrecy provisions in portfolio legislations made by the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Act 2025.

Importantly, the amendments will continue to protect the privacy of consumers. No patient information will be published. The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing is establishing an internal review process for medical practitioners to inquire about, or to request that the department review, the fee information that is published about them. Without passage of this schedule, Australians will continue to have uncertainty about the potential costs of their treatment, and that's just not fair. Patients will continue to be unable to compare private healthcare providers and unable to seek better value for their health care. Frankly, they'll make more-informed decisions with the passing of this legislation.

Currently, private health insurers are required to apply to the minister if they wish to change the premium of an existing product. This has typically occurred once a year through the annual premium review round process. Schedule 2 of the bill relates to changes to strengthen ministerial oversight of private health insurance premiums to better protect consumers. Insurers are not required to seek approval for the premium charge for new products. Some insurers have avoided the intent of the premium round by shutting down an existing product to new customers and introducing a new, nearly identical product priced higher than the minister had approved for the original one. This process is known as phoenixing. This hurts not just new entrants to private health insurance, who are directly impacted, but the 15.3 million people who hold private health insurance, who are left unprotected from unscrutinised changes.

To address this issue, amendments to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 will require insurance companies to apply to the minister for approval of 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 if they reduce the cover, a benefit or other term of condition of an existing product.

Additional changes are being made to formalise and enhance existing practices that also occur under the annual premium round process. These include specifying the premium round submission date in the legislation while allowing the minister to make a legislative instrument to vary those dates, encouraging submissions to be made through the premium round by introducing a more stringent public interest test to be applied to the applications made outside of the premium round submissions, and allowing delegation of the minister's premium approval power but not the power to refuse an application. This could enable a reduced process for certain categories of applications outside the premium round. A delegation would likely be for relatively straightforward applications where they're more clearly in the public interest, and details will be worked through with the industry. There are more changes in that schedule.

These reforms are an important step in holding private health insurers to account and empowering consumers to make informed decisions about the cost of their health care. The government will always pursue reforms that ensure that private health insurers deliver genuine value for money and greater transparency for consumers and that put consumers rights at the centre of healthcare decisions.

Australia has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and many of us are really proud that everyone can get access to quality health care. I've lived through the flip side. While living in the US—another developed country, by the way—I saw families go broke because of an unexpected illness or injury. I saw elderly people suffer in pain because they couldn't afford a knee replacement. I saw young people not getting health checks because it was too costly.

Not that long ago, we saw Medicare almost broken and people putting off seeing a doctor or buying their medicine. Why? Because Medicare was neglected under the LNP and, as a result, it became too costly. This Labor government, like those before it, is committed to Medicare and has poured billions of dollars back into strengthening the system. Those opposite don't like it when we get out that green and gold card in this House, but our communities do.

It's a strong reminder of the LNP's efforts to undermine Medicare every time they're in government. I outlined some of the history earlier. They know their record when it comes to investing in health care. It's shameful. The previous leader of the LNP, Peter Dutton, was voted the worst health minister in the world. Under Scott Morrison, they were sharpening their knives to privatise Medicare. That's their go to. They froze GP bulk-billing for years, leading to higher costs to see a GP, and the list goes on.

On this side of the House, we know the importance of backing our healthcare system, we know the importance of making sure our communities have access to high-quality affordable health care when they needed it. What's Labor done? We've been funding our hospitals, we're investing in Medicare, we're rolling out urgent care clinics across the country, including one in my electorate, in Kelvin Grove. We've had almost 4,000 patients visit that clinic, and it's only been open for less than six months. We're increasing bulk-billing rates, we're rolling out mental health centres across the country, and we're providing $25 scripts—or $7.70, if you're on concession. Why? By backing a strong healthcare system, we are backing everyday Australians. We're making sure every person in my electorate and every person across the country has access to affordable health care when they need it.

With this bill, we're going further. We're protecting consumers who are under the private health insurance system as well because that is a key part of our healthcare system. We're providing greater transparency so that patients and people who need medical care can make informed decisions in relation to their health care. I commend this bill to the House.

(Quorum formed)

This legislation—the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026—delivers on the Albanese government's election commitment to ensure greater transparency in costs charged by medical specialists, rebates provided by health insurers and outlawing product phoenixing. It is also legislation that, ultimately, will assist with cost-of-living pressures that Australians are experiencing because the legislation will help people make informed decisions about their health care and their private health insurance needs.

This will be done through the Medical Costs Finder website, which will publish individual medical practitioner fees and insurers' out-of-pocket data for common medical services.

One of the most frequent grievances I hear from people in my electorate is about the fees charged by a medical specialist, the low rebate paid by Medicare or the low private health insurance rebate that they get and therefore the out-of-pocket costs paid by the patient. Whilst the medical specialists, private health insurers and Medicare each blame each other for the often exorbitant out-of-pocket costs, there is general agreement across the community that some medical specialists are simply charging too much for their services. With respect to that, I'll quote directly from a press release issued on 17 October 2025 by Private Healthcare Australia which I believe exposes the staggering increase in some medical bills. The press release says:

Between 2018-19 and 2023-24, the median out-of-pocket medical fees charged by doctors including surgeons, anaesthetists and assistant surgeons has surged for many procedures. Some of the biggest price rises have occurred for:

The press release goes on to say:

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) data shows average out-of-pocket fees for hospital episodes have risen by 65% since 2020.

It then goes on further to say:

Doctors are entitled to charge fairly, but fees that double, triple and increase up to nine times in a few years are unsustainable. Patients end up facing massive bills or waiting years for treatment in the public system. Neither Medicare nor private health insurers can keep pace without pushing up taxes and premiums.

The last part of the press release says:

Studies by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, La Trobe University and Patients Australia show up to 20% of Australians are delaying or skipping specialist appointments due to cost. The Grattan Institute estimates over a million people each year miss out on seeing a specialist because they cannot afford it.

Those figures confirm why this legislation is so important and welcome. It's a step in the right direction and it will help patients.

In particular, I refer to schedule 1, which the minister also referred to in his second reading speech. I note the member for Brisbane in her contribution just a few moments ago also referred to schedule 1. Schedule 1 is effectively the summary of what is going to happen with respect to ensuring that people have access to the information that they need. I will read directly from the minister's speech:

Schedule 1 will amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to:

Importantly, with these changes and with the additional information that will be provided on the Medical Costs Finder site, no patient information will be published, and the privacy of consumers will continue to be protected. I believe having that information available to people is critical in ensuring that they can make the choices they need to in order to make a decision that is in their best interests.

The government is certainly trying to bring down medical costs for people across the country, and we have done so through a number of measures. This is going to add to that. I can use the measure of bulk-billing data. As a result of the government's increasing of the bulk-billing incentive for doctors, we've now seen nationally that 81.9 per cent of people are getting bulk-billed, and that's a 4.6 per cent increase. It is higher than at the same time last year. In South Australia, the figure is 80.4 per cent. That is almost six per cent higher than it was, again, this time last year. In my own electorate of Makin, we are now seeing bulk-billing rates of 85.6 per cent, whereas, in October 2025, before the bulk-billing initiative was expanded to include all Australians, it was just 78.4 per cent. We now have in my electorate of Makin 17 GP practices that fully bulk-bill, and that is an increase of 10 on what it previously was.

I quote these figures only to highlight how, by providing information and additional support, people are able to get their medical needs looked at without being out of pocket in the way they would have been previously. That is a good thing, because if people can afford to see their doctors at the right time, it ensures that they perhaps don't develop further and more expensive complications down the track. So we need to try and ensure that people get to their doctors when they need to, and that includes their specialists. As I said and quoted from that press release earlier on, when nearly a million Australians are choosing to defer their appointment with their specialist, ultimately it will mean that their medical condition will deteriorate. That in turn means that, when they finally do need the treatment, it will be much, much more expensive for them.

If they don't go to a medical specialist, then their choice is to go to a public hospital. Again, if they go to a public hospital, the problem is that, firstly, the public hospitals are already under pressure right around the country, as we know. But, secondly, they will very likely have to be put on a waiting list, which again means that they're not only suffering for a long period of time but, by the time they come to getting the treatment they need, the costs might have gone up as well. So it's a lose-lose situation for everybody if we can't get those people who need medical attention treated at the time they are first diagnosed with the treatment that they need.

I suspect that, as a result of this legislation, some people who are already on elective surgery waiting lists—by the way, in some cases, people are waiting for a year or more for the surgery or the treatment that they need. But as a result of this legislation, it is my view that, when people are able to shop around, when people know that there perhaps is a cheaper alternative, even if it means that they have to pay for it themselves, they may well come off the elective surgery waiting list in the public hospital and choose to go to a private specialist because they can now find a private specialist that they can afford to provide the treatment that they need. Whereas, right now, most people usually get a referral from their GP. The referral is to a specialist that they don't question, and they have no idea whether they could possibly get the same treatment at a much better rate using another surgeon. It's not often that people shop around when it comes to medical treatment. They usually rely on the advice of their GP, and I think that's going to change as a result of this legislation and change for the better.

What it will also hopefully do—this is clearly one of the intentions—in ensuring that people have access to the list of costs for what specialists are charging, is bring some of those fees down a little. As I pointed out earlier, when quoting those costs from the press release that I referred to, some of the fees, in the minds of most people, are unrealistic and, quite frankly, it is time that some of them did come down—even in the medical field.

Every day there is new technology out there—and, yes, sometimes it's expensive—that allows for much more efficient procedures. As a result of that, you would think that perhaps the costs of those procedures would come down. But that hasn't always necessarily been the case. People just get used to charging a certain fee, and then they continue to do so even though they might be able to deliver the same treatment at a much reduced fee because of the new technology that is around. Again, this is all about bringing down prices and costs for consumers. In my view, that is a good thing. It is a good thing because people will be able to not only save money but perhaps afford to pay for treatment that they need to get.

The other matter relating to all of this is obviously the issue of some private health insurers using the practice of phoenixing. This is where they drop a particular type of cover, pretending that it is no longer available, but then reintroduce it in a different format and charge a lot more money for doing so. That is going to be outlawed. I welcome the practice because it is stopping people from accessing health insurance, or it is at least increasing the premiums for people unnecessarily.

It's interesting to note that in 2024-25 there was $31.1 billion paid in private health insurance premiums. That is a lot of money that is being paid by families across the country in order to get the health cover they need. Sadly, for many of them, on top of that, when they do need some kind of medical support or treatment, they usually find themselves being out of pocket to the tune of hundreds of dollars if not thousands of dollars. That is a terribly sad thing. I particularly feel for the people who have chronic conditions—conditions whereby not only is their own lifestyle changed and affected each and every day because of the chronic condition they have, but in most cases a person with a chronic condition will also be someone who probably has to regularly see a specialist of some sort or another. So they not only have to deal with other increased costs in their lives because of their condition, but the constant treatment that they need from the specialist must surely be a burden that many of them would find difficult to face. I know, from speaking to people in my electorate, that has often been the case. People are really struggling to pay for the treatment they need if it means going to see a specialist.

In wrapping up, this legislation is good legislation. It provides information out there in the marketplace that people will access, and ultimately that will reduce the cost of health services for people who need them throughout this country. I commend the legislation to the House.

This is an important piece of legislation that strengthens the foundations of Medicare and supports the delivery of affordable, accessible and high-quality health care for Australians. At its heart, the legislation is about ensuring that programs we use to support primary care providers have a clear legislative framework, strong accountability and the integrity needed to continue delivering for Australians— (Quorum formed)

The Albanese Labor government has made no secret of its commitment to strengthening Medicare. We came to government with a clear understanding that Medicare is one of Australia's greatest achievements. It reflects our value, as a nation, that every Australian should be able to access health care when they need it, regardless of their income, their postcode or their circumstances.

But we also recognised that Medicare had been under significant pressure. Australians were finding it harder to access bulk-billing services, general practices were struggling with rising costs and families were increasingly worried about the cost of seeing a doctor. That is why our government has delivered the single largest investment in Medicare's history. Our record $8.5 billion investment is strengthening Medicare, supporting patients, training more doctors and nurses, and helping more Australians so that they can access affordable care close to home.

The proposed legislation before the House today, the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026, complements that investment. Primary care incentive programs are a vital part of how governments support the delivery of health care. They encourage best practice, improve access to services and provide financial support to the doctors, nurses and practices that Australians rely upon every day. Programs such as the Medicare Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program are already helping to make health care more affordable for millions of Australians.

However, these programs have not always had the clear legislative foundations necessary to support their long-term administration and integrity. This legislation addresses that issue. It establishes a clear framework for Commonwealth primary care incentive payment programs, ensuring they can be administered effectively, transparently and responsibly. It provides strong mechanisms to protect public funds, enforce compliance and maintain the integrity of programs that support healthcare delivery across the country. Importantly, it also provides a framework that can support future primary care initiatives as Australia's health system continues to evolve. This is sensible legislation, this is practical legislation and it's legislation that supports the broader objective of ensuring Medicare remains strong for generations to come.

The importance of strengthening Medicare is something I hear about regularly in my electorate. Whether I'm speaking with families in Frankston, meeting with seniors in Seaford, talking to young parents in Carrum Downs or chatting with local residents at community events across the electorate, accessible, affordable health care is always a priority and welcomed. People want to know they can see a doctor when they need one. They want to know that costs will not be a barrier to receiving care, and they want confidence that Medicare will continue to be there for them and their families. That is exactly why the Albanese Labor government's investment in Medicare matters.

We are already seeing results. On 1 November, the government expanded the general practice bulk-billing incentive to all Australians and began providing practices with an additional 12.5 per cent incentive payment if they bulk-bill all of their patients all of the time. This was a major reform. It sent a clear message to general practices that we value bulk-billing and that we are prepared to invest in it, and the results are already becoming clear. The latest quarterly bill data shows that the national GP bulk-billing rate was 81.9 per cent for the January to March quarter. On that note, I would like to conclude. Thank you.

I want to thank the member for Dunkley for her contribution and all members for their contributions to the debate on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026.

Schedule 1 of this bill makes important changes to support greater transparency in healthcare pricing, which will help Australians make more informed decisions about their private healthcare choices. It does that by providing consumers with more detailed information on the medical fees that they can expect to be charged and their likely out-of-pocket costs for their private health experience. Currently, consumers have more information about routine goods and services in the community than they do about healthcare choices, choices that can have a profound impact on their quality of life but also on their finances. Without passage of this schedule, we would continue to see many Australians simply not knowing what their private healthcare journey was going to cost until they were in it. Right now, they're unable to easily compare the costs of alternative providers and therefore unable to make an informed choice about their healthcare.

Schedule 2 strengthens ministerial oversight of private health insurance premiums, ensuring that consumer interests are better protected. Allowing insurers to close an existing product and open an identical or very similar new product at a higher premium without ministerial scrutiny presents an unacceptable risk to private health insurance customers and needs to be stopped. This practice, commonly known as phoenixing, is something that I warned insurers about over some period of time. I indicated to them that, if I didn't see a cessation of that practice by the industry itself, we would do exactly what we are doing now, and that is legislate. This will be achieved by requiring ministerial approval not just for proposed premium changes, which happens with the premium round every year—it will also be required when an insurer proposes to open a new product or reduce a certain coverage, benefits or terms and conditions of an existing product.

Changes are also being made to formalise and enhance the process for the approval of premiums. The arrangements are substantially aligned with how the annual premium round has been managed over recent years. I want to thank the member for Kooyong for her contributions to this debate in particular and for her commitment to holding specialists to account over the fees that they charge patients. The first part of this bill, not the phoenixing part but the first part around informed consent, is essentially the implementation of an election commitment we made last year. That was to make the Medical Costs Finder effectively mandatory.

To his credit, my predecessor Greg Hunt introduced the Medical Costs Finder with the ambition of providing consumers with the information about what medical specialists in their community would charge for particular procedures. He did that on a voluntary basis, expecting that specialists would upload and disclose the fees that they were going to charge. When we came to government in 2022, of the thousands and thousands of specialists covered by the Medical Costs Finder, six had uploaded their fees—not 600 or even six per cent, just six of the thousands and thousands covered. Even after the AMA—

It was a start!

'It was a start,' the member for Riverina says—a modest start. Even after the then AMA president, Steve Robson, to his credit, urged his colleagues to upload and took the lead by doing it himself, that number still, years later, has not cracked triple figures. It is still less than 100 out of several thousand. It's not quite perhaps the failure of the COVIDSafe app, but, frankly, it's pretty darn close.

That is why we are acting to upload the data for the specialists themselves. They won't have to do it. We have access to all of that information, including the out-of-pocket costs that they charge, and we will populate the Medical Costs Finder so that patients do go into that enormously important process of health care knowing what they're going to be charged and knowing that they may have a choice in their community about different specialists that they would be able to access based on the fees that they would be charged.

The government is not going to accept the amendments that have been circulated by the member for Kooyong, but we do understand the intent behind them, and I'll talk a little bit about them during the debate on those amendments. They come from a good place, and I think they identify a range of issues that we intend to work with stakeholders on and are working already with stakeholders on as we design the Medical Costs Finder changes that will be enabled by the passage of this bill. I thank members for their contribution to the bill so far and look forward to further debate in consideration in detail.

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

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than seven members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negated in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived.

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

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6), circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 11), after paragraph 124ZY(2)(b), insert:

(ba) information about amounts of medical expenses incurred in respect of particular kinds of professional services, including median and interquartile ranges for particular kinds of professional services;

(bc) information about amounts of medical expenses incurred in respect of particular kinds of professional services that exceed the high fee threshold for those kinds of professional services;

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 21), at the end of subsection 124ZY(2), add:

; (e) quality indicators such as complications rates, re-admissions and patient-reported outcomes for particular medical professionals;

(f) information on professional services rendered by or on behalf of particular medical practitioners that incur upfront fees;

(g) information on professional services rendered by or on behalf of particular medical practitioners that utilise gap cover arrangements.

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 21), after subsection 124ZY(2), insert:

(2A) The Minister must publish any formula used to work out an amount of medical expenses for the purposes of publication under this section.

(2B) If the Minister publishes information about medical expenses in respect of particular kinds of professional services rendered by or on behalf of particular medical practitioners, and the Minister becomes aware of a material reduction in those expenses, the Minister must update the published information as soon as practicable after becoming so aware.

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 36), after subsection 124ZY(6), insert:

(6A) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine formulas for working out amounts of medical expenses in relation to particular kinds of professional services.

(6B) The amount worked out in relation to a particular kind of professional service, in accordance with a formula determined under subsection (6A), is the high fee threshold for that kind of professional service.

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 19), after section 124ZZA, insert:

124ZZB Annual report

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year beginning after the commencement of this section, the Secretary must publish a report about trends identified in the information published under section 124ZY.

(2) Such trends may include:

(a) movements in median price ranges in respect of particular kinds of professional services; and

(b) geographical variation.

(3) The Minister must table the report in each House of the Parliament no later than 6 months after the end of the financial year.

(6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 26 (after line 26), after section 66-12, insert:

66-13 Annual audit of product phoenixing practices

(1) The Minister must cause a review of private health insurance product changes during each financial year beginning after the commencement of this section to be conducted as soon as practicable after the end of the financial year.

(2) The review must consider:

(a) each application made in the financial year in respect of a *product subgroup under section 66-8; and

(b) each application made in the financial year in respect of an insurance premium under 66-10; and

(c) each designated change to a *complying health insurance product in the financial year; and

(d) the number of cases where product phoenixing behaviour was identified in the financial year; and

(e) any issues or recommendations.

(3) The Minister must table the report in each House of the Parliament no later than 6 months after the end of the financial year.

Australians deserve clear, accessible information about the true costs and quality of medical care. For much too long, we've been forced to navigate a system in which price signals have been opaque and quality indicators virtually invisible. These amendments will strengthen the government's bill such that patients and practitioners have meaningful transparency, information asymmetry is reduced and we can potentially create downward pressure on specialist fees.

Firstly, amendment 1 explicitly allows the publication of median fees, interquartile ranges and information on fees that exceed a new high-fee threshold. Patients need to know more than just an average single fee. That's what the government is proposing under this legislation. Patients need to know what a physician's or surgeon's typical costs look like, but they also need to be able to identify those doctors who bill a lot more than their peers. Publishing distributional price information will help patients recognise unusually high fees and compare specialist fees more readily—and, in time, could shift demand away from those outliers who bill excessively.

Amendment 2 broadens the information that may be published under this bill to include quality indicators, things like complication rates, readmissions, repeat procedures and patient reported outcomes. Many people innocently assume that, when it comes to medicine or even the law, higher fees signal higher quality. But the evidence—and my experience as a doctor—does not support that assumption. The quality of specialist service varies, sometimes significantly, but not in the way that fee structures imply. Publishing quality indicators will empower patients to choose medical practitioners on their merits, and it provides the system with an important signal: quality matters just as much—in fact, even more than—fees. Amendment 2 also enables the publication of information about practitioners who charge upfront fees or who rely on gap cover arrangements. These can be key drivers of unexpected out-of-pocket costs.

Next, access to timely data matters. If a specialist materially reduces their fees, the Medical Costs Finder should reflect that. Amendment 3 ensures that doctors who lower their fees will not be punished by outdated, high, historical figures presented as their fees of record. Amendment 3 will create a culture in which specialists can be confident about adjusting fees downward, knowing that the system will recognise, reflect and reward those actions.

The legislative objective of this bill centres on transparency. In my view, the bill must not allow fee figures or the high-fee threshold to be determined behind closed doors. Amendment 4, therefore, requires the minister to publish, through legislative instrument, the method used to calculate those figures. The medical sector should be able to see, to understand and, where necessary, to scrutinise how the system assigns a fee against the services that they deliver. An opaque methodology would undermine trust, and it would contradict the transparency that this legislation is designed to deliver.

Finally, transparency is meaningful only if its effects are monitored, and amendment 5 introduces an annual reporting requirement on trends identified in pricing and billing data. This would enable a parliament to monitor whether or not this legislation is working, whether specialist fees are moderating and whether the millions of Australians who access specialist care every year are actually and genuinely benefiting from the information that will be available to them as a result of this legislation. By embedding these amendments in the primary legislation, we will give those millions of patients greater certainty. Together, these amendments strengthen the bill's legislated objective of empowering consumers, of improving transparency and fairness and of restoring confidence in a private health system that has to work for patients, not against them.

I thank the member for Kooyong for her contribution to this debate generally and for her amendments. I know the amendments moved by the member for Kooyong are grounded in a great degree of goodwill, common purpose with the government about what we're seeking to achieve here and deep experience through her time as a paediatric neurologist. We're not supporting these amendments, not because we don't share the intentions of the member for Kooyong but because we have a different approach. What we're seeking to do here is pass legislation that enables us to set up the Medical Costs Finder as a mandatory system, if you like. But, for implementation, the finer detail about how this is designed and populated is to be the subject of ongoing engagement with stakeholders. I think I indicated that a little while ago.

I note that the member's proposed amendments support the publication of different types of specific information, including fee ranges, extreme fees, quality metrics, upfront fees and some of the things the member just canvassed in her contribution. I can assure her and other members that my department is engaging with stakeholders on the design and the implementation of the changes that are enabled through this bill. That consultation process, in our view, is the appropriate mechanism to work through the details that the member for Kooyong has canvassed in her amendment.

On extreme fees, my department is working with patients, doctors and the private health sector to develop practical reform options that will improve how Australians access, navigate and afford specialist care. That includes exploring options that address concerns over the very high fees charged by some specialists. I think the member called them outliers—a description I've used, as well—compared to their peers. We see a slightly different trend out there compared to GPs, where the band of gap fees being charged is relatively consistent across the country, but there really is a wild variability at the edges of fees being charged by non-GP specialists.

On upfront fees, we agree that administrative fees, booking fees and split billing does negatively affect patients and also often leads to bill shock. Separate work is underway on this issue to explore options that strengthen informed financial consent for consumers in this respect. On the utilisation of gap cover arrangements, this bill already addresses this under proposed section 324-5, subsection (2)(e), of the Private Health Insurance Act. On frequency of data updates, we agree that it is important for users to see up-to-date data to help guide their decisions about seeking specialist care. My department intends to make frequent updates and will refresh as regularly as data availability and quality will allow.

I again want to thank the member for her support for this government's broad effort to improve choice and transparency for private health consumers. As I said, this is something where we're engaging with a range of stakeholders, including doctor representatives through the AMA and others, to make sure we get this detail right. I think we would find value in the member being engaged in that process, as well, so if she's interested I'd be more than happy to continue to engage her with that. But we are not in a position to support the amendments moved by the member for Kooyong.

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Kooyong be agreed to.

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I seek leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (9) as circulated together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3, column 2), omit "1 April 2026", substitute "18 September 2026".

(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 19 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraphs 66-6(1)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) if the Minister has not determined a period for a year under subsection (2)—the period of 55 days beginning on the third Friday in September of that year; or

(b) if the Minister has determined one or more periods for a year under subsection (2)—that period or those periods.

(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 19 (lines 11 to 13), omit the note.

(4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 19 (after line 13), after subsection 66-6(2), insert:

(2A) Without limiting subsection 33(3A) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, a determination under subsection (2) of this section may be expressed to apply in relation to a specified class of application. Such a determination does not affect the operation of paragraph (1)(a) of this section in relation to other classes of application.

(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 19 (line 17), before "A designated change", insert "(1)".

(6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 19 (line 19), before "a change", insert "subject to subsection (2),".

(7) Schedule 2, item 8, page 19 (after line 34), at the end of section 66-7, add:

(2) The Private Health Insurance (Product Premium) Rules may provide that paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in relation to a change of a kind specified in those Rules for the purposes of this subsection.

(8) Schedule 2, items 15 and 16, page 28 (line 8) to page 29 (line 11), omit the items, substitute:

15 Application of amendments

Application provisions

(1) The amendments of sections 66-1 and 66-5 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 made by this Schedule apply on and after the commencement day in relation to:

(a) a policy that belongs to a product subgroup that is first made available on or after the commencement day; and

(b) a complying health insurance policy that belongs to a product subgroup of a complying health insurance product for which an approval under section 66-10 of the old Act was in effect immediately before the commencement day; and

(c) a policy:

(i) that belongs to a product subgroup that was first made available before the commencement day; and

(ii) for which there was no approval in effect under section 66-10 of the old Act immediately before the commencement day;

at and after the earlier of:

(iii) the first time, on or after the commencement day, that the premiums charged under the product subgroup change; or

(iv) the first time, on or after 2 April 2027, that a designated change is made to the product.

(2) Section 66-8 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a product subgroup that is first made available on or after the commencement day.

(3) Section 66-10 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, as substituted by this Schedule, applies in relation to:

(a) a proposed change to the premiums to be charged under one or more product subgroups of a complying health insurance product if an insurer proposes to make the change on or after the commencement day (whether or not the insurer proposes to make a designated change at the same time); and

(b) a designated change that an insurer proposes to make to a complying health insurance product on or after 2 April 2027.

(4) Sections 66-11 and 66-12 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, as inserted by this Schedule, apply in relation to an application that is made on or after the commencement day.

Pending applications for approval

(5) If:

(a) before the commencement day, a private health insurer applied, under section 66-10 of the old Act, for an approval of a change in premiums; and

(b) immediately before the commencement day, the Minister had not decided to either approve or refuse to approve the proposed changed amount or amounts;

then:

(c) the application lapses at the start of the commencement day; and

(d) that section ceases to apply in relation to the application.

Operation of first approved application period

(6) If the commencement day is a day in the period, for the 2026 calendar year, mentioned in paragraph 66-6(1)(a) of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, as inserted by this Schedule, the approved application period for 2026 is taken to:

(a) begin on the commencement day; and

(b) end at the end of the period of 55 days beginning on 18 September 2026.

(7) The approved application period mentioned in subitem (6) does not apply to an application that relates to a designated change that is proposed to be made on or after 2 April 2027 (whether or not the application also relates to a change in premiums).

(9) Schedule 2, item 17, page 29 (line 13), omit "Section", substitute "Subject to item 15, section".

The government amendments to the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026 make minor changes to the commencement date and the application of new private health insurance premium requirements to address stakeholder concerns and some implementation risks. The amendments align commencement with the start of the next premium round and give a transition period for private health insurance product changes that require premium approval. This addresses stakeholder concerns around the uncertainty of the eventual date of royal assent and how this would interact with the coming premium round. New products and price changes still require approval under the new provisions from commencement, ensuring they are included in this year's premium round intended to start mid-September 2026 with a 1 April 2027 effective date.

Amendments (5) to (7) also respond to stakeholder feedback. Insurers have argued that changes to treatment cover that arise from decisions of government or other organisations should not be treated as designated changes that require premium approval. This is because not all changes that impact treatment cover are decisions of insurers. Some are decisions of government—for example, changes to the Medicare Benefits Schedule—or of other organisations, for example the schedule of treatments that are published by the Australian Dental Association. Without this amendment, insurers would have to apply for approval, and the department of health would have to assess and approve applications that would cause unnecessary administrative burden and would not meaningfully address the objects of the bill.

These amendments therefore provide that rules may be made to exempt specified changes that reduce or remove treatment cover from being a designated change. Not all insurer requested exemptions will be appropriate. Appropriate exemptions applied through delegated legislation will allow responsive management. I thank the sector for their constructive engagement through this process and commend the amendments to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and related bills. At the outset, let me be clear. The coalition supports stronger protections for airline passengers. Australians deserve reliable air services, fair treatment when things go wrong and confidence that the aviation system is working in their interests.

The reality is that the performance of Australia's domestic aviation sector has deteriorated significantly post COVID. Too many Australians have experienced flight delays, cancellations, poor communication and difficulties obtaining remedies when airlines fail to deliver the service that has been purchased. We find just today that budget carrier Jetstar is blaming rising government taxes and charges and less-than-expected demand for the axing of two trans-Tasman services from late October. Sunshine Coast to Auckland and Cairns to Christchurch will go on hold indefinitely in the very latest route cuts by the low-fares airline. This is a concern, as are some of the other things I'm about to outline.

In 2025, one in four domestic flights were either delayed or cancelled. In Labor's first term, more than 50,000 domestic flights were cancelled and more than 427,000 flights were delayed, according to the government's own data provided monthly by the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. Australians have witnessed a step change for the worse in airline performance and reliability compared to what was happening pre-pandemic. Millions of Australian families and small businesses have been inconvenienced and left out of pocket. Whether it's for a family holiday, a business meeting, a medical appointment, a wedding or a funeral, Australians expect airlines to deliver the service they have paid for.

This is not to mention the concerns raised by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about companies selling tickets for ghost flights and cancelling flight credits. And, at a time when Australians were hit with higher airfares, Qantas turned political actor, funding corporate promotion for the government's divisive Voice referendum campaign.

