I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation's bilateral visits to Malaysia, Bangladesh and Türkiye from 6 to 13 April 2026 and the attendance at the 152nd Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Istanbul, Türkiye, from 15 to 19 April 2026. I'm pleased to report to the House the work of the delegation to the 152nd Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Istanbul in April this year. I was honoured to once again lead this high-level delegation consisting of the Deputy Speaker Ms Sharon Claydon, Senator Andrew McLachlan CSC, Senator Deborah O'Neill, Mr Basem Abdo MP and Senator Tammy Tyrrell. I thank the delegation for their commitment, diligence and hard work.

The delegation focused on four key themes: sustainability, civics and democracy, gender equality and representation, and financial transparency. During the 152nd assembly in Türkiye, I was appointed a vice-president of the IPU, to represent the Asia-Pacific Group, and, as chairperson of the IPU executive Sub-Committee on Finance, I reported on the IPU's financial situation to the geopolitical groups and answered questions from the floor.

Australia co-sponsored a successful proposal for the emergency debate, which focused on the need for parliamentary efforts to support peace building within the Middle East. Senator O'Neill, in her capacity as a co-rapporteur to the Standing Committee on Sustainable Development, proposed a resolution entitled 'Building a fair and sustainable global economy'. The resolution was adopted unanimously by the 152nd assembly on 19 April as an IPU resolution.

Ms Clayton MP, as a member of the IPU Women's Bureau, served as rapporteur to the Forum of Women Parliamentarians for its debate on Senator O'Neill's proposed resolution. Senator McLachlan served on the drafting committee for the emergency item on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Group, and Mr Abdo contributed to the general debate along with Senator O'Neill and me.

The IPU was founded in 1889 as the first permanent political forum for international negotiation, providing the origins for multilateral cooperation. The Australian parliament was first invited to participate in the IPU in 1906. Although Australia didn't attend any assemblies until 1928, we provided a grant of 50 pounds annually from 1915 to 1918 in solidarity and support of the IPU's efforts to settle international disputes by peaceful means. During the assembly, I was really proud to launch a historical timeline which details the history of Australia's engagement with the IPU.

Over 70 years of engagement, Australia has consistently advocated for equal rights of women and the full engagement of Pacific island parliaments. In fact, Australia took the initiative in 1985 to foster closer ties by hosting a gathering of IPU members from our region. That gathering was formalised some years later as a meeting of the Asia-Pacific Group, which continues to this day and in which our Pacific island neighbours play a key role. Australia went on to chair the Asia-Pacific Group four times, including in 2023, when I had the privilege of chairing the group.

Considering the deep history of engagement within the IPU, the organisation has never been led by a parliamentarian from the Pacific region, and it's a great honour to advise the House that the Australian National Group of the IPU on 22 June this year unanimously endorsed me as the Australian representative for the position of IPU president. The Australian National Group is made up of parliamentarians from all sides of this chamber and the other place, which makes this an incredible privilege to have support from all sides of politics.

During the bilateral visit to Malaysia, the delegation met with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honourable Tan Sri Dato' Dr Johari bin Abdul, and the President of the Senate, Senator, the Honourable Dato' Awang Bemee bin Awang Ali Basah, and other parliamentarians of the Parliament of Malaysia, as well as a range of civil society representatives and representatives from the United Nations and other regional bodies.

During the bilateral visit to the People's Republic of Bangladesh, the delegation met with the honourable Tarique Rahman, the Prime Minister of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, the Honourable Havis Uddin Ahmad, Speaker of the Bangladesh Parliament, and the Honourable Shama Obaed Islam, the State Minister for Foreign Affairs. The delegation also participated in roundtable discussions with representatives from civil society organisations and UN organisations.

In Istanbul the delegation visited the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery and attended the screening of The Forgotten Pacific documentary. Hosted by Australia, the film screening included contributions from Ms Claydon and the Honourable Filimone Jitoko, the Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank a number of officials who contributed to this high-level and historic successful visit: in Malaysia, Her Excellency Ms Danielle Heinecke, the High Commissioner to Malaysia, and her team in Bangladesh; Her Excellency Ms Susan Ryle, the High Commissioner to Bangladesh, and her team; in Istanbul and throughout the 152nd IPU Assembly, Her Excellency Ms Sally-Anne Vincent, PSM, Ambassador to Turkiye, and her team, Mr Tony Huber, the Consul-General of Turkiye; and the Parliamentary Library and DFAT who provided helpful background material. Finally, the delegation wishes also to thank the team in the International Parliamentary Relations Office, the Senate Procedure Office, delegation Secretary Dr Jane Thomson, and, finally, Ms Fattimah Imtoualfor assisting the delegation at the assembly. I thank the House.

on indulgence—On behalf of all of us, I think it's important to mark the moment, acknowledging the work across the parliament from all members of the delegation on both sides. I think members would also want, given the report that you've just given, for the pride that all members take in the leadership role that you've taken to be noted, and the significance that that has for democracy and the pursuit of democracy, particularly in our region.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

I thank the Leader of the House.

I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Kovacic has been discharged from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and that Senator Scarr has been appointed a member of the committee.

I have received the following message from the Senate:

That the Senate:

orders that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission in its consideration of approval of the minister's proposed recommendation for the appointment of the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner under section 178 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022, require from the Attorney-General all primary documentation relevant to applications for the position of Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, any review of the applications by the Attorney-General's Department, any panel undertaking assessments or conducting interviews, or the Attorney-General; and

directs the committee to conduct interviews with each recommended candidate during in camera hearings, where there is sufficient opportunity to question candidates and consider their responses.

The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.

Ordered that the message be considered immediately.

I move:

That this House:

does not concur in the resolution transmitted by the Senate; and

notes that:

on Monday, 22 June 2026, the Australian Government commenced the process to select and appoint a Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner for the National Anti-Corruption Commission;

the Government is seeking candidates with the highest levels of integrity, leadership and decision-making ability for these positions;

the Government confirmed that appointments will be made through an open, competitive, and merit-based process, as all the appointments to the National Anti-Corruption Commission have been made;

consistent with the requirement under section 178 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022, the Attorney-General will refer the proposed appointments to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission (the committee) for approval before recommending them to the Governor-General for appointment;

there is a need to balance the committee's important role under the legislation with respecting the privacy of candidates and their willingness to put themselves forward as candidates;

the Government is committed to providing the committee with appropriate information about the proposed candidates on which to base its decision; and

the motion purports to expand the functions of the committee beyond that prescribed by statute.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 and the Statute Update Bill 2026 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Administrative Review Tribunal (the ART) commenced operation on 14 October 2024, replacing the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal as Australia's primary federal merits review body.

The ART provides an independent mechanism of review of government decisions made under over 400 Commonwealth acts—a function that is critical to Australia's system of government.

The government established the ART to ensure that members of the community have an avenue to seek review of government decisions in an effective, efficient and fair way.

The government recognises that not every review is the same and that the ART should provide a meaningful opportunity for review in a way that is appropriate to the circumstances of the case.

The government is therefore committed to ensuring the ART has the tools and the flexibility it needs to deliver these objectives.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) (Division 2) also plays an important role in hearing and determining judicial reviews of certain government decisions, including decisions of the ART. It is important that the FCFCOA is well-equipped to perform this function, which is critical to our system of government, and promotes public trust and confidence in government institutions.

Merits and judicial review processes should be proportionate. The time and resources expended to determine a matter should reflect the complexity of the issues, and the importance of what is at stake.

Efficient review procedures are important to reduce delays in decision-making, provide genuine applicants with the benefit of a timely and effective remedy, and strengthen the integrity of administrative and judicial review systems.

The purpose of the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is to enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of the migration review framework by supporting the ART and FCFCOA to more effectively respond to their significant and increasing caseloads.

The bill would also support the ART to manage its significant workload across case types, through measures that would create efficiencies, improve processes and increase flexibility.

Improving ART efficiency and operations

The bill makes amendments to the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024and other Commonwealth legislation to expand tribunal powers, improve tribunal processes, increase efficiency, avoid administrative delays, and aid the management of caseload surges and backlogs—particularly in migration matters.

The bill will enable the ART to give reasons for a decision orally—rather than alwaysin writing—with written statements of reasons to be given at the request of a party.

These changes ensure that ART resources are not unnecessarily expended to produce written reasons when parties do not require them.

These changes apply to matters in the ART's migration caseload, as well as other caseloads where written reasons may not always be required.

The bill provides safeguards for vulnerable applicants of the ART and will notapply these changes to reviews relating to social security, veterans entitlements, the National Disability Insurance Scheme or aged care where written reasons may play an important role.

The changes will also not apply to other reviews that may be prescribed by regulations.

The bill would, among other matters:

Protecting the integrity of the protection and migration review system

The bill would introduce a new requirement for the verification of the identity of an applicant for merit or judicial review of a prescribed protection or migration decision in the ART and FCFCOA.

The particulars around when, where and how the identity verification process would operate would be set out in regulations under the Migration Act.

Failure to comply with the identity verification requirement in ART proceedings would result in the tribunal being required to dismiss the matter. As an important safeguard, the existing reinstatement powers already available to the ART would continue to operate in circumstances where a matter should not have been dismissed in the first place.

Applicants who fail to comply with the identity verification requirement in FCFCOA proceedings would require leave of the Court to continue proceedings. Where leave is not granted, the FCFCOA would be able to dismiss the proceedings. The FCFCOA would also be able to reinstate proceedings which had been dismissed.

The difference in approach between the ART and FCFCOA reflects the constitutional limits arising from the status of the FCFCOA as a court established under Chapter Ill of the Constitution.

Courts must retain a high degree of discretion in the management of proceedings. This means that the FCFCOA will also be able to extend time for satisfying the identity verification requirement or dispense with the requirement altogether where appropriate.

This new requirement would ensure applicants are genuinely engaging with merits and judicial review processes by establishing a mandatory engagement point between the applicant and the review pathways.

As a regulation, it would of course be open to the parliament to scrutinise and consider the arrangements—and disallow them if appropriate.

This proposal ensures that genuine applicants understand precisely what it is they are seeking to do, and that the ART and the FCFCOA can have confidence an individual seeking review is who they say they are.

It will provide an important touchpoint, and a further opportunity to protect the integrity of the merits and judicial review systems through identification checks.

Conclusion

Taken together, these reforms will support a more efficient, effective and robust review framework by encouraging active participation in the process, and dissuading frivolous applications—while ensuring appropriate balances are in place.

The ART has a crucial role in enabling members of the community to seek fair, quick and inexpensive review of government decisions.

The FCFCOA has a crucial role in providing an avenue to review the legality of government decisions.

This bill will support the tailoring of ART procedures and operations to the different circumstances of the cases before them.

It will also support the ART and the FCFCOA to address significant case loads, enhance efficiency and avoid administrative delay, ensuring that decisions can be made in an efficient and timely manner.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

I rise today to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill. I start by acknowledging all those that continue to wear the uniform in service to this nation, our veterans and your families, and note that the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard fought battles, wars and sacrifices that you have made.

This legislation is not merely a collection of administrative adjustments or technical tweaks. It represents a significant legislative response to the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, a royal commission established by the former, coalition government. Every member of the House of Representatives carries a heavy responsibility to ensure that those who wear the uniform and those who have worn the uniform receive support, care and respect for their service. We also carry a duty to the families who stand beside them, sharing the unique burdens of service life.

The coalition recognises the profound importance of these reforms. The bill directly implements 15 recommendations of the royal commission, with a further 20 recommendations supported through its provisions. Its objectives to strengthen the health, wellbeing and safety of our personnel are objectives that this side of the House wholeheartedly shares. For these reasons, the coalition will not oppose this bill in the House today. We approach this debate in a spirit of constructive engagement, acknowledging the valuable work of ex-service organisations, advocates and families who have fought for these changes.

However, our support is cautious. It is support predicated on the requirement that these reforms deliver genuine, tangible improvements rather than simply adding more layers of administrative complexity to a system that many serving personnel and veterans already find difficult to navigate. We must ensure that this legislation is effective, proportionate and capable of delivering the improvements that are needed, recommended and promised. The measures contained in this bill are intended to place a greater emphasis on the support of our defence personnel and veterans across both the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

The royal commission was clear that, for too long, the systems designed to support our people have been fragmented. This has resulted in fragmented information systems, resulting in administrative delays, delays in support and, most tragically, missed opportunities to identify and assist those at high risk of suicide and self-harm. By improving coordination between agencies and strengthening access to support services, this bill aims to ensure that the wellbeing of defence members, veterans and their families remains central to the service delivery.

Schedule 1 is about addressing fragmented information systems. It establishes a new legislative framework to support health and safety by breaking down fragmented information systems. It expands the functions of the Repatriation Commission to include wellbeing and transition support, and it creates a framework allowing Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs and other entities to share information for defined purposes. The intent here is understandable and, in principle, supported by the coalition. We acknowledge the value of reducing administrative barriers between agencies to allow for earlier intervention for vulnerable individuals and better integrated service delivery. The bill's support for a veteran and family wellbeing agency and the National Veterans' Data Asset is particularly important as these will enhance our research capabilities and further deepen our understanding of suicide risk factors. In particular, the coalition supports the goal of enabling the earlier transfer of information from Defence to DVA. If this leads to reduced delays in claims processing and ensures veterans receive assistance at the earliest possible opportunity, then it is a significant step forward.

However, we must always remain vigilant. The collection and sharing of sensitive personal information—data relating to health, service history and personal circumstances—is a matter of the highest gravity. Defence personnel and their families rightly expect that this information will be handled with the highest degree of care and security. While the bill includes requirements for ministerial guidelines and de-identification of information where practical, these safeguards require ongoing and rigorous scrutiny. We must ensure that any expansion of information-sharing powers is accompanied by robust protections, clear limitations on use and strong accountability mechanisms. While better data can drive better outcomes, that must not be achieved by placing sensitive information at risk of misuse, exposure or unauthorised access. This has happened before with the department; I received texts from a third party wanting to talk about my health concerns and my injuries and illnesses. This particular part does create some angst and anxiety, but we have had a clear assurance from the government, the minister and his department—and I thank him for that—that that will not be the case. Nevertheless, we just need to keep an eye on these things. The coalition will closely scrutinise the ministerial guidelines that will help protect this information and will work constructively, because it's our responsibility to make sure that our Defence Force personnel and veterans have that scrutiny and support but that, also, if it doesn't go in the direction it's supposed to, we can review it and change it.

Schedule 2 is about the Defence health system, seeking to modernise its legislative framework. The Defence health system occupies a unique and often difficult position. Unlike civilian services, it must provide individual care while simultaneously supporting operational readiness and assessing an individual's fitness for service. The royal commission found that existing legislative frameworks have not evolved in step with modern clinical practice in relation to mental health care, clinical governance and the management of health information.

The coalition supports the establishment of a clearer statutory framework that clarifies the roles within the system and provides authority for the collection of health information for monitoring and quality assurance. We welcome the alignment of Defence health governance with nationally recognised clinical governance standards. This has the potential to improve transparency and ensure that our personnel have access to high-quality care that meets contemporary expectations. Providing legal protections for practitioners participating in quality assurance, similar to those in civilian systems, is also a sensible and necessary step. But, once again, a balance must be struck. While Defence has a legitimate need to access health information to support readiness and safety, we must ensure that the privacy rights of personnel are not unnecessarily eroded. The success of these health reforms will be measured not by the creation of a new statutory framework but by whether they result in earlier intervention, improved continuity of care and better mental health outcomes.

Schedule 3 is about supporting families. Schedule 3 is a critical component of this bill as it recognises that families are the backbone of the defence community. We know that there is a profound connection between family circumstances, relationship breakdown and an elevated risk of suicide and self-harm. Behind every serving member is often a family sharing the burdens of service: the frequent relocations, the prolonged absences and the immense pressure of operational deployments. We must support measures that improve communication between Defence and families, ensuring families are better informed about the supports available to them.

I will note that this has developed over many years and has gotten better, but we can always strive to be better. The operational deployment tempo, the training tempo, the humanitarian tempo—they're all at high. Our members of the ADF could, with a moment's notice, be anywhere around the world, but we need to make sure that Defence has the supports in place for the families because the families are not just the backbone but also the driving force of many people's service. There's an old saying: 'A distracted soldier is a dead soldier.' It's quite a blunt saying, but, when you're on operations, the last thing you want to be thinking about is: Are my family getting the support they need? Are we relocating? Is there a GP in location? How is the schooling? Is the family unit going well? So we do support better supports for the family.

I also want to highlight that, most importantly, the schedule addresses the harrowing reality of family and domestic violence. The schedule ensures that a former partner is not excluded from support services simply because their relationship with the serving member has ended. Facilitating access to assistance for safe separation and improving the safety of victims-survivors are objectives the coalition strongly supports. No-one, regardless of service, has the right to commit heinous crimes and domestic violence, and the former spouse should not find themselves left without supports. This is a good part and a good measure, and I thank the minister for it. In the sensitive context of relationship breakdown, the need for stringent privacy protections and support is paramount. Families must have the confidence that their information will be handled appropriately, and we will be looking closely at the safeguards governing these specific information-sharing provisions.

Schedule 4, on integrity and service requirements, focuses on the standards of those who serve, establishing a more structured framework for service eligibility and separation. The coalition firmly believes that those entrusted with our national security must uphold the highest standards of conduct. Public confidence in the Australian Defence Force depends on maintaining a professional, disciplined and trusted military force. We strongly support the principle that individuals convicted and imprisoned for serious, violent or sexual offences should be automatically removed from the ADF and ineligible to return. I know that sounds like something that should just be a norm, but it hasn't been. We must maintain the highest standard of the ADF and never have loopholes or backdoors for those that have been convicted and imprisoned for violent offences or sexual offences to be able to continue to serve or get back into service.

These reforms create a more coherent and consistent framework for defence personnel and decision-makers, offering greater clarity and certainty around the processes and standards that apply across the member's service. By more clearly defining legislative requirements and decision-making criteria, they reduce the likelihood of inconsistent, subjective or ad hoc outcomes and support more transparent and accountable approach throughout Defence. Importantly, the reforms ensure that decisions regarding entry into service, ongoing suitability and separation are grounded in clear principles, fairness and appropriate oversight. In doing so, they enhance confidence and defence personnel's management processes and ensure decisions align with contemporary expectations of integrity, accountability and sound governance.

Schedule 5 is the importance of independent oversight. Finally, schedule 5 contains amendments to support the independence and effectiveness of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner. Independent oversight is not just an administrative hurdle; it is essential for driving lasting change and ensuring that governments remain accountable for delivering meaningful reform. Effective oversight will be the key to ensuring that lessons of the royal commission are translated into lasting and systematic improvements.

The coalition supports the objectives of this bill. We are mindful of the history of reform in this area. For too many, the system has been the source of frustration rather than support. We must be vigilant to ensure that these reforms do not simply result in further delays or layers of administration. The true measure of this legislation will not be the number of new frameworks created or the breadth of the provisions; it'll be in the lived experience of ADF personnel, veterans and their families. Will they experience faster claims processing? Will access to services and supports be improved? Will we see earlier and more effective information and intervention for those who are at risk? These are the metrics by which the parliament and further governments will be judged.

The coalition supports the referral of this legislation to a committee inquiry in the Senate. This process is not about delay; it's about diligence. It provides the opportunity for defence personnel, veterans, families and ex-service organisations to contribute their expertise and ensure that we get the details right. We owe it to our service community to ensure that the legislative framework reflects and supports the purpose it is intended to achieve. We look forward to engaging constructively throughout this process to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose.

The coalition recognises that the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill is a significant step in the right direction. We will not stand in the way of this bill's progression in the House today. We owe a debt of gratitude to our ADF members and our veterans and their families. We must ensure the systems of support are worthy of their sacrifice. I think, throughout these schedules, the expectation of what is needed is quite clear, but one of these schedules also places an expectation on our members of the ADF about what's acceptable behaviour and what's not.

I think that's a good thing because we cannot have issues, violent outbursts, convictions or sexual offences be not spoken about or create a backdoor for those who have committed these crimes to get back into the ADF. The general public around the country expects members of our ADF to be at the highest standard, and so do I, because when the time comes—and history shows it will—we will ask our brave men and women to travel to a foreign land, to stand side-by-side with our allies with the Australian flag on their shoulder and their will to win. They know there is no second best on the battlefield. Failure means death. They expect their government to have their back, support them, look after them and create legislation that reflects their needs.

That's what I think about when we bring legislation before the parliament for our brave men and women. If something happens through their service, whether it be in combat or training or humanitarian, they should get the support that they need and their families get the support they need because they deserve it. We in this place, on Anzac Day and every day, look at our veterans and say, 'Thank you for your service.' This is about ensuring that that thank you is not hollow, that that thank you has meaning and that they get that support.

This bill, I believe, is a step in the right direction. I really do. The Senate inquiry will examine, look through, poke holes and will fix some holes hopefully, and we'll be able to work together to consider feedback we've received from the ex-service organisations, from the veterans, from their families, from still serving people and from people that love the ADF that read legislation and want to add some free feedback as well. I think that that's a good thing. This is about getting it right the first time so we don't have to come back here and do it a second time. The coalition remains committed to that goal to support the health and wellbeing of those who serve, those who have served in the past and their families. We'll do this for you.

Debate adjourned.

I rise to speak on the Statute Update Bill 2026. The coalition recognises the important role that the statute update legislation plays in maintaining the quality and integrity of the Commonwealth Statute Book. These bills have long been a feature of good legislative practice. They correct drafting errors, update terminology and cross-references, repeal spent provisions and improve consistency across Commonwealth legislation. Keeping the law accurate, coherent and accessible benefits everyone from the courts and legal practitioners to government agencies and ordinary Australians seeking to understand their legal rights and obligations.

On its face, this bill is consistent with that longstanding purpose. Schedule 1 contains a large number of technical amendments across Commonwealth legislation, while schedule 2 repeals more than 100 obsolete amending acts that no longer have any operative effect. The overwhelming majority of the amendments appear to be precisely the kind of technical machinery changes that statute update bills are intended to contain. They correct drafting errors, modernise language update references and remove spent legislative provisions.

The coalition supports the principle that the Commonwealth Statute Book should be kept accurate and up to date. However, we also believe parliament has an obligation to verify, not simply assume, that legislation described as technical is in fact technical. Unfortunately, this government's legislative record gives parliament good reason to exercise that scrutiny. Too often we have seen legislation introduced in haste, legislation requiring significant correction after introduction or legislation producing unintended consequences because proper scrutiny was lacking. Australians expect better.

For that reason, the coalition will be seeking referral of this bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. That is not because we oppose this bill; rather, it is because parliament should take the opportunity to test the government's assertion that every amendment is genuinely technical and that no substantive legal rights, obligations or entitlements are affected.

A small number of amendments extend beyond straightforward editorial corrections. They include amendments affecting the Criminal Code, veterans legislation, radio communications, the Midwife Professional Indemnity Scheme, marine safety legislation, family law, freedom of information and electoral legislation. Those amendments may well be entirely mechanical in nature, and, if they are, the government should have no difficulty explaining them to the committee and placing that explanation on the public record. In particular, we would expect confirmation that the amendments affecting veterans legislation have no impact whatsoever on veterans entitlements, that the relocation of existing statutory powers does not alter their legal operation and that the repeal of transitional provisions has no continuing legal consequences.

That is exactly the purpose of the committee process. It strengthens parliamentary scrutiny, it improves transparency and it provides confidence that the legislation described as technical does not, inadvertently or otherwise, produce substantive legal change. Good lawmaking is not just about good drafting; it is about careful scrutiny. It is about ensuring parliament understands precisely what it is being asked to pass.

Accordingly, while the coalition supports the objectives of maintaining an accurate and coherent statute book, we believe this bill should first be examined by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee before proceeding through the Senate.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Since this government was elected, we've been focused on strengthening Australia's social security system to make it fairer, easier to access and better able to support people when they need it most.

This is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government.

We have also been hard at work restoring trust in our social security system. Without this trust, the social security system loses legitimacy in the eyes of our community.

We understand the importance of the social security, family payment and child support systems to all Australians. Help has to be available when and where Australians need it most.

This bill builds on the significant improvements the government has made since the 2022 election, restoring fairness and adequacy for many income-support and family-payment recipients, as well as children and parents supported by the Child Support Scheme.

We have raised the rate of working-age and student payments, providing real increases in support for low-income Australians.

We have increased the annual single rate of JobSeeker payments by more than $4,300 a year; this is the result of the government's increase to working-age and student payments of $40 per fortnight, along with regular indexation.

Commonwealth rent assistance maximum rates have increased by over 50 per cent through the government's real increases in 2023 and 2024 as well as indexation.

We have made sure support is going to those who need it with our changes to parenting payment single eligibility, which has benefited around 200,000 single principal carers since September 2023.

From today, new parents will benefit from our expansion to paid parental leave.

Our changes mean:

Thanks to Labor's changes, families accessing the full entitlement will receive almost $30,000 across their paid parental leave.

That's more than double the entitlement they received before Labor returned to government, and last year we started paying superannuation on paid parental leave, which means that the retirement income gap for working parents is also reduced.

Over 1.2 million families with children will also benefit from indexation increases to family tax benefit from today.

For example, a family with a child over 13 receiving family tax benefit part A will see an increase of $10.64 per fortnight. This family is now receiving over $1,500 a year more in family tax benefit than when we came to government.

Around one million aged pension, disability support pension and carer payment recipients will also benefit with increases to income and asset thresholds. This means that payment recipients including older Australians will be able to have more income and more assets before their payments are affected.

Most recently, through the passage of legislation late last year, the government increased the small debt waiver threshold for the first time in 30 years to $250.

The threshold will be indexed from today, increasing to $260, and will continue to be indexed annually in line with the changes to the consumer price index. We expect that in 2025-26 alone around 1.2 million undetermined debts will have been waived or will not be raised at all.

Access to the special circumstances debt waiver was expanded to better protect victims-survivors of domestic and family violence from coercive social security debt. The waiver can now be applied more widely and more fairly in situations where a person has genuine limitations on their ability to comply with their reporting requirements.

This includes cases of family and domestic violence, where a debt arises due to coercion or financial abuse.

Since December 2025, more than 500 social security and family payment debts have been waived where family and domestic violence was recorded.

In the recent budget, the government announced significant reforms to make the child support system safer and more effective for Australian children and their parents.

The bill before the parliament today is another important milestone in our efforts to restore the integrity of our social security, family payment and child support systems.

This bill includes measures which resolve some historical legal and compliance issues that have been identified with the operation of these systems.

It builds on work that we have been progressing as a government.

Over the last two years, the government has passed four pieces of legislation to address historical legal and compliance issues in the social security and child support systems.

With these amendments, we have taken action to resolve outstanding legal and compliance issues identified in the operation of the social security, family payment and child support systems.

Many of these issues have been impacting the operation of these critical systems since well before our government was elected.

The bill ensures systems are up to date, are working effectively and that people can have confidence in their integrity and the support they can rely on.

We need to make sure people have confidence in the safety net so they can take a step forward and take up opportunities.

This is a largely technical bill, reflecting the need for regular updates to ensure legislation remains up to date. It enables efficient and fair administration for the benefit of people who are supported by the social security and child support systems.

The bill also responds to priorities identified through Services Australia's Legal Compliance and Remediation Program.

Many compliance issues are being resolved simply by operational or system changes at Services Australia, but others require legislation.

Minister Gallagher and I are actively responding to these issues as they arise.

This bill strengthens our social security safety net by ensuring there is legislative clarity in how the social security, family payment and child support systems support people.

The bill includes the following technical changes.

Advance Payments

Advance payments allow income support or Family Tax Benefit recipients to receive a lump sum advance of their entitlement. The money is then repaid through a deduction of a person's future payments.

Advance payments are an important part of the social security and Family Tax Benefit systems, with approximately 2.7 million advance payments being granted in the 2024-25 financial year.

The bill makes technical changes to provide legal certainty for Services Australia's administration of advance payments and continue current service delivery arrangements. We are removing outdated provisions related to social security and Family Tax Benefit advances, including the requirement for Services Australia to be satisfied that the repayments won't cause the person to suffer financial hardship.

This allows people to continue to access advance payments when they need it most and at a time and place that suits them.

We are also aligning Mobility Allowance debt recovery provisions with the usual debt raising practices for social security and Family Tax Benefit advances, improving legislative consistency across the social security system.

Pre-issue Income Data

The bill also makes technical changes to ensure that Services Australia can use income data supplied by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) before a notice of assessment is issued. This is known as pre-issue income data.

For 99.8 per cent of people, their income information doesn't change once a notice of assessment is issued.

Pre-issue income is used for child support, Family Tax Benefit, Single Income Family Supplement and Child Care Subsidy purposes.

The bill allows Services Australia to use pre-issue income data to finalise or reconcile Family Tax Benefit or Child Care Subsidy payments and administer the child support scheme, rather than having to rely on tax-assessed income information.

It also ensures that people's incomes can be updated if Services Australia receives new income data.

The amendments ensure that Services Australia can make accurate payments for families seeking assistance, and make accurate and timely child support assessments. This aligns with Services Australia's current practices.

It will allow claims to be assessed as early as possible based on pre-issue income data supplied by the ATO, rather than having to wait longer for the final tax-assessed amount. These changes will mean payments can be updated without having to wait for the final assessment. For recipients like single mums caring for their children waiting on child support, this will mean more accurate payments sooner, fewer back payments for underpayments and less debt collection for overpayments.

These changes will ensure child support assessments are timely and accurate and will protect child support debt collection opportunities through the tax-refund interception process, which collects around $41 million in child support debt owed to children every year.

The small proportion of cases where there is a difference between the pre-issue income data and the final tax-assessed amount are corrected through reconciliation processes or automatic adjustments.

The bill also includes the following amendments to improve the operation of the social security, family payment and child support systems:

All the amendments contained in this bill, while technical in nature, will ensure the social security, family assistance and child support systems can better operate as intended and provide assistance to those who need it in a more streamlined and accessible way.

Together, they continue our work restoring trust in Australia's social security system and ensuring our safety net provides the assistance people need.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australian farmers, fishers, foresters and producers make an extraordinary contribution to our country. They feed us, they support regional jobs and communities, and they help drive our national economy.

The latest ABARES forecasts show the value of agriculture, fisheries and forestry is expected to reach $110 billion in 2025-26. That reflects the hard work, resilience and skill of Australia's world-class producers.

This bill is part of the Australian government's support for our agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors.

The bill will amend two acts:

The amendments to the Wine Act will enable Wine Australia to conduct or coordinate surveys of the grape industry or wine industry to support the operation of the Wine Act, or the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 in relation to the grape industry or wine industry.

It will also support the government's response to the Review of regulatory options for the wine and grape sector, conducted by Dr Craig Emerson, which recommended stronger transparency in wine grape purchasing arrangements.

The government has agreed to the review's recommendation that winemakers should make earlier, binding offers for each grape variety they seek under contract from the Riverland, Murray Darling and Swan Hill, and Riverina regions, and that those offer prices should be made public.

The measures in the bill relating to the collection and disclosure of certain information will modernise and strengthen the Wine Act, while ensuring that protected information is afforded appropriate safeguards. The bill will, for example, authorise entrusted persons to use and disclose relevant information obtained and collected under the Wine Act to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to support the regulation of the proposed mandatory code of conduct for wine grape purchases as announced by the government.

Without these amendments, the wine sector's ability to respond to industry challenges would be reduced, and the ACCC's ability to identify businesses captured by the mandatory code would be limited.

The government has undertaken broad industry consultation, including engagement with industry bodies to seek feedback on the proposed changes to the wine act.

The amendments to the collection act will enable the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, known as ABARES, to use and disclose personal information, particularly personal information collected via the agricultural levy and charge system for the performance of its functions, including research and data analysis.

ABARES provides independent data, research, analysis and advice that informs public and private decisions affecting Australian agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Since 2025, ABARES has been able to use and disclose certain levy and charge data for the purposes of performing its functions, except personal information.

The changes will allow ABARES to confidentially disclose personal information to third-party providers to assist ABARES in performing its function of conducting critical annual agricultural surveys—that is, ABARES could provide the contact details of survey participants to mailing companies to enable those companies to send survey approach letters and survey materials to the participants on behalf of ABARES.

The changes will strengthen the quality of ABARES's agricultural surveys, improving research outcomes and delivering broader benefits across the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector.

Existing and new safeguards in the act, as well as the department's existing privacy controls, will ensure that personal information is used, disclosed, stored and destroyed appropriately by third parties. The Privacy Act would also continue to apply to personal information handled by the department.

The bill will also make a technical change to the power of the secretary of the department to make disallowable rules so the provisions can operate as intended.

The department has consulted with representatives of levied industries, as well as research and development corporations and other levy and charge recipients, about the changes. These changes will strengthen the agricultural levy and charge system and, by strengthening ABARES's research and analysis capacities, provide lasting benefits to the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector.

These are practical changes. They will strengthen the ability of Wine Australia and ABARES to continue their important research work, support better decisions, and help industry keep building a strong future.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australia's biosecurity system plays a critical role in protecting our environment, world-class agricultural and animal production sectors, economy, and way of life.

It safeguards Australia's favourable pest and disease status, underpins domestic productivity, and provides access to international markets.

That system, however, is now operating in a vastly more complex and challenging risk environment.

Rising volumes of travellers and goods, changing disease profiles, climate impacts and increasing time pressures at the border require a biosecurity framework that is adaptive, intelligence led, and operationally efficient now more than ever before.

We regularly see how real these risks are.

In 2025 alone, biosecurity officers inspected more than 280,000 commercial air and sea consignments and intercepted over 359,000 incoming travellers. More recently, in just the month of March this year, over 3,000 mail items and over 33,300 travellers were intercepted with biosecurity risk material.

These efforts prevented tens of thousands of harmful pests and diseases from entering Australia.

The Albanese Labor government acknowledge this more complex and challenging environment means we must invest to ensure our nation's biosecurity effort is fit for purpose.

That's why since coming to office we have delivered over $2 billion in additional resourcing to strengthen Australia's biosecurity system.

We also understand that a strong biosecurity system relies on robust laws that enable efficient operations and informed regulatory decision-making.

Today's border environment requires streamlined, better informed decisions at the point of entry, while maintaining Australia's high biosecurity standards.

This bill responds directly to those needs by focusing on two specific deliverables.

Firstly, it provides the first step to modernising the way travellers provide information through new methods, including the digital Australia travel declaration. By allowing information to be provided earlier and more accurately, it supports faster and stronger biosecurity decision-making.

The Australia travel declaration pilot has already shown real benefits, including smoother passenger flows, reduced congestion and faster processing at the border without compromising our biosecurity standards. Biosecurity officers are able to access information provided by incoming travellers more easily, which allows them to focus their efforts on higher risk travellers and goods.

Secondly, the bill improves transparency and fairness for biosecurity industry participants by introducing a clear notice-of-intention process for decisions relating to approved arrangements. This gives applicants the opportunity to respond before decisions are made, supporting a more consistent and transparent regulatory system.

Together, these amendments strengthen operational effectiveness at the border, improve regulatory decision-making and support better engagement with industry, while maintaining Australia's uncompromising biosecurity standards.

The bill also makes a minor and technical amendment to the Biosecurity Act, to remove the use of a defined term. This removes ambiguity and assists in ensuring provisions of the Biosecurity Act are clear.

Australia's biosecurity system is rightly regarded as strong and effective, but good performance in the past does not justify complacency in the future.

Maintaining the trust of our farmers and international trading partners requires continuous improvement and innovation as risks, technologies and the operating environment evolve. Our biosecurity legislative framework must remain contemporary, adaptive, and proportionate.

This bill facilitates this by delivering a more responsive biosecurity framework that meets this expectation. It enables the long-overdue transition from paper based information gathering to modern digital options such as the Australia travel declaration. It improves procedural fairness for approved arrangements with greater clarity around regulatory decisions.

Australia's biosecurity system is central to our ability to compete on a global stage. Forging stronger links between innovation, operational delivery and legislative clarity is essential to ensuring we remain resilient, adaptive, responsive, and trusted as a trading nation.

This bill reflects a practical and forward-looking approach to strengthening Australia's biosecurity system for the future. It supports innovation and ensures our biosecurity laws continue to make a meaningful difference for Australia now and into the future.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Every older Australian deserves care that sees them, knows them, and treats them with respect.

That looks different for everyone.

For older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, that means care that understands their culture, their history, and—in many cases—the adversity they have faced.

This bill delivers something that will give older First Nations Australians a clear voice to government: Australia's first permanent, independent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner.

It was a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and today this Labor government delivers it.

The case for this role is clear. Older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more likely to need aged care, and more likely to need it earlier in life. Yet they use it at lower rates than other Australians.

We can't continue to shy away from why that is. For so many older First Nations people, aged care has felt like a system built by others, for others, a system that asked them to leave their country or island home, to move far from family, to explain themselves in a language that wasn't their first.

For some, reaching out for care means trusting institutions that have given their families little reason to. That history shapes the choices that people make today.

When a care system doesn't understand a person, they don't work around the system—they simply disengage from it. They wait longer. They get sicker. And too often people miss out on the dignity that they deserve in that care.

While there's much work to do to build back the trust of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians that care institutions have eroded over decades and centuries, this commissioner is a profound step forward.

This is about building the structures that give every older Australian the same opportunities and the same access to dignified, joyful later years.

The commissioner will be a strong and independent advocate. They'll work to make sure that, in every corner of our nation—in the cities, in the bush and on the islands—aged care is culturally safe, is sensitive to trauma, and is responsive to the people that it serves.

The commissioner will advise on how government should move to improve and expand access to care, and support genuine co-design of policies and programs for First Nations people. They'll promote cultural capability across the sector, so that the people delivering care understand the people receiving it.

They'll help more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations become registered providers—because care delivered by community, in community, is often the care that works best.

And they'll help us lift the number of First Nations people working in aged care, so older people can see themselves in the people who look after them.

The commissioner will sit within the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, with an independent statutory role. This is a similar model to how the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner has been established.

That placement is deliberate, and it is a strength. It connects an independent First Nations voice directly to the levers that regulate aged care, and builds capability across the sector.

It means their advocacy doesn't stop at advice; it will have teeth. This includes powers to collect information and report publicly on what they hear from the community.

It reaches into how providers are registered, how quality is measured and held accountable, and, importantly, how care is delivered on the ground—an independent voice, with a direct line to the parts of the system that can act on what it says, including the minister of the day and the system governor.

This role has been shaped by the people it's for. The outgoing Interim First Nations Aged Care Commissioner, Ms Andrea Kelly, travelled the country and listened deeply.

She held 135 forums and met with more than 1,000 older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, their families, communities, and providers. She heard what was working, what wasn't, and what people wanted this role to be.

As I have visited Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and services around the country, I have heard of the power of that commissioner role—to bring a First Nations voice to where change can be made.

We'll run a robust, competitive process to make sure that the very best commissioner is appointed—someone who has a track record as a respected and trusted leader from the community.

But we know that appointing a commissioner doesn't get us all the way.

There is so much more work for government to do to make Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aged care as culturally safe in practice, in every instance, as it is intended in the Aged Care Act.

That work has commenced—with the enshrining of those rights, with the exemption of redress payments, with the work of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.

But we will continue that work until every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in Australia knows that aged care is a system they can trust and rely on—and the commissioner will play a central role in support of our work to achieve that end.

This bill does more than establish the commissioner. It features technical, but important, components to strengthen the system that older Australians rely on every day.

It makes permanent a set of measures, enacted through rules, that have kept the new Aged Care Act running smoothly since it commenced on 1 November 2025, giving older people and providers the continuity and certainty that they have needed through this transition.

It strengthens protections for older people—making clear the obligation on providers to refund contributions and fees that have been overcharged or overpaid.

It makes a practical fix so elected local councillors are no longer captured as responsible persons under the act. This brings local government in line with state and territory governments, and it keeps councils delivering aged care in the communities that depend upon them.

And it makes a range of further technical amendments to keep the act operating as intended as the sector continues its transition.

Examples include a small but important change to ensure individuals have flexibility to choose how they pay for residential aged care while they await the outcome of the means testing.

These are sensible improvements. They keep faith with the reforms this parliament has already passed, and they keep the system working for the people that it serves.

But at the heart of this bill is a simple idea. Older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people deserve a louder voice in their own care, and now they'll have one.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australia has long benefited from international engagement whether it be through education, cultural exchange, research collaboration or trade.

These connections strengthen our economy, enrich our society, and extend our global influence.

But we live in an increasingly complex and contested world. Where foreign engagement brings both opportunities and new risks.

Strategic competition has the potential to play out at every level of engagement between nations, including at a subnational level.

In this environment, it is essential that Australia's international engagement remains consistent with our national interest.

The Foreign Arrangements Scheme was introduced in 2020 to provide visibility and oversight of these foreign engagements.

It applies to state, territory and local governments and public universities, and requires notification, and in some cases approval of, arrangements with foreign entities, particularly foreign government departments, agencies and universities that lack independence in their governance. Since 2020, over 22,000 notifications have been received—demonstrating the breadth of Australia's international engagement and the importance of maintaining appropriate oversight.

The scheme has enabled the Australian government to work cooperatively with states, territories, local governments and universities to support beneficial partnerships while managing risk. Where necessary, it has enabled decisive action, including earlier this year, when the government prohibited entry into two arrangements with Russian and Belarusian entities. In 2024, the government commissioned an independent review of the scheme led by Rosemary Huxtable. As part of the review, Ms Huxtable consulted widely across federal, state, territory and local governments and Australian universities to hear their views and their concerns about the operation and the structure of the scheme. While the review confirmed the scheme is working, it identified opportunities to strengthen its effectiveness. Attention should be concentrated on areas of greatest risk, while compliance should be simplified and the regulatory burden reduced.

This bill responds to the review's findings, and this bill implements a number of those recommendations that were made by Ms Huxtable. Its amendments would strengthen the scheme's framework by sharpening the focus on Australia's national interest and enhancing the tools available to manage risk. The bill will streamline the scheme's operation by simplifying processes and reducing administrative burden, particularly for lower risk arrangements. Together, these reforms ensure that the scheme continues to support international engagement while protecting Australia's interests.

The bill strengthens the legislative framework in several ways. It embeds the national interest explicitly in the object of the act, ensuring decisions are guided by a comprehensive view of Australia's security, economic and foreign policy interests. It expands our ability to manage risk, including by allowing conditions to be imposed on foreign arrangements both at the point of approval and during their operation. This provides a more flexible and proportionate response than outright refusal or cancellation. It enhances whole-of-government coordination by enabling information collected under the scheme to be shared with relevant Commonwealth entities, supporting better informed decision-making across portfolios. It ensures emerging forms of international engagement are appropriately captured, including by extending the scheme to arrangements entered into by overseas campuses of Australian universities. It improves the government's ability to respond to noncompliance, including by allowing the minister to address inadvertent breaches in a flexible and proportionate way. At the same time, the bill reduces unnecessary burden and simplifies the operation of the scheme. It reduces regulatory requirements for lower risk arrangements, including removing unnecessary approval steps for minor variations and renewals of arrangements that have already been assessed.

It clarifies key concepts, such as institutional autonomy, making the scheme easier to apply and reducing administrative complexity for regulated entities. It improves the operation of the public register, ensuring it reflects current arrangements and focuses on the most significant decisions. This enhances its accuracy, usability and transparency. And it gives the government more flexible administrative tools, including targeted delegation and limited extensions of decision timeframes, so that complex arrangements can be properly assessed.

Together, these measures simplify the scheme whilst maintaining appropriate oversight. These reforms strike the right balance. They support Australia's continued international engagement, engagement that delivers enormous economic, cultural and strategic benefit for our nation. They ensure that engagement is conducted in a way that protects Australia's broader national interests. They strengthen risk management, reduce unnecessary burden and modernise the framework to meet the realities of a more contested world. This bill ensures the Foreign Arrangements Scheme remains clear, effective and fit for purpose, supporting openness while safeguarding our national interests.

Debate adjourned.

The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating a member to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Education for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the factors driving educational attainment.

by leave—I move:

That Mr L O'Brien be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Education for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the factors driving educational attainment.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I feel a little like an imposter talking on this bill. Many of my colleagues who know me know that I'm probably best described as a Luddite. Even as a Luddite, in this role one has to be across the role of online presences. In fact, I am wanted, recently, to describe myself to colleagues, members of the party and constituents otherwise as a 'content creator'. I've got to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, when I entered the parliament in 2013, if someone told me it was a condition of this role that I would have to become a digital content creator, I would have stayed in the law and transitioned to the farm. I wouldn't have sought preselection. I wouldn't have worked very hard to obtain that preselection and then worked very hard during the election of 2013 and subsequent elections since then. But the truth is that, in the modern age, if you want to share and communicate with your constituency, or if you're in business and you want to share and communicate with customers, if you're not on a digital platform then you're missing out. And young people have gained aptitude towards digital acumen faster than any other cohort in the country. I've got a 16-year-old and a 10-year-old, and their acumen around digital platforms and these things is just a sight to behold.

I'm not one of those people who come in here and say that everything about online experiences is wrong. I don't conform to that view. Like everything, there need to be appropriate safeguards; there need to be appropriate barriers. That is what we're seeking to achieve here, and I of course support my colleague the member for Lindsay's amendment. But it is important that we understand that, as positive as experiences can be in the digital online environment, there are also substantial risks. Like others, I've read of very tragic circumstances. I've had constituents, parents, come to me concerned about the way algorithms are seeking to lock young people in. In fact, I myself am someone who has to check how long I spend online and how connected I can become to my devices. It's why perhaps I love time on the farm—because you just put the phone away, you get on with life and then you reconnect at some other point.

So this is an important space. It's one where we need to get the balance right. I commend to the House my colleague the member for Lindsay's amendment.

The government's first duty is to protect its citizens and, arguably, its most vulnerable citizens—in this case, children. Today that duty extends into a digital world, where the playground has actually moved online and where too often it is unpoliced and unsafe.

I recently received a deeply concerning account from a constituent in my electorate. They wrote about 15- and 11-year-old siblings from their community that have a Zoomerang account—I didn't even know there was one—and have been 'known to post or repost up to 30 videos a day'. She wrote:

After the (social media) ban was implemented, when she was 11 years old, she opened a TikTok account.

Both girls discuss issues of declining mental health, including suicidal ideation, self-harm (cutting), body dysmorphia, bullying, and, in the 15-year old's case, allegations of sexual assault.

My constituent asks that there be some sort of agency or protocol where these accounts can be collated, investigated and closed where applicable. My constituent goes on:

Concerns for the welfare of the children have been raised with the mother, a primary school, child protection, and, after a particularly concerning series of Zoomerang videos, a welfare check was requested of the police. There has been no visible or positive response from any of the places we expect to protect our children, with the younger girl telling police she is fine. This is when she stopped posting on Zoomerang and opened a TikTok account with her mother's knowledge.

This is what this government's policy failure looks like in real time.

The coalition led the way in November 2023 with our private member's bill to impose age verification online. Labor rejected it and then, in the 2024 budget, accepted it. We pledged in June 2024 that we would deliver the under-16s social media ban, which Labor, thankfully, copied.

What we know is that around five million social media accounts of children under 16 have been removed, deactivated or restricted since our world-first social media ban began. Apparently, five platforms are being investigated by the eSafety Commissioner for potential noncompliance with the ban. A University of Newcastle study, published in the British Medical Journal, found the initial age restrictions have had limited impact, finding that, among the 408 12- to 17-year-olds that were questioned three months after the ban, over 80 per cent continued to use restricted platforms and around two-thirds had encountered age-verification measures. The eSafety Commissioner's March 2026 compliance update found 70 per cent of children were still on social media. As constituents are telling us and as evidence shows, current platform safeguards and reporting mechanisms are not working as intended. Even after intervention attempts by schools, child protection and police, nothing changes. The behaviour simply moves platforms. That is not protection; that's circumvention.

The parliament agreed on the goal of protecting children online, but the current framework has not delivered. As other countries considered social media bans, Labor rushed their initiative out the door so they could claim international credit for being the first. We know that, despite the ban, large numbers of children are still accessing these platforms because enforcement has been weak and the regulator has not been given the tools it needs.

The Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 attempts to correct what, arguably, was Labor's very poor first attempt at legislating in this area. While constituents have concerns about the reach of the eSafety Commissioner's current powers, the coalition supports regulators having more teeth, so long as those teeth are to be used on big tech. We will be vigilant and critical if these powers are misdirected at the Australian people.

We must be honest about what we're dealing with here. These are not neutral platforms. They are global businesses whose model depends on keeping users engaged at all costs. User engagement is driven by algorithms designed to maximise attention and influence behaviour. People of all ages are at risk of being influenced into negative behaviour patterns by these algorithms, but younger people are particularly vulnerable as they have not developed the critical thinking or awareness of the dangers that lurk in the dark corners of the internet. If we're not careful, we risk raising a generation conditioned for constant stimulation where deeper thinking is crowded out and attention is shaped by algorithmic incentives rather than independent judgement—or, as I like to call it, the flea brain.