Australians have every right to be frustrated. Australians deserve better. That is why the coalition has argued stronger passenger protections are required. Last parliament, Senators Bridget McKenzie and Dean Smith introduced the private senators' Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill. That proposal would have provided direct compensation to passengers when airlines fail to meet their obligations through lengthy delays, cancellations or lost baggage. Unlike Labor's proposal, a genuine compensation scheme creates a real incentive for airlines to improve performance. If an airline fails to deliver the service that a consumer has paid for, for the reason that is within the control of the airline, there should be consequences. Where travellers have incurred real additional costs for delayed cancelled flights, that should be recognised. Labor has chosen a different path—we could say a different flight!

This bill creates a new authority, two new statutory ombudsman schemes, a new levy and additional layers of bureaucracy. It creates a complaints framework rather than a genuine passenger-rights framework. The government argues this legislation will improve consumer outcomes, yet many of the protections contemplated under the proposed Aviation Consumer Charter are already provided by major airlines today, including rebooking accommodation, meal vouchers and refunds in certain circumstances. The coalition notes the proposed charter has not been presented to this chamber for determination by the House.

The question remains: how will this framework materially improve airline performance and at what costs to the industry and ultimately to Australian travellers? That question was repeatedly raised during the Senate inquiry. Indeed, many stakeholders who initially described the legislation as 'better than nothing' ultimately concluded that the bill should not proceed without significant amendment. Major airlines, regional airlines, airports, industry bodies, consumer groups and regional stakeholders all identified substantial deficiencies in the framework.

One example of why stronger consumer protections are needed can be seen in the current controversy surrounding Virgin Australia's COVID travel credits. On 30 June, 2026, Australians stand to lose access to up to $93 million in unused COVID-era Virgin Australia travel credits. Those funds belong to consumers. They do not belong on an airline balance sheet. Australians should be able to access those credits when they choose to travel or alternatively receive a refund. Yet this legislation will do nothing to protect consumers' Virgin flight credits, one real consumer issue currently facing Australians. This legislation does not guarantee that, in the future, consumers will be offered refunds for cancelled or significantly delayed flights.

This legislation fails to properly recognise the challenges faced by regional aviation. For many Australians living outside our major cities, aviation is not a luxury; it is an essential service. Regional aviation provides access to health care, education, employment, tourism, business opportunities and family connections. Regional airlines are already facing significant financial challenges. They are dealing with increasing airport charges. They are dealing with rising fuel costs. They are dealing with maintenance challenges and difficulties obtaining aircraft parts. More recently, they've been dealing with significant increases in fuel costs resulting from instability in the Middle East and the crisis in Iran.

Many regional airlines operate on very thin margins—you could almost say they operate on the vapour of avgas—yet this legislation risks imposing additional compliance obligations and unknown additional costs on small regional aviation operators to solve a problem largely created by the major airline duopoly of Qantas and Virgin Australia. The coalition remains concerned that regional airlines and regional airports may ultimately bear a crippling cost for failures that are not of their making. The government has said that regional airports with fewer than one million passengers per year should be exempt from the framework. However, they have not put this in the bills before the parliament. The government proposes to leave this to the discretion of the minister.

All airlines and airports should meet minimum requirements of consumer protection. However, the coalition agrees that small and regional airports should be exempt from the cost of the government's proposed scheme and the exemption for small and regional airports should be included in the primary legislation. Regional airlines operating smaller aircraft on essential regional routes should also be protected from unnecessary regulatory burden and cost. The coalition will propose amendments in this regard in the other chamber.

A significant flaw in the legislation is the failure to include Airservices Australia within the framework where failures of the regulator to resource and deliver its air traffic control functions result in delays or the cancellations of flights. If accountability is the objective, accountability should follow operational responsibility. Airservices Australia plays a significant role in the operation of the aviation network. Early this week, Sydney airport experienced delays and cancellations linked to staffing issues within Airservices Australia. Shortages of air traffic controllers contributed to flight disruptions affecting passengers across the broader aviation network. Airlines were forced to cancel services and rebook passengers because of these issues outside their control.

Australians understand if acts of God, severe weather events, cause delays to flights. Australians get that. They know that airlines cannot control the weather. Australians value the safety of our regulations which ensure flights only occur when it is safe to do so. However, the consumer sitting in an airport terminal does not distinguish between a delay caused by an airline and a delay caused by a failure to staff the air traffic control tower. They do not. They simply know that they paid for a service that they did not receive. Yet, under Labor's framework, airlines will be subject to obligations under the scheme while Airservices Australia remains exempt. The exclusion of Airservices Australia creates an obvious gap in the framework and a double standard in consumer protection.

The coalition also has concerns about the proposed aircraft noise ombudsperson arrangements. This bill proposes bringing the aircraft noise ombudsperson into the transport department itself. That raises legitimate questions about independence. The representations we have received suggests the government's proposal lacks the confidence of the affected public. There are broader stakeholder concerns with the development of the legislation itself, including the lack of an exposure draft or opportunity to properly scrutinise many of the scheme's operational details before the legislation was introduced. Parliament should understand the full costs, obligations and consequences of legislation before it is asked to approve it.

The coalition strongly supports the objective of improving consumer protections for travellers. However, in our view, this legislation falls far short of community expectations. It creates new bureaucracies but fails to address many of the concerns passengers have had. It does not provide direct compensation. It leaves too much to regulations. It imposes unquantified costs on regional aviation, and it does not ensure consumers retain access to their own money through unused flight credits. The coalition will propose amendments in the Senate to protect regional aviation, enhance consumer protection, strengthen accountability and deliver fairer outcomes for Australian travellers.

I now move the second reading amendment 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) in the Government's first term, one in three domestic flights was cancelled or delayed, with 50,000 cancellations and 427,000 delays according to official data;

(b) major airlines' performance and reliability has worsened post-COVID, inconveniencing millions of families;

(c) two regional airlines have collapsed under the Government, yet the bill risks further costs on remaining regional airlines for problems not of their making;

(d) the bill provides no support for families who are about to lose up to $93 million worth of unused COVID-era flight credits held by Virgin Australia; and

(e) excluding Airservices Australia creates a gap in consumer protections for travellers affected by air traffic control failures; and

(2) calls on the Government to develop and implement an aviation consumer protection framework that:

(a) does not penalise regional airports and airlines for failures of the major airline duopoly;

(b) provides timely refunds and compensation for cancellations, significant delays or lost or damaged baggage within the control of airlines, airports or Airservices Australia; and

(c) protects COVID-era flight credits for future use or refund".

Is the amendment seconded?

Yes. I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

( Quorum formed )

I rise today to speak in support of the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026. Aviation matters in Australia in a way that is different to many other countries. We are a large island nation with vast distances between our cities, our regions and the rest of the world. For many Australians, flying is not a luxury. It is how people get to work, stay connected with family, get home for study, travel for medical care, attend funerals and reach holidays they have saved for, month after month.

In a city like Melbourne, we know how deeply air travel connects to daily life. We are a city of students, migrants, workers, families, artists, businesses and visitors. People fly in to study, attend major events, see families, build a future or simply come home. A delayed flight can mean missing a connection, a shift, a medical appointment, a funeral or the first day of a long-planned holiday. Poor information turns stress into confusion. Poor complaints handling sends people running in circles. That is the heart of this bill. It is about what happens when things go wrong. It is about whether passengers are treated fairly, whether rights are clear, whether standards are real and whether accountability actually exists.

The current system has not been good enough. For too long, airline passengers have had to rely on voluntary industry arrangements and airlines escalating complaints themselves. In practice, the same industry that caused the problem has controlled too much of the pathway for fixing it. That is not a strong consumer protection system, it is not a clear pathway for passengers and it is not good enough for Australians, who pay good money for a service and deserve to know what they can expect in return. The aviation white paper released by the Albanese Labor government made this clear. It found that the industry-led Airline Customer Advocate had not delivered an effective complaints resolution service and that government needed to establish a stronger and more effective body.

The Albanese government is delivering the most significant reform to aviation consumer protection this country has seen. This bill establishes a new aviation consumer protection framework. It creates an independent aviation consumer ombudsperson, paves the way for an aviation consumer protection charter, establishes the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority to enforce that charter and supports the continued work of an aircraft noise ombudsperson.

On that, I have seen firsthand that good advocacy leads to good legislation, like this bill. The East Melbourne Group, a suburb association within my electorate, has raised with me the real impact of aircraft noise on local residents. They have spoken about what it means for people living under flight paths—hearing the noise in their homes, in their streets and in the quiet parts of daily life. That kind of local advocacy matters. This bill is about supporting people. It is not about punishing airlines or pretending aviation is simple. Weather events happen, global crises happen and technical issues happen. Many workers across aviation do difficult jobs to keep people moving safely. This bill recognises that reality, but it also says something simple: complexity cannot be an excuse for confusion. When a flight is delayed, cancelled or disrupted, people deserve clear information. They deserve fair treatment. They deserve to know what support they can access. And when a company does the wrong thing, people deserve a pathway that does not exhaust them before the complaint is even heard.

The case for reform is strong. Research from the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government found that more than half of the flying public experienced a flight disruption in a 12-month period. Only around a third were satisfied with how that disruption was handled. This is a problem. Even more concerning is the fact that 82 per cent said they did not receive any support when they experienced a disruption and 81 per cent said they were not informed of their rights. This is not just an inconvenience; it is a system leaving people in the dark. And when people tried to complain, their experience was not much better. Only 39 per cent of people who made a complaint were satisfied with the outcome. Only 17 per cent were satisfied with the complaint process overall.

People can accept that travel is sometimes disrupted. What is harder to accept is silence, being bounced from one channel to another or being told to check an app when what you need is a person, an answer and a fair resolution. This is where the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson matters. The ombudsperson will provide a fair, accessible and independent external dispute resolution service for complaints about airlines and airports. If a consumer believes an airline or an airport has acted inconsistently with the charter and they are not satisfied with how their complaint has been handled, they will be able to seek help from the ombudsperson. The ombudsperson will be able to investigate, compel information, recommend actions, help resolve disputes and make determinations requiring an airline or airport operator to resolve a complaint in a particular way.

This bill also creates the framework for the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. The charter will set out minimum standards that aviation consumers can expect from airlines and airports. It will cover obligations when flights are disrupted, delayed or cancelled. It will also deal with booking information, assistance, communication and consumer complaint handling. At the moment, too many passengers do not know what they are entitled to when a flight is cancelled—whether that be a refund, a credit, a hotel room, transport, meals or better information. It says the system should not depend on who knows the rules, who has the time to fight or who can afford to wait. It says there should be a minimum standard for everyone.

The government has also been clear about refunds and support. When flights are cancelled for reasons within an airline's control, passengers should be able to get their money back in the form they paid, unless they choose a travel credit. A travel credit might suit some people, but it should not be forced on people when what they need is the money returned. Where a cancelled flight causes additional cost, the proposed scheme seeks to make sure airlines cover reasonable costs, such as meals, transport or overnight accommodation.

This bill is also important because aviation is not experienced equally by everyone. For people with disabilities, medical conditions or injuries, air travel can involve extra barriers, extra planning and extra risk. The government's research found that around one in four travellers identified as having a disability, medical condition or injury. Two in five did not know how to access the assistance service available to them. That should trouble all of us. Accessibility cannot be treated as an optional extra. People should not have to fight to be told what assistance exists. They should not be treated as an afterthought in a system that exists to move people safely. This bill helps shift responsibility back where it belongs. The charter will put the obligation on airlines and airports to treat customers, including those with accessibility needs, in a fair and reasonable way when delays inevitably occur. Fairness means more than a refund. It means dignity. It means information people can understand. It means assistance that is actually accessible. It means systems that see people as people, not booking numbers.

The bill also establishes the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority inside the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts. The authority will enforce the charter, investigate systematic issues, carry out enforcement activity and, where needed, pursue enforcement of ombudsperson's determinations through judicial processes. Transparency is essential to this reform. The bill will support the reporting and publication of reasons for flight delays, cancellations and disruptions. That will help consumers understand what happened and help the regulator and the ombudsperson determine whether a disruption was within or outside the control of the airline or airport.

Accountability depends on information. Consumers should not have to guess. The government understands that aviation industry is not one single thing. A major airline is not the same as a small regional airport. A large airline is not the same as a small operator. That is why the framework includes the ability for the minister to exempt regulatory entitlements in full or in part with regard to factors like the impact on consumers and the size, type and financial capacity of the entity. The government intends to exempt airports with fewer than one million passengers per year. That means the framework would apply to Australia's 14 largest airports and Western Sydney airport, capturing 93 per cent of passenger movements while recognising the role and limits of smaller airports, with strong standards for consumers, a practical approach for industry and care for regional, rural and remote communities where aviation can be a lifeline.

The government has also taken a sensible approach on costs and compensation. The priority is to lift the standards of passenger air travel in Australia. Financial compensation has been considered, but international experience shows costs can be passed onto consumers and do not always improve airline performance. That is why, consistent with the aviation white paper, airlines will not be required to provide automatic monetary compensation for cancellations, significant delays or disruptions. Instead, this framework focuses on clear rights, better supports, proper refunds, reasonable costs, stronger complaint handling and real accountability. The reforms do not stand alone. In its first term, the Albanese government released the Aviation white paper. It passed new laws to boost competition at Sydney Airport; it released the draft passenger charter of rights. It reinstated ACCC monitoring of airlines, which the Liberals and Nationals had planned to end. It is part of a broader plan to give passengers a better deal, strengthen competition and make airlines and airports more accountable while maintaining Australia's strong safety record.

Aviation should be safe, it should be competitive, it should be sustainable, and it should be fair. For Melbourne, this matters deeply. My electorate is full of people who fly on flights to stay connected with family across the country and around the world. We are home to international students, workers, families, small businesses and older Australians who need certainty when they travel. They deserve to know that, when they buy a ticket, they are not buying a fight. They deserve to know that, when something goes wrong, they will not be left alone at the gate refreshing an app and waiting for the answer that never comes. They deserve clear standards, they deserve fair remedies, and they deserve a voice that is independent of the company they are complaining about. That is what this bill delivers.

This bill is not pretending every flight will run on time. It is not pretending every disruption can be avoided, and it is not pretending aviation can be simplified by legislation alone, but it does something important. It puts consumers back at the centre, it says trust has to be earned, it says accountability cannot be voluntary, it says passengers deserve better than confusion, delay and silence. This is practical Labor reform. It takes a system that was too unclear, too weak and too frustrating, and starts to build something stronger in its place—a system where standards are clear, complaints are heard fairly, industry is accountable and people are treated with dignity when plans fall apart. That is the kind of reform Australia expects from this parliament, and it is the kind of reform the Albanese Labor government is delivering. I am proud to support this bill, I am proud to support stronger protections for Australian travellers, and I commend this bill to the House.

I rise today to speak on the four aviation bills being discussed in this cognate debate, and I'll be offering some brief remarks. These bills create a new aviation consumer protection framework, delivering on commitments the government made in its 2024 aviation white paper. The main bill, the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026, will establish a framework, although implementation detail will sit in regulations and instruments to be made later. This will include a new aviation consumer protections charter, which will set out minimum standards that airlines and airports must meet for things like cancellations, delays, baggage, refunds, complaints handling, and assistance for passengers who have a disability.

A new regulator, the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority, will enforce standards and take action against systemic or repeated failures, with civil penalties for serious breaches. These penalties could total several millions of dollars. A separate body, the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson, will run a dispute resolution scheme that passengers can use to resolve individual complaints, and every regulated airline and airport must join it. The initiatives included in the bills will be paid for by industry, not by taxpayers, through a levy on regulated entities set out in the levy bill and the collection bill.

I welcome stronger consumer protections in the aviation sector. They're overdue. They're sorely needed. However, I am concerned about a lack of detail on exactly how the proposed framework will operate. While exemptions for small council-owned airports are truly welcome, I'm concerned about whether this could have unintended, negative impacts for regional consumers. There's a reason regional Australians have a sceptical view. In regional Australia we're too often the last to receive and the first to lose. Not too long ago Qantas announced the discontinuation of its Albury-Melbourne route. This announcement came as a shock to the community and has real implications for medical specialists who travel to and from Albury-Wodonga to provide crucial healthcare services that are otherwise completely unavailable in our regional community.

I understand that profits may not be high for some regional routes, and the recent fuel crisis has undoubtedly had an impact. But when things are tough for airlines it's almost always the regional routes that are the first to be cancelled. This exacerbates the frustrations of regional people, including me—that we're treated differently to those in the cities. It's why I'm concerned that the aviation consumer protections framework, including the consumer protections charter, will include a carve out for regional airports and carriers. And while there are genuine reasons to treat our smaller council-owned airports differently to major international hubs, such as Tullamarine and Kingsford Smith, it's not clear whether regional aviation passengers will be left with a lower level of consumer protection just because they're using a smaller airport.

I'm also concerned that the bill proposes significant reforms to the aviation sector without a clear impact analysis. This is contrary to good lawmaking principles, and it makes it harder for parliamentarians such as myself or for the broader public to know what the new framework will mean for prices and, importantly, for availability of flights. I'm hopeful that the consumer protections charter will improve protection for consumers and make the big airlines accountable to their customers. Too often, they've taken us for a ride before we can even get off the ground, and that needs to change.

However, there are credible questions surrounding this bill and whether it will achieve its aim. I hope the government will work in good faith across the parliament to ensure that the benefits from these bills will flow to all consumers, including those flying in and out of regional airports. Thank you.

(Quorum formed)

I rise in support of the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and the other bills itemised. These bills together represent the most significant reform to aviation consumer rights here in this country in more than a decade. For too long, Australian travellers have felt powerless when flights are being delayed, cancelled or disrupted. For too long, people have been left stranded at airports, unable to get clear information, unable to access assistance and unable to resolve complaints in a fair and timely way. For too long, this system has effectively relied on airlines policing themselves. But Australians deserve better, and the Albanese Labor government is delivering a modern aviation system that puts passengers back in the centre of this conversation—a system that is fairer, a system that is much more transparent and a system that improves accountability across the aviation industry and, more importantly, a system that recognises that air travel is not a luxury for many Australians. It's an essential part of everyday life.

In my electorate of Barton, the issue matters deeply because Barton is located very close to Sydney airport, which is one of the busiest aviation hubs in this country, and many residents in Barton work directly in aviation, tourism, hospitality, freight, logistics and airport services. I've had the privilege to meet a number of those workers through doorknocking and meet wonderful United Workers Union members as well at Sydney airport. Many families travel regularly to visit their loved ones overseas, and my community is a proudly multicultural community. For many people in Barton, flying is not simply about the holidays, maintaining family ties, weddings, caring for ageing parents who might be living overseas, studying, working and conducting business. When flights are disrupted, it has a real emotional and financial consequence to the people in my community. Anyone who has travelled in recent years knows that frustration Australians have experienced—hours of sitting in the terminals, last-minute cancellations, confusing communication, travel credits instead of refunds, and passengers left to navigate really complicated systems with little clarity about their rights. These reforms recognise that consumers deserve certainty and dignity when things go wrong.

The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill establishes the legal foundations for a new consumer protection framework that will fundamentally improve the passenger experience here in Australia. At the core of these reforms is the creation of the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. This charter will set out clear minimum standards that consumers can expect from airlines and airports. Importantly, it will clarify what obligations airlines have when flights are delayed, cancelled or disrupted. And, for the first time in Australia, there will be a nationally consistent framework outlining the minimum standards of treatment that passengers should receive, and that includes standards across communication, assistance, accessibility and support during disruptions.

This is major reform. It's one driven by evidence. The government's Preparing for take-off study revealed what many Australians already knew through lived experience. More than half of the flying public experienced a disruption within a 12-month period, around one-third were satisfied with how it was handled, 82 per cent of passengers said that they received no support during disruptions, 81 per cent said they were not informed of their rights, and about 17 per cent were satisfied with the complaints process overall. Those figures are quite staggering, and they demonstrate why these reforms are very necessary. Passengers should not need to become experts in aviation law simply to understand what support they're entitled to. Consumers deserve clarity and transparency. Consumers deserve accountability, and that is precisely what these reforms will deliver.

The legislation will establish the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority, or the ACPA, and the role of ACPA will be to monitor compliance, enforce standards and ensure airlines and airports are meeting their obligations under this charter. This is critical because standards without enforcement are meaningless. The ACPA will provide proper oversight and ensure the framework has teeth. Importantly, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will continue its existing role in enforcing Australian consumer law and monitoring competition issues within the aviation sector. That means misleading conduct and anticompetitive behaviour will still be scrutinised by the ACCC, but this new framework recognises that aviation also requires a dedicated and specialised consumer protection regime and the aviation sector has unique operational challenges. It requires tailored oversight, and these reforms deliver exactly that.

Another major reform contained within this package is the establishment of the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson. This is an Australian-first independent external dispute resolution mechanism specifically designed for aviation complaints. For many travellers today, making a complaint feels like shouting into a void. People are bounced through departments, receive automatic responses or simply give up altogether, and I don't think that's good enough. The Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson will provide passengers with an independent avenue to resolve disputes fairly and transparently and will help restore confidence in the complaints process and ensure consumers are very much heard. Importantly, it will sit outside government as an independent not-for-profit body, and that independence matters. Australians need confidence that complaints will be assessed fairly and objectively.

The bill package also establishes the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson, and this is particularly important for communities living near major flight paths and airports. Again, this is highly relevant to the communities in and around my electorate of Barton, because I'm also the Chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum. I know many of my fellow parliamentarians in this chamber understand that this is an important issue regarding flight paths. Residents living near the Sydney Airport understand both the economic importance of aviation and the impact aircraft noise can have on their daily life. Communities deserve confidence that noise complaints are managed transparently and independently. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson will review how aircraft noise complaints are handled by Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence, and this reform strengthens trust and transparency and ensures communities are not simply ignored. It reinforces that government can support both aviation growth and community amenity at the same time.

These reforms also recognise that accessibility must be the centre of aviation consumer protection. The Preparing for take-off study found that passengers with disabilities, medical conditions or injuries consistently experience poorer outcomes when travelling. Around one in four travellers surveyed identified as having a disability, injury or medical condition. Alarmingly, two in five did not know how to access assistance services available to them. That is unacceptable in a modern aviation system. Every Australian deserves to travel with dignity, and these reforms will help ensure airlines and airports provide fair and reasonable treatment to passengers with accessibility challenges or needs. That matters enormously. Aviation should be able to connect people, not exclude them.

The government has been very clear from the outset that this framework will be designed in consultation with industry. There will be ongoing engagement with airlines and airports to ensure standards are operationally feasible and sustainable, and the framework strikes an appropriate balance. It lifts standards while recognising the realities of operating within a very complex aviation environment. Importantly, the legislation also provides flexibility for exemptions where appropriate. The aviation industry is not all the same. The small regional airport is very different from a major international gateway. That is why this government intends to exempt airports with fewer than one million passengers per year from the framework. This ensures smaller regional and council owned airports are not unfairly burdened. At the same time, the framework will still capture Australia's largest airports, including Sydney Airport and Western Sydney International Airport, covering approximately 93 per cent of passenger movements nationwide. This is a sensible and proportionate approach.

We also know that there has been discussion around financial compensation for delays and cancellations, and the government has carefully considered international models. What we have seen overseas is that mandatory compensation schemes can often result in an increase in ticket prices without necessarily improving airline performance. This government's focus is on practical support and better outcomes for passengers.

Under these reforms, the airlines will be expected to cover reasonable, consequential costs when disruptions occur. That may include accommodation, meals and transport where appropriate. Importantly, when flights are cancelled for reasons within the airline's control, consumers should receive refunds in the original form of payment, not be forced into an unwanted travel credit. That's commonsense reform; it puts the consumer first.

These reforms build on substantial work already undertaken by the Albanese Labor government in aviation. In our first term, we delivered the Aviation white paper, we passed legislation to boost competition at Sydney Airport, we reinstated ACCC's airline monitoring after the former government planned to discontinue it and we released the draft Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. This government understands that a healthy aviation sector requires both competition and accountability, because competition benefits consumers, transparency benefits consumers and strong protections benefit consumers.

These reforms are also particularly important in an increasingly uncertain global environment. Recent global conflicts and international instability have demonstrated how vulnerable aviation networks can be to disruption. Australians need confidence that, when disruptions occur, there are clear standards in place and proper consumer protections are available. This legislation provides that certainty. It modernises the framework, strengthens accountability and delivers long-overdue protections for passengers.

I also want to acknowledge the many workers across the aviation industry: pilots, cabin crew, ground staff, baggage handlers, airport workers, customer service teams, security staff and the thousands of people employed across Sydney Airport and related industries near my electorate. These reforms are about building a stronger and more trusted aviation system for absolutely everyone—a system where passengers know their rights, complaints are handled fairly, and accountability and transparency are very much embedded into the sector.

Australians understand that disruptions can and do happen; weather events happen, mechanical issues happen and global events happen. What people rightly expect is clear communication and fair treatment when things go wrong. That is not an unreasonable expectation, and that is exactly what this legislation seeks to deliver. At its core, this package is about restoring that trust—trust between consumers and the airlines, trust between communities and airports and trust that the government is willing to step in when self-regulation has failed to deliver adequate outcomes. For too long, consumers have carried that burden. This legislation shifts that balance back towards fairness. It says to Australians, 'You deserve transparency, you deserve assistance, you deserve accountability and you deserve to know your rights when you're flying.'

I've previously, in this House, referred to Qantas and Virgin as 'the mafia of the skies'. For far too long we have seen the airline industry fail to respect and protect the consumer rights of passengers. This legislative package, the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill and its associated bills, does represent some progress. The establishment of an independent aviation consumer ombudsperson, an aviation consumer protection authority and the framework for a passenger rights charter are all steps in the right direction. But the legislation still falls short of the changes which have been recommended both by experts and the AEC. It falls well short of the protections that are delivered in comparable countries and the protections that Australian travellers deserve.

Let me begin with the facts. In 2025, Qantas recorded a domestic cancellation rate of 2.7 per cent, significantly above the long-term industry average of 2.2 per cent. QantasLink did worse: 3.6 per cent. On-time-arrival performance across the city fell below historical benchmarks, with fewer than 80 per cent of flights arriving on time in several of the months of 2025. In December 2024, only 73.7 per cent of flights arrived on time, well below the long-term average of 80.5 per cent. One in five flights are not arriving when they are scheduled to.

Despite some improvements since the chaos of the post-pandemic years, Australian passengers still have to contend with delays and cancellations that are among the highest in the developed world. There has been some recent improvement in those measures, but the numbers are still too high. Meanwhile, airfares remain elevated. The ACCC found that, despite capacity growth outpacing passenger demand for six consecutive months to January 2026, fares in December 2025 was still 4.3 per cent higher than December 2024.

The Qantas Group and Virgin Australia now service nearly 99 per cent of Australia's domestic passengers. In a duopoly, if you are unhappy with your service, you have limited options. We see the limitation of options in the recent actions of Virgin, where it put in place a situation where Australian consumers were about to lose $93 million in credits relating to COVID era cancellations. The fact is that if an airline cancels your flights, you may then lose your reason for taking that trip. The reasonable response to that would be for the airline to refund the money you have paid for that ticket. Instead, we have seen Virgin keep that $93 million for a number of years and now it's asking people to book flights before 30 June or they will lose those credits altogether.

Over recent years we have seen what the rest of the world does. In the European Union, regulation EU 261 provides passengers with fixed automatic compensation for significant delays and for cancellations. For flights under 1,500 kilometres, passengers receive 250 euros if they arrive more than three hours late. For longer flights, compensation rises to 400 euros or 600 euros, depending on the distance. This right applies unless the disruption was caused by extraordinary circumstances outside the airline's control—genuine extraordinary circumstances, not a broad, industry drafted exemption. The EU scheme is so effective that the European Parliament is currently considering strengthening it, including maintaining the three-hour threshold and banning fees for check-in and for child seating. In Canada, passengers on large airlines receive between C$400, for delays of up to six hours, and C$1,000 for delays exceeding nine hours, with smaller carriers also carrying some liability.

But in Australia, under this bill, a passenger whose flight is cancelled or significantly delayed still has to lodge a complaint with the ombudsperson, has to wait for it to be assessed and has to hope for a favourable determination—a determination that is binding on the airline, but not on the passenger. There is no automatic compensation. There is not even a fixed entitlement. The government hasn't even bothered to include a draft charter of passenger rights in the legislation. What should be the centrepiece of a new framework for customer protection in the aviation industry has been delegated to regulation and to consultation, which has been ongoing for years but which is still not complete. As the Law Council of Australia has said, in its submission to the Senate inquiry, parliament can't assess the adequacy of protections because their substantive content is absent from the legislation. So we have been asked to pass a framework with no content.

Now, the government has argued that a European style compensation scheme would drive up airfares and damage a competitive aviation sector. That argument has been made by airlines in every single jurisdiction that has contemplated reform. But in every jurisdiction that has actually implemented reform, it turns out the airlines have survived. What the argument really reflects is the power of an industry that has benefited from inadequate regulation for decades. The ACCC, the government's own competition watchdog, has long called for stronger consumer protections for passengers in our commercial aviation industry. CHOICE has welcomed this legislation, but has explicitly noted that it falls short of EU 261. Even the government's own aviation white paper acknowledged that the scale of consumer dissatisfaction with the existing deeply inadequate state of affairs continues.

It's worth asking why successive Australian governments, both coalition and Labor, have consistently fallen short on this issue. To some extent at least, the answer might lie in the nature of the relationship between our major airlines and the politicians who should be regulating them. Qantas in particular has cultivated deep and deliberate influence in Canberra for many years. Joe Aston's book The Chairman's Lounge and the parliamentary debate that it prompted in 2024 documented in detail how that influence has operated—through Chairman's Lounge memberships extended to politicians across the spectrum, through upgrades, and through access and proximity that is not available to community organisations, to not-for-profit groups or to ordinary constituents, who might also appreciate the welcome attention of their representatives.

I'm not naive about this. I've experienced it myself. When I was first elected in 2022 I initially accepted Chairman's Lounge and Virgin's Beyond memberships. It seemed to come with the job, and let's face it, there are practical advantages to lounge access when you're constantly travelling between Melbourne and Canberra. But I relinquished that Chairman's Lounge membership in 2023 because I'd become concerned about the extent to which perks extended by the airlines to politicians could affect government decision-making. Airlines don't offer these things for no reason. Research in medicine has shown that even small gifts from pharmaceutical companies can influence doctors' prescribing patterns. The same dynamic applies here. When politicians are guests of the very industry they are meant to hold accountable, we can't be surprised if that accountability falls short.

On sitting days there are almost 2,000 lobbyists in this building, between 10 and 15 for ever member of the House and the Senate. Most are not on the Lobbyist Register, because the existing register is toothless. Ministers are still not required to publish their diaries. The airlines don't have to have a formal lobbying presence. They've already built the access that they need through other means. That's the context in which this bill has been developed, and it could help explain why a government that has expressed genuine concern for passengers has nonetheless declined to legislate the automatic compensation that those passengers need and deserve.

There are other significant gaps in this legislation. The bill excludes services that are not directly paid for by consumers, meaning that inter-airline connections and codeshare arrangements may fall outside its scope. It has limited coverage of third-party intermediaries, such as booking agents, and its broad exemption powers risk creating the same loopholes that have allowed airlines elsewhere to avoid accountability. During the COVID recovery period, complaints to the Airline Customer Advocate rose by 138 per cent, even as passenger numbers fell very sharply. Most of those were related to the refusal by Qantas and Jetstar to offer cash refunds. The Airline Customer Advocate resolved fewer than half of those complaints. That's what happens when a complaints mechanism is funded and controlled by the industry it is meant to police. We shouldn't replicate that model with a different letterhead.

I want to briefly acknowledge what the bill does achieve. An independent ombudsperson with binding determination is meaningfully better than an industry funded body. A new Aviation Consumer Protection Authority with enforcement capability is better than voluntary compliance. These are genuine improvements on the status quo.

The minister has claimed that this is the most significant aviation consumer protection reform ever introduced by an Australian government. That may be true, but it's a pretty low bar. For too many years—through the pandemic, through Qantas selling tickets on already-cancelled flights, through its illegal sacking of ground workers, through flight credits that passengers couldn't use—Australian consumers have long been left exposed by aviation consumer protection in this country. This bill is an inadequate remedy to a longstanding injustice.

Incremental improvement is not the standard we should be setting. This is our only opportunity to get this right, and the government is squibbing it. The standard we set should be a gold standard—the same protections available to passengers on the same routes operated by carriers flying in or out of the United Kingdom or the European Union. What the Australian passenger deserves is automatic, fixed compensation for significant delays and cancellations caused by factors within the airlines' control, a passenger rights charter with mandatory minimum content that is legislated not delegated, genuine coverage of charter operations and third-party intermediaries, and robust exemption criteria that cannot be gamed by carriers seeking to avoid their obligations.

Australians deserve to know what they're entitled to when things go wrong before they board a plane—or before they wait for hours in the airport—not after a complaint process that might take months and not subject to the discretion of an ombudsperson, whose caseload will quickly become unmanageable if this scheme does not change behaviour. They should know that now, automatically, as a right. That's what the rest of the world provides, and that's what this parliament should deliver.

With that, I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

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

"(a) the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter has not been presented to Parliament, preventing members from assessing whether the protections it will deliver are adequate, despite consultations on the Charter occurring nine months ago;

(b) the bill creates no automatic entitlement to compensation for passengers affected by delays or cancellations within an airline's control, leaving Australia's consumer protections well below the standards available in the European Union and Canada; and

(c) the bill's broad exemption powers and exclusion of charter operations and third-party intermediaries risk leaving significant gaps in consumer protections; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) table a draft Charter with mandatory minimum content before the bill proceeds to a third reading; and

(b) amend the bill to provide for fixed, automatic compensation for controllable flight disruptions consistent with international best practice".

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment moved by the member for Kooyong and reserve my right to speak.

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

I rise to speak on the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and the related bills. Australia is a big country, and we are a long way from almost everywhere, including, very often, from each other. That makes aviation more than a convenience for Aussies. It is how we travel to see our family and friends. It is how those in regional and remote communities get to see specialists and specialist services in major town centres. It's how our businesses work across states. And it is how families separated by thousands of kilometres get to sit together around the same table at Christmas. We rely on flying, in a way that not many other countries do. So, when things go wrong—when a flight is cancelled, when a family is left stranded at a gate with kids in tow, when your luggage with a week's worth of clothes doesn't arrive—it matters.

For far too long the deal for travellers when things have gone wrong has not been good enough. That's why the Albanese Labor government is delivering the most significant reforms to Australia's aviation sector in over a decade. Until now, when a complaint could not be sorted out, a traveller has largely been left to resolve the issue themselves, relying on the airlines, and most of us are all too familiar with how this arrangement ends up playing out. When your flight is delayed or cancelled or your travel is disrupted, you're often left with no choice but to wear it. Too many people have been left frustrated, out of pocket and with nowhere independent to turn for a resolution.

Recently we saw exactly how badly this can go. The conflict in the Middle East has caused major disruptions to flights and to fuel and real uncertainty for Australian travellers. We've seen passengers unsure of what to do next and unsure of what they are even entitled to do when a flight is cancelled. Our airlines have done a great deal of difficult work to get Aussies home safely during that conflict, and that work is appreciated. But this moment has outlined something important: Australians who rely on aviation deserve clear protections and a clear understanding of their rights, especially when the unexpected happens. That is what this bill delivers. It is the most significant reform to aviation consumer protection this country has seen, and it flows directly from our aviation white paper—our plan to protect passengers while keeping our aviation sector competitive and while keeping our proud safety record intact.

Let me set out what these bills actually do. First, they establish the new Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson, an independent body that will work with travellers, airlines and airports to resolve complaints. If an airline or an airport has not done the right thing and a traveller is not satisfied with how their complaint has been handled, they will have somewhere genuinely independent to go. The ombudsperson will be able to investigate, to compel information and to determine how a complaint should be resolved. Most importantly, it will be free for the consumer to use to pursue a remedy to their complaint.

Second, the bills establish an aviation consumer protections charter. The charter will set out minimum standards that travellers can expect from airlines and airports—standards for what should happen with bookings, with check in and boarding, with baggage, with complaints handling and with the assistance people are owed when flights are disrupted, delayed or cancelled. For the first time, the expectations of airlines and what is owed to customers will be made plain and clear.

Third, the bills establish the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. The authority will be a dedicated regulator within the department to enforce the charter and to take on the systemic problems in the sector, not just one complaint at a time. Where the ombudsperson helps the individual traveller, the regulator looks at the bigger patterns to make sure the industry is held to account if necessary. This framework is about meaningful protection for passengers while keeping aviation competitive, affordable and sustainable, including the regional routes that so many of our regional and remote communities depend on—in particular, my state of Queensland. There is a balance, and these bills achieve that balance.

On top of that, these bills also make changes to deal with aircraft noise, an issue that matters enormously to the people I represent in Dickson. For at least five years, I have heard from people living in my community of Dickson about the impact of aircraft noise on the Samford Valley and how changes in flight paths, increases in the number of flights and the difficulty in trying to give feedback to Airservices Australia have impacted on their quality of life. These bills establish an independent aircraft noise ombudsperson to address the impact of aircraft noise on people on the ground. The aircraft noise ombudsperson will conduct investigative reviews into how Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence handle aircraft noise complaints, the community consultation processes regarding changes affecting aircraft noise and how aircraft noise information is presented and distributed. The aircraft noise ombudsperson will be independent of Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence, consistent with the commitment made in the aviation white paper. The ombudsperson will have the capacity to publish independent reports and make recommendations to the government for policy or regulatory change.

Our aviation consumer protection bills are not just about passengers. We're also looking out for the people who live under the flight paths, who live with the daily noise and impact of every aircraft passing overhead. The new runway at Brisbane Airport opened in 2020 with little community consultation, particularly when it came to aircraft noise. Since the new runway has arrived, I've met with Samford Valley residents regularly on this issue. Samford Valley sits like a natural amphitheatre. Its geography means that sound is projected. For the families there, aircraft noise is not a passing annoyance. It's impacted on their quality of life, disrupted sleep and meant pollution and constant noise. I want to recognise the residents across my electorate who have advocated on this issue tirelessly for years, to make use of our airspace fairer for the people most affected by the noise. We take your concerns seriously, and these changes finally mean your complaints and concerns will be heard by a new independent ombudsman.

I am proud that our government has already taken real steps to look out for consumers and residents impacted by flight paths. Changes implemented by Airservices Australia include limiting the ability of some aircraft to take off before 6 am, boosting the number of flights that are required to take off and land over water during the night and early mornings on the weekends, reinstating the previous flight path used for overwater departures so that aircraft take off—

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

This time tomorrow, the Socceroos will still be playing Paraguay. It's a critical game for our World Cup prospects, but it also comes at a critical time back home, because, here in this building, politicians are weaponising the multicultural qualities of our soccer team and Australians across the country. These politicians are seeking to divide us by blaming multiculturalism for all our problems. It's immensely disappointing that politicians feel emboldened to put in the boot to those Australians born overseas or whose parents are born overseas but who now call Australia home.

The Socceroos reflect who we are at our best. They may play soccer, but they are not political footballs. The team, which is made up of people from at least 15 cultural and ethnic backgrounds who are all representing Australia at the highest level on the world stage, makes it so clear how multiculturalism makes us stronger. People who choose to call Australia home share the same commitment to the principles contained in the citizenship pledge as Australians who were born here, a commitment to democracy, individual rights and liberties, and the rule of law. People from all around the world can contribute their unique, diverse cultural backgrounds, contribute to our great nation and share a commitment to these Australian ideals. We are all playing on the same team, and it's time that some politicians start behaving like it.

On 4 May 2008, 17-year-old Sam Davis was tragically killed in a one-punch attack. His parent's immense and indescribable grief at Sam's loss inspired them—the Hon. Nat Cook, Speaker of the South Australian House of Assembly, and her husband Neil Davis—to establish the Sammy D Foundation, with the aim of equipping young people with the skills to prevent such tragedies from happening again. Two weeks ago, I attended the annual Sammy D fundraiser at the magnificent Adelaide Oval to celebrate not only Sam's life but to again acknowledge the devastation snap acts of senseless violence have on families across the country.

The Sammy D Foundation works to stamp this out through programs like Impact, which educates young people about the negative impacts of bullying, harassment and violence, teaching them how to keep themselves and their mates safe. The Sammy D Foundation is making a real difference, particularly through its engagement with schools, with 94 per cent of students who take part in a Sammy D Foundation program becoming more aware of the impact of one punch, and, in schools that have worked with the Sammy D Foundation on a long-term basis, violence has reduced by over 80 per cent.

Nat Cook, you and Neil are an inspiration, and I ask every member of this House and of the other place to support you as you do everything you can to make sure no family experiences the effects of a one-punch attack. Vale Sam Davis.

Western Australia's resources sector is world leading, but our prosperity is less secure than it looks. Our economy leans on one industry, one export and one market, and China's steel demand is peaking. At the same time, Western Australians are feeling three pressures at once: rising energy bills, dependence on imported fuel and a changing climate. WA is the only state with rising emissions. These are usually treated as competing problems. They're not. The same response answers all three—decarbonising and diversifying our economy.

Right now, WA's vision for the future is contradictory. We say we want to be a renewable energy superpower, but we keep approving new fossil fuel export expansion, extending gas out to 2070. These two futures compete for the same land, capital and workers. That's why I'm consulting with industry experts in my community to develop a vision for WA's future articulating how we can lower energy costs, build our future prosperity, strengthen our own energy security and bring emissions down by decarbonising and diversifying our economy and exports. We can leverage our strengths to build the clean export industries of the future—green iron, green hydrogen and processed critical minerals. If we want to lead these industries and help the world decarbonise through our exports, it's time to commit and stop locking in a future we're trying to leave.

Sue Lamb has dedicated an extraordinary 38 years to nursing, sharing her wealth of knowledge and experience throughout her career. Her unwavering focus on patient care combined with a strong commitment to supporting and encouraging her team to uphold the highest standards of practice has left a lasting influence on all of those who have worked alongside her. Sue began her nursing journey at just 18 years of age, studying nursing at the University of Technology Sydney as a part of the first cohort of university trained nursing graduates.

Upon graduating, she commenced her career as a registered nurse in the intensive care unit at Gosford Hospital, where she continued to strengthen her clinical skills and professional practice. She commenced her career within the Central Coast Local Health District as a registered nurse in ICU; progressed to the role of clinical nurse specialist, clinical nurse educator in ICU and clinical nurse consultant in ICU; and subsequently advanced to nurse unit manager in ICU, where she has led the intensive care service for over 12 years.

Throughout her leadership, Sue has been an advocate for excellence in patient care, staff development and multidisciplinary collaboration. She guided and supported the team during the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. On behalf of the people of the Central Coast, thank you, Sue, and all the best in your retirement.

Transmission line developer ACEREZ has put out a statement about its recent destruction of a Wiradjuri rock shelter in the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone. This is all just damage control, spin and crocodile tears. This was no accident. This site was clearly marked. They knew it was there, and yet a deliberate decision was taken to destroy it. Where's the explanation as to what actually happened here? Two months went by until they told Wiradjuri groups, and ACEREZ continues to stay dead silent on the other cultural sites that Wiradjuri representatives say have been damaged, including grinding grooves on Merotherie Road, at least one scar tree and other artefacts. People hate the hypocrisy of this.

Because this is a NSW government project in a Renewable Energy Zone, ACEREZ and EnergyCo seem to think that they are above the law. There don't appear to be any consequences for their vandalism. I'm talking about the killing and orphaning of native Australian baby birds, the mowing down of centuries-old wildlife corridors and now the wanton destruction of Wiradjuri cultural sites. If anyone else was doing this, they'd be up before the courts and in the slammer in a heartbeat. The Minister for the Environment and Water did not take any action on the destruction at Merotherie Road, and we haven't heard anything about any action being taken on the cultural heritage damage either. They investigate, but nothing ever happens. ACEREZ should not be above the law or above scrutiny and accountability. It needs to change its ways and be brought to heel.

Bonner is a community that loves sport. We're home to incredible local athletes, dedicated volunteers, grassroots clubs and some of the best sporting facilities in the country. Last week I joined the Minister for Sport at the Sleeman Sports Complex in Chandler to announce a record $513 million investment in high-performance sport over the next two years. This is a major investment in the future of Australian sport. It will support athletes across 68 sports, help cover the costs of training and competition, strengthen pathways for Paralympians and future para-athletes, and back more women into coaching and high-performance leadership roles. We heard from Bonner local and Paralympian Hani Watson, who spoke powerfully about what this support means for athletes with a disability and for growing participation in sport.

Today I attended the Commonwealth Games farewell reception at parliament to wish former Moreton Bay Girls' College student Georgia Godwin all the best as she prepares to represent Australia in gymnastics. I know our whole Bonner community will be cheering her on.

Sport is about much more than medals. It builds confidence, resilience and connection. It brings communities together, inspires young people and showcases the very best of our country. I'm proud that the Albanese Labor government is backing our athletes, backing our sporting system and backing the next generation of Australian champions.

Labor went to the Australian people before the election and promised one thing, and on budget night they did another. Now, in a dangerous and dishonest deal with the Greens, they have gone even further. Australians were told that there'd be no changes to negative gearing and no changes to capital gains tax. Australians took the Prime Minister at his word. Homeowners, investors, small businesses and young people trying to get ahead made decisions based on that promise. But on budget night Labor betrayed them. They announced tax changes that will punish aspiration, discourage investment and make it even harder to build houses this country desperately needs. Now Labor has stitched up a deal with the Greens to ram these changes through the parliament. That deal does not give Australians certainty; it gives them more risk. It puts new pressure on housing, on savings, on investment, on small business and on younger Australians who are already struggling to get a foothold.

This is not tax reform; this is a toxic tax agenda. It tells Australians who work hard, save carefully, invest for their future or take a risk to build a business that the government will change the rules when it suits them. In regional communities like mine, people understand what these decisions mean. They will all be left paying the price for Labor's broken promises. Australians deserve honesty from their government. They deserve stability. They deserve policies that reward hard work, not punish it. The coalition will stand against these toxic taxes and we will stand up for Australians who simply want a fair go.

One of my local councils asked new citizens what they love best about Australia. They talked about beaches and great weather, our unique environment and safe communities, and they also talked about Australian values. They talked about being able to get a meaningful job with well-paid, secure, fair conditions—the promise that if you work hard, you can get ahead. They value our industrial relations systems that means workers do get a fair go. Australian values are about fairness, and that's why this government is making the system fairer, giving more Australians more opportunities. Australian values are about having the opportunity to buy a place to call home, so this government is turbocharging housing supply and making owning a home more affordable for more Australians.

It's about accessible and affordable health care, the envy of the world, so we're boosting bulk-billing rates, funding urgent care clinics and making medicines cheaper. In Boothby, we're boosting health workforce training at Flinders uni and expanding Flinders Medical Centre. It's about good quality public education system so that everyone has the opportunity to better themselves and to make sure that their children also have better opportunities. It's about earning more and keeping more of what you earn, so we've committed to five rounds of tax cuts.

For too long, some Australians have been locked out from the opportunities that this great country offers. This government is committed to equity, a fair go for all, and making sure this Australian dream is within the grasp of all Australians.

In Greek mythology, Medusa didn't defeat her victims with strength, but by stopping them seeing the danger until it was too late. Today, the Medusa effect in Labor's poisonous policies is real. It's measured in mortgage repayments, in rent hikes and in supermarket receipts. After 15 interest rate rises under Labor, a family with a mortgage is around $29,000 a year worse off. The cost-of-living pain is not from Medusa's cold stare; it is from the Albanese government's heartless taxes, homegrown inflation, and increases in electricity and in food. While trying to distract Australians with a $250 sweetener, Labor locked in an extra $70 billion in taxes over the next four years in their budget. The government and the Prime Minister have too many faces: one for the election campaign, one for question time and one behind closed doors doing deals with the Greens while layers of stone form around Australian family budgets.

While the bills arrive, the Prime Minister refuses to look Australians in the eyes, instead leaving them in the coils of Labor's tax serpents. A father from Glenmore Park said, 'They're treating Australians like top-tier earners, penalising a lifetime of hard work and self-reliance.' No matter which face this government presents, the Medusa effect, is the same—another piece of the Australian dream slowly turning to stone.

We know that people are working hard and doing the right thing but still can't get into a home of their own. The system is broken, and that's why we're changing the system. Everyone on this side of the House heard that message loud and clear. Each one of us in this chamber should want to provide the same opportunities to the younger generation as we had. Labor understands that, and that's why we're doing the work. Labor is tackling the housing crisis from every angle. We're increasing supply and we're giving young people the means and the opportunity, while those opposite want to keep Australians down. During the nine years the LNP were in power, they neglected housing. There was no housing minister for most of it, and they built just 373 social and affordable homes. In Queensland, the LNP is no better. They've cancelled 10,000 social and affordable homes, and they've scrapped mandates requiring them in new builds. In the middle of the housing crisis, the LNP would rather help developers building high-end apartments, turning a blind eye to social and affordable housing.

The LNP has abandoned Brisbane and Queensland. In their cold, rocky sea of blue, those opposite are clambering onto each others' life rafts while the community around them is sinking. They can't see that the community needs a life raft too, for people like Caitlin, in my electorate, who recently bought her home for her family on Labor's five per cent deposit scheme. As leaders, we can make it better for the next generation, and that's what this Labor government is doing.

I rise today to update the House on a serious biosecurity threat unfolding in my electorate. Cape Le Grand National Park, east of Esperance, is renowned for its pristine coastline, but it has now become ground zero for Australia's first confirmed cases of avian influenza. Thanks to the swift action of local wildlife carers and Swans Veterinary Services, cases have been identified, and the Esperance community is stepping up to contain the spread.

As reported in the Kalgoorlie Miner, in an article aptly named 'Birdbrained', the Esperance Wildlife Hospital, a purpose built wildlife biosecurity facility that has even rehearsed its response to highly pathogenic avian influenza cannot be used because its toilet does not meet certification requirements. You couldn't make this stuff up. As a result, a single wildlife officer, Lori-Ann, is left managing potentially infected birds from her own home, at her own expense, without any government resources. One person is fielding every phone call, and an incomprehensible government website is not adequately directing concerned stakeholders in my electorate.

This is not preparedness, it's improvisation under pressure. While Minister Collins insists Australia is ready for this situation, it tells a very different story. Right now, policy isn't translating into results. If Esperance's purpose built facility cannot be operationalised during an active threat, what faith can Australians have in the broader national response?

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee for Frankston and Mornington Peninsula for bringing together more than 40 student leaders from across seven schools last week. Most importantly, I want to thank the young people who shared their perspectives so openly and honestly. What stood out was not only the challenges facing young people but the thoughtfulness of their ideas and their determination to help shape solutions. Students spoke about the rising cost of living, housing affordability, education equity, mental health, job security and feeling disconnected from the political system.

These are real concerns affecting decisions about study, work, wellbeing and future aspirations. Many express concerns that milestones previous generations took for granted, such as homeownership, financial independence, access to affordable university, education and secure employment are becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. As the federal member for Dunkley, I am proud of the work this government is doing to give our young people a fair go through tax reform, housing reform, increasing minimum wages and making free TAFE permanent. Young people are not just the leaders of tomorrow but they are important contributors today. Their voices and aspirations matter, and I will continue advocating to ensure they are heard.

Australia is drifting. That is the conclusion from the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia's 2026 State of the nation report. Productivity, investment and innovation are going backwards. Knowledge, skills and workforce are going backwards. Australia is becoming a less competitive nation, and we know that because our standard of living has dropped more than any other advanced economy.

What is the Albanese government's answer to these problems? It's to increase personal income taxes to the highest levels in Australian history and to increase tax on capital to the highest level in the world. To the economic illiterates on the government benches, can I tell you this? You do not make an economy more competitive by penalising those who invest. You do not make an economy more competitive by taking away opportunities for entrepreneurs. You do not make an economy more competitive by treating profit making as a sin. If this government was so sure about increasing taxes, it should have had the courage to take it to the Australian people at last year's election. (Time expired)

Tomorrow is Rare Cancer Awareness Day, and I want to recognise a bloke from Branxton in my electorate Noel Carmona. Noel is a miner, a husband, a dad, a bloke who loves his sport and a beer and is well respected around the community. In 2023, after a cough just wouldn't go away, he was diagnosed with stage 4 thymic carcinoma, a cancer so rare it's been described as one in a million. Since then, Noel has been through more than anybody should have to face. He's had surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy and clinical trials. Part of his tumour couldn't be removed because it was attached to his thymus, lung and heart. On top of that, he's had to wear the costs for this treatment himself because it wasn't covered by the PBS, all while still fighting for more time with his precious wife and their young son, Mateo.

But Noel's story isn't just about cancer. It's about guts, determination and looking out for others. Even while going through treatment, he spoke up for people going through and living with rare cancers and pushed for better support. He's a proud member of the Hunter Valley Pie Hunters, and I'm looking forward to catching up with Noel for a beer, a pie, a banh mi and a burger soon. Do you know how we find out about these sorts of things? We go and see our GPS and bulk-billing GPS. The Albanese Labor government has made sure there are more bulk-billing GPS all around this beautiful country. Remember, blokes, if you're out there, go and see your GP, get a blood test and get a check-up. Cheers.

I was scrolling through Facebook yesterday, and, helpfully, I saw a post from New South Wales Labor which was celebrating the anniversary of the election of Julia Gillard. Unfortunately, that post hasn't aged very well. Just fast forward two days to tomorrow, we have the anniversary of the knifing of the first female leader of this country. I wonder if they'll do a post for that too? Probably not. But the theme here is betrayal. That's what they do over here. They betray. They betray their own. They did it in 2013, and they've done it time and time again to the Australian people. They did it on budget night, and they are now the highest taxing government Australia has ever seen. They said one thing before the election, and they did another thing afterwards.

Now, to top it off, they have done a dirty deal with the Greens to pass their toxic taxes on housing, savings and investment. I'm sorry, Deputy Speaker, I'm going to have to use that three letter word. I know you don't want us to use it. I know they don't want us to use it. Here it is: tax. That's right; there's never enough of it from these guys. Here he is here, the highest taxing Treasurer we've ever seen. It doesn't matter whether it's betraying their own by knifing their first female prime minister or betraying the Australian people. They want more of your money, and they shouldn't have it.

If you were to ask any parent what matters most in those first few months with a newborn, they will tell you it is sleep and time. Unfortunately, we can't legislate for sleep. I wish we could. But what we can deliver is time—time to bond, time to care. From 1 July, Labor is delivering 26 weeks of paid parental leave, because we back families and workers. Not everyone in this place agrees. Senator Hanson has had several goes at explaining her opposition to paid parental leave, and each time she proves the same point. She simply doesn't understand it.

Paid parental leave is not welfare; it's smart economic policy. It keeps parents connected to their workplace and boosts workforce participation because, to qualify, you need to be working before your child is born. This is about supporting parents to stay in the workforce. And the evidence is clear. Eighty per cent of employers who offer paid parental leave report increased productivity. That's why businesses and families back it. When Senator Hanson talks about winding it back, she's attacking workers' rights, holding women back and making it harder for families. Fifteen years ago, Labor introduced Australia's first government Paid Parental Leave scheme, and now we're strengthening it.

The Prime Minister reckons he wants to hear from young people on housing, but does he really? Andrew in my electorate wrote:

Life has been hard for someone in his late 20s—my wife's a Nurse and I'm a teacher, we should be able to have a roof over our head and not worry about money...my wife and I have been saving, investing and working hard to try and build a home.

…The Labor government without asking it citizens has decided to change the Capital Gains Tax discount…the investments we've worked so hard to build (for a deposit) and risked so much money on will now only give us half the profit we would have.

Simon, please please please help with rectifying this and (make them take to an election) as to whether the capital gains discount should be changed, because it's not fair on hard working people trying to get ahead.

Prime Minister, this is a nurse and a teacher—people you pretend to care about. Do you know how much CGT a nurse and a teacher pay in New Zealand? Zero per cent. Do you know what the nurses and teachers in Singapore pay, Treasurer? Zero per cent. Do you know what a nurse and a teacher in communist China pay?

Direct your comments through the chair, Member for Cook.

They pay 20 per cent. You beat communist China by 10 per cent. We've got nurses and teachers in communist China paying lower CGT than you and the rest of your comrades have put in place.

Member for Cook, I won't remind you again about the need to direct your comments through the chair. Depersonalising this debate is important for the House.

In my first speech in this place, I spoke about my multicultural roots and my family, who immigrated to this place in the late 1800s from China. When they moved here, they built things. They built their families, and they helped build our community. Like so many other people in our country, they are a stark reminder that multiculturalism is not a new concept; it's an old one. It's one that's helped build this country.

When the opposition leader stands up in front of a big media pack, when he's got all the cameras on him, when he denies multiculturalism and when he cannot get the word out of his mouth, in that moment, he denies Moo Yat Fah, who helped build the Darwin to Pine Creek Railroad. In that moment, he denies my grandfather, Harry HoyPang Moo, who fought for this country in World War II. In that moment he denies Lewis Lee, OAM, a pillar of my community, who is one of the cornerstones of our multicultural community on Brisbane's south side. In that press conference, he used the phrase 'it's pretty simple'. Well, to the Leader of the Opposition, I say: it's pretty simple; why can't you say the word?

It's farcical. Last night the ASIO Director-General gave his annual threat assessment. He warned that terrorism remains an acute concern. But today we discovered this government has again done nothing to stop terror coming through the door. The Albanese government imposed just one temporary exclusion order on just one ISIS bride. Disgracefully, it has now lifted that order. Frankly, not a single ISIS bride should have been allowed back into this country.

The term 'ISIS bride' covers all manner of sins. These people abandoned Australia. They travelled to terrorist hotspots. They supported an evil death cult, and they steeped their children in a monstrous ideology. The repatriation of these terrorist sympathisers fails the security test, fails the fairness test, fails the values test and fails the pub test.

The Albanese government said it couldn't do anything. What a lot of codswallop! It chose to do nothing. Worse, it flung open the door and rolled out the red carpet. This government has deliberately turned a blind eye to Islamist extremism in this country. It is showing utter disdain for the safety of hardworking Australians.

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

Before we begin question time, there are two important acknowledgements I'd like to do. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are athletes selected to represent Australia at the 2026 Glasgow Commonwealth Games in cycling, paracycling, netball, parabowls, gymnastics, weightlifting, judo and athletics. Accompanying the athletes is Ben Houston, the President of Commonwealth Games Australia, as well as Petria Thomas OAM, chef de mission of the Australian team for the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games in about a month's time. On behalf of the House, we wish you all the very best in your endeavours fighting for gold and fighting for Australia. Welcome to question time.

I'm also pleased to inform the House that joining us on the floor of the parliament is the Hon. Dr Stephen Martin AO, former speaker of the House of Representatives. Welcome to question time.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor's budget of broken promises and higher, toxic taxes will impose $77 billion of new taxes on Australians. Why does this prime minister, the leader of this dishonest government, want to pull up the ladder on hardworking Australians?

Order! The member for Isaacs will leave the chamber under 94(a). That means leave immediately. We're not having people yelling during questions. I've made that crystal clear all week.

The member for Isaacs then left the chamber .

We understand that Australians are under financial pressure, which is why we're not just identifying issues. We're actually doing something about it. In the Senate right now, there are bells ringing. And the bell is tolling for all those opposite, because those opposite, all three right-wing parties, are voting in the Senate against tax cuts for every Australian—for every Australian worker.

Honourable members interjecting—

Just next week, there'll be a tax cut for all 14 million Australian taxpayers. We know that that is a change that was not only opposed by those opposite. They didn't just vote against it; they said they'd repeal it. We know that there'll be a real increase in the minimum wage. We know that those opposite have never supported minimum-wage workers. We know there's expansion of paid parental leave to a full six months. We know, as well, that from next week our 137 Medicare urgent care clinics will be made permanent.

This is a time of significant global uncertainty. The war in Iran has caused the biggest spike in the price of petrol and diesel in history. But Australia has shown remarkable resilience. In the data that's out just this month, economic growth is up, business investment is up, inflation is down—and today unemployment is down.

Those opposite talk Australia down at every opportunity. They're defined by what they're against. The last time they asked a question about the impact of this global crisis from the Strait of Hormuz was, appropriately, 1 April. Since then, there's been nothing to see here—just crickets from those opposite—even though we have more fuel in Australia today than there was on 28 February, even though prior to Easter they were saying it wasn't a case of whether there'd be rationing but what date or why it hasn't been done already. That was what they were saying. The opposition have not asked a single question about this. They talk Australia down. We build Australia up.

Noise levels were a little too loud in that answer, so I'm going to ask everyone to lower their interjections.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to help first home buyers into a home of their own? What approaches will make this harder for young Australians to get into homeownership?

I thank—

Member for Cowper, the minister had not begun even saying something, and you started interjecting. I'm just going to ask the House, for everyone, for both sides, when a minister begins, we're not having this. We'll reset, and the minister will begin her answer.

I want to thank the fantastic member for Bass for her question, and what a great contribution she is making, representing her community in this parliament. Today the parliament has a very important bill before it, a bill that will deliver a tax cut for every single working Australian and a bill that will level the playing field for Australia's first home buyers. Twenty-seven years ago, Prime Minister John Howard and this parliament created a housing market in our country that preferences investors over first home buyers. And today, as a parliament, we have an opportunity to make a different choice for our country, because we know the results of John Howard's experiment. Investors flooded into established housing. House prices have gone up by 400 per cent. Homeownership rates for young people across this country have fallen through the floor.