I want to draw the House's attention to a judgement on 25 March in Los Angeles, where a young woman, now aged 20, initialled KGM, sued Meta and YouTube, having started using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at the age of nine. She argued that Meta intentionally engineered their platforms to be addictive, that their design caused compulsive use and that this led to depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts. She alleged the addictive design features included infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, algorithmic recommendation feeds, push notifications and reward-style engagement. Experts in the case likened the design features to cigarettes and poker machines. A Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube were negligent, designed addictive products, failed to warn users and ultimately caused harm, with Meta ordered to pay US$4.2 million and YouTube US$1.8 million. Apparently, TikTok and Snapchat settled with the same female plaintiff before trial.

There are reportedly thousands of similar cases in the US alone. Yet this government, our government, is slowly, slowly developing a digital duty of care. I share that recent American legal example from just months ago to illustrate that there is a duty of care and there is legal liability and that, as lawmakers, we have a duty to the Australian public. At the same time, Australians are rightly cautious about overreach. This is not about heavy-handed control or undermining freedoms. It is about getting the balance right because what we have now is not working. As I have said to constituents who wrote to me concerned about overreach, we are not doing our job as parliamentarians elected to represent our 120,000 or so constituents, more in Mallee's case, and their children if we do not address risks to real harm, risks that can lead to serious harm or even death in our communities. It is not acceptable to throw up our hands and say, 'Well, that's online and that's unregulated.' What is the point of this place, our parliament, if we do not try and protect our citizens? We might as well pack up, go home and let the multibillionaires, if not trillionaires, govern Australia from their condos.

That's why Australia imposed the world's first social media ban as a bipartisan measure, fully aware that it was never going to be easy or perfect. But principle matters, and this is a very important principle for Australian mothers, Australian fathers, Australian children, safety and, indeed, Australian sovereignty. This is ultimately a public health issue, one that requires careful evidence-based policy, and protecting young people, particularly the most vulnerable, must be our No. 1 priority.

As shadow minister for regional communications, I commented recently on the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman's, or TIO, calls for greater powers to advocate for Australians who cannot get a fair go from big tech. The TIO released a report in June revealing four out of five Australians have experienced problems with digital services in the past reporting year, with one in three being an online retailer or marketplace, and, more specifically for this bill, 29 per cent being social media platforms. Australians are losing an estimated $497 million annually due to problems with digital services, the TIO says. Now, this might not seem about esafety, but it speaks very clearly to the accountability vacuum big tech thinks it has in Australia. This bill today sends them a message. They are accountable. We will hold them accountable.

Australian businesses—startups and small businesses—rely increasingly on social media to promote their businesses, meaning that when their account is shut down, blocked, hacked or attacked, a lack of access or action costs money, sometimes lots of money. Social media platforms need to do more in this space, as does the government. As I said to one of my local newspapers recently, I have been very active in advocating for scam victims among my constituents, scams that often arise on digital platforms. While I note the government has been handwringing for years on this topic, there is a broader dispute resolution policy needed, in addition to scams, for Australians or businesses harmed by digital platforms. Individuals and businesses alike find platforms inflexible and unaccountable despite their reliance on them for connection and, in business cases, income, and I expect the government to do much better for Australians in this space. They may feel they've got global attention on the social media ban, but the world will really sit up and take notice if digital platforms are held more accountable for harming Australians and Australian businesses.

This bill strengthens enforcement, and that is necessary, but enforcement alone will not fix a system where harm can simply shift from one platform to another. We need real accountability for platforms, real tools for families and a government that understands this problem deeply enough to get ahead of it because, right now, too many families feel like they are shouting into the void while the system that is meant to protect their children simply does not respond. Social media has become woven into almost every aspect of daily life. It's how young people communicate, learn, socialise and understand the world around them. The opportunities are extraordinary, but so too are the risks.

Across my community, I've heard from countless parents who are deeply concerned about what their children are seeing online, often in the privacy of their bedrooms. They tell me they're struggling to keep up with technologies that seem to evolve faster than families can adapt. They worry about exposure to violent content; harmful algorithms; cyberbullying; scams; predatory, paedophilic behaviour; and the relentless pressure that social media can place on young people's mental health. These concerns are real, and they deserve to be taken seriously.

When Australia's world-first social media minimum age laws came into force in December last year, there was broad agreement that something needed to change, but there were also significant warnings from technical experts, mental health organisations and online safety specialists that we were legislating before many of the practical questions had been answered. There were concerns that—without meaningful and longer consultation, without robust evidence and without a credible implementation strategy—children would simply find ways around the restrictions. Unfortunately, much of that has proven to be true.

Shortly after the laws came into effect, the eSafety Commissioner reported that around 4.7 million age restricted accounts had been removed from social media platforms. That sounds significant, but, only a few months later, the commissioner's own reporting showed that around 70 per cent of children who had accounts before the ban were still accessing restricted platforms. I've heard the exact same story from families in my electorate. Parents tell me that their children know exactly how to get around restrictions. Young people have shown me themselves just how straightforward it can be to bypass the age checks using false birth dates and VPNs and even by drawing beards with pen on their chins or with other workarounds. This should concern us all because, when a child lies about their age to gain access, they're not entering a version of these platforms designed for children. They're entering platforms that are designed for adults that are simply not safe for them.

Implementing a ban has removed the obligation for platforms to make their content safe, and the additional safeguards that might otherwise apply disappear. The algorithms treat them as adults, the content they are recommended changes and the protections that we intended to provide can be lost entirely. Added to this is the reality that legislation is only as effective as its enforcement, which brings me to the bill before the House today.

The Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 gives the eSafety Commissioner stronger powers to investigate whether digital platforms are genuinely meeting their legal obligations. It expands the commissioner's ability to compel documents and information from social media companies and other relevant organisations, allowing closer scrutiny of the systems they have put in place to enforce minimum age requirements. It also substantially increases the penalties for companies that fail to comply. These are really sensible reforms, and I welcome them.

We already know that the eSafety Commissioner is examining whether several major platforms are meeting their obligations under the law. Strengthening the commissioner's investigative powers and increasing the consequences for noncompliance will better equip the regulator to hold companies to account. For those reasons, I support the bill, but supporting this bill does not mean pretending it solves every problem. There remain important questions about the broader impacts of minimum age laws themselves.

Throughout the original debate, many mental health organisations cautioned against assuming that simply removing young people from social media would automatically improve their well-being. Their concern was not that online harms do not exist. They clearly do. Their concern was that many young people also rely on online spaces for connection, support and belonging. That remains true today.

For many young Australians, social media is where they access news, educational content and creative learning. It's where they stay connected with friends and family. It is where they participate in their communities and engage in public debate. This is particularly true for the LGBTQIA+ young people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, young people living in regional and remote Australia and young Australians living with disability. For many of these young people, online communities can provide support, understanding and connection that may not be available in their immediate surroundings.

The challenge before us has never been simply about removing children from online spaces. It's about making these online spaces safer for all users in the first place. This bill does not fix the underlying problem that too many digital platforms remain fundamentally unsafe by design. That's why I believe one of the most important pieces of unfinished work before this parliament is the government's proposed digital duty of care. Done properly, this has the potential to be genuinely transformative.

A digital duty of care represents a public health approach to online safety. Rather than responding only to harm after it occurs, it requires companies to identify foreseeable risks and take reasonable steps to prevent them from before they occur. It shifts the responsibility upstream. Instead of asking families to navigate increasingly sophisticated technologies alone, it places obligations on the companies designing those technologies. It would require platforms to think much more carefully about the products they build, the algorithm recommendation systems they deploy and the incentives they create. It means moving beyond simply removing harmful content after it has spread. It means asking whether algorithms should be amplifying that content in the first place.

It also means giving people the power to create their algorithms and to opt out of harmful algorithms—to opt out of content like eating disorder content, self-harm or misogynistic content. This is something that Chanel Contos and Teach Us Consent are calling for—that power for individuals to curate their own algorithms and make sure that they're not getting content that they just do not want to see.

It also means expecting companies developing AI powered services, chatbots and digital platforms to consider how their products might affect children and vulnerable users before those products are released into the world. That is what safe by design should mean, because, ultimately, we cannot regulate our way out of this challenge simply by telling children to stay away. We must also expect the companies making billions of dollars from Australia to build products that are safe for users.

This bill is a worthwhile step towards stronger enforcement, and I'm pleased to support it, but I also encourage the government to be equally ambitious in what comes next. As it develops the digital duty of care, I urge the government to continue consulting widely with parents, educators, mental health experts, technical specialists, young people themselves and the broader community. If we get this right, Australia has the opportunity to lead the world not just in restricting access but in creating digital spaces that are genuinely safer, healthier and better designed for everyone.

I thank those members who have made a positive contribution to this urgent debate on the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. The government will not support the member for Kooyong's second reading amendment, as it largely deals with matters unrelated to this bill. I note that the government will introduce a gambling reform bill to the House this week, which includes measures outlined in the government's response to the You win some, you lose more report.

I also want to recognise the contributions made by the member for Moreton, the member for Brisbane, the member for Flinders, the member for Whitlam, the member for Curtin, the member for Kooyong, the member for Wentworth, the member for Flinders and the member for Mackellar in backing the government's commitment to deliver a digital duty of care.

Building on the social media minimum age, the Albanese government will this year introduce a digital duty of care that will require all digital service providers, including social media platforms, to adopt safety by design, maximise user choice and transparency and have systems in place to prevent the harm before it occurs. This includes harm from personalised, algorithmic recommender systems that maximise engagement and profit before user wellbeing; systems that amplify extreme content, entrench social biases and negatively impact mental health through addiction and harmful online comparisons; systems that send users down rabbit holes and create echo chambers that fuel division or extremism in the community; and systems that cause psychosocial harm by rewarding emotional intensity and conflict.

Creating a digital duty of care is complex policy and cannot be rushed, but the Albanese government is committed to working with all sides of parliament to get it right because all Australians, not just young people, are relying on us to regulate the tools that are causing us systemic harm.

On the social media minimum age bill before us, the government will not support the opposition's second reading amendment, which fails to meaningfully contribute to the bill and seeks to score cheap political points. Emma Mason, an incredible parent advocate who fought for the original bill and supports our efforts to strengthen the eSafety Commissioner's powers, said:

I pray that the silly point scoring nonsense we saw in late 2025 is behind us. It was a consensus law that passed in December 2024, and we need all Australian politicians to continue to get behind this legislation. Children's safety is not a political ball to be kicked around.

I call on all members to rise to Emma's call to action and support the bill. We must come together and stand on the side of parents and kids, not platforms. Delaying or blocking passage means delaying or blocking accountability of the social media companies. I thank the House.

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

Question negatived.

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lindsay be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 23), after "circumstances", insert "(other than the person's linguistic environment)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 30), at the end of subsection 25A(1), add:

; and (d) is linguistically and culturally accessible at the person's geographical location.

(3) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 31) to page 36 (line 4), omit subsection 25A(2).

In my second reading contribution, I raised serious concerns about how the 'appropriate treatment' provisions in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 would play out for families in communities like mine. My three amendments today go directly to those concerns. They are not an attempt to delay or derail reform. They are an attempt to make it work for the people who will be hurt most if we get this wrong. I have moved these amendments not to stop reform but to make sure reform is fair, inclusive, practical and safe for people living with disability from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds—people who already face additional barriers when trying to navigate a government system that is highly complicated, even for those who are well-resourced and speak English as their first language.

As I said in my second reading amendment, I support and welcome the stronger integrity measures for NDIS service providers and plan managers outlined in schedule 2 of the bill. The NDIS must be protected from fraud, rorting and misuse. Australians living with disability deserve a scheme that is trusted, well managed and sustainable. But sustainability and financial viability cannot come at the cost of fairness, and they certainly should not be achieved by pushing the most vulnerable participants into greater uncertainty or into a system of bureaucracy that is harder to understand, harder to access and even further removed from the real lives of NDIS participants in communities like Fowler.

Australia prides itself on being a nation of many languages, cultures and beliefs. As elected representatives, we have a duty and responsibility to make laws and policies that reflect that reality. That is why my first amendment makes it clear that, when we talk about a person's 'environmental circumstances', we cannot exclude their linguistic environment. The language a person speaks at home is one of the most important factors in how they express their needs, understand their rights and advocate for themselves or their loved ones. Language forms the bridge between all of us socially, culturally and emotionally. If the system ignores that, the result is very likely to be inaccurate assessments of a person's function, capacity, their needs and their access to support. The linguistic environment is not incidental; it goes to the very core of whether a person is able to equitably participate in the NDIS.

Much like the rural and regional communities who have long called out the gap between policy made in Canberra and the reality on the ground, outer suburban multicultural communities like Fowler face their own version of being left behind. Distance is not always measured in kilometres. Sometimes it is measured in language, in cultural unfamiliarity and in the absence of services that actually reflect the community they are supposed to serve.

My second amendment embeds a requirement that appropriate treatment must be linguistically and culturally accessible at the person's geographical location. This is not a minor add on. It is about whether a family in an electorate like Fowler has access to support services close to where they live and, just as importantly, whether those supports are culturally and linguistically safe.

In multicultural and multifaith communities like mine, many refugees and migrants still carry deep distrust of government systems. Service providers have told me they face the additional challenge of helping families navigate cultural taboos around trauma, neurodivergence, disability and care needs. If support is not culturally or linguistically appropriate, then, for many families, it is not truly accessible.

The current rule, which says treatment may be appropriate regardless of whether a person's individual circumstances restrict them from accessing it, is deeply concerning. It allows the scheme to describe a service as appropriate even if it is physically out of reach, linguistically inaccessible or culturally out of step with the community. For a diverse, low-income electorate like Fowler, that is a recipe for exclusion.

My third amendment removes the provision that allows the scheme to rely too heavily on generic, one-size-fits-all criteria without enough weight given to the specific needs of individuals and communities. The system must be able to respond to the lived experience of people on the ground, not just assumptions built into centrally designed guidelines.

Taken together, these amendments rest on one principle: the NDIS must be as diverse as the people it serves. Its rules and processes must be readable, reachable and relevant for all Australians, whether they speak English as their first language or their second. For many families in communities like Fowler, those challenges are even more compounded.

These amendments do not undermine the intent of reform; they strengthen it. They make sure that, in the pursuit of a more sustainable scheme, we do not create a less fair one. I urge the House to support these amendments so that reform actually achieves a better scheme, not just a better bottom line.

While the government has a lot of sympathy with the spirit in which the member has moved these amendments, we will not be supporting them in the House. Let me say a few words about why.

The future of the NDIS is going to rest on two new approaches to eligibility, and a plan setting and plan management. The bill seeks to do what we have been advised to do now for some time, including through the NDIS review, and that is to put in place an objective system of functional capacity assessment to determine eligibility—to move from a diagnosis based system to an objective assessment of someone's functional capacity. That will be an objective test.

Once eligible, a person under new framework planning will be subjected to a support needs assessment. That support needs assessment will look at the person's functional needs and also their environmental circumstances. Their living circumstances, issues of language and cultural factors—the things that the member for Fowler has raised in her amendment—will certainly be factors that are very important in the support needs assessment of individual participants under the new framework planning.

But the functional capacity assessment is an objective assessment that looks at a person's functional capacity, and that will be developed over the coming months with the support of the technical advisory group. Those matters that the member for Fowler has raised will be accommodated in the system of support needs assessment.

For those reasons—and also in terms of the question of permanence and the question of appropriate treatment, where we will be supporting some other crossbench amendments—we're not supporting the amendments from the member for Fowler.

I wish to support the amendments moved by the member for Fowler. They are important amendments not only for the member for Fowler's electorate but for all electorates across this country. I think all members here want the NDIS to be as effective as possible and to actually ensure that participants have effective access to the services, and that's why these amendments are so important. They speak to the NDIS being linguistically and culturally accessible, and that is something that all of us should be supporting.

But they also speak to a person's geographical location, and I commend the member for Fowler for raising that issue in this House. In country electorates, we face the tyranny of distance in so many different ways, and that includes delivery of services like the NDIS. There just aren't as many providers in country areas, and participants and providers often have to travel long distances in order to meet and get those services delivered—and to help country Australians on the ground.

So I will be supporting these amendments. I think they are very important for the modern Australia that we live in. They encompass situations that affect all of our electorates, including the member for Fowler's, and they also have an element that recognises the barriers to accessing NDIS services that country people face. They are serious barriers, I will be supporting the amendment for those reasons, and I commend it to the House.

I would ask all members to support this because they cover not only city electorates like the member for Fowler's but also country electorates too. We should be doing anything that we can be doing to bridge that tyranny of distance—that Great Dividing Range that we call the sandstone curtain divides us in so many different ways. It divides us in health outcomes. It divides us in education outcomes. It divides us in wages and how much people earn. It also divides us in the delivery of services such as the NDIS. The member for Fowler has my backing 100 per cent on this, and I would urge all members to support these important amendments.

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

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 3, page 100 (after line 6), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2A — Significant NDIS rules

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

13A After section 209D

Insert:

209E Additional consultation requirements for certain National Disability Insurance Scheme rules

(1) This section applies to National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of any of the following provisions:

(a) a provision relating to functional capacity assessments or assessment methodologies;

(b) a provision relating to eligibility criteria or early intervention requirements;

(c) a provision relating to the determination of supports or the setting of funding levels.

(2) Before making rules to which this section applies, the Minister must:

(a) publish an exposure draft of the proposed rules; and

(b) allow a period of not less than 28 days beginning on the day the exposure draft is published (the consultation period) during which persons may make submissions on the proposed rules; and

(c) take reasonable steps to consult the following persons during the consultation period:

(i) people with disability;

(ii) organisations representing the disability community and disability sector, such as Disability Representative and Carer Organisations;

(iii) any other persons the Minister considers appropriate.

(3) Before making rules to which this section applies, the Minister must publish:

(a) a statement summarising the feedback received during the consultation period and the Minister's response to that feedback; and

(b) a disability impact statement setting out the expected effect of the proposed rules on participants and prospective participants.

I move this amendment to strengthen consultation requirements for the key National Disability Insurance Scheme rules. This amendment goes to a simple but fundamental principle that decisions about people with disability should not be made without them. It speaks to the profound truth contained in the slogan 'Nothing about us without us'. As this bill stands, critical aspects of the scheme, including eligibility criteria, functional capacity assessment, assessment methodologies and funding rules, are not set out in the primary legislation but left instead to future rules made by the minister. Those rules will determine who can access the NDIS, how their needs are assessed and what supports they ultimately receive. These are crucial considerations with serious implications for people's lives, and yet there is currently no minimum requirement in this bill for how people with disability are consulted before the rules are made. This is a serious gap.

The independent NDIS review released in 2025 was clear in calling for deep and ongoing consultation on reforms with people with disability, their families, their carers, representative organisations and disability service providers and workers. While the new technical advisory group will undertake consultations when developing their expert advice, the legislation does not set out how comprehensive this consultation needs to be, and, although consultation is required with states and territories, there are minimal guarantees that this will involve the kind of deep consultation called for in the independent review.

My amendment will give effect to the review's recommendation and aligns the bill more closely with the principle of inclusive co-design. It would require the minister, before making rules regarding eligibility, assessment methodologies and support determinations, to publish an exposure draft and allow at least 28 days for public submissions. It would require genuine engagement during that period with people with disability, organisations representing the disability community and sector, and other relevant stakeholders. And, importantly, it would require transparency by mandating the publication of a summary of feedback received, along with the minister's response and a disability impact statement outlining how the proposed rules are expected to affect participants and prospective participants.

As responsibilities across the disability ecosystem shift across jurisdictions, it is more important than ever that thorough, meaningful consultation is undertaken to understand and to avoid unintended consequences. A related example is the New South Wales government's recent decision to potentially lock out small businesses from providing services under Thriving Kids, by limiting tenders to non-profit providers only. I've heard from many allied health and disability small businesses in Bradfield—people with deep connections to the local community and the vulnerable children they provide services to—who fear for the future of their businesses. Equally, parents are concerned about the continuity that these vital services provide for their children. Thorough consultation can help mitigate problems such as these so they do not arise, and the changes proposed by my amendment would ensure that reforms are considered systematically and holistically and that they are informed by lived experience.

These changes, if adopted and implemented, would strengthen the quality of decision-making, and they would build trust in a system that, for many people, currently feels opaque and unpredictable. They would build a social licence for a reform process that many feel has been, frankly, too rushed and exclusionary. If we're asking people to place their confidence in these significant changes to the NDIS, then we must legislate our commitment to including them in the process with openness, with respect and in a spirit of genuine partnership. I urge the government to support this amendment.

():

… the perspectives of people with disability must be centre stage as we deliver these reforms.

There has been continuous consultation with the disability community and this will continue as we pursue our reforms.

That was former NDIS minister Bill Shorten in March 2024.

For decades, people with disability have told policymakers, ''nothing about us, without us!''.

I understand the need to ensure your voices are loud and carry weight.

As Minister I have a responsibility to ensure NDIS is not done to or for participants without their input.

That was Minister McAllister in May 2025.

That next wave of reform will—of course—involve the deepest collaboration with the disability community and participants.

…   …   …

… 'nothing about us, without us'.

That was Minister Mark Butler at the National Press Club in August 2025.

According to the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee, no disability representative organisation, funded or unfunded, was consulted on the content of the minister's Press Club speech, the budget or the preliminary drafts of this bill's text. The consultation on this crucially important bill has been utterly inadequate and utterly inaccessible. The Senate inquiry was launched on 14 May, and it initially closed two weeks later on 29 May—two weeks for submissions on legislation which will reshape the lives of 760,000 Australians with a disability.

Many people with desperately important stakes in this scheme were denied the opportunity to contribute to the inquiry. Many people with a disability were unaware of the details of this legislation at that time. Many people with a disability need assistance to access parliamentary platforms and to engage with complex legislative language. Many people with a disability rely on support workers, advocacy organisations and community networks, all of which take some time to mobilise. Slow consultation windows aren't just inconvenient. They are structurally inaccessible.

I'm glad that the government has now, under pressure, extended the Senate inquiry into this bill until 14 August, but that only happened because of a chorus of disappointment, frustration and anger from the disability community. The disability community shouldn't have to fight to be heard and consulted. Co-design and consultation should be a right and a given. The member for Bradfield's amendment would legislate a minimum 28-day consultation period for future rule making on functional capacity assessments, eligibility criteria and funding levels. It would require an exposure draft, a feedback summary and a disability impact statement for important regulations. These are sensible and principled requirements. In a better world, they would be standard practice already.

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found that people with disability are chronically insufficiently involved in government decision-making. This bill has repeated that pattern. Article 4.3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires governments to 'closely consult with and actively involve' people with disability, through their representative organisations, when developing legislation that affects them. Australia is a co-signatory to that convention. The government likes to remind us of that, but only when it suits.

The NDIS independent review action 25.2 specifically called for 'deep public consultation' with the disability community on proposed legislative reforms. Every speaker to this bill in this House has said that they want the NDIS to be sustainable. Everyone says they want it funded into the future for the people who depend on it. But genuine reform requires trust. You can't build trust with people who haven't been given a seat at the table. You can't build a better NDIS by sidelining the people it is designed to serve.

I'll finish with a quote from Jenny Macklin, former minister for disability reform and the shadow minister when the NDIS was launched: 'We need these voices to be strong. We need them to be firmly built into the consultation and policy design processes not as an optional addition to the NDIS but as an integral part of ensuring people with disability can exercise choice and take control.'

Currently, everything about this bill is without the disability community, and much of it will deny them both choice and control.

I thank the member for Bradfield and the member for Kooyong for their comments. The NDIS has more significant consultation structures and protocols than any other social program I've dealt with, at least, and so it should. As a minister at the time we were building the NDIS, with mental health and ageing I was involved quite centrally in that design. That government set up this scheme to be very much a scheme based on the philosophy of choice and the philosophy of 'Nothing about us without us', as the member for Kooyong reminded us. There are a number of structures already in place there.

The member for Bradfield referred to the NDIS review, which recommended the establishment of deeper consultation structures, and we acted on that. The reform advisory committee has a key role in advising us about things like this, particularly the functional capacity assessment system, which was also a recommendation of the review way back in 2023. As the member for Kooyong reminds us, that committee does its job frankly and fearlessly. As both members know, and I imagine all members know as well, this particular part of the reform program will be implemented after proper advice and proper consultation—of the type I set out in my Press Club speech—through category A rules that need to be agreed with every state and territory. There are pretty clear processes for not just our government to go through but state and territory governments to also go through with their state or territory based disability representative organisations. These systems are well established.

On top of that, when tabling any of these types of instruments, particularly category A rules, section 211 of the act requires me, very clearly, to issue a consultation statement that sets out the way in which we have fulfilled that commitment that was made 15 years ago to build, implement and run a scheme that was very much done in partnership with people with disabilities.

We're very satisfied with this process, going forward, that already has involved a deep engagement of government with disability representative organisations and that will have the work of the RAC, the reform advisory committee, sitting alongside it. Obviously, as the members both indicated, it would involve engagement from the technical advisory group. We're very satisfied that this work will be done in the way I think the members want to see it done. So, on that basis, we won't be supporting this amendment.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (line 22), at the end of subsection 48A(1), add:

; and (e) alternatively to paragraphs (a) to(d), the participant demonstrates that:

(i) the supports are no longer available; or

(ii) the plan is insufficient to meet the participant's reasonable and necessary support needs; or

(iii) new evidence relevant to the participant's support needs has emerged.

(2) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (line 8), after "participants", insert ", and the reasonable and necessary supports required by participants, including those necessary for participants to undertake paid employment, volunteering and study".

(3) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (lines 11 to 18), omit subsection 34A(5).

(4) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 18), at the end of section 34A, add:

I move these amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 in the hope of putting forward some targeted, practical amendments that will complement the many other amendments that have been moved by my fellow crossbench members of parliament. The amendments I moved today seek to ensure that sustainability is not achieved by removing basic fairness, basic review rights or the individualised nature of the scheme. Procedural fairness should be a basic which is underwritten in this legislation. I simply fail to understand why the government and the minister are not agreeing to these practical, sensible amendments.

The NDIS was built on a simple promise that Australians with disability would have access to the reasonable and necessary supports they needed to live with dignity, participate in the community and exercise choice and control over their own lives. The NDIS must be sustainable. It must be well governed. It must be able to deal with waste, fraud and poor practice. Sustainability cannot become a slogan used to justify blunt instruments and poor legislation, especially when there are clear double standards of accountability being applied by this government. Rather than fix the system, the government is choosing to leave vulnerable Australians behind.

Reform must not mean that participants lose supports without a proper pathway to challenge the decision. Reform must not mean that people are locked into plans that no longer meet their needs. Reform must not mean that people are pushed away from work, study or volunteering because the supports that make participation possible have been overlooked by a system that has become more and more automated.

The first amendment deals with plan reassessment. As the bill stands, there are limited circumstances in which a participant can seek a reassessment of their plan. My amendment would make clear that reassessment should also be available where supports are no longer available, the plan is insufficient to meet the participant's reasonable and necessary support needs or new evidence about the participant's support needs has emerged. The second amendment goes to reasonable and necessary supports, including those required for paid employment, volunteering and study. The NDIS should not only be about keeping people alive or keeping people at home; it should be about giving people with disability the support they need to contribute, learn, work, volunteer and engage in their communities. We all benefit from that. For many participants, support to work or study is not optional; it is core to their wellbeing. When people are supported to work, study and participate, it is not a cost to be begrudged. It is an investment in independence, dignity and contribution. Again we all benefit from that.

Participants should not have their funding significantly reduced through a mechanism that avoids proper accountability. That is all these amendments are seeking to do: ensure there is proper scrutiny where assessments have clear faults. If a decision has a practical effect of cutting a participant's support, then it should be treated as it is: a decision that affects that participant. Put simply, if your funding is significantly cut, you should have review rights.

The third amendment deals with the review rights where funding is significantly reduced. It removes proposed subsection 34A(5), which risks allowing funding reductions to occur without a clear individual review pathway. It replaces that with a safeguard that, if a determination significantly reduces the funding available under a participant's plan, the participant is taken to be affected by a reviewable decision. This is just logic. If there is going to be a significant cut to a plan, it can be properly assessed as to what the real impact will be and whether everything has in fact been taken into account.

These amendments don't prevent the government from reforming the NDIS. They don't prevent the government from managing costs and they don't prevent the government from improving sustainability, but they do ensure that participants can seek reassessment when their plan no longer meets their needs. They ensure that reasonable and necessary supports continue to recognise the importance of work, volunteering and study, and they ensure that, if a participant's funding is significantly reduced, the participant has a clear right to review. As we reform the scheme, we must be careful not to strip away the very principles that made it so important in the first place. So I urge the government—rather than the campaign that, at the moment, is demonising this scheme—to actually come to the table with rational, practical support for these amendments.

I'm not sure whether the member was suggesting the government was seeking to demonise this scheme. The government certainly is not seeking to demonise the scheme that, as the builders of the scheme, we're very proud of, and everything we are doing here is directed at securing the future of this scheme for the long term. Members might reasonably disagree on details about that, but, frankly, I quite clearly object to any suggestion that we are demonising a scheme which we see as a proud legacy of the Labor Party and of this parliament. I wholeheartedly reject that.

In relation to amendments dealing with support determinations, we don't support the amendments put forward by the member. There are other amendments from the crossbench around support determinations that we will be supporting.

As to amendment (1) of the four amendments moved by the member, around unscheduled reassessments, we have very carefully set out the circumstances where a participant or their nominee or their guardian is able to request a reassessment. We think that covers the circumstances, whether they relate to the person's functional capacity or general circumstances, that would justify an unscheduled reassessment.

There is also effectively a safety net of the NDIA chief executive being able to request a reassessment if the CEO or the agency is concerned that a participant might be at risk. We think that that very much deals with the circumstances that are reasonable to ground an unscheduled reassessment, so we won't be supporting these amendments.

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

I move amendment (4) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name:

(4) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 31) to page 36 (line 4), omit subsection 25A(2), substitute:

(2A) Treatment may not be appropriate treatment for a person's impairment or impairments if the person's individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment.

This bill would prevent people from accessing the NDIS until they've undertaken what the government says is 'all appropriate treatment'. The details will be dealt with in regulation, so we don't know exactly what that will mean in practice. However, the bill explicitly states that a treatment may still be considered appropriate even if a person's financial circumstances or geographical location prevent them from accessing it. Now, this is unacceptable. It completely ignores the reality of service provision outside of major cities. It could put the NDIS out of reach of rural and regional Australians, who simply don't have the local options and can't realistically access what is considered appropriate treatment.

My community are really worried about this. They're worried about the impacts of the bill. When I look at things like this, I think they have every right to be worried. My amendment would reverse this provision to clarify that a treatment may not be appropriate for a person who can't access it. It's all I've got to say about it, really, because to me this seems so obvious that I can't believe that I actually have to say it.

Very quickly, we won't be supporting this amendment, but we are dealing with some of the issues raised by the member for Indi in another amendment that we will be supporting.

The question is that the amendment as moved by the member for Indi be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) and (5) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert:

(1A) The specified group of supports must not relate to activities of daily living.

(2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 26 (before line 9), before subsection 34(1A), insert:

(1AA) If the CEO is not satisfied of a matter in subsection (1) in relation to a statement of participant supports, the CEO must notify the relevant participant, in writing, of the reasons for not being so satisfied.

(3) Schedule 1, item 73, page 27 (lines 6 to 35), omit subsections 34(1E) and (1F).

(5) Schedule 1, item 97, page 39 (lines 3 to 7), omit subsection 25B(6), substitute:

(6) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring that a support is an alternative support for an impairment, the Minister must be satisfied that:

(a) it is not appropriate to fund or provide a support for the impairment through the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and

(b) the alternative support is reasonably available and accessible.

I will make some brief remarks to support these amendments. They respond to key concerns raised by my constituents, the very people who will be impacted by the changes proposed under this bill. These things include the need for greater transparency and trust in decision-making and the importance of protecting approved funding for participants' basic needs.

Amendment (1) would protect funding for activities of daily living from blanket funding reductions under a new ministerial power. While the government has said the new power won't be used for that purpose, there's nothing in the bill to guarantee that.

In terms of amendment (2), people with a disability of course deserve certainty about funding for basic essential supports, and this amendment would provide that. It's really critical that we get this right and build that certainty for them. Amendment (2) would require a statement of written reasons where requested supports are not funded. One of the biggest concerns I hear from NDIS participants is that they're not told why recommended supports haven't been approved. My amendment would give them greater clarity about why decisions have been made and how the evidence they've provided has been used. Again, I hear consistently from people in my electorate that they want to understand the 'why'; they truly do. Written reasons, I think, are fundamental to giving that confidence to people—or an explanation and that understanding.

Amendments (3) and (5) make additional sensible improvements to ensure that evidence is considered on its merits. Currently, as it's drafted, the bill is looking to a hierarchical level of evidence. I want to make sure through this amendment that evidence is considered on its merits and that ministerial decisions about alternative schemes include consideration of whether those schemes are actually available and actually accessible. With those brief remarks, I will leave it to the minister to respond.

I thank the member for Indi for her remarks. A number of the matters that she has canvassed, particularly around support determinations, are picked up by other amendments from the crossbench that we will be supporting. Other amendments we don't support.

The question is that amendments (1) to (3) and (5) on sheet 1, as moved by the member for Indi, be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

(6) Schedule 3, page 101 (after line 12), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Whistleblower protections

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

18 After subsection 73ZA(2)

Insert:

(2A) The disclosure of the information by the discloser qualifies for protection under this Division if it is made for the purpose of seeking assistance, advice, treatment or counselling in relation to the disclosure and is made to:

(a) a legal practitioner; or

(b) a medical practitioner or psychologist; or

(c) a union or professional association.

Again, I will make a brief remark. This amendment ensures whistleblowers are able to make disclosures in the context of seeking support for themselves—for example, in seeking support from a legal or a medical practitioner. Now, the government's recently made improvements to NDIS whistleblower protections, and I really welcome those. But I think many Australians, in fact all Australians, would be very surprised to learn that, under this legislation more broadly across the NDIA and NDIS, whistleblowers may not legally be allowed to talk about their own situations to their own doctor or lawyer. I've been on the record very strongly in this place calling for whistleblower reforms to be strengthen. Under this particular situation, we need to make sure that every protection is afforded to people who are whistleblowers through the NDIS system. So I put this to the minister, and I hope the government can support me on this really important amendment.

The member for Indi is right in saying that she has a deep interest and deep understanding of this area. We consider ourselves a government that has tried to work with the member for Indi and others in improving supports for whistleblowers across government programs, including the NDIS. I'm quite attracted to the idea behind this amendment. The advice I've received is that we would need to do quite a bit more work. There are some very complex issues the member's amendment raises that really flow from the nature of this scheme. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to support this amendment today, but I am keen to, if the member is interested, keep working with the member on ways in which we can continue to improve supports for whistleblowers in this critically important scheme.

The question is that amendment (6) on sheet 1, as moved by the member for Indi, be agreed to.

I move the amendment on sheet 2, as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 3, item 4, page 91 (after line 2), after subsection 45C(16), insert:

(16A) If the Agency provides advice to the Minister under subsection (14), the Agency must at the same time provide a summary of the advice to the Minister.

(16B) The Minister must cause a copy of advice provided to the Minister under subsection (14), or the summary of the advice provided under subsection (16A), to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days after the Minister makes the determination to which the advice relates.

Constituents in Indi have made it clear to me that it matters whether the minister follows NDIA advice. More than 90 per cent of Indi constituents who responded to my survey regarding the NDIS changes said transparency of ministerial pricing decisions is really important.

My amendment would strengthen transparency by requiring the minister to table NDIA advice, or a summary of that advice, within five sitting days of making that determination. The summary must be provided by the NDIA itself at the same time as the advice. I really thank the government for working with me on this particular amendment and for working with me, more broadly, on trying to find ways to improve this legislation.

Thank you. We agree.

The question is that the amendment on sheet 2, as moved by the member for Indi, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) Despite subsection (1), the provisions mentioned in items 3 to 6 of the table do not commence until the day after the Minister has caused to be tabled in each House of the Parliament a statement setting out:

(a) the status of foundational supports, including Thriving Kids, in each jurisdiction; and

(b) whether the Minister considers those supports referenced in (a) to be established, funded and operational; and

(c) the basis for that view, including consideration of the availability and accessibility of supports for persons likely to be affected by the commencement of those Parts.

The NDIS is the 'only port in the storm'. That's what the minister has said countless times. That's what he said in his press conference. But this legislation gives no assurances to the estimated 241,000 Australians that it will move off the scheme that they have anywhere to go.

The NDIS Reform Advisory Committee was set up in response to the NDIS independent review. Eight members were nominated by state and territory governments, three were appointed by a national public EOI process and two were appointed by the minister for the NDIS. The Reform Advisory Committee is a peak voice for the disability community. It was set up by this government. Its submission to the inquiry into the bill recommended that access changes and budget reductions be tied legislatively to the prior availability of foundational supports for affected cohorts. They are not alone in saying this. The NDIS independent review was unequivocal. It said:

Changes to access and budget setting processes can only be implemented once the recommended foundational supports are in place to offer support outside the NDIS.

That was page 273, for those who are looking. The government knows this. It quoted that recommendation word for word on page 258 of the explanatory memorandum to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. But here we are. We have the legislation, and it provides zero certainty to participants that they will have anywhere to go—zero certainty about foundational supports, zero certainty about Thriving Kids, zero certainty that people are not just going to fall through the cracks.

The NDIS Reform Advisory Committee's first recommendation is that this bill should not be passed in its current form. The very first heading in their submission warns that the bill will cause material harm to people with a disability. The submission goes further. It asserts that harm arising from this legislation is 'beyond dispute'. It's an extraordinary finding, but, unfortunately, it's consistent with the community feedback that I've received.

In this context, I see amendment (1) as critical. It introduces an important safeguard. It requires public transparency that the 241,000 people to be moved off this scheme will have somewhere to go. We're being asked to support a scheme change which removes people from the only guaranteed support that they currently have, and it has no enforceable mechanism to ensure that replacement supports are ready, they are accessible and they are adequate.

Reporting on the status of foundational supports and Thriving Kids should be a precondition to the commencement of relevant schedules in this legislation. That would mean that before 1 October 2026, before 1 February 2027 and before 1 January 2028—all relevant dates for when parts of this legislation are set to commence—the minister has to table three key updates to this parliament: first, a status of foundational supports, including the status of Thriving Kids in every jurisdiction; second, whether the minister considers those supports to be established, funded and operational; and finally, the basis on which the minister forms these views, including the availability and accessibility of supports for persons likely affected by the commencement of the relevant parts of this bill. It's not an unreasonable ask. It's not an undue burden. It's what the disability community deserves at the very least.

When I met with Minister Butler and Minister McAllister about this amendment, they told me that this is not their responsibility; it's the responsibility of the states, but I can't accept that. For the government to reject this amendment would mean that the government was going against its own explanatory memorandum, going against the minister's National Press Club speech, going against the disability community in the most insulting and egregious way.

I thank the member for her amendment. I thank the member for the advice that she gave as part of the committee inquiry that the member for Macarthur chaired, of which she was deputy chair, in relation to Thriving Kids. It was valuable advice. I value her deep understanding of some of these areas of need, particularly for children, but more broadly than that.

I don't think I did say to the member for Ryan that this was the responsibility of states. It is a responsibility that we share with states. It's a joint responsibility of the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments.

Let me make this point. When we built the NDIS, out of the Productivity Commission report and all of the debate that preceded it and was around it, it was intended effectively to be a tier 1 system of supports for people with disability, particularly those with permanent and significant disability. It was never intended to cover the field, as the member rightly knows. There are a range of other, different systems of support that people with disability rely upon every single day—in health, in education—and the idea of foundational supports as a central recommendation of the NDIS review was essentially a recognition that that second tier of supports, which was a fundamental recommendation of the Productivity Commission, had never been actioned.

All governments are accountable for fixing that and for redressing what is, I think, that missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle that didn't happen over the last decade or so. All governments, Commonwealth and states and territories, are accountable for that, but it's not appropriate that we be accountable through an act that is set up to provide NDIS supports. These are not NDIS supports, so we will not be supporting these amendments.

I look forward very much to continuing to engage with the crossbench about the development of foundational supports. Thriving Kids is effectively the first cab off the rank, but we've got a lot of work to do for kids over nine, which the member would understand better than most in this House. We have a ton of work to do for people with psychosocial disability, who are not receiving, really, any support. The unmet needs analysis that was put together as part of the bilateral agreements that we have on mental health and suicide prevention, which the assistant minister at the table has been an important part of, found that 230,000 or so Australians right now, today, with severe and chronic mental illness are effectively getting no support whatsoever.

This is a complex area. The member understands that. This is not an area that I seek to duckshove to states, as the member suggested in her remarks. I see this very much as a joint responsibility between the Commonwealth and the states, but not one that will be discharged through this particular piece of legislation.

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

I move amendment (5) as circulated in my name:

(5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert:

(1A) A determination under this section may specify classes of participants to whom the determination applies or does not apply. A class of participants may be identified by reference to any one or more of the following:

(a) a characteristic of participants (including their circumstances);

(b) the nature or type of supports provided under a plan;

(c) the support needs (as assessed) of participants.

I move amendment (5) with the support of the Justice and Equity Centre, Inclusion Australia and Down Syndrome Australia. The ministerial support determination proposed by this bill is a blunt instrument. It reduces funding without significant regard to individual circumstances or to the way that people actually use supports in their daily lives.

I, along with Inclusion Australia and Down Syndrome Australia, am particularly concerned about its potential impact on the small number of NDIS participants who need support every hour of every day. These are the people with permanent and profound disability that the NDIS was established to support. This includes people with down syndrome and people with intellectual disability who have very high support needs. Many are amongst the most marginalised Australians. Some have spent their entire lives in state run institutions or group homes, and they rely on that 24/7 continuous support to live safely and with dignity.

Applying a blanket 50 per cent reduction to their community and participation supports without recognising those quite unique circumstances could have profound implications for those individuals. Firstly, it creates a real risk that people who require 24-hour support will not receive funding in a way that reflects how those supports are delivered. Their support needs don't fit neatly within a standard funding model, and neither should this legislation. Secondly, it risks confining vulnerable people to their homes. For many participants who have a really significant intellectual disability, support to access the community is not an optional extra. They can't get out into our public spaces, they can't engage with normal life, unless they have that support. It is fundamental to their participation, to their inclusion and to their physical and mental safety. The disability royal commission made this clear: isolation increases the risk of abuse, neglect, exploitation and violence. We shouldn't be creating legislative settings that inadvertently increase that risk.

I appreciate that the government recognises this issue. It understands that it needs to be addressed. But recognition and intentions are not enough. This amendment ensures that participants will be identified by their individual circumstances and by the nature of the supports that they receive and that their assessed support needs will be taken into account when the minister makes a determination. It provides a clear legislative basis for protecting those participants whose circumstances need a different approach. Rather than leaving this matter to future discretion, we need to provide certainty now. Doing so will reassure Australians who have a significant and lifelong disability, and the families and carers who support them, at a time when those people already have significant fear and uncertainty about the potential impacts of these reforms.

I acknowledge that the amendment secured by the Greens in the Senate to exclude particular categories of supports, including disability employment and health related supports, from the operation of support determinations was an important improvement to this bill. But, if we can recognise that some supports should be treated differently, we should also recognise that some participants need to be treated differently. This amendment complements the work undertaken in the Senate by ensuring that the legislation can appropriately account for those participants whose support needs are exceptional and who would otherwise be disproportionately affected by the legislation currently before the House. And so I commend this amendment to the House.

We won't be supporting amendment (5) or (6). As the member indicated—first of all, I've set out very clearly our reasoning around support determinations, but we have also decided to agree to another amendment in relation to that aspect of the reform package.

The question is that amendment (5) on sheet 1 moved by the member for Kooyong be agreed to.

I move this amendment because it provides an important safeguard for NDIS participants. This amendment is straightforward. It provides that a support determination under proposed subsection 34A(4) may relate only to supports for social and community participation. It'll force the government to put its money where its mouth is. The government has represented that section 34A will be used to cut social and community participation supports. But the bill, as drafted and confirmed by the explanatory memorandum, empowers the minister to reduce funding across almost any support category. That includes daily living, transport, assistive technology, specialist disability accommodation and more.

My amendment (6) asks the government to explicitly limit support determination powers in section 34A to social and community supports only. The purpose of this amendment is simple. It is to stop the broad determination-making power in this bill being turned into a back door used through delegated legislation to quietly strip away essential disability supports while no-one is watching. There is real, raw fear in the disability community right now about how this ministerial power might be wielded—perhaps not by this minister but by subsequent governments, for example, those perhaps administered by One Nation, which has indicated it would abolish the NDIS.

People aren't imagining things. They fear that this legislation could be used to hollow out the everyday living supports that they rely on to get through the day. Let me be blunt. I disagree with the proposed 50 per cent cut to social and community participation supports. I disagree with most of section 34A of this bill. I believe it's a blunt instrument, and I think that it will land hard on the lives of people with a disability. But this amendment goes further than that disagreement. It would build a wall around something which is even more important. It would ensure that the support determination power could never be turned against those supports that hold people's daily lives together, that it couldn't be used to whittle away the core supports that let people eat, dress, communicate, move safely, access therapy or just stay healthy and independent. These aren't luxuries. They're not nice-to-haves sitting at the margins of public policy. They are the floor beneath people's feet. They are the fundamental supports that make disabled people's participation in society possible at all. This amendment is a measured and proportionate response to that fear. It is supported by the National Legal Aid, which has suggested repeatedly that supports should not have broad or scheme wide application.

I note that the government has struck a deal with the Greens in the Senate which will confine support determinations to the improved daily living skills component of capacity building supports and social, economic and community participation. But that improved daily living skills component of capacity building supports is something that should be protected as well from support determinations. So in that way, this amendment goes further than the agreement reached in the Senate. This amendment will draw a clear line in the sand and it will say, 'Whatever else this bill does, it cannot be used to cut the supports that people cannot live without.' I commend the amendment to the House, and I move amendment (6) as circulated in my name:

(6) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 10), after subsection 34A(4), insert:

(4A) The determination may relate only to supports for social and community participation.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

I move amendment (11) on sheet 1, as circulated in my name:

(11) Schedule 1, item 92, page 36 (after line 12), after subsection 25A(3), insert:

(3A) A person is not required to undertake treatment that is:

(a) unreasonably inaccessible or unavailable; or

(b) not clinically appropriate; or

(c) associated with unreasonable risk.

Among the most concerning provisions in this bill is the new definition of 'permanent' disability for eligibility purposes. Under the bill, an impairment will only be considered permanent—and therefore make the applicant eligible for NDIS support—if all appropriate treatment options have been exhausted; no further treatment is likely to materially improve, reverse or alleviate the impairment; and the impairment is likely to persist for a lifetime. Applicants must have tried all treatments commonly available in Australia, regardless of whether or not they can afford them or whether the treatments are accessible where they live.

Persons in rural and regional Australia might not be able to access specialist treatment that is theoretically available in a capital city. The House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability is looking into this issue at this very time. A person with limited income may not be able to afford treatments. Even though the government has assured me that 'appropriate treatments' means those listed on the PBS, many items on our Medicare schedule still have associated out-of-pocket costs, are not readily available at times and may be out of reach for some individuals. What the government is trying to do in legislating this definition is to overturn the Federal Court's previous decision in Davis, which established the precedent that financial circumstances must be considered when determining if treatment is available. Whether a person can afford a treatment will form part of the factual circumstances that a decision-maker may need to examine in deciding if a treatment is one that an individual can, in reality, access.

The Federal Court applied the ordinary meaning, which is a fair meaning, but the exemptions in this bill are too narrow; that's my proposition today. Proposed section 25A(3) excuses a person from treatment only for medical reasons, not because of cultural or personal belief or bodily autonomy. The Justice and Equity Centre has told this parliament already that 'this approach unjustifiably interferes' with a person's 'right to bodily autonomy'. It's not enough to leave this to the rules to be made later by the minister. They are rules that don't even require agreement from the states and territories. That is not going to reassure vulnerable individuals.

Because permanence is part of both the disability and the early intervention access criteria, the government's bill directly affects eligibility to entry to the NDIS and continued access when a person's status is reconsidered. There is a profound and unresolved circularity here. For many people with a disability, accessing the NDIS is precisely how they can access ongoing treatment. Without the NDIS, they may well not be able to do that. The bill proposes to deny access to support until treatment has been exhausted, without acknowledging that the capacity to access treatment may itself depend on having NDIS support. For example, if a treatment might result in improvements over many years but the person would still have substantially reduced functional capacity, they may be prevented from accessing the NDIS in the meantime. The bill could also make it harder for people with progressive conditions to access the NDIS, even where treatment only slows but cannot reverse the deterioration of their functional capacity. The government assures me that these examples won't eventuate, but the government is unwilling to provide that express safeguard in this legislation.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has submitted that the definition of 'appropriate treatment' in the new section 25A will 'significantly restrict access to the NDIS and undermine a rights based approach to disability supports'. Amendment (11), which I have moved today, addresses these concerns. It expressly provides that a person is not required to undertake treatment that is unreasonably inaccessible or unavailable, is not clinically appropriate or is associated with inappropriate or unreasonable risk.

The government has framed this bill as a matter of sustainability for our economy. Sustainability can't just be achieved by narrowing the gate. If we define permanence in a way that excludes people who lack the financial or geographic means to access treatment, we're not securing the NDIS; we are rationing it according to circumstance and financial status.

Again, I thank the member for Kooyong for her thoughtful consideration of this bill and contributions to this House. I have not framed this bill as a question of sustainability for the economy. I have framed this bill as securing the future of what I think is one of our most important social programs for decades to come. That remains my driving mission behind this bill. As I think the member knows, we are supporting other amendments in relation to section 25A, which is the section of the bill that the member is seeking to amend with amendment (11), and for that reason we won't be supporting this particular amendment.

The question is that amendment (11) on sheet 1, as moved by the member for Kooyong, be agreed to.

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

I rise to speak about a brave young man from my electorate, Angus Rowland, who is living with a debilitating and chronic skin condition. Angus is aged 12, and he has severe eczema. He's had this his entire life. His mother, Samantha, has lost count of the number of times he's been in an ambulance due to his eczema or asthma. Itching every night from severe eczema, bloodied sheets are a regular occurrence, and there is little relief from prescribed treatments. Angus has found school a challenge, with many missed days and, when at school, the social isolation and anxiety that can come. He is constantly asked by children and teachers if his skin hurts, if the eczema is getting worse and, by some children, 'What's wrong with you?' There are thousands of children just like Angus in Australia whose severe eczema will cause some long-term physical and emotional harm if they cannot access new treatments. Angus was in Parliament House last week, raising awareness of severe childhood eczema. He and his mum, Samantha, enjoyed meeting with other children and families with similar experiences. I'd like to thank Angus, in particular, as well as Samantha and all of the families who came to Canberra to call for better access to treatments for chronic skin conditions.

It is 1 July, and, from today, millions of Australians will be seeing the benefits of the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living plan come into effect. Australians are receiving another tax cut. Three million workers are receiving a pay rise, including an increase to the national minimum wage, because we want Aussies to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Workers will also benefit from payday super, which ensures superannuation is paid alongside wages, helping tackle unpaid super and grow retirement savings. Small businesses will have greater certainty with which to invest and grow, with Labor making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent. Paid parental leave is expanding to six months, with more support for families. One hundred and thirty-seven Medicare urgent care clinics will now be permanent, ensuring Australians can receive access to free health care close to home where all they need is their Medicare card, not their credit card. Thirty-three endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics are open right now, providing the specialist care that women need and deserve. This is Labor delivering for all Australians.

Across Australia, we're seeing rising threats to women's access to abortion care. We see it in bills in state parliaments. We see it in the way some politicians talk about this issue, using misinformation and scare tactics to drive divisions, tools straight out of the Trump playbook. Australians don't want that sort of rhetoric or politics here. There is no evidence that there is a problem that needs solving.

Our medical system already has robust safeguards built in, including those for rare instances of late-term abortion with strict clinical oversight. For instance, in New South Wales, if you're past 22 weeks and seeking a termination, you need the approval of two medical practitioners, who consider all circumstances and whether they meet sufficient grounds. These are incredibly rare. Estimates are between 0.5 per cent and two per cent of all abortions over 20 weeks. They are generally because of late diagnosed anomalies, genetic syndromes or severe fetal growth problems. Hospital advisory committees and multidisciplinary teams are already consulted through this process, so, contrary to misinformation, third-trimester abortions are incredibly rare and never taken lightly. They typically relate to the immediate health and safety of the mother or the viability of the fetus.

I am proud to support access to abortion in this country. It is an important part of our healthcare system. It is the choice of the woman. We need to protect it. I've thought about whether silence is wiser here, but I believe this is the time that we need to step up. Silence is not neutral. The time to step up is now.

Today is 1 July. The Albanese Labor government is delivering real change for Australians, with cost-of-living measures starting today. Through tax cuts, expanded paid parental leave, and stronger investment in Medicare and hospitals, we're putting more money back into people's pockets and making it easier for families to access the care that they need. For the people in my electorate of Braddon, these changes will make a real difference, helping households manage everyday costs, supporting local jobs and strengthening the essential services our communities rely on. We're backing wage increases, supporting small business, making urgent care clinics permanent and investing more than ever in our public hospitals because this is about building a fairer, stronger future for everyone.

From today, we are protecting Australian families by making it illegal for retailers like Coles and Woolies to price gouge customers by artificially inflating prices on groceries. Unlike those opposite, we will keep working every day to ease the pressure on families in Braddon and right across the country by delivering cost-of-living relief and a more secure and prosperous economy for all Australians, wherever they are—in my electorate of Braddon or right across the country. We will work every day to ensure that we secure that prosperous economy for all Australians.

I rise to recognise the incredible work of some incredibly passionate women at the Arise Foundation and to call for greater investment in recovery and healing for women leaving violence. For too many women, the crisis does not end when they leave. Too often, they face an impossible choice: immediate safety or long-term financial security. That is not a real choice. Arise provides trauma informed employment support, financial literacy, digital skills, coaching and wraparound referrals for women escaping violence. In five years, Arise has supported 580 women and children. Around 320 women have completed its programs, and, within six months, 54 per cent of those entered employment, education or training.

Arise reports that women placed into paid work or further education have not returned to perpetrators. Crisis response saves lives and we must fund it, of course, but government should not stop there. Six months later, many women are still navigating trauma, housing insecurity, child care, financial abuse and work. Too often, we expect women to rebuild alone. We need a proper domestic violence recovery off-ramp, a 12- to 24-month pathway that supports women from crisis into safety, stability and economic independence. The recovery off-ramp remains underfunded. I call on the government to invest in pathways like Arise.

It is 1 July today, and that means pay rises for three million workers around this country and tax cuts for all Australian workers. This is good news for my community. And you know what else is good news in my community? In postcodes 3029 and 3030, we have the country's highest numbers of people accessing the five per cent deposit scheme and living in their own home, establishing themselves and getting that foot on that first rung of opportunity—not surprising in a growth corridor and a community bursting with young families. They're now in a position to pay their own mortgage rather than paying rent on an investor's mortgage. I'm proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government, which supports young families with an expansion of child care from 1 July—from today—and, of course, an expansion of the PPL from today. Both support young families like those I represent and support the country's productivity. To those looking to invest in housing, there are still opportunities in our growth corridor. There are plenty of opportunities for new builds in the growth corridors around our country.

I rise today to congratulate an outstanding young person from the Hinkler electorate, Jaide Sutton, who has been named the Australian parliament's 2026 Yarning Competition winner in the years 7 and 8 category. Jade is currently in year 7 at Kepnock State High School, where she started this year after completing her primary years at my old school, Walkervale. It was a pleasure to welcome Jaide at Parliament House this week. She travelled to Canberra on her first ever plane flight to receive this well-deserved national honour. Jaide's winning artwork Ajarku Muruu—All One Country was created around the theme of reconciliation. Through her artwork, she delivered a thoughtful and inspiring message about 'how we are all part of one country even though we all come from different places and backgrounds'.

The Yarning competition celebrates the creativity and storytelling of young Australians. To be recognised as a national winner is an outstanding achievement. I was pleased to join Jaide and her dad, Craig, at a morning tea with the Speaker, followed by the official presentation and launch of the 2026 Yarning Exhibition. All three winners' artworks will be on display here at Parliament House until February next year, where over 500,000 people will be able to view the winning artworks. Jaide's success reflects not only her own talent and dedication but also the encouragement from her very talented family. Congratulations, Jaide, for representing Hinkler. With great pride, I wish you every success for your future.

Australia's strength has never come from sameness. It has come from the people who have built lives across difference, from our many First Nations communities with millennia of history and culture—the oldest continuous cultures on earth—to people who arrive with little English, little money and deep hope for their children, people who turned uncertainty into contribution. That is the Australian story. It is the story of parents who left behind fear to watch their children speak freely in a democracy. It is the story of families who carried old memories into a new home. It is the story of children translating letters at the kitchen table, then growing up to write laws in this chamber.

Fear narrows a country. Hope strengthens it. For too much of our history, Australia narrowed the idea of belonging. But this country chose a better path. My friend the member for Reid said in this House in her maiden speech:

In just over half a century, we have moved from an embrace of a White Australia policy to a country that is now a majority-migrant nation. But what is more remarkable is how this news was received—not with backlash but with a genuine embrace of modern Australia.

I believe we are a parliament that is getting close to being truly representative of the people and communities we represent. Look around this chamber. We see more of Australia here than ever before. We see people with names, accents, faiths, stories and family histories that once sat outside the old idea of power. We are not and never will be a monoculture. Monoculture is a myth.

Giving a family a $5 weekly tax cut when their mortgage has skyrocketed by thousands of dollars is like tossing a glass of water onto a roaring bushfire. By continually fuelling government spending, the Albanese Labor government continues to stoke the inflation fire. Let's be real; $5 in this economy doesn't even cover a cup of coffee. Everything is going up. At a conservative estimate, the cost of living for an average family is up by more than $300 per week. Slapping a $5 bandaid onto a $300 bullet wound and expecting a round of applause for it—well, that's not a policy to be proud of.

The coalition's tax-back guarantee automatically scales up with inflation, protecting hard-earned wages. At the current rate of inflation, our tax-back guarantee would see a typical worker be around $400 a year better off. It would be a tax cut that gets bigger every year by keeping pace with inflation, beating bracket creep and scaling up to over $1,000 a year by year 4. This is how you put real money back in the family budget—where it belongs. Our wider economic plan will drive the cost of living down. The coalition will restore Australia's standard of living and will protect the Australian way of life.

Today, 1 July 2026, is Territory Day. That's right—I've got my Northern Territory pin on, and it's a great day for all Territorians. I want to say, 'Happy Territory Day!'

To celebrate, we are giving every taxpayer another tax cut. With our five tax cuts, a worker on an average income will be about $2,800 better off every year. We are also banning supermarket price gouging. Minimum wages and award wages are going up from today again. We're expanding paid parental leave to a full six months from today. We're making our Medicare urgent care clinics, like the ones in Darwin and Palmerston, permanent, and there are seven more across in the member for Lingiari's electorate. We have significantly boosted funding for Northern Territory hospitals. We're expanding services at our endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. We're introducing payday super today. We're opening a new national environmental protection agency.

We're setting up a new veteran and family wellbeing agency, and we're making the veteran claim system simpler. It was fantastic to be there this morning for the launch of the Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency. It's going to mean that those who, like so many Territorians, have served our nation are going to get more support, as are their families. Happy Territory Day!

For many seniors in O'Connor, the cost of seeing a doctor is becoming almost as painful as the diagnosis. I'm running a survey of constituents aged over 65 and have heard from many people who are doing everything they can just to make ends meet only to find they pay more just to access the health care they deserve.

Helen from Bridgetown and her husband live solely on the age pension. To help manage their health care, they pay around $6,000 a year for private health insurance. Even then, they are up to $200 a month worse off and can still be as much as $80 out of pocket when they visit a GP. Before the election, the Prime Minister repeatedly claimed that all that Australians would need to see a doctor was their Medicare card. Well, people like Helen have their Medicare card, but she also needs the credit card.

For seniors in O'Connor, health care is becoming less affordable and harder to access. In regional Western Australia, a hospital is not just down the road, and specialist care can be hundreds of kilometres away, yet today there is still not one single urgent care clinic anywhere in my 1.1 million kilometre electorate, despite the Treasurer's promise that, by July, 80 per cent of Australians would live within 20 minutes of one. The seniors of O'Connor deserve better than empty promises. They deserve results.

West of here is Hasluck, and what matters to my community in Hasluck is making sure that we deliver. I'm absolutely proud, under the Albanese Labor government, to be their representative and to deliver on what they need. Every day is special, but today is especially so because, from today, people in Hasluck—all 85,000 of my taxpayers—are going to get a tax cut, and their super will now be paid whenever they get paid. From today, every new mum in Hasluck is going to get paid parental leave for six months, and superannuation is also going to be paid on top of that.

Every person in Hasluck who's ever been to one of our three fabulous urgent care clinics, in Morley, Ellenbrook and Midland, knows they have already demonstrated their value and worth—and just to give you a sense of the numbers, 38,000 have already visited the clinic in Morley, 32,000 in Midland, and just over 6,000 our recently opened clinic in Ellenbrook—and today they know that they will always be there, because Labor is making them permanent. This is an example that shows that I know what matters to my community. Whenever I'm there, I know where I am—unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who, when he was in Hasluck the other week, didn't have a clue where he was when he was asked.

It may well be 3,000 kilometres west of here, but I know what matters, and I know what the Labor government has the ability to deliver, because we listen and then we act. I will always stand and advocate for my community and ensure that they get what they deserve.

I always say that food banks are the canary in the coalmine, as far as how the rest of the economy is travelling, and right now, in my electorate of Monash, food banks are having to step up and assist people more and more. They do a great job. They're a dedicated group of volunteers, whether it's at Neerim South, at Baw Baw Food Relief, at Corinella food pantry or at Owl pantry in Wonthaggi. But these food banks reflect the broader challenge of people struggling to keep up with the cost of living under this government.

As Australia heads towards passing $1 trillion in debt, inflation is still at four per cent. While the government loves to pat itself on the back about inflation, the fact remains that it is outside the RBA's recommended band of two to three per cent. When are we going to have an honest national conversation about inflation and the fact that it's remained well outside the RBA's band for quite some time now?

The government is patting itself on the back today about wage increases. What about real wage decline and people not being able to afford their electricity, staring at an energy bill stuck to their fridge, wondering how they're going to pay that—making a decision between that and their grocery bills. Veterans and people who rely on allied health services—people in this country are really struggling, and they need a coalition government.

I love the month of July. Throughout history, many great things have happened during this month. We walked on the moon for the first time. The great and inspiring Nelson Mandela was born. The summer Olympics are held in July. The FIFA World Cup is running in July. Go, Socceroos! And our beloved ABC was born in the month of July.

But there is more good news for July. From today, we're giving every taxpayer a tax cut, we're banning supermarket price gouging and there will be wage increases for three million workers who are on minimum and award wages. We're expanding paid parental leave to a full six months. Payday super begins. Our Medicare urgent care clinics become permanent. Our hospitals get more funding increases. Endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics now include menopausal and perimenopausal services. It's a must that your health records now include pathology and diagnostic imaging results. The new Environmental Protection Agency is opening, and we're establishing the veterans wellbeing agency. The $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses is now permanent, and our solar sharer offer starts, which means you get three hours of free electricity between the hours of 11 am and 2 pm, which will help reduce energy costs.

We know the month of July is special, and with these initiatives it's even more special. But what's more special is that this Labor government will keep listening and delivering in this month and every other month.

As we've heard, today is 1 July, the start of a new financial year. But what most people think about is it's tax time. The Treasurer, being the king of taxation—it's his birthday in March, but, like all good monarchs, he's celebrating today. Why is he celebrating? Because he's got a sneaky inflation tax that erodes your hard earned money. That's right. Today there's a big splash on socials about a tax cut, but it's a tax cut that doesn't even keep up with inflation. So the Treasurer is actually celebrating because this means more money in his piggy bank.

What Australians deserve is a plan that removes that sneaky inflation tax that Labor have working for them. That's what the coalition tax-back guarantee does. It would put $400 back in your pocket in year 1, but, with strong economic management, that would mean so much more. As we have seen today, the 73c tax cut is described by the Herald Sun as 'Too little, too latte'—73c, a token gesture swamped by the rising cost of living for every Australian. So, while the Treasurer says, 'Look over here at my 73c,' Australians are looking over there at their rising mortgages, the rising cost of electricity and the rising cost of groceries.

Australians won't be fooled by this government. They know their standard of living has collapsed. They know that Labor's responsible. So, Mr Treasurer, here's the 73c. You can barely see it. You most certainly can't feel it.

Today we are celebrating. Millions of working Australians will be earning more and keeping more of what they earn because this government will always back working Australians. Today those in the member for Hume's electorate get a tax cut, those in the member for Goldstein's electorate get a tax cut, those in the member for Gippsland's electorate also get a tax cut—not because those members voted for it; in fact they voted no. But this Labor government is delivering them anyway because on this side of the House we back working people and we believe that aspiration belongs to all, not just some.

In this place you can choose to complain or you can deliver real change. From today, paid parental leave is now six months, minimum and award wage earners are getting a pay rise, and we've banned supermarket price gouging. It's very easy for the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite to come in here with manufactured outrage and for Senator Hanson to air her grievances on 'Sky after dark', but grievance politics does nothing to lessen the blow of cost-of-living pressures.

Out in my electorate, I'm proud to tell my community that this government is focused on them—how we spend every day in this place focused on how we can make their lives easier and fairer. Those opposite can stay focused on themselves and how they can rebrand. We'll keep delivering for working Australians.

There is a word that used to mean something in this country—trust. Trust was the commitment a government made to the Australian people. This Labor prime minister said from this dispatch box whilst in opposition:

… you can only lie to people once.

Well, it's clear that this prime minister doesn't take his own advice. This prime minister stood in front of the media, aggressively stated, for the 50th time, that he won't make any changes to the CGT or negative gearing. This prime minister has completely undermined the trust of all Australians. Further trust was eroded from this prime minister as he claimed 97 times that his government would reduce energy bills. This Labor government claimed that they would respect veterans and their families, yet they announced a cap on veterans' access to allied health. This is a dishonest government.

Australians deserve honesty from those that are elected to represent them—not confected outrage, not talking about the opposition. We expect the government to stand up, to be counted and to do what's right for the Australian people—lower their power bills, make sure they're not crippled by insurance, support small business and support aspiration. Yet, what we've seen from this treasurer and this born-to-rule prime minister is taxes going up. You don't own those government benches; you don't even own your seats. They're rented, and rent is due today.

I want to be fair to the Leader of the Opposition. Unlike media reports about the shadow treasurer, he's declared his interests. The member for Hume has registered his interests in family trusts and in holding companies, but the question is: what is floating under the Cayman-like waves of those arrangements?

On 10 March, the Sydney Morning Herald reported:

… But his asset portfolio is both opaque and labyrinthine, with family trusts and holding companies

…   …   …

Ultimately, it leaves a lot unaccounted for behind Taylor's main company, Gufee Pty Ltd, so listed on his official register of interests.

The Courier Mail in February reported:

Mr Taylor holds interests in an estimated nine properties across New South Wales, the majority structured in a network of private companies—

Member for Page.

The point of order is about reflection on a member.

I haven't heard a personal reflection on a member. The member for Moreton has the call.

rather than in his personal name.

Today, as millions of Australians across this nation receive yet another tax cut, the three parties of the right want to defend the status quo that gives tax breaks to passive income. The question is: is that in the national interest or is it in their personal interest?

Deputy Speaker, you know and we all know on this side of the chamber that Australian families, Australian businesses and Australians generally are despairing right now. We've had 15 interest rate increases under this Labor government. The average mortgage costs have gone up—not total, they have gone up—by $30,000 a year. Food prices are up, and power prices are up. The Australian public is doing it really tough. What would you think is the answer to that? What would the Labor government think is the answer to Australian families and Australian businesses doing it tough? Of course, the answer is to increase taxes. That was their answer.

There are two things I want to say about the fact they increased taxes when Australians are doing it tough. One is that they deceived the Australian public as they did that. As I've said earlier, every member over on that side of the chamber should hang their heads in shame by deceiving every single one of their electorates at the last election. You know that, Speaker, and I know that. But what the Australian public has also picked up, especially since the budget, is the arrogance of this government, the arrogance of the Prime Minister, the arrogance of the Treasurer, who says: 'I know best. You might think you know a different argument and want to have a debate, but I know best. I always know best.' They see your deceit and they see your arrogance.

For nine years, those opposite had a chance to make work pay. Instead, they spent most of their time fighting each other, attacking workers, suppressing wages and telling Australians that insecure work was somehow flexible. Under this government, Australians see a different set of priorities: a tax cut for every Australian—

Order. The member's time has definitely concluded. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.

I move:

That the House record its deep regret at the death, on 7 June 2026, of Professor Richard Scolyer AO, place on record its appreciation of his service and his contributions to the community, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

When Richard Scolyer passed away last month, we lost one of our biggest hearts and brightest lights, but how powerfully he blazed before he left us. And somehow, in the fight of his life, he found the strength to lift us all. Professor Scolyer was named joint Australian of the Year in 2024 alongside his Melanoma Institute of Australia co-director, Professor Georgina Long. Together, they helped save countless lives through their melanoma research.

But, as Richard took his rightful place in the national spotlight, it was with his own life in the balance as he dealt with the reality of his brain cancer. No-one would have begrudged him a retreat into privacy. But that is not what Richard chose. Instead, he took us all into his confidence. He shared his triumphs and his setbacks. He shared the joy he took in every extra day he was granted and his profound gratitude to everyone around him. And what shone through it all was love for his family. Richard was on what he so gently called his 'uncertain path', but he travelled it with determination and a grace that never ceased to be simply extraordinary. The way he shared it with us was an act of generosity and a courage that was every bit as profound. I will always regard it as one of the privileges of my time as Prime Minister that I got to spend time with such a remarkable yet self-effacing Australian. I got to count him as a friend, and, for years when I lived in Chelmsford Street, he was a neighbour. For that, I feel blessed.

In his final letter to Australia, he reminded us we all have a responsibility to try to change the future for others and leave the world a better place. How to handle that responsibility is something that has showed us every day through the power of his own example. It has been moving to hear his family describing his zest for life and the enthusiasm that he felt within himself and strove to ignite in others. That is at the heart of the legacy that he leaves all of us.

At the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, the recently established Richard Scolyer Chair will always bear his name. There are lives that will be longer thanks to all that he was willing to try. And one day, when a cure for glioblastoma is at last found, Richard's name will be spoken.

Later this month, we will gather in the Sydney Opera House to say our final farewell to Richard with all our respect, our admiration and our gratitude. On that day, as on every day, the hearts of all Australians will be with his wife, Dr Katie Nicoll, and their children, Emily, Matthew and Lucy. They are here with us today. I thank you for gracing us with your presence and I welcome you to the House of Representatives. I say to them that we know these are anything but easy days for you—each one shaped by Richard's absence. May you draw some comfort in how much Australia truly loved him, and may Richard Scolyer rest in peace.

I thank the Prime Minister for his heartfelt words and I join him in honouring the life of Professor Richard Scolyer AO. To read Richard's final farewell letter is to appreciate all the more that our nation has lost a great Australian, a gifted scientist and a generous and gracious man. He was a rarity: bright, brilliant, brave, big hearted—the very best of us.

Today, as a parliament, we commemorate this remarkable Australian, we commend his work and we celebrate his life and his legacy. In the touching goodbye he penned, Richard said:

… cancer does not define us.

Yet Richard's more than three decades of work has defined cancer research and treatment, and I'm confident that the inroads he made will ultimately help humanity defeat this dreadful disease. Earlier this year, he was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Sydney. His deteriorating health saw him prerecord the speech. Humble and happy, he delivered a heartfelt message for graduates—one full of hope. He said:

Be brave. Be bold and challenge the status quo.

He lived by those words, and his life has inspired, and will continue to inspire, others to live by his noble example.

Richard admitted that his childhood was full of adventures built on how, not if. That childhood nurtured his inquisitive nature and his 'give it a crack' attitude. For him, life was about possibilities, not problems. His optimism was matched by his deep sense of duty. He wrote:

I have always been driven by the belief that we all have a responsibility to try to change the future for others and leave the world a better place.

And he did exactly that. His work and clinical trials pushed forward the scientific fields of pathology and cancer. His research pioneered breakthrough melanoma treatments that have saved and improved lives. He helped start a melanoma biobank, now the world's largest—and he passed on his knowledge as a lecturer and in more than 1,000 publications. He nurtured a new generation of young doctors and researchers, who will carry on his vital work, and of course one of his defining achievements was when the pathologist became his own patient.

He was the first person to receive the experimental brain cancer treatment he helped pioneer, but he didn't sugarcoat his darkest hours. Notably, there was valour in his vulnerability, and through his sincerity he inspired others. He inspired strength in fellow cancer sufferers. The self-effacing Richard admitted that he never felt entirely comfortable with public accolades, but, in the eyes of our nation, he was more than deserving in being named an Officer of the Order of Australia and as an Australian of the Year.

Professor Richard Scolyer sits with the pantheon of remarkable Australians, but, as we just heard from the Prime Minister, he was more than that. He was a devoted husband and loving father, and our thoughts today are with those dearest to him: Dr Katie Nicoll and his children, Emily, Mathew and Lucy. In his final farewell letter, Richard implored government to keep funding science and medical research. May Richard's wish hold this federal parliament and future federal parliaments to that mark. That's the way we can honour his memory and push forward his work. May Professor Richard Scolyer rest in peace.

I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their fine and fitting words. Professor Scolyer's contributions to cancer research, to treatment and to advocacy simply can't be overstated. His work to improve outcomes for Australians living with cancer has saved and improved countless lives, and his courage inspired Australians from all walks of life.

Tragically, melanoma is Australia's national cancer. We lead the world in melanoma rates—not a race we want to win—but we also lead the world in finding new treatments and one day a cure. Richard was universally recognised as the world's leading melanoma pathologist and the highest ever published scientist in this area on the planet. Over the past decade, he has taken the Melanoma Institute to the forefront of global efforts to beat this disease, alongside his fellow Australian of the Year, Georgina Long. Richard was known not only as a brilliant scientist and clinician but also for his generosity, his optimism and his unwavering commitment to others.

In 2023, Professor Scolyer, as we've heard, faced the greatest challenge of his life when he was diagnosed with glioblastoma. Rather than retreat from the world, he chose instead to confront the disease with the same courage and determination that had defined his career. Drawing on decades of melanoma research, Professor Scolyer became the first person in the world to receive combination immunotherapy before surgery for glioblastoma, alongside a personalised cancer vaccine. In doing so, he became both a patient and a research participant determined to keep contributing to the world of medical research and making a difference.

Like many in this House, I felt privileged to spend time with Professor Scolyer over recent years. This included, as the Prime Minister said, honouring his legacy through the establishment of the Richard Scolyer Chair in Brain Cancer Research at the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, ensuring that his commitment to advancing brain cancer research will continue to inspire future generations of clinicians and scientists, a fitting tribute to a man whose life was dedicated to improving outcomes for others. I also extend my deepest condolences to his beloved wife Katie, his children Emily, Matthew and Lucy, whose hearts must still be breaking, and to his family, his friends, his colleagues and the so many patients whose lives he touched.

Richard Scolyer's remarkable legacy will endure through those lives he saved, through the research he championed and the hope that he gave to others. He was a brilliant, warm and deeply generous man. But perhaps the best way we can remember him is through his own words. He described himself as:

… a proud everyday Aussie who 'gave it a crack', and in doing so, inspired others to pursue their dreams and passions with humility, love and compassion.

Vale Richard Scolyer.

As a mark of respect to the memory of Professor Richard Scolyer AO, I ask all present to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the House.

Debate adjourned.

I declare:

That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of Professor Richard Scolyer is referred to the Federation Chamber.

Under Labor, the price of everything is going up. Electricity is up 38 per cent. Gas is up 37 per cent. Rents are up 23 per cent. Health costs are up 17 per cent. Education is up 21 per cent, and childcare fees are up 27 per cent. Because of Labor, families are falling behind and small businesses are on their knees. Prime Minister, how are Australians supposed to get ahead when Labor keeps making them pay more?

Today we are delivering real change to assist Australians. Today wages go up; taxes go down. Today, Paid Parental Leave is expanded to six months. Today superannuation will be paid on Paid Parental Leave. Workers super, as a result of changes we have made, get paid from today on payday, making a difference. All urgent care clinics are made permanent today, meaning that, when it comes to the costs of health care, people can get the care they need when they need it with just their Medicare card, not their credit card—all 137 clinics open. There are more cheaper medicines from today—an additional 10 medicines added to the PBS.

That is what delivering real change looks like. That is what makes a difference to people who are under financial pressure. And unlike the three right-wing parties, the axis of grievance, we are not just identifying issues but making a difference.

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

I'd point to a previous ruling by you, Speaker, where you said, 'I would bring the minister back to the question.' It was a specific question about how much an electricity bill is and energy prices becoming more expensive. You can add to that gas, rents, health costs, education costs and childcare fees. And then you said, 'I ask the minister to return to the question.' I think the question was about how much things are going up, and the Prime Minister needs to return to it.

I thank the manager for that point of order. We'll hear from the Leader of the House.

I think the key to how broad this question was is the word 'everything'.

The manager raises a point of relevance, and just to deal with this: relevance depends on the circumstances of the question. It's pretty difficult to look at that question and say it's the same as this question. I understand where he's coming from, but when the question raises so many issues—and the question does, about the issue that he was asked about, about paying more—I think the Prime Minister is contesting that as a point. So he is being directly relevant. The Prime Minister will continue.

Mr Speaker, I'll tell you what's going up: the minimum wage. It's going up today. I'll tell you what's also going up: paid parental leave, up by two weeks. I'll tell you what else is going up: the number of cheaper home batteries—450,000 since last July. I'll tell you what else is going up: bulk-billing rates, expanding and growing. What else is going up? The number of people attending urgent care clinics, all going up. I'll tell you what else is going up: the number of first home owners buying their own home as a result of the changes we are making. We're not just identifying issues; we're acting on them. That's what the job is. Unlike the three right-wing parties, the axis of grievance, we're not just identifying issues; we are acting on them—helping people who are under pressure here and now while building for the future and making a positive difference to people's lives by delivering real change.

I'll tell you what is also going up: the number of comments by opposition coalition members saying how hopeless they are. They had their housing spokesperson today say, 'We vacated the field for 20 years and we're now dealing with that huge failure.' Patricia Karvelas asked, 'When did you vacate the field?' Andrew Bragg: 'After 2007.'

My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help Australians with the cost of living, including by providing more tax cuts to help people get ahead? How does that compare to other approaches?

The member for Macquarie is a wonderful representative of workers and small businesses and families in her beautiful part of Australia. Today is a really important day, as the Prime Minister said a moment ago. We are delivering tax cuts. We're delivering help with the cost of living at the same time as we're delivering real change in the tax system to help first home buyers. Now, because today is 1 July, that means that there is another round of tax cuts delivered by this Albanese Labor government. All five of those tax cuts together mean about an extra $2,800 in the pockets of an average worker.

The minimum wage is going up. Award wages are going up. Paid parental leave is being extended. We're extending the small business instant asset write-off. We're paying super with wages so people get the superannuation they've worked so hard for and are entitled to, and we're extending relief when it comes to the fuel excise. All of that happens from today, and that's why today is a really important day, because, even as petrol and diesel prices have come down over the last couple of months, even though inflation came down again in the figures released last week and unemployment came down again last week as well, we know that people are still under pressure, and that's why there is more help on the way from today.

And we're providing that help at the same time as we manage the budget in a responsible way. On Friday, we learned that the deficit for the year just finished will be smaller than anticipated at budget time, and we know from the AOFM this week that our debt will be $200 billion less than the trajectory we inherited from those opposite.

If those opposite had their way, there'd be bigger deficits and more debt. If they had their way, there would be no tax cuts today and there would be no extra cost-of-living help. That's what makes the three right-wing parties indistinguishable from each other—not just their shared anti-worker agenda, not just their shared anti-housing agenda, but that they seek to capitalise on the very real pressures that people are under at the same time as they come in here and they vote to make things worse rather than better. We are taking action to address the legitimate concerns that people have. They cling to a broken status quo in the housing market, and we are changing it.

We are delivering real change to make it easier for first home buyers. We are delivering smaller deficits and less debt. We are delivering tax cuts and cost-of-living help. And today, because it's 1 July, means that more help is on the way.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, you said that families will be better off under your government, but, under Labor, interest rates have increased 15 times, meaning an average new mortgage holder is around $30 a year worse off. Prime Minister, isn't it true that, under Labor, Australians have experienced the biggest crash in living standards in the developed world?

I'm asked about families and whether they're better off and what we're doing about it. Families will benefit from the award minimum wage going up today by 4.75 per cent. Families will benefit by the increase as well—for those on the absolute minimum wage—of six per cent. Families will benefit by every single Australian taxpayer getting a tax cut today. And I'll tell you what not just families but future families will benefit from; it's paid parental leave going to six months. We've increased it year after year after year to get it up to six months. We're paying superannuation on that paid parental leave as well—something never comprehended by those opposite.

Families are benefiting from the work that we're doing on bulk-billing, from opening urgent care clinics and from cheaper medicines, to deal with health costs as well. Families who are putting in cheaper home batteries are benefiting. Some 450,000 of them have made sure that their energy bills are either zero or pretty close to it by installing a cheap home battery, which is making an enormous difference. Indeed, by them taking that action, it's also helping other people because it's taking pressure off the grid, making an enormous difference as well.

Young families are benefiting from changing the equation when it comes to housing—by recognising that there's a broken system here in Australia and giving them a fair crack at getting a roof over their own head.

That is what delivering real change looks like. That's a government that not only identifies issues but also recognises that people are under pressure and says it is going to do something about it, just as we did when it came to the crisis that came about due to the Middle East conflict. We didn't sit back and say, 'There are issues, and we're not going to do anything about it.' Those opposite have stopped asking questions about that. We made sure that Australians continued to have access to petrol, to diesel, to jet fuel and to fertiliser. We made sure that we delivered in a way in which—those opposite, prior to Easter, were calling for rationing and not identifying any solutions whatsoever, because they are the axis of grievance over there. The three right-wing parties aren't interested in helping people; they're just interested in promoting grievance.

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australian workers to get ahead, and what has stood in the way of this effort?

I'd like to thank the member for Moreton for her question and for her years and years of standing up for working Australians in this place and before she came here.

This Albanese Labor government is delivering real change for Australians with a range of cost-of-living measures coming in from today. From today, millions of Australian workers will see a real boost to their pay, with the minimum wage rising above $1,000 a week for the first time. This is delivering real cost-of-living support for workers. Since the Albanese government came into office, we have advocated for an increase to the minimum wage every single time. That's five years in a row. Over the course of this government, workers on the minimum wage are now $12,000 better off because of our advocacy. Our commitment to boost the minimum wage has been welcomed by workers like Bianca. Bianca is a retail worker, and she said, 'Getting this pay rise helps those in less fortunate situations like me.' This pay rise means that Raj, a support worker, can afford to buy a new bike for his son, which he has been asking for.

While our government is backing pay rises for our lowest paid workers, the same cannot be said for the three right-wing parties over there. We all know that when the coalition were last in government they never backed a real wage increase for workers. Of course, in the last few weeks the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation have all refused time and time again to back this minimum wage increase that is coming in today.

We know that this government is backing not only a minimum wage rise but also tax cuts for workers. This government is delivering a fairer tax system for hardworking Australians. From today, over 14 million taxpayers will get a tax cut delivered by this Labor government. Combined tax cuts outlined in this year's budget will mean Australian workers on average earnings will be up to $2,800 a year better off under this Labor government.

Of course, not only do those opposite oppose the minimum award rise that we've seen today, but they voted against tax cuts in this parliament. Those opposite were so committed to denying Australians tax cuts that they took an increase to income tax to the last election. Those three right-wing parties have not changed their approach. In recent weeks they've continued to vote against tax cuts over and over in this place. It is only this Labor government that will stand up for Australian workers.

I'm very pleased to inform the House that joining us today on the floor of the parliament is a distinguished delegation from Malaysia, including my friend His Excellency Tan Sri Dato' Dr Johari bin Abdul, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Malaysia; Yang Berhormat Dato' Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin, the Minister of Defence for Malaysia; and Her Excellency Datin Paduka Sharrina Abdullah, the High Commissioner of Malaysia to Australia. I give a very warm welcome to you all.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Speaker bin Abdul, Minister bin Nordin and High Commissioner Abdullah were then seated accordingly .

I am also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation of Venezuelan Australians who are visiting Parliament House today to meet with ministers and members of the government to share their perspectives on the recent devastating earthquakes in Venezuela and to thank the Australian government for its support. Also in the gallery is Mr Atsushi Karimata, the Consul-General of Japan in Western Australia. The state member for Bundamba, Lance McCallum, is joining us today as well.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Today marks 80 years since the US began nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. It's also 63 years since Britain last tested on Australian soil and 30 years since France last detonated bombs on French Polynesia. Our Pacific family is calling loudly and clearly for us to honour the legacy of the lives lost and damaged by disease and the environments destroyed, by committing to ban nuclear weapons. When will the government sign the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?

If you'll indulge me, Mr Speaker, I add my acknowledgement to my good friend Dato' Khaled bin Nordin, the Malaysian defence minister. It's great to see him in the House today.

I thank the honourable member for her question. Today is the 80th anniversary of the first detonation by the United States of a nuclear weapon in the Pacific at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Over the decade or so which ensured from 1946, they detonated around 67 nuclear weapons, including the first detonation by the United States of a hydrogen bomb. Tomorrow will be the 60th anniversary of the first detonation of a nuclear weapon at the Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia. You are right in saying that both of those events characterise a deep sense of feeling within the Pacific around the role and place of nuclear weapons, such that the Treaty of Rarotonga has characterised the Pacific by being a treaty which seeks to have the Pacific as a nuclear weapons free part of the world. We of course are a proud signatory to the Rarotonga treaty.

We have been, throughout the history of the Pacific Islands Forum, a supporter of the Marshall Islands in terms of all the impacts—the ongoing impacts—that have been felt by them of the nuclear weapons tests there. Australia, too, understands this. At the Montebello Islands, off the coast of Western Australia; Emu plain, in South Australia; and, of course, Maralinga, we were a place of nuclear testing ourselves, and we know the impact that that has had in relation to our own First Nations peoples. We are, as a result of all of this, proud signatories of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. We have been, from the outset, signatories of the non-proliferation treaty, which has been the cornerstone of our support for trying to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. It is worth noting that, today, there are less than 20 per cent of the nuclear warheads in the world than there were at their peak in the 1980s, and the NPT has played its part.

In terms of the ban treaty to which you refer, we are observing this very closely. We've attended all the meetings of the state parties since 2022. There are three concerns that we have in relation to it, but we continue to observe it. We obviously support the underlying desire to have a world free of nuclear weapons. The first concern goes to the question of the enforcement architecture around the ban treaty, the second is its interaction with the non-proliferation treaty and wanting to make sure that it doesn't undermine it, and the third goes to the universality of the signatories to the ban treaty. Right now, there is no nuclear weapons state which is participating in it. Ultimately, we need to have a regime in the world which actually does seek to change behaviour in relation to those who hold nuclear weapons. But we will continue to observe the progress of the ban treaty. We have a proud history and tradition in this country of working with countries around the world to seek to remove nuclear weapons from this world, and we will continue to pursue that tradition under the Albanese— (Time expired)

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

I want to thank the member for Bendigo for her question. She is a fantastic, active, hardworking local member. She knows that, last year in her community, about 1,600 parents benefited from paid parental leave. This morning, the Prime Minister, the member for Canberra and I met gorgeous little babies Van and Lucas and their parents, and we were talking to them about what a difference paid parental leave has made for them. And of course we're delighted that today that difference is even more significant because today from the today, 1 July, people will get the full six months of paid parental leave. They'll get more money at that higher rate—over $1,000 a week. They'll get their paid super as well, of course. They get more flexibility, more time off mums and dads together if they wish. And of course more people are eligible as the thresholds increase.

But it's not just about the huge increase in paid parental leave. That's not the only way we're helping families. We're increasing family tax benefit from today as well. The three hours of free power comes in today. There are tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, increases to the minimum wage for three million workers and stronger Medicare. And, of course, we're making it easier for people to get a home of their own. None of that is safe if those opposite, the three right-wing parties, ever have the opportunity to team up. The Liberals have called mums on paid parental leave rorters and double-dippers. The member for Goldstein—he's here today—says: 'It's not my choice that women have children. It's genetic.' Senator Hanson in 2017 said women only get themselves pregnant for the money, and this year in April she said: 'Listen, love. You have the equipment. That's what you're here for.'

Opposition members interjecting—

Oh look; they're having a great laugh about paid parental leave. This fits right in with the shadow minister's proposition. The shadow minister says they should do a rebranding exercise. They're going to get Scotty from marketing back! He's going to ask modern Liberals where the hell they are! They don't get paid parental leave. They don't get it. They don't want it.

On this side, we support higher wages for working families. We support lower taxes for working families. We support stronger Medicare for working families. We support better schools and free TAFE and cheaper university for working families. We support higher family tax benefit and we support more and better paid parental leave.

Order. The member for Macarthur is warned.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it true that the Albanese Labor government's 70c-a-day tax cut has already been eaten up by inflation, unlike the coalition's tax-back guarantee, which is protected from inflation and would provide a typical Australian worker a far bigger, $400 tax cut this year?

What are you going to do about wages?

Order. The Minister for Social Services is warned.

I'm asked about the tax cut that comes in today—the tax cut that is a part of our trajectory, which when we came into office had the first income tax bracket being at 19c and has taken it down to 15c today and 14c next year on 1 July. That is making a substantial difference to working families. But it's not just tax cuts, of course. It's also paying them more, which is why the minimum wage increases that have come in today, our fifth lot, will make a difference, because we want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn.

I'm asked about the tax cuts today and about coalition policy, believe it or not. I have been that lucky! Coalition policy for the tax cut that came in today was to have come into this parliament if they were successful on 3 May last year and to have reversed it. So their policy was zero. To be fair to the member for Lyne, she wasn't here then.

But everyone who was here, in the right-wing parties—even if they were in different parties at that time, because it's hard to keep up, to be fair, with the titles over there—voted for $75 billion in higher personal income taxes. They voted for $14 billion of higher taxes on the resources and manufacturing sectors by abolishing production tax credits. They voted for higher taxes on motorists by abolishing the EV concession, and higher taxes on housing construction by abolishing Build to Rent. They voted for, or wanted, higher student debt by abolishing the 20 per cent cut, and they wanted to, of course, abolish the Cheaper Home Batteries Program—like everything else in the renewable space. And, of course, they also—I was asked about your policies!

Resume your seat, please, Prime Minister. We'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. The question was around tax policies, comparing our $400 to your 70c a day. It wasn't about all these other—

Resume your seat.

The microphone's turned off when the Speaker says, 'Resume your seat.' That's how it works. The Leader of the House on a point of order?

Just to the point of order: the Manager of Opposition Business would have to have known that, when they asked about opposition policy, the answer was going to involve opposition policy.

We'll hear it. We'll give the manager the opportunity to raise his point of order as well.

There have been rulings by speakers on this. Sure—compare and contrast on tax policy, because that's what the question was asked about. But the Prime Minister cannot just wander off and talk about anything else that he likes, and there are rulings to that accord.

The way I'd like to handle this, with the support of the House, is: if the question referred to coalition tax policy, particularly the tax back guarantee, the Prime Minister has covered that. So I'm going to ask him to assist the House and return to coalition tax policy, because the manager was correct: that's what he was asked about. He wasn't asked about any other coalition policies. If he was, he'd be able to talk about every policy. But, if the Prime Minister can refer to the coalition's tax policies, that will assist the House and, I think, address the member's question. Prime Minister?

I'm more than more than happy to, because they went to an election under this leader, who was the shadow treasurer, and called for higher taxes. They were opposed to the tax cuts that came in today. And then, in the parliament, just a matter of weeks ago, with this year's budget, they voted against the working Australians tax offset. They voted against tax cuts. Not something that, in their own mind, when the three parties of grievance have this right-wing nirvana sometime down the track— (Time expired)

The member for Canning is not assisting the House. When the House comes to order, we'll hear from the member for Holt.

My question is to the Minister for Health. What measures starting today will help strengthen Medicare and deliver cost-of-living relief for Australians? Why is this so important after a decade of cuts and neglect?

Thank you to the member for Holt. I know she does everything she can to deliver and promote cost-of-living relief to the hard-working people of the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I know she's delighted that the bulk-billing rate in her electorate is now over 94 per cent and that three quarters of practices in her electorate bulk-bill 100 per cent of their patients, 100 per cent of the time.

And I know she knows that this is a big day for cost-of-living relief in Australia: a big pay rise for millions of low-paid workers, a tax cut for every Australian worker, more relief at the bowser for another month, more time for new parents with their beautiful new babies—up to six months now—knowing that the bills will be covered by our extended Paid Parental Leave. We're doing more to make Medicare even stronger and medicines even cheaper.

Finally, today, our hardworking public hospitals are freed from the mediocrity of the Morrison-era funding agreement. We know that demand and pressures on public hospitals are climbing year on year, and this side of the parliament is not going to nickel-and-dime hardworking doctors and nurses in public hospitals the way the Liberal Party always does. They would have received, under that agreement, about $12 billion in growth funding over five long years. Under this agreement signed by this prime minister, they'll get triple that amount—$37 billion—to keep them doing their important work in our 750 public hospitals.

I'm also delighted to say to the member for Holt and others that from today we deliver another chapter in our support for women during menopause and perimenopause. Last year, for the first time in decades, we finally listed new menopause hormone treatments for Australia's women. Last year we introduced a new assessment item so women can talk to their GPs about issues associated with menopause and perimenopause, and, from today, led by the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, we are extending the work of our successful endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics to include issues associated with menopause and perimenopause.

And, last but certainly not least, today is a bumper day for the PBS, with 10 new life-saving, life-changing medicines added today that will benefit tens of thousands of Australian patients. There are five new medicines for different types of cancer, and there are new medicines for growth hormone deficiency, for severe asthma, for myasthenia gravis and for a whole range of other conditions as well. Some of them would have cost tens of thousands of dollars without being added to the PBS. All of this is making a real difference to Australians and to their household budgets and their health, and it's building a healthier Australia.

Before I give the call the Leader of the Opposition, I'll say that the member for Goldstein has been interjecting constantly during answers. There's an MPI on today. I assume he wants to lead the MPI. I want to be crystal clear on this. If there are any more interjections from the member for Goldstein—I've been very fair with him, for the position he holds—we won't be having an MPI today. So we'll have an MPI if the member for Goldstein doesn't interject anymore.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor's toxic taxes are tanking the housing market. Housing data released today shows house prices have already fallen further than Treasury predicted, around three per cent in Sydney and Melbourne over the last quarter. HSBC and Morgan Stanley predict further falls of eight to 10 per cent. Will the Prime Minister guarantee house prices won't fall any further?

I'm asked about house prices and our tax policy, and I'm more than happy to announce that our tax policy is indeed about helping first home owners get into their own home. The primary purpose of housing is a secure roof over people's heads, and that is what is being delivered. It's being delivered for people like Kristian Williams, 31. He'd given up on ever owning a home of his own in the electorate of Macnamara:

I was trying to save pretty aggressively ... and you just read there's another 7 per cent increase this month, there's a 2 per cent increase this month … it just feels like a runaway dream at that point.

…   …   …

I'm feeling a little bit more confident now …

In Albury, Andrea Lever, Managing Director at Ray White Albury North, said this: 'First home buyer confidence is on the rise. I don't feel they're competing with as many investors.' Jason Barnett in Geelong, the Managing Director of Barnett Real Estate, said: 'First home buyers are the active market.' In Camperdown, in the electorate of Sydney, Juan D'Arcy said that the purchasers of a two-bedroom warehouse conversion apartment were familiar with the area and they wanted to live in a property that was close to the action. They're real people.

The Prime Minister will pause a moment.

The member for Menzies will leave the chamber under 94(a). When I'm listening to the Leader of the Opposition or any member making a point of order, do not interject. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?

The member for Menzies then left the chamber.

On relevance—the Prime Minister hasn't even attempted to answer the question of whether he will guarantee that house prices won't fall further.

The Prime Minister was asked about the prices of houses and tax policy, as he indicated. He's reading some examples into the Hansard, into the record, regarding the issue. I don't know what he's going to say next, but, if he's reading examples about the topic he was asked about—people buying houses—that is pretty relevant to the question. I'll listen carefully to make sure he is being directly relevant.