The bill that's before the parliament asks us a big question: What kind of country do we want to be? Do we want to be a nation where hard work and aspiration get rewarded, or do we want to be a country where getting into a home of your own depends on the property wealth you inherited from your parents? Labor believes in an Australia where ordinary people can get ahead through their own effort. That's why we're giving first home buyers a fair shot, and that's why we're delivering a tax cut for every single working Australian.

I'm asked about alternatives. The three right-wing parties have a big choice to make this afternoon. With all the cost-of-living challenges facing this country, are they seriously going to come into the parliament and vote against a tax cut for every single worker in this country? Are they seriously going to come into the parliament and say, 'We don't want our housing system to change'? That's what this is about. Do we want our housing system to be fairer and more equal, or do we want to retain the broken system?

We are a Labor government. We believe that Australia works best when effort and aspiration are rewarded. Helping more Australians buy their own home is not just central to our vision for housing; it is central to our vision for Australia. That's what the bill today is about—building a country where your success comes not from the wealth you inherit, not from the family that you come from, but from the work that you do yourself. In our government, we believe that aspiration belongs to every person who lives in this country.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, the Labor government has backflipped again, issuing an entry permit for yet another dangerous ISIS terrorist sympathiser to enter Australia. Last night, in his annual threat assessment, the director-general of ASIO declared that Islamic State and al-Qaeda and their affiliates are growing their capability to conduct and inspire attacks. Why does the Prime Minister keep rolling out the welcome mat for ISIS terrorist sympathisers?

I'm asked about the annual threat assessment of the director-general of ASIO, and, as part of the question from the self-described newly elected member of parliament there, what he has done in the language that was used—

Honourable members interjecting—

It's your words. You self-described it.

Alright, I'll get the Prime Minister to pause for a moment. Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?

No member should be referred to by name or other things; you've got to actually use correct titles. I can go through the correct titles you're meant to use if it would help the House. The Prime Minister is not doing that. Do you want me to do that? The member's ministerial office, the member's parliamentary office or the member's electoral division—that is what you're meant to use.

That's a good cue to remind everyone that language matters. No matter what descriptors are being used—great. We're going to keep everyone just to their titles—fantastic. That's an important principle. The Prime Minister will continue and address people by their correct title.

The director-general of ASIO's comments are worth reading, and I ask people to think about what the director-general of ASIO has said and then the language that was just used in that question. He said this:

I reckon a 'fair go' for all could be a good place to start. I appreciate this is not traditional territory for a spy chief, but I firmly believe if more Australians—not just visitors—embraced the ethos of a fair go, mutual respect and tolerance, the temperature of our security environment would be several degrees lower.

By all means disagree, but consider how we disagree.

By all means protest, but consider how we protest.

By all means report the news, but consider how you report the news.

By all means condemn a government or a political party, but consider whether you should condemn a people.

Despite the scale of this challenge, Australia is well placed to meet it.

Our Parliaments are sovereign, our communities are resilient, our economy is growing and while we may not be perfect, our security and law enforcement agencies are world class.

We should not be insecure about our security: we can and should have confidence in our ability to respond.

The director-general of ASIO has my absolute confidence, and the director-general of ASIO is an extraordinary Australian who—

My point of order is on relevance. The question was about rolling the welcome mat out for ISIS terrorists—

The Prime Minister is being directly relevant. The question contained a statement about the director-general of ASIO's statement last night. The Prime Minister is reading directly about that statement to the House. He couldn't be more directly relevant for a statement that he was asked about.

The Leader of the Opposition couldn't have more effectively outlined what the problem that the director-general of ASIO was identifying. The idea that anyone in this parliament is not totally opposed to ISIS and terrorism is something that has no place in this parliament. What the Leader of the Opposition knows is that one of the things that defines our country and distinguishes us from authoritarian regimes is the rule of law. (Time expired)

My question is to the Treasurer. How will the passage of the Albanese Labor government's tax reforms help Australians get ahead? How does this compare with other approaches?

For as long as I've known the member for Maribyrnong she's stood up for and spoken up for workers, particularly low-paid workers and especially in the care economy. I thank her for her question.

This is a really important week for our economy, and it's a big day for tax reform in particular. Yesterday we saw headline inflation go down. Today we saw the unemployment rate go down and employment go up. And this afternoon we passed the most ambitious tax reforms in more than a quarter of a century. Those job numbers today show that more than 1.25 million jobs have now been created on this Prime Minister's and this government's watch, most of them full-time. It means that average unemployment under our government is the lowest of any government in the last half a century. It's a very welcome reminder of the strength of our labour market and the resilience of our economy in the face of all this global economic uncertainty.

This afternoon the House will have a very important choice to make. This side of the House will be voting for tax cuts for workers, a fair go for first home buyers and a fairer tax system. The three right-wing parties, united by their divisive antiworker agenda, will be voting against tax cuts, against a fair go for first home buyers and against a fairer tax system. This legislation that will pass the House this afternoon is about making it easier for people to buy their first home, not their 20th investment property. It's all about cutting income taxes again and again, and it's about making the tax system fairer.

As important as this week is in our economy, next week will be just as important, because on Wednesday next week more than 14 million Australian taxpayers will get another tax cut from this government. The national minimum wage goes up. Modern award wages go up. Parents will get 26 weeks of paid parental leave, up from 24 weeks, in addition to the usual indexation. We'll also have workers benefiting from super being paid at the same time as their salary and their wages. We'll introduce the ban on excessive pricing of groceries. People will start to get the benefit from the instant tax deduction as well.

On this side of the House we're very proud of the tax reforms that will pass the House later today. We're very proud of our efforts to cut income taxes again, make it easier for first home buyers and make the tax system fairer. The three right-wing parties, in their usual way, are trying to stand in the way of all of those things.

I have two acknowledgements to make. I had been planning to recognise local government people, and I have about 350 people to acknowledge today. I will acknowledge two people: Councillor Kim Marx, from the city council of my home town of Brisbane, and Councillor George Demetriou, from the City of West Torrens. At 92 years of age, he is the oldest serving councillor currently in local government in the Southern Hemisphere. On behalf of all the local mayors and councillors who are here, thank you for your service and welcome to question time.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians want truth-in-political-advertising laws. The bills I've tabled will require AI content watermarking, establish an ethical political advertising code and an independent political advertising standards board to regulate complaints, and introduce penalties for misleading and deceptive political content. At the 2025 election voters saw fake signs, false affiliations, AI content in Goldstein and politically motivated complaints to the NACC, then used in political advertising to imply wrongdoing. When will the government act to protect our elections?

I thank the member for Warringah for her question. I haven't considered the details in the bill that she refers to that she has tabled. I'm happy to have a look at it, as we're happy to consider any ideas going forward.

Certainly the issue of political advertising is very real. The issue of use of artificial intelligence is something that should be of concern across the parliament, such as the images which people can see in videos, for example, that have been published recently showing various members of parliament and ministers when it isn't actually them. But, when people look at it, they see them and hear their voices. So this has the potential to really change the way that politics operates in this country. Politics does have to operate in a way where there is fairness and where people are able to see things that they know are real. So we'll examine these things when it comes to artificial intelligence in general.

I assure the member for Warringah that this has been the subject of substantial debate within the government and, as well, with the private sector and with the bureaucracy. I convened a meeting of half a dozen ministers just this week across portfolios, looking at the challenges that it represents. It represents a real opportunity for growth. You can't stop these technologies from emerging, which is why we need to make sure that we shape them rather than allow them to shape us and the way that our society operates. We'll continue to work constructively across the parliament with all those who are prepared to work constructively across the parliament, and that includes the member for Warringah.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government supporting local governments all around Australia to deliver more infrastructure, better services and greater prosperity for the communities that we all represent?

I thank the member for Bullwinkel for her question. Of course, the member for Bullwinkel was a member of Mundaring council in her local electorate. Importantly, I don't think she'll be rerunning in the next local government election, because one job is enough for the member for Bullwinkel.

Tonight, I will have the pleasure of addressing the Australian Local Government Association.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order, members on my left! Order! Members on my left are just interjecting nonstop. I will have to take action if that kind of level of noise continues. It's completely disrespectful. The House will come to order. The Prime Minister is in continuation.

At the ALGA conference I'll be able to talk about the respect that we have for local government. Led by Minister McBain, Commonwealth investment in local government is not just growing; it is at a record level. Every dollar invested in local government helps councils deliver the services and the infrastructure that Australians rely on every day.

Through last month's budget, our government is providing $3.6 billion.

Order! The minister for infrastructure and the member for Parkes are both now warned. You're simply having that conversation while the Prime Minister is speaking. If you wish to do that, please take it outside. The Prime Minister is in continuation. No more interjections.

We're providing $3.6 billion in untied financial assistance grants—real money for real priorities. Last Friday, we paid 80 per cent of those financial assistance grants ahead of schedule.

The Prime Minister will pause. I just warned the member for Parkes.

Thank you, Member for Parkes. You will leave under 94(a).

The member for Parkes then left the chamber.

If people are warned during an answer, obviously action will be taken and so it should be.

We're fast-tracking last-mile infrastructure funding for housing as part of our $47 billion Homes for Australia plan and $2 billion for the Housing Support Program. We have doubled funding for the Roads to Recovery Program, a vital program, to $4.4 billion. We've opened new opportunities for infrastructure funding, including the $500 million Active Transport Fund, the $200 million Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program, and the $750 million for the Growing Regions Program and the Thriving Suburbs Program. In further recognition, we're continuing to engage with local government directly, and I know that the minister has met with over 50 council representatives just this week.

I welcome every delegate who's made the journey to the national capital. I know how deeply you care about your communities. When we work together, we achieve so much more for the people we so proudly represent and serve. I was very proud to be the local government minister in a former government. There's nowhere more important you can engage with local communities directly than through local government.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. Yesterday, the Minister for Housing revealed Labor's budget of broken promises and higher taxes will see the value of an Australian home collapse by up to 20 per cent. This could see negative equity loans rise to roughly one in 20 and leave homeowners owing more than their home is worth, smashing their nest egg. How many Australians will become poorer because of Labor's deliberate correction in house prices?

Let me first start by saying that that is a characteristically dishonest representation of what I said in question time yesterday.

Opposition members interjecting—

I'd just point out to those opposite that if you can't—

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

The member for Gippsland then left the chamber.

This continual rudeness will not be tolerated in this House. This non-stop interjecting and sledging is not acceptable.

I'd say to those opposite that if you can't win a political debate without misrepresenting the position of the people that you're arguing with, then you don't have a very good argument. That's just a hot tip on how arguments work.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The Leader of the Opposition. Order! Everyone's just not going to continue to behave like that. Please, assist the House. Show some respect. I want the minister to return to the question and I want the House to hear her answer.

I talked to the parliament yesterday about what has happened to our housing market in this country since John Howard and Peter Costello reshaped our market in favour of investors over first home buyers. So let me take the parliament through it again. What we saw was investors flooding into the market, purchasing 80 to 90 per cent of existing Australian properties, and the consequences of that are not altogether surprising. What they have seen is a 400 per cent increase in house prices in the last 25 years.

Now, those opposite may think that a 400 per cent increase in house prices is a sustainable and good thing for the country. But let me be clear with you: the result of that is that homeownership rates for the young people of this country are falling through the floor. A low-income young couple in this country is half as likely to own their own home today as they were in the year that I was born.

Order! The member for Maranoa will cease interjecting or be warned, and he won't be here for the remainder of the answer. No more interjections!

I'm not surprised that those opposite don't want to see change in this system, though I do want to point out some inconsistency. It sounds like the member for Goldstein is advocating for another 400 per cent increase in house prices, perhaps another halving of the homeownership rate for young people. I would point out to him that his colleague and friend, the shadow housing spokesperson, Andrew Bragg, has made quite clear his views that he wants house prices right around the country to decline. It's not surprising to see more chaos and more 'crazy' over there as they try to sort out their position.

They may still be sorting out what they think should happen with housing in this country. We've got a really clear view. We want a fair and equitable housing market in this country, and that means putting first home buyers on an even keel with investors. If those opposite have a different view, they'll have the chance to state that again when they vote on the legislation this afternoon.

My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the progress of the government's reforms to give first home buyers a fair go, to make the tax system fairer, and to help people keep to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and what has been standing in the way?

I thank the member for Deakin, and I can tell the member for Deakin that our legislation has just passed the Senate. This is legislation that will make Australia stronger. It will make Australia fairer. It will, indeed, make Australia stronger because it is fairer. Most Australians have nothing to sell but their time, nothing to give but their hard work. They go to work each and every day to earn an income, to put food on the table for their families. They deserve a tax cut and we are giving them one. They deserve the opportunity to buy their own home, and we're making sure they have it. Our reforms are delivering both, and that is what delivering real change looks like—fixing a broken system to give first home buyers a fair crack.

During this debate about housing that has taken place all year, the truth is—and no-one in this debate is arguing the housing system is working—that those opposite say, even though they acknowledge it's not working, 'Don't do anything about it.' Well, that is not the Labor way. Governments are here to make a difference, not to just occupy the space, and we are making a difference. We're fixing a broken system to give first home buyers a fair crack. But we're not just doing that—we are making sure that people can earn more and keep more of what they earn, earning more through the increases in the minimum wage.

The further tax cuts that are part of this legislation that those opposite in the three right-wing parties voted against in the Senate—and they'll have an opportunity to change their mind in the coming period before it returns to the House—will give a $250 tax cut for every working Australian and a $1,000 instant tax deduction. Every single Labor member will be proud to vote for this legislation—tax cuts for every working Australian, not just some; backing aspiration for all, not just some; an economy that works for all Australians, not just some. That's the difference between this side of the House and the three right-wing parties. They are anti-aspiration, anti-worker, anti-tax-cuts and anti-first-home-buyers. They are defined only by what they are against. What we're defined by is what we're in favour of—a stronger and fairer economy that works for all Australians.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. Reports say the government is backing down on another toxic tax hidden in Labor's budget of broken promises. Can the minister confirm thousands of Australian women, including widows, divorcees and victims of domestic violence, will be disproportionately impacted by Labor's rushed changes to property taxes due to pass the parliament today? Why won't this government delay this vote to fix this shambles of a budget?

I thank the member for Monash for her really important question. I think she'd be aware that the Minister for Finance clarified the government's pathway on this in the Senate earlier today. We're aware of these issues and we're working through them in the usual manner. We intend to address the arrangements for jointly owned assets in circumstances like inheritance and divorce in subsequent legislation. We'll also ensure that the exemption for income from genuine testamentary trusts applies to the minimum tax on capital gains. The parliament will have the opportunity to debate and discuss that as the second tranche of legislation comes forward.

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering higher wages and more jobs for working Australians, and what are the biggest threats to this record delivery?

I'd like to thank the member for Hunter for his question and his ongoing support for workers right across the Hunter. This Labor government is absolutely committed to creating more safe, secure jobs and helping more Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. And, in good news for Aussie workers today, the ABS jobs data highlights the resilience of Australia's labour market. Jobs are up, unemployment is down, with 40,000 more people in work over the month, and the unemployment rate has decreased to 4.4 per cent. In good news, the total number of Australians in jobs is now over 14.7 million. Not only is this government delivering more jobs; we're also backing hardworking Australians get the pay that they deserve. This Labor government has backed an increase to the minimum award wage every single year we've been in government. And, in case you all have missed it, from next week minimum award wage earners will be receiving a 4.75 per cent increase, representing a real wage increase for these workers.

Of course, next week working Australians will also get paid super when they get paid their wages. This is about ensuring workers do not miss out on their important superannuation entitlements. From next week, hardworking Australians will be getting a tax cut, with more to come with the legislation now passing the Senate. And from next week eligible working families will be able to access up to 26 weeks of paid parental leave, delivered by this Labor government. These changes are all part of Labor's commitment to ensuring Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn and, of course, retire with more as well.

I'm asked about the biggest risk to our record of delivering for workers. Well, it comes as no surprise—it's not even a surprise to those on the other side that the biggest risk to jobs and wages for everyday Aussies is the three right-wing parties on the other side. The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation have consistently opposed cost-of-living relief for hardworking Australians. They've failed to back an increase to the minimum wage and they tried to block those tax cuts for hardworking Australians. While our government is working to deliver more jobs, One Nation and the Liberals have made it no secret that they want to make it easier for bosses to sack workers. It's only this Labor government that can be trusted to be on the side of Aussie workers.

My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday the Treasurer was asked about his plan to force thousands of widows and divorcees to pay more tax by removing their access to grandfathering for capital gains tax and negative gearing. He said:

… the arrangements as you describe them are consistent with the way that the acquisition rules apply in the current CGT arrangements.

This morning, the Prime Minister had to step in again and dump the Treasurer's plan. How many more humiliating backdowns will it take for the Treasurer to admit his budget is a failure?

I'll tell you what's humiliating: the shadow treasurer's inability to ask me a question himself. I thank the honourable member for her question. As we said yesterday, the arrangements are consistent with treatment elsewhere in the tax system. But, when we were asked about this yesterday, we did take particular care around our response because we were still considering the amendments that were being circulated in the Senate throughout the day. And that's why we provided the answer that we did at the time. We are and we have been, as the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Finance earlier today have said, we've been aware of these issues and we are working through them in the usual way. We do intend to address the arrangements for jointly owned assets in subsequent legislation. We'll also ensure that the exemption for income from genuine testamentary trusts applies to the minimum tax on capital gains as well so that they work appropriately together.

Now, we've made it clear on a number of occasions—and I think those opposite know this—that it's not unusual at all for big tax reform packages to be legislated with multiple pieces of legislation. The Howard government did it with the GST. The Howard government did it when they made this mistake on the capital gains tax discount in 1999. There were something like 30 pieces of legislation on both occasions. So it's not unusual for there to be consultation. It's not unusual for there to be multiple pieces of legislation, and that's what we are doing in this instance.

Opposition members interjecting—

I can hear the interjections from those opposite. I think everybody here and everybody watching at home and in the galleries as well knows what's really happening here. They are trying to distract from the fact that, when the bills come back down from the Senate, they will vote against tax cuts for workers and a fair go for first home buyers. That's what they're trying to obscure. They're desperately hoping that nobody notices that the three right-wing parties and their divisive antiworker agenda will see them vote against tax cuts once again.

The Treasurer will pause. The manager on a point of order?

Yes—relevance. The question was about the humiliating backdown that you're now making. It wasn't about this.

Yes, the manager is correct. He wasn't asked about the opposition or their positions. It was about government decisions, so I'll just ask the Treasurer to return to the question.

I was asked about the legislation before the Senate. The legislation will be coming back down to the house this afternoon, and every member of this parliament will have an important choice to make. I know what choice we'll be making. We'll be voting to support workers and first home buyers and future generations. That's who we'll be supporting. Now, when this legislation comes down and when it passes this House, it will demonstrate this above all else: this tax reform bill passing the House today is a win for workers, it's a win for first home buyers and it's a win for future generations. That's why we'll be voting for it.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What measures is the Albanese Labor government taking to protect human health after the detection of H5 bird flu, and why is it important to take this seriously? Are there any alternative approaches being put forward?

Thank you to my fellow South Australian the terrific member for Sturt. As she knows and as I think we all know, for years we've watched the rest of the world grapple with the impact of the H5N1 variant of avian flu. Over those five years, it's hit every continent except ours, devastating wildlife and upending industries, like poultry and cattle in particular, in almost every other country on the planet. As the Minister for Agriculture, who is responsible for the nation's biosecurity, has already told the parliament, it's now been detected here, as we knew it inevitably would be at some point. Now, the numbers are still small and the cases are still confined to migratory birds, but we know from bitter experience overseas just how serious the risks are here.

That's why we've been working so hard over recent years across portfolios, led by Agriculture but including Environment and obviously Health through the CDC, to make sure that we are as prepared as we possibly can be. We are also working, obviously, with states, who have a very important role here as well. Opposition members who've also been watching this unfold across the world have recognised that work, and they've offered their support: the Deputy Leader of the Nationals, who's not here right now; the member for Maranoa; and number of others as well. We thank them for that, because they know how serious this could get.

But not everyone has been quite so constructive. The Liberal Senator Antic last night, remarkably even for him, described the H5N1 avian flu as 'spin from pharmaceutical companies,' all designed, in his view, to push people into getting a flu shot this winter. All another vast conspiracy—managing in one speech not only to spread dangerous ideas about vaccination but also to minimise and even mock this variant of avian flu and the risk we know it poses to some incredibly important industries in this country.

If you don't watch Senate estimates after dark, you might not know who Senator Antic is! But he is one of the most influential members in the opposition—certainly the most influential member in the South Australian Liberal Party. He helped gather the numbers for this guy to roll the former member for Farrer. He's the Leader of the Opposition's handpicked candidate to become president of the South Australian Liberal Party—a nice sidekick to Tony Abbott. Maybe that's why, in the 24 hours since he gave that speech, we've heard absolutely nothing from the Leader of the Opposition—showing again, as we've seen in this debate about multiculturalism, that this man lacks the spine for difficult decisions and real leadership.

My question is to the Prime Minister. A minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports has proven to be one of the most popular policies with the Australian public. Despite this, you've chosen to listen to the gas industry over everyday Australians. Will you listen to the people and hold a national plebiscite for a gas tax?

The member for Ryan suggests, from some of the campaign which has been had publicly, that somehow gas companies or other companies in the resources sector don't pay tax, that there's no company tax or resource tax and that the PRRT does not exist and will not grow in the future. It also ignores the work that we've done in two areas—the work that we've done on the gas reservation of 20 per cent of exports, which is very important. In Western Australia, the former WA Labor government brought in a gas reservation that has served the people of WA well. But, on the east coast, that has not happened. That has been inadequate from governments of all persuasions in dealing with this challenge. We're dealing with it. We're getting it done, and we're consulting with industries to make sure it happens.

The unspoken suggestion from some, as part of this campaign, is that we should just tear up contracts that are made with our trading partners. If the member says no, that's not the case, then I welcome the fact that they are saying that, but in the public campaign that's certainly not a part of it. The truth is that, in recent times, one of the things that we have been able to rely upon is that we are a reliable trading partner. So, in spite of the fact that some said I shouldn't go to Singapore, Brunei and Malaysia and that we shouldn't engage with China, Japan and the Republic of Korea to make sure that our supplies of diesel and petrol and aviation fuel were here, we have in part been able to achieve the outstanding outcomes that we have through Export Finance Australia and through the work with our trading partners, because we are a reliable trading partner, and we do honour contracts and will continue to do that.

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Can the minister update the House on the national threat assessment provided last night by the director-general of ASIO? What role do we all play in helping keep Australians safe?

I thank the member for Robertson and acknowledge the significant role he plays on the PJCIS, the intelligence committee, and acknowledge the members on both sides of the House for the role that is responsibly played by members of that committee in dealing with national security. As the director-general made clear last night, our threat alert level remains at 'probable'. The level above 'probable', 'expected', can only be reached when there is very specific intelligence about an immediate attack, and we are not in that situation. Therefore, the director-general wanted to make the point very clearly to everyone that we should not presume that, because the threat alert level remains at 'probable', we are at the same spot as to where we were when it was first put at that level a couple of years ago. We are not.

He predicted in last year's speech that the threat dynamic by 2030 would be more dynamic, more diverse and degraded. Only 12 months later, he said what he had predicted would be the case by 2030 was already here. Global tensions, new technology and the temperature of debate in the country have all contributed to a heightened security situation for Australia. He highlighted, in particular, while all forms of bigotry have the capacity to lead to violence, the fact is that, with antisemitism, almost every violent group comes together on this, whether it is ISIS inspired groups, whether it is Neo-Nazis or whether it is conspiracy theorists.

He also highlighted that direct traditional forms of terrorism are not the only threats that we deal with. Something that we would all objectively regard as a terrorist act, the burning at the Adass Israel synagogue, was not what traditionally had been the operating method. We know now that it was directed by Iran in an act of foreign interference using organised crime, combining communal violence and politically motivated violence, into an act of state sponsored terrorism. There are multiple forms of bigotry, and every one of them can lead to violence. The director-general referred to summer alone, where in December we had the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi. In January we had a very near miss where it will be alleged in court that intention was there for that bomb to go off in Perth, which could have a mass casualty event directed by bigotry against First Nations Australians. In February, there was another arrest in another part of WA for someone whose bigotry was directed against politicians, against government, against police and against Muslims.

There are two specific instructions that have been given to each and every one of us that can work to keep Australians safe. When people know of anything they think might be of concern, regardless of the form of bigotry, they should contact the national terrorism hotline, the National Security Hotline, 1800123400. Secondly, as the Prime Minister reflected in those words earlier, we all have a responsibility to take the temperature down to keep our nation safe.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. I refer to the minister's previous answer. When did the minister first become aware that the government's changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing imposed a new death tax on widows, divorcees and victims of domestic violence?

I think the government's made clear in several statements that this is an issue that we've been aware of for some time, and the Treasurer has spoken about the government's deliberations. Those opposite will have the opportunity to have their further say about how this is legislated, because it will come back in the second tranche of legislation.

My question is to the minister for infrastructure. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering important infrastructure projects across Australia, and what other approaches to infrastructure is the government being asked to consider?

I thank the member for Bennelong for the question. It was an absolute pleasure to join with him last month to turn the sod on a brand new electric-bus depot in Macquarie Park. The Australian and New South Wales governments are contributing $115 million each to this depot, which will house, charge and operate 150 buses with facilities for 160 staffs. This new depot will really turbocharge the transition to electric buses at a time when diesel prices continue to fluctuate across the globe. It makes common sense to be making these investments

The investments are not just happening in New South Wales. Over in Perth, we've invested $125 million in charging infrastructure to power 130 locally manufactured electric buses, and in Brisbane, of course, we've invested $400 million in the all-electric metro program. We're continuing to invest across the country in transport routes from road to rail, whether it be the completion of Metronet or, today, the start of construction of the new Swan electric ferry fleet. The Suburban Rail Loop and North East Link in Melbourne are providing critical links across Melbourne's suburban network.

We're also spending money on other rail connections between Logan and the Gold Coast, one of Australia's fastest growing corridors. There are investments in the Bruce Highway, including work starting this week south of Bundaberg, and the big budget investments like the Gateway Motorway at Dohles Rocks Road stage 2. Further south, TBMs are on site to commence tunnelling from the River Torrens to Darlington, and, in Western Sydney, our airport is getting ready to open in July with passengers in October.

This is the sort of city-shaping infrastructure you can deliver when you have a government focused on doing its job, delivering the infrastructure Australia needs. With the House and Senate sitting this week debating consumer protection laws for aviation passengers, I was a bit surprised to see my counterpart, alongside the One Nation member for New England, finding the time to prioritise attending a right-wing think tank over in London, talking Australia down, telling the audience of climate catastrophes and that young people should pony up and that universities that don't teach monocultural values should have their funding cut. So while two members of the right-wing parties opposite think it's more important to address the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship and the third right-wing party here in this place spins its wheels, we are getting on with the job of delivering infrastructure in regional Australia, in suburban Australia and right the way across the country, doing the job every single day of delivering for the Australian people the infrastructure that they need.

My question is to the Minister for Communications. Minister, I've spoken to many post office licensees, and it's clear that Australia Post is running them out of business as it morphs into a parcel delivery service. This gels with the move away from perpetual licences and the revelation that the board supports reactivating licence buybacks. It also puts the recent closure of the West Hobart LPO in a very different light. Minister, this will have severe impacts on communities. Will you stop it?

I thank the member for Clark for his question. I think I might speak for everyone here when I say that we love our local post offices and that many communities, particularly regional and rural communities, are dependent upon them. Australia Post represents more than just a post office. It is a hub for the community and for banking and for other services that would otherwise be non-existent in these areas. No-one likes to see them close. Regrettably, sometimes they have to close, particularly if a licensee operator hands back the licence. It's not something that Australia Post can control, but it is something that Australia Post must manage.

Under our system. Australia Post is a government owned corporation. It has a board and an executive who make decisions about the post office network. The corporation must be sustainable. It needs to cover its costs. But within that framework the government expects Australia Post to meet its community standards, and, in particular, the government requires that Australia Post maintains a minimum of 4,000 post offices, a number that it currently exceeds.

As I said, in some cases and for a range of reasons, like sickness or retirement or personal circumstances, licensed post offices do close suddenly. Often this happens with very little notice both to its customers and to Australia Post itself. In my own community, Pinkenba Licensed Post Office is suddenly closing. Like the member for Clark, I know that will impact my community in Lilley. I'm happy to arrange a meeting for the member for Clark with the CEO of Australia Post about his specific concerns in West Hobart, just as I'm raising my own concerns about Pinkenba.

The member has raised some broader concerns about the licensing network. Australia Post is working with its licensees to modernise the arrangements that govern those commercial relationships. The licensing model is decades old. It has served Australia Post and Australia very well over that time, but we cannot ignore that things are changing and that arrangements between Australia Post and its licensees must reflect that. You only need to look at the mobile phones in your pockets to understand why. There is a dramatic decline in the letter business. There is a dramatic decline in the retail foot traffic. All of that must be considered not just by Australia Post but by the licensing networks, many of whom are mum-and-dad small businesses in our communities.

The government will continue to work with Australia Post and all stakeholders to ensure that it remains financially sustainable and continues to meet the needs of our Australian community. I'm confident that if we all work together in good faith, Australia Post and our valued licensees will renew their partnership for many years to come.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How has the Albanese Labor government acted to help Australians with fuel and energy prices? What policies would see Australians paying more for their fuel and electricity?

I thank my honourable friend for the question and thank her for what she does to represent her part of the world here in Canberra. Right around Australia, households are making decisions and choices about reducing their own energy bills and their fuel bills, and the Albanese government is backing them in those choices. For example, we are backing the 451,428 households that have chosen to put in a cheaper home battery under the Albanese government's cheaper home battery scheme. When we came to office, one in 60 Australian houses had the benefit of reduced bills from a home battery. Today that figure is one in 17—from one in 60 to one in 17.

Another choice that Australians are making is the choice to buy electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. When we came to office, an electric vehicle was sold in Australia once every 50 minutes. Today the equivalent figure is once every three minutes. Australians are taking up choices. What they are doing in many instances is taking up the choice of increased models that are now available thanks to the new vehicle efficiency standards introduced by the Albanese government and opposed by those opposite. When the minister for transport and I argued in the House for new vehicle efficiency standards to give Australians more choice, the opposition argued that that was a terrible thing, and we have seen the choice of models triple in Australia since the new vehicle efficiency standards came in. Now a third of the models are available for under $60,000, and now there are 15 models available for under $40,000, really opening up more choices for Australians. That's a good thing.