I take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition. He said, 'Why is it relevant?' I'll tell you what's relevant: people getting into their own home. That's what's relevant—people like Brooklyn and Lachie and their dog, Roscoe, in the electorate of Corangamite, where we were at Clifton Springs just a little while ago. This is what they had to say: 'Renting was frustrating because our money wasn't going anywhere, but now it is.' That's exactly the point. They had a chance to invest in themselves—

The member for Forrest is warned.

in a roof over their own head with the security that it got. That is happening in electorates and in states and territories right around this nation. That is what we are aiming for: making sure that young people get a fair crack—unlike those opposite, whose housing spokesperson said just yesterday on ABC that they basically lost their way for two decades.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to protect the environment and make approvals more efficient? What stood in the way?

Isn't it good again to have a member for Griffith who cares about delivering for the environment? It's been the case that all the major environmental outcomes for this country have been delivered by Labor governments. As a Queenslander, the member for Griffith knows all too well that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park exists because of the Whitlam government. Members know that the saving of the Franklin, the Daintree and Kakadu and the largest environmental protection decision in the history of the planet in the protection in the Antarctic all happened through the years of the Hawke-Keating governments. When we were last in government, there was the second largest conservation decision in the history of the planet: the marine national parks that were put in place and, earlier, the expansion of those marine parks in our first term.

Today, after a long campaign by many members, who I look at on the backbench of this party and this government, the Albanese Labor government establishes the first day of the National Environmental Protection Agency. For a long time, we needed a modern and efficient regulator so that people had clear understanding of our environmental laws to make sure that those laws were followed. Thanks to the reforms that were passed last year, we now have a strong regulatory toolkit, we have stronger powers for environmental protection, we have an expanded auditing framework, and we have increased penalties for serious and deliberate environmental harm. It means you get consistency. It means you get transparency. It means you get integrity in environmental decision-making at a national level.

The EPA will be a strong, independent regulator. It'll better protect our unique natural environment for generations to come. It'll act as the agile, independent umpire that Australia's environment needs. It's the cornerstone and something that both business and environmental groups were calling for—environmental reform that this government came to the table to deliver. But the three right-wing parties once again all did the exact same thing: voted no to better protections for the environment; voted no to having a streamlined, independent system; and voted no to making sure that Australia would have a national environmental protection agency. But 1 July involves many changes that are positive for this nation, and the EPA stands high as one of them.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that house prices won't fall further?

Our housing policies are aimed at giving young people a fair crack. We've changed the system so that, this Saturday, if a young couple turn up at an auction, they're not competing versus an investor who has taxpayer support. So, if they bid an extra $20,000 or $50,000, they know that they actually get a bonus and every taxpayer helping them out by increasing the deductions under negative gearing. What we are doing is making sure that people who were negatively gearing properties when the changes came in can still continue to do so. What's more, young people or anyone else can continue to invest in a negatively geared property as well.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! We'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

On relevance, I refer to a statement by Speaker Smith on 2 December 2020. He said:

In doing that, he needs to address the question that was asked, not just deal with material that is on the policy topic but not having dealt with the question itself.

The Prime Minister has not dealt with the question about a guarantee on falling house prices.

I want to deal with this. I also want to refer to Speaker Smith's ruling on 1 March 2017, where he ruled about policy topics. Points of order were not to be used as an opportunity to repeat the question. We've now strayed into this territory of points of order where people are simply repeating the question and adding extra things in. If you wish to take a point of order on relevance, that's okay. But, at this stage, the Prime Minister—

Let me finish what I'm saying, and then you may respond. That's the normal process. I don't interrupt you when you're on your feet. Whilst the leniency is there to allow points of order to be taken on relevance, there have been precedents where that leniency has been withdrawn. I'm not going to do that in this case. I'll hear from the manager if he's got something else to say.

Further to the point that I was making, it goes to what Speaker Smith had to say:

… he needs to address the question that was asked …

That was the point that I was making.

Yes, and I can appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition would like a yes-no answer. That's what he was directly asking about. But the standing orders don't allow the Speaker to direct any minister to directly answer a question. They've got to be directly relevant. So if the Prime Minister is talking about the policy, he is being directly relevant. If you'd like to change the standing orders, you're welcome to suggest that. I've had those discussions with members before, but no-one has taken me up on that option. At this stage, if the Prime Minister is being directly relevant about the policy that he was asked about—and in this case it was about house prices—we'll make sure he is being directly relevant to that.

Thanks, Leader of the Opposition.

Government members interjecting—

The manager can have the call.

This is important for question time. I'm allowed to say it. That's my job, and I don't need the peanut gallery interrupting.

Order! I don't like that sort of terminology, as we had that issue—

It's not the Colosseum.

The member for Riverina is correct. It is not the Colosseum. Can everyone remind themselves not to interject or use that sort of phraseology. Everyone here is in their own right as a member of parliament.

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. What steps is the Albanese Labor government taking to deliver real change and help Australians deal with the rising cost-of-living pressures at the supermarket checkout?

I thank the member for Adelaide for his question. He has been a champion throughout his time in this place for cost-of-living supports. He understands how important this is, particularly when it comes to households putting food on the table. From today, new rules are in place to prevent excessive pricing by supermarkets. I want to pay tribute to and acknowledge the work of the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, who has led much of the work when it comes to the development of these new rules.

The recent ACCC supermarkets inquiry found what many Australians already know. It found that Woolworths and Coles closely monitor each other's pricing and strategies and have limited incentive to compete vigorously on price. I have to say that Woolworths and Coles aren't the only Australian brands that closely monitor what their competition does. The three right-wing political parties opposite closely monitor each other, and they are closely converging on their product offering at the minute. While we can't stop all examples of brand copycats, we can do something about the big supermarkets and their price gouging.

That's why, from today, it will be illegal for large supermarkets such as Coles and Woolworths to charge prices that are excessive when compared to the cost of supply plus a reasonable margin. These reforms come with big penalties if breached. Any retailers found to be in breach will face the greater of $10 million, three times the value of the benefit derived or 10 per cent of annual turnover during the preceding 12 months.

These are tough laws with big penalties which are in the best interests of consumers, and they form part of a broader package of reforms to strengthen protections for Australians at the supermarket checkout. We've increased the maximum penalties for breaches of Australian competition and consumer laws from $10 million in 2022 to $100 million per breach in 2026. That's a tenfold increase in the penalties that we inherited when we came to government. We've also made the food and grocery code mandatory, with strong protections for suppliers and significant penalties for supermarkets that breach the code—a measure those opposite voted against. Again acting in the interests of the status quo, they opposed those measures, which are in the interests of consumers. We've also funded CHOICE, to provide shoppers with more information on supermarket prices. CHOICE is obviously very important for Australian consumers in this and other areas.

Consumers can choose a Labor government that is delivering real change and protecting them at the supermarket checkout, or they can choose the three right-wing parties who oppose support for Australians at every step of the way and stand only for the status quo.

I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives of Burke Shire Council, Carpentaria Shire Council, Mornington Shire Council and Doomadgee Aboriginal Shire Council, visiting from the Gulf of Carpentaria region in the north-west of Queensland as guests of the member for Kennedy.

I'd also like to recognise former member for Paterson the Hon. Bob Baldwin, who is in the gallery today as well.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Minister, you've written to the ACCC and the AER about retailer conduct on fixed charges. From today, households are promised three hours of so-called free power from 11 am to 2 pm, when most Fowler families are at work and, outside that window, still paying fixed charges and full price. Can the minister guarantee that this isn't a 'give with one hand and take with the other' scheme and that no household energy bill will go up?

I thank the honourable member for the question. I can confirm for the honourable member that there is nothing 'so called' about free power when it's a requirement of law for the energy companies to provide it as an option to people in the relevant jurisdictions, including the constituents of Fowler. We've been very clear that solar sharer is not for everyone, but for those people who can move power to the middle of the day—whether they be people who work from home, who this side of the House support, or people who can use their smart devices to schedule their devices to be used in the middle of the day—it is a very good option for them. That is why we are requiring energy companies to deliver it. We say to energy companies that it is a requirement of law for it be delivered from today.

The other elements that we are delivering include the default market offer, which has seen people in the Endeavour Energy network, which covers the people of Fowler, receive a 3.4 per cent reduction this year. The other thing we are delivering is cheaper home batteries, which 2,720 households in Fowler have taken up. They are also reducing their bills very dramatically. That is a rate in Fowler which is substantially higher than in other electorates. The member for Fowler has previously claimed that this is a policy for inner city electorates. That is just not true, because the people of Fowler are taking up cheap home batteries at a much faster rate than electorates that have higher wealth than the people of Fowler. That's because the people of Fowler want to reduce their bills, and they know that cheaper home batteries are a very good option to do so. That's why this government has been delivering it. I'm disappointed the member for Fowler doesn't support that policy.

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. What additional support is the Albanese Labor government providing to small businesses from today, and what are the risks to this?

I want to thank the member for Tangney for his question but also for his incredible advocacy for small businesses in his electorate of Tangney. It wasn't that long ago that the member for Tangney and I visited a really impressive small business in Willetton, the Willetton Trophy Centre. It's a family owned business passed on from generation to generation, and they've been able to really grow through innovation and being adaptable but also through their incredible hard work and ambition.

That's what small business is all about, isn't it? It's about people backing themselves. It's about families taking a risk and putting in the long hours, employing locals and building up communities. The Albanese Labor government backs in that ambition and that aspiration because we understand that, when Australia's 2.77 million small businesses grow, local communities grow with them. When I speak to small-business owners, as I travel around the country talking to them, they tell me about their challenges and their pain points—things like cash flow, red tape, access to staff, operating costs and, of course, global uncertainty.

That's why, from today, the Albanese Labor government is delivering real change to help small businesses manage pressure to invest and to plan with confidence. From today, our changes kick in. We're making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent so that small businesses can have certainty to invest in the tools and the equipment and assets that they need. We're also delivering a permanent two-year loss carry-back for companies with a turnover of up to $1 billion so that they can return to profitability faster. We're cutting red tape and lowering compliance costs by removing a further 497 nuisance tariffs. That's going to save businesses around $127 million a year. We're supporting small businesses to take up digital technology. We're making it easier to access workers with the right skills, and we're providing free access to mandatory standards. That's going to save some small businesses more than $1,600 a year. We're also continuing new access for small-business owners and the Small Business Debt Helpline.

This is a government that backs people who work hard, take risks and build for the future, whether they work for a business or whether they own a business. That's why we're delivering real change for Australians, including tax cuts for workers and sole traders, something that the three right-wing parties voted against. We back all taxpayers on this side of the House. We back families, we back parents and we back small business.

My question is to the Prime Minister. A flat white costs $2 more today than it did in 2022, when Labor came to power. The government's 70c a day tax cut won't even cover the increase, let alone the coffee itself. Prime Minister, why does Labor keep making Australians pay more?

We, on this side of the House, today, on 1 July, are proudly talking about the tax cuts that came in. We're talking about the real wage increases. We're talking about the Medicare urgent care clinics and the extra pharmaceuticals on the PBS. We're talking about the additional free TAFE places and the fact we've made Medicare urgent care clinics permanent. We're talking about the additional two weeks of paid parental leave, which takes it up to six months. We're talking about payday super. We're talking about all that, and they're talking about a cup of coffee. What we're talking about—

Opposition members interjecting—

No wonder some of the ones on the front bench say that they need a rebrand, because they certainly do. It is certainly time to take 'liberal' out of the Liberal Party. But it's not their brand—it's their product that's the problem. It's not your sales pitch; it's your policies. It's not what you call yourselves; it's who you are. It's the fact that you vote against any change to cost of living that will help people.

The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?

It goes to relevance. This wasn't about alternatives; this was about cost of living and what's happening to inflation. It's got nothing to do with what he's quoting, and you've said it before, Speaker. The Prime Minister can't randomly quote things; he's got to remain relevant to the question.

To assist the House, I'm going to ask the Prime Minister that, if he is quoting a document, as the Manager of Opposition Business said, he makes it directly relevant to the question; otherwise, he won't be able to use it.

I was asked about the cost of living, as the Manager of Opposition Business just said. What I'm talking about is the cost-of-living support which we're giving on this side of the House, which those on that side of the House voted against. Every single one of these measures, they voted against. I'm really proud of what we are doing—the strongest annual economic growth in almost three years, inflation lower than it was when we came to government wages, wages going up, pay packets growing much faster than at any time under the coalition, the smallest gender pay gap on record order, the lowest average unemployment in 50 years. We are laser-like focused on cost of living. Those opposite vote against every single cost-of-living measure.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government helping households to lower their bills by taking advantage of Australia's world-class sunshine? What policies would put a stop to this progress?

I thank the honourable member for the question and thank her for our recent visit to a wonderful part of the world. One of the things we did was talk about cheaper home batteries. Today is 1 July, which means the cheaper home batteries policy is officially one year old today. I'm pleased to tell the House that 457,439 Australian households have installed a cheaper home battery since 1 July, which means on average 1,255 Australian households have put in a cheaper home battery every single day for the last 12 months.

It also means that—not in per capita terms, not per head terms, but in absolute terms—Australia now has more household batteries than the largest, most populous state in the United States of America, California. That's the achievement of Australians over the last 12 months. When we came to office, home batteries were in one in 60 houses. Now it's one in 17. That's wonderful for those families that are reducing their bills, in many cases to nothing and in some cases getting a rebate instead of a bill, but it's very good for putting downward pressure on energy prices for everyone.

In addition, the honourable member asked me how Australians can access the benefits of renewable energy. It's 1 July today, which also means solar sharer is now available for consumers in New South Wales, in South-East Queensland and South Australia, which is a requirement on energy companies to provide the option of three hours of free electricity in the middle of the day when the solar energy is at its strongest and is most abundant. For those people who take that offer up, Morgan Stanley have found, for example, that some families could save $660 a year, which we on this side of the house think is a good thing. Those on that side of the house are opposed to it. We see this start today and it is a requirement of law for energy companies to deliver it from today, which we expect every single energy company covered to comply with.

It's also the case that from today rule changes the government have requested have come into force. That means that there can only be one price rise each year. It means that there must be a fee-free option to pay. It means that customers whose discounted plans expire can't simply be moved to a higher cost plan. And it means that there can't be excessive fees for late payments. These are all changes that come into force from today because the Albanese Labor government asked for those rules to change, as well as solar sharer coming into force today because we put it into place, as well as cheaper home batteries which have worked for 12 months to help 457,000 Australian households reduce their bills, which is a good thing. We will stand with those households. We will protect those policies. Those opposite would abolish those policies.

I ask that further questions be placed to the Notice 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 present the status of government responses in the House of Representatives to parliamentary committee reports as at 30th June 2026.

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

The Government driving the fall of the living standards of 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—

Well, we just got through question time, but I can assure you there was no sunshine that came out of those answers because, right now, there has never been a time when Australians have done it so tough and yet the government continues to lord over them. This Prime Minister lords over them that they have never had it so good. We've never seen or faced a time where the government is so out of step and so out of touch with the lived experience of what Australians are living right now, where they go to the supermarket and every time they put something in a red basket, they're not just paying more, but they're getting less. It is the same with the trolley. If you're trying to build a home, you're having the costs rise every single day. The only answer the government is giving, the only answer this Prime Minister is giving, is Australians have never had it so good.

Australians want to get ahead. They want a sense of confidence for the future, and they have a prime minister who throughout question time has extolled the virtues of the government, constantly referring to how great his government is and how Australians should be thankful and appreciative for the incredible efforts from himself and his government. Well, let's look at some facts. Inflation is at 4 per cent. We are constantly seeing more debt—petrol poured on the inflation fire by the federal Treasurer—and as a consequence interest rates continue to rise. Australian households are being stretched, budgets are being stretched, and Australians are finding it harder not just to get ahead but just to keep themselves above water. We now have interest rates at 4.35 per cent the highest since 2011, and we've had 15 interest rate rises under this government. Australian families on a typical mortgage are now paying $29,400 a year. And let's remember this: that isn't $29,400 of pre-tax income; it's post-tax income. Many households simply cannot absorb that cost. So what a surprise that while we're seeing interest rates go up we're also seeing a big problem with the housing market and prices going down. And the only response from those opposite is to celebrate, to cheer, to toast falling house prices, without any recognition that that is often people's savings, their hard work, reflected in asset that provides the economic security for their family and often for a small business as well.

Household savings are now 6.2 per cent of income. Let's be clear about this: 6.2 per cent of income, down from 11.3 per cent when the Albanese government got elected. To keep their head above water, people are having to eat into their savings, just to stay afloat. GDP per capita is not higher than when Labor took office. In fact, we've seen it fall in 10 of the 16 quarters since the change of government. Australians are now paying 38.5 per cent more income tax. Think about that. Australians are trying and working harder, they're working longer hours and they're falling further behind. And it's not because they're doing anything wrong. It's because the government can't keep its mitts out of people's hip pockets. And because they can't control their spending, what do they do? They come after yours.

That is the consistent theme of a Labor government. They have no sense of respect for the hard work, savings and sacrifice of Australians. Instead, they see Australians' money as their money, as a pathway to their control, to be able to dictate the terms of how people live. Gross debt is crossing $1 trillion for the first time in 2026-27. And let's remember this: today's debt is tomorrow's taxes. So not only can they not keep their hands out of the hip pockets of Australians; they're now raiding the hip pockets of future generations as well.

The simple metrics show just how bad this government is. Cost-of-living pressure under this government: insurance up by 42 per cent; electricity up by 38 per cent, despite the incredible sunshine we've just heard all about; gas up by 37 per cent; rents up by 23 per cent; education up by 21 per cent, health care up by17 per cent; and food and grocery costs up by 17 per cent. We have an axis of arrogance with this government, where they simply are disconnected from the lived experience of Australians. Since the election we've seen a series of budget broken promises, whose only solution is to then go after more of Australians' money, because the government cannot manage its own.

We're now seeing them test the very fundamentals of economics. They have turned a blind eye to or actively stoked illegal tobacco trade through organised crime. That's pushed right through the Laffer curve, and there are now fewer legal cigarettes in the marketplace and less tax revenue. Now they're going to try exactly the same principle across the nation by shutting down businesses, actively discouraging reward of effort and incentive to get ahead, particularly targeting the many people who back themselves—the self-starters, the small businesses and those who are not going to be leaving or exiting because they have to pay more tax but because they see the decline in talent. In my lifetime I've never seen a government that has so rigidly and objectively tried to declare war on not just the country today but the future ambitions of Australians to get ahead for tomorrow. The impact of this government on Australians is going to be long, because its focus is solely on how it preserves and conserves its own power against the direct interests and advancement of the Australian people. But, more than anything else, this government is so broken because of where it sees its priorities.

The traditional model of redistribution is to take from the rich and to give to the poor. They like to dress themselves up as modern-day Robin Hoods, but the reality is completely different. This government has specialised redistribution, and its redistribution is to take from the Australian people and feed themselves. It's to prioritise their interests over the best interests and objectives of the Australian people, and what we've seen once they gain control of the hip pockets of Australians is how they dole the patronage out left, right and centre, without any accountability, to their friends and to their mates across the economy.

This government is not interested in the Australian people. This government is interested in themselves and their control. The brutal truth is they—let's just say to keep it parliamentary—break promises so easily, so calmly, so comfortably that someone could even inject another term instead of 'broken promises'. This government has never had any shame in understanding that truth is a luxury as their governance model.

Well, there is a future and there is hope. Australians do believe in and want to back themselves. They want to get ahead, and there is an opportunity to end this government and particularly its active inflation agenda. The governance model that the Treasurer has brought forward is to stoke inflation, tax inflation, spend the inflation and keep the cycle going. What they've done as a process is continuing to put upward pressure on interest rates. That can end. We can have an end to the inflation cycle this government is actively stoking if we have a government which has the courage to actually focus on ending the corruption and fraud in the NDIS, the courage to end the corruption and fraud in home aged-care packages, the courage to end the corruption and fraud in child care and the enrolment of children and, most importantly—and this is the one thing you will never see from a federal Labor or state Labor government—the courage to end the corruption in the CFMEU and, in particular, taking public money and handing it to organised crime. The fact that the Prime Minister sits in that chair and will not even audit whether federal public money finds its way into the hands of corrupt organised crime and the CFMEU is an embarrassment to his government, and every single Labor member should look at this government and feel embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with it.

We have seen it on the public record in the state of Victoria, and now that model is being nationalised across the country. It is a model that is anchored in corruption, a model that is built in stealing the money of the Australian people and the Victorian people and handing it to criminal networks, and it must end. But, even more than that, end the inflation cycle, which has meant that we have a government that acts as a silent thief shoving its hand into the hip pocket of Australians. That's why we're going to introduce our tax-back guarantee—so that $250 tax cut isn't some sort of luxury of a government but permanent and making sure the silent thieves in the night that are Labor governments can't get away with it again.

When the Leader of the Opposition became leader, getting rid of the first woman to head the Liberal Party, he said that his party needed to 'change or die'. I don't think many Australians thought that they were going to choose door 2, but that's what's happening right now. The modern Liberal Party won't change, and it's choosing to die. They won't change a system that's locked a generation of young Australians out of homeownership. They won't change their natural inclination, in a choice between opportunity and privilege, to back privilege every time. As the opposition leader himself might have said: 'Fantastic. Great move. Well done, Angus.'

The fact is that Labor is today introducing measures which are going to benefit millions of Australians, and so many of these measures have been opposed by the shadow treasurer. We are boosting minimum wages and award wages, benefiting more than three million Australians, and yet the shadow treasurer is on the record criticising the Fair Work Commission's decision to deliver a real wage increase to low-income workers. We're increasing wages for care workers, who'll benefit by around $59 a week. A registered nurse will benefit to the tune of about $86 a week. And yet the shadow treasurer has criticised better wages for frontline workers as 'borrowing from future generations'.

From today, workers will see payday super. They'll actually see money coming into their super accounts when it should. But the shadow treasurer has criticised universal superannuation, labelling it 'a form of economic social engineering' and 'a form of economic insanity'.

From today, Labor is putting in place six months of paid parental leave. But the shadow treasurer has called paid parental leave 'a very bad scheme', saying:

… that is not my choice that women have children; it's not. It's genetic.

From today, Labor is delivering tax cuts for every working Australian. Yet the shadow treasurer believes that we have to increase taxes on working Australians, having said:

… we have to move towards a simpler 20 per cent flat personal, company and consumption tax …

That's right; the shadow treasurer wants to double the GST.

From today, Labor is increasing funding to public hospitals by $25 billion. Yet the shadow treasurer has championed the privatisation of Medicare so there could be a 'transfer of the health-financing burden shifted from government to individuals'.

Labor is committed to reforms which will boost productivity. From today, we're going to see the $20,000 instant asset write-off become permanent, encouraging small businesses to invest. From today, we're banning price gouging by the big supermarkets, ensuring that those big supermarkets no longer charge excessive prices, as defined by the cost of supply plus a reasonable margin.

We've seen the coalition backing away from the sources of dynamism that have made Australia so prosperous over past decades. Multiculturalism is backed by 83 per cent of Australians, according to last year's Scanlon survey. Past Liberal leaders, such as Malcolm Turnbull and Malcolm Fraser, and leaders such as Philip Ruddock, Nick Greiner and Jeff Kennett have backed multiculturalism. But when asked the same question, the Leader of the Opposition said things like, 'I don't quite know what you mean by that question,' and, 'Do you want to define it for me?' and, 'There's all these vague words running around.' Asked seven times, he couldn't back in multiculturalism. As the saying goes, if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. Multiculturalism has been a key driver of Australia's success and is supported by four out of five Australians, yet the modern Liberal Party can't bring themselves to back it.

From the beginning of next year, Labor will be getting rid of non-compete clauses for nine out of 10 Australian workers, ensuring that they can move to a better job. Yet there's one kind of non-compete that those opposite are in favour of. The member for Barker, who, thankfully, is here in the House, has said he wants them to have their own 'non-compete clause' with One Nation. While John Howard said he would put One Nation last, the modern Liberal Party is a tribute act to One Nation. The modern Liberal Party want to collaborate with One Nation. They want a non-compete with One Nation. They don't believe in standing up against One Nation—well, maybe with one or two exceptions. But, basically, if you put Andrew Hastie off to one side, the modern Liberal Party are in favour of collaborating with One Nation.

And we've seen the scare campaigns being run by those opposite. One news report quoted by those opposite had a business leader saying that they were going to leave Australia because 'China provides a better life than Australia right now, so I was thinking about going back.' But when quizzed by Media Watch as to whether it was really the effect of the budget, he said:

No it's not just the budget. That's just a small thing … The bigger part is … the infrastructure and our cost of living, that's the main thing …

So is he going to move back? 'Well,' he said, 'I have to let my daughter finish school first.' How old is she? She's nine years old. So he'll go back to China when she finishes year 12? Well, maybe, or when she finishes university, which, according to Media Watch, makes it 2037.

Another critic quoted in the same story, business leader Phillip Wang, said:

… the government's tax changes would continue to drive capital and innovation out of the country.

Asked how the Telegraph found him, he said:

I got a phone call from a friend in the Liberal Party … They asked around to see who's willing to take that call.

Oddly, given those opposite have been complaining about the level of net overseas migration, you'd think they might be quite happy about some Liberal Party members saying they're going to move overseas. But, in fact, they're happy to run these scare campaigns on the measures in the budget which are ensuring that we boost homeownership, which are all about driving productivity.

For small business, we've changed the R&D tax credit so that every dollar of R&D tax credit drives 20 per cent more research and development. For Australians who are looking to afford medicines, the health minister has been putting a record number of drugs through the PBS and driving record funding through our hospital system. We've made urgent care clinics permanent. We are ensuring that the productivity benefits that come from a healthier workforce flow to more Australians. Labor's competition reform agenda will not only make it easier for Australians to move to a better job but also drive competition through the National Competition Policy in a compact with states and territories. We will ensure that reforms such as planning, zoning and growth boosting will be enhanced. We will ensure that it's easier for Australians to work across state and territory borders by getting rid of unnecessary occupational licensing rules. Our negative gearing and capital gains tax changes ensure that all small businesses have access to the capital gains tax exemptions and that 98 per cent of all businesses have access to those exemptions.

We are driving reforms which will see the government contribute to some 420,000 new homes, and the tax changes in the budget will see another 75,000 Australians own their own home. Labor believes in the same values that once used to be bipartisan. Back in the days of Chifley and Menzies, we had two parties in this country committed to homeownership. But the Liberal Party is now the party which is arguing against tax changes, which, as people like Joe Hockey and Dom Perrottet have pointed out, are necessary if we are to allow young Australians to break into the property market.

So, at the next election, the coalition will go to the Australian people promising to roll back our changes. To be quite clear about what that means, they will be going to the Australian people calling for the reinstatement of huge tax breaks for investors that will reduce homeownership and will be paid for by higher taxes and worse services. It'll be the last election all over again, when the member for Hume was the shadow treasurer, championing policies that saw the Liberal Party promising to the Australian people to increase their taxes and deliver higher deficits, to fund policies such as taxpayer funded long lunches for bosses. We've seen this movie before. The Liberal Party went to the 1987 election promising to repeal the capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax. They never did it, and they will fail again to roll back Labor's reform agenda, delivered in the interests of all Australians.

I'm going to be a little bit more positive. I believe we live in the greatest country on earth, and I think everybody in this chamber would absolutely endorse what I just said. I believe our best days are ahead of us. And they certainly are. The member for Fenner was rather negative in his comments. First of all, he spoke of just the two parties. But you had Artie Fadden leading the Country Party, a former prime minister, dare I say, at a time when, yes, housing was a big issue, like it is now—he mentioned the new drugs on the PBS. I do thank the health minister, who's at the table, because every new drug on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is saving lives. Every single drug is saving lives. And the member for Hunter, who has just left the chamber, is doing some good work in the space of men and boys, as a special envoy in that regard. We all come to this place trying to make the country a better place. But this matter of public importance is about the government driving the fall of living standards of Australians. Sadly, that is true.

Let me just give you some examples, because we need to be doing so much better than what is being offered at the moment. First of all, we've got veterans. I appreciate that this morning we had the minister giving a very good speech at the establishment of not just the Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency but also the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans. But the $5,000 allied health cap is going to lead to a fall in living standards for veterans. The government says that it will consult over the next 12 months. The consultation should have happened before the budget; unfortunately, it didn't. Now the government is playing catch-up, as it always does.

House prices are plummeting right across the board, in every market. Both regional and metropolitan house prices are falling. And we've seen the biggest slump in property values in four years. That's simply not good enough, particularly for somebody who purchased a property just prior to the budget, when they wouldn't have expected or thought about what was going to happen during the budget, given what the government said and the promises the Prime Minister made before the election. The Prime Minister promised one thing, and the Treasurer delivered another. And this is at a time when construction companies are going bankrupt in record numbers. Not only are construction companies going bankrupt but also building approvals declined 1.1 per cent in May, and that's the third successive monthly fall on Labor's watch. It's simply not good enough.

Then we look at the transport sector. We've got trucking companies going bankrupt and backwards at a rate that we haven't seen for some time. When you've got a group such as Don Watson closing after operating for 77 years, and Ron Crouch Transport in Wagga Wagga, a generational family trucking company, going into administration, it's simply not good enough. Transport operators are becoming insolvent in alarming numbers. It's not just that. In Victoria just this year we've had four caravan manufacturers also go into administration. What is happening?

But we hear the Minister for Small Business going on and on about how good things are for small business. Well, they're not; they're simply not. The Future Made in Australia manufacturing policy that Labor spruiks is just a fallacy. It is just a joke. We've got forestry products being imported at a rate never seen before because we are locking up our regeneration—our forestry sectors. When you have local economies such as Snowy Valleys Council, where 70 per cent of its gross shire product relies on forestry, and then you've got a government doing so much to inhibit and stop forestry happening, it is just a joke.

We've heard so much about child care because it's 1 July. Good luck in regional Australia, where there's a childcare desert. We've heard the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors in the last couple of question times—yesterday and the day before—going on about home-care packages. They're simply so hard to get that people are dying waiting for them. It's not good enough.

Then we've got the rorting in the NDIS. Yes, the government said it's doing something about it, but you talk to NDIS operators, particularly in regional Australia—but more importantly, perhaps, those families who are so vulnerable and the children expecting those services that cannot get those services. Yes, we need to clamp down on shoddy operators, but it's not the shoddy operators who are going to miss out. It's the vulnerable children. We can be so much better than this. We should be so much better than this. We must be so much better than this.

Today, 1 July, is an important day. Mark it in your diaries. I do want to thank the shadow treasurer for bringing this matter of public importance to us, because it gives us on this side of the House an opportunity to talk about all the changes that are coming in today, because today all Australians get more help. Today, every taxpayer gets another tax cut. Today, over three million workers get a pay rise, and today paid parental leave will expand to a full six months. Today, Medicare urgent care clinics become a permanent part of our healthcare system. Today, small businesses get the certainty of a permanent $20,000 instant asset write-off. Today, payday super begins, so workers' super is paid with their wages, not left sitting in an employer's account for months. Today, we take stronger action on supermarkets that are price gouging. Today, Australians can access three hours of free energy through our solar sharer program. Today, the Albanese government says to all Australians that we are working hard to help you. More than 14 million taxpayers get another tax cut.

But what did the coalition do when the tax package came before the parliament? What did they do? They opposed it. I know the member for Lindsay has suggested that the Liberal Party ought to rebrand. My reaction to that—and I'm going to be as parliamentary as possible here—is that you can't polish turd. There's no dressing up a dud political party. If you vote against tax cuts for all Australian taxpayers, if you vote against helping first home buyers to buy their first home, if you vote against super on government funded paid parental leave, if you vote against payday super, if you vote against same job, same pay, then you are voting against all Australians. That tells you everything about the modern Liberal Party. And there is no rebranding, no new name, no new logo that is going to fix a party that is rotten to the core.

While we on this side of the House supported a pay increase for those on the minimum wage, helping around three million workers, the Liberal Party opposed that wage increase for our lowest paid workers. They spent nearly a decade telling Australians that low wages were a deliberate design feature of their economic policy. No rebranding is going to change that. While Labor is strengthening Medicare, increasing bulk-billing rates and making Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of our healthcare system, the Liberal Party froze the Medicare rebate and they wanted to introduce a GP tax. Again, no rebranding is going to change that.

The Liberal Party are now becoming the Enron and Kodak of brands. They are badly damaged and irreparable and will be a footnote in history. One Nation is no better, because let's remember what we've seen from Senator Hanson in the past few weeks. She opposed paid parental leave, and then she sort of supported it but not really. I think it's because she fundamentally doesn't understand what it is. It isn't a welfare measure. It is good economic policy because it keeps parents connected to work, it supports women's participation and it gives parents more time with their children. Today is a great day because we are saying to parents, 'We want you to spend more time at home with your children.' We are expanding the government's paid parental leave to 26 weeks. That's more cuddles, more kisses—a lot more sleepless nights! But it's a great thing for our country.

It's true to say that today's an important day. It's a day when our nation turns an important page. I do, just as an aside, have to query why those opposite would spend the majority of their contributions obsessing over the Liberal Party on such an important day—on a day when they could be talking about what those opposite are actually achieving. But it is the first day of a new financial year. Predictably, the Prime Minister and his treasurer have been out spruiking their tax cuts—a paltry $5 a week. Those opposite don't spend their time talking about this because they know that it is insignificant and it has been monstered by inflation. It's evaporated before it's even turned up.

I've got to say that, during question time, I do sometimes turn off as the Prime Minister is preening his feathers, giving us the 'never had it better' speech, luxuriating in his hubris. Those opposite would do well to look up at the galleries during question time, because the people in the galleries get it—they know that grocery prices have gone up, they know fuels have gone up, they know rent's gone up. Do you know what else they know, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon? They know who to blame for it. It is the unbridled spending of those opposite that is putting pressure on Australians via inflation, because those opposite don't have a plan for it. Do you know how I know those in the galleries know this?

Sky News!

No, not Sky. I spent my time earlier today looking at the Prime Minister's Facebook page. I thought, 'Yes, this is a place I'll go to.' It's an important day, changing the page historically here in Australia. He's there spruiking his tax cuts, and, in the comments, real Australians out there in the real world have had something to say about that. Let's have a look at those. We've got one contributor who said:

One hand gives … the other one takes more than what was given …

Another contributor said:

If delusion was a person he would be it.

Another contributor said:

Cool story.

Extra $10 a week—

I've got bad news for this contributor; it's actually only five bucks—

just went into extra $12 diesel to get to work.

Another contributor said:

Using supermarket specials tactics.

I like that one in particular. We're back to this:

Give with one hand take with the other.

A contributor says:

You mean give with one and take double with the other.

I've tuned out; are you reading Facebook comments?

These are real Australians who are telling you—I can see some nods in the gallery; they get it. Those opposite really don't want to hear this, but you should hear it. Andrew Brown contributed:

Increase the tax free threshold significantly you you REALLY want to give Australian workers a tax break.

That's an endorsement for the tax-back guarantee that we announced on budget in reply night. There are other contributors:

… the comedy act continues.

It's gotten to the point that the Prime Minister of this country is regarded as a joke. While we're talking about jokes, there's a whole theme that comes through the comments:

April fools was a couple of months ago.

It's 1 July, and they're thinking, 'Maybe he's talking about 1 April.' Then I found some support for the Prime Minister's position. Bobby Bingham said:

$5 ! sweet that provides financial relief.

Then I realised that actually he was being sarcastic. I wasn't great at English lit, but this is my personal favourite. Geordie Askew said:

We all feel like Oliver.

Please sir, can I have some more?

And that's the point for those opposite. Those opposite listen to a prime minister during question time who's saying, 'We're here to help.' But the people in the galleries, Australians, are saying, 'If this is helping, can you please do us a favour and just stop.' It's not help if it actually hurts.

I do want to inform the people in the gallery just a little bit about the member for Barker's track record when it comes to helping everyday Australians. When taking 20 per cent off student debt came before this House—a saving to the average student of over $5,000—the member for Barker voted against it. When not one, not two, not three, not four but five tax cuts came before this parliament, the member for Barker voted against every single one of them. And what those tax cuts mean is an extra $2,800 in the pocket of the average Australian. That's a lot of money.

Under our legislation, under this budget, 75,000 people who haven't been able to get into their first home will be able to get into their very first home. What did the member for Barker do? He voted against it. At our urgent care clinics, all you have to do is rock up with your Medicare card and you'll get the treatment that you need, and there are 137 of them across our nation. What did the member for Barker do? He voted against it. Our $25 medicines are taking medicines back to the prices they were decades ago. What did the member for Barker do? He voted against it.

When I was preparing to come here and talk about this MPI, I did something that I do not recommend to you. I imagined a world where the shadow treasurer—the member for Goldstein and the mover of this MPI today—was in charge. In doing so, there are a few things I think that we should make very clear. Firstly, what we know if the member for Goldstein were in charge is that everything would be more expensive. In fact, we know by how much because we know that the member for Barker would put a 20 per cent consumption tax on. How do we know that? Because the member for Goldstein said:

… we have to move towards a simpler 20 per cent flat personal, company and consumption tax …

We know what would happen because bulk-billing would be out the window. How do we know that? Because the shadow treasurer said:

transfer of the health financing burden shifted from government to individuals—

When he was championing the privatisation of Medicare. Your mortgage payments would be higher if the member for Goldstein were in charge. How do we know? Because he said:

Nobody wins from low interest rates …

What about making things in this country and manufacturing? We know that would be out the window too. He said:

The days of Australia being an island continent producing finished goods for domestic consumption are over.

Finally, what about staying at home with your baby in the first important months of their life? Not on the member for Goldstein's watch. He said:

It's a very bad scheme … it's not my choice that women my choice that women have children. It's genetic!

We don't really have to imagine what this would be like because we've got the verbal receipts, provided by the shadow Treasurer's worst enemy—the member for Goldstein!

I don't want to spend the rest of my time talking about the member for Goldstein's greatest hits because Australians are doing it tough. They've also been impacted by a global conflict that's having an impact on our prices here at home. That's why this government is investing in them, and it's why today is an important day. Today, the Albanese Labor government is delivering more paid parental leave. Award wages are going up by 4.75 per cent, and the minimum wage is going up by six per cent. Superannuation will be paid when it is earned. Supermarket price gouging will be banned, and tax cuts will be delivered to every single taxpayer in Australia.

Normally, I'd say to look at what those opposite do, not what they say. (Time expired)

This Friday is 3 July, and it is the 12-month anniversary of the swearing-in of the class of 2025. It is a momentous occasion for that class among us. One of the things I've enjoyed most over the last 12 months is going around to schools and talking to them about our system of government, about democracy and about why we have the best system anywhere in the world. One of those features is the accountability and transparency of functions like question time where you can make the Prime Minister of the day accountable on a range of things.

I have to say, the preening, the back-patting and the smirking that's been on display from this Prime Minister every single day this week and every other week while Australians in my electorate suffer causes me to say that people deserve so much better.

I'll give you a couple of examples. I've got a constituent right now who's living with her abuser in fear because leaving means she will be separated from her special needs son and pets, and she cannot afford to move out. There are a couple living in a tent in a stranger's driveway in my electorate, and they cannot afford anywhere to rent on their $450-per-week budget.

There's an elderly couple in South Gippsland who can't afford to turn on their heating. When support workers visit, they're offered a blanket and the couple apologise for how cold it is in their house. There's a woman in my electorate who's separated from her partner and needs to live in the same house while she waits for Centrelink and child support to process her payments. This is not good enough. She's relying on food bank payments to get by at the moment because she can't afford to eat. For all the smirking and the back-patting and the preening that this prime minister carries on with, Australians right now deserve so much better from their government.

Look at health. After two decades of progressing private health insurance as a more affordable way for older Australians, the cut to the private health rebate has hurt these people deeply. More than three million Australians over the age of 65 have health insurance. More than 900,000 of these Australians live on less than $55,000. They are not wealthy. They have worked hard. They have saved hard. They have done the right thing. They have tried to take some burden off the system, and goodness knows that right now our hospitals are bursting at the seams thanks to state and federal Labor government mismanagement. These people deserve better, and the cut to the health insurance rebate will hurt these people. It will burden our public hospitals.

I go to the CFMEU. The corruption in Victoria has cost taxpayers at least $15 billion. Sarah Ferguson on the ABC asked the Prime Minister a pretty straightforward question. She asked him whether he had requested of the Premier of Victoria any assurances that Commonwealth funding on infrastructure projects wasn't going to organised crime. I asked the Prime Minister in question time, and he was evasive again—more smirking, more, back-patting and more preening.

On energy, between 2023 and June 2025, power costs surged 27 per cent above the consumer price index. I have families in my electorate who are staring at an energy bill stuck to their fridge, looking at the groceries they have to buy that week and making a decision on which one they're going to be able to pay, because they can't afford to pay for both. These people deserve a serious Prime Minister. They deserve a serious government. They deserve better than jokes and snide remarks.

On inflation, we're sitting at four per cent. It's well outside the RBA's recommended band of two to three per cent. The previous governor, Philip Lowe, and many other people have said that this is a home-grown problem. In other words, spending by government is driving much of this. At what point, after a few years of sitting well outside this recommended ban, are we going to have a serious national conversation about inflation and the impact that it's having on the cost of living? At what point do we just roll on for another couple of years under this government, with inflation bubbling along above that band? Debt is about to pass $1 trillion. Look at the debt of Victoria, where I'm from—and I'm a proud, passionate Victorian; I love my state. Right now, Victoria's got a combined debt of more than— (Time expired)

The world changed. Things that we didn't think could happen happened. A war on the other side of the planet impacted supply lines. Facebook changed the way we gathered information, changed the way we got our fuel, changed the way we got our fertiliser. This was potentially a crisis—a crisis that changed the way we had to approach business, a crisis that changed the way we approached the nation. So our government stepped in and did what it needed to do. It made sure the fuel arrived, made sure our truckies trucked, made sure our aeroplanes flew, made sure our valuable farmers got the crops into the ground to provide the food that we need to improve our exports and to keep Australia moving.

Tourism continued. People came and enjoyed the Great Barrier Reef, which now, with its additional environmental protections, will stay great. But what did those opposite do during this time? They talked it down, called for rationing and scared people. There was a marked decrease in tourism leading into Easter because words matter. But so do actions, and, on this side of the House, we do actions. Today is a great day for actions.

Paid parental leave—26 weeks. I spent a year with my little ones. There was no paid parental leave for me back then. That is the hardest work I've ever done in my life. A two-year-old and a newborn do not care for your wellbeing or your mental health, but I valued that time with them. I really did. I got to teach them to eat and watch their first steps. It was a time that I cherished so much, and we're giving that to families. They don't have to make that choice: work or family. You should have both. You deserve both. Australians deserve both.

The minimum wage is increasing by 4.75 per cent. That is a noticeable difference. People will feel that that in their hip pockets, and that money will flow on. People will have the confidence to go take the kids to a movie and make sure that the birthday party goes the way that it should. It is a fantastic thing. We will always back workers because the best form of cost-of-living relief is a job. That is why we can celebrate having the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. For my intern Claudia, 50 years is before I was born! I am not 50. I am 47.

We're putting downward pressure on electricity prices. The home battery system is working. It is removing demand from the system and increasing supply. For too long, nothing was done about power supply in this country. It was completely ignored. It was, as Senator Bragg said, a vacated space for 20 years.

If you go back three years before the space was vacated, you get $25 scripts, something that we have proudly bought back in so people once again are not making a decision between health and food. Sometimes, particularly if you're on mental health pills, you cannot miss those scripts. They're very, very important. The surety to know how much they're going to cost and that they're not to be an impost, particularly now with 60-day scripts as well, makes life a bit easier. It makes that budgeting a little bit easier and makes keeping on keeping on that little bit easier.

We're bringing in tax cuts for every single working Australian. The average worker will be up to $2,800 a year better off. That's a holiday. That is a holiday in beautiful Far North Queensland with a trip to the reef and out to the Daintree and to the crocodile farm! That is what we're delivering: cost-of-living relief and great holidays in the Far North! I'm proud of what we've done here in our 12 months. I'm proud of what was done by this government before we got here, and I'm looking forward to how great this nation is going to be because we're going to put more first home owners into their own homes. They will own a piece of Australia. They will know that the country is theirs, and we will move on together.

Labor cannot manage money, so they continue to come after yours. The average Australian's paying 39 per cent more tax under this government. Since Labor was elected, Australia suffered the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world. No matter how much spin and nonsense you get from the other side, they cannot avoid that fact—the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world. This goes to the heart of their failure. Every day brings another cost hit under this government. Fees, charges, household costs and fuel are all going up or being indexed. This inflation is Labor's silent but deadly tax.

The government has kept inflation way above the target band of two to three per cent for way too long. It is still sitting at four per cent. It's lifting prices, inflating government charges and pushing hardworking Australians into paying more tax. While Labor profits from this inflation, their tax cuts do not keep up. At 70c a day, they won't even buy a cup of coffee a week. In contrast, at the current inflation rate, our tax-back guarantee would give a typical worker $400 back automatically each and every year.

Living standards have collapsed, GDP per person has gone backwards, migration is running at around 2½ times higher than it was under the coalition and power bills are up 40 per cent. Meanwhile, Labor's record spending means the budget is forecast to be in debt and deficit for a decade, with debt about to pass $1 trillion. Imagine sitting around the dining table with your family and telling them, 'We're going to spend more money than we receive every year for the next 10 years.' You wouldn't. In fact, you can't, yet that's exactly what this Labor government and this Treasurer are doing. To pay for this, they deploy toxic taxes, assaulting aspiration. They are locking young Australians out of the opportunities afforded to older generations, by whacking taxes on savings, investment and small businesses. Australians work harder than ever, yet fall further and further behind.

While we are talking about standards, it's not just standards of living that have fallen under Labor's integrity standards. Look no further than the Matt Kean issue, which simply does not pass the pub test. Mr Kean was personally chosen by the Prime Minister to lead the Climate Change Authority. It has now been revealed that he spent over $32,000 on one single trip to Brazil last year for an international climate conference. During this trip, Mr Kean appeared on a panel alongside executives of Woolemi Capital, despite being an executive of that very same private investment firm himself. I agree with my colleague the member for Wannon, Dan Tehan. He cannot remain chair of the public Climate Change Authority while concurrently serving in this private firm.

At the very least, the perception of a conflict of interest warrants an investigation. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, needs to explain how he allowed the situation to fester, what action he has taken and if he still holds confidence in Mr Kean. Sending mates on exotic overseas trips on the taxpayers' dime during a cost-of-living crisis is an absolute gross waste.

The Minister for Skills and Training, on a point of order?

On relevance, the matter of public importance has nothing to do with this, and I think the member should be careful about using this place to make these sorts of allegations.

I do remind the member that the topic of the MPI, which was put by the member for Goldstein, is the government driving the fall of the living standards of Australia. You need to bring your speech back to that, please.

We are talking about falling living standards, government spending and government taxation, which brings me to the CFMEU issues in talking about dropping standards. The Prime Minister claims no tolerance for corruption in government spending, but Australians have no reason to believe him. The government knew of at least four allegations of corruption on the Suburban Rail Loop, yet handed another $3.8 billion to this project. Why? This exposes taxpayer money to fraud and organised crime. If they truly had zero tolerance, they would not have buddied up with the Greens and blocked our Senate inquiry.

Where do I begin? We start with the member for Goldstein making up quotes to be outraged by, reciting tired old campaign lines from a party fast approaching the abyss. Then we had the member for Barker highlighting what the Liberal Party has become: a live-action version of the Facebook comments section—watch an hour of Credlin, then to the computer with caps lock key down, ready to let the rage out. Finally, we have an attack on a former Liberal treasurer, a personal attack with nothing to do with the MPI, highlighting that the coalition has truly become the blockbuster video of Australian politics.

Now, let's talk about the challenges faced by the Australian people: a quadrupling of house prices over two decades, unresolved by the Liberal Party in government; and we had 4.1 gigawatts out of baseload energy, unresponded to by the coalition government. We've seen long-term challenges unaddressed—aged care, where neglect over a decade was unresolved, because, apparently, an ageing population was completely unpredictable. Then, we had failures in child care and pretty much every area of service. We had sovereign energy capability decline. We saw oil processing down, which left us, after a year of coalition, more vulnerable.

They don't lead. They preside. The born-to-rule brigade sat there for nine years and achieved absolutely nothing on behalf of the Australian people—compulsive underachievement for nine years consecutively. Then, suddenly, they come into this chamber as if all challenges faced by society came out of nowhere and are all Labor's fault. It's complete nonsense.