The honourable member for Reid asked me what policies would see Australians paying more for fuel and electricity. Abolishing the cheaper home batteries policy would do that, abolishing the electric vehicle tax cut would do that and abolishing the new vehicle efficiency standard would do that as well. Honourable members don't need to take my word for it. You won't hear me say this very often, Mr Speaker, but they could listen to the Liberal Party because the Liberal Party went to the last election proposing to abolish the new vehicle efficiency standards. When they snuck out their costings just before the election, we saw the implications of this because they had to release the Parliamentary Budget Office costing.

It said that this proposal to abolish the standards would be expected to increase the fiscal underlying balance of the government. What does that mean? More taxes. In fact, it went on to say that this impact reflects the increase in the fuel excise that will be paid. 'How much?' I hear honourable members asking—$600 million more paid in petrol tax because they would abolish the new vehicle efficiency standards. This is the party that pretends to be for low taxes, but, whenever they get an opportunity, they actually argue for higher taxes and argue against Australians having the choice of vehicle, which we introduced and will defend.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. I refer to the minister's previous answer that the government was 'aware for some time'. Can the minister confirm: was this before or after the handing down of the federal budget?

I appreciate this question. We are aware of the issues that the member is raising. We're working through them in the usual way. This will be resolved in a future piece of legislation, and I look forward to engaging with the member when it comes forward.

My question is to the Minister for Health. How is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for Australians to see a doctor when they need urgent care? How are urgent care clinics helping to strengthen Medicare after a decade of cuts and neglect?

Thank you to the member for Griffith, who has hosted me in Brisbane a couple of times over the last fortnight. We visited the Coorparoo Medicare Urgent Care Clinic the week before last. At the same time, I visited the Carina-Carindale Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, which services the electorate of Bonner.

I was back again last week, at the South Brisbane urgent care clinic, with which the member is very, very familiar. That has been established for a while now. It has seen 35,000 patients. The member and I spoke to a couple of patients, Sophie and Tony, who'd been there separately. Sophie is a mum of young children, and she's been there already three times. She told us how grateful she was to have an urgent care service close to her home so she didn't have to go to the local hospital. She also, as the member knows, managed to take the opportunity to lobby me about some other health funding issues, which just reminds us of the boundless initiative from the south side of Brisbane.

I'm also pleased to report that last week the Caloundra urgent care clinic opened in the electorate of Fisher. I see the member for Fisher nodding.

I think he's saying thank you; I can't quite hear him. It is No. 137 and the last of the clinics we committed to over the last two elections. In 2022, we promised 50 urgent care clinics and we delivered 87. Last year, we promised another 50, and we've delivered every single one of them by the end of June 2026, as we said we would. We've delivered every single one of them. They're all open. they're all operating seven days a week for extended hours, and, importantly, they're fully bulk-billed. They've already seen more than 3.2 million patients.

Now the network is up and fully operating, they'll see about 45,000 people every week, or more than 2.2 million every single year. They're getting high-quality urgent care in their community completely free of charge. Now four in five Australians live within a 20-minute drive of a Medicare urgent care clinic. Really importantly, around half of those patients say they otherwise would have gone to a busy emergency department, so we're also taking pressure off our public hospital systems. From the time the Prime Minister and I first announced this, this new urgent care clinic model has been a central part of our plan to strengthen Medicare—delivering more doctors, delivering more bulk-billing, delivering cheaper medicines and delivering urgent care clinics so we can build a healthier Australia.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night, ASIO chief Mike Burgess said social media was 'promoting discord and inflammatory rhetoric, exacerbating polarisation and creating a permissive environment for violence'. My community has experienced that violence directly at Bondi and in the antisemitic online hate directed at the Jewish community. Social media algorithms feed extremism and polarisation. Will the government make algorithms opt-out on social media as part of its duty of care bill to protect our community from online extremism?

I thank the member for Wentworth for her very important question. The speech of the director-general of ASIO was a very important contribution to the nation's safety and security. We think about safety and security as being about our defence forces. We think about it being the acts of terrorism that we saw with the antisemitic attack at Bondi Beach, but it can also be our safety and security. It can occur, tragically, as we know, in the bedroom of one of the children around Australia, where the parents are not conscious about what they are having access to. That can also lead to a loss of life and tragically has led to the loss of too many young lives.

The digital duty of care will take the principles that we have enshrined with the bipartisan support for our social media ban and look at ways in which we'll consult about how we extend that duty that we have even further. We know that, as the member has said, algorithms drive people towards more and more extreme positions. They start off in a mainstream position—talking about ethnicity, perhaps, or faith—and they end up, over a period of time, receiving in their inbox—not just children. Adults as well, of course, can be impacted by this, with Nazi level propaganda and with calls for violence. We know that, just to name one, an area that is of concern is chatbots. A second is nudify apps. We are seeing as well, with some of these algorithms coming through, increased presentations in our hospitals of young women who have been choked, strangled. We see anal tearing growing at an extraordinary, horrific rate, because what too many young men are seeing online is normalising behaviour that is anything but normal.

We need to be really conscious as a society about this. We need to be conscious as a parliament about this. We need to be courageous about this. I think one of this parliament's finest moments was the social media ban, and that came primarily not from this parliament. That came from parents who'd lost their children and who took those personal tragedies and determined that they would make a difference for others so others didn't have to go through that traumatic experience. This is something that is not simple. It's something that we've worked with. We've increased the funding for the eSafety Commissioner by four times. We've introduced fines of $49.5 million to be available for breaches of the social media ban aimed at young people. But clearly we are going to need to do more, and that's what the digital duty of care is about.

So I encourage people to participate in this. The government's considering as well comments from the eSafety Commissioner and work that will require a further strengthening of the social media ban. I look forward to receiving the same support from across this parliament that we received for the legislation. We're working on that as a priority because this is something that other generations didn't have to deal with, which is why it's complex. We can't allow the power that these companies, which are unaccountable, which get massive amounts of funding, of profit, and have extraordinary power—we need to make sure that Australians are in charge of this. But indeed the global community is dealing with this as well, which is why we should be proud as a nation that at least 16 countries have followed our social media ban. But there's more to do.

My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to get more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and the regions into university? What policies would see fewer people get the opportunity to go to university?

I thank my friend, the brilliant member for Braddon, for her question. I've told the House many times that almost 50 per cent of young Australians in their 30s today have a university degree, but not everywhere—not in the western suburbs of Sydney where I grew up, where it's about half that, not in regional Australia and not in the bush either, where it's even lower. That's not because of a lack of talent. Talent is everywhere. It's opportunity that's not, and it's education that can change that. That's why the reforms we're implementing to fix the funding of our schools is so important, as well as tying that to reform to help more kids finish high school and then go on to TAFE or to university. That's why it's important that we change the way we fund our universities as well, and that's what the legislation I introduced today is all about.

If you're a kid from a poor background or from the regions or the bush and you get the marks or you've got what it takes to take on a university degree, then we'll guarantee a funded place for you at university. And not just that—we'll also give you extra support not just to get to but to get through university as well. That's important because we know that kids from regional Australia, kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, are about twice as likely as other kids to drop out of university in the first year at university.

Now, what does this mean in practice? If you're a kid from a disadvantaged background—you're growing up in Albury-Wodonga or Dubbo or Wagga or Burnie or Bendigo or Rockhampton or Cairns or Townsville—it means more than doubling the amount of funding to help you finish your degree, with things like extra academic support, tutoring and mentoring, from $600 a student to more than $1,500. This is the sort of thing that I'd hope my old mates in the National Party will support, but it's too late because the Liberal Party have already told us that they're against it. And not just that—we've had a National Party senator just make a speech in London, of all places, saying that she thinks we should break Australian universities. We want to open the doors of our universities to more kids from the bush and the regions. They want to stop them getting more funding to get through university and want to break universities.

What is going on here? You've got the Liberal Party, you've got the National Party and you've got One Nation all competing against each other to see who can be the most extreme, whether it's on education or multiculturalism or anything else. They're like the neapolitan ice cream of Australian politics. The problem is they all want to be vanilla!

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

I present the Auditor-General's financial statements audit report No. 42 of 2025-26, entitled Interim report on key financial controls of major entities.

Document made a parliamentary paper.

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

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

The Government's anti-aspiration Budget, pulling the ladder up on hardworking Australians.

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

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

What's this?

I move:

That the business of the day be called on.

The question is that the business of the day be called on.

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Our Labor government is delivering real change to make a real difference—real change built on Australian values: fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all. A $250 tax cut for working Australians, a $1,000 instant tax deduction and a fair crack for first home buyers—these reforms are for young Australians who have been locked out of the housing market for too long, but they're also for their parents and grandparents who want to see the next generation have the opportunity and security of a roof over their head.

These reforms are also about rebalancing our tax system and better aligning income from work compared to income derived from assets. Overwhelmingly, most Australians have nothing to sell but their time and nothing to give but their hard work. That is how most Australians earn their income. They work their guts out every day to provide for their families and put food on the table, and for too long the economy has not been working for them. We want an economy that works for people, not people working for an economy.

Our government isn't going to sit back and let that continue. We're not going to kick the can down the road. We're not going to try and explain away a broken system. We are doing something about it. We're backing aspiration, rewarding hard work and giving young people a fair crack. We are delivering real change. Young people have waited long enough for a rebalancing of that system. That is why this legislation that will give young Australians a fair crack should be supported by this parliament, so that young Australians can get access to their own home. I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

The question is that the Senate's amendments be agreed to.

I move:

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

That this House censures the Prime Minister for his budget of broken promises and toxic taxes betrayal.

I move:

That order of the day No. 2, government business, be called on immediately.

The question is that the business of the day be called on.

I'm talking about the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill. I will talk about the coalition's proud record of aviation during the pandemic and the way it acted honestly and decently during that terrible time, which is in absolute contradiction to what we just saw, which was an act of betrayal—trying to ram through bills that you hadn't taken to an election. The public will wake up to that, and you will feel the pain of that, I'm sure, at the ballot box because the tradition of parties taking legislation, saying what they're going to do if they're being elected when they're significant changes and then doing the exact opposite does not go down well with the Australian people.

They lie!

When it comes to aviation, the coalition has a very proud—

The member for Grey will withdraw that comment immediately before he leaves the chamber.

I withdraw.

Under section 94(a), you are asked to leave the chamber.

When it comes to aviation, the coalition has a very proud record. When the pandemic happened, that industry was faced with its greatest crisis. Aircraft were grounded, passenger numbers collapsed almost overnight and the regional routes stood on the brink of disappearing. It was a coalition government that stepped in and kept Australia flying. The coalition government didn't treat aviation as just another business; it treated aviation as critical national infrastructure and acted to protect it. I'll come back to that record because it matters, and the records of what all parties do in this place matter and should be subject to the Australian people. Put your policies out there, say what you'll do and then follow through. This is relevant because it is the lens through which the coalition approaches everything in this portfolio.

We start with the traveller, we start with the regional community, and we start with one question: what policy will actually work? It would be good if more people developing policies in this place said, 'What policies will actually work?' We've all been there. Anyone who travels frequently will have a tale to tell: a flight cancelled an hour before boarding, a connection missed by 10 minutes and the bag that flew to one city while you flew to another. That happened to me and resulted in me having to present to a regional health conference in Perth looking very casual because I was in what I'd been wearing the day before. It turned out the great medical practitioners of Western Australia were equally casual, so it was okay.

The hours on hold, the holiday, the wedding, the funeral, the medical appointment you simply cannot get to—we've all faced it, and our constituents face it constantly. They are absolutely tired of it. So, when Australians hear the government has a bill about airline consumer protection, they want to know one thing: will it make it better? That's the test. In this test, we believe these bills fail. It should be about outcomes, not bureaucracy. Let me be clear on where the coalition stands. We support stronger consumer protections for airline passengers, we support accountability and we support fair treatment. We support a system that gives Australians confidence that, when they buy a ticket, they get the service they paid for.

But supporting stronger protections is not the same as supporting this piece of legislation, because these bills deliver more bureaucracy than accountability, more costs than compensation and more processes than outcomes. Australians do not want another complaints body to write to after their holiday is already ruined; they want fewer cancellations, fewer delays and better communication. In the instances where we can't get the airlines to perform better in relation to those things, they need real compensation when things go wrong. But instead Labor has delivered a framework built around complaints and paperwork after the damage is already done, and the damage has been considerable.

Over the past four years, Australians have watched airline performance go backwards while airfares climb. On the government's own figures, more than 50,000 domestic flights were cancelled during Labor's first term. More than 427,000 were delayed, and behind every one of those numbers is a person who missed a holiday, missed a family event, missed a business commitment, missed a medical appointment. Yet, extraordinarily, these bills provide no direct compensation for the lengthy delays, for cancellation, for lost or damaged baggage. The coalition has this belief—and you would think it would be a common belief: consumers should be at the centre of aviation policy, not an afterthought, not buried three layers deep in regulatory framework.

If accountability is what the government truly wants, then let it apply to everyone whose decisions affect passengers, not just the airlines. Airservices Australia sits outside this framework, yet its decisions can directly caused delays and cancellations. We have seen exactly that with recent staffing shortages. Australians do not care whether a delay is the fault of an airline, an airport or a government agency. They just want it fixed quickly and fairly, and this model does not deliver that.

Regional aviation is essential infrastructure in Australia. I want to raise an issue that deserves far more attention than it gets in this place, and that is the issue of regional aviation. For Australians in our capital cities, a plane is one option among many. You can drive. You can take the train. For regional Australians, aviation is essential infrastructure. It's how some people reach their specialist health care. It's how families stay connected. It's how businesses operate and how communities attract investment, tourism and skilled workers. Right across regional Australia, a flight is not a luxury. It's not only a way to get to your holiday. It's an absolute necessity. When a route is lost, a town does not simply lose a timetable; it loses a key connection. Every proposal that touches airlines and airports must be tested against one question: what does it mean for the bush?

Here the coalition has a serious concern. The legislation risks loading new costs onto smaller operators, operators already battling against rising fuel prices, climbing maintenance bills and chronic workforce shortages. At a time when regional routes are under pressure and communities are fighting to hold onto the services they still have, the last thing this parliament should do is to pile on more regulatory burden without showing a single corresponding benefit. The government says regional airlines handling fewer than one million passengers annually will be exempt from the scheme, yet that exemption does not appear in the legislation before the parliament. It should not be left to ministerial discretion to exempt regional airports. It should be in the primary legislation. All through question time and during the course of voting for these bills—and what's been going on in the Senate—we've been seeing legislation on the run. Rushed legislation that people don't understand and ministers can't explain is bad legislation.

This brings me back to the coalition's record in the pandemic—and it matters in this debate. When COVID-19 struck, aviation was one of the first industries hit and one of the hardest. Aircraft were grounded, passenger numbers collapsed overnight and airlines faced a crisis which was unprecedented. Regional carriers faced something worse: that was an existential crisis. Routes that were ordinarily viable became uneconomic in a matter of weeks, and whole communities faced losing their air links entirely. At that moment, the coalition understood something fundamental, and that is that regional aviation is simply not a commercial enterprise; it is critical national infrastructure. It connects Australians to health care, to education, to work, to family, to opportunity. So the coalition government acted and moved quickly to support the sector through one of the most difficult periods in our nation's history. We knew that, if regional aviation networks were allowed to collapse, the consequences for rural and regional Australia would be devastating. That support preserved aviation capability, protected jobs and kept critical routes alive that would have otherwise vanished. Those decisions really mattered because, once an airline collapses, the skilled workers leave and the routes disappear, rebuilding is neither quick nor easy. In some cases, it's impossible.

Our focus was on connectivity, on jobs, on competition and on making sure regional Australians would have flights to catch when the pandemic ended. And it paid off. Communities stayed connected, essential travel continued, supply chains kept moving and our regional airlines were given the chance to survive an extraordinary period of disruption.

That record stands in stark contrast with what we see today. Under Labor, two regional airlines have collapsed and the domestic market has grown more concentrated than ever; Qantas and Virgin now account for more than 98 per cent of it. Less competition means fewer choices. Fewer choices means higher prices, and higher prices hurt consumers—above all, the regional Australians who often have no alternative but to fly. Here is the truth that the government keeps missing: the best consumer protection is not another layer of bureaucracy; it is a competitive market. The market can work if you let it and if you don't put heaps of regulatory burden on it. It will lead to reliable services, strong regional connectivity and genuine accountability when things go wrong.

So we want to see reforms that passengers can actually see. That's why the coalition keeps advocating for practical solutions. Take, for example, the pay-on-delay legislation, brought forward in the last parliament by Senators Bridget McKenzie and Dean Smith. Unlike Labor's approach, it put direct compensation in the hands of passengers who copped lengthy delays, cancellations and baggage failures. That sort of thinking leads to real outcomes. It's something a passenger can actually see and benefit from.

Take as another example the COVID-era flight credits. Many Australians accepted credits during the pandemic because extraordinary circumstances left them with no real choice; there were no other flights. Now $93 million in Virgin Australia COVID credits are at risk of expiring. Australians should not have to fight to recover money they have already paid for services that were never delivered. A flight credit is consumers' money; it's not airline profit. Those are the issues that matter to people far more than the creation of another complaints desk.

The government says these bills are about consumer protection, but consumer protection is not measured by the number of regulators you create; it's measured by positive outcomes. So let's judge it by what positive outcomes would be in the aviation sector. Will flights run on time? Will the number of cancellations fall? Will passengers be compensated? Will regional routes stay viable? And will travellers pay less? Those are the questions Australians are asking, and the government has not shown how this framework answers a single one of them. We still do not know the full costs. Key details have been left to regulations that we have not seen, and the government has not even undertaken a regulatory impact assessment. I would have thought that was very straightforward.

In conclusion, Australians deserve an aviation system that works. They deserve reliable services. They deserve accountability. They deserve real compensation when airlines fail to meet their obligations. And regional Australians deserve certainty that the decisions made here in Canberra will not make it harder or more expensive to keep air services going in the communities that depend on them. The coalition's record speaks for itself. When aviation in this country faced its darkest hour—something that was unprecedented and couldn't have been foreseen—we acted to protect the networks that hold regional Australia together. We understand now, as we understood then, that aviation is essential infrastructure, not an optional extra.

We're here to back consumers and genuine consumer protections, and we're going to stand up for regional communities. We're going to fight for policies that actually improve things and improve the lives of passengers, not just an expanding bureaucracy, which seems to be the answer to everything: tax more, have more public servants and more bureaucracy, and that'll fix everything. Well, it doesn't fix everything, and I think with these tax changes we're about to see that some of this stuff makes the economy a whole lot worse. For those reasons, we remain deeply concerned that these bills fall well short of what Australian travellers and regional communities deserve.

The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026, the Aviation Consumer Protection (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026, the Aviation Consumer Protection Levy Bill 2026 and the Aviation Consumer Protection Levy (Collection) Bill 2026, are quite personal to my community. Our connection with aviation is like very few others in this country. Essendon airport sits in the heart of my electorate. It's a vital hub of freight, emergency services, charter flights, regional connectivity and, of course, employment. Just across the boundary is one of the country's biggest airports and major employers, the Melbourne Airport at Tullamarine, so the importance of aviation to my community is undeniable. Thousands of my constituents wake up every morning and head to one of these airports for work. They're the baggage handlers, the check-in staff, the engineers on the tarmac at five in the morning and the retail workers keeping the terminal buzzing.

These are people who quite literally keep our community and our country moving every single day, and I am enormously proud to represent them in this place. Those same people are also passengers, and, like passengers right across the country, far too many of them have had the experience of a cancelled flight. They've been handed a travel voucher when what they should have received was a cash refund, and they've spent hours on hold with nothing to show for it. These are experiences we've all had, and they are simply not good enough.

Today that starts to change. The suite of legislation we are debating today came from listening. Our government's BETA preparing for take-off study is one of the most thorough pieces of passenger research ever conducted in this country. What it found was an aviation sector treating its consumers with contempt. More than half of all Australians who flew in the last 12 months experienced a flight disruption. Of those passengers, 82 per cent received no support at all—no accommodation, no alternative arrangements—with 81 per cent never even told what their rights were. Let's think about that for the moment. The majority of Australians who fly have had their travel disrupted, and the overwhelming majority of them were then left to figure it out entirely on their own.

It doesn't end there. Of those who tried to make a complaint, only 17 per cent—fewer than one in five—were satisfied with the process. A staggering 79 per cent of Australians say they know little or nothing about their rights as an air passenger. So, in one of the most regulated industries in the world, the people this industry depends on are almost entirely in the dark. I want to be clear that our government does not think every airline and every airport is deliberately setting out to do the wrong thing by their customers. Many of the people working in this industry genuinely care about the people they serve, but the system around them hasn't supported good outcomes, and that's not their fault. There's been no charter of rights, no independent umpire and no consistent minimum standard that passengers could rely on. They've been navigating an uneven playing field without even knowing the rules of the game. This legislation levels that playing field.

The four bills before the House work together to create something Australia has never had before, a comprehensive, enforceable consumer protection framework for aviation. At the heart of the package is the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter, a document that will spell out in plain and accessible terms what every passenger can expect when they fly. We're moving on from the days of fine print and airlines interpreting their own obligations. Instead, there would be a clear, publicly accessible set of minimum standards backed by law that passengers can point to and say, 'That is what I'm owed.'

The charter will be brought to life by the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority, which will monitor compliance across the sector and take enforcement action where those standards aren't being met. For the first time, there will be a body whose specific job is to hold this industry to account on behalf of the travelling public. For passengers with an individual dispute they can't resolve directly with an airline, the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson will provide an independent, not-for-profit avenue for resolution, a genuine umpire with no vested interests. For my community specifically, there's one more part of this package I'm particularly pleased about, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson. My electorate has lived alongside aviation for generations. (Quorum formed) As I said, my electorate has lived alongside aviation for generations—two airports, the flight paths that come with them and a community that has built their lives around them. But, for some, aircraft noise can be disruptive. What those residents have asked for is simple. When they raise a genuine concern, they want to know that it's actually being heard.

For too long, that hasn't been the case. Residents have told me they have followed every process with Airservices Australia and attended every consultation only to be met with silence. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman changes that. Independent of both Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence, it will hold complaints processes to account and make sure people's concerns are properly examined. People in my community just want to be heard. They just want to be treated fairly. I'm proud that this Labor government is delivering an independent body that will hear them out.

The Albanese Labor government remains focused on delivering cost-of-living relief. This is our No. 1 priority. Consumer protection is a cost-of-living issue. It belongs in the same conversation as the other measures this government is delivering. When I talk to people in my electorate about the cost of living, they talk about rent, mortgage, the cost of groceries and the cost of everyday living. Australian households are stretched right now, which is exactly why the last thing any Australian needs after saving for a well-earned holiday or rushing to book a last-minute flight interstate because a loved one is unwell is cancellation—a cancelled flight that somehow leaves them out of pocket because the airline won't cover the hotel or hand back their money. For families I meet every week, that's a genuine financial hit. Under this legislation, cancelled flights will result in cash refunds, not credits. If the cancellation costs you a hotel, meal or transport, the airline will now need to cover it. It's that simple.

I also want to speak directly to the people in my electorate who work in aviation because I've heard some of the conversations happening in the industry about what these reforms mean for them and their employers. This framework has been designed with careful attention to industry impacts. Costs will be kept as low as practicable, and small airports handling fewer than a million passengers a year, including most council owned facilities in regional and remote communities, are intended to be exempt. The framework applies to the 14 largest airports across the country, covering 93 per cent of all passenger movements. These are major, well-resourced commercial operations with the capacity to meet a sensible minimum standard of passenger treatment, and the airlines and airports are already doing right by their customers. The charter simply formalises what they're already doing. What this reform ultimately does is create the conditions for a sector that competes on quality and service, where treating passengers well isn't just right; it's expected. That's a better industry for everyone working in it.

I want to also reflect in my contribution to the debate in this House on a story about a woman in my electorate. Her name is Maria, and she is one of many. Maria flew interstate last year to be with her mum, who was unwell. Her return flight was cancelled, and the airline offered her a travel credit, but Maria didn't want a travel credit. She had no plans to fly again any time soon. She just needed the money. She spent hours on the phone and got nowhere. She contacted my office months later, still so frustrated not just at the airline but at the sense that there was simply nothing she could do. Under this legislation, Maria's story ends differently. She would have a right to a cash refund. She would have had an independent ombudsman to contact. She would have known from a clear and accessible charter exactly what she was entitled to. For Maria, and for hundreds of thousands of Australians just like her, that is a genuinely different experience of what it means to be a passenger in this country.

I look forward to going back to my community and telling them that the next time they travel after saving for that well-earned holiday or to care for a sick parent a disruption or a cancellation will mean compensation, not frustration. That's one less thing they'll need to worry about when weighing up their budget. This legislation will mean fewer Marias sitting at an airport gate frustrated, fewer families absorbing costs that should have been the airline's and fewer residents feeling like their concerns about aircraft noise have vanished into a bureaucratic void. It will mean Australia finally has an aviation consumer protection framework that reflects our modern, fair-minded country—one that stands with every passenger and brings real accountability to a crucial industry. I'm proud to be part of a government delivering it, because my community relies on the success of our aviation industry, and that industry relies on my community and on the many others who pass through it every day. I commend the bills to the House.

I rise to speak in support of the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and the related bills. At its heart, this package is about a simple standard. Australians who pay for air travel should be treated fairly, told clearly what is happening and given a proper pathway when things go wrong. That should not be controversial. In a country like Australia, aviation is not just another service; it is part of how our nation functions.

I represent Moore in Western Australia. We live on the other side of the continent from this parliament and Western Australians understand distance in a very practical way. When a flight is delayed or cancelled in Perth, the alternative is rarely simple. You cannot just jump in the car after work and be in Canberra, Sydney or Brisbane the next morning. I have family across the country, as many Australians do. Air travel is how families stay connected. It is how people get to weddings, funerals, medical appointments, work commitments and holidays saved for over many months I worked as an electrician, including as a FIFO electrician, and, for FIFO workers, flights are not an optional extra. They are how people get to site and how they get home. A delayed flight home after a long swing is not just a line on the departures board. It can mean missing dinner with kids, missing a school event or leaving a partner carrying the load for another night.

Air travel connects workers to jobs, families to each other, regions to services and Australia to the world. Australians are reasonable people. They know that aviation is complex. Weather changes, aircraft require maintenance, crews have safety requirements, and global events can disrupt fuel markets and flight paths. Most people do not expect perfection. What they do expect is honesty, clear information, practical assistance and a complaint process that works. Too often that has not been the experience.

Over recent years, Australians have dealt with cancelled flights, delays, missing baggage, damaged mobile aids, confusing travel credits, poor communication and a complaint system that leaves the passenger doing all the work. COVID-19 placed enormous strain on the aviation system. Families were separated, trips were cancelled, refunds were delayed, and many consumers were left unclear about their rights. The pandemic was extraordinary, but it exposed weaknesses that had been developing for some time. Since then, airline performance has improved in some areas, but the underlying problem has not disappeared. The current system has relied too heavily on the industry policing itself. That has not produced the standard Australians are entitled to expect.

The conflict in the Middle East has again reminded us global disruption can affect Australian travellers quickly. Flight routes can change, fuel supply chains can tighten, and international uncertainty can flow through domestic fares and services. Travellers should not be left at the gate trying to work out whether they are entitled to a refund, rebooking, accommodation, transport or basic information. People should not need to become amateur lawyers while standing in an airport queue. This bill package replaces uncertainty with clearer standards, weak complaint handling with independent dispute resolution and voluntary arrangements with proper oversight. It is the most significant aviation consumer protection reform ever introduced by an Australian government.

The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 establishes the legal foundation for a new aviation consumer protection framework. It enables the creation of the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. That charter will set minimum standards for airline services, airport services and airport accessibility services. The detail of those standards will be developed through subordinate legislation following consultation. That is a sensible way to proceed. Aviation is operationally complex. The standards must protect consumers while still being practical for the sector to implement. The charter will deal with the minimum treatment consumers can expect from airlines and airports. That includes delays, cancellations, communication, complaint handling, booking information, baggage and accessibility. This is a necessary shift. Consumers should know what they are entitled to when a flight is disrupted. A right nobody understands is not much of a right at all.

The bill also establishes the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority as a regulatory function within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts. The authority will be responsible for systematic monitoring, compliance and enforcement. Individual complaints need to be resolved, but sector-wide patterns also need to be identified. If an airline repeatedly fails to communicate properly with passengers, that is not a series of random inconveniences. It is systematic failure. If accessibility services are repeatedly not delivered, that is not just poor customer service; it is a barrier to equal participation. The authority will be able to look across the sector, monitor compliance and take enforcement action where required.

The bill also enables the authorisation of an independent external dispute resolution scheme known as the Aviation Consumer Ombuds Scheme. At present, too many passengers must pursue complaints through pathways that are confusing, slow and seen by many consumers as too close to the industry itself, and that does not build confidence. The Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson will provide an aviation-specific pathway for passengers whose complaints have not been resolved directly by the airline or airport. The ombudsperson will be able to assist through investigation, conciliation and determinations. Where a regulated entity has not acted fairly and reasonably, the ombudsperson will be able to require action. That gives consumers somewhere credible to go. It also gives industry a clearer process for resolving disputes.

The package also establishes the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson as a function within the department, independent of Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence. Aircraft noise is a serious concern for affected communities. For people living under flight paths, aircraft noise can affect sleep, amenity and wellbeing. Communities need confidence that complaints are reviewed independently. The levy bills support the framework by allowing the imposition and collection of levies to recover the administrative costs associated with the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. It is appropriate that the cost of this framework be borne by the industry that has generated the need for regulation provided those costs are kept reasonable and proportionate.

Nobody should pretend aviation is an easy sector to regulate. Airlines operate in a difficult commercial environment. Airports vary widely in size, capacity and ownership. Regional aviation faces different pressures. Fuel prices, international conflict, weather, workforce shortages and infrastructure constraints all affect operations, and that is why the package includes flexibility. The minister will have powers to exempt individual entities or classes of entities from parts of the framework, including the charter, specified standards, levies or membership fees. The government has indicated that airports with fewer than one million passengers per year are intended to be exempt. That means the framework will apply to the largest airports while recognising the different position of smaller airports. Many smaller airports are council owned. They are critical community infrastructure. They often operate with limited resources and serve regional, rural and remote communities. It would make little sense to impose the same regulatory burden on a small regional airport as on a major capital city airport. Fairness cuts both ways. The objective is clear: protect consumers where the risk and volume justify regulation while avoiding unnecessary burdens on smaller operators that are that are essential to regional connectivity.

This package should also be seen within the broader context of competition and consumer protection in aviation. The Albanese Labor government released the Aviation white paper, passed new laws to improve competition at Sydney airport, released the draft passenger charter of rights and reinstated ACCC monitoring of airlines. ACCC scrutiny is important because aviation is a concentrated market. Where there are fewer competitors. Consumers have fewer alternatives when prices rise or service drops. That is especially important during periods of global instability. The conflict in the Middle East has already prompted discussion about fuel supply chains and disruption. Australians should not be exposed to unreasonable price increases or any competitive conduct hidden behind international uncertainty.