We are responding to the issue of energy shortages by developing a 21st-century grid, because we know that energy is the key to future productivity and success. Productivity has been a focus of this budget. We are focusing tax incentives towards productive investments rather than continued house price inflation. We're supporting small businesses and startups. We've got the permanence of the $20,000 instant asset write-off. We've got loss carry back, and we have tax refunds for new-start businesses so they have the capital to get started and succeed. This is a government focused on the future and focused on actually resolving the challenges faced by the Australian people rather than whinging about them and going on template tirades which solve absolutely nothing.

The coalition then have the gall to say, 'Oh, look, the coalition's less popular. Why?' Apparently, it's Labor's fault that people don't like the coalition much anymore! There's a complete lack of insight. We see why, from the member for Barker—their world is Facebook. As I say to my loved ones, it's bad for your mental health, and it will completely diminish your sense of reality, if that is where you get your wisdom from. I would suggest something novel. How about talking about solutions, talking to real people and learning to listen to the Australian people and their demand for change?

Change is what the Labor government is delivering. We are making difficult decisions that actually address the challenges faced by Australians. We don't just sit here proud of the status quo; we come here to make a difference. It's very easy to come in and make statements. What is difficult is change. We are ready to do the hard work, and we've got a caucus committed to making a difference to the people in our electorates and the people in their electorates as well. We know that this isn't just about presiding; it is about taking on responsibility and making the differences needed so that tomorrow can be better than yesterday.

We're not going to spend a decade doing nothing. We are not going to allow the challenges faced by Australia to double and continue compounding over time. We are going to confront them on behalf of the Australian people, to make sure that they can be optimistic that the future is going to be better. We make absolutely no apologies for that.

Today, 1 July—despite me sounding a little angry—is actually a very good day. It's a very good day! Every taxpayer is getting a tax cut. We've got the $250 worker tax offset. We've now got a simpler tax system; there is the $1,000 instant tax deduction. We've now got award wages increasing. We've got the minimum wage increasing from today. Today is an excellent day! Urgent care clinics are becoming permanent. This is a fantastic day for Australia, and we should celebrate it.

We're injecting more money into public hospitals—$25 billion—because health care matters and this is a party dedicated to health. We are going to make sure that those services continue to improve and meet the needs of the Australian people, and we make no apologies for that. There will be no tirades. There will be no attacks against members of our party or their party or anything like that. This isn't going to be just an abuse of parliamentary privilege. We are going to talk about the Australian people and what we are going to do to make their lives better.

The time for this discussion has concluded.

I move:

That the amendments be disagreed to.

This bill is the result of more than 10 years of work—work conducted in a proper, iterative, evidence based way, work that seeks to continue to expand the opportunity for nurses to work at their full scope of practice. Given that there are quite a number of different proposals for the expansion of what we would regard, I think, as the existing work provinces of different parts of the health profession, can I make my view clear that this is best practice. This has been conducted by the nurses board in very close consultation with all relevant groups—medical professionals, patients, colleges and universities. As a result of 10 years of hard work, this endorsement for registered nurses, appropriately qualified, to be able to prescribe medicines has been enthusiastically endorsed by all health ministers in the health ministers group.

The Senate has proposed a last-minute amendment to bolt on to this best-practice piece of work, conducted to support the work of our hardworking nurses, a proposal to expand opportunities to podiatrists to prescribe medicines, which reasonable people might think is a good idea in principle. I can indicate that we have been engaging with podiatry groups, including the Australian Podiatry Association, about this issue for endorsed podiatrists. There is a live discussion about whether the sort of expansion for registered nurses that we're seeing now, in the bill that the government presented, should be available to podiatrists as well. But let me be clear; the work in relation to podiatrists is not finished. It is still underway. It is far too early, in my view, to bolt on at the last minute an amendment to expand the opportunity to podiatrists to prescribe PBS medicines when that work has not yet been completed.

Unlike the work for podiatrists, the work for registered nurses has been completed. Universities have already started delivering their programs. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is already considering the medicines that may be put on the list for registered nurse-prescribers to prescribe. That work has not yet been done for podiatry organisations.

I understand that some in this parliament—certainly, obviously, some in the other place and some out in the community—would like to see an expansion of the work of podiatrists. That is not something I have any problem with, in principle. But I do not support the idea that—after 10 years of work to set this up properly in an evidence based way in consultation with medical groups, patient groups and the like for registered nurses, the largest professional group in our healthcare system—at the last minute, we bolt on, because it seems like a good idea, a podiatry addition to this when that work has not yet been done. So we do not support the amendments sent to us by the Senate, and we ask the House to support the government's position.

I'd like to acknowledge that the government has concerns about podiatrists being registered in this fashion and that it feels that the work has not yet been done. I think I can speak on behalf of constituents who are podiatrists and who would argue that the work should have been done, that the work the government is doing on the extension of the scope of practice for many professionals in the health sphere is taking too long and that the work the government is doing to revise the PBS is taking too long. We're already seeing the impact of that excessive duration of wait with the loss of agents like Zoladex from communities and people we care about, because pharmaceutical companies are now saying that the commercial imperative for marketing those sorts of agents in this country is not present for them. We're also hearing from constituents about their frustration with the HTA review and the time that has taken as well.

So I would argue that we have to move where we can, in increments where we can, on behalf of those people like podiatrists and exercise physiologists who feel that they've been asking for a very long time for their scope of practice and the funding for that to be extended and have not seen the government act on that to date.

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments and I move:

That the reasons be adopted.

The question is that the reasons for disagreeing to the Senate amendments be adopted.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I also seek leave to move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 9), omit the table item.

(2) Schedule 2, Part 3, page 27 (lines 1 to 13), omit the Part.

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.

() (): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Human rights scrutiny report 8 of 2026 and Annual report 2025.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I am pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human rights scrutiny report 8 of 2026 and Annual report 2025. In Report 8 of 2026, the committee considered nine new bills and 143 new legislative instruments. It has commented on two bills and five legislative instruments and concluded its examination of one bill.

In this report, the committee commented on the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026. Among other things, this bill would expand the scope of the power of the Chief Executive, Officer of Medicare to require a person to produce documents and authorise the use and disclosure of personal information in relation to incentive payment programs. These measures would engage and limit the right to privacy. The committee notes that the extent of the interference with the right to privacy may be significant due to the sensitivity of information and the identified safeguards may have limited practical value. The committee has recommended that the government undertake a foundational review of the human rights compatibility of the Health Insurance Act 1973.

The committee also commented on the Australian Passport Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Determination 2026. This instrument expands the circumstances in which a person may be prevented from leaving Australia and the circumstances where personal information may be disclosed. The committee notes that these measures engage and limit the rights to freedom of movement and privacy and may interfere with a person's family life, which engages and limits the right to protection of the family. The committee has previously raised human rights concerns in relation to the passport refusal and cancellation framework, which the statement of compatibility fails to address. The committee therefore considers further information is required and has sought that minister's advice.

In addition, the Committee has concluded its consideration of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026. This bill seeks to enhance the powers of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to obtain, analyse and communicate intelligence information relating to serious organised crime. The measures in this bill would engage and limit numerous rights, including children's rights, criminal process rights and the rights to an effective remedy, fair trial, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedoms of expression, privacy and work. The committee sought further information to assess the human rights compatibility of the bill. The minister provided information regarding the operation and consequences of the powers, including safeguards with respect to the affected rights. However, the committee retains its concerns with the respect of proportionality of each measure. In addition, the committee considers that the proposed immunity for controlled intelligence operations may preclude access to effective remedies if such operations were impermissibly limited by a person's human rights.

I also tabled the committee's Annual report 2025. This report details the work of the committee for the 2025 calendar year. In 2025, the committee tabled eight reports, examined 171 bills and around 1,500 legislative instruments. The committee substantially commented on 22 per cent of bills and 30 per cent of legislative instruments. During the report period, the committee concluded its consideration on the vast majority of bills prior to their passage. The human rights analysis was available to inform members of parliament prior to the passage of 85 per cent of the bills. The committee concluded its examination of all legislative instruments within the disallowance timeframe.

While the committee observed an improvement of the timeliness of ministerial responses to requests for information, the fast paced parliamentary legislative program prevented the committee from providing timely scrutiny on some occasions. In 2025, 25 bills, which passed before the committee could comment on them, were introduced and passed within eight sitting days. The committee considers that its work in scrutinising legislation for compatibility with human rights is undermined when legislation is passed before the human rights assessment is made available to all parliamentarians.

In 2025, the committee commented on a wide range of legislation—including that related to aged care, migration and counterterrorism. The right to privacy continued to be the most frequently engaged right on which the committee commented. Other frequently engaged rights included the right to equality, the right to nondiscrimination and the rights of a person with disability and children. In 2025, the committee tabled an inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities, making 10 detailed recommendations—including that universities review complaints procedure and increase investment in research into antisemitism.

I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. With these comments, I commend the committee's Human rights scrutiny report: Report 8 of 2026 and the annual report of 2025 to the House.

by leave—I move:

(11) Schedule 1, item 92, page 36 (after line 12), after subsection 25A(3), insert:

(3A) A person is not required to undertake treatment that is:

(a) unreasonably inaccessible or unavailable; or

(b) not clinically appropriate; or

(c) associated with unreasonable risk.

(12) Schedule 3, item 4, page 91 (line 9), at the end of subsection 45C(17), add:

; and (d) any independent pricing advice obtained under subsection (18); and

(e) the impact of the determination on the availability of supports, including in thin markets and regional areas.

(13) Schedule 3, item 4, page 91 (after line 9), at the end of section 45C, add:

(18) Before making a determination under subsection (1), the Minister must:

(a) obtain independent pricing advice; and

(b) publish that advice; and

(c) consult participants and providers.

Treasury modelling tabled in the Senate shows that, of the $38.1 billion predicted to be saved from cuts to the NDIS over the next four years, just $0.9 billion is expected to come from making the minister the decision-maker on pricing and related fraud measures. The same modelling shows that $9.3 billion in savings is projected to come from functional capacity savings and $13.2 billion from cutting social and community participation supports. That's nearly 60 per cent of the total savings purely from reducing supports and tightening eligibility.

We all know that, during 2024-25 budget estimates, it was revealed that the NDIA had awarded two contracts—one in February 2023 and one in September 2023—with a total value of $400,000 to the Redbridge Group. The purpose of those contracts was to conduct focus groups and message testing to identify how to best frame the changes proposed in the NDIS bill. Redbridge polling found that, while the NDIS is loved by the general public of Australia, the general public and participants would show qualified tolerance for funding cuts and stricter eligibility criteria were these austerity measures positioned as a necessary crackdown on NDIS fraud and rorting.

Let's be honest about what this bill is actually doing. It's not wholesale reform to combat something that is a concern to our communities: fraud and rorting. Only a small sliver of this 113-page bill relates to fraud in any meaningful sense. The government has framed the bill in the public eye largely around fraud and restoring the scheme's social licence. But, as the Treasury modelling makes plain, the overwhelming weight of projected savings comes not from catching crooks but from removing people from the scheme and from narrowing what it will fund. The disability community is not fooled. This bill is not a minor integrity measure; it is a structural redesign of who can access the NDIS, how plans are funded and how decisions are made and reviewed. When only $0.9 billion of $38.1 billion in savings comes from fraud related measures, we can't credibly call this an effective crackdown on fraud. It is an austere bill which is dressed in a cloak of integrity.

Back to my amendment, which addresses the independent power of the minister to set pricing, the independent NDIS review's recommendation 11 and action 11.3 explicitly recommend that we should transfer NDIS pricing advice to the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority in order to strengthen transparency, predictability and alignment. IHACPA is required to consult with the broader sector when advising the Australian government on prices. The government hasn't done this. Instead, it has made the minister the decision-maker on NDIS pricing, with the NDIA retaining responsibility for conducting independent analysis and stakeholder engagement through its annual pricing review, which will inform pricing advice given to the minister. That is not true independence; it's advice flowing upwards to a single political decision-maker, with no statutory obligation to act on it, no requirement to publish it and no accountability to the sector that depends upon it.

This amendment is a more modest safeguard on the government's proposal. It would require the minister to obtain and publish independent pricing advice and to consider the effect of pricing decisions on support availability, including in thin markets and in rural and regional settings. Its purpose is to improve transparency and to reduce the risk that pricing decisions could undermine the sustainability of providers or the access of participants. It's not a radical ask; it is simply asking the government to do what the review that it commissioned actually recommended: make pricing decisions in the open, with independent input and with explicit regard for whether disabled Australians can actually access the supports that they need. If the government can't accept that, I think the public deserves to know why. So I commend the amendments to the House.

I'll be brief. To clarify some of the remarks from the member for Kooyong, I think she understands that IHACPA's advice on aged-care pricing is still a decision made by government in the same way that we're seeking for the pricing advice that would go through the annual pricing review, the board and the minister to also be a decision of government. I've said publicly a number of times now that I see real merit in adopting the recommendation of the NDIS review and moving pricing of the NDIS, in time, to IHACPA. The preliminary work that IHACPA has done on that confirms, particularly with our experience of aged care, that this would be a long process. In the meantime, having much more certainty around pricing on an annual basis, with advice from the board to the minister and publication—pursuant to the amendment that we supported from, I think, the member for Indi—is a huge advance on where we've been. We don't support these amendments.

The question is that amendments (12) and (13) on sheet 1 be agreed to

by leave—I move amendments (2) to (4), (8) and (9) to the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026:

(2) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (line 10 and 11), omit "either of both", submit "any".

(3) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (line 16), omit "and".

(4) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (after line 16), after subparagraph 48A(1)(b)(ii), insert:

(iii) an alteration in the participant's plan such that it is insufficient to meet the participant's reasonable and necessary support needs; and

(8) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 18), at the end of section 34A, add:

(6) A support determination that is reasonably likely to result in a material reduction in funding for a class of supports must be accompanied, at the time the determination is tabled in each House of the Parliament, by:

(a) a statement of reasons for the determination; and

(b) an assessment of the likely impact of the determination on participants; and

(c) actuarial or financial analysis relied upon in making the determination; and

(d) a summary of consultation undertaken with people with disability and representative organisations.

(7) A support determination to which subsection (6) applies does not take effect unless, within 15 sitting days after the determination is tabled in each House of the Parliament, each House passes a resolution approving the determination.

(8) If a House of the Parliament does not pass a resolution approving the determination within the period referred to in subsection (7), the determination is taken never to have had effect.

(9) In this section material reduction in funding includes a reduction that is reasonably likely to have a significant impact on participants' access to supports.

(9) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 18), after section 34A, insert:

34AA Effect of support determination

If a determination under section 34A has the effect of reducing the funding available to a participant under the participant's plan, the participant's plan may be insufficient to meet the participant's reasonable and necessary supports such that the participant may meet the condition for conducting a reassessment under subparagraph 48A(1)(b)(iii).

My amendments today have been informed by consultation with over 60 community members in Kooyong. I've also consulted the Justice and Equity Centre, People with Disability Australia, Occupational Therapy Australia, Inclusion Australia, the Summer Foundation and other prominent disability advocates. I'm trying to improve a suite of harsh and drastic reforms which have not been subjected to inclusive community consultation—reforms which are targeted not at rorters and at waste but at the vulnerable individuals who depend on the NDIS. The media, many in the general public and many in this House have missed the point of this legislation. I don't believe that it's primarily aimed at reducing fraud, budget pressure or systemic abuse. It's aimed at getting people off the NDIS and limiting the supports available to those who remain on the scheme.

I've moved 15 detailed amendments today. I've been asked by members of the House to stop moving amendments and to stop causing divisions. But I've moved these amendments and I've spoken to this bill repeatedly because of those people who are watching at home. Cheryl, I know you're watching and I've been speaking for you. George, I know you're watching. You always watch. I've been speaking for you. I've been speaking for Peter's mum. I've been speaking for the many constituents who have come to our office over the last weeks and months and expressed huge distress about this bill. The crossbench in the House has circulated 39 amendments to this bill.

Recommendation 26 of the NDIS independent review was that changes to the NDIS can only be implemented once foundational supports are in place. My amendments (2) to (4) address limits on participants' ability to seek reassessment. Under this bill, participants can't request a reassessment unless they meet very narrow conditions. Given that the bill also provides for automatic renewals without participant involvement, some participants could be stuck with inappropriate plans for years. And I note many participants' concerns that, if they do seek reassessment, their plans are likely to be cut. We're hearing that that is happening all of the time, and it is causing great concern to many recipients of NDIS supports. Participants should be able to seek reassessment where their plan is insufficient to meet reasonable and necessary support needs, including where a support determination has reduced their funding below what is reasonable and necessary. Amendment (9) would ensure that a support determination which affects a participant's plan such that it is insufficient for their needs may meet a condition for conducting a reassessment under the broadened reassessment trigger in amendments (2) and (4). Amendment (8) then requires additional parliamentary transparency for this unbounded power to reduce funding across support classes.

This bill is a pretty bitter pill for many disabled Australians and is something that many of them are having great difficulty in swallowing. I ask the government to accept these amendments to render the legislation slightly less concerning to vulnerable Australians.

I just want to address a couple of remarks there. I've indicated my appreciation for the contributions that a number of crossbench members have made to this debate and for the time they've taken to draft amendments and come to us. I think the member said there were 30-something amendments from the crossbench. A number of them do cross over; they deal with the same material. But we are supporting, I think, in total, 12 of those amendments. I'll also move 18 government amendments—when we get to that—to reflect feedback we've received. I want to reiterate how much I value the engagement, even where people have different views about the direction that we should take, in relation to this critically important social program.

I've made remarks about amendments that go to the reassessment proposals and support determinations. There'll be some further debate about that over the course of the rest of this evening. For those same reasons, we're not supporting these amendments.

The question is that amendments (2) to (4), (8) and (9) on sheet 1 be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".

(2) Page 3 (after line 8), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of amendments

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) The review must be conducted at the same time as the review under section 4 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 of the operation of the amendments made by that Act.

(3) The persons conducting the review must be independent of the Agency and of the Department.

(4) The review must consider the following matters:

(a) access to the NDIS;

(b) participant outcomes, including continuity and quality of supports;

(c) review and appeal rights under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013;

(d) the viability and sustainability of the provider market;

(e) service delivery in thin markets;

(f) the interaction between the amendments made by this Act and any foundational supports or related systems of support.

(5) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

This bill as currently drafted contains no mechanism for a review, no trigger for scrutiny and no obligation to return to this parliament and account for what these changes have delivered. I've moved these amendments today because that omission is not acceptable. The people that this legislation affects can't afford for us to pass reforms and then walk away. This bill could remove as many as 241,000 participants from the scheme. All of them deserve to know that the parliament will be required to look back, measure and answer for decisions that have been made on their behalf. Amendment (2) creates that obligation.

By inserting a statutory review provision that aligns with the review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024, we will achieve two things simultaneously. First, we'll establish a legislated moment of accountability—not a discretionary internal evaluation and not a ministerial announcement but a requirement embedded in the law itself. Second, we will align that moment of accountability with the review framework which is already established under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024. That alignment means that, when the scrutiny arrives, it will arrive in a coherent and comprehensive way, assessing this bill's amendments alongside the broader reform agenda rather than in isolation.

The scope of the review that amendment (2) requires is deliberately prescriptive. It must examine access to the NDIS and whether the pathway into the scheme remains fair and able to be navigated. It must assess participant outcomes, including the continuity and quality of supports that people are actually receiving. It must look at review and appeal rights, because a scheme without meaningful recourse is a scheme without integrity. It must evaluate the viability and sustainability of the provider market, because good policy cannot be delivered by a sector that is financially stressed and which is shrinking. It must specifically address service delivery in thin markets—those rural, regional and remote communities where the challenge of accessing support is compounded by geography and isolation. And it must consider how these amendments interact with the emerging foundational supports framework, because the NDIS exists within a broader ecosystem which is still taking shape.

The independence requirement is equally non-negotiable. The review must be conducted by persons entirely independent of both the National Disability Insurance Agency and the department. We're not asking the government to mark its own homework. We're requiring genuine arms-length scrutiny by people who have no institutional stake in the outcome. This is an improvement on the review already in place under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024.

A bill that reforms the NDIS but has no mechanism to assess the impact of that reform on the people who will be most materially affected would be reform without accountability. So I'm very glad that the government have signalled to me their support for amendment (2), and I'm grateful for that. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (9), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (lines 8 to 13), omit paragraphs 34A(1)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) a percentage for reducing funding component amounts for a group of supports specified in the determination; and

(b) the class of participants' plans to which the percentage applies, which may be:

(i) all old framework plans that commence on or after the day the determination commences; or

(ii) the class of such plans specified in the determination.

(2) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert:

(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a specified group of supports must be supports for one of the following:

(a) assistance with social, economic and community participation;

(b) improved daily living skills.

(1B) The determination may specify one or both groups of supports. If it specifies both, it may specify the same or a different percentage for each group.

(1C) The determination may specify a subgroup within a specified group of supports as an excluded subgroup for the purposes of subsection (2A). The excluded subgroup may consist of one or more kinds of supports.

Note: Excluded subgroups will include supports in employment and disability related health supports.

(1D) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a class of participants' plans may be specified by reference to features of plans, features of participants, or both.

(3) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (line 17), omit "is in force", substitute "of a percentage is in force for a group of supports".

(4) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (line 18), omit "to which it applies", substitute "in the class of participants' plans to which the percentage applies".

(5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (lines 20 to 22), omit "specified in the determination is taken instead to be the stated amount as reduced by the percentage specified in the determination", substitute "is taken instead to be the amount worked out under subsection (2A)".

(6) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 6), after subsection 34A(2), insert:

(2A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), the funding component amount for the specified group of supports is the amount worked out as follows:

      FCA—specified percentage × net FCA

     where:

      FCA means the funding component amount stated in the plan for the group of supports.

net FCA means:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the funding component amount stated in the plan for the specified group of supports; or

(b) if the determination specifies an excluded subgroup within the specified group—the funding component amount stated in the plan for the group of supports minus so much of the funding component amount as is attributable to funding for the supports in the excluded subgroup.

(2B) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of net FCA in subsection (2A), the determination must specify how to determine the portion of the funding component amount that is attributable to funding for the supports in the excluded subgroup.

(7) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (after line 30), at the end of subsection 25A(1), add:

Note 1: For the purposes of paragraph (c), treatment is regularly undertaken or performed in Australia if public funding is available in respect of the treatment.

Note 2: Appropriate treatment does not include restrictive practices involving seclusion, chemical restraint, mechanical restraint, physical restraint or environmental restraint.

(8) Schedule 3, item 11, page 97 (after line 27), after subsection 59D(5), insert:

CEO must publish proposed instrument

(5A) At least 7 days before making a standard operating procedure instrument, the CEO must cause a copy of the proposed instrument to be published on the Agency's website.

(9) Schedule 5, item 1, page 108 (lines 25 and 26), omit subitem (5), substitute:

(5) Rules under subitem (1) relating to amendments or repeals made by Part 5 or 6 of Schedule 1 to this Act, or to Schedule 4 of this Act, must not be made after the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this subitem commences.

(5A) Rules under subitem (1) relating to amendments or repeals other than those mentioned in subitem (5) must not be made after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day this subitem commences.

The Greens will not be supporting these cruel cuts and changes to the NDIS Act. We know that these changes will make life harder for people who rely on the NDIS to live independently, participate in their communities and access education and work. I've heard these concerns directly from my constituents. I sent out a survey to people who my office has helped with the NDIS, and every single person who responded was seriously concerned either about being kicked off entirely or about cuts severely impacting their quality of life. Some said they simply weren't sure if they could keep going and keep surviving without their NDIS support.

I'm pleased that the Greens have been able to secure an additional eight weeks of inquiry into the bill. This will delay the passing of the bill and will secure more time for the disability community to have their voices heard in the inquiry. This, in turn, will build more pressure for the bill to be completely withdrawn, as it should be. As well as gaining more valuable time for participants, the amendments I'm moving today will protect NDIS participants from some of the very worst parts of this very bad bill. However, even with these amendments, the effects of this bill will still be incredibly cruel, and the Greens will continue to push the government and the opposition to withdraw their support for it.

The first area of amendment relates to support determinations. The bill as first presented allows the minister to make universal percentage cuts to funding for a category of supports. These cuts would apply to all NDIS participants. Our amendments will ensure that cuts cannot be applied to the support categories of daily living, transport, consumables, assistive technology or home modifications. We've also limited the impact of the minister's changes to support determinations relating to social, community and civic participation. The minister cannot make cuts to supports that people rely on for daily health needs, attending medical appointments or getting to work.

The second area is the definition of 'permanent disability'. The bill gives a new definition of 'permanent disability' that narrows the scope of what will be considered a permanent disability by bringing into primary legislation the concept of 'all appropriate treatment', which requires a person to undergo treatments to prove their disability is permanent before being allowed to access the scheme. The bill as it is written specifies that financial and geographical circumstances are not a consideration regarding what treatment is available. We've secured protections to ensure that treatment cannot be a restrictive practice, such as forced medication. Treatment must also be a publicly funded service available through Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or the public health system.

Thirdly, this bill allows the use of automated decision-making for important NDIS decisions, including for the development of participant plans and the processing of claims. We have secured greater transparency on the detail of how these automated decisions will be made by requiring that decision-making frameworks for evaluative decisions be made publicly available before being implemented.

Lastly, this bill gives the minister the power to make rules that can change how parts of the NDIS Act operate without having to pass a new bill through parliament. Our amendment reduces the scope of the ministerial power by reducing the timeframe for making transitional rules to six months for every part of the bill, except for parts relating to new framework planning, reasonable and necessary supports, and plan renewals. This will significantly limit the power of the minister to change how the NDIS Act works without taking a bill to parliament, though the Greens will continue to push for this power to be removed from the bill altogether.

I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to make a submission to the inquiry on the NDIS bill. There have been over 4½ thousand people so far who have done so. You've helped us put pressure on the government to secure these changes. The Greens and I will continue to use every pathway we have to fight this bill and to push the government to scrap it entirely.

Question agreed to.

I thank all members of the crossbench and the member for Ryan for their contributions to this important piece of legislation. I now present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet ST122, as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I won't detain the House. The rationale behind these amendments is contained in the documents just presented by the government. Essentially, these six amendments clarify our original intention in relation to the revocation or suspension of plant and the process that the agency would go through for that, as well as a drafting clarification, particularly around the operation of the requirement for appropriate treatment—namely, no requirement for additional treatment where a participant has already undertaken appropriate treatment. I commend the amendments to the House and I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 79, page 30 (after line 17), after subsection 30(1A), insert:

(1B) The CEO cannot be satisfied that reasonable attempts to contact the participant have been made as mentioned in subparagraph (1A)(a)(i) unless the CEO is satisfied that the requirements in subsection (1C) are met in relation to:

(a) unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies—the participant; or

(b) if the participant has a nominee—the participant's nominee; or

(c) if the participant does not have a nominee but has another authorised contact or representative—that other authorised contact or representative.

(1C) The requirements in this subsection are met in relation to the person mentioned in paragraph (1B)(a), (b) or (c) (as applicable) if:

(a) at least 5 attempts have been made to contact the person using the person's preferred form of contact; and

(b) the last of those attempts was made at least 3 months, and not more than 4 months, after the first of those attempts; and

(c) if the person's preferred form of contact is not in writing—at least one additional attempt has been made, during the period between the first and last of the attempts mentioned in paragraph (a), to contact the person in writing.

(1D) If the person the CEO is attempting to contact is the participant, an attempt does not count for the purposes of subsection (1C) if, before suspending the plan, the CEO becomes aware that at the time the attempt was made, the participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness.

(2) Schedule 1, item 83, page 31 (after line 13), after subsection 40A(1), insert:

(1A) The CEO cannot be satisfied that reasonable attempts to contact the participant have been made as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) unless the CEO is satisfied that the requirements in subsection (1B) are met in relation to:

(a) unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies—the participant; or

(b) if the participant has a nominee—the participant's nominee; or

(c) if the participant does not have a nominee but has another authorised contact or representative—that other authorised contact or representative.

(1B) The requirements in this subsection are met in relation to the person mentioned in paragraph (1A)(a), (b) or (c) (as applicable) if:

(a) at least 5 attempts have been made to contact the person using the person's preferred form of contact; and

(b) the last of those attempts was made at least 3 months, and not more than 4 months, after the first of those attempts; and

(c) if the person's preferred form of contact is not in writing—at least one additional attempt has been made, during the period between the first and last of the attempts mentioned in paragraph (a), to contact the person in writing.

(1C) If the person the CEO is attempting to contact is the participant, an attempt does not count for the purposes of subsection (1B) if, before suspending the plan, the CEO becomes aware that at the time the attempt was made, the participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness.

(3) Schedule 1, item 89, page 34 (lines 15 to 17), omit paragraph 24(5)(b).

(4) Schedule 1, item 89, page 34 (line 18), omit "(c)", substitute "(b)".

(5) Schedule 1, item 91, page 35 (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraph 25(1B)(b).

(6) Schedule 1, item 91, page 35 (line 10), omit "(c)", substitute "(b)".

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

(7) Schedule 2, item 91, page 81 (lines 8 to 16), omit the definition of related party in section 9, substitute:

related party has the meaning given by subsection 73EA(2A).

(8) Schedule 2, item 93, page 81 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", or a related party of a person registered or applying to be registered,".

(9) Schedule 2, item 95, page 82 (lines 5 and 6), omit ", or is a related party of another person that is".

(10) Schedule 2, item 95, page 82 (lines 11 and 12), omit ", or is a related party of another person that is".

(11) Schedule 2, item 97, page 83 (line 7), after "person", insert "and key personnel of the person".

(12) Schedule 2, item 97, page 83 (after line 8), after subsection 73EA(2), insert:

(2A) A person is a related party of another person in any of the following circumstances:

(a) the person is a relative of the other person (within the meaning of section 9 of the Corporations Act 2001);

(b) either person is an associated entity of the other person (within the meaning of section 50AAA of the Corporations Act 2001);

(c) circumstances prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Rules for the purposes of this paragraph.

(13) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (lines 22 to 25), omit paragraph 73F(2)(j).

(14) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (line 26), omit "(k)", substitute "; (j)".

(15) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (line 27), omit "and any related party of the person".

(16) Schedule 2, item 100, page 84 (line 4), omit "section 9", substitute "subsection 73EA(2A)".

(17) Schedule 2, item 101, page 84 (line 31), omit "paragraphs 73F(2)(j) and (k)", substitute "paragraph 73F(2)(j)".

(18) Schedule 2, item 101, page 85 (line 1), omit "do", substitute "does".

Briefly, these amendments seek to clarify the separation that we've sought through this bill between plan manager on the one hand and providers of other services on the other. We're very determined to make significant reforms to the plan management part of this scheme. We'll be moving to a commissioned model so that plan managers will only be able to offer their services to participants when the government has been satisfied that they meet certain standards and qualifications. Our original intention was not to allow related entities—a plan manager service—to have other support services provided by a related entity.

We've taken feedback from the sector and concluded that there are very high-value services being provided by related entities—not the same service per se, but by related entities—plan management on one hand and a range of other support services on the other, and that it would be really to the detriment of participants were we to adopt a harder line in relation to this. We are making it clear that particular services are either plan managers or they're service providers of another type. Related entities will be able to provide plan management services on the one hand and other services on the other. Very strict conflict-of-interest arrangements will be put in place as a result of this bill if it passes. I commend those changes to the House.

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

I move:

That the third reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

The question is that the third reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

The Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026 is important. Certainly, when it comes to health, I acknowledge that today, 1 July, we see, as we heard in question time today, five new drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. As I said earlier, in the discussion on the matter of public importance, this is important because it actually saves lives. Any time that any federal government—it doesn't matter what political persuasion they are—puts new drugs onto the PBS, that is going to make such a difference. It is going to make such a difference for those people who are on that medication. It's going to save them money. But ultimately, in the long run, it saves people's lives.

I know the number of medications that former minister for health Greg Hunt, the former member for Flinders, put on the PBS, and I acknowledge that the Minister for Health and Ageing has continued that tradition. Aren't we a lucky country? People can afford their prescriptions, and I appreciate the work that has been done in that space, particularly in a cost-of-living crisis. I was at my friendly pharmacist only the other day, and the chemist was telling me about a particular drug that is used in IVF. A local woman availed herself of this particular medication, and it was costing a very small amount. But a relative of hers who lives in the United States was paying somewhere in the order of more than $30,000 for the same drug.

We often talk about the lucky country. But certainly, when it comes to health, we very much are because, whilst we can always have improvements in the health system, when it comes to making sure that people are looked after there is not only the safety net of Medicare and the safety net of bulk-billing, but we've got a medical system second to none in the world. I will always say that. It doesn't matter who's in power; it's there, and it's to be commended.

The coalition supports Commonwealth health incentive payment programs. In fact, just like putting drugs on the PBS, we established several of these whilst in government. The coalition is not opposing the bill in the House, but we do believe earnestly that the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee needs to examine this and needs to give it further scrutiny because, often with Labor, the devil is in the detail. I know the member for Lindsay has moved an amendment, and I commend that to the House. That particular amendment highlights the government's failings and actions in some areas of primary care. Certainly, we will continue to look at Labor's comments and statements around Medicare, and we'll continue to hold the government to account, as a good opposition should. We have to.

I noted in question time today that the Prime Minister, in describing how good the government is and what changes are going across the board from 1 July, mentioned that bulk-billing rates are on the rise. Let me tell you, if you are in regional Australia, then bulk-billing rates are not on the rise. In fact, the last time I looked, bulk-billing rates were at 77 per cent, whereas they were at 88 per cent when the coalition was in government. That is a fall of 11 per cent. Labor cannot crow about having increased bulk-billing rates when, in fact, the recent statistics show quite the opposite.

We talk often in this place about the urgent care clinics. Well, they might be fine if you're in an electorate that is served by one. But let me tell you that there are many, many regional seats that do not have an urgent care clinic. I hear the member for Lyne talking about Taree often; she would love for her constituents to have one of those clinics, to have the after-hours care and to have that provision of particular health services. But, right across regional Australia, there are so many areas where you just don't have bulk-billing doctors.

I've given the health minister a bouquet; I'm now going to give him a brickbat. The health minister, in response to a question about bulk-billing services—I'm paraphrasing, but they were words to the effect of: 'If you can't get a bulk-billing doctor in the first instance, just ring another practice. Just ring another doctor and use that one.' Well, that might be all well and good in the leafy suburbs of Adelaide, where the health minister resides, but it's not out in regional Australia, because the nearest bulk-billing doctor would probably be about 300 kilometres away. We just don't have the provision of bulk-billing services that you see in metropolitan Australia.

The other great concern I have—and I know the member for Wannon will share this view with me—is the distribution priority areas. That provision of services was one of the first things that Labor changed. One of the first things they did when they came to office in May 2022 was take away the DPAs, the distribution priority areas. Well, they didn't take them away; they actually extended them to Newcastle and Wollongong and areas of the Gold Coast. Good luck to those doctors who wanted to practice in those sorts of areas. But, for really remote regional communities, what happened? Don't just take my word for it; it was the Rural Doctors Association and other stakeholder groups in the medical field who complained bitterly about this because what the doctors in some of those areas did was take the shingle off the clinic and move to the seaside. They moved away from inland Australia, remote Australia. In some cases, some of those areas now do not enjoy the health services that they once did. It's such a shame, and it's so wrong. It is just so wrong, because we do need to have more medical services.

I'm very, very proud of the fact that, whilst I was the Deputy Prime Minister under Malcolm Turnbull, we, as the coalition, managed to fund the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network. What that does is provide training for young potential doctors from start to finish in Mildura, Bendigo, Shepparton, Orange, Dubbo and Wagga Wagga. A six-year course is begun and completed within one of those regional settings.

We know from statistics provided that, in three-quarters of cases—and it's not just in the medical field; it's in so many areas of endeavours—when young people go to university in a regional setting, chances are they'll stay in that regional setting once they graduate and get their diploma. They fall in love with the area. They realise they can make money in the area. They realise there's a need in the area. Some of them even fall in love with someone in the area. It's a romantic way of getting people to stay, but, I tell you what, it's also a romantic way of getting more doctors in the bush—and our regional areas do need more doctors. When it comes to the distribution priority areas, it's going to take a while to make up that shortfall. But make up that shortfall we will.

The member for Macarthur, Dr Freelander, helped me open the Wagga Wagga facility. Even though Labor had nothing to do with the funding or the construction of it, I was pleased that the member for Macarthur was there. He, like me, shares concerns over health. I'm not verballing or disparaging him; he is a good man. He understands the complexities and shortfalls in many regional areas. I appreciate and acknowledge that there are regional members in the Labor caucus as well. But what we really need to do is make sure that we, at every step of the way, provide the funding where it is most needed.

I have to say that I think we're eventually going to have to look at the Medicare provider numbers for some of those graduates—and for some of those people coming to Australia from overseas to practice, and even for some of the doctors who are graduating from the sandstone universities. It's not right or fair and it's un-Australian that too many regional people are waiting weeks and weeks in pain for the absence of a doctor when some areas—the leafy eastern suburbs of Sydney and elsewhere—have a doctor just about every square kilometre. It is simply not right. We need to do better and we need to provide more services for country areas.

One of the provisions in the budget which I was most exercised about, as were many of my constituents, was the change for older Australians in their private health rebate. All that is going to do is push older Australians who are in more need of health care and should be actually using private health into the public state health system. It's cost shifting. That's what it's doing. This Labor government is guilty of cost shifting not only in the space I just mentioned but certainly in the National Disability Insurance Scheme space. I hosted a forum in between the sitting weeks for service providers and families using the NDIS. Listening to the stories from families whose little ones, whose vulnerable ones, have been able to get care and provision because they live in a major regional hub such as Wagga Wagga but now, because of changes to the NDIS and this crackdown on the dodgy, shonky and charlatan providers—and I'm not against it—are going to miss out was heart-wrenching. This is what happens. It's not the ones who should be getting taken off the system and having their funds cut away from them. It's the ones who most need it, who most need the speech therapy, the physical care, the psychological care or the autism care, and they are not going to get it.

Earlier this year—it was, I have to say, a blight on this Labor government—the government packaged the travel component into the service fee. What that meant for towns such as Tumut, Gundagai, Cootamundra and Temora, in my electorate, which are about an hour away from the regional hub that is Wagga Wagga, where a lot of the service providers are—those good, professional, caring, loving service providers who've done the job for many, many years—was that all of a sudden they found that the travel component was packaged in with the total overall cost. They can't run a business on the smell of an oily rag. Whilst they are still continuing to do it for many, if not all, of their clients, they can't keep doing it. We've lost 40,000 small businesses already because of some of the policies of this Labor government and the overall decline of the economy. But these NDIS providers that were providing travel to those towns about an hour's drive of Wagga Wagga now simply can't keep up with the cost of fuel, the cost of staffing and the cost of service provision when their fees are being reduced in this way.

Meanwhile, we've got the shonky providers still operating. There has to be a crackdown. There has to be a proper audit in this space, and there has to be something done. I acknowledge that. But the vulnerable young people who need the care the most are now missing out, and the families are very upset. They're very worried. It's going to end up, as it already currently is, in a bureaucratic nightmare.

It's probably just a case of statistical probability that I follow the member for Riverina quite often. Potentially it's because the member for Riverina does a lot of speaking, which is something I try to emulate. There are many things that the member for Riverina does that I try and emulate. One is how he manages to create this bipartisan vibe while kicking the absolute guts out of us! I don't know how he does it, but it is something that I definitely want to try and learn.

There are a couple of points to make. When I look at the claim about bulk-billing being higher under the former government, I think that does underline the fact that there was a period, as bulk-billing was beginning to collapse under the former government, that happened to coincide with something called COVID, where the entire nation went and got vaccinated multiple times, and that artificially lifted the bulk-billing rate for that period. So I don't think it's really comparing apples with apples.

Again, I always try and remind people that, while I represent an outer suburban electorate today, I come from a regional town myself. I come from the bush, from Broken Hill. I worked on sheep and cattle stations around Broken Hill—literally out the back of Bourke. My dad met my mum in Mount Isa, and I was born in Brisbane and grew up in Broken Hill, so I'm not sure where that quite places me. I've always actually believed regional Australia should have its own state. The cities could have one state, and regional Australia could have another state—anyway.

I know the challenges that exist for people living in regional areas when it comes to finding medical care. I've got to say that it's not just in the backblocks. Even in the electorate of Forde, I talk to doctors all the time who struggle to find GPs. It is a challenge that I think the outer suburbs share with the regions. But I think the government is beginning to address that. If you look at one number, something like 17,000 doctors have joined the Australian health system over the last two years, the biggest number in a decade at least. I think that will go some way to addressing some of those shortages; 17,000 doctors is a shot in the arm to the health system.

Finally, the member for Riverina talked about the NDIS, kicking the proverbial out of us. I think it would be fair then to say that the problems we were left with through the NDIS and the aged-care system could easily have been dealt with, in the NDIS at least, in 2018 as the still relatively new scheme started to scale up. All the problems that existed then, when it was at a manageable size, could have been addressed much more easily but have to be addressed now, and now the problems are much larger and undoubtedly causing anxiety in the community. I think for the member for Riverina to put those problems at the feet of the government is really rewriting history. Again, it's a skill of his that I would like to learn.

At the heart of this legislation sits a bill and a philosophy that is at the heart of the labour movement—not just the Labor Party but the labour movement as a whole—and that is the realisation that, as much as workers struggle on the shop floor to improve wages and to improve conditions, there are just some things that you cannot achieve on the shop floor. There are some things for which you need the control of this parliament to be able to do. One of those things is to bring in a universal healthcare system. You need control of the government to do that. It is not something you can just achieve through the award or through an EBA. So it is that Medicare sits at the heart of the labour movement.

During my preparation for my contribution tonight I came across an article written in 2019, at the death of Bob Hawke, by ABC journalist Norman Hermant, and I'd like to read out a bit from it. The article was titled, 'Before Bob Hawke's Medicare, a visit to hospital forced many Australians into bankruptcy'. In the article, Norman Hermant wrote:

It was a huge change for Australians—not only from a medical care point of view, but for financial security.

With the death of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, many are pointing to the introduction of Medicare as one of his signature policy achievements.

Before Medicare, most Australian families had to pay for private insurance to cover their expenses in hospital.

Author and associate professor Jim Gillespie from the University of Sydney said once you were in hospital, the clock was ticking.

"If you earned more than a certain amount of money, you'd have to pay. So, you'd have to have insurance for hospital or you'd have to pay out of your own pocket," he said.

Mr Gillespie said insurance could also run out during a hospital stay.

"Like private health insurance today, if you were on a lower level of it, which most people would've been on, you'd be covered for a certain number of days of hospitalisation. And people tended to stay in hospital much longer then," he said.

This meant when someone needed hospital treatment, often many families quickly faced enormous financial pressure. …

The situation in Australia before Medicare was similar to America today—medical expenses could push families into poverty.

"Hospital and medical expenses were one of the largest reasons for personal and non-business-related bankruptcy before Medicare," Mr Gillespie said.

"After Medicare they actually removed it from the published list of reasons because it fell so low."

The article goes on to say:

Maureen Buckingham was newly married and living in Sydney in the 1980s.

She remembered what it was like when you got sick before Medicare—even if you had private medical insurance.

"There were certainly times when you'd think twice. Do I really need to go to the doctor? Maybe I can struggle through [and] get there on my own," Ms Buckingham said.

Before Medicare, there was no bulk-billing, so the fees for a visit to the doctor had to be paid in full up front.

That changed once Medicare was implemented.

Mrs Buckingham's quote on thinking twice about going to see the doctor is something that all of us in our electorates have faced and heard about from people who told us that they would choose to put food on the table and feed their kids rather than see the doctor.

There's one last quote from this story, which I'll read out in this context. A former adviser, Bill Bowtell—some people in here will remember that he was an adviser to Neil Blewett, the health minister who introduced Medicare—said:

People were going without treatment. They couldn't afford going to doctors. They certainly could not afford expensive procedures in hospitals.

The reason I read that out is because, as I said, Neil Blewett was the health minister who introduced Medicare. There must be something lucky about health ministers from South Australia. There must be something good about health ministers from South Australia. We've got another health minister now, who I think—in all the years that I've been both a participant and an observer in politics, I have never seen one policy have such an immediate and positive impact as the policy to triple the bulk-billing incentive for all Australians. I don't think we have ever seen one policy change the country overnight, like we saw when that policy was introduced last November. In just one night in November last year, the number of bulk-billing practices in Forde doubled. They doubled overnight.

I think the changes to our tax policy, to level the playing field for first home buyers, might also have an instant impact. Perhaps history will record that our Medicare policy has a bit of competition for instant success, but I think that those changes to Medicare in November really have been more successful than the government could have hoped to imagine at this point. There's something about health ministers from South Australia. Maybe they all need to come from South Australia in the future!

I thought the article ended interestingly, because Medicare hasn't always been widely supported by everybody in the community. The article continued:

Despite the advance Medicare brought in terms of access to subsidised medical care, the program was not universally popular.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA), which represents the nations' doctors, was vigorously opposed to the change.

…   …   …   

"Right at the beginning, it was thought that there was an intrusion in the relationship between the doctor and their patient," AMA president Tony Bartone said.

…   …   …

At the time Medicare was introduced in 1984, the AMA was heavily influenced by developments in the United Kingdom, particularly the National Health Service.

"There was a concern … potentially unintended consequences along the NHS-style system, that we know is struggling and continues to struggle, would eventuate," Dr Bartone said.

Over the years, Dr Bartone said the AMA's position on Medicare had gradually shifted.

"Universality of access is a fundamental right and a fundamental equity issue … from that point of view, the AMA welcomes the history and the evolution that has led to today," he said.

However, it was not just the AMA that was bitterly opposed to Medicare. While the AMA has changed its position over the years, we're not so sure that the coalition has.

I'll look back at some of the things that John Howard said when it came to Medicare. He said:

The Government should have taken a knife to the expensive, failed Medicare system.

He also said:

Enormous savings can be achieved by radical changes in this area … Medicare is one of the great failures of the Hawke Government.

I'm not sure that statement from 1987 aged particularly well. He said that it was a cruel hoax and a fraud on the Australian people. He said that he would not stab Medicare in the back but 'would stab Medicare in the stomach'. He called it a total disaster, a nightmare. While the leopard may have tried to hide its spots, we know that it hasn't changed its spots. Even though they gave up, I think some time after the 1993 election, realising that they couldn't do what John Howard said and stab it in the stomach, they went around and tried to stab it in the back.

So we saw, all through the Abbott, Morrison and Turnbull governments, a freeze of the Medicare rebate, which led to a point where, when I was campaigning for Forde the first time, in 2022, I was coming across a trickle of bulk-billing clinics—like all of us in our electorates were—that were no longer able to bulk-bill because that rebate had been frozen for so long that the costs of running a practice had completely overtaken the rebate. The Abbott government had tried to introduce a co-payment in order to kill Medicare, but they couldn't get away with that. Instead, they froze the rebate. So in 2022 we saw what was a trickle of bulk-billing clinics ceasing to bulk-bill become a flood, and bulk-billing just collapsed. It was a crisis in our health system and it was a crisis in our communities, particularly our working-class communities.

The Albanese government—I think this certainly competes for most amazing public policy—methodically approached the issue by tripling the bulk-billing rate for pensioners and kids, immediately stabilising bulk-billing so that practices who were bulk-billing were at least able to maintain that. But then there was that night in November when we were able to actually bring it back to life. So the great Labor project continues. Bulk-billing under Medicare is something which can't just be achieved on the shop floor. But, because it's achieved through the parliament, it is universal, and it is that universality which is sacred to the Labor project and sacred to Medicare. To that end, I commend the bill to the House.

This bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026, has a simple purpose, but it has a deeply uncomfortable story. The simple purpose is to establish a clear legislative framework for Commonwealth health incentive payment programs. They're programs that have for many years been administered without adequate legislative cover for their administration, for their compliance and for their oversight—programs like the General Practice in Aged Care Incentive, the Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program, the Practice Incentives Program and the Workforce Incentive Program. Putting these on a sound statutory footing is sensible, it's overdue, and the coalition will not oppose the bill in the House.

But the story of how we arrived here, of what this government has done to the health system it was entrusted to protect—it's that story that demands to be told. This bill was presented by a prime minister who made a promise not once, not twice—not in the fine print of a policy document, buried beneath the footnote—but 71 times. We all remember it. The Prime Minister told the Australian people 71 times that all they needed was their Medicare card, not a credit card. We all remember him holding up and waving around that green card. That promise is in tatters.

Let me first deal with what this legislation actually does and why the coalition supports its intent. For decades, Commonwealth governments, including coalition governments, have used health incentive payments to support quality care, to encourage digital health adoption, to sustain general practice in aged-care settings and to keep doctors working in rural and remote communities, where the economics of medicine are hard and the distances are great. The Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program, the General Practice in Aged Care Incentive, the Workforce Incentive Program—these are not new inventions of this government. They are tools that my side of politics, that this side of the House, built, refined and expanded, because we understood—the coalition understood—that Medicare rebates alone are not enough. Every election, the Labor Party roll out these old tropes about the coalition not supporting Medicare. It's absolute rubbish. It's Mediscare. They do it every time. The coalition is committed to Medicare. I'm committed to Medicare.