Airlines are entitled to recover legitimate costs. They are not entitled to use disruption as a general permission slip to treat passengers poorly. The ACCC will continue to deal with competition and Australian consumer law concerns, including misleading or deceptive conduct. The Aviation Consumer Protection Authority will focus on this aviation-specific framework. Those roles are complementary.

A large part of this reform is about setting expectations in advance. When a flight is cancelled, passengers should know whether they can get a refund or a rebooking. They should know whether they are entitled to meals, transport or accommodation, and they should know what information the airline must provide and when. Where a cancellation or significant delay is within the airline's control, consumers should not be pushed into accepting a travel credit when they are entitled to their money back, unless they prefer a credit. (Quorum formed)

Last night, in his annual threat assessment, the Director-General of ASIO, Mike Burgess, warned that Australia's rising terrorist threat is being fuelled by social media. His warning was stark. In November last year, he cautioned that platform algorithms can escalate a user from non-violent content to grotesque ISIS propaganda within a few clicks. The radicalisation he describes is happening here in Australia. As we all know, just a month later, on 14 December 2025, we saw Australia's largest terrorist attack in history—an indescribably awful attack of antisemitic terror in my community in Bondi. For years I have thought about what we can do to combat violent extremism. In the months since, that question has only grown more urgent.

In Burgess's February 2025 assessment, more than a year earlier, he noted that fewer than 17 per cent of the minors that ASIO had investigated were born offshore. Of those, the median age on arrival was 4½. These are our young people radicalised online, often in their own home. In his 2024 submission to the Senate inquiry into right-wing extremist movements, ASIO gave evidence that online platforms remain significant enablers of radicalisation and the spread of propaganda. This evidence is consistent. The same dynamic drives misogyny. In 2024, Burgess explained that just 10 minutes spent looking at incel material prompts the algorithm to recommend increasingly violent, misogynistic propaganda, including posts glorifying incel terrorists. We know all too well that incels have committed terrorist acts overseas.

Anyone with a social media account understands a pattern: algorithms drive division, isolate users and spread hateful content. They are not transparent. They shape our way of thinking without our knowledge, normalising extremism and hate. The government has acted to protect young people through the social media ban for under-16s, and I welcome it. But the ban is still not perfect and is not fully implemented. Still, the algorithms reach everyone of all ages and stages. A poll by Teach Us Consent found that 63 per cent of respondents knew someone radicalised by the algorithms. Teenage boys are now amongst the most likely perpetrators of child sexual abuse—including 17- and 18-year-olds, who fall outside the social media ban. Research from the Global Institute for Women's Leadership ranks Australia among the most misogynistic nations in the Western world. Reports of sexual assault sit at an all-time high.

Teach Us Consent's Fix our Feeds initiative offers a clear answer: put informed choice back into the hands of Australians. The European Union's Digital Service Act already requires major platforms to offer users an option to switch and opt out of personalised, algorithm driven feeds. The platforms complied. TikTok's 'For You' feed can show content popular in a region rather than content driven by past behaviour. On Instagram and Facebook, a fully non-personalized feed already exists. Under such an option, Australians could have the same experience. This sits well within the capabilities of these platforms. There is no question of that. We cannot leave users to the game of whack-a-mole, waiting for platforms to deplatform one creator after another. Beyond the algorithm, there are further harms we must confront.

I commend the government on beginning its work on a digital duty of care, which would shift online safety from a reactive, user supported system to a proactive, risk based model, legally requiring tech companies to anticipate and mitigate foreseeable harms with continuous safety-by-design standards across platforms, operating systems and connected devices. There is a long way to go. Part of that work is dispute resolution. Constituents and small businesses frequently come to my office in distress—businesses locked out of Instagram accounts they rely on to advertise and individuals shut out of their email—and they find it extraordinarily difficult to find any path of resolution. We have heard from small businesses plagued by fake Google reviews and even by fake accounts impersonating local owners to leave disparaging reviews on neighbourhood businesses. These are serious issues, and they strike at some of the largest disruptors of our social cohesion. It is crucial that this parliament deals with them dynamically, attentive to the detail and to the changing technology landscape.

Algorithms matter. Children deserve protection from the harms of social media, but so does everybody else. So it is time for us to be brave. It is time for us to fix our feeds. It is time for Australians to be able to permanently turn off their algorithms and choose when they are turned back on so that they have control over their social media. That's what I want for my kids as they grow up and what I want for my community, and it's what they want as well. Our businesses want a way to resolve issues with social media companies in an appropriate dispute resolution forum.

This week, the Parliamentary Friends of the People of Afghanistan farewelled the ambassador of Afghanistan, His Excellency Mr Wahidullah Waissi, with the Afghan embassy in Canberra to close at the end of this month. The ambassador has served in his role since 2017 and had continued to represent the people of Afghanistan, but not the Taliban, after they seized power in 2021. It was a sad day, but not one without hope, for we want to continue engaging and strengthening ties with the people of Afghanistan, despite the terrible nature of the Taliban regime.

The horror of Taliban rule for women and girls is nothing short of a tragedy, characterised by systemic state-sponsored gender apartheid. The United Nations defines gender apartheid as a system of economic and social sexual discrimination against individuals because of their gender or sex. In Afghanistan, under the Taliban, girls and women are barred from secondary schools, universities and other educational and vocational training centres. Most employment is forbidden, as is participation in public and political life, and women must be completely covered and accompanied by a male relative in public. Violence and coercion are a constant threat, with women who protest these systemic policies facing arbitrary arrest, detention and torture.

I recently met with a delegation of women from Afghanistan who now call Australia home, Voice of Afghanistan Women in Australia. They expressed deep concern for the safety and wellbeing of women and girls in Afghanistan, as well as the Afghan diaspora displaced across the region. They highlighted the need for sustained international engagement and renewed focus on protection and access to education for Afghan women and girls. The delegation outlined several specific priorities, including stronger diplomatic efforts to safeguard the rights of women and girls, and advocacy to stop forced deportations of Afghan women from Pakistan and Iran. They have called for expanded international cooperation to ensure accessible education pathways, including guaranteed enrolment pathways and fee support for Afghan women in Australia. They have called on the Australian government to increase our numbers and expedite our humanitarian refugee intake of Afghan women and they emphasised the importance of urgent and coordinated responses to humanitarian visa needs for those at greatest risk. They also requested that Australia call for gender apartheid to be codified as a crime against humanity.

In January, the Australian government committed a further $50 million in humanitarian support to the people of Afghanistan to address the deteriorating situation there. This brings the total humanitarian support provided to the people of Afghanistan since the fall of Kabul in 2021 to $310 million. As Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Minister for International Development Anne Aly have noted, almost 22 million people in Afghanistan are in urgent need of humanitarian support. Australia's humanitarian assistance is focused on supporting women and girls, prioritising food security, health services and protecting dignity, safety and rights. Australia works with established United Nations partners to ensure our support helps those in need, but not the Taliban regime.

The world must not turn away from the situation that women and girls in Afghanistan face. As UN Women has stated, if the world tolerates the erasure of Afghan women and girls, it sends a message that the rights of women and girls everywhere are fragile and expendable. As my dear friend Dr Nilofar Ibrahimi has said, the women of Afghanistan, the women of Iran and all women living under oppressive extremist systems deserve to be seen, supported and never forgotten. I say that our parliament, our government, does see the resilience and the strength of Afghan women and girls and that we will continue to stand for you and your rights and your quest for justice.

Today is a dark day for Australia and for Australians because today Labor's toxic taxes were rushed through the parliament in a dirty, dangerous deal with the Greens. Not only that but I'm giving this speech now because the government decided to shut down the MPI so we couldn't hold them to account on these toxic taxes. Have no misapprehensions about these taxes. They are a tax on housing and, when you tax housing, you get fewer houses. They are a tax on every asset class—on shares, on crypto exchange-traded funds, on everything—and you get less investment if you tax investment. It's a tax on savings, on young Australians, on startups and on small and family businesses, which are the engine room of our local communities and our nation. It's a tax on farmers and a tax on Australians building a nest egg so they can buy a home. Then we learned in the last few days that it's a tax on widows too. Make no mistake about it: that legislation included in it a tax on widows, no matter what those opposite have to say.

There can be no doubt about what Labor is signalling with these taxes. They are signalling to Australians, particularly young Australians: 'Don't be aspirational. Don't be ambitious. Don't take risks and have a go. Don't chase your dreams. Don't work hard to get ahead. Don't seek a better life for you and your family.' These toxic taxes are an assault on aspiration and ambition in this country. They are a war on the Australian dream, and we will have none of it.

I say to Australians today what I've been saying since Labor's disastrous budget. We will axe Labor's toxic taxes, every single one of them. We want Australians to dream, to aspire, to strive and succeed, to take risks, to have a go and to get ahead. That is the Australian way. We will make the next election a referendum on these taxes. My promise to Australians is this: on winning the election, the coalition will repeal these toxic taxes with immediate effect.

This is not just a dark day for Australia and Australians. It's a dark day for the Labor Party because, prior to the election, the Prime Minister ruled out changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing not once, not twice, not three times and not even 20 times. It was 50 times. In his own words, he said it was for the 50th time. The other thing the Prime Minister said is that he doesn't do deals with the Greens. But he did a deal with the Greens. He does every single time. As I've said before, this is arrogant. I added another word to that, but I won't do that now. It's illiberal. It's the mother of all broken promises from a prime minister who's pretty good at broken promises. He said his word was his bond, but his word is worth absolutely nothing, because he and the modern Labor Party believe in wealth redistribution, not wealth creation. The Labor Party attacks aspiration instead of nurturing aspiration. It wants dependent citizens. It wants dependent Australians, not empowered Australians. It resents success instead of respecting success. I say their disdain and contempt for Australians owning assets and building their nest eggs is unmistakeably just socialism. They are back at their roots. That's what they believe in. There's no mistaking Labor's socialist vision for our country. That has never been the Australian way. It will never be the Australian way whilst we are fighting here and in government, and we will fight all the way to the next election to win that election on the back of Labor's toxic taxes.

Queensland has a desperate lack of specialist public cancer hospital beds, particularly for patients with complex cancers like leukaemia. You would think that this might have been a priority for the Crisafulli state government in this week's state budget. Well, think again. The lack of specialist cancer beds impacts every corner of the state, and I know what that looks like. It means immune compromised patients sharing cramped rooms and bathrooms with up to three others. It means moving between general, surgical, orthopaedic and other wards. It means teenagers sharing rooms with much older dying patients. It means patients who are already fighting for their lives are being forced into situations that further put their health and mental health at risk.

Families of leukaemia and blood cancer patients, like mine, have been waiting patiently for the construction to begin on the new Queensland Cancer Centre since it was announced three years ago. We were relieved when the former Queensland Labor government announced that construction would begin in 2025 and devastated when the Crisafulli government effectively cancelled the construction of the Queensland Cancer Centre last year.

The Queensland Cancer Centre was shovel-ready. The landmark facility was ready to be built, with 150 dedicated beds and proton beam therapy facilities, the first and only in Queensland and one of the only such planned facilities in the whole country. This was a project that was ready to go. The project was funded, the business case was done, the designing and planning work was done, consultation was done, preferred tenderers identified and the site prepared. This project was a long, long way down the track, but, after three years and millions of dollars spent on consultation and detailed planning, the Crisafulli government put all of that in the bin.

They say that construction has been deferred to 2031 at the earliest. The Crisafulli government released their state budget earlier this week. Their budget cites $2 billion towards new hospitals—which is welcome, of course—including the Queensland Cancer Centre. You might start jumping for joy at seeing that sentence, but, when you look a little further and you try to find specific funding, a line item, for the Queensland Cancer Centre, that's when your heart sinks. The only mention is 'to progress the delivery of a number of hospitals, including the Queensland Cancer Centre'. That's where the information stops. That's because there are no real plans to start the build. There's a generic line item in the budget for money spent for hospitals across Queensland—which, of course, we applaud—but no specific plans to start the build of the Queensland Cancer Centre.

The Crisafulli government claims that the project was stopped because of cost blowouts, but we all know construction doesn't get cheaper while you sit and wait. Delay, delay, delay means costly plans get shelved. Consultation needs to be redone. It will cost a lot more in five to 10 years time, way down the track, and have impacted many, many families across the state, as they fight for their lives in hospitals across the state.

At a federal level, we've backed in the states with $25 billion in additional hospital funding for the states over the next five years. The Commonwealth has done its part. I beg the Crisafulli government to get started on this project. Queenslanders need this project. We need the Queensland Cancer Centre to be built. We need those beds. Queensland cancer patients deserve better. Please start the construction of the Queensland Cancer Centre. Make it a priority. Cancer does not wait. It doesn't pause for a review and it's not going to defer itself until 2031. Please stop the excuses and get shovels in the ground.

This afternoon, we witnessed an appalling act of betrayal from this government on 28 million Australians. I think on the morning after the budget the vast majority of Australians woke up with buyer's remorse, regretting the fact that they voted in an Anthony Albanese-led government, because this is a government that says one thing but does exactly the opposite. The Prime Minister promised Australians that there'd be no changes to superannuation, no changes to CGT, no changes to negative gearing and no changes to trusts. Yet, just a few short weeks and months afterwards, this government rammed through a bill today with the assistance of the Greens and a number of the teals that will significantly alter the wealth of everyday Australians. This is the greatest act of betrayal a government has committed on the Australian people in Australian political history.

Almost every day this week, I have stood up in this chamber and talked about the fact that this government is the most socialist government this country has ever seen. I've seen those eyebrows of the Speaker raised, but that is the reality. That is the reality of the dirty, grubby deals that have been done by this government and the Greens and now the teals. This wealth redistribution, this constant pushing down and punching down on the Australian people—this government's approach is a lowest common denominator approach. It doesn't want anybody to succeed. How can young Australians create wealth after this government has pulled up the ladder on them? How are they going to do it?

Over the last couple of weeks, I've been out talking to many people in my electorate. I've held lots of different forums. You haven't heard much of this government's catchphrases 'intergenerational fairness' or 'intergenerational equity' because it went down like a pork chop at a kosher wedding, particularly with young people. Young people know that this government is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. They are. This is nothing other than a rank tax grab.

Now we are seeing a situation where, before our very eyes, the prices of houses are falling. We are seeing significant drops in auction clearance rates, the lowest since the pandemic. Do you know what the auction clearance rate was in Brisbane last weekend? It was 33 per cent. In Melbourne and Sydney, it was around 45 per cent—a tick under. But, in Brisbane, it was 33 per cent. This is the housing market screaming out to the Labor Party: 'Stop what you are doing. You are killing confidence in the housing sector.' House prices are falling, and the housing minister seems to be quite happy about this. But at what point will she be happy for it to stop? What's a reasonable house price drop? Is it five per cent, 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent?

We are seeing developers exiting the market because they can't make a property deal stack up under these new tax laws. What happens when you reduce supply and you have a high demand? Rents will go up. We saw this in the eighties under Prime Minister Keating when he tried these changes to negative gearing. It lasted less than two years before he scrapped those changes. He scrapped them. This lot—these economic geniuses on the other side of the House—want to reintroduce them. Seriously, we've read this book before; we know how it ends. This government has betrayed the Australian people. We will fight these toxic taxes every single step of the way to the next election.

Today is a landmark day. Today the Australian Labor Albanese government has reinvigorated the great Australian dream, which—let's face it—was becoming a nightmare, particularly for young people. We have stared down the darkness. This is the cold, hard light of day. We know that we need to give particularly young people but all people who want a home the opportunity to own their own home. It is the great Australian dream. For too many young Australians, owning a home is about more than having a roof over your head. It's about security. It's about stability. It's about the opportunity to build a future in communities that they love. For too many people across my seat, my beautiful region of Paterson, that dream has felt increasingly out of reach. Today's changes to the law have changed that.

In communities like Maitland and Port Stephens, we're seeing pressures that come with rapid growth. Almost 96,000 people now call Maitland home, and we welcome around 2,000 new residents every year. By 2041, that number is expected to reach 145,000 people. Our region's growth is a sign of strength. People love the Hunter and Port Stephens. It's a brilliant place to live and work and raise a family and just have a good life. But that strong local economy and low unemployment and industries like mining and manufacturing and construction are so important. In 2024, figures showed that Maitland was growing by six people every day, but with that growth comes challenges. Housing demand across Maitland and the wider Hunter continues to outstrip supply. More people are choosing to live in regional Australia, and that's pushed up house prices and rental costs, creating real pressure for young people and all people trying to get ahead.

I regularly hear from young people who work really hard, and they are saving and they do make sacrifices. This generational warfare where you see people say, 'The young people won't give up their smashed avocado,' is bollocks. They really work hard, and they want to strive and do well, like every generation that's preceded them has. They're no different. That's why these housing measures in this budget and the laws we've passed today really matter. That's why we're giving more Australians a fairer go at owning their own home, making sure the dream of homeownership remains within reach.

We're already seeing the difference that the programs we've already initiated are making. Across my electorate, 2,323 people and families have already taken up the first-home guarantee, helping them purchase a home with just a five per cent deposit. That's 2,323 families that are in homes. Behind that figure are young couples buying their first home, close to family; families putting down roots in their local community; and essential workers getting the opportunity to stay in the towns where they work and contribute every day. The first-home guarantee removes one of the biggest barriers to entering the housing market. Eligible first home buyers can purchase a home with a deposit of as little as five per cent without paying lenders mortgage insurance, saving thousands of dollars and helping them get into a home sooner.

The Albanese government is also expanding the Help to Buy scheme, which will help even more Australians achieve homeownership. Under Help to Buy, eligible Australians can buy a home with a deposit of as little as two per cent. The Australian government contributes up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of a new home or up to 30 per cent of an existing home by way of a loan, and that reduces the size of the mortgage and makes repayments more affordable. The scheme is available to eligible singles earning up to $100,000 a year and couples or single parents earning up to $160,000 a year. Participants must live in the home they purchase, and anyone wanting to learn more about this should visit Housing Australia and check their eligibility to find out further information. These programs are working, and people are embracing them.

Importantly, support is also available through the family-home guarantee, which helps eligible single parents purchase a home with a deposit as little as two per cent. For single parents balancing work and family responsibility and the cost of living, this support can make a real difference. It can provide stability, security and a pathway into homeownership that may otherwise have been totally out of reach. These initiatives are about more than housing. They're about helping all Australians build a future that we can rightly be proud of.

House adjourned at 1 7 : 00

I rise today with a heavy heart to honour two beautiful children from our community, Katherine and Harry. Katherine was five years old. Her baby brother was 14 months old. They were taken from us far too soon after the devastating accident in Cabramatta last Wednesday afternoon. This statement is, above all, to honour them: two precious children, deeply loved by their parents, Sok Ram and Vundy Tha. That very day, Katherine had received an award at kindergarten. Harry was still a baby, with his whole life ahead of him. In one unthinkable moment, Sok and Vundy lost both of their children. Our whole community has felt the weight of that heartbreak.

Sok came to Australia from Cambodia in 2018 to build a better life. Vundy, also born in Cambodia, arrived in 2003. Like so many families in Fowler, they worked hard and sacrificed quietly, pouring everything they had into their children. They are exactly the kind of family that makes our community strong: humble, hardworking and full of love.

Fowler is one of the most multicultural places in Australia. We come from many countries. We speak many languages. We hold different faiths and different traditions, but, last Wednesday, none of that mattered. Strangers did not stand back. They ran forward. Motorists stopped their cars. Members of the public worked together to lift the vehicle. Others performed CPR. People did everything humanly possible to save Katherine and Harry. That is what being Australian truly means. We come from every corner of the world, but, in a moment of need, we stand together as one.

In the days that followed, the community wrapped its arms around Sok and Vundy. People came forward with help, donations and prayers, not because they were asked but because they could not bear to let a grieving family stand alone. A tragedy like this leaves more than one heart broken. There are others touched by that day who will carry it quietly for the rest of their lives. They are in my thoughts, too. I place on record my deepest thanks to every person who rushed to help—every first responder, every neighbour and everyone who has surrounded this family with love.

To Sok and Vundy: we remember Katherine and Harry in this parliament. Our community mourns with you, stands with you and will carry you in the days and years ahead. May Katherine and Harry be remembered always. May their memory live on in the hearts of their family and in the way Cabramatta and Fowler came together as one that day.

The incorporated speech read as follows

I had the pleasure of visiting Pearsall Primary School in my electorate of Pearce last week for a very special morning alongside the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Milton Dick, and the local state member for Landsdale, Daniel Pastorelli.

The morning began with a question that clearly mattered to the students: whether pineapple belonged on pizza. The result was decisive—82-41. Pineapple did not belong on pizza. While I may not have agreed with the outcome, I certainly respected the students' democratic process, and it was a light-hearted reminder that even the youngest members of our community understood the importance of a fair vote.

Beyond the fun, the visit was an important opportunity for the students to learn firsthand about the role of the Speaker and the way Australia's democracy worked. For many of those children, it would have been the first time they had seen the parliament represented in such a direct and engaging way. Experiences like that help bring civics education to life in a way that classroom lessons alone could not.

One of the most memorable parts of the morning was watching the spectacle that was the students helping to unfurl the majestic flag, the size of a double-decker bus, that flies above Parliament House in Canberra. It was a proud moment for the school community and a powerful symbol of the connection between our local schools and our national institutions. That simple act carried great meaning. It reminded all of us of the responsibilities we share in protecting our democracy, our values and our institutions for future generations.

I believe it is incredibly important that young people understand not only how parliament works but also why it matters. Democracy relies on participation, respect, listening to others and valuing different points of view. It is built on the idea that every voice counts. When children are given the chance to experience those values in action, they develop a stronger sense of citizenship and belonging.

I want to thank the Speaker for taking the time to visit Pearsall Primary School and for helping to make the morning so memorable. His presence gave the students a real insight into the role of the Speaker and the parliament he leads. I also thank Daniel Pastorelli MLA for joining us and for supporting such an important community event. My sincere thanks also go to the principal, Gary Payne, and the teachers and staff of Pearsall Primary School. Their warmth, professionalism and commitment to their students was evident throughout the morning. They created an environment where the children felt confident to ask questions, take part and learn with enthusiasm.

It was a wonderful reminder that our schools are not just places of learning but places where the values of our democracy are nurtured and strengthened. At a time when democratic values must be protected and celebrated, the visit to Pearsall Primary School stood as a beautiful example of what that looked like in practice. I was proud to take part in the morning, and I know it left a lasting impression on everyone who attended.

I rise today to acknowledge and recognise the great work of the Rotary Club of Blayney. Since 1956, the Rotary Club of Blayney has made a significant difference to the Central West through countless community projects, including fundraising efforts and providing support to local initiatives and organisations, with compassion, kindness and generosity. The Rotary Club of Blayney is a small club that punches well above its weight. It has delivered and supported key projects in the region, including a palliative care ward at Blayney Health Service, the community bus, the establishment of the local swimming pool and Church Hill Rotary Lookout, and is delivering projects for young people, including the model United Nations, youth exchange, leadership awards and driver awareness courses. Their current projects include providing domestic violence escape bags, which are placed around the community for people experiencing physical and emotional domestic violence to access; and a toy library—this initiative has been running for 1½ years, with over 1,000 toys borrowed.

Recently, Blayney Rotary celebrated an incredible 70 years of service to the community, at its local annual Changeover Dinner. I'd like to congratulate those members who received Paul Harris fellowships on the night, including Michael Baker, Della Baker, Frank Akehurst, Greg Hooper and Graeme May. Well done and thank you to outgoing president Rohan Hoadley and his team for a great year, and a hearty congratulations to incoming president Heather Ferguson. We wish her and the new executive team the very best for the year ahead. As a member of the Rotary Club of Blayney shared with me recently: 'We work as a team, we do everything we do to make our community stronger and better, and we'll rise up to take any challenge.'

As the late, great Slim Dusty once sang:

… let me sing where the rafters ring

In an old time country hall …

and Mandurama Public Hall is over 100 years old, and it continues to be the cornerstone of the community. From hosting christenings to council meetings to weddings to working bees, it's a vital place for the community to come together and connect. The hall's energetic committee don't look for recognition but are highly deserving of community appreciation, so today I'm very pleased to thank President Deirdre Molloy—Deirdre has been involved in the Mandurama Public Hall since she was 17 and has been the president for an incredible 54 years; Secretary Tanya Molloy; Treasurer Johanna Richardson; and committee member Christine Hepplestone. I sincerely thank the Mandurama Public Hall Committee for the fantastic work its members do.

Our country halls bring people together in good times and bad. They help keep our communities strong. Mandurama and its districts would not be the same without its iconic community hall, and I again thank and congratulate the committee members of the mighty Mandurama Public Hall. Our community is very grateful for all that they do for us.

The Albanese Labor government is delivering record funding for the Rockingham and Kwinana region. We're investing over $550 million in significant road upgrades to Anketell Road, including an overpass at the Rockingham Road intersection, which means it'll be easier and quicker for all the workers, and the truckies and their freight, to get in and out of the all-important Kwinana Industrial Area. Now, that's really good news for all the workers—the thousands of WA workers—in Kwinana, because that industry has been the backbone of the Western Australian economy since it first got started in the fifties, and this multimillion-dollar investment will ensure that the Kwinana Industrial Area remains the driver of a future made in Australia.

This Labor government is delivering bulk-billing GP practices right across Kwinana and Rockingham. There are now 15 medical practices across those two towns that fully bulk-bill your GP appointments. Labor believes in Medicare, and we invest in Medicare so that the communities of Brand can get the health care they deserve.

Recently I visited the Waikiki GP Super Clinic and the Rockingham Medical and Dental Centre, both of which are now fully bulk-billing practices thanks to the Labor government. I met with Dr Kiran Puttappa and Practice Manager Keely Clapton at the Waikiki GP Super Clinic, and I thank them and their team for the fantastic work they do for their community. I also want to thank the head of operations, Catrina Rippon, and Practice Manager Jackie King at the Rockingham Medical and Dental Centre for their commitment to providing quality health care for families right across Rockingham. And I want to thank all the GPs and all the staff and workers at those practices right across the suburbs of Rockingham and Kwinana for the work they do for their community. These are vital services, and the importance of providing free and quality health care for the community cannot be overstated.

Last week I took part in the sod turning of the St Pat's housing project in Kwinana with WA premier Roger Cook, state Minister for Housing and Works, John Carey, and my friend Kwinana mayor Peter Feasey. This is a major investment in the Kwinana community. The Albanese Labor government is putting $3.8 million to this important project through the social and affordable housing investment fund, and I want to thank my friend and colleague Minister Clare O'Neil for her leadership in getting more Aussies into their own homes. Together with the Cook Labor government in Western Australia and St Pat's, we are delivering 26 new homes for those in need. This is an example of two great Labor governments working with an excellent community based organisation to get things done for the Kwinana community. I want to thank Michael and the whole St Pat's team for the wonderful work they do, not only in Rockingham and Kwinana but right across Perth's southern suburbs, looking after people in need.

I want to bring to the parliament's attention a matter I raised previously, the Wambo Wind Farm and the human toll that it's taking on the Duffs and the Franzes—the Franzes in particular. They are 80-year-old retirees who have farmed, and want to continue to farm, next to their son. They have multiple 260-metre towers less than 1½ kilometres away, and they hover over their homes.

This is something that is an absolute eyesore, and it's a disgrace that the former Labor government in Queensland allowed the planning process to proceed. Since then, I've written to the Queensland government asking them to review the code. They have made small steps in reviewing and ensuring that there are better planning processes to protect non-host farms and give them the dignity and respect they deserve. I've also written to the federal government to ensure that there's consideration given to any federal funding supporting renewable projects that don't take into account nonhosts or ensure proper planning—and 1½ kilometres from a house is not enough.

If you go to the Franz home, you only have to sit at the front verandah to see that these 80-year-old retirees are sitting there with these things swishing over their heads. In their retirement, they cannot live on a property they have worked hard to afford to be able to live near their son. After writing to the Queensland government—and I congratulate them on some changes—I am appalled that they are not prepared to heed what has happened to the Franzes. I would say to the Queensland government to go out; do not rely on the department that has allowed this planning monstrosity to take place to continue to advise you. Get in the car. It's less than three hours from Brisbane. Go and sit in the Duff and Franz front yards, look at this and understand the impact on nonhosts. We are not saying, 'Stop renewable energy on these farms,' for those who want to do it. But, for those that do not want to, they should not have this imposed on them.

There should also be proper testing of the acoustics. The Franzes are putting up with over 37 decibels, the modelling is showing, and it could be as high as 44 decibels. The code 23 this was approved under says the towers can only go to 35 decibels, yet they are still looking to investigate this. You do not need to model this. You need to go and fix this for the Franzes. You need to actually make sure that we change the code, to set these towers back three kilometres from the boundaries of properties. This allows the nonhosts to negotiate and come closer—up to 1½ kilometres—if they so wish. That gives the power to the nonhost, not the renewable companies.

These renewable companies need to put deposits down. They are not bound by decommissioning deposits. If you have a gas project or a coalmine, you must put a bond down to decommission it. This would take away the uncertainty and the pain that regional Australia is feeling—people like the Franzes and Duffs have worked hard all their lives and are being screwed over by state and federal governments.

I have been pleased, across the last few weeks, to get to a few Werribee VFL games with the Werribee Football Club. We've been on a winning streak—four games in a row—which puts us second on the ladder. There's a thrill in going to watch the local boys, and we've got five local boys playing for Werribee this year, which is fantastic. Whether it's watching Jordan Busuttil goal from the centre; Noah Tullio run into the goal line to snap a quick one; Josh Kellett—he's recovering from injury, but I can't wait to see him back—or Jake Smith on the wing, it's fantastic to watch those local boys strutting their stuff at Chirnside Park. And to watch Ajang Kuol Mun learn his craft in the ruck and start kicking goals for Werribee has been fantastic. I want to thank Mark Penaluna for the great welcome that he always gives me when I make it to the club.

I recently visited classrooms at the Grange and Westgrove schools across the last couple of weeks and talked to young students about civics and citizenship. The learning they're doing around the three levels of government is amazing. I always do a bit of a pop quiz, and these young people are being beautifully prepared for our democracy. They understand the separation of powers. They understand the three levels of government and some of those responsibilities.

Whether it's attending a refugee week event with the Australian Karen Organisation, as I did on the weekend; whether it's attending the Teeyan Festival with our local Punjabi women—a shout out to Sharma Bhangu, who's been running that festival now for 16 years—or whether it's listening to Aunty Judy deliver a beautiful welcome to country in language on Saturday night, my community reflects modern Australia. It reflects our country beautifully, wherever you touch down in our country or in my community. This Labor government, this federal Albanese Labor government, is focused on the welfare of everyone across this country but also focused on our place in the world and creating a future where we all get a fair go.