The bill creates consistent processes for program approval and variation. It clarifies decision-making and review. It allows the Secretary of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing and the Chief Executive Medicare to take compliance action with respect to providers. In principle, these are sensible housekeeping measures. Doctors and practices deserve a clear and stable legislative framework. The coalition won't oppose the bill, but we have referred it to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for proper scrutiny because you can never trust this government for what little pearls they might sneak into their legislation. We have moved a second reading amendment because this parliament must confront in plain language what this government has presided over.

Average out-of-pocket costs for GP non-referred attendances have hit a record high of $50.77 per service nationally, covering July to December 2025, up from $46.31 the previous year and up from $41.90 the year before—a 21 per cent increase in just two years. For a family with children, for an older Australian managing a chronic condition, for a worker who cannot ignore a symptom any longer—21 per cent more, simply to walk through the door of their family doctor. In the past financial year alone, Australian families paid over $2 billion—that's 'billion' with a 'b'—in combined GP out-of-pocket costs. Two billion dollars—that's money taken from grocery budgets, from mortgage repayments, from school fees, from power bills, redirected to pay the gap at the surgery, because the Prime Minister promised that a Medicare card would be enough though we all know it is not.

The variation across the country is stark, and it's damning. In my own electorate of Fisher, people struggle to find a bulk-billing GP, and money out of pocket means elevated stress for someone already unwell. Yes, we have just opened up an urgent care clinic in Little Mountain. That's great—one urgent care clinic for an electorate that has over 150,000 people! If you include the entire Sunshine Coast, it's 370-odd thousand people. And, when you're paying $60 to see your GP, you do not feel like the only thing you need is your Medicare card. In a growing area like mine, you're not going to get 370,000 people visiting one urgent care clinic. My people feel the calculation forming in the backs of their minds: 'Can I afford these out-of-pocket costs? Is it worth it? Can I wait another week? Can I wait another month?' And we all know what happens when people delay medical treatment.

At my mobile offices across Fisher, the conversations are consistent, and they are heartbreaking. Mothers with young kids are telling me that they've delayed taking a sick child to the doctor because they could not find a bulk-billing practice and could not cover the gap. Elderly constituents, many of them on fixed incomes, are rationing their visits, skipping follow-ups, managing worsening conditions at home, because $60 is $60 when you're on a pension. Some wait; some don't go at all.

Practice owners—people who built their clinics from nothing, who have served their communities for decades—are telling me they cannot hold the line any longer. Many GPs are getting older, like us all, but GPs in particular are. I know many GPs, and many of them are on the wrong side of 60. They've worked damn hard all their lives, and they're tired. They didn't go into medicine to turn patients away, but the economics that this government has created are making that choice for them. If clinics survive, what then? High volume, low continuity, fast throughput—it's a conveyor belt, where the patient is a number and the consultation is just a transaction and where the practice that managed your parents through their final years has been replaced by a corporate clinic that books six-minute slots and measures success in throughput, not outcomes.

That's the future that this prime minister is building, whether he admits it or not. When you drive out the independent family doctor through underfunding, through regulatory pressure, through threatening letters designed to coerce rather than support, you don't get a better system. You get a hollowed-out one. You get medicine that is cheaper to deliver and more expensive for the country to sustain. The continuity, the trust and the prevention that a good family GP, like my doctor in Maroochydore, provides cannot be replicated by a clipboard and a six-minute timer. That is where the human cost begins to accumulate.

Bulk-billing has collapsed under this government, no matter what those opposite say or how they try and spin it. Let's have a look at the facts. When the coalition left office in May 2022, the national bulk-billing rate stood at 88.5 per cent, an all-time record high. Under Labor, it has fallen to as low as 77.9 per cent, a drop of almost 11 percentage points. That is not a fluctuation at the margins or a temporary dip; that is a collapse. The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing has already conceded that this government will not meet its own bulk-billing targets until after the next election at the earliest. Australians are being asked to absorb years of record costs and declining access. It is simply not good enough.

The Medicare statistics make the human cost impossible to ignore. The number of GP consultations has fallen by more than 1.8 million, compared with the same period the previous year. That's 1.8 million missed opportunities for health care. That is older Australians deferring a check-up, parents putting off a visit for a sick child and workers dismissing chest pain or a mental health concern because they know there's a gap waiting for them and they are not sure if they can cover it. We all know what deferred care becomes. It becomes emergency department presentations. It becomes avoidable hospitalisation. It becomes preventable suffering. It is not good policy and it is certainly not good economics.

There was a time when the promise of Medicare was simple and it was kept. You felt unwell, you went to your doctor and you were seen. Prevention was possible because access was affordable. That chain—that simple chain of cause and care—is broken. It is not fair, and it sits in direct contradiction to a promise made 71 times to the people of this country.

But it is what came next that revealed the true character of this government. Confronted with the wreckage of its broken promise, the Albanese government did not acknowledge reality. It did not course-correct. It reached instead for intimidation. I understand that some Labor MPs have begun sending threatening letters to family-run GP practices. The letters are designed to pressure them, to lean on them, to bully them into bulk-billing so that the government could paper over the gap between its solemn promise and its catastrophic performance. This is a disgrace.

Let's be clear about who runs these practices. They are small businesses. I know this because I speak with them regularly in my own electorate of Fisher. They are bowing under the pressure. They are the backbone of local communities. They are owned and staffed by doctors who have spent a lifetime getting to know their patients, who track a child's development across years, who manage a pensioner's medication regime, who sit with someone while they receive a difficult diagnosis. These doctors, these practices, are already under significant strain from the rising cost of doing business under this government—wages, rent, insurance, equipment and a growing mountain of compliance demands. The last thing they need is political intimidation from their own government.

Instead of sending heavy-handed letters to local doctors, this government should focus on fixing the crisis it created, from record out-of-pocket costs to growing emergency department wait times and workforce shortages spreading through general practice. Those letters also reveal something more troubling about the direction this government intends to take. They are evidence of a plan to drive out independent family doctors and hand the system to corporate interests, running production line six-minute medicine—high volume, low continuity and fast throughput.

As I said earlier, there has been a 21 per cent increase in GP out-of-pocket costs in two years, a bulk-billing rate that's collapsed by almost 11 percentage points, 1.8 million fewer GP consultations and $2 billion paid by Australian families who were told they would only need a Medicare card. The Australian people deserve a health system that is sustainable, that's affordable and that keeps faith with the promises made to earn their trust. We will continue to support Medicare and the health of Australians.

I rise today in strong support of the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026. This bill goes to the very heart of what Australians expect from their healthcare system and from a strong Labor government. It is about ensuring that every Australian, regardless of where they live and what they earn, can see a doctor when they need one without worrying about the costs. That is what Medicare has always stood for. For more than four decades, Medicare has been one of Australia's greatest achievements. It reflects a simple but powerful belief that access to health care should be determined by your health needs, not by the size of your wallet. It is a principle Australians overwhelmingly support and a principle Labor has always defended.

The Albanese Labor government was elected with a clear commitment to strengthen Medicare after years in which Australians saw bulk-billing rates decline and out-of-pocket costs rise. Families told us that they were finding it harder to get an appointment. Pensioners were delaying visits to the doctor because they were worried about the cost. Parents were making impossible decisions about whether they could afford to take their sick child to the GP. Those are decisions Australians should never have to make.

This government understands that strengthening Medicare means supporting both patients and the doctors who care for them. General practice sits at the centre of Australia's healthcare system. Every day, GPs diagnose illness, manage chronic disease, provide preventative health care and keep people out of hospital. If we want a stronger health system, we must ensure that general practice remains viable and affordable, and this is exactly what this bill helps achieve.

The legislation establishes a clear legislative framework for Commonwealth primary care incentive payment programs, including the Medicare Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program. These payments provide certainty for general practices while encouraging bulk-billing and ensuring Australians continue to have access to affordable, high-quality health care. Importantly, this bill underpins one of the Albanese Labor government's biggest investments in Medicare. Our record $8.5 billion investment is the largest investment in Medicare since it was created. It is helping to restore bulk-billing, strengthen primary care and train the next generation of doctors and nurses, who will care for Australians well into the future. This is not simply about spending money; it is about rebuilding confidence in Medicare. It is about ensuring Australians know that, when they become sick, they can see a doctor without worrying about whether they can afford it.

The Albanese government expanded the bulk-billing incentive from 1 November 2025 so that every Australian is now eligible. At the same time, practices that bulk-bill every patient receive an additional 12.5 per cent Medicare bulk-billing practice incentive payment. That matters because supporting bulk-billing is not simply about asking doctors to bulk-bill more patients; it is about recognising the pressures facing general practice and ensuring clinics have the support they need to continue providing affordable care. Expanding the incentive recognises that every Australian, no matter your situation, deserves the best care possible. It also ensures that the doctors that do that work receive a fair incentive for the often critical work that they do. These reforms are practical and responsible, and most importantly they are already delivering results.

Across Australia, the latest quarterly data shows that the national GP bulk-billing rate has increased to 81.9 per cent, which is up 4.6 percentage points compared to the same period last year. In Queensland, the results have also been encouraging. The state's bulk-billing rate has increased to 79½ per cent, which is an increase of four percentage points over the last year. That means hundreds of thousands more Queenslanders are seeing a doctor without paying an out-of-pocket fee. It means families are receiving care sooner, people are managing chronic illnesses before they become more serious and fewer Queenslanders are delaying health care because they are worried about the cost. These outcomes matter because every visit to a GP is an opportunity to detect illnesses earlier, prevent avoidable hospital admissions and improve long-term health outcomes.

Primary health care is not simply the front door of our healthcare system. When we invest in general practice, we strengthen the entire healthcare system. These reforms extend well beyond the national statistics. There are now more than 3,800 fully bulk-billing practices across Australia, with over 1,400 clinics fully bulk-billing after previously operating as a mixed billing practice. As a result, about 97 per cent of Australians now live within a 20-minute drive of a fully bulk-billing practice. That is a remarkable improvement. It reflects a government that understands health care should be available close to home and is prepared to make the investments necessary to rebuild Medicare. Importantly, these improvements have not happened by accident. They are the direct result of deliberate policy decisions.

The Albanese government recognises that, if we want to increase bulk-billing, we need to properly support general practice. That is why we've expanded bulk-billing incentives to every Australian. It is why we introduced an additional 12½ per cent practice incentive payment for clinics that choose to bulk-bill every patient for every visit. These reforms are providing greater financial certainty for practices while ensuring patients receive affordable care. I'd call that a win-win. This bill provides the legislative certainty needed to ensure that these important incentive programs continue supporting Australia's primary healthcare system well into the future. It strengthens Medicare not through slogans but through practical policy. It supports doctors, it supports clinics, and most importantly it supports Australian patients.

As the federal member for Petrie, I measure the success of government policy by one simple question: is it making life better for the people I represent? When I first stood as a Labor candidate for Petrie, health care was one of the issues I heard about the most. Whether I was doorknocking in Deception Bay, speaking with the young families in North Lakes, meeting retirees in Kippa-Ring or talking with the residents in Mango Hill or Carseldine, people consistently raise the same concerns. They told me it was becoming harder to find a bulk-billing doctor. Parents spoke about delaying trips to the GP simply because they could not afford another medical bill. Older Australians told me the rising healthcare costs were placing increasing pressures on fixed incomes. These are not isolated stories; they reflect the reality facing families across our community. I made a commitment that, if I were elected, I would fight for better health care close to home. I promised that strengthening Medicare would be one of my highest priorities, and, today, I am proud that we are delivering on that promise. Since October 2023, the GP bulk-billing rate across Petrie has increased from 72.8 per cent to 78 per cent.

That might seem like a simple statistic, but behind that increase are thousands of local GP appointments where families have been able to receive health care without reaching for their wallet except to grab out their Medicare card. Behind that increase are pensioners who can once again visit their regular doctor with confidence. Behind that increase are parents who can take their sick child to a GP without wondering how they're going to pay the bill.

I'm equally pleased that the number of fully bulk-billing clinics across Petrie has more than doubled. That means local families have more choice, greater confidence and better access to affordable health care close to home. It demonstrates that, when governments properly support general practice, doctors respond by bulk-billing more patients. That is exactly what this legislation is designed to achieve.

Our commitment to health care in Petrie extends well beyond bulk-billing. One of the achievements I am most proud of is opening the Medicare urgent care clinic in Deception Bay. Before the clinic opened, too many local families forced the impossible choice. They could wait days or weeks for a GP appointment, spend hours in a busy emergency department for a non-life-threatening condition or pay hundreds of dollars at a private urgent care clinic. None of these options are good enough. Today, local families have another choice: the Deception Bay Medicare urgent care clinic provides free, bulk-billed urgent care seven days a week with no appointment needed.

Whether it's a child who needs stitches after falling off their bike, a suspected fracture, an ear infection or another urgent-but-non-life-threatening condition, people can now receive the treatment closer to home without worrying about the cost. Since opening, the clinic has already cared for thousands of local patients. That means thousands fewer presentations to busy hospital emergency departments. It means families getting treatment sooner. It means better health outcomes for our community.

The clinic has been such a success that its opening hours have already extended to better meet the local demand. That tells us two things: first, that there was clearly an unmet demand for affordable urgent health care in our community, and second, that when governments invest in healthcare services when people need them, communities respond.

Petrie is one of the fastest-growing parts of Queensland. Every year, more families choose to call our wonderful community home. That growth brings opportunity, but it also brings increased demand for health care. As our population grows, our healthcare system must grow with it. That is why the government's investment into Medicare matters so much. It is ensuring that communities like Petrie receive the healthcare infrastructure and services they deserve, not just today but for many years to come.

For me, this bill is about delivering on the promise I made to the people of Petrie. It is about ensuring local families can access affordable health care when they need it, and it is about building a stronger Medicare that will continue serving our growing community well into the future. The bill is about more than improving the health system today. It is about ensuring Medicare remains strong for generations to come. As Australia's population continues to grow and age, the demand on our healthcare system will only increase. More Australians are living longer, and more Australians are managing chronic conditions. Communities like Petrie continue to grow rapidly, with thousands of new families choosing to call our region home each year. That means we cannot afford to stay still. We need a government that is prepared to invest today so Australians continue to receive world-class health care tomorrow. That is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing.

This bill provides certainty for the primary care incentive programs that support general practice. It recognises that strong general practice is the cornerstone of a strong healthcare system. When people can access affordable care early, illnesses are diagnosed sooner, chronic conditions are managed more effectively, and unnecessary hospital admissions are reduced. Every dollar invested into primary care strengthens our entire healthcare system.

This government's record investment into Medicare extends well beyond bulk-billing alone. We are training more doctors and nurses. We are making medicines cheaper through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We have delivered Medicare urgent care clinics across the country, we are investing in our public hospitals in partnership with the states, and we are ensuring that general practice remains viable and an attractive profession for future generations of healthcare workers. These are not isolated initiatives. They form part of a comprehensive plan to rebuild Medicare after years of decline.

Labor has always believed that health care should never depend on your postcode or your bank balance. That belief led the Whitlam government to begin the journey towards universal healthcare, and it was the Hawke government that delivered Medicare. Today, the Albanese Labor government is ensuring Medicare continues to meet the needs of Australians for the 21st century. We understand that Medicare cannot simply be preserved. It must continue to evolve. It must continue to respond to the changing healthcare needs of Australians, and it must continue to be properly funded. That is why we have made the largest investment in Medicare's history.

Strengthening Medicare is not an expense; it is an investment. It is an investment into healthier communities, preventative care, reduced pressure on hospitals and the confidence that every Australian deserves that health care will be there when they need it most. As the member for Petrie, I've already seen what these investments mean on the ground. I've spoken to parents who no longer have to worry about the cost of taking a sick child to the doctor. I've met older Australians who tell me they can once again see their GP without delaying appointments because of the cost. I've spoken with local doctors who welcomed the government's commitment to supporting general practice and strengthening Medicare. Most importantly, I have seen growing confidence in our healthcare system.

That confidence has not happened by chance. It has been built through action. It has been built through higher bulk-billing rates, more fully bulk-billing clinics and the opening of the Deception Bay Urgent Care Clinic. Above all, it has been built by a government that has made health care one of its defining priorities. The thing about this bill is that the increases in funding don't discriminate based on area, nationality, income or any other factor. This bill ensures that we are able to support any GP practice that wants to go bulk-billed no matter where it is.

This bill ensures that programs all across the country are able to build on the great services they provide. It strengthens the partnership between the Commonwealth and the hardworking general practitioners. It supports clinics to continue bulk-billing, and it helps ensure Australians can continue accessing high-quality healthcare regardless of their circumstances. For my community of Petrie, these reforms are already making a measurable difference. I support this bill and commend it to the House.

Today I rise in strong support of the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026. As federal member for Bullwinkel and as somebody that worked on the frontline as a nurse for decades, I know firsthand just how important a strong, accessible primary care system is to the health and wellbeing of our communities. Speaker, you may know, but, before I came to this place, I was a nurse. I saw the difference that timely access to a GP can make. I also saw what happens if people delay treatment because they can't see a GP because they're worried about the cost. That's problematic. That's why we're strengthening Medicare and making it easier for Australians to see a doctor. For me, it's not just policy; it's personal.

This bill has established a clear and enduring legislative framework for Commonwealth primary care incentive payment programs, including the Medicare Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program. These programs are a vital part of how we support access, affordability and quality in our health system. They provide financial incentives to GPs and clinics through Medicare—our world-class, enviable, universal healthcare system—to ensure that what remains within reach for every Australian continues to do so. It matters completely in communities like mine in Bullwinkel in Western Australia. Bullwinkel covers a diverse mix of suburban, semirural and regional areas, where access to health care can at times be challenging.

Families in my electorate want certainty. They want to know that—if they're sick, have a chronic disease or need ongoing care—they can see a doctor without worrying about the bill at the end of the visit. And that is exactly what this government is focused on delivering.

The Albanese Labor government is proudly committed to strengthening Medicare—a program which, of course, we started—because we believe health care is a right, not a privilege. The Albanese Labor government has made a record investment of $8.5 billion, the largest in Medicare's history, and it's already making a huge difference. We are expanding bulk-billing, training more doctors and nurses, and strengthening primary care right across the country.

Since Labor strengthened Medicare bulk-billing and introduced additional incentives for GPs, we have seen five more GP practices in my electorate of Bullwinkel take up bulk-billing. That is five more practices, and all the doctors within those practices, making the choice to put patients first and ensure care is accessible to everyone.

I want to take this opportunity to recognise the practices in Bullwinkel that are leading the way by offering these bulk-billing services for every patient in their communities. These include Chidlow Family Doctors, Gidgegannup Medical Centre, Gosnells Medical Clinic, Mount Helena Medical Centre, Armadale After Hours GP, Toodyay Medical Group, Wheatbelt Health Network, Gosnells GPs and Specialist Care, and Beverley Medical Practice.

These practices are not just healthcare providers; they're pillars of our community. They are the places that people turn to in real times of need. And, by choosing to bulk-bill, they're removing barriers and making a real difference in people's lives. I want to thank every doctor, every nurse, every practice manager, every accountant and every healthcare worker in these practices. As somebody that's worked in health care, I know the pressures that you face and I know that your decisions are driven by your commitment to patients. And this government is backing you.

The impact of our reforms is being felt right across Australia, not just in Bullwinkel. On 1 November, we expanded the general practice bulk-billing incentive to all Australians, and introduced an additional 12.5 per cent incentive payment for general practices that bulk-bill all of the patients all of the time.

This was a significant and practical reform, one that gives practices the support that they need to maintain and expand bulk-billing, and we are seeing the results. The latest data in the national GP bulk-billing rate has risen to 81.9 per cent, an increase of 4.6 percentage points compared to the same period last year.

And bulk-billing has increased in every state and territory: New South Wales now sits at 85.6 per cent; Victoria, 83.7 per cent; Queensland, 79.5 per cent; South Australia, 80.4 per cent; Tasmania, 78 per cent; the Northern Territory, 89.8 per cent; the ACT, 54.1 per cent; and Western Australia, 74 per cent.

These are not just numbers. They represent real Australians who can now access care more readily. They represent parents who don't have to choose between paying for a doctor's visit or paying the bills. They represent older Australians who can manage chronic conditions without the financial strain. And they represent communities that are healthier because care is more accessible.

There are now over 3,800 Medicare bulk-billing practices nationwide, and more than 1,400 of these were previously mixed-billing clinics—so 1,400 have converted to bulk-billing all patients all of the time. Importantly, about 97 per cent of Australians now live within a 20-minute drive of a bulk-billing practice. In electorates like Bullwinkel that increased access is crucially important.

Speaking of Bullwinkel, I was incredibly proud to open the Mundaring Urgent Care Clinic in my electorate just three months ago. In that short space of time since, this clinic has already seen more than 2,000 patients. That is 2,000 people who have been able to access urgent care quickly without needing to go down the hill on the busy Great Eastern Highway to the emergency hospital department. The feedback from the community has been overwhelmingly positive. Thank you to all those people who have written in to say thank you.

People value the fact that it is fully bulk-billed, open extended hours and does not require an appointment or a referral. It means families can get urgent care when they need it, close to home and without the additional stress of payment. We are seeing similar benefits from other Medicare urgent care clinics which are located just outside of Bullwinkel in Gosnells and North Midland but service the people of Bullwinkel. Together, these clinics are relieving pressure on hospital emergency departments and ensuring that emergency departments can focus on those who truly need emergency care. Primary care, urgent care and emergency care—patients with non-life threatening urgent conditions can be treated quickly and efficiently in the community close to where they live. This is what strong primary care and urgent care systems look like. They are accessible, responsive and centred on the needs of patients. They are supported by the very incentive frameworks that this bill puts on a stronger legislative footing.

The impact of our reforms right across Australia from 1 November when we introduced the expanded general practice bulk-billing incentive and the additional 12.5 per cent for practices that bulk-bill all patients, all the time has been remarkable. This is structural change. In this budget, we have embedded those Medicare urgent care clinics so they'll be with us for the future. They're also relieving pressure on GP practices themselves. As a GP nurse, I know that when something urgent walks through the door, of course the scheduled patients, both on my lists and the doctor's lists, will need to wait so that the urgent case is attended to. But having the urgent cases taken out to the Medicare urgent care clinics means that GPs can get on with doing primary care where it's needed.

Primary care is the front door of our health care system. It is where early intervention happens, where preventative health takes place and where relationships are built. It's where we can prevent more serious injuries and health issues further down the track. This bill strengthens our foundations by providing a clear legislative basis for primary care incentive programs. It gives certainty to providers, strengthens accountability and ensures these programs can continue to evolve to meet the needs of Australians.

This bill is about fairness. It's about ensuring that whether you live in Gosnells, Toodyay, Beverley, Chidlow or Gidgegannup, you can access affordable, high-quality care. It's about backing local practices and healthcare workers, and it's about building a stronger Medicare for the future. As someone who has worked extensively in our health system, I am proud to support this bill. As the member for Bullwinkel, I'm proud to stand up for my communities, the patients, the providers and the families who rely on Medicare every day. I commend this bill to the House.

Can a parent take a sick child to the doctor without first visiting their bank balance? No-one should have to think twice about seeing a GP when they are sick or injured because of what it might cost and no-one should have to wait days for an appointment because the nearest bulk-billing clinic is booked out for a week. The Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026 gives primary care group programs like the bulk-billing practice incentive a consistent statutory basis to secure its longevity and sustain the progress that this Labor government is already delivering. That is real progress.

Since 2025, the national bulk-billing rate has climbed to over 81 per cent, and about 97 per cent of Australians now live within a 20-minute drive of a bulk-billing practice. That looks like more people seeing a doctor instead of putting it off. The lingering cough that you keep meaning to get checked out, the blemish on your arm that doesn't look quite right or the stubbed toe that turns out to be properly broken—that is what these incentive programs are really for. It's about free and affordable care that doesn't have you second-guessing whether it's worth a visit or not.

My electorate of Swan is one of the most diverse communities in Western Australia, and bulk-billing matters right across it. It matters to the pensioners in Como, to young families in Cannington and to people working long hours and shiftwork in Belmont and Rivervale. For a lot of them, whether the doctor bulk-bills is what decides if they go at all. When it costs nothing, you go when you need to go. When it costs $80 out of pocket, you wait, and sometimes, while waiting, a small problem becomes a big one. The reassurance of a bulk-billing practice down the road shifts you from the mindset of 'she'll be right' to 'what's the harm in checking'. This shift can sometimes be lifesaving.

I'm sure that there are many people within this House that have had lived experience of a family member visiting the GP because of a small matter that ended up being quite a big matter. For me, there's a particular story that I'd like to share with you, which relates to a phone call I got from my mum when my daughter was three weeks old. My mum said: 'We just went to the GP, and he said that we need to go get an MRI scan for Dad straight away. I'll keep you updated.' Interestingly, sometimes you go to the GP, and they say, 'You should get this scan in the next fortnight,' but this GP said, 'You need to go straight away.'

The reason why my mum made my dad go to the GP was that my mum was annoyed by the way that my dad was walking. He was walking with a limp and wasn't walking in a straight manner. So they did the MRI scan, and it turned out that my dad had bleeding on two different parts of his brain. Then, from the MRI, what ended up happening is they said, 'You need to go to the emergency department straight away.' Dad initially went to Fiona Stanley Hospital, and they said: 'We don't do emergency brain surgery at this hospital. You need to go to Royal Perth Hospital.' Then Dad was at Royal Perth Hospital, and then it was this question of Dad needing this emergency brain surgery.

The surgeon called and told me what was happening. I live very close to Royal Perth Hospital—it's a 15-minute drive—and I'm thinking that I'd love to say good luck to my dad, but he was going in so quickly, and the surgeon wasn't with my dad. I said to the surgeon, 'What's the probability that he'll survive this surgery?' He said, 'It's a 90 per cent probability, but there's a 10 per cent probability that he won't live.' So I ask: 'Could I just wish my dad good luck? Can I do that?' So the surgeon gave me his number. I got to call 15 minutes later and I got to say to Dad: 'Hey, Dad. Good luck for your surgery.'

So that was the beginning of a GP appointment that turned out to be this very large thing. Dad had emergency brain surgery; he lived through the surgery, but then he had to learn to walk again, so he ended up being in hospital for six months. What's fascinating is that the beginning of that story was a GP appointment. The thing I find particularly extraordinary about Australia is: who knows what would have happened to my dad if that GP appointment didn't happen? These are Sliding Doors moments.

My dad migrated from Kenya, but he had six brothers and sisters, and all his brothers and sisters migrated to California. For my cousin, who had emergency heart surgery—basically, when they got to the moment of, 'You have a leaky heart valve; we need to perform emergency surgery on you'—the question was: 'How much will this cost? And can you afford it?' So I'm incredibly grateful for the Australian Medicare system. Universal health care is a phenomenal thing, and this bill is quite incredible.

So, back to the mainstream speech: Aside from bulk-billing, this bill also addresses other primary care incentive programs that make Australia's healthcare system robust and reliable. Together they are worth more than $1.4 billion of this government's investment in primary care every year. The Practice Incentive Program rewards practices for the quality of their care, for opening their doors after hours and for teaching the next generation of doctors. The General Practice Aged Care Incentive helps GPs keep looking after patients once they move into residential aged care so older Australians won't lose the doctor who knows them—and, interestingly, I now have my old man in aged care.

The Workforce Incentive Program helps practices bring nurses, midwives, allied health workers and doctors into rural and remote communities that have always found it hardest to attract them. In the country, one GP can be the only doctor for hundreds of kilometres, covering the clinic, the emergencies and the after-hours calls. This program helps keep a doctor there and helps bring the next one in. These are programs that sustain care in place. It is the hardest to deliver.

This bill sets out clear guidelines to maintain the quality of these programs, and it makes sure they are run properly, with the same safeguards that protect other dollars spent across Medicare. It also gives certainty about how the program works and how decisions affecting them are made, and it gives doctors and practices who rely on them the confidence that their future is secure. In my own community, the bulk-billing incentive program is working. In 2023, the bulk-billing rate in my electorate was 67 per cent. By March this year it had risen to 74.9 per cent. The number of practices bulk-billing every patient has more than doubled. That number was nine when the coalition left office; today it is 22. That's 13 more practices in my electorate where a family can see a doctor and walk out without paying a cent.

The minister for health said that the Labor government has stopped the freefall in bulk-billing rates, and in my community we have done more to stop the slide; we have begun to reverse it. For households in Belmont and Rivervale, that's the difference between a GP visit that costs nothing and one that makes you stop and think about whether or not you're going to do it.

This bill also renames the Health Insurance Act as the Medicare Act. Since Medicare was introduced by the Hawke government more than 40 years ago, it has shaped the lives of millions of Australians. We carry the green-and-gold card in our wallets, and we hand it over to the doctor at the hospital and at the pharmacy. It's one of the few things in this country that belongs to all of us, no matter where we are or what we earn. It reminds me of when the Prime Minister talked about how Kerry Stokes and his mother both got treated at the same hospital.

I think it's extraordinary that that's the healthcare system we have. It's not a healthcare system that is only for some. I'm proud to be part of a government that's protecting it, and we should make sure we never take it for granted, because that's not how every country does things. In fact, I remember having a conversation at dinner in New York and speaking to some of my cousins over there, and one of their friends said, 'Socialist medicine—that sounds gross!' But think about it this way: universal medicine—does that sound sensible? The way that you phrase things is interesting. This is where I think it's important to recognise our system. I remember another one of my friends, who was a lawyer from Melbourne travelling in the US, and he talked about going out hiking. He basically got this massive, deep wound in his leg and he's like, 'I'm not going to see a doctor because it's going to cost me a lot,' so he continued to make sure that he kept it sterile. He let that heal very slowly over a two-month process. There's another story that I remember, which is one of my friends, who's a female engineer. She was working for a big oil and gas company and had a miscarriage when she was overseas. For her, having a miscarriage while she was overseas was like, 'I just don't know if I want to see a health expert, because I don't know how much this will cost,' and we know that, when you have a miscarriage, having medical help is really important.

These are the things that sometimes we don't recognise are really powerful in the Australian healthcare system. We need to make sure that we continue to strengthen it, and we need to make sure that we continue to build it. What I would say is that Australians made a choice on whether we wanted this to be universal. The thing that I see time and time again is that the Australian Labor government wants to do things that last for generations and makes this country so much better compared to any other country in the world. It's interesting because we have so many things to be grateful for, whether that relates to minimum wage, whether that relates to the superannuation guarantee, whether that relates to paid parental leave or, of course, whether it relates to universal Medicare.

I remember a time doorknocking in my electorate where I was having a conversation with a family, and they were talking about how disappointed they were in the bulk-billing rates. They were like: 'We recognise that bulk-billing exists. I've not seen a bulk billing doctor for years.' He felt like he could not trust the government to look after this. The thing that I would say about our government is that what we want to do time and time again is make sure that we listen deeply to our communities and ensure that we understand what they want. We saw the numbers, but we also saw the effects in our community, and we wanted to make sure that we put the investment where it was needed.

The additional thing that I think is useful for us to think about—and I'll put my engineering hat on—is that in the mining industry one of the things that we do intentionally is something called preventive maintenance. We do preventive maintenance because we want to make sure that expensive equipment doesn't break down, because when it breaks down, it costs a lot of money per hour, per minute if it's down. That's what the big companies do, and the thing that I want Australians to make sure that they do is preventive health, because we know that, when we invest in preventive health, it means that we can actually catch those little things initially before they become too big. I see that the general-practice system that we have with our Medicare system and our bulk-billing clinics ensures that we can actually invest in this. I think it's incredibly important that we continue to ensure that we look after this system, because it is something that actually helps people with the quality of their life, but it also means that we can have our family, friends and loved ones in a way that is so much more present.

I anticipate that the life expectancy of Australians probably is a bit longer than other countries, and I think a part of that relates to not just our blue skies and our beautiful beaches and fresh air. I think that a part of it also relates to our healthcare system. It's a healthcare system that we should be very proud of, and I think that this bill continues to strengthen it. I commend the bill to the House.

It is an honour to rise in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026, brought forward by the Minister for Health and Ageing, and I commend him for doing so. This bill is an important step in strengthening the integrity, transparency and sustainability of Medicare primary healthcare funding. Australia has one of the best healthcare systems in the entire world. We're regularly compared to our international counterparts, and Medicare is the very best of Australia, and it's a system built and backed by successive Labor governments every step of the way.

Member for Gorton, I'm really sorry. It being 7.30 pm, you can continue your remarks at a later date.

The Tasmanian Liberal government is in crisis, not a political crisis of the kind that passes in a news cycle but a crisis of integrity, the kind that corrodes public trust slowly and leaves lasting damage long after the ministers responsible have quietly exited stage left. Indeed, in all my days I haven't seen a government at state or federal level as dodgy as this Tasmanian government. Let me set out the facts for you because the facts speak for themselves.

In the last month, two cabinet ministers have resigned because of grave breaches of public trust. Madeleine Ogilvie resigned after intentionally misleading parliament by claiming she was not party to any court case, and it was only after sustained questioning that she finally admitted that she had in fact brought a Supreme Court action. She defended her lie by saying she erred while attempting to navigate a suppression order, and the cost to the taxpayer was about $120,000. In the following weeks, Jane Howlett resigned after evidence emerged that her office was aware of campaign texts sent in breach of conventions, when she had previously claimed no knowledge of such matters. Her legal fees cost $405,000, and who picked up the tab? You guessed it, Speaker; it was the taxpayer again.

So that's more than half a million dollars of public money—and on what? Well, the Premier has confirmed both matters relate to court disputes with Tasmania's own Integrity Commission. Let that sink in. Tasmanian ministers used Tasmanian taxpayers' money to fight Tasmania's integrity watchdog in court—in secret—while lying to parliament that any such proceedings existed. When that money is added to the $317,000 the Integrity Commission has spent on legal costs for its investigations since 2022-23, that's nearly $1 million of taxpayers' money down the gurgler.

I want to be mindful not to overstate what we know, because suppression orders mean the full picture remains hidden from the public. But what is obvious is the deeply troubling conduct of the Liberal government, its ministers and the Premier. In fact, Premier Jeremy Rockliff has become the first Tasmanian Premier in history to be censured by the state parliament. The censure motion, which passed on 17 June, found he failed to uphold the ministerial code of conduct in relation to both ministers, failed to ensure Ms Ogilvie corrected the misleading record when he became aware of it and failed to answer basic questions. His response? These were complex matters, and he could not comment further. That's not leadership; it's concealment dressed up as a caution. Similarly, the Premier's claims that the criticism amounts to 'personal attacks' make a complete mockery of the whole situation.

What makes this worse—just when we thought they couldn't stoop any lower—was that, under intense pressure, the government finally tabled their long-awaited reforms to the Integrity Commission Act. But there was one glaring difference between their 2025 consultation draft and the bill that was presented to parliament, and that is the removal of changes regarding the right to silence, which allows public officers under investigation to refuse to give information or evidence. Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

Moreover, independent experts have examined that legislation closely and found it wanting. Indeed, the Centre for Public Integrity has warned the proposed reforms largely amount to technical changes that leave major structural weaknesses unresolved, including chronic underfunding of the Integrity Commission; the limited ability to investigate misconduct involving third parties; accountability gaps involving MPs during election periods, when parliament is dissolved; weak appointment processes for commissioners; and ongoing barriers to investigating MPs where parliamentary privilege is asserted. In other words, the government has spent half a million dollars fighting its integrity watchdog and is now putting forward integrity reforms which experts say don't fix the fundamental problems. Some might call that ironic; I call that a pattern.

Tasmania's Integrity Commission has never held a public hearing. It cannot investigate politicians' conduct during election campaigns, its budget is the second-lowest per capita of any state or territory commission and it has referred only two people for prosecution, which is the lowest rate of any state. This is simply not good enough.

Tasmanians want and deserve so much more. We can have so much more. I call on the Tasmanian government and parliament to achieve so much more.

on indulgence—With reference to the incident in the chamber yesterday, I would like to withdraw my statement. I would like to apologise to the House and to you personally, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the member for Hunter and others opposite for their kind friendship during this period.

Pope Leo XIV released a document called 'Magnificent Humanity', a pastoral letter to the world on artificial intelligence and humanity. I want to speak about it tonight not simply because it addresses technology but because of what it actually reveals about the kind of society we're choosing to become.

Pope Leo writes with urgency. He warns that we are living through a moment when 'the human person risks being reduced to data', to a machine output and to a commodity stripped of dignity, stripped of meaning and stripped of relationships that make life worth living. He warns of the dangers to truth, to democracy and to the institutions that sustain civic life when powerful technologies are left ungoverned and concentrated in too few hands. But he does not stop at warning; he calls on those with power—political, economic and technological—to exercise it in service of the common good. He calls on us to become, in his words, instruments of growth, justice and fraternity.

I'm a proud Catholic and I'm a proud Labor member of parliament, and I do not think those things are in tension. Last year, the Albanese Labor government released Australia's National AI Plan, a responsible road map for governing AI in the public interest. It is grounded in the principles that Pope Leo articulates: transparency, human oversight, the protection of people's rights and the insistence that technology must serve humanity, not the reverse. When Pope Leo warns against systems that reduce the person to an algorithm, this Labor government answers, 'Not here—not on our watch.'

This letter speaks of the value of work not merely as economic activity but as an expression of human dignity. Catholic social teaching has always held that a fair day's work demands a fair day's pay. From 1 July, more than three million Australian workers will receive a pay rise, and every worker is getting another tax cut. That means families are breathing much more easily. That is the dignity of Labor, recognised in law.

Pope Leo speaks of families and young people and of a world that must not abandon them. From today, paid parental leave extends to six months—and this accrues super—because we believe that, when a child enters this world, both parents deserve time to be present. Care is not yielding; care is valued work, and we are building a system that treats it that way.

He speaks of the social conditions for hope. For too many Australians, homeownership has become a source of despair, rather than aspiration. First home buyers can access a five per cent deposit. We are building new homes for first home buyers, not property investors. We are levelling a playing field that has been tilting against Australians for way too long. A fair playing field is not a gift; it's justice.

He speaks of truth, justice and curbing the distortion of power. From 1 July, our price-gouging provisions come into place. When corporations extract excessive profit from people's grocery bills, that is not the market working; that is power being exercised against people, and governments that believe in the common good must act.

Pope Leo also wrote that technology must serve human people, not shape them. Labor's reform, Australia's social media ban for under-16-year-olds, says the same thing in the language of legislation—that no algorithm should be permitted to interrupt a child's becoming. I look forward to introducing the digital duty of care so that all of us are not left at the behest of the social media giants. This letter asks a fundamental question: what do we owe each other? Catholic social teaching answers this: everything that affirms the dignity of the person. Tonight, I am proud to say that this Albanese Labor government is answering that call in policy, in law and in real change for Australians that they will feel in their lives. The direction is justice, the direction is dignity, and the direction is peace and solidarity.

The cost of living is affecting all Australians. For some, it's a death by a thousand cuts. Rarely is it the cruelty of a single brutal decision that everyone could see and oppose. It's the cruelty of endless poor decisions and bad policies, each one small enough to wave through, each one defended by the government as maybe modest, maybe reasonable, maybe even incremental. And then, one day, an Australian sits down at their kitchen table, adds it all up and realises there's nothing left to give and nowhere left to turn. They realise, hopefully, that it's actually not them; it's this Labor government. That is what incrementalism does. Most people don't really notice it until it's too late. It's like the frog in the boiling pot.

I want to tell you about Patricia, a retired widow from Dicky Beach. Patricia kept her private health insurance after she lost her husband because she believed it would protect her. Despite being a pensioner, she sacrificed what she could to afford her private health insurance. She recently used the Sunshine Coast University Hospital and voluntarily claimed through her insurer, returning more than $6,000 to Queensland Health. That's the kind of citizen Patricia is. Under this government's rebate changes, she now stands to lose more than $1,000 a year for the privilege of doing the right thing. But here's the thing: thanks to the cost of living not being a priority for this government, Patricia doesn't have $1,000 to spare. Her choices are bleak. Now, I want to tell you about John. He's 68, renting in Golden Beach. He just had a rent increase of 60 bucks a week. And the deeming rate changes have just cut his pension instead of lifting it. John says he'll cope by cutting back on dining out. That doesn't just hurt John; it hurts the cafe down the road, and it turns John's retirement into survival. Let me tell you about Helen and David, who wrote to me. They worked. They paid their taxes. They did everything they were asked to do. Now, they're telling me that every bill eats into the savings they spent a lifetime building. Their message to me was simple. 'Don't drop the ball; we need you,' they said.

The Australia Institute found that over half of Australians say their household is worse off than just two years ago. For those on fixed incomes, that number climbs higher still. Under this government, under Prime Minister Albanese, we have seen the sharpest decline in living standards across the OECD, the sharpest decline in living standards, driven by energy bills this government promised to bring down. Higher rents, higher electricity bills, higher gas bills, higher insurance bills—you name it; it has gone up. The Smith Family tells us nine in 10 low-income families now worry they can't afford to put school shoes on their kids' feet. That's not bad luck. It's not an unavoidable global headwind. This is the cumulative weight of bad choices by a bad government made one after the other after the other and felt savagely by people least able to absorb them.

Government is not simple. I know that. We've done it. It's complex; it's hard. Anyone who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves, but complexity is precisely why discipline matters. The coalition's record is one of managing the nation's finances as though they were our own. And if we are given that opportunity again, we will be very careful with the Australian taxpayers' dollars, unlike this government.

I rise today to congratulate the outstanding winners of the 2026 Newcastle Hospitality and Tourism Awards. These awards recognise the businesses and individuals who go above and beyond to showcase the very best of our city. Every visitor welcomed, every memorable meal served, every exceptional experience created and every event delivered contributes to Newcastle's growing reputation as one of Australia's premier visitor destinations. Congratulations to: EDL Consulting, named Industry Support Partner of the Year; Quest Newcastle, Inclusive Tourism and Hospitality Operator of the Year; Newy Food Adventures, Best New Visitor Economy Business; MOA and co., Excellence in Sustainability; Newy Tour Co., Best Tourism Experience; Bistro Penny, awarded Culinary Excellence; Quest Newcastle West, Outstanding Accommodation Provider; Emily Box from Young Street Hotel, Rising Star; Stewart Ford from the Newcastle Cruise Ship Volunteers, Customer Service Champion; Quest Newcastle and Quest Newcastle West, Employer of the Year; and Linc Horton from Newcastle Airport, Industry Leader of the Year.

These winners represent the very best of Newcastle's visitor economy. Through innovation, dedication and exceptional service, they are creating jobs, strengthening local businesses and ensuring visitors leave our cities with memories worth sharing. The passion and professionalism demonstrated by this year's winners shows why Newcastle continues to grow from strength to strength as a destination. Finally, I extend my sincere congratulations not only to the winners but to every nominee and all the finalists. Simply being recognised among such an outstanding field is an achievement in itself.

I'd also like to acknowledge one of Newcastle's outstanding local businesses, Acrobat Removals, based in Sandgate. Recently recognised at the Hunter Region Business Awards, Acrobat Removals has demonstrated what local businesses can achieve through hard work, innovation and an unwavering commitment to customer service. Running a successful business is never easy. It takes vision, resilience and the ability to adapt while continuing to put customers and employees first. Recognition through the Hunter Region Business Awards reflects not only commercial success but the contribution businesses make to strengthening our local economy and creating employment opportunities. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of Newcastle. They support local families, sponsor sporting clubs, invest in our communities and help make our city such a vibrant place to live and work. To the entire team at Acrobat Removals, congratulations on your well-earned recognition.

I'd like to take this opportunity to recognise one of Newcastle's outstanding young sporting talents. In August, Phoenix Irvine will represent Australia at the Under 16 Men's Water Polo Championships in Croatia, an incredible achievement that reflects years of hard work, discipline and dedication to his sport. To earn selection in an Australian representative team is no small feat. It requires countless early mornings, late night training sessions, sacrifices by families and coaches, and an unwavering commitment to excellence. Phoenix has already demonstrated that he has the talent to compete with the very best young athletes in the world. As he prepares to pull on the green and gold, he will carry not only Australia's hopes but the pride of Newcastle with him. On behalf of the people of Newcastle, I congratulate Phoenix on this well-deserved achievement and wish him every success in Croatia.

That's just some of the amazing talent that is in Newcastle City, from our very best in the tourism sector through to the very best of our small medium-sized businesses and to the most extraordinary emerging talent of athletes. Each year, like many members in this House, I get to host a local sporting championship event, and I had the honour of meeting Phoenix and many of the water polo champions from Newcastle. It's a sport with a very strong following in Newcastle. There are a lot of very dedicated families who have been growing that sport over generations. You meet the champions today, and their parents were champions of yesterday. That's just some of the amazing talent that we get to call part of our Novocastrian spirit.

I rise today to speak on a matter that goes to the very heart of who we are as a nation: our migration system. When managed with care and vision, migration doesn't just grow an economy; it truly enriches our nation. It weaves new threads into our national fabric, bringing fresh ideas, vibrant entertainment, incredible food and the vital skills that our industries desperately need to survive. We see this rich heritage displayed proudly right across the electorate of Dawson.

In the southern suburbs of Townsville, the Tamil community has become a pillar of the healthcare system. Many are dedicated doctors, including the wonderful paediatrician who assisted with my very first grandchild.

You cannot look at the story of Ayr without celebrating the vibrant Italian culture that helped build it. I recently was honoured to visit the wonderful Domenica in the Burdekin, who celebrated her 100th birthday. To hear her deeply moving story of her arrival in Australia as a nine-year-old was amazing. From sleeping in cane farm stables, walking four miles to school and not speaking a word of English, this remarkable woman built a wonderful life. The Burdekin was built on the shoulders of resilient pioneers just like her.

In Mackay, the Maltese community have shaped our history with rich and enduring spirit. I was pleased to attend the unveiling of the Maltese Corner statues in the Mackay CBD, a magnificent tribute to three life-size bronze figures of Sam Bezzina, Emanuel Camilleri and John Vassallo. Many of these families still farm sugarcane today, while others have built mighty businesses that form the backbone of our regional economy.

As a former tomato farmer, I know firsthand that the agricultural sector would be completely lost without the visas that allow international workers to fill critical gaps. Without them, crops would literally rot on the ground. In particular, the Vietnamese workers we employed on our farm were some of the most industrious, respectful and resilient people I've ever known. They came to Dawson for a genuine opportunity, never for a handout, and they earned every single dollar through sheer hard work.

This is a success story of Australian multiculturalism, but it only works when it is backed by a willingness to integrate and belong. We welcome people to share this culture with us, but they must adapt to Australia's laws and our way of life. We should never bend or alter our laws or our democracy or our values to suit others. Under the Albanese Labor government, this delicate balance has collapsed into chaos. Labor's migration numbers have been far too high, and the entry standards have been far too low. The government allows unmanageable numbers to flood our capital cities, putting immense pressure on housing and infrastructure. Visa applications for skilled professionals who actually want to contribute to our economy are taking far too long to be processed, trapped and clogged in bureaucracy.

The coalition rejects Labor's version of multiculturalism, which sees different people held to different standards because of their cultural background. This approach is exactly how we ended up with antisemitic hate on our suburban streets, ugly protests on the Harbour Bridge and radical sympathisers allowed back into our communities. The coalition believes in an immigration system where we judge people not by where they come from but by how they respect our laws, how they share our values and how they want to contribute to our country. Australian values are not complicated. They are freedom, respect, fairness, equality of opportunity, the rule of law, democracy and a fair go for all. The coalition's migration plan will put these distinct values back at the absolute centre of our laws, enshrining compliance with the Australian value statement as a universal visa condition. Our policy will strengthen our social cohesion by requiring integration, shut the door on those who abuse the system and show a permanent red light to these radicals.

We must return balance and integrity to our borders, ensuring that migration once again serves to build a stronger, safer and more prosperous Australia. After all, Australia is the best country on Earth.

Today marks an important step for Australian consumers. Starting today, 1 July, we are banning supermarket price gouging, with new laws coming into effect to protect everyday shoppers from excessive pricing practices and unfair behaviour in the supermarket sector. These reforms are about one thing: fairness. It's about fairness for families trying to make ends meet, fairness for pensioners watching every dollar and fairness for Australians, who should not be punished when they walk through the supermarket doors and when they're at the check-out. For too long, Australians have felt the impact of rising groceries, and we have to do everything that we can as a government to ensure that price rises are justified.

Families work very hard. They are budgeting carefully and they're making sacrifices. Yet, week after week, many Australians have found that their grocery bills just keep rising while the amount in their trolley stays the same. That frustration is real, especially here in Australia, where the two biggest supermarkets, Coles and Woolworths, control about 70 per cent of everything in the retail sector; that's 70 per cent when you add the other businesses that they own, such as the liquor stores, petrol stations et cetera. It would be a very powerful conglomerate if these two got together and basically discussed what the prices should be. That's why this government is really looking at this in a serious way.

It's felt in households right across Australia. Weekly grocery shopping is not a luxury; it's a necessity. It's one of the most basic expenses every family faces, so Australians should be able to trust that prices are fair and that companies are acting responsibly. When they are upping their prices, they should be justified, and that is why these reforms matter. They're part of a broad crackdown on anticompetitive behaviour across the food and grocery sector, in supermarkets, and they send a clear message that consumers must come first.

Importantly, price gouging is, as of today, as I said, now illegal. Businesses should be competing on service, quality and value, not exploiting circumstances to increase profits at the expense of hardworking Australians. This is an issue that I take particular interest in because it is something that every Australian experiences. I've raised the issue of the anticompetitiveness of the two big retailers in Australia many times over the years that I've been here. In the US they would have been divested and made to break up because, with the US laws, they would not be able to control over 70 per cent of the market. Unfortunately, here we can't do that, but we have put measures in place to make sure that gouging does not take place.

I'll give you an example. For years I've purchased a large tin of coffee that can usually cost around $22. It was, just after COVID, around $14. It's now around $22. Occasionally you'll walk into the supermarket and you'll see it for a couple of weeks at $32—maybe for three weeks or maybe even a month. Then all of a sudden you see 'special reduced price—$22'. All it means is, psychologically, they're ensuring that they are coaching us into buying things that are dearer, and it's just not on. I see it all the time. I keep an eye out for prices and I keep an eye out for their increases and their decreases—which are then sold back to us as specials when they were the normal price. These are unconscionable practices, and they should be stopped.

I notice when the so-called sale price looks remarkably similar to the original price. Another one is cracker biscuits. They were on special at, I think, two packets for $2—so $1 dollar each. They upped the price for a period of time to $4. They've dropped it down to about $3 something, on a special, even though a few weeks ago they were $2 for two packets.

As I said, we must crack down on these types of practices. The reality is that Australians work hard for their money, and we should be doing everything we can to protect them and to ensure that supermarkets are not price gouging and that, when they do, they are punished for it.

House adjourned at 20:01

Veterans in my electorate have been contacting me extremely concerned about the introduction of a $5,000 allied health service cap introduced in Labor's last budget. I've heard that, for many, these changes will mean they could be worse off than before the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. A $5,000 cap won't even last half the year for some. We also know—from the thousands of messages, testimonies and experiences of veterans—that, even before this cap has commenced, timely access to care is already extremely difficult. The wait time for a GP who actually understands the department's system and is willing to complete the additional clinical paperwork required for any DVA claim or exemption is longer, still.

DVA will fund allied health services above the $5,000 cap where there is a valid clinical need. But what, indeed, is a valid clinical need? How is it defined? We haven't seen anything, veterans haven't seen anything and nor have the veterans organisations. So who is this change actually for? It's certainly not benefiting veterans and their families—exactly the opposite! This change is for a government that's handing out billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies to massive corporations while claiming it cannot afford to look after the people who have actually served our country. What is abundantly clear to me, from my discussions with veterans, is that there is no trust that the government will look after them or put their best interests first. These are people who have given so much, often at great personal cost. Insultingly, the government slaps them with a new policy with next to no detail of how it will work and without acknowledgement of the very real impact this will have.

DVA is clearly not working for the people it's meant to serve. Veterans wait years in limbo for initial liability and compensation decisions. The system is already in deep crisis. Against this backdrop, the government is asking veterans to trust that a brand new, demonstrated clinical need mechanism—the proposed safety net for those who exhaust the $5,000 cap—will be accessed quickly, fairly and without becoming yet another barrier to care or yet another interruption to ongoing treatment. The royal commission specifically warned against precisely this kind of barrier. The commission's findings were unambiguous: interruptions to care, administrative friction and rationing of essential services are drivers of poor outcomes in this cohort, including suicide. A cap structured this way will cause harm. It may cost lives.

Well, it's 1 July, an important day in our ambitions to deliver real change for Australians—real change that the Australian people instructed us to commence in 2022 and instructed us to keep going with in 2025. It's an important day with that real change and with a very strong focus on cost-of-living relief. For the 70,000 taxpayers in McMahon, today is an important day because the 16 per cent rate, which applies to taxable income between $18,201 and $45,000, will be reduced to 15 per cent. This is tax relief which is really targeted and focused on those Australians doing it tough. Of course, it applies to every taxpayer, but it will have the biggest impact for those in that tax bracket.

Representing an electorate with many young families, I'm particularly pleased that paid parental leave has been extended to six months today. This is such a big change for young families in particular. It ticks all the boxes. It's good financially. It's good for the wellbeing of the child. It's good for the wellbeing of the entire family. From today, eligible families will be able to access up to 26 weeks of paid parental leave, backed by the government, at an increased rate of payment of $1,000 a week. Importantly, parents have also received superannuation on their paid parental leave since 1 July last year, and that will continue. I'm particularly proud of this and have been involved in this policy area in the past.

This builds on very important investments in our community, including 3,000 presentations to the Fairfield Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, including, in a couple of instances, members of my own family; 25,000 presentations to the Wentworthville urgent care clinic, which is important for the Greystanes and Pemulwuy community; and 22,000 presentations to the Rooty Hill Urgent Care Clinic, which is important for the Blacktown community.

Over four million cheaper scripts have been delivered in my electorate, which translates to a saving of $22 million for constituents in my community. And, importantly, we're investing in Fairfield Hospital. Fairfield Hospital is a fine and proud Labor achievement. It was opened in 1988 by the Unsworth Labor government, but there has been no investment in refurbishment since then, for the best part of 40 years. The Albanese Labor government is investing $80 million in supporting a new emergency department. We'll be working with the Minns government to upgrade Fairfield Hospital, a long-overdue investment, which I'm very pleased about and proud of. This adds to the fact that 92 per cent of GPs in McMahon are now bulk-billing, thanks to the bulk-billing incentives that Minister Butler has introduced. This is so important for those families who are doing it tough and who need access to bulk-billing. Of course, I'd be remiss not to add that 3,950 McMahon families have taken up a cheaper home battery.

I rise today to celebrate a wonderful new community initiative in the Central West, the official launch of the Friends of Bathurst Hospital. Hospitals can be daunting, confusing and stressful places for anyone to navigate. This fantastic new group has been established to completely change that experience, bringing a warm, welcoming and deeply local touch to the health service for patients, staff, visitors and families alike.

Their very first initiative is the rollout of the Wayfinder program. Wayfinders will act as a friendly face, helping people find their way through the busy corridors, answering simple questions and, crucially, easing the anxiety that so often comes with a hospital visit. Volunteer coordinator Sylvia Gore so beautifully put it:

Our health service and its staff do such important work caring for our community every single day, and the Friends of Bathurst Hospital is an opportunity for people to support that work but also help look after one another too.

Sylvia's tireless passion and dedication have truly brought this vision to life. Of course, great community movements require a strong team, and Sylvia has been brilliantly supported along the way by Bathurst Health Service general manager, Jo Holden, along with Jen Coote and Gabrielle Nicholls. They have been a brilliant support to the formation of this group.

I want to say a big thank you to outgoing Rotary Club of Bathurst Daybreak president, Craig Ronan, for his leadership over the past 12 months and offer my congratulations to incoming president Erik Mol. The members of the Rotary Club of Bathurst Daybreak generously donated $1,000 to the Friends of Bathurst Hospital, which will help provide uniforms and other essentials and will get the Wayfinders on the hospital floor.

Looking ahead, the long-term vision for the Friends of Bathurst Hospital is incredibly inspiring. In the future, Sylvia hopes to see the program expand to offer dedicated support, care and accommodation for dementia patients and their families. She also plans to engage medical, nursing and allied health students, giving them a unique opportunity to assist local patients while gaining invaluable 'community credits' for their participation. This initiative proves once again that the spirit of community care is alive and well in Bathurst. I encourage anyone with a bit of spare time and a passion for helping others to answer the call, step forward and volunteer for this brilliant cause.

Thank you, Sylvia, and thank you to the Friends of Bathurst Hospital. The Bathurst community is lucky to have you. We also thank all of those who are supporting the Friends of Bathurst Hospital, including our wonderful friends at the Rotary Club of Bathurst Daybreak and, as I have previously mentioned, the team at Bathurst Health Service, led by Joe Holden. We are very grateful for the formation of this community group, and we wish Sylvia and the volunteers all the best for their work ahead.

Last week I had the pleasure of hosting an afternoon tea in my office for the newest recipients of the local sporting champions grants. Today I want to recognise this remarkable group of young athletes from Maribyrnong in this parliament. The Local Sporting Champions program exists because representing your state or your country can be expensive, with flights, accommodation, equipment, competition fees and simply getting to where the event is being held. The costs add up quickly, and, for a lot of families, they add up to the difference between an opportunity taken and an opportunity lost. Local Sporting Champions helps make sure a talented kid from Melbourne's north-west isn't held back by where they live or what their family can afford.

I'm proud our community has so many young people stepping through the door, and what incredible young people they are. Charlotte Dougherty has been selected to represent Australia at the IBSA Women's Blind Football Asia Championship. To wear the green and gold is the dream of so many athletes, and Charlotte has earned this through sheer resilience and hard work, which she has shown across her entire sporting journey. Hugo Hircoe also pulled on the green and gold at the Oceania wrestling championships, one of the toughest sports going around. There's nowhere to hide once you step out onto the mat. Good on you, Hugo. We have two representing us in American football, a sport still finding its feet in Australia. Brando Chakour will play for Victoria, while Oscar Dodds was first elected for the state championships and then went one better, earning selection to represent Australia in Auckland. There's Alexandra Webster, off to the Australia Juniors Curling Championships. Curling is a smaller sport here, without the infrastructure many others enjoy, and that makes reaching this national level even more impressive. Well done, Alexandra. We also have real depth in the pool. Eve Dunstan, Hamish Keenan, Jessica Macdermott and Lola Jojic are all bound for the national championships, and Isaac Kelly has earned his place at the national schools triathlon championships, mastering three disciplines.

Behind each of these young people is a whole team—a parent driving to each training session, a sibling spending their weekends in the stands, a coach turning up early and staying late, and a local club that backs their kids year after year. None of these selections happen by accident, and none of them happen alone. They are the reward for years of hard work that most of us never see. They all show the strength of the sporting community here in Melbourne's west. To every one of our recipients: you have represented Maribyrnong with real pride, and you should be proud of yourself. We certainly are. Continue to give it everything you've got and show the country what the north-west of Melbourne can do.

The Ku-ring-gai arts community has received some devastating news in the last few weeks. First, we learnt that the Marian Street Theatre redevelopment in Killara had been terminated by council. After nearly 100 years, it was shut down in 2013 due to age and safety issues. There was always the intention to redevelop the theatre, and a great design was subsequently developed. The new precinct would have offered a multipurpose arts centre with two theatres, a rehearsal space, a community meeting space, a cafe, an exhibition space in the foyer and an outdoor amphitheatre. It would have been an incredible generational investment, but, after all that work and considerable costs borne by council in commissioning the design and obtaining development approval, the project ultimately proved too expensive for council to proceed alone.

Shortly thereafter we heard the equally devastating news that the property holding the much beloved independent Roseville Cinema, a community icon since the 1930s, is going to be sold. A judge has ordered that the building be sold to pay off the debts incurred by the owners. This is a cinema that's been showing blockbusters and arthouse films to dedicated locals for almost 100 years, and it crawled through COVID without a cent of government support. Losing it now would be a tragedy to our local arts scene.

These are two losses for our community in quick succession. These will impact current and future generations of Ku-ring-gai locals, who will now have to grow up in a community with less going on, a diminished cultural scene and fewer venues to bring people together and to create and connect. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that this doesn't happen. It's critical that we recognise and preserve cultural heritage. To ensure that there is adequate arts infrastructure for our growing communities on the North Shore, we have to work harder. These two examples, the Marian Street Theatre and the independent Roseville Cinema, are clear cases where, rather than building new infrastructure from scratch, we can step in now and preserve and revitalise the spaces that already exist. Here's where the federal government can help. Ku-ring-gai Council has signalled a federal contribution would make it more viable for council to step in and make sure that the Marian Street Theatre continues, and the government could also help ensure that the Roseville Cinema, our independent Roseville cinema, is not demolished, even if the building is sold, by guaranteeing that the cinema would secure public financial support. A strong arts scene is critical to a thriving, connected community. The government can act now to write in a plot twist if you like and change the ending of this story delivering a strong art scene for a community that's so desperately wants and deserves it. Thank you.

Today marks the second birthday of the Medicare urgent care clinic in Bankstown, a milestone that celebrates not only an important investment in local health care but also the dedicated healthcare professionals who've made its success possible. Over the past two years, the clinic has helped take pressure off the emergency department at Bankstown hospital. People have presented to the clinic around 14,500 times, accessing free walk-in health care close to home. Behind every one of those visits is a team of doctors, nurses and support staff who have worked tirelessly to deliver high-quality care with professionalism, compassion and dedication. Their commitment has ensured that people can receive timely treatment for urgent but non-life threatening conditions, while also helping reduce pressure on the busy hospital emergency departments. Their work has made a genuine difference to the health and wellbeing of our community.

The Bankstown clinic is one of 137 Medicare urgent care clinics that Labor committed to delivering across the country. We've now delivered every single one of them, and from today they are permanent. We're also continuing to strengthen Medicare by expanding bulk-billing incentives so more Australians can see a GP without paying out of pocket, introducing the 1800MEDICARE helpline to provide trusted health advice day or night. We have had more than three million cheaper medicine scripts filled in the Watson electorate and have reduced the maximum costs of PBS medicines to $25, the same price they were back in 2004. These are practical investments that are improving access to affordable health care for communities like mine.

As the Bankstown Medicare Urgent Care Clinic celebrates its second birthday, I want to sincerely thank every member of the team for their outstanding service. Your hard work, commitment and care have supported thousands of local residents and our community is stronger because of your efforts. So happy second birthday to the Bankstown Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, and thank you to the incredible staff who continue to serve our community each and every day.

Earlier this year, here in parliament, I joined the calls for more support to be delivered for neighbourhood centres. In regional Australia in electorates like Hinkler, neighbourhood centres are an essential service, the heart of our communities. They foster safety, connection and social capital. They're the place where community connections happen. The Burrum Heads Neighbourhood Centre, servicing a small but rapidly growing coastal community has outgrown its home. Powered largely by volunteers, the team delivers outreach, counselling, training, sewing classes, a library, community transport an op shop, community markets and so much more. I thank the Burrum Heads Neighbourhood Centre's Julie, Kathy and Lynne for updating me on their situation and for sharing the story of the centre's growth over the past 15 years.

Centres like this are especially called upon to stand up and support communities during times of crisis, so now more than ever we need to provide them with adequate support. This is underlined as we endure the cost-of-living crisis, the fuel chaos and in recent times natural disasters. Parliament must recognise the vital role of neighbourhood and community centres in providing essential social services to individuals and communities in need. Often the staff are not paid at the levels they deserve due to limited funding received. We must recognise that neighbourhood and community centres provide critical relief and emergency support and let us acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the staff and volunteers.

It was great to be part of the Fraser Coast Industry and Careers Showcase a few weeks ago. It was a record breaker. There were almost 100 exhibitors, and 1,140 students and more than 300 members of the general public came through looking at career opportunities within the local region. Seeing a year-on-year increase both in exhibitor and in attendee numbers, the 2026 Fraser Coast Industry and Careers Showcase attracted the highest number of exhibitors in the event's history, connecting today's students and jobseekers—the workforce of tomorrow—with employers, industry, education providers and trainers who support our region's future.

As an exhibitor, my team and I were pleased to chat with budding leaders and bright young minds who will one day possibly enter into the political arena. To all who partnered, supported and attended the 2026 showcase: thank you. Congrats to the entire team at Jobs Fraser Coast, who continue to support the growth and development of a strong, capable and skilled workforce across industry sectors in Hinkler.

Before I finish, I'd like to encourage local seniors, their families and carers to attend the 2026 Bundaberg Seniors Expo this Friday at the Bundaberg Recreational Precinct. It's a fantastic opportunity to connect with key services for seniors, meet local community groups and chat with the many stallholders who are there to provide information, support and advice. I encourage everyone to come along and make the most of this great community event.

Homelessness is one of the most urgent social challenges facing our community. No-one should be left without a safe place to call home. Too often we speak about homelessness as an abstract issue, disconnected from the complex and difficult experiences of those sleeping rough. That's why I was grateful to be able to join the Sleeping Rough program hosted by Georges River Life Care last week, to express solidarity with those doing it tough and to raise money to provide more support.

Georges River Life Care does terrific work in my community, in areas like Moorebank, through programs like Cafe Connect. They were able to raise more than $51,000 through this year's event, which will go towards their homelessness support and emergency relief programs. While this sleep-out was nothing compared to the lived experience of those sleeping rough every night, it was an eye-opening experience to gain a little more perspective into what it's like for those doing it tough. Thank you so much to Karen Power, Sabrina and all the team at Georges River Life Care for having me along and to everyone who donated to this very important cause.

This month the Sutherland Pavilion had its 50th birthday. Built in the 1970s to host spectacular local music performances, the old Sutherland Entertainment Centre underwent major refurbishments in 2023 and now boasts a 683-seat auditorium, orchestra pit and stunning timber and glass foyer. The new venue hosts a wide range of musical and theatrical performances and is a much-loved cultural hub in the Sutherland Shire.

I was delighted to attend the 50th anniversary celebration gala. The night included performances by shire based musical and acting talents, including Emma Pask, Alex Baum, Dana Alison, Tyler Carney-Faleatua, Ev & Bow and Ettingshausens, alongside members of the Miranda Musical Theatre Company, Engadine Musical Society, Sutherland Shire Brass band and Sutherland Shire Symphony Orchestra. The night was capped off by the play Toy Symphony by playwright and director Michael Gow with actor Sam O'Sullivan, which was set and written in the Sutherland Shire, followed by a visual exhibition and canapes in the main foyer. It was truly a night to remember, and it is fantastic to be able to celebrate this cultural institution, which brings joy to so many across my electorate and beyond.

It's now been 65 years since the closure of the original tramway network in Sydney, which was once the largest tramway network in Australia and the second largest in the Commonwealth, after London. While we now have a new light-rail network in Sydney, that former network is an important part of Sydney's heritage. Loftus, in my electorate, is home to a unique institution in New South Wales: the Sydney Tramway Museum, which does really important work preserving this heritage and the broader transport heritage of Australia.

It was fantastic to attend the museum for their annual Trams After Dark event during the week of the winter solstice and to see trams lit up in splendour. I want to thank Fay McCabe, secretary of the museum, and her team, including the volunteers, who do so much to keep transport heritage alive in southern Sydney with the preservation of heritage trams, for creating a fun day out for families, with trips into the Royal National Park and to Sutherland entertaining all generations of families.

As the federal representative of 47 rural, regional and remote shire councils, I rise today to highlight an inequity that should concern all levels of government and all Australians. In the O'Connor shires of Lake Grace, Narembeen, Gnowangerup, Jerramungup, Ravensthorpe and Kojonup, local councils are being forced to fund access to primary health care because the existing system simply does not work in thin markets. Together, these six shires contribute more than $1.4 million each year in cash as well as housing, vehicles, surgeries and other support just to attract and retain a doctor. In some cases, that cost represents up to 16 per cent of their annual rate revenue. That money should be funding roads, community facilities, economic development and local infrastructure. Instead, it is being used to maintain primary health services that are a Commonwealth responsibility.

Last week the Local Government Rural Health Funding Alliance hosted a workshop here in Canberra, with more than 30 councils from across Australia coming together with the Australian Local Government Association, the National Rural Health Alliance and the Rural Doctors Association of Australia. Their findings were unanimous: local government has become the funder of last resort for primary health care in rural, regional and remote communities.

What stood out was how widespread the problem has become across Australia. WALGA reported that local governments are now contributing around $9.5 million each year to support GP services, with 91 per cent of that funding coming from councils with populations of under 5,000 people. These are the very councils least able to absorb those costs. The alliance's workshop revealed many more councils paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars per year covering housing, vehicles, medical premises, staff, locum doctor cover and even utilities.

In New South Wales, the Bogan Shire currently spends about $600,000 a year, almost 20 per cent of its rate income, operating its medical centre. The reality is that many rural Australians are paying out three times—once through their Medicare levy, then again through out-of-pocket consultation fees and finally through their council rates. Meanwhile, in metropolitan Australia, primary health care is funded, as it should be, by the Commonwealth. But, in the bush, this Labor government expects some of the smallest and most financially constrained councils to carry a responsibility that lies with them. Meanwhile, these same communities see a Medicare underspend of around 50 per cent per person of what is spent on a city dweller.

These rural communities are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for equitable access to health care. This government must recognise the challenges of thin markets and deliver targeted funding solutions for MM6 and MM7 communities like mine in O'Connor and beyond, because no council should have to choose between funding a doctor and building the infrastructure that its community needs to thrive.

Today I rise to recognise a special institution in my community, the Clayton RSL Sub-Branch, as it marks 80 years of service to veterans and local families. Since its very beginnings in 1945, when Clayton was a very small village, the RSL has been a constant—a place of support, connection and quiet strength for those who have served our country and for their families navigating life beyond service. As our community has grown, so too has this RSL, but its purpose remains unchanged. That spirit continues today thanks to the extraordinary group of people who volunteer to run this organisation—people like Ian 'Sandy' Sandford, Andrea Delaforce, Michael Newbond, Lisa Supple and Ann Coram—along with the broader volunteer community who carry this work forward each day.

Today I want to pay special tribute to a pivotal and unique leader in my community, John Charles Saunders, who, tragically, passed away in March this year. John served our country in the 3rd Division Signals regiment and continued that service over many years as secretary of the Clayton RSL and region 2. He was a constant presence, steady, generous and deeply committed to the wellbeing of veterans and their families.

I first met John when he was elected as secretary in 2013. That was about the same time I became the member for Hotham. From the very beginning, he was the most generous mentor and the steadiest person, offering me support. I can remember coming out of my office and seeing the beautiful, warm face and wide smile of John Saunders as he helped me understand the experiences of local veterans and work with him to improve them. He brought with him that real specialness and that wisdom and humour that we get from that very unique Australian generation who saw challenges face this country, the likes of which my generation has never had to experience.

One of the things I loved about John was that he was so widely respected and so deeply loved all over our community but he never sought recognition for the work that he did. It was that quiet labour of serving his community that motivated him every day. That was one of the many reasons why I loved and respected him every day that I knew him. I had the privilege of attending the Clayton RSL Anzac Day dawn service this year. It was moving. It was respectful. In the last months of John's life, he painstakingly planned out that service so it would be perfect on Anzac Day. That just tells us everything about who this man was.

To his partner, Ann, his sons, Andrew, Tim and Simon, and his grandchildren, Gabe, Arabella, Emilia and Jem, I extend the deepest condolences of the parliament. We honour his life and service. Vale, John Saunders.

How bad does antisemitism have to be for the Australian government to act? Since 7 October 2023, we have seen a cascading series of problems of antisemitism in our community. It's been consistent. It's been successive. We've seen a fundamental failure of leadership. We've seen a failure at every point to condemn the acts of antisemitism in our country at a scale that should never have been permitted. We saw it on 8 October on the steps of the Sydney Opera House. It doesn't matter what version of history you want to interpret, there was no place for people simply screaming out and demanding to take retribution for horrific acts overseas. We saw it on 10 November in 2023 out the front of Central Shule in Caulfield South in the Goldstein electorate. The failure of leadership continued to cascade all the way up to the worst terrorist attack on our nation's soil, on the beaches of Bondi.

That's why I made a formal submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion documenting these incidents in detail and on the record. That's because law alone won't fix this. We need leaders willing to properly diagnose the problem and set the standard of behaviour our country has been missing, a lack of standard which, sadly, our government has allowed to fester. I really hope this parliament will read the evidence and make judgement calls on the recommendations from the final royal commission, because we want an Australia where everybody feels that they are part of our common journey and building a better nation for everybody.

What does it mean to belong for young Australians? Ruth Sharma is 11 years old and she felt compelled to write a speech defending the right of every family to belong. No child should have to make this case. In Ruth's own words:

Australia belongs to everyone—no matter who you are, or what religion you practise. We share a common bond that unites us.

Ruth Sharma didn't write 'One Australia. One Heart' because she wanted to. She wrote it because she felt she had to. That should tell this parliament everything it needs to know about the challenges young Australians face and the importance of unity. We don't want a government that divides us. We don't want alternatives that divide us. What we want is a country of one land and one people with one destiny. So thank you, Ruth. Thank you for your courage and for reminding this parliament what we owe every child in this country. We need to make sure we're stewards who hand forward to the next generation a better country than the one we inherited. At the age of 11, you can already see the type of Australia we should want and we should be building. I hope for the generations to come that they will reflect on your important words of 'One Australia. One Heart', which tells a direct story about the type of nation that we should want to be.

I'm so pleased today to rise to acknowledge the extraordinary volunteers and community organisations across the electorate of Hindmarsh, whose dedication strengthens the fabric of our community every single day. As part of this year's Hindmarsh Volunteer Awards, I was proud to acknowledge more than 40 outstanding volunteers nominated by their peers in recognition of their service and their commitment. Together, they represent the many people, groups and contributions that make our community in Adelaide's western suburbs so vibrant. They support sporting clubs, preserve local history, care for seniors, strengthen multicultural communities, honour our veterans, promote the arts and create opportunities for people of all ages to connect and to thrive.

I want to acknowledge volunteers from: the Adelaide Jaguars Women's Soccer Club—the Jags; the Airport Over 50s Club; the Camden Community Centre; the Charles Sturt Memorial Museum Trust; CHATS—Community Help and Togetherness; the Cheltenham Community Centre; Dragon Boat SA; the Fiji Senior Citizens Association; Gillman Speedway; Henley and Grange RSL; Henley Surf Life Saving Club; the Historic Ketch Falie; the National Railway Museum; Port Adelaide Historical Society; Rowing SA; Seaton Ramblers; Semaphore Lawn Bowls Club; the Telugu Association; West Beach Community Church; the Woodville Concert Band; and, of course, the Woodville Rugby Union Football Club.

I want to acknowledge our Youth Award recipients: Hayley Fraser, Jai Gardner, Jayasri Pathuri and Snehasri Pathuri. They demonstrate that the next generation is already making a meaningful contribution to their community.

Our Local Legend recipients were Phillip Wass, Geoff Pierson, Rebecca Forest, Kerri Scharkie and Dr Nathan Cummins. Their longstanding service has left an enduring mark on the organisations and the people that they support.

While volunteering is more than economics, its value is simply impossible to ignore. Across Australia, volunteers contributed an estimated 618 million hours of service in 2025. Our country volunteers more than any other in the OECD, and those hours represent an enormous contribution to our nation and to communities like mine in Adelaide's western suburbs. That contribution saves organisations countless dollars while delivering immeasurable social benefit, but it can't be measured simply in hours given. It's reflected in stronger communities, deeper connections, better outcomes for countless people and immeasurable social capital. The organisations represented by these recipients play an essential role in community life, and they rely on the generosity, energy and leadership of volunteers to continue their important work. Long may it continue.

Gemma Rendell is an outstanding East Gippslander. Gemma is aiming to create history at the state election in November by becoming the first female member for the seat of Gippsland East. She is a busy young lady already. She's a farmer, a teacher, a young mum, and she's been active in our community for many years. I want to thank her for being willing to serve and to seek high office as the state member for Gippsland East. Gemma is committed to fighting for our fair share, and I congratulate the Liberals and Nationals in Victoria for their commitment of a fair share guarantee fund, which will make sure that 25 per cent of infrastructure funding gets delivered into our regional communities, because regional communities in Victoria right now are being short changed. We need someone like Gemma Rendell to stand up and fight for our fair share as a genuine community champion.

I believe in putting locals first. For me, putting locals first means supporting our small businesses, our family owned businesses, right across the electorate of Gippsland. These small businesses are the engine room of our economy, employing local people and investing in our sporting clubs and community clubs. These are the first people we call on to sponsor those types of organisations, and we need them to prosper. By putting locals first—shopping locally, eating and drinking locally, and using local service providers—we are all investing in the future of our economy, making sure that our money stays in Gippsland. So I encourage all Gippslanders to please keep putting locals first and support the local businesses that support us. We need those local businesses to survive. Right now, it's pretty tough in the local economy. We need you to be out there supporting local businesses at every opportunity.

Winter is not a time to hibernate. Winter is a time to get out and explore Gippsland. I'm encouraging people right across Victoria, in particular, to consider taking a break in Gippsland. In winter you can get out and explore Ninety Mile beach. The fishing's great. Get down to the Gippsland Lakes, go to the high country, enjoy the snow, enjoy camping and sit around a camp fire to warm up at night. These are all things that you can do in Gippsland in winter.

I want to explain why it's so important to encourage people to take a break this winter in the Gippsland community. The visitor economy in our region is vital to the future prosperity of Gippsland. Traditionally, we've had a peak holiday season of eight to 10 weeks over the summer period where all of the accommodation is full and all of the restaurants are busy, but then it's been quiet in winter. Now we're trying to make sure we build on our winter season. We have things like East Gippsland Winter Festival and other activities and events occurring right across the region. So whether it's Port Albert all the way through to Metung, Paynesville, Lakes Entrance or even Mallacoota and the high country—Dargo and Omeo—all of these places are offering great deals for people to take a break and explore Gippsland this winter.

On 7 June the dragon boats were out in force at the annual Hakka Dragon Boat Festival, and for the very first time it was held, proudly, in my electorate of Moreton, and we got to see dragon boats down the Brisbane River. As a very proud Australian with a Hakka ancestry, I think it is fantastic that this festival is now happening in my home. Hakka Association President Tony Cheng organised a fantastic event. Dragon boat festivals are a 2,000-year-old tradition. It's very special. We were down at Ken Fletcher Park with 12 dragon boat racing teams and 20 different cultural groups performing on stage. That reflects Moreton's diversity and the 15.4 per cent of Moreton constituents like me with Chinese ancestry.

And tucked away into a hall in Acacia Ridge is the Urdu Forum language school. On 7 June I got to visit them and their leadership, president Asad Basit and secretary Dr Naveed Kureshi. Their mission is a really simple one: to promote Urdu language and literature, with a very special emphasis on education. When I went there I got to meet students, parents, teachers and volunteers, who are doing absolutely fantastic work there. I have a growing Indian community in Moreton—7,911 people and getting bigger every day. The community language schools are so important for preserving language and also preserving culture while strengthening social cohesion and community connections. Labor is providing $25 million to support 600 community schools across Australia that help more than 90,000 students to learn 84 languages.

I'm very proud to have one of the most resilient communities in this whole nation. And I'm proud because our community knows the drill when it comes to flooding, and we know the drill when it comes to making sure we help each other out. If you live in Oxley, Rocklea, Fairfield, Yeronga, Corinda, Sherwood, Willawong or the many more places that are often flood affected, you know we need to take action as a community. I went to the Oxley Creek Flood Action Group meeting and acknowledged the work of Benarrawa, particularly Paula Callaghan, John Maume, Paula Hardie and Sandi Black. I commend their work trying to build a prepared, responsive, resilient and healthy community and to create neighbourhood disaster plans, particularly around Oxley Creek.

And Community Plus in Yeronga, with their CEO, Mel, had a Community Home Resilience Expo, talking about practical ways to improve household resilience. I commend their continuing work in this important area.

Our wonderful CFA volunteers in Victoria answer the call in the middle of the night and step away from their work in the middle of the day to protect our community year round. As the daughter of someone who was a CFA volunteer, I know this very well. In a nation of volunteers, there's nothing that epitomises that spirit better than CFA volunteers, and I am so proud to represent many of them in my electorate of Monash.

On Saturday I was privileged to join my state colleague the member for Gippsland South, Leader of the Nationals and shadow state emergency services minister Danny O'Brien at the Leongatha Fire Brigade Awards. It was a great evening and a really good opportunity to recognise the incredible dedication, commitment and professionalism of the brigade's volunteers and all they have achieved year round. It's not just one incident or accident that they head out to. Year round, they answer the call to car accidents, accidents on farms, gas leaks and a whole variety of things that they step up to assist with.

It was really wonderful on the evening to be able to recognise some of the long-term volunteers: Murray Leitch and Scott Wilkinson, who were presented with life memberships along with national medals. I want to recognise the brigade because for 119 years they have been serving the Leongatha community. It was wonderful to recognise not just the volunteers but also family members, like Janet, who provide great support to these volunteers at home and allow them to do what they do so well. I also want to recognise neighbouring brigades like Berrys Creek, Ruby and many others who turned out in support of their fellow volunteers when they received these awards.

I also want to acknowledge those who have contributed so much but are no longer with us. Leo Bentvelzen was posthumously awarded a life membership and a National Medal. National Medals were presented to Scott Cameron and Scott Hillis, and a third clasp was presented to Ed Browning. I want to particularly recognise Scott Hillis. Scott is someone who puts a great deal of time, thought and effort year round into educational videos about fire risks, mitigations and how to stay safe at home and elsewhere. I really want to commend the time and thought that he puts into those. Leigh Foster was recognised for his work on safety and a decade of dedicated service to the brigade and the community, while the Jack Rayson Encouragement Award was given to Brendan Hawkins, recognising his enthusiasm, commitment and promising future within the brigade. Thanks to all these wonderful volunteers and the broader Leongatha community.

Today I acknowledge the loss of two highly accomplished local people this year. Emeritus Professor Ken McKinnon AO was the University of Wollongong's second vice-chancellor. Sadly passing away in April, Professor McKinnon has left behind a monumental legacy. His tenure spanned from 1981 to 1994. Current vice-chancellor Max Lu described him as ' a visionary leader whose impact on the University of Wollongong has been long lasting and deeply felt'.

Professor McKinnon was the driving force behind the university's rise as a world-class teaching and research facility, with his steadfast belief in education, community and science shaping the university that we know and love today. He was also responsible for the University of Wollongong's first international campus, in Dubai, now one of four, taking the uni from a regional campus to a global leader. Even in his retirement, Professor McKinnon and his wife, Sue Walker, continued to make generous philanthropic donations to the university, establishing research fellowships and supporting future generations of academic leaders.

Australia's former chief scientist Professor Ian Chubb described Professor McKinnon as the 'Wizard of Wollongong' and highlighted his unique ability to 'not just open doors but make you believe that the doorways were there to walk through'. His successor and deputy, Gerard Sutton, described him as 'probably the best vice-chancellor Australia has ever had, in terms of what he's achieved'. His legacy lives on, and I give my sincere condolences to his wife, Sue, and his entire family.

In January this year, Wollongong lost another local legend, Ben Hession. Ben devoted 34 years of service to local community radio station VOX FM, mentoring presenters, championing local artists and generously giving his time, his kindness and his care to so many. President of VOX FM Lilian Wings described Ben as 'a man whose quiet dedication shaped the very soul of VOX FM and left an imprint on the Wollongong community that will be felt for generations'. Lilian said, 'To speak of Ben is to speak about loyalty, humility and a lifetime of service given without ever seeking recognition.'

Ben's contributions extended far beyond the station. He generously volunteered at the University of Wollongong, the Yours and Owls music-booking company, the Music Farmers music store and the Oz Poetry community. Music Farmers owner Jeb Taylor said, 'Ben gave basically every local artist in Wollongong their first radio airplay and on-air interview.' A constant presence in the music scene and a champion of many, Ben was always there to help. His loss is felt deeply.

There is an old saying up our way that the sunshine grows everything bigger and better. Our region has always been blessed with natural beauty, but the real gold in Dawson is the talent and grit of our people. When 75,000 Queenslanders voted in the state government's All the Best awards, they gave our local businesses right across Dawson a well-deserved moment in the sun.

Taking out the No. 1 crown as the absolute best florist in the entire state is our very own Fiorella Florals. in my home town of Bowen. To Lily and the team at Fiorella, where you can walk in for a bunch of flowers and walk out with a beautiful bouquet, a coffee and a New York-style cookie: thank you for bringing so much colour, flavour and blooming elegance to the heart of Bowen.

In our local businesses where you can get warmed up, Mal's Pies and Pastries in Oonoonba took out silver, fuelling an army of tradies for 30 years with beaut pies while also backing our community. Back in Bowen, Meraki Whitsundays took out second place for the best café, serving up world-class brews and yummy tucker to satisfy the strongest tummy grumbles. Down at Bowen's marina, Bird's Fish Bar snagged second place for the best fish and chips, serving the freshest coral trout right on the water's edge, and, down the road, Deb's Hair & Beauty in Proserpine secured an incredible second place for the best hairdresser and barber in Queensland—a magnificent result for longstanding local favourite.

The judges did give us a bit of a chuckle, awarding the world-famous Whitehaven Beach third place. Third place? They're dreaming! We all know Whitehaven, the best beach in the world, was completely robbed, but we'll let them off the hook this time with a cheeky warning. If you head further down south in Dawson to Yalboroo in the Mackay region, you can find Hold It Flats, which took out a well-deserved second place for the best camping and four-wheel-drive spot. They have proven what locals already know: we have the most spectacular backyard in Queensland.

These awards show what happens when local legends roll up their sleeves and put their heart and soul into our communities. From our beaches to our main streets, the future is exceptionally bright up our way, because, when it comes to excellence in enterprise, our local establishments outshine them all. Congratulations to all our local champions. You set the gold standard for what makes Dawson a great place. Please, everyone, come holiday. You will love it!

There are no wild brumbies in Hasluck. We do, however, have a really fine equestrian community, including being home to the State Equestrian Centre, Yarrada Farm Riding School and Magic Millions. I grew up in York surrounded by animals, including horses, which I deeply love. When people see brumbies in our alpine regions, they don't just see an introduced species or a feral problem. They see a symbol, a piece of folklore and a connection to our history. Put simply, people care about the feral horses in a way that they might not care about foxes, rabbits or pigs. Our relationship with the horse goes back thousands of years and is inextricably interwoven with civilisation itself. Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that the unmanaged feral horse populations are causing significant environmental damage in some of our most fragile ecosystems. Alpine peatlands, waterways and native species habitats are being degraded. These are places that simply cannot withstand that level of pressure. So, yes, action is required. Doing nothing is not an option, but how we act matters just as much as whether we act at all. I do not support the use of aerial culling from helicopters, and we cannot ask Australians to accept a solution that is fundamentally viewed as inhumane. There are alternatives, and we should be pursuing them with seriousness and urgency.

Fertility control measures used successfully in places like the United States offer long-term population management without resorting to lethal methods. These programs use a vaccine known as PZP that is delivered to the mares, often by remote darting, and works by preventing fertilisation without affecting the animal's natural hormones or behaviour. It doesn't remove the horses from the landscape, and it doesn't break up the herds. It simply slows population growth over time by reducing the numbers of foals born each season.

Programs in parts of the US have demonstrated that, when applied consistently to a sufficient proportion of mares, fertility control can significantly reduce birth rates and help stabilise populations in a humane and non-lethal way. It's not a silver bullet, and it does require effort, coordination and a long-term investment, but it shows that there are practical models that put animal welfare at the centre of population management. There are also ground based culling approaches that, where necessary, can be conducted under stricter welfare conditions and oversight, significantly reducing the distress associated with aerial methods.

This is a complex challenge. It does require coordination. We must protect our national parks, but we must do it in a way that reflects who we are so that 'a final glimpse reveals, on a dim and distant hillside, the wild horses racing yet with the man of the Snowy River at their heels'.

A few weeks ago in this place I congratulated five students from Whyalla. Eli Coppins, Caelan Kaminski, Simon Coppins, Shannon Bayogus and Karman Randhawa are set to represent Australia, and the electorate of Grey, on the world stage at the H2 Grand Prix World Finals in Switzerland. Qualifying for the world championship was an incredible achievement in and of itself, but they have gone one better—in the early hours of this morning they became world champions. This is a remarkable achievement, and they have done the entire nation proud. Well done.

The proud residents of Port Augusta are waking up to find intruders in their bedrooms as a youth crime wave plagues their town. Residential burglaries, commercial property theft and daylight shoplifting have left citizens and business owners feeling completely helpless as crime targets every sector of this great regional community. Police statistics show the town is in the midst of a spate of burglaries, with 34 incidents recorded in the first half of June alone. Locals are having their sense of safety shattered, with youth offenders disturbing them inside their own homes. Children as young as six are being used to sneak through gaps into homes and open doors from the inside.

This brazen scourge has been so severe that insurance companies are refusing to cover businesses that have been subject to multiple incidents, forcing many to consider leaving the town altogether. Main Street retailers are experiencing an equally aggressive wave of daytime shoplifting. For the Port Augusta community, the most difficult part of this crime wave is what they view as a revolving door bail system for serious juvenile offenders and a lack of quality youth diversion programs in the region. Police can only do so much. The community-led K9 unit was actually helping, and I call on the Malinauskas government to fund this absolutely crucial community led service. There needs to be a collective revisit to both social services and the youth justice system before crime totally overruns Port Augusta.

Normally, at this time of the year, Whyalla sees spectacular migration of tens of thousands of giant cuttlefish, drawing tourists from around the globe. Instead, the waters are empty and local livelihoods are under threat. Today I empathise with operators who have been forced to cancel their entire seasons. Casual workers have lost their jobs and businesses are facing crippling losses of up to $400,000. The community is suffering deeply from this profound economic and environmental blow.

I rise today to recognise the seniors of Parramatta and the extraordinary contribution they make to our local community. Our seniors built the Parramatta we know today. They raised families, started businesses, volunteered, founded cultural and religious communities and helped make our electorate one of the most diverse and vibrant in Australia. Their hard work laid the foundations for the opportunities we enjoy now.

Last week's seniors morning tea was the chance to thank them properly. Local seniors came together, reconnected with friends and neighbours and heard practical advice on community safety, scam awareness and local services. It was also where the 2026 Seniors and Pensioners Guide was launched: a single resource covering health care, aged care, government support, concessions and community programs. It's designed for anyone who'd rather keep information on the kitchen table than have to search for everything online. It's a guide that matters, as the government continues to deliver new measures to address the cost of living for older Australians, including cheaper medicines under the PBS.

Among those at the morning tea were Mrs Jenni Corsaro, the City of Parramatta's Senior Citizen of the Year, and Mr Patrick Byrnes, who I'd previously met when he received air service medals for his service to Australia. Their stories are a reminder of just how much our seniors have given, often quietly, over decades.

To the seniors of Parramatta: thank you. Thank you for what you have built, for the generations you have supported and for the communities you continue to enrich. Parramatta is stronger because of you, and it remains a privilege to stand up for the recognition, respect and support that you deserve.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

I rise in support of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 but also to urge the government to go further on it. I welcome the fact that this government recognises that regulatory burden, including unnecessary regulatory burden, hampers the dynamism of our economy. From a productivity point of view, we know that we need to make change here. We also know that, if we don't improve productivity, we do not improve real wages and we do not improve the lives and prosperity of Australians. So I welcome the government's work in this space, I welcome the government's bill in this space, and I welcome other actions the government has taken, including the EPBC reform and moves such as to pause the housing construction code.

However, I do think the government needs to go further, and, on this basis, I'm going to be moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill, because I think that we need to go significantly further. Let me tell you why. The cost of complying with Commonwealth regulation is growing. It was estimated at $65 billion in 2013. It is estimated at $160 billion today. The time that boards spend on risk and compliance has gone from 24 per cent in 2015 to 55 per cent in 2025. In Brisbane, it takes 31 separate approvals to open a cafe. Medical researchers who I speak to are spending up to a quarter of their time writing grant applications rather than engaging in medical research.

I've seen firsthand how drone technology is at the forefront of some of these problems because government is slow to make decisions. There's no accountability from many government departments in terms of the speed of their decision-making. When I have spoken to innovative drone companies, drone companies that we should be trying to support and grow in this country, they're telling me they cannot compete with things like helicopter companies, because they have no certainty about how long it will take for the government or the regulator—CASA, in this case—to actually make an approval of their applications. They have no certainty, and this is something I hear time and time again. I speak to businesses looking for foreign investment. They're saying they're waiting up to 18 months for the ATO to make a decision on how an investment would be treated, so the foreign capital just goes away.

We need to change the culture here, and this is why—while I support this government's actions in this space—I urge the government to go further. This isn't about bad people. There are many good people, both in this House and across Australian government departments and regulators—people who want the best for the Australian people. The problem is structural. The system rewards visible new action—more rules, more money, more strategy—and almost never rewards the quiet, harder work of removing what is unnecessary, which doesn't create value and which is not making the difference that it is intended to. The Chair of the Productivity Commission recently wrote an article making the same point: that every new problem gets a patch rather than a rewrite, and the patches on patches, on top of each other, are making Australia's regulatory burden extremely high and making Australia a less attractive place to start and grow and invest in, which is a problem for all Australians.

The truth is that governments and regulators are monopolies. In market terms, markets discipline firms through exit, but you cannot exit. We have no choices. We have no choice to exit regulators. We have no choice to exit governments. What we end up with is the costs of the government's monopoly being borne by people.

So I support this bill, as I said. The bill is useful, it is technical, it's incremental, it has useful schedules, it has 'tell us once', it has streamlining and it has technical fixes. These are all good things, and I do not underestimate the effort that goes into getting useful changes like this. But it is the second bill in a year, and the cost curve is still climbing regardless. Nothing in this bill or in any of the bills we've had to date fundamentally changes the incentives around regulatory burden, either in this place, amongst the politicians, or among the regulators or the departments. That is where I think the government needs to go.

So my second reading amendment is trying to put forward ideas that would actually move the dial. We need to introduce crude but measurable regulatory reduction targets and strategies. Every new regulatory burden should be matched by removal elsewhere, with the same discipline already applied to budget spending proposals. We need to change the culture and incentives by making senior public servants and responsible ministers directly accountable for rightsizing regulation. Rightsizing regulation should be an explicit KPI. Dynamism should be a measured, accountable consideration for major regulators, not just risk avoidance. New regulatory instruments should include sunset clauses. And the Office of Impact Assessment should have greater independence, such that regulatory impact is actually evaluated, not just box ticking.

Finally, I urge the government to expand the National Productivity Fund. I support the government's work on the fund, but I think it's currently around one tenth the size of the original 1990s National Competition Fund. If we expect that to move the dial, as it did back in the 1990s, we are going to have to put more firepower behind it.

That is why I'm moving this second reading amendment standing my name—not to block this bill but to put on record that admiring the problem for the third or fourth year running is not a strategy. We need these changes. We need senior accountability. We need the government to further embrace what it has identified as real problems but start to change the incentives as well as build on the significant and I think useful work that the government has already done. I move:

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

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

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government has signalled that it prioritises right-sizing regulation and this is welcome;

(b) but successive governments have repeatedly announced regulatory reform agendas, yet the burden of regulation continues to grow;

(c) the number of restrictive terms in legislative instruments has more than doubled since 2006, according to the Productivity Commission;

(d) the cost of complying with Commonwealth regulation has grown from $65 billion in 2013 to $160 billion today; and

(e) the incentive structures facing regulators and legislators reward visible new action over the harder, less visible work of removing existing regulation, and that this dynamic will persist unless directly addressed; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) implement crude but measurable regulatory reduction targets and strategies including offset requirements;

(b) introduce senior accountability within regulators and departments for deregulation including measurable KPIs;

(c) require government departments to prioritise faster decision-making and make ministers accountable for achieving these targets;

(d) strengthen the role of Office of Impact Analysis, including greater independence, such that this process is more than simply a box-ticking exercise; and

(e) consider expanding the impact of the National Competition Policy through greater funding for the National Productivity Fund".

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

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

In summing up this debate I'd like to acknowledge the contributions that all members have made in the debate on this important bill, the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. The government has an ambitious regulatory reform agenda, outlined in the budget, that will reduce regulatory burden by $10.2 billion. This bill deals with multiple issues that will benefit Australians and businesses right across the country. I'd like to thank those members who have taken the time to engage with the regulatory changes proposed by the bill during this debate.

I'd also like to thank the member for Indi for her productive engagement with the government on schedule 2, part 3 of the bill. This part drew interest from a range of parties in this place, but I want to acknowledge her particularly thoughtful engagement on this change. These discussions have led the government to moving amendments to remove schedule 2, part 3. This is in recognition that the vast majority of the bill's measures are supported by members across the House, and the government is eager to support their passage. The sooner the bill is passed, the sooner it becomes real change for Australians.