That's why this week and today are so important—because we're going to pass the tax reforms. They'll pass the House today. They're designed to support us, to support our community, to value the work and labour of every worker, and to create equity in the way workers' incomes are taxed compared to investors'. It's creating a level playing field so those young boys on that footy field can buy their first homes. It's for the people across my community, like the thousands of people who've accessed the five per cent deposit, and the 1,800 people I've witnessed become citizens in the last month and go from permanent residents to proud Australian citizens. It's always a pleasure to be with them. We're looking after small business. We've got the loss carryback provisions coming in. We're making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent. We're looking after people across this country because we want to build together a wonderful Australia where everybody belongs and everybody gets a leg up on the ladder of opportunity.

Nicola Cave is a constituent of mine, a young Wagga Wagga mother of three, as she says, 'incredible' children. She writes:

'If you'd asked me seven years ago whether I understood disability, I would have said yes. Of course I did. I spent my high school and uni years teaching children with autism, Down syndrome and physical disabilities to swim. I've been a nurse for 11 years and a midwife for eight. I've cared for people with all kinds of abilities. But I was wrong. I did not understand disability, not the way I do now, until I became the primary carer for my beautiful six-year-old son, Hux, who has autism spectrum disorder level 2, childhood apraxia of speech, oral apraxia, sensory processing disorder and hypermobility.'

She is concerned, as are so many people across the Riverina and the nation, about the changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. She told me that her son cannot get the therapy he needs in a group setting. He cannot get it under the Thriving Kids program, is what she said. He cannot get it from a generic therapist assigned by a government system. He needs a specialist. She had this to say:

'Changing his therapist because of parliamentary changes will be to his detriment. It will cause regression. It will cause distress. It will undo years of work. I need to say this clearly: the fraud and corruption that has occurred within the NDIS is real. It is devastating. It has robbed participants of funds they desperately need. But that fraud was committed by unscrupulous providers—providers that successive governments allowed to register, operate and continue unchecked for years. Families like mine reported it. Advocacy groups reported it. Other providers have reported it. The systemic failures were known. The systemic failures were ignored by the government. And yet the response to that failure is to punish the participants. It is to restrict, gatekeep and dismantle the supports of the very people who had nothing to do with the corruption—the vulnerable, the children, the adults, the families who were navigating the system in good faith, working with legitimate, ethical, highly trained providers to build capacity and access a life with dignity.'

Her statements, her heart-wrenching, heart-rending appeal, is not isolated. She is not alone. She is like so many who turned up to a forum I conducted to hear the stories, to listen to these people throughout Wagga Wagga and the region. I do feel for Nicola because she genuinely, like every good mum and parent would, just wants the best for her child. We know the NDIS needs a complete audit. We do know that. But the difficulty with the recent changes in the budget is it is taking funds away from those children and others who so desperately need it, and it's simply wrong.

When Australian sport is showcased on the international stage, all Australians feel proud. But I think the best by-product of international success is the inspiration it provides to people back at home to get involved in community sports. There are few things as rewarding, both physically and mentally, as getting involved in sports. And while my days as a star athlete may be a little behind me, I always encourage those who are able to get involved in the sports that we all love.

Unfortunately, not everyone has that opportunity. There are a number of groups within our society that face unfair and unjust barriers to participation. This I know in particular is faced by girls and young women. The Albanese Labor government is committed to knocking these barriers down and has committed and delivered a number of programs that deliver just that. The Play Our Way grant is one example of this, with Scouts ACT in my electorate receiving one $1½ million to upgrade facilities at Camp Cottermouth to ensure safe and inclusive facilities are installed at this iconic location. Last year, we committed to upgrades at the Chisholm cricket oval to deliver that as well.

I want to take this moment to recognise the work of Woden Valley Soccer Club. This club is one of the largest clubs in Canberra, if not the largest, when measured by the number of registered players and has the highest participation of girls in the game in the ACT. Jason Geria and Lydia Williams have close connections to the club. But, unfathomably, this club has been prevented from seeking promotion to the ACT National Premier League Girls competition and prevented from providing girls and their club a strong pathway into higher levels of participation in their sport. I encourage Capital Football to reconsider its decision regarding Woden Valley Soccer Club's participation in the National Premier League Girls competition in 2027, so that everyone has equal opportunity.

I also want to take this moment to acknowledge the Alchemy Chorus, who recently celebrated their 10-year anniversary. The Alchemy Chorus is a dementia-friendly choir established by Brian Triglone, and it's been recognised for its deeply moving and joyous work, including being awarded the ACT Chief Minister's Inclusion Award and a Positive Ageing Award from the ACT Council on the Ageing. They've also been instrumental in the establishment of nine similar choirs across Australia. It was fantastic to be able to join in their Decade of Delight and sing along with them—mostly in tune—to recognise their accomplishments. Alchemy brings joy and light to difficult journeys. To Brian and all the volunteers, thank you so much for your work.

As we head into Kind July, there's no better time to reflect on the quiet acts of kindness that strengthen our communities every day. I recently caught up with Christ Mission Possible in my electorate, and, as always, I left feeling inspired. Each week, Christ Mission Possible feeds around 25,000 people, including preparing thousands of school lunches. Few things are more heartbreaking than imagining parents in our community staring at empty fridges, yet it's becoming more common as families are squeezed by rising housing, childcare, grocery and school costs. The Salvos latest Red Shield Report found that 72 per cent of people seeking assistance worried about where their child's next meal would come from.

To support locals doing it tough, my office has been collecting donations for community care kits. Our boardroom is piled high with food and winter essentials, because in Lindsay we do look after each other. You can see that same spirit in City Park Penrith each morning. Volunteers serve breakfast to those in need, among them familiar blue hoodies from my office, and my office enjoys so much that interaction with our local community. They're part of nearly 15,000 volunteers in Penrith City. This generous spirit was on show at our recent Our Community Cares high tea, as locals dug deep to support programs for the area's most vulnerable.

Before entering parliament, I worked in community housing in Penrith, and it taught me that real compassion is local, practical and personal. My staff spend hours helping constituents navigate systems that can feel overwhelming, fighting to ensure their voices are heard. They celebrate the wins, but they also carry the heartbreak. This week, one of my staff was left in tears after learning that an NDIS participant she'd been helping had attempted to take his own life while waiting for the support he desperately needs. It was a sombre reminder that behind every policy decision is a person, a life, depending on us to get it right. As we head into Kind July, it's worth remembering compassion is not softness; it is the strength to care, to listen and to step forward when others need help. To everyone in Lindsay who is helping out—and there are so many of you—thank you so much for everything you do.

Last weekend, Surf Life Saving SA hosted its annual excellence awards. Big congratulations to the Brighton and Glenelg surf life-saving clubs in my electorate of Boothby, who did our community proud. Congratulations to Bobby Tanner, from the Brighton Surf Life Saving Club, for winning Surf Lifesaver of the Year. Bobby receives the award for his extensive leadership, expertise and training, and his outstanding service to club patrols and the emergency operations group. Bob is to be doubly congratulated because he's recently achieved the milestone of 4,000 patrol hours—a testament to his service and commitment to our local community.

I also congratulate Lachlan Larven, from the Glenelg Surf Life Saving Club, for winning the John Baker Young Surf Lifesaver of the Year. Lachlan is 19 years old and has contributed to the life and operations of the Glenelg club through leadership, mentoring and lifesaving.

Congratulations also to Hannah Deacon, from the Glenelg Surf Life Saving Club, for winning Athlete of the Year. Hannah has participated in both state and national surf sport events, winning five gold medals at state championships—iron, board, swim, surf belt race and board rescue—and she's an invaluable member of the SA Reds, with whom she's competed nationally in the Super Surf Teams League and the interstate championships. These two clubs also saw two of their members inducted into the Hall of Fame—Glenelg's Leigh Bowbridge, for sport, and Brighton's Richard Crowe, for leadership.

I am lucky enough to have four surf life-saving clubs in my electorate. As well as Glenelg and Brighton, I give a shout-out to the Somerton Surf Life Saving Club and the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club. All four of these clubs, and surf lifesaving across SA, have had a really tough year with the algal bloom, but their commitment to ensuring our community remains safe never wavered. The federal and state government funded them to do additional patrols throughout summer and to be a point of factual information and advice to beachgoers. It's important to remember that, as well as being a local community sporting club providing connection and belonging to its members, this is a volunteer based emergency service. They train all year round to keep their skills up, and they volunteer their time to patrol our beaches in summer and keep our community safe. I also recognise all the volunteers behind the scenes—coaches, team managers, the board and management committee, and much more.

To ensure this work can continue from strength to strength, the Albanese Labor government has pledged half a million dollars to each of these four surf life-saving clubs to improve their community and sporting infrastructure and facilities. It's important that they have the best equipment and facilities to keep them safe while they are keeping the rest of us safe.

I once again congratulate the winners, the Brighton and Glenelg surf life-saving clubs, on their exceptional achievements. Their communities should be enormously proud.

What kind of government says Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment since World War II, signs up to AUKUS, promises a larger and more capable Navy and then starts selling off parts of Navy bases? That's exactly what is happening at HMAS Cerberus, in my electorate. The Albanese government has identified 67 defence sites across Australia for disposal, and the list includes historic sites like the Victoria Barracks in Melbourne and the Victoria Barracks in Sydney—and, now, a huge part of HMAS Cerberus, the cradle of the Royal Australian Navy, is also on the chopping block. It's a world-leading training base which welcomes over 6,000 people each year, preparing future leaders for the AUKUS fleet.

Over the past few weeks I have heard from hundreds of local residents. Two weeks ago, hundreds of them gathered together at a community information session run by Defence, and the message was loud and clear: the community does not agree that this land is surplus. Much of the land being sold is environmentally significant and virtually untouched. One former sailor who joined the Navy at just 17 years of age wrote to me, 'I do not want to see this land sold off.' His sentiment and the determination that sits behind it has been repeated time and time again. People understand that once defence land is sold, it is virtually impossible to get it back. Many in my electorate, with significant service to the nation in their past, are asking a very reasonable question: if Australia expects HMAS Cerberus to play a bigger role in training sailors under AUKUS, why on earth are we reducing the land available to support its future growth?

Others have raised concerns about the environmental significance of the site and the possibility of future development, as it's part of the Ramsar designated region of Western Port. One resident wrote to me:

Please protect the beautiful wildlife and pristine coastline around Somers and Crib Point from development.

The remarkable local underwater documentary maker Sheree Marris is currently producing an extraordinary work on the wondrous waters of Western Port. Just a few weeks ago, she discovered a unique glow-in-the-dark shark. If ever you needed proof of the uniqueness of this region, Sheree's discovery of the biofluorescence of the swell shark in the waters off Cerberus is it.

I have written to both the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance a number of times, outlining the concerns raised by locals and questioning whether this land has genuinely been assessed as surplus to future defence requirements. The people of Western Port have a deep connection to HMAS Cerberus. Generations of servicemen and women have trained there. It forms part of our local identity and part of Australia's naval story, and that is why I will keep fighting with my community to call off this hasty and ill-planned sell off.

Today, I'm honoured to recognise the six members of Bennelong who received King's Birthday awards recently. Each in their own right has embodied key values of compassion, integrity and service to better our community and the world around us. I'd like to congratulate the following people.

Receiving a Companion of the Order of Australia, and only one of five Australians to receive one this year, was Professor William Rawlinson of Riverview. He received this incredible honour for his eminent service to the medical sciences as a virologist through clinical research, education and national and international public health. He played a crucial role in shaping Australia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and is a critical asset to the Therapeutic Goods Administration Laboratory. His long-term work has involved the reduction of the effects of cytomegalovirus infection for pregnant women, which is the second most common cause of severe disease in Australian neonates. Congratulations, Professor Rawlinson, and thank you for your work.

Two Bennelong residents received an Officer of the Order of Australia this year. Professor Elizabeth Elliott of Hunters Hill was awarded for her distinguished service to paediatric medicine, Indigenous children's health and women's health. She's renowned for her work in preventing, diagnosing and treating foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and helping to develop the Australian national guidelines to minimise substance use during pregnancy. Professor Margaret Schnitzler of Hunter's Hill received the award for her distinguished contributions to innovative surgical training, research and tertiary education. She has pioneered the field as Australia's first colorectal surgeon and served as the first female professor of surgery at the University of Sydney and co-deputy head of the Sydney Medical School.

Bennelong had two recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia this year. Mr Roderick Cooke of Lane Cove was recognised for his service to the community through a range of organisations. Sydney Community Services has seen Mr Cooke excel as a board member since 2016. Since 2003, he's been the vice president of the Lane Cove RSL sub-Branch. Mr John Devine of Lane Cove was awarded for service to the Lane Cove community. In 2021, he was recognised as the Lane Cove Citizen of the Year for his outstanding and sustained contribution to community life. Over the years, he has also provided valuable services to residents who need it most, like working with the Delvena Women's Refuge to provide essential food and grocery items.

Lastly, I'm honoured to recognise Mr Paul Ballard of Macquarie Park as a recipient of the Emergency Services Medal. His commitment to Marine Rescue New South Wales has continued over 21 years, where he currently holds the leadership role of master and unit commander at Port Jackson.

On behalf of Bennelong, I thank all the recipients for their outstanding contributions as true assets to our community. I'm so honoured to be able to represent them here in this place.

Two of the Gympie region's hardest workers and biggest advocates, Mal Dodt and Sean Connelly, have been given microphones and a licence to inform and entertain. Together, they are the brains trust—and I use that term loosely!—behind podcast The Gympie Grapevine, a one-stop shop for everything from upcoming events to the big important conversations on mental health, men's health and connecting people with the right support. It's like your local noticeboard therapist and town crier, just with better sound quality and much dodgier dad jokes. I had the pleasure of joining Sean and Mal on episode 15, and I can confirm, between the local legends, the sports clubs, the community champions and the mighty Gympie Grippers Armwrestling Club, it's the most entertaining way to stay informed about what's happening in the region. Mal is a relentless optimist, possibly powered entirely by community spirit, and he has built a 26,000-strong following celebrating Gympie and its past and present. As for Sean, if there's an award for helping people, either he has won it, he has been nominated for it or he's too busy volunteering and helping people to even notice it. Mal and Sean are both passionate about helping others, and, together, they're proof that the real treasure of Gympie is definitely its townspeople and, occasionally, their podcast.

Sharon and I had the pleasure of attending the Murgon show last weekend. Unfortunately, the show had to be postponed from its original date in March due to heavy rain and flooding. But, despite those challenges, the event was a tremendous success, showcasing the resilience and spirit of Murgon and surrounding communities. The show featured a wide range of agricultural displays and entertainment, and, together with the Murgon rodeo, people celebrated local industry and tradition. One of the biggest challenges facing show societies today is a lack of volunteers. That's why it's so encouraging to see young people stepping up in the Murgon Show Society, particularly Josh Steinhardt, the 2026 show society president. He continues to set a remarkable example. Having taken on the role at just 19 years old, Josh's dedication to agriculture and community service reflects the very heart of what these shows represent.

I also congratulate Murgon showgirl Steph Simpson and rural show ambassador Matt McCauley, who were selected as the South Burnett Sub Chamber regional winners. They are both exceptional representatives of Murgon and the wider region, and I wish them every success at the Ekka later this year.

When considering the Ballarat electorate, you might think of the City of Ballarat itself, with its gold rush buildings, its gardens, our lakes, Sovereign Hill and many proud local manufacturers, like McCain, Mars and Haymes Paint, or our cafes and restaurants, which will soon be battling it out again for the annual Ballarat's Best Pie competition. But my electorate is also made up of many surrounding small villages with varied and distinct identities.

To the south of the city itself, around 270 people live in a beautiful town called Navigators. The community is nestled between two ancient volcanoes, Mount Buninyong and Mount Warrenheip. A year ago, the community officially opened their brand new hub, which the Albanese government was proud to support with $200,000, and it is now a very well-used community asset. It's home to a men's social group, as well as craft, history and table tennis groups, and it hosts local Pilates classes as well. Spread throughout the space are documents and photos celebrating the history of Navigators and its people. When I was there recently, I was treated to a beautiful morning tea spread and some great conversation. As one local said in their community, you can't just say hello over the back fence when your neighbours are scattered as far as they are in Navigators, so you find a place to come together and connect. The community has very much created that space, and it is absolutely thriving.

Eight kilometres away, to the west of Ballarat, is Cardigan Village. It's a little bigger than Navigators, with around 350 households, and I was there last week to celebrate beloved local postie Lyn McNight, who has been delivering the mail for 27 years. Lyn is known by all of the local residents and their children and also all of the local cats and dogs, who go out of their way to get a pat from Lyn when she's delivering. She's one of those people who makes people's days just a little bit better, with a smile and a kind word. In 2019, Lyn's contract was awarded to someone else, and the Cardigan Village community rallied until the decision was overturned by Australia Post. The community feel that she is simply quite irreplaceable.

In both of these proud little communities. Locals are committing to making the world around them a better place for them, their children and their grandchildren. It's all too easy, in the lives that we live, to get caught up in the negativity and abuse on social media. It's perpetuated by a minority of people, but they are very loud. It is incredibly refreshing, when we all go home to our communities and when I go home to mine, to be reminded that the vast majority of people are thoughtful and respectful. They are living their day-to-day lives with kindness and generosity. They're checking in on their neighbours, they're supporting each other and they're stepping up to make their communities better. I am very grateful to them for that.

On the 8th of this month, I received an email from Nicole Carlile. This was after the budget. She wanted to reach out to me and share with me her concerns. She's a small-business owner in Toowoomba who owns Freedom Lifestyle and Fitness, which is just down the road from my office. The tax changes that she'd seen come through caused her to write in. She has three employees in her team of 10 who own their home already, but she was really concerned for the other seven, following conversations with them about what their hopes and dreams were for the future and what this budget did for them.

She wrote to me, and I thought it was important to go and to hear her concerns, so, two days later, I was down in her office, meeting with her team. We had most of those seven in the room. I asked them, 'How politically engaged are you?' because it was interesting to see in that group—from about 24 to 27 in age—how switched on they were. They all said the same thing. They've never been switched on to politics before, but this budget drew them in. They were genuinely concerned about what the impacts would be. They'd seen a lot on social media—they'd seen all the memes go through—from other small businesses in the area, in Toowoomba, that were raising their concerns that this incredibly coordinated fear campaign Labor dreamed up was happening. Small businesses in my region were saying, 'We're really worried about where this is going.'

So I went out to see them and I spoke to these kids. The No. 1 message I got back from them was that they were concerned about what was laid out in their future; they could not see the pathway to prosperity that had been laid out for previous generations—the way that they could have the same things that previous generations had. They didn't want to take it away from those who'd got there. They wanted their own pathway and they wanted a future laid out for them. They made that very clear.

The other thing that they said that really struck home was that they just wanted there to be some structural advantage to being an Australian—some in-built way that gets us ahead because of the hard work we do. They wanted structural advantage for trying hard, and they felt that was being removed from them. They wanted some structural advantage from working and saving their money. And, goodness me, when we got to the heart of why this stuff mattered—for some of them, it was starting businesses, but, for all of them, it was starting families and how this impacted their chances of having not just the prosperity but the same happiness that previous generations had had.

I was encouraged, as I always am when talking to the younger generations—I'm incredibly optimistic. They see the dangers of just wallowing in protest; they want to get involved. So my message to them was very clear: get involved in politics. It's the same thing I say to all kids who reach out and talk to us. Get involved; don't protest. It's fun. It feels good. You can vent your anger. Get involved. Join a party, whatever side you feel inclined towards. Get involved in politics. Make a difference.

I rise to speak about my recent visit to Sydney Technical High School with the member for Hunter, Dan Repacholi, who is also our Special Envoy for Men's Health. We met with schoolteachers to talk about men's health and mental health and the pressures that young men are facing every day. We know men are less likely than women to seek help when they are struggling. Too often, boys are taught that being a man means staying in control, toughing it out and never looking weak. That pressure is not new, but it is being very much supercharged by what we see online. Today, a boy can go online looking for something as harmless as wrestling or fitness tips, and, before he knows it, he's being pulled into content about being jacked or looksmaxxing and chasing a narrow idea of what it means to be a man. A lot of it chips away at self-esteem and tells boys they are never strong enough, big enough or even good enough.

At Sydney Tech, we heard directly from students about what they are seeing online and hearing from friends. We need to listen to young men, take them very seriously and help them push back against these harmful messages. And the message was very simple: it is not weak to speak.

One of the most important things I've done since being elected the new local member for Barton is establish the Barton Defence Community Council. It gives the local defence community in my electorate a direct line to their federal representative, and it makes sure the work I do here in Canberra is shaped by the lived experience of people in the St George and Canterbury area. Recently that council hosted a panel at Bexley Golf Club, with local ex-service people, serving personnel and families speaking very honestly about military life, transition, mental health and wellbeing. What we heard was very clear: too many current and former ADF personnel still face real barriers to seeking support. Stigma, defence culture and the fear of not being fit for service can stop people from asking for help. Veterans also spoke about the stress of DVA claims, the difficulty they have navigating the system and the need for clear local referral pathways.

I thank the member for Hunter and our Special Envoy for Men's Health, Dan Repacholi, and Sergeant Kirsti Claymore for helping with a very safe space where those conversations can be had. That is why this council is crucial, because support must be local, inclusive, practical and shaped by veterans themselves.

Too many businesses on the Sunshine Coast are closing. A local business is far more than just a business; it is the sponsor of local footy clubs. They're the ones who pay the salaries to local employees. They're the ones who do the hard work. Behind all the shopfronts we might see across the Sunshine Coast lies a personal story. It's often the story of an entrepreneur who had an idea. It's the story of somebody who put their own money at risk to back themselves. It's the story, often, of a family who are trying to pay their own way and get their kids through school so that they can ensure their kids have a future.

The story of local business is very much a personal one. Every single morning there are people right across the Sunshine Coast who are fretting because they don't know if their businesses can survive. They lie awake at night not knowing if they can make payroll. They do not know if their employees will have enough money to put food on the table for their own families. This is symptomatic of a decline of our national economy, felt on the ground at home in my communities.

And then came the Labor Party's last budget—a budget presented at a time of a cost-of-living crisis, where we have the highest level of insolvencies ever seen in this country, and it is a budget that penalises small business. Is it any wonder we are seeing local businesses close their doors? In my own suburb, you walk down that that strip in Buderim and you see businesses closing. I've heard in the last two weeks of three more businesses with shopfronts all going to close. This is what is happening to local communities right across this country, and this government is showing absolute disregard for small business. It's why, on 8 July, I will host an 'Understanding the Budget' forum, so local businesses on the Sunshine Coast in my area of Fairfax can understand what the Labor Party is doing to them. It will be held at the 10 Toes Brewery.

To shift to a different topic: to the Sunshine Coast athletes who are heading to the Commonwealth Games, I assure you that you do not go into that stadium alone. You have a community that's absolutely backing you. Those athletes have done it tough. They've worked every single morning, getting out of bed when everyone else was sleeping. They avoided parties so they could get fit for the games. I want to tell you that we are already proud of you. Wear the green and gold with pride and know that the Sunny Coast community is absolutely behind you.

Recently I hosted Jacob and Bumni, two year 10 students of St Francis Catholic College in Edmondson Park—

A quorum has been called in the House. The member for Werriwa is able to continue, provided we have quorum here. No? The Federation Chamber stands suspended.

Sitting suspended from 10:20 to 10:25

(Quorum formed)

Recently I hosted Jacob and Bumni, two year 10 students in St Francis Catholic College in Edmondson Park, for work experience in the Werriwa electorate office. They were both impressive and thoughtful young leaders. Jacob prepared the following speech regarding the announcement of the first passenger flights from Western Sydney International Airport.

Nancy Bird Walton was regarded as a remarkable aviator, pioneering the contributions of women, destined for the sky since her first flight in 1933. Trained by Charles Kingsford Smith, Nancy Bird Walton was the youngest licensed female pilot in our Commonwealth. On Wednesday 10 June, I was given the pleasure of attending the official announcement declaring the beginning of operations for Western Sydney airport, named after Ms Walton. Just like Nancy Bird, the Western Sydney airport shatters records, as it is Australia's first new major airport in over 50 years and will be running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The new airport supports my electorate by promising 28,000 job opportunities over the next five years. That goes without mentioning the 200,000 new careers for the younger generations in the Western Sydney Parklands.

The Albanese Labor government has not just produced an airport but delivered longstanding infrastructure upgrades that will benefit the greater Western Sydney region for generations to come. For me, it's been a privilege to watch the airport come out of the ground, from rolling cow paddocks to the impressive 21st century facilities which boast sandstone from Kariong and mirror the colours of Australia.

Jason also prepared a speech relating to the work of St Vincent de Paul. Sometimes all we need is a helping hand. At the heart of Australia lies our spirit of service. Since 1854, the St Vincent de Paul Society has worked tirelessly in Australia and my electorate to provide relief to people in need, carrying the spirit of Australia. I've seen their service in Liverpool, providing people in immediate crisis with food, clothing and a friendly face. St Vinnies has earned the unwavering trust of our community.

I'm also glad to acknowledge Mr Matthew McMahon, the principal, and his staff and students of St Francis Catholic College in Edmondson Park, whose partnership with St Vincent's keeps our spirit of service as Australians alive and well. Both Vinnies and St Francis serve our community with an open mind and heart, continuing a longstanding legacy of service as one country.

Thank you so much to Jacob and Bumni for coming to my office. It was a pleasure to meet with you.

Parents and grandparents deserve an aged-care system that treats them with dignity, compassion and humanity. Older Australians should not be denied care that they so desperately need just because a computer algorithm says no. The case of 98-year-old Holywell local Mr Dudly Austin highlights huge flaws in the government's new aged-care laws.

After suffering a life-threatening fall, Dudly was assessed as a low priority for care despite serious concerns about his condition. For Dudly's family, what should have been precious final weeks together became a battle with the system. It wouldn't listen, and that system was failing them in trying to get him the help he deserved. Dudly sadly passed away on 10 June. My thoughts are with Amanda, Andrew and his family during this difficult time.

Dudly deserved better, his family deserved better, and older Australians deserve better. No family wants to hear that their loved one's needs have been reduced to a score on a screen, but that's exactly what's happening under Labor's version of robocare. We are hearing concerns from families, providers, advocates and aged-care experts right across the country. The coalition has repeatedly raised these issues, but the government refuses to listen. The Labor government must act to restore humanity to aged-care assessments. Australian seniors deserve nothing less.

Our veterans didn't put a cap on their service to Australia, but Labor is putting a cap on their care. In May last year, I wrote to the Minister for Veterans Affairs on behalf of a local veteran, and the response arrived in June 2026—more than a year later. If a veteran has to wait for over a year for an answer, something is seriously wrong.

And now Labor is capping veterans' allied health care at $5,000 a year—physiotherapy, psychology and occupational therapy that many of our veterans depend on. I receive emails every day from veterans and their families who are worried about what this means for them—people like Paul from Oxenford, who wrote to tell me he is 'a concerned veteran ... wondering about his future'; Tracey from Biggera Waters, who said, 'Many vets fall through the cracks and their pleas are left unanswered'; Stephen from Ormeau, who, after 46 years of service, told me, 'I am saddened with how the system treats us older soldiers'—

Honourable members interjecting—

Robin from Biggera Waters, who is 'still struggling' and has outstanding claims stuck in the DVA process; and Russell from Pimpama, who, after 49 years of service, says his government's treatment of veterans is 'a disgrace'—just like the member for McEwen, Deputy Speaker, who should show our veterans more respect in this place. He is absolutely out of line in not listening to these stories. The minister and these members opposite, who should know better, deserve to treat our veterans with respect.

Honourable members interjecting—

Can we all just take the temperature down in here, please? I call the member for McEwen.

He's out the door. The member might want to remember it was his government that refused to pay veterans for three years.

It was his government that said there was no value in supporting veterans. So you're a moron.

Member for Fadden!

Back into your cave!

I rise today to stand with the Doreen RSL and veterans that I represent. Men and women who have supported and served this country deserve not just gratitude but respect and support. For over a decade, during Liberal-National coalition governments, Doreen RSL has been seeking a permanent home. A $1.6 million federal investment was secured in good faith to deliver exactly that at Brookwood Community Centre to ensure our growing veteran community in Doreen and Mernda were able to access supports, from a chat with other veterans to accessing advocacy and mental health support for their complex needs.

But, sadly, 12 months on, after this was secured, the City of Whittlesea has acted in bad faith and been disingenuous about accommodating the RSL as planned, with a blatant mix of unfair, impossible hurdles and a financial penalty that is ridiculous by any means. By stripping away the very revenue streams, food, beverages and community engagement activities that keep an RSL alive, the City of Whittlesea is setting the RSL up to fail. The council deliberately misled the community on the wants of the RSL.

First, the financials: council says the entire building is expected to raise $57,000 a year in rent, but it wants the RSL to pay $44,000 for less than half the building. Work that out—seriously!

Council imposed time limits on opening hours for the RSL: 'It's 8pm, ladies and lads. Get out! It's time to go home.' Yet you, I or the member for Solomon can get 130 of our friends and have a party with drinking, music and all that, right through to 11 o'clock. Why is the RSL being treated so bad? This is imposing a 'no alcohol, no food, no beverages' policy on the RSL. I mean, what a joke! How is the RSL to raise funds if it's not allowed to even make cost recovery?

Strangest is this imposition: the banning of sports on the TVs at the RSL! Council itself notes:

Doreen RSL has indicated that gaming machines are not proposed … even without gaming or wagering facilities, a sports bar-style configuration would shift the facility's character toward a hospitality-focused model, which is not aligned with the intended purpose of … community centres.

That is a deliberate falsehood by the council. It's shameful, and ratepayers are disgusted.

What troubles ratepayers even worse is the preferential treatment afforded to a private, for-profit dance school operator. It is run by a former employee of the council—the same council we were given this funding by. I sincerely hope the relationship has nothing to do with the City of Whittlesea's preferential treatment for a former employee of theirs. Then the co-owner said in the Northern Star Weekly, 'How can you have a group of mostly male veterans in one room and young girls in the other?' I am speechless. Our veterans deserve better than this vile insinuation. They deserve respect, transparency and a council willing to stand with him and deliver, as agreed.

I want to speak about a vulnerable young person from Kooyong today. His needs are being disregarded and disrespected by the NDIS. Peter is 13. He has level 3 autism, anxiety disorder and expressive language delay. He's been dependent on NDIS support since it was established. Late last year, Peter lost his dad, and his mental health deteriorated. His family was told to get a plan review, including a functional capacity assessment, and that cost them almost $1,000. But the review resulted in cuts to his psychology supports, despite a clear documented increase in his functional needs. Peter's mum has requested an internal review. My team has advocated on his behalf. But, again, the NDIS upheld a 64 per cent reduction in his plan—less speech therapy, less psychology, less social skills supports. The review actually accepted evidence from his treating team. It accepted that Peter had made meaningful progress in therapy, but it cut his supports nonetheless.

Peter's mum knows, as so many carers around Australia know, that things are about to get worse for disabled people under the NDIS. Under the government's proposed cuts to the NDIS, which are currently in front of this parliament, pathways for participants to challenge unfair decisions like this are going to become much narrower. Having an inadequate plan under the NDIS will no longer be grounds to request a reassessment, and plan design is increasingly going to be in the hands of automated assessment tools. If the computer says no, the government will say no, and you will have no right of appeal. We've seen how poorly this has worked for vulnerable people in aged care, but the government is proposing to roll out the same unfair system at the NDIS.

The government is also going to be able to deny vulnerable people NDIS supports if they haven't received all the medical therapies available for their treatments. You might be on a waiting list for those treatments, sometimes for years at a time, but that will be grounds to deny access to care under the NDIS. That is a cruel paradox. Peter is just one young person from Kooyong, but he's much loved, and his community wants better for him. They want a government which cares for vulnerable people and helps them achieve their best, not one that makes it harder for young people and families who are doing it tough at a tough time.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

Today I rise to speak in support of the Women's Budget Statement and, importantly, to speak about what this budget means in the real lives of Australian women, in the home, in the workplace, in the doctor's waiting room and in the safety of their own homes. Labor introduced the world's first Women's Budget Statement back in the 1980s, and, in 2022, the Albanese Labor government brought it back. We did that because budgets are not gender neutral and neither is the economy. This statement shines a light on how budget decisions land differently for women and girls, and it embeds a simple discipline into the government whereby every budget proposal is tested for its impact on women as part of the process. That is gender-responsive budgeting, and it ensures that gender equality sits at the core of our economic agenda. This year's Women's Budget Statement shows a budget that is delivering for women in three practical ways: helping women keep more of what they earn; making systems safer and fairer, especially after separation; and strengthening the services that women rely on, from Medicare to housing in a crisis. Let's talk through that.

First is cost-of-living relief and fairness in the tax system. From 1 July this year, every Australian taxpayer gets more tax cuts. The already legislated changes reduce the 16 per cent marginal rate to 15 per cent as of 1 July this year, and to 14 per cent the following year. Alongside that, this budget introduces a new $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses from the 2026-27 income year, making it simpler for millions of people to claim what they're entitled to without chasing receipts for every small expense. From the 2027-28 income year, it adds a permanent working Australians tax offset of up to $250 for income that's earned from work. Taken together, these measures mean the average worker will be better off by around $3,000 over the forward years. For many women in Bullwinkel, my electorate, and across the country, that is money that goes straight to the rent, the mortgage, to school costs and groceries. It is relief that backs women's participation in the workforce.

We can see the progress that we've made since 2022 when you put women at the centre of economic policy. Women's average weekly earnings have grown by almost $300 a week, more than one million families have benefited from cheaper child care and Australia has recorded its highest ever international ranking for gender equality—13th this year, up from 43rd when we came to government. We were 43rd when we came to government, and now we're 13th. We're making progress. Women have saved more than $647 million across almost 139 million prescriptions, including through expanded access to contraceptives and menopausal therapies.

Second is safety and fairness for women, including safety in our systems. This budget invests almost $183 million over four years to make the child support system safer and more effective. Right now, around $2 billion in child support debt is unpaid, and women make up around 83 per cent of the recipients. The average debt is nearly $8,700. For many families, $8,700 could be used for braces for children, sporting club fees, school excursions or the chance for a child to learn a musical instrument. That's astounding—$2 billion of debt, mainly owed to women. We know that the scheme can be weaponised after separation and used as a tool of coercion and control. These reforms will crack down on financial abuse, strengthen assessment and compliance and ensure more children and families receive the support that they are owed. These are the most significant changes to the child support system in nearly 20 years. They send a clear message: the Commonwealth will not allow systems to be exploited to extend harm.

Third is housing security for women and girls in crisis. Everyone should have a safe place to call home, especially women and children experiencing domestic and family violence. This budget invests $59.4 million over four years for community housing providers supporting young people at risk of, or experiencing, homelessness. Girls and young women make up around 66 per cent of homelessness service users. Far too many young people who are homeless, or at risk, have been affected by gender based violence as the reason they had to leave home.

This budget also continues a record investment in women's health. For too long, women's health has not been taken seriously enough, and, when women's health is neglected, families and communities pay the price. Millions of women have already accessed cheaper medicines and better care through the Albanese Labor government's landmark women's health package, including new access to contraception and menopause treatments on the PBS system. This budget adds a further $2 billion to strengthen Medicare, making it easier and cheaper for women to see a GP to get the care that they need. It also invests $2.7 million to make it easier for women to access and afford long-acting reversible contraceptives like IUDs and implants. Despite their efficacy, uptake in Australia has been comparatively low, and often this has been because of the cost and barriers to access. This investment will help remove those barriers, particularly for women in regional and rural areas.

In my electorate of Bullwinkel, I meet women who are working hard, caring for their families, studying, running small businesses and volunteering in our community. But they tell me the same thing—that the cost of living has tightened, that services can be hard to reach and that, too often, the systems that should support families can add stress instead. This budget responds to those realities with practical help and structural reform.

As the first majority-women federal government, we are determined to keep delivering better outcomes for women and girls, not just as an add-on, not as a footnote, but as a core test of whether our economic plan is working. When women have more financial security, when children receive the support that they are owed, when health care is accessible and when safety is strengthened, the whole country benefits. This is what the Women's Budget Statement is for—to make visible what too often goes unseen and to hold ourselves accountable for progress. This budget helps women keep more of what they earn, builds safer and fairer systems and invests in the services that matter. I commend the Women's Budget Statement to the House.

I represent one of the most diverse communities in Western Australia. There are parts that have river views of the Swan, and then there are houses that look over industrial complexes. There are people whose grandparents have lived there since the early 1900s, and people who have come to live recently in Western Australia. When I hear stories from women in my community about the issues that affect their safety, their health and their financial security, what's fascinating is that it actually doesn't matter where they came from, what school they went to, whether they have children or not or what tax bracket they're in. Violence against women does not discriminate. There's discrimination at work. There continue to be unpaid care responsibilities. We've also seen the weaponisation of child support systems. These issues do not sort themselves by background or identity. They reach women from every community and every culture.

We have historically seen these issues ignored and pushed to the side or treated as too complicated to fix. And you know what? The Women's Budget Statement exists to change that. It's an accountability mechanism that encourages us to consider how a policy will affect women's lives, because budget decisions are not gender neutral. On paper, a policy can appear effective. But this mechanism pushes us to dig deeper and look for the silences in our society and the omissions within our policy that have real and lasting consequences.

Bringing diverse perspectives to the table to make more effective policy is not a new idea. The Hawke Labor government introduced the Women's Budget Statement in 1984. When the Liberal government scrapped it, these issues took a back seat. Today, for the first time in our history, 56 per cent of the Labor caucus are women. That does not happen overnight. It is the result of hard, continued advocacy to have different voices at the table to challenge norms and to ensure that the people making decisions reflect the lives of the people those decisions affect.

This year, one of the issues the Women's Budget Statement brings into focus is financial abuse, particularly through the child support system. This did not make the front page the day after the budget. It's not a salacious story and it does not lend itself to a simple headline. But that is the exact point. The Women's Budget Statement exists to make us talk about the hard issues—the ones that get quietly filed away, the ones that do not trend but do devastate. I'm proud to be a part of a government that takes that seriously, because financial abuse is not a niche issue and it does not discriminate.

I served on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry that looked into financial abuse. The thing that was fascinating about this inquiry is that we went in knowing that financial systems are weaponised to abuse people, particularly women, and what I was anticipating was looking at the systems associated with banks, credit lenders and superannuation, but what I did not recognise is how government systems can be used and weaponised to hurt the people that they are meant to protect. That's what we saw in the child support system. Specifically, it was former partners weaponising the child support system to harass and control, income being deliberately hidden to reduce payments owed to children, and coerced directorships leaving women liable for debts that they never incurred. It was women who had left violent relationships finding that the abuse continued through paperwork, through courts and through systems that they believed would protect them.

The Albanese government is investing $182 million to strengthen the child support system to ensure that we stop seeing it being weaponised against children. This is thanks to the great work of the Minister for Social Services. Right now, there is $2 billion in outstanding child support debt in the country. Women make up 83 per cent of recipients. The average debt owed per person is nearly $9,000. This is money that should be spent on groceries, school fees, uniforms; it's money that's supposed to be spent to help raise a child in a supported and safe environment. The thing that I will say is that parents who don't pay their fair share of child support are simply scumbags. It is unacceptable. But we have introduced reforms, and these reforms will make it easier for parents to move from private collection to agency collection, where there will be increased protections. This will give Services Australia the power to stop vexatious and harassing behaviour. They will crack down on those who minimise income to reduce what they owe. It will strengthen protections for the over 470,000 women and one million children receiving child support. These are the most significant changes to the child support system in nearly 20 years. These reforms are a significant step, but we know that the work does not stop here.

I want to share a story about a constituent of mine in Swan. She's a mother of two. She cares for them for more than 300 days a year. Her former partner deliberately reduced his working hours to minimise his child support payments. He claims the minimum threshold of overnight stays and picks up the children late and drops them off early, not actually caring for them during the daytime hours, when most of the care is required and when most of the costs occur. He doesn't pay school fees, he doesn't pay for extracurricular activities, and he continues to use the court system to intimidate and coerce. He hacked into her social media accounts. Through all of this, she's holding down a job and raising her children in a loving environment but without the supports that it requires. She stated that she knows that her story is not unique and highlighted that this form of abuse is not siloed; it interacts with your ability to manage a household, a career and live a normal life. This is financial abuse. It is deliberate, it is calculated and it is harming children. I personally want to thank my constituent for taking the time to share her story so that these systemic issues can be highlighted so we can continue to work on fixing the root causes. We need to keep paying attention and keep improving on our systems, and we need to keep on asking whether the protections we've built are reaching the women and children who need them most.

Properly valuing care work and removing structural barriers for women to participate in the labour force are the key to closing the gender pay gap and fostering a more productive economy. From 1 July, the Paid Parental Leave scheme will expand to six months of leave for parents. Beyond the expansion, this government is also investing in sharing care arrangements to send the message that caring for children should not be a burden solely resting on the shoulders of women. We are seeing this positive shift in society, and I have to say that modern dads—and there are many in the House and in this chamber right now—are being way more hands on with their children, and them having that really important time to bond with their babies in the early stages sets their children up for life. I thank the modern-day dads who are actively involved in their children's lives.

In 2025, 33 per cent of new paid parental leave recipients were men. Isn't that amazing? It's interesting; when I had my first child, I ended up having an emergency caesarean, and I was very lucky that my husband had the ability to take time off work and support me at home. I have to say that my husband is a very hands-on father—and I'm sure that there are a few dads that have had baby spew on their shoulders from burping their children. But we want to see more dads helping to raise their children. That's something that will help women and also help children. We want to see men and women share these care responsibilities more effectively because this is one of the things that will continue to break down the gender gaps that we see in our society, and this is a government that is genuinely committed to achieving equality for women.

Right now, we are at a critical crossroad for Australia's creative arts industry, one that may deeply harm this invaluable sector. At the recent AI summit in Sydney, the chair of the Tech Council of Australia, Scott Farquhar, called for copyright reform to encourage AI investment. He claimed it is impossible to train an AI model in Australia while doing deals with rights holders. However, in response, the Australian Recording Industry Association rightly described that claim as nonsense. Around the world, AI companies are already striking licensing agreements with record labels, publishers and creators. The message from Australia's creative sector is absolutely clear: tech companies do not need a special carve-out from the Copyright Act. They need a licence. Music, film publishing and broadcasting already operate on licensed use of content at scale.

The Copyright Act provides a clear and workable framework. Copyright is not the enemy of innovation; it is what allows creators to earn a living from their talent and their work. Yet we now hear reports that the federal government is considering a cabinet proposal to introduce a text and data mining exception into Australian copyright law. Such an exception would allow AI companies to train on copyrighted works without asking permission from the artist, writer, musician, filmmaker, journalist, performer, broadcaster, publisher or rights holder. The Australian creative and media industries do not support any weakening of copyright law. Weakening copyright would risk cutting Australian creators out of the global AI market altogether.

This proposal is also reportedly linked to discussions with major AI tech firms about data centre investment in Australia. Investment must never come at the cost of Australian rights. The Albanese government must not sell out Australians to big tech. In October 2025, the government ruled out a text and data mining exception, and it must stick to its word. Backtracking now would amount to legalising the wholesale scraping of creative content—not just Australian content but global content. Many would rightly call that theft.

We're also hearing about a proposed creator fund. It's absolutely clear the Australian creative sector will not support a fund in exchange for their rights. Such a fund would strip creators of the ability to decide how their work is used and remove their capacity to negotiate its value. It would extinguish the worth of Australian content, including our media, our broadcast rights and First Nations cultural expression, with the stroke of a pen. This is not a fair compromise. It is a concept designed by big tech to make the mass use of content legal without consent.

The stakes are extremely high. Australia's creative industries contribute more than $60 billion to our economy and employ hundreds of thousands of people. But, even more vitally, the creative industries generate a genuine expression of our culture and what it means to be Australian. At the same time, our AI sector is growing strongly under existing copyright settings. We do not need to choose between innovation and integrity; we can have both. So I call on the government to guarantee three principles: first, consent—creators must have the right to decide if their work is used; second, credit—their contribution must be acknowledged; and, third, compensation—if AI companies profit, creators must be paid. We also need transparency, enforceable safeguards and strong protections for First Nations cultural and intellectual property. Australian creators are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness. AI must be built on respect for the people whose creativity makes it possible.

I rise today to speak in support of the establishment of the Parliamentary Friends of Crime Stoppers. Earlier this week, I joined my fellow co-chairs, the member for Cowper and the member for Fowler, at the launch of this new parliamentary friends group. I'd like to acknowledge my co-chairs for their commitment to this really important bipartisan initiative. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank Dr Ian Stewart AO, APM, chair of Crime Stoppers Australia, along with the Crime Stoppers representatives from across the country who joined us at the launch. The creation of this new parliamentary friends group represents a really important milestone in strengthening the partnership between parliament, law enforcement agencies and the Australian community in our shared pursuit of safer communities.

Community safety is something that has been very important to me throughout my entire career. Before entering parliament, I served as a frontline police officer, and, during that time, I saw firsthand how vital information from the public can be in helping police investigate crime, prevent harm and protect our communities. Time and time again, I witnessed investigations progress because an ordinary member of the public chose to come forward with information. Sometimes, it was a seemingly small detail. Sometimes, it was information that helped identify an offender, locate a missing person, recover stolen property or prevent further harm from occurring. Those experiences reinforced a simple truth—community safety is strongest when communities and law enforcement work together. One of the most effective tools we have in supporting law enforcement is community engagement.

As Crime Stoppers Australia chair Ian Stewart highlighted at the launch event, Crime Stoppers was built on the fundamental principle of empowering people to safely and anonymously share information that helps protect their local communities, families and friends. Today, Crime Stoppers has become one of Australia's most recognised and trusted community safety organisations. It serves as a unique bridge between the public and law enforcement, enabling information to reach the right authorities whilst protecting the anonymity of those who choose to come forward. Of course, the establishment of the Parliamentary Friends of Crime Stoppers provides an important opportunity for members and senators from across the political spectrum to strengthen awareness of community safety issues and better understand the important role that Crime Stoppers plays in helping police solve, prevent and disrupt crime across the nation.

Community safety is not a partisan issue. It's something that affects every Australian. The bipartisan nature of this parliamentary friends group reflects a shared commitment to safer communities and stronger partnerships between the public, law enforcement agencies and government. At a time when criminal activity continues to evolve from organised crime to cyber related offences and scams, fostering stronger cooperation between communities and law enforcement has never been more important.

The true value that Crime Stoppers delivers is absolutely significant. Its recently released independent economic and social impact report found that Crime Stoppers generates more than $216 million in value for Australia each year and returns more than $11 for every dollar invested. That value is not theoretical. It reflects real-world outcomes that reduce harm, improve public safety and reduce pressure on policing, justice and community services. Perhaps even more importantly, the report found that almost 45,000 reports would not have been made without Crime Stoppers. That represents thousands of pieces of information that may otherwise not have reached authorities.

The report also identified more than $131 million in avoided harm associated with illicit drugs, more than $50 million in avoided costs linked to reoffending and more than $32 million in law enforcement efficiency gains. These are substantial benefits for governments, communities and taxpayers alike. They represent fewer victims of crime, fewer repeat offenders and safer neighbourhoods across our country. Significantly, the report found that Crime Stoppers contributes to almost 3,000 arrests nationally and supports the seizure of approximately $30 million worth of illicit drugs. Behind each of these outcomes is information provided by a member of the public who chose to act. Behind every statistic is a person who saw something, heard something or knew something and decided to do something about it. That decision can help prevent harm, protect a victim, disrupt criminal activity or support an investigation.

I look forward to working constructively with colleagues from right across the parliament alongside Crime Stoppers Australia and our law enforcement partners to support informed discussion on emerging crime trends, community safety challenges and the role that every Australian can play in making our communities safer. The number for Crime Stoppers is 1800333000, or you can of course go online. If it's an emergency, always just call triple zero. I want to thank Crime Stoppers for their ongoing work and dedication, and I encourage all Australians to continue supporting this important organisation and its mission of creating safer communities through partnership, trust and community action.

I rise to update the House on the unfolding insurance crisis in western Queensland. Just to recap, back in 2011-12, St George, Charleville and Roma had huge floods that inundated our communities. There was no protection. There were no levee banks. Effectively the insurance companies—rightfully, in their defence—lifted insurance premiums by 90, 100 or 120 per cent until such time as levee banks were built to protect those communities.

Fast forward to 2015, and those levee banks were completed. In defence of the insurance company, Steve Johnston, the CEO of Suncorp at that point, said that as soon as concrete was poured on those levee banks he would reduce insurance premiums. He was a man of his word then. He reduced the insurance premiums. In those communities we enjoyed relatively normal insurance premiums for 10 years—around $2,000 or $3,000 to insure a home in those communities.

Eighteen months ago, for no apparent reason, despite the fact we've had three major flooding events that have tested those levee banks around those communities and proven them to work—there was no claim—we have seen increases of over 300, 400 and 500 per cent in insurance premiums in those communities. When you ask them the question, 'What has changed?' they kick the dirt, they look at the ground and they know they do not have the answer. They are gouging these people in western Queensland, so much so that I made a referral to the ACCC. Further investigation of this issue warrants the ACCC to take further investigation into how your insurance premiums are determined.

This comes from the National Flood Information Database. The National Flood Information Database is owned and managed by the Insurance Council of Australia. The Insurance Council of Australia is owned and managed by the insurance companies of Australia. Its board of directors are the CEOs and senior executives of all the insurance companies in this country. This is the fox in charge of the henhouse. The fact that Australia is the only country in the world where the flood data is not made public or transparent to any Australian for them to know how their premium is being determined, effectively, by the Insurance Council of Australia is an abhorrent failure of good governance in this country. How can we let the insurance industry determine how the modelling of our premiums is determined, at whim and without any transparency or public oversight?

I have written to the ACCC, asking them to expand their investigation into the CEO and the board of directors of the Insurance Council of Australia to understand the protocols and the processes behind the determination of information that is sent to a third party to model our insurance premiums in this country. It is abhorrent to think that we would let the Insurance Council, run by the CEOs and senior executives, determine our premiums without any transparency.

This week I spoke to one of our councillors from western Queensland who was impacted, and it seems there has been a little bit of a breaking of the ranks in the Insurance Council of Australia. One of the major insurance companies actually confided in one of my mayors that they feared that the data that was coming back to them, to be used in setting their premiums, from the third-party modelling was sanitised. It is outrageous to think that the Insurance Council of Australia is handing sanitised data back to the insurers. This needs to be investigated by the ACCC, and it needs to be investigated thoroughly to understand if the processes and protocols have been put in place to ensure good governance and fairness to every Australian, particularly to those in western Queensland.

I have pensioners that cannot insure their homes today. Their homes are now uninsurable, and that's in St George alone. A survey by the local council there said that 37 per cent of residents no longer have insurance—that's insurance for anything; forget just for floods. They can't get insurance on their homes for anything. Overlay that with a young couple that wants to go and get their first mortgage. They can't get one, because they can't afford the insurance premiums of $40,000 to $60,000. That would be more than double their loan repayments. If this happened in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, there would be outrage. In fact, Brisbane went through a flood similar to ours in 2011. There wasn't a levee bank anywhere near Brisbane. Their premiums still sit at around $3,000 or $4,000. In St George, Charleville, Roma and Cunnamulla, they sit at $40,000 to $60,000. It is time the ACCC took them on. If they don't, it is time this parliament takes on the insurance industry and protects every Australian.

I rise to speak about half of our community: the women of Australia. For generations, women have helped build Australia's democracy, prosperity and social progress. The Australian Commonwealth and state parliaments were among the first in the world to give women the right to vote. South Australia was first, in 1894; the Commonwealth parliament followed in 1902, and Victoria got there in 1908. It took until 1921 for the first woman to be elected to an Australian parliament, when Edith Cowan was elected to the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. On entering parliament, Edith said:

I know many people think perhaps that it was not the wisest thing to do to send a woman into Parliament …

That view was wrong then and it's wrong now. It took another two decades for women to be elected to the Commonwealth parliament. In 1943, Enid Lyons became the first woman to be elected to the House of Representatives. In the same election, Dorothy Tangney became the first woman elected to the Senate, representing Western Australia.

We've come a long way since then. I'm proud to be a member of a federal parliamentary Labor Party which is more than half women and to have served in a Labor cabinet that was half women. Women in parliament improve the way the nation is governed, and they make this parliament a true reflection of the country that it serves. Law and policymaking are strengthened when they take their direction from the lives of the people they affect and the real difficulties they face.

Women in parliament change the questions that are asked. They widen understanding, lead to better decisions and make our democracy more accountable and representative. Yet, across the generations, there have been thousands of Australian women whose contributions are no less important even if their names do not appear in the history books and their work is not recognised in public life. Today I acknowledge those women. Their contributions deserve our respect, our gratitude and our continued commitment to equality. That's the work that Labor has taken on. We've delivered historic reforms to improve women's safety, economic security, health care and representation.

As Attorney-General, I saw that justice, safety and economic security cannot be separated. This understanding is reflected in the Albanese Labor government's reforms for women across the law, policy and services. An example is the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Act 2022. That legislation was a significant step in fulfilling Labor's commitment to implementing all of the recommendations of the landmark Respect@Work report completed by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins and the Human Rights Commission in 2020. The Morrison government failed to implement all of the Respect@Work report, but the Albanese government acted. All 55 recommendations have now been put into effect. The 2022 act introduced a positive duty to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 requiring employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate unlawful discrimination, including sexual harassment, as far as possible.

But, of course, changing the law is only part of the task. Justice also depends on the strength of the services women turn to when their safety, housing, family and financial security are at risk. In 2024, through our National Access to Justice Partnership, the Albanese Labor government significantly increased funding for women's legal services. That funding recognised what women's legal services had made clear for many years: too many women were being asked to navigate questions of safety, family, housing and financial security without the legal support they need.

The same concern for justice and safety led to the much-needed privacy reforms that I introduced in 2024. The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 created new offences for doxxing, which is the malicious publication or distribution of personal information in a way that exposes people to harassment or harm. When personal information is maliciously revealed, the consequences for women can be serious and dangerous. These reforms recognise that the law must respond to this form of harm. That work formed part of our wider effort to make the law more responsive to women's experiences and their calls for safety, dignity and justice. This approach guided our reforms to the Family Law Act and guided our work on justice responses to sexual violence.

Too many victims and survivors of sexual violence have said that the justice system is difficult, confronting and traumatic. Their experiences guided the inquiry our government referred to the Australian Law Reform Commission into justice responses to sexual violence. The commission's report, Safe, informed, supported, helped shape the Albanese Labor government's $21.4 million response, including expanded specialist trauma informed legal services for victims and survivors.

The late, great Governor-General and Chairman of Soils for Life, Michael Jeffery, in a book written by Colleen McCullough—a mighty writer—entitled Water is Life and published in 2016, had this to say: 'River systems and water have played a central role in sustaining human populations, but the United Nations reports that one-fifth of the world's population now live in areas of river water scarcity. Australians have the know-how and ingenuity to redress this situation, but to date we don't seem to have the national will to protect our primary natural asset or make better use of the water we have.' The Hon. Major-General Michael Jeffery did so much in the space of ensuring that we had the best-quality soils and also wanted to ensure that we used water wisely. In the book, Colleen McCullough wrote that rural folk were under pressure and continued: 'Only urban centres possess voting reservoirs large enough to matter politically. There are more members of the parliament seated on or around the Cumberland Plain than seated in the rest of New South Wales. City people matter. Country people do not. That leads to a national populace grossly ignorant about the intrinsic qualities and functions of water. Politicians whose foresight extends only to getting re-elected in the main share this ignorance.'

That's pretty telling—it's pretty insightful. I just had a meeting with two very passionate people. The member for Parkes, who is sitting beside me, knows these two people very well. They are General Manager Leonie Brown and Mayor Lachlan Ford of Bourke Shire—good people. They are very worried, as is the member for Parkes, about Bourke, the wider shire and wider western New South Wales, and, as the shadow minister for water, I would add the Murray-Darling Basin system in its entirety, because we have a government now that doesn't understand the intrinsic value of water.

In her book, Ernestine Hill—it's a 1937 publication—writes of Bourke:

Bourke had 32 hotels and 1,000 thirsty men in the main street—

Oxley Street—

on Saturday night—in Australia you estimate the size of a town by its hotel-power.

And you also measure the size and worth of a town by its productivity. Mayor Ford and GM Brown told me a tale—the member for that area, the member for Parkes, understands this well, and he, like me, is very passionate about this topic—that these towns, which have provided so much for so long, are now being held in the grips of a Murray-Darling Basin Plan which does not serve our river communities well. Just last week we saw yet another 86 gigalitres of productive water being taken out of the system—and for what? To be flushed down the mouth of the Murray. That cost is at a time when Labor's debt is spiralling towards a trillion dollars. $430 million. It equated to 34,400 Olympic-sized swimming pools taken out of farming use, taken away from irrigators to be able to use potentially for fruit and vegetables, rice and cotton and anything else, and sent down the river for the environment—now, our farmers are the world's best environmentalists. They pay for every drop of water. They want to see the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, Simon Banks, be accountable for the water that he and the CEWH overseer hold and maintain in the water space. The CEWH is taking water out of the system—and it's legislated; I appreciate that. There's no accountability over every drop of water, but there is for our farmers because they're paying for it. The CEWH holds, retains, manages and owns 72 per cent of the available water in the Murray-Darling basin. It is the nation's biggest irrigator, yet our irrigators are being told they're the ones wasting water. The coalition has a better way; it's to make sure that we put the infrastructure in place, that the CEWH is accountable and that we stop the water recovery by stealth and stop the insidious buybacks.

Today, I reflect on the Albanese government's budget handed down just last month—in particular what it means for the communities I'm so privileged and proud to represent as the member for Scullin.

When I got back to Melbourne after budget week I went doorknocking in Wollert, a suburb that's rapidly growing in the northern end of my electorate. Not everyone I spoke to that day had been thumbing through the budget papers or even knew that a budget had been handed down—and I'm not surprised by this; with family commitments, work and activities in the community, people are juggling a lot at the moment. But the conversations I had that day and since then—doorknocking in other suburbs, and at train stations in the morning—reflected on how our budget is delivering for them and also delivering democratically. We see in these conversations how our Labor government has been listening and using the opportunity and the obligation we have as the national government to make Australian lives better.

People are seeing how government can and does make a difference, such as through how we're putting more money back into household budgets; tax cuts for every Australian worker; the $1,000 instant tax deduction; and the $250 working Australians tax offset. It is all part of a budget that is working to rebalance the tax system that, for too long, has taxed workers more on income earned through labour than on income that others are fortunate enough to earn through their assets.

It's also a budget focused on bringing that dream of homeownership back within reach for Australians, particularly younger Australians. That responds to a message that's been delivered to me very directly from young people right across the northern suburbs—younger people who might be renting or still living at home, saving up for a first home of their own—and from their parents and their grandparents, who worry that their kids won't be able to reach the milestone that they were able to. That dream was at risk of disappearing for an entire generation of Australians—driven, in part, by tax breaks for investors that made it easier for people to purchase a 10th home than a first.

We know, of course, that rebalancing tax settings alone won't fix the housing crisis. We've got to continue to boost supply, and that's why we're investing so heavily in enabling infrastructure—the nuts and bolts, or, in this case, more the pipes and the power—to unlock 65,000 new homes, while maintaining incentives for new housing construction and for workers to do that work, too. We're not standing still; instead, we're taking action to expand opportunity and security for more Australians in communities like those in our northern suburbs.

People in my electorate also welcome the certainty that comes in the budget from the news that the Medicare urgent care clinic in Epping is here to stay. Since opening in 2024, it's seen 23,000 presentations—around 45 a day—easing pressure on Victoria's busiest emergency department, at the Northern Hospital, while saving on medical costs for families right across the community. This builds on the work that we've done to make the cost of medicines cheaper, bringing PBS medicines down to a maximum cost of $25, or $7.70 for concession card holders. We're also delivering, for our public hospitals, an extra $25 billion in funding, so hospitals like the Northern can have more beds and are better resourced to service a growing community. All of this is bringing health care closer to communities—more accessible and more affordable—when we see, around the world, health systems drifting further away from the people they need to be reaching.

Beyond housing and health, the budget's also been focused on helping people get where they need to go safely and efficiently. I'm so pleased to see that $37.4 million has been invested to continue upgrades along Donnybrook Road, cutting congestion and improving the flow of traffic for motorists in Melbourne's outer northern suburbs—less time on the road; more time to enjoy at home.

This is a budget that's built on listening, and recognising the challenges that people face right across our communities. It demonstrates to people that they have been heard and they matter. The confidence that they placed in our government, across two elections, is not and will not be taken for granted. We're getting on with the job that they have tasked us with doing.

Today, I was absolutely thrilled to read in the Herald Sun that Bubup Wilam Aboriginal Child and Family Centre was recognised for the extraordinary work it does in educating young First Nations people. Bubup Wilam is an amazing facility, and early learning, early education and care are only the tip of the iceberg for what it delivers for Aboriginal communities in Melbourne's north. To Lisa Thorpe and her amazing team: I look forward to seeing you when I'm back in town, but I'm so pleased to see the work that you do, and the impact it has, recognised more broadly.

Question agreed to.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:27