I also note the comments made by the opposition on schedule 2, part 4. The problem tackled by this amendment is not that these notifications are issued; it is a foundational principle that people must be notified when they have a case to answer. The problem is the mandatory nature of these notices. This mandatory obligation means that even people who play no part in a complaint, who are subject to no legal consequences and who have no procedural avenue to respond must receive these notices.

The commission estimates that it spends approximately 450 hours per year administering adverse allegation notifications. This can include identifying individuals who may be the subject of adverse allegations, assessing whether redactions to the complaint documents are required, obtaining their contact details, preparing notification correspondence and managing related inquiries. Removing this mandatory notification requirement is not just about administrative savings, which will allow the RHC to finalise more complaints every year; it is also about avoiding the frustration and stress that people who receive these notices often experience. The president of the AHRC will retain the power to notify people who are not respondents to a complaint where appropriate. Complainants will also retain the ability to add people to a complaint as respondents; where they do so, the commission must notify these people. Ultimately, the change proposed by schedule 2 part 4 will get the complaints process working better for everyone.

As I said in my second reading speech, regulatory reform omnibus bills are instrumental to delivering legislative reforms under the government's regulatory reform agenda. This agenda is an ambitious effort to get regulatory settings working better for Australians, boosting investments in our economy and ensuring that Australians are protected from harms. When fully implemented, our agenda will deliver: a $10.2 billion reduction in the regulatory burden every year; a single national market to create clear and consistent rules for businesses, workers and consumers no matter where they are in Australia; faster administrative processes to get more projects off the ground more quickly; modernised regulation that is fit for purpose for the digital economy and responsibly balances the challenges and opportunities brought to us by AI; and regulators being active stewards of regulation to embed productivity into how they work. The government will expect all our regulators to balance managing known and likely risks with supporting economic growth and dynamism. Legislative changes progressed by regulatory reform omnibus bills are meaningful steps towards these important goals.

To reiterate, this bill amends 25 acts, repeals two acts and will improve the operations of 18 government agencies. It simplifies regulation, particularly for businesses, progresses additional measures to support the government's tell-us-once agenda and makes technical amendments to get regulation working better for Australians. The bill will make important changes to intellectual property laws. It will add further integrity to the trademarks opposition process, boost protections for trademark holders by ensuring more robust investigations of patent and trademark attorneys accused of misconduct, and make a simple change, which means plant breeders won't accidentally lose valuable rights just because they missed a renewal payment deadline.

Beyond intellectual property, the bill will remove the mandatory 30-day appeal period for importers who advised they don't intend to appeal a negative preliminary decision by the Anti-Dumping Commissioner for a partial refund as part of the duty assessment process. This change will allow importers to receive faster refunds when they advise that they don't intend to appeal the decision.

The bill will also simplify business reporting requirements. It will simplify workplace gender equality reporting and target-setting requirements by adding a 12-month window at the end of a target cycle, and align the reporting period for public and private sector employers to ensure comparable data on gender equality in the workplace is available for both Commonwealth and private sector employers. It will also move reporting under the new eligible Drama Expenditure Scheme from a financial-year to calendar-year basis, aligning it with other Australian content reporting schemes.

Another important component of the bill are measures to continue driving a shift to a tell-us-once approach to government interactions with Australians and businesses. Thanks to this bill nominees, under the social security law, will now be able to cancel their nomination with a simple phone call instead of needing to follow up in writing. Goods that are subject to a tariff concession order will now be exempt from dumping and countervailing duties in certain circumstances without requiring a further administrative decision. This speeds up the process and means importers can get on with their business more quickly. Services Australia will be able to rely on information it already holds when supporting retirees who have been living overseas for more than two years to comply with their proof-of-life certificate obligations. These are changes that will make life easier for Australians and businesses. This bill will also allow eligible Defence Force superannuation scheme members to access an account based pension from CSC when they retire. This will give former ADF members more choice to manage their money in retirement and has support from serving and former ADF members.

Finally, the bill will make various technical amendments to improve the operation of existing regulations. It will repeal acts that have become redundant. It will clarify and align legislative definitions and concepts to support more efficient and timely administrative decision-making. All of these measures will make real improvements to how regulations work for all Australians. It will support better regulation. Better regulation is essential to unlock productivity in the Australian economy. It is the way to make sure people are protected without being stifled. It is the approach the government believes in, and it is what this bill will help to achieve. I thank the House once again for supporting the government's work to progress this important legislation.

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

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

The Flem/Ken RSL is a small but mighty subbranch down the south end of my electorate. I've stopped by a couple of times, and after one visit a conversation really stuck with me. We got to talking about their welfare program, which is mostly a few volunteers and a lot of phone calls, and one of them said that the part of the job that wears them down the most isn't the veteran who comes in asking for help. It's the one who never comes in at all—the veteran who's been sent back and forth between Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, asked for the same three forms and somewhere in there has quietly decided the whole thing just isn't worth the trouble. Flem/Ken go and find them. They make the call nobody else makes. Today, the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 is seeking to take that responsibility off their shoulders.

I've thought about that conversation a fair bit because there is a lot of talk about veterans falling through the cracks as if somebody just didn't care enough. That's not what's going on. The people at the Department of Defence care, the people in DVA care, the volunteers at the RSLs in my community care, and our government cares. The parts of the system meant to catch a person have never been allowed to talk to each other. Defence holds half of someone's story, and DVA holds the other half. The veteran ends up stuck in the gap between holding both halves on their own right at the point in their life when they've got the least left to hold anything with. This bill intends to close that gap. That's at the heart of it.

Underneath the five schedules and all the clauses, what it does is let the system share what it knows about a person so it can act before things get to the worst point. This is the next step on a road that this government has been walking deliberately and at pace since the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide handed down its final report. This bill forms part of this important work. The royal commission was a long and painful reckoning. It found what families had been saying for years, what the welfare officers at Flem/Ken RSL see each week, that suicide in the veteran community is not a private clinical tragedy that happens one person at a time. It is systemic. It is a product of culture, policy and the friction between institutions that were never built to hand a person gently from one to another.

The royal commission made 122 recommendations. This government accepted the overwhelming majority of them, agreeing or agreeing in principle to 104. By the end of last year, 32 were implemented. By the end of this year, we expect roughly two-thirds will be. This is not a government that received a report, thanked the commissioners and put it on the shelf. This is a government working through it, recommendation by recommendation, because the families who gave their evidence deserve nothing less than that we actually do the things they have asked us to do.

This bill enables 35 of those recommendations, it directly implements 15 and it supports a further 20. It is built across five schedules. The biggest thing this bill does is let defence and DVA share what they each know about a person. Right now, a veteran leaving the Defence Force has to arrive at DVA and tell their whole story over again to a department that already had every word of it sitting in a file somewhere else. So what the system currently does is make a person who is already struggling prove their own pain twice. This bill ends that. The information goes with the person. The handover happens on their behalf. DVA can reach out before someone's in crisis instead of waiting for them to find the strength to ask.

The rest of the bill follows the same instinct, which is to treat the whole of a person's life as the thing we're responsible for, not just the parts that are convenient. It puts the defence health system on a proper footing so risks get spotted early. It makes sure that, when a relationship ends in violence, a partner doesn't lose their support overnight, so leaving can be done safely. And, yes, it means a member sentenced to prison for serious violence or a sexual offence is discharged full stop—because the people who serve deserve to know who's standing next to them.

I know there are members in this place who will worry about the information-sharing powers, and I don't dismiss that worry, because it comes from good instinct. A person's health is their own. Their service record is their own. The state holding that information and moving it around is not a thing any of us should wave through without a thought. But I'd say two things. Firstly, the safeguards in this bill are written through it, with the conditions on use, the ministerial guidelines and the Information Commissioner overseeing everything. Secondly, the status quo is not neutral. The wall between defence and DVA was never a privacy protection and, sadly, people have died inside the gap it created. There is no version of this where we get to do nothing and call that the safe option. Doing nothing has a body count. This bill weighs a person's privacy against a person's life, and it gets the balance right.

Now I want to turn to the families. When I visit the RSLs in my electorate in Essendon, Keilor East, Flemington and Kensington, I don't just meet veterans. I meet their partners holding toddlers on their hips. I meet the parents watching their grown sons and daughters with that particular mixture of pride and fear. I meet the kids. The families of the men and women who serve are what I have come to think of as the silent ranks. They are the first responders inside their own homes. They are the ones who notice the withdrawal first, who hear the flashback in the middle of the night, who carry the weight quietly and ask for nothing. For too long, our national systems have not treated them as though they exist.

I trained as a psychologist. I studied developmental and child psychology. One of the first and most basic things you learn is that you cannot understand a person in isolation from the people around them. Mental health is not something that happens inside one person. It is relational. It is held, or it is dropped, by the people in the room. So when a system pretends that a veteran is a single individual to be processed and ignores the partner, the parents and the children who are holding that person up it isn't just unkind; it's clinically wrong. You will not keep a veteran well if you let the people keeping them well fall over. This bill recognises that. It builds the family into the way information is shared and support is offered so that the silent ranks are finally counted.

The timing of this is important because of what is happening today. On 1 July this year—today—the new Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency opens its doors. That agency exists because of the same royal commission. It was recommendation 87. This government has put $78 million behind it. From day one it will be a single place a veteran or a family member can go to find help by postcode or by phone and a person will help them navigate instead of handing them just another form. A family member can ring it even if they are not a DVA client themselves. The information-sharing powers in this bill help this agency to do effective work. It's only useful if it knows who you are when you walk through the door. The legislation we debate in here and the service that opens up today are two halves of the same promise—that no-one has to navigate this alone anymore. This is the through-line of this government's whole record on veterans, and it is worth putting plainly.

There's half a billion dollars to clear the backlog of compensation claims, with hundreds of extra staff brought on to actually process them, so that claims are answered in months, not years. The Defence and Veterans' Service Commission was legislated last year and is now operating as an independent watchdog with the teeth to hold the whole system to account. There's a shift across DVA towards early intervention and prevention rather than waiting for the damage to be done and then treating it. And there's $5.7 billion in this year's budget to support the health and wellbeing of veterans and their dependents. This is a system being rebuilt piece by piece around the people it is meant to serve.

I think about Jenny Brown at the Keilor East RSL, who leads her sub-branch with such dedication and deep pride, who I was honoured to stand beside at the dawn service on Anzac Day this year. Jenny and her team don't just run a club; they run a sanctuary. The thing about a sanctuary is that it works because someone is paying attention to the people who walk through the door. Our job in this place is to make the national system pay attention the way Jenny and her team do—to make it notice, to make it reach out first.

Our government isn't pretending that this bill fixes everything, because no bill does, and the families who fought for the royal commission have earned our honesty more than they have earned any slogans. The test of all of this is not the passage of this legislation; it is whether, in five years, a partner in Flemington got the call before the worst happened, or a veteran in Keilor East only had to tell their story once, or a family in Essendon found the agency door open. That is the only measure that counts. But this bill makes that outcome possible in a way it wasn't before.

The men and women of our Defence Force put their hand up to serve our nation, to do hard and dangerous things on our behalf. We ask them to give up the ordinary safety the rest of us take for granted. The very least we owe them in return is a system that supports them, that talks to itself, that sees them coming and that never makes them carry both halves of their own story alone. A handful of volunteers at a small sub-branch in Kensington shouldn't have to do the system's job for it. With this bill, the system finally starts doing its own. I commend the bill to the House.

This government is failing veterans. This budget lacks empathy, human decency and emotion for what veterans have put their bodies, their minds and their families through. It lacks any respect for the fact that these men and women have risked their lives for our country. It's punishing them. It's punishing people who've laid down everything for things we wake up and take for granted every day.

I'd like to tell a few stories about veterans from my subbranches in my electorate. Cook is right near the Holsworthy army base. We have a number of veterans who have served and those who continue to serve living in my electorate. I'd like to tell a few stories about some folks at the Cronulla RSL Sub-Branch. Cory, an Iraq and East Timor veteran, served this country and had 12 service related injuries. Can you guess how long it took Cory to have his injuries accepted? Eight years—eight years of forms, reports, appointments, assessments, delays and uncertainty. Cory, as I mentioned, is president of the Cronulla RSL Sub-Branch. I recently heard from him, along with fellow board members Greg Crumblin and Paul Zaat, about the serious concerns they hold for veterans in my local community and right across the country. Collectively, these three men have dedicated more than 70 years of voluntary service to supporting veterans. These three men have fought across Vietnam, Iraq and East Timor, each of them returning with injuries—Agent Orange and cancer; PTSD and physical impairments. These are the consequences of serving and giving your mind and body for your country. They still speak about the pride they have and the pride those who served have.

They also spoke about what happens when the uniform comes off, you come out of battle and you enter the bureaucracy. Cory told me that veterans are now waiting more than 400 days for their claims to be processed. That's more than 400 days that a veteran is out there with uncertainty, wondering, 'Am I going to get covered?' These are men and women often living with fragile mental conditions. No-one should be waiting 400 days. It's just not good enough.

Now there's a $5,000 treatment cap. How heartless is this? For the Albanese government this is just another budget line—a simple hit and run, an easy target. For a veteran it's an endless stream of GP reports. It's reassessments, delays, out-of-pocket bills and another battle for care. It's uncertainty. It's many veterans wondering how they're going to get on with their life, wondering how they're going to pick up the pieces and even wondering whether they can get on with their life.

Unfortunately, we do have veteran suicides in this country. When we're giving people 400 days of uncertainty before they find out what's happening, when we're giving them a $5,000 cap, how petty can we be? A government that's raising almost $80 billion in extra revenue is taking away from people who've survived, often by the skin of their teeth, and who are now lame, injured and broken in our society. We're capping what we're giving them. It makes me sick. It lacks dignity, it lacks compassion and it lacks human decency.

How can the Albanese government look at the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and allow a policy that caps services at 5,000 bucks and restricts care needed by these veterans? Psychologists, psychiatrists, counsellors and mental health professionals aren't optional extras. Sometimes these are the difference between someone living or taking their own life. We go to morning teas and breakfasts and hear about all the funding for headspace. Yet, at the very moment the country should be removing barriers to mental health support, we're taking that support away from veterans. This is the opposite of what the royal commission should have taught this government.

I'd like to read a letter and some words that Cory Rinaldi, president of Cronulla RSL sub-branch, wrote. Cory wrote:

Every veteran signs a contract knowing that one day they may be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. They willingly place themselves in harm's way, prepared to give their life in service to their country and in defence of others. They do so without hesitation, trusting that their nation will stand by them in return.

That trust must never be broken.

When a veteran comes home carrying the physical and psychological scars of service, our responsibility does not end. In many ways, it is only beginning. We owe them more than words of gratitude and ceremonial tributes. We owe them a lifetime commitment—a commitment to provide the care, support and dignity they have earned through their sacrifice.

The government and the Australian people have a moral obligation to stand beside every veteran for the rest of their life, just as they stood ready to stand for us. No veteran should ever have to fight for the support they were promised after already fighting for their country.

If we are willing to ask men and women to risk everything for Australia, then we must be willing to give them everything they need when they return. Anything less is a failure to honour the sacrifice they made on our behalf.

I'd ask this government to listen to Cory's words and, more than listening to his words, to think about the millions of veterans out there and the precarious situations some of them find themselves in. They're broken and bruised, and we're talking about a $5,000 cap? We've announced it and passed it in a budget, and now we're doing the consultation. How backwards is that? We're raising revenue and giving billions of dollars to hydrogen and billions of dollars to billionaires. We're giving $15 billion to the NRF. We're paying $20 million to tell people to pump up their tyres and use less fuel, yet we can't find the $750 million to cover these veterans' health bills. What kind of message are we sending those who want to sign up to protect this country? We're already struggling with recruitment to our armed services. This is a slap in the face to all those who have served, do serve or are thinking about serving.

I also want to share Paul's story with the House. In May 2016, after suffering a serious mental breakdown, he was forced to retire from work and sell his business. He approached the Vietnam Veterans Association for help, and an application was made for a gold card. He was sent to a DVA doctor—mlcoa in Sydney—but, after 12 months of delays, his claim was rejected. The rejection triggered another breakdown. Paul was left in such distress he threatened to take his own life, and only then did the DVA arrange for a psychologist to call him every two days. His case went to the Veterans' Review Board, where he had to fight for the recognition against military and civilian lawyers, a process that caused him enormous distress. Eventually, DVA accepted all of his conditions. In September 2017, he became TPI and received a gold card with 17 months of back pay. For those 17 months, he had no income. Luckily, he had a home which he could borrow against, but for those 17 months he had to borrow against his home and he was under constant psychiatric treatment, with no promise that it would ever be reimbursed. This isn't how a grateful country should treat a veteran. It's not support; it's a system that forces hurt and broken people to break before it finally believes them.

Cory, Greg and Paul also spoke about the human cost. They've told me about family breakdowns caused by the stress and claims process and about relationships buckling under years of uncertainty, financial pressure and untreated trauma. The royal commission itself stated:

Between 1997 and 2021, there were 1,677 confirmed suicides by serving and ex-serving members. That's 20 times more than the number of people that were killed in combat.

We have 20 times more people killing themselves than died in combat, and now we're capping their claims at 5,000 bucks. It's disgusting. The report went on to say:

We believe the actual number of preventable deaths by suicide to be higher than 3,000.

That would be more than 40 times those killed in combat. Look what we're spending in our defence department for those in combat now: $50 billion—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:08 to 11:22

The Cronulla RSL sub-branch has told me about the war widows left to figure out life after service, grieve, and then deal with this bureaucracy all at once. They've told me about servicemen carrying mental scars as they try to rebuild their identity. Men and women trying to find purpose again, to piece together what's left of their lives when the uniform comes off. They've told me about veterans living out in the bush, isolated from support, veterans sleeping rough, veterans who served this country who have now been abandoned by it and abandoned by the Labor Albanese government. It's shameful. How can the Albanese government look these men and women in the face and say this system is working? How can a government ask Australians to serve and then leave them short, capping what they'll reimburse them for at 5,000 bucks a year? It's pathetic.

Cory's story should shame this government. A veteran should not have to wait eight years for 12 injuries to be accepted. A veteran should not have to wait more than 400 days for a claim to be processed. A veteran should not be forced through repeated assessments just to keep receiving care. A veteran should not be paying out of pocket while waiting for a government approval. This $5,000 cap is not just an administrative threshold; it becomes a symbol of a system that places budgets before dignity, that places process before people and suspicion before respect.

This isn't charity. It's not special treatment; it's a debt of honour that we owe these veterans. When Australians sign up to serve, they accept obligations most of us will never have to face and will never have to think about. They accept hardship, risk and sacrifice and they accept doing things we would not even dream about. They accept a chance they might not come home, they might not see their kids, their sons and daughters, their wives and husbands or their parents.

This Albanese government must accept its obligation in return, must explain why veterans are being pushed through repeated reassessments, must explain why veterans are paying out-of-pocket costs for 400 days while waiting for approval and must explain why doctors are being driven away from DVA work. For me, this is the most egregious one: Labor must explain why it is creating $5,000 cap on what these men and women deserve.

Now, I don't want to keep political point scoring on this issue. I want the government to backflip. They've just done it on parts of their tax and budget reform. It's not too late to make this right. But if they don't make this right, I will keep on this issue for the next two years until we get change. Whether that's getting this government to backflip or whether it's throwing them out, it's not something I will drop. This has to change. I don't want to continue with political point scoring. I want this to flip. If the members across here today and the members watching in their offices right now can take this back to their party room: we want to stop. Let's make this right. If this was overlooked or administrative, great; I will personally shut up about it. But let's fix this for the veterans. They deserve it.

This is not how a grateful country should treat those who've served it. For a veteran with a physical injury, delay can mean more than pain; it means less mobility, less work, less independence, and sometimes I hear them say to me it makes them feel less human. For a veteran with PTSD, delay can mean sleepless nights, anger, isolation, shame. It can fracture their relationships, fracture their sense of self. We don't live through that. Most of us watching at home will never live through what these men and women suffer. Just the uncertainty right now of passing a $5,000 cap in consulting afterwards is creating anxiety. We heard about up to 3,000 suicides in this population. Why are we doing this? Let's fix it. Let's act now. Let's say 'we got it wrong', fix it and make it right. Veterans need the peace of knowing that, when they reach out for treatment, the first response from their country will not be to ask whether they've crossed a spending threshold. It's time to make this right for veterans all around Australia, and I stand with you.

I rise to speak in support of the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026. This is not a routine defence bill. It sits in the long shadow of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It deals with service risk, injury, transition, family responsibility, institutional accountability and the consequences that follow when systems designed to support people do not speak to each other quickly enough, clearly enough or humanely enough.

In Moore, this is not a remote policy. We have a large veteran community, families with long links to service, and two active RSL clubs in North Beach and Joondalup. They do far more than host commemorations. They are places where older veterans, younger veterans, serving members, partners and families find connection, practical advice and a familiar face. Often that support is quiet, informal and deeply important.

Anyone who spends time with veterans quickly learns that service does not end neatly on the day a person takes off the uniform. The habits, injuries, memories, pride, obligations and sometimes trauma of service travel with them into civilian life. Families carry much of that load. Partners often notice changes first. Children live with the consequences. Parents, siblings and friends often become the first line of support without ever receiving a brief or a manual.

The government announced its response on 2 December 2024. The royal commission made 122 recommendations. The government has agreed or agreed in principle to 104 of them and noted another 17 for further consideration. By the end of 2025, 32 recommendations had been implemented. By the end of this year the government expects around two-thirds to be implemented. That pace is important. Royal commissions cannot be an expensive form of national catharsis followed by administrative drift. Their recommendations must be translated into practice, into resourcing, into change behaviour and, where necessary, into law. This bill is one part of that work.

This bill directly implements 15 accepted recommendations and supports a further 20. It amends the Defence Act 1903 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. There are five schedules, on information sharing, Defence health services, support for ADF families, service entry and exit arrangements, and governance and accountability. The central theme is simple. Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and related agencies must be able to identify risk earlier, act earlier and support people through transition and beyond. That requires better systems, lawful and careful use of data, continuity of care, and respect for privacy but not paralysis dressed up as privacy. It also requires Defence and DVA to operate as connected parts of the same national obligation.

Schedule 1 deals with information sharing to improve wellbeing, health and safety outcomes.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:31 to 11:43

This is one of the most important reforms in the bill. The royal commission found that better information sharing between Defence and DVA is fundamental to improving the health and wellbeing of Defence personnel and veterans and their families. At present, the information can sit in different parts of government. Defence may hold service records, health information, incident information, training information, deployment history and transition records, and DVA may hold claims, rehabilitation, compensation and service delivery information. Each dataset may tell only part of the story. When those parts are not brought together properly, the person at the centre can be left to repeat their story again and again, often when they are at their most vulnerable. That is not good administration. More importantly, it is not good care.

This bill creates clear statutory authority for the collection, use and disclosure of information, including personal and sensitive information, for research, data analysis and evaluation relating to wellbeing, health and safety. It also supports information sharing for prevention, early intervention, continuity of care, proactive outreach and transition support. The privacy safeguards are important. Information sharing is not a blank cheque. The bill requires compliance with ministerial guidelines, aligns with the Privacy Act framework, requires reasonable steps to de-identify personal information where appropriate, and limits use and disclosure to purposes connected with wellbeing, health and safety. ADF members and veterans need confidence that information about them will not be mishandled. They also need confidence that government will not hide behind fragmented systems when risk is emerging.

Schedule 1 also supports claims processing and transitional support. The royal commission identified transition out of the ADF as a period of increased risk, particularly for members who are medically discharged or involuntarily discharged. Anyone who has worked in employment or industrial law understands that a person's identity is often tied up with their work. In Defence, that is even more profound. Service is a culture, a community and a set of obligations that shape daily life. When that abruptly ends, the risk is obvious. The person may be dealing with injury, loss of identity, uncertain income, housing pressure, family strain and a complex compensation system. The Commonwealth should not make that harder by forcing people to carry paperwork from one agency to another, like an exhausted courier in a bureaucracy designed by a committee. Earlier transfer of information from Defence to DVA should mean earlier claims processing, earlier support and fewer gaps. That is practical reform. It is not glamourous, but, for a veteran waiting on income support, medical treatment or rehabilitation, it can be the difference between stability and crisis.

Schedule 2 modernises the legislative framework for Defence health services. It establishes a dedicated legislative basis for Defence health services, including clinical governance, health monitoring, quality assurance and improvement activities. The Defence health system has a unique role. It must support operational capability and fitness for service but also the health of the individual member. Those purposes will sometimes sit comfortably together. At other times, they require careful governance. The royal commission recognised that Defence health arrangements must be contemporary, clinically sound and trusted. This schedule clarifies how Defence health information can be collected, used and disclosed. It supports quality assurance and continuous improvement. It enables lawful, proportionate use of health data to improve care, supports suicide prevention and assess the performance of the Defence health system. Good health systems learn. They review errors. They identify patterns. They ask whether particular environments, postings, exposures or service pathways are associated with greater risk. They look to whether programs actually work. That is ordinary clinical governance in a modern health system. Defence should be no exception.

This bill also supports disclosure for limited and relevant command purposes, and that distinction is important. A commander may need enough information to make safe fitness-for-duty decisions, but that does not mean a commander needs every private detail disclosed in a clinical consultation. The bill seeks to draw that line in a way that supports safety, capability and trust.

Schedule 3 supports ADF families. This is one of the most human parts of the bill. It improves information sharing and communication between Defence and families where contact details have been provided. It also ensures that benefits and supports can continue for a former spouse or partner in the immediate aftermath of separation where family and domestic violence is present. Family violence creates a particular risk at the point of separation. Benefits being cut off abruptly can make the separation harder. A system that removes support at the very point the person is trying to leave an unsafe situation can unintentionally increase danger. The bill recognises that reality and provides a safer approach. It recognises that families are not spectators. They are part of the service community. When a member is struggling, a partner or family member may be the person trying to help. If Defence only communicates through the member, families can be left without information about available support. Better communication with families and appropriate privacy protections is a necessary reform.

Schedule 4 deals with requirements to serve in the Defence Force. It prohibits persons who have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for serious violent or sexual offences from joining the ADF. It also introduces mandatory discharge for members sentenced by an Australian court to imprisonment. It consolidates 'fit and proper person' requirements and aligns substance related separation processes with existing medical separation arrangements.

The provisions concerning serious violent and sexual offending are direct and necessary. Service in the ADF carries authority, trust and responsibility. It also places people in close working and living environments where power, hierarchy and discipline are significant. The royal commission made findings about sexual violence and its connection with harm, trauma and suicidality. The Commonwealth must set clear standards about who can enter and remain in the Defence Force. Mandatory discharge for members in prison for relevant offences sends a clear signal about institutional safety and integrity. It protects members, it protects trusts and it recognises that defence cannot credibly address culture, safety and wellbeing while retaining people whose conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with service.

The substance related charges are also sensible. Substance use can be misconduct. It can also be linked to medical conditions, mental health challenges, trauma or dependence. Aligning these processes more closely with medical separation arrangements allows for a more coherent approach, one that can preserve discipline while also recognising underlying health issues. That is not softness; that is competence.

Schedule 5 makes related governance and accountability amendments to support the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. Oversight is essential because the task does not end when parliament passes a bill. The royal commission's recommendations require implementation across agencies over time with proper scrutiny. Systems tend to return to old habits unless someone keeps asking whether promised reform has changed experience on the ground.

But, for my community, the test will not be whether this legislation is neat on paper. The test will be whether a veteran in Joondalup gets support earlier, whether a family in North Beach knows who to call, whether a member transitioning out of service has continuity instead of a cliff edge, whether a claim is processed with information already held by the government or whether a young veteran who is not coping is contacted before they disappear from view. That is the measure of this bill.

There is always legitimate scrutiny about information sharing. There should be. Privacy is not an inconvenience; it is part of dignity. However, privacy should protect people. It should not isolate them inside disconnected systems. The royal commission made clear that fragmented information, poor coordination and delayed support can contribute to harm.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:52 to 12:03

The answer is not careless data sharing. The answer is lawful, proportionate and accountable information sharing directed at care, prevention and safety. I acknowledge the veterans and families in Moore who continue to contribute to our community. North Beach RSL and Joondalup City RSL both provide leadership, welfare, remembrance and connection. Their volunteers do work that is often unseen but deeply valued. Every Anzac Day and every Remembrance Day, we see the public face of that contribution. For the rest of the year, much of that work happens in conversations, phone calls, visits, practical assessment and the quiet acts of care. The Commonwealth must match that community commitment with systems that work. We cannot ask RSL volunteers, partners, families and mates to carry the full load while government agencies remain fragmented. Community support is essential, but it is not a substitute for competent national systems.

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was a solemn warning. It told us that admiration for service is not enough. Thanks are not enough. Ceremonies are not enough. We honour service by building systems that reduce harm, treat people with dignity and respond before crisis becomes tragedy. This bill is a serious step in that direction. It directly implements 15 recommendations and supports a further 20. It strengthens information sharing for prevention and early intervention. It modernises Defence health services. It supports families, including in circumstances involving family and domestic violence. It improves service entry and exit arrangements. It strengthens governance and accountability. None of this removes the pain already experienced by families who have lost someone. No legislative amendment can do that, but parliament can act on what it has learned. It can ensure that the evidence given in the royal commission leads to durable reform. It can require Defence and DVA to work together more effectively. It can insist that the health, wellbeing and safety of those who serve and those who have served and their families sit at the centre of this system. That is what this bill seeks to do. I commend the bill to the House.

The Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 is a further response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, building on the reforms that this parliament has already passed. That commission spent three years hearing the testimony of families who had lost someone and survivors carrying wounds that this parliament should have reckoned with long ago. It handed down 122 recommendations. The task now is to move more of those recommendations from paper to practice. This bill takes up this task on several fronts, and I support it. Let me briefly set out what it does.

For the first time, the Defence Act will contain a dedicated part devoted to the health and wellbeing of ADF members, veterans and their families. More than merely symbolic, this is a legal and cultural commitment that the lifetime wellbeing of the people we ask to serve is a core responsibility of the Defence Force, not an afterthought once the uniform comes off.

The bill modernises how Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs share and use information. The royal commission found something that should shame us: that fragmented systems, lost records and ad hoc, consent-by-consent information sharing have contributed to real harm. Veterans were forced to tell their story over and over at the most vulnerable moments of their lives. Risks that were obvious at a cohort level stayed invisible because nobody could see the whole picture. This bill creates a clearer framework for research, data analysis and evaluation so that we can identify suicide risk earlier and intervene before a life is lost.

I want to acknowledge the privacy questions this raises, because they are serious. We're talking about health records and deeply sensitive personal information. The RSL has indicated it's broadly supportive of this legislation and agrees with its intent, and I share that view.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:07 to 12:17

The RSL has indicated it's broadly supportive of this legislation and agrees with its intent. I share that view.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:17 to 12:27

The RSL has indicated it's broadly supportive of this legislation and agrees with its intent, and I share this view. The RSL will also rightly seek assurances about how veterans' data will be protected, how it will be used and who will be able to access it, particularly given the privacy failures which led to the closure of the MATES program in 2024. Veterans were right to be angry then and they're right to expect better now. The bill goes some way to answering those concerns. It keeps the Privacy Act and the Australian Privacy Principles in force, requires ministerial guidelines made with advice from the Information Commissioner, requires a proportionality assessment before information is disclosed, and defaults to consent wherever it's practicable. The principle is right; the answer to bad information sharing is not no information sharing but rather careful, accountable information sharing.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:28 to 12:46

The principle is right. The answer to bad information sharing is not no information sharing. Rather, information sharing should be careful and accountable.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:38 to 12:46

But the safeguards have to be real, not just on paper, and I'll be watching development of those guidelines closely to make sure that that balance holds in practice.

The bill also establishes, for the first time, a comprehensive legislative basis for the Defence health system, with a clear benchmark that care must meet or exceed civilian standards; it brings in proper quality assurance and improvement protections so that clinicians can speak candidly when something goes wrong; it strengthens support for Defence families, including allowing benefits to flow to former partners in the immediate aftermath of separation where there's family violence; and it implements mandatory discharge for members who are convicted of serious violent or sexual offences and sentenced to imprisonment, and bars such people from joining in the first place. The royal commission was unequivocal that sexual violence in the ADF is both a moral catastrophe and a driver of suicide. The RSL has strongly supported this direction, and so do I. Sexual misconduct has no place in our Defence Force, and this parliament should say so plainly.

So this is a good bill, and the broader reform effort around it has been welcomed across the veteran community. The RSL has called the recent budget a 'long-overdue investment in veteran health care'. The fee increase for allied health providers included in the budget, the largest in more than two decades, means more providers will be willing to see veterans, and there will be better funded care when they do.

But I can't speak about this reform package and stay silent on something that sits right alongside it and threatens to undercut it: the $5,000 annual cap on allied health services for veteran card holders, due to commence a year from now. I want to be clear that the cap is not in this bill. It didn't come through this parliament for a vote. It's a budget measure that the government can implement administratively through DVA. The appropriation that funds DVA passed without a formal division, so there was no moment at which any members voted yes or no to this cap specifically. Veterans deserve to understand exactly where the decision sits: it sits with the minister, who has the power to get the design right without coming back to this place. The detail to inform that design simply doesn't exist yet.

Let me tell you about a constituent of mine, a veteran I won't name. He attends physiotherapy and exercise physiology twice a week and sees a psychologist every fortnight for mental and physical injuries from his service. These are accepted conditions. He lives on incapacity payments, on a fraction of his former income, much of it going to rent. He's done the maths. Under this cap, his funding would run out in about five months. After that, he faces the prospect of fighting DVA for an exemption or paying out of pocket, and if he pays, in his words, he doesn't eat. He asked me a simple question: he asked whether it's fair that a veteran with accepted conditions should be pushed below the poverty line to continue receiving the treatment that keeps him out of hospital and out of a very dark place. I don't think it is, and I don't think anyone in this chamber, if asked that question directly, would say that it is either.

Here's what makes this so frustrating. The government says DVA will fund care above the cap where there is a genuine clinical need—good. But nobody has explained how a veteran applies, how DVA will assess the request or how quickly a decision will be made. DVA's own data show that around one in 10 cardholders use more than $5,000 a year. Those are not people rorting the system; they're veterans with the most serious and most complex needs—the very people this entire royal commission was about. If the exemption process is slow, opaque or adversarial, then for those veterans the cap is not a saving; it's a barrier between them and their treatment, dressed up as administrative efficiency.

There are some genuinely good things in the detail, and I'll acknowledge them. Psychology through Open Arms doesn't count towards the cap. The old rule forcing a new referral every 12 sessions is being scrapped, which removes a real and ongoing burden for anyone in regular treatment. These are improvements, but they don't answer the core question for the veteran living fortnight to fortnight: 'What happens when the money runs out, and how hard will I have to fight for additional funding?'

So my position is this: I support this bill for what it does, but the cap that sits beside it must not be allowed to hollow out the very wellbeing this bill is meant to protect. Being forced to choose between treatment and food is not an acceptable outcome of any policy passed or administered in this country.

No, it's not, so stop misleading this parliament.

The member will be heard in silence.

DVA has committed to 12 months of consultation with veterans and ex-service organisations on how the new allied health system will work. I've made the case directly to the minister: build the exemption pathway around the veterans with the most serious needs, make it clear, make it fast and make it something a person in crisis can actually navigate without it becoming another fight. Because this is administrative, the minister can do that, and there's no excuse not to do so. We owe these men and women more than a royal commission and a set of recommendations; we owe them follow-through. This bill constitutes good follow-through. It takes real steps to better support veterans' wellbeing. But those steps mean little if, at the same time, we let changes to the allied health cap pull in the opposite direction. We can't strengthen wellbeing with one hand and undercut it with the other. I commend this bill to the House.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the reforms that the Albanese government is making to the Defence Act 1903 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004—commonly known as the MRCA—to give effect to key elements of the government's response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This legislation, the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026, demonstrates that our Labor government is working to improve things for veterans and engage in systemic and structural reform as recommended by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. As a fourth-generation veteran—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:53 to 13:01

I was just saying that as a fourth-generation veteran, having been alive for about 54 years, over that period of time I've had so many conversations with so many veterans, including First World War veterans; Second World War veterans; Korean War veterans; my dad's mates, Vietnam War veterans—lots of those; Rwanda veterans; Cambodia veterans; Timor veterans; and Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Throughout my whole life, during my time in the service and then working with ex-service organisations afterwards, I've been continually speaking with veterans.

Our veterans support system right now is the best it's ever been and the best in the world. I challenge anyone to point to somewhere in the world that has a better system to support their veterans. This legislation is a part of that. But, of course, particularly when the uninformed or those taking political opportunities create increased anxiety, it sometimes increases what has become a bit of natural scepticism in the veteran community because of their bad experiences in the past. I'm not saying the system is perfect, but what I am saying is that it is vastly better than it has been. It is excellent, and, with the launch of the Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency this morning, it's going to get even better. But it's going to take maturity and integrity for this issue not to be used as a political football. Purposefully, we need members of this place and senators to take their responsibility to lower anxiety and to provide proper information.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 13:03 to 13:12

We are making it so the DVA can operate better, with increased efficiency, to deliver a level of service in reasonable timeframes that veterans deserve. It's bills like this one that upgrade the operating system of DVA, so to speak. It's bills like this that should reduce that scepticism over time by enabling DVA to deliver better outcomes

Primarily, this bill creates legislative authority for information sharing between Defence and DVA to enable proactive support and early intervention for suicide prevention research, data analysis and evaluation underpinned by strong privacy safeguards. Additionally, it modernises the Defence health framework to align with contemporary clinical practice and national governance standards; improves continuity of care and transition arrangements between Defence and DVA; enhances support and communication with defence families, including in the context of family and domestic violence; and introduces fairer, more transparent end-of-service provisions.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 13:13 to 13:22

Together, these reforms enable Defence and DVA to better support personnel by intervening earlier; sharing and using data more effectively; and further equipping departments to protect the health, wellbeing and safety of those who serve, those who have served and their families.

Our government is working at pace to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. Acknowledging the national tragedy of veteran suicides, this government called for the establishment of the royal commission while we were in opposition, and we have supported the work of the royal commission since coming to government. By the end of last year, 32 recommendations had already been implemented, including the establishment of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. By the end of this year, we expect that around two-thirds of the royal commission's recommendations will be implemented.

The royal commission found that enhanced information sharing between Defence and DVA is fundamental to improving the health and wellbeing of defence personnel, veterans and their families. A number of interim measures have been in place while policy and legislative reform initiatives have been developed. The legislation before us today takes a significant step towards implementing recommendations in that space. This bill forms part of the government's ongoing response to the royal commission. It enables the implementation of 35 of those recommendations focused on enhancing health, wellbeing and safety outcomes; improving suicide prevention and information sharing; supporting defence families; enhancing transition and continuity of care; and modernising governance and accountability arrangements.

Broadly, these reforms outlined in the bill support the health, wellbeing and safety of members of the Defence Force, former members of the Defence Force and their families by strengthening the legislative frameworks for information sharing, defence health services, family support and, as previously mentioned, end-of-service arrangements.

We need this bill because it provides clear statutory authority to collect, use and disclose information for research, data analysis, and evaluation relating to health, wellbeing and safety outcomes. Now, as mentioned, these powers are carefully balanced by strong privacy safeguards, including compliance with ministerial guidelines and alignment with the Privacy Act framework. Critically, the bill supports a more integrated approach across Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and other portfolio agencies, including the new Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency that was launched this morning, and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission that began last year. It enables earlier and more effective information-sharing to support continuity of care, proactive outreach and improved transition arrangements.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 13:25 to 16:00

Earlier today, I was speaking about the launch of the new Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency, the fact that last year we had started the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, and the fact that these organisations and the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 are going to enable earlier and more effective information sharing to support continuity of care, proactive outreach and improved transition arrangements, including earlier transfer of relevant information from Defence to the Department of Veterans' Affairs to support timely claims processing, compensation and tailored support for individuals who are identified as being at increased risk, consistent with royal commission recommendations. While you're in the chair, Deputy Speaker Haines, I want to acknowledge your support for Defence personnel and veterans and the establishment of the royal commission. Together with other royal commission related reforms, this bill delivers further practical, system-wide change aimed at reducing harm, supporting families and ensuring that Defence and DVA are better equipped to intervene earlier and more effectively when members, veterans and their families are at risk

To summarise the key changes, this bill strengthens information sharing to support health, wellbeing and safety by amending the Defence Act and the MRCA, providing clear legislative authority for Defence, DVA and other Commonwealth agencies to collect, use and disclose information, including personal and sensitive information, for research, analysis, evaluation, prevention and early intervention, subject to those robust privacy safeguards. The bill also modernises and clarifies the Defence health system framework by establishing a dedicated legislative basis for Defence health services, including clinical governance, health monitoring, quality assurance and improvement activities, enabling lawful, proportionate use of health data to improve health care, suicide prevention and Defence health system performance. The bill enhances support for ADF families, including by providing information sharing and communication between Defence and families and by ensuring benefits and supports can continue for a former spouse or partner in the immediate aftermath of separation, where family and domestic violence is present, to support safe separation outcomes.

I had a great conversation this morning with the Veteran Family Commissioner, Annabelle Wilson, and I want to pay tribute to her. In this legislation, there's the start of presumptive liability for specific conditions and service types, which goes live from today. I want to acknowledge Annabelle because she advocated strongly for these changes.

This bill strengthens integrity and safety requirements for service in the ADF by prohibiting persons convicted of, and sentenced to imprisonment for, serious violent or sexual offences from joining the ADF; introducing mandatory discharge for members sentenced to imprisonment by an Australian court; consolidating 'fit and proper person' requirements; and aligning substance related separation processes with existing medical separation arrangements.

In addition to this bill, our government has properly funded DVA so that we have a better system of support. It is true that in the past we haven't had the level of resourcing that DVA required to speedily get through claims. Consider that, in the first three financial years of this current government, we spent $37.9 billion—that's with a b—on compensation and treatment for veterans, compared to just $31 billion by the previous government. It is just a matter of fact that, in this financial year alone, we expect to spend almost $15 billion on compensation and treatment. In the Morrison government's last year, that figure was $10 billion. That's a $5 billion a year difference—a 50 per cent increase in support going to veterans. That's what happens when you fund DVA. If you resource it properly and get through the backlog of claims, of course there's going to be an increase in compensation that's out there helping Australian veterans and their families.

Before the changes that we introduced into the budget, veterans were locked into an arbitrary 12-session treatment cycle. That meant that every time a veteran needed more treatment, they had to go back and get a new referral—another GP visit, more paperwork, more delay and more administration standing between them and the care that they needed. We've removed that 12-session treatment cycle and replaced it with a more flexible system. Alongside that, we're delivering the biggest increase in allied health fees paid to providers in two decades. For example, physiotherapy consultations will rise from $75 to $110, and psychology consultations will rise from $163 to $260. Under these changes, veterans will be able to better access services because providers can now actually afford to treat veterans. That is what the royal commission recommended. This is the biggest increase in funding in two decades, and it will kick in from July next year.

For those wondering why this increase in resourcing for DVA was needed, it was because there was a huge backlog. In fact, there were 42,000 veterans waiting for their claims to even be allocated to someone at DVA to start working through them. That is why more funding and more personnel were required at DVA, to get through that backlog. We're also about to start a consultation process to make sure that veterans get a smooth pathway to accessing over $5,000 worth of allied health support. There's going to be more allied health professionals providing that support, because we've upped their fees, making it more viable for them.

I call on all MPs and senators to do the right thing and let veterans know that the new system does not kick in for a year, and, not only that, there's also going to be a lot of consultation to make sure that it's streamlined. The last thing we want to do is make the system more difficult—quite the opposite. We're making it easier for veterans to get the support they need.

I thank the member for Solomon for his service as a distinguished and decorated Australian Army officer. I know he understands that the home of the soldier is at Kapooka, where he served. The long line of khaki that stretches from Gallipoli right through to the front gates at Blamey Barracks, right through to the present day, is an important thing—not just for our nation, but for the world. It is Australian soldiers, Australian aviators, Australian sailors and Australian peacekeepers who are relied upon so much to keep the peace, ensure democracy and give help where help is most needed. We do that in times of conflict and we do that in times of peace, and we do it very well—best in the world, I would argue.

I listened to the member for Solomon very closely and deliberately. He pointed out the backlogs in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and what the government is doing to address that. I would ask, quite earnestly and genuinely: if in fact Labor is so much better at ensuring that the DVA is well resourced, why, oh, why were more than 100 positions cut from the DVA in the federal budget in May? It doesn't matter how you sugarcoat this, it was still more than 100 positions taken from an important organisation providing help, support and service to veterans.

I would also ask: if the changes that were announced in the budget to the allied health provisions for our veterans were so necessary, so right and so proper, why is there white-hot anger in the veterans community about the $5,000 cap? If there isn't such a cap and it is making it better, easier and more efficient for veterans to receive services, why are the veterans arcing up so strongly against it? That's a genuine question. Maybe it's not been explained well enough by the minister, who, I might add, gave a very fine speech at the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans event this morning at which the Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency was established.

I commend the minister for this agency. I acknowledge his appointment of Brendan Cox as the inaugural chief executive for the Veteran and Family Wellbeing agency. I'm not just saying it here. I said it on Sky News earlier. I mentioned the fact that I said to Minister Keogh that he gave a very eloquent address. Where praise is needed, I will certainly be the first to give it. I commend him for that address that he gave this morning in the Senate courtyard.

I also acknowledge Mr Cox's years of service. He fought in Bosnia with British forces and also served in East Timor and Afghanistan as an outstanding Australian Army representative, somebody who is a Churchill fellow. That's how well credentialed Mr Cox is. That Churchill Fellowship, which was awarded in 2022, was to create a model of care for families supporting a veteran suffering psychological and/or physical injury. He investigated and evaluated examples of international best practice—having served with British forces as well as Australia's, he would certainly know this—in providing holistic support to defence families supporting a veteran with physical and psychological injuries as a result of their defence service.

Like the member for Solomon, I too had a very, very good meeting today with the Veteran Family Commissioner, Annabelle Wilson. It was 11 months ago today that she was appointed to that position. She too, like Mr Cox, is an outstanding human being. She is a widow. Her husband passed away. He was a member of the Australian Defence Force. We mourn her loss but we celebrate the fact that she is doing something as a legacy for her husband, her family, herself and the wider veteran community to bring about good change. Her roles and responsibilities include championing equity and accessibility for all veteran families, identifying systemic issues and advocating for reform, removing barriers to lasting change, escalating individual cases needing further attention and providing evidence based policy advice informed by lived experience. I can tell you she loves policy. I think she'd actually make an outstanding parliamentarian. I really do. As well, she's building strong partnerships through stakeholder engagement. She's doing all of that and so much more. She's produced a very good paper just in the time that she's been in the role since 18 August. She was appointed on 1 August 2025 and began work a few weeks later, and she's getting on with the job.

The Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 will be supported by the coalition, and it will be supported for these reasons. It directly implements 15 recommendations of the royal commission. Let us not forget that it was the coalition who introduced the royal commission, who ensured that it began. I know that when the royal commission came to Wagga Wagga it heard some harrowing evidence, and not just in Wagga Wagga, where we've got tri-service. We've got the Kapooka Army Recruit Training Centre. We've got Airpower starting at Wagga Wagga; it says so on the hangar facing the airport, the Royal Australian Air Force having been established there during the Second World War, if not before. And we've got 80 personnel serving in the Navy. It's a long way from the nearest drop of seawater, but we've got a very visible and active RAN presence in inland Wagga Wagga. Who would have thought? But it's strategic, it's good, it's proper, and those men and women are playing a fine role in the ADF.

The objectives of this bill are to strengthen the health, wellbeing and safety of our personnel. They are objectives that each and every one of us would wholeheartedly agree with. We all share those values. We approach this debate, as we do anything related to the welfare and wellbeing of our veterans, with an open mind and in the spirit of constructive engagement, as the member for Herbert, who is the shadow minister for defence industry and defence personnel, said earlier today in his contribution to this bill—although he did add that our support is somewhat cautious; he used that word. He said, 'It is support predicated on the requirement that these reforms deliver genuine, tangible improvements rather than simply adding more layers of administrative complexity to a system that many servicing personnel and veterans already find difficult to navigate.' He added, 'We must ensure that this legislation is effective, proportionate and capable of delivering the improvements that are needed, recommended and promised.' Truer words could not have been uttered, because at the heart of this bill is our veterans, and they need every bit of support.

That's why yesterday, when I sat opposite those much-credentialed and fine veterans from the RSL sub-branch of Cronulla, in the electorate of the member for Cook, they said they were very concerned about the changes to the cap, as are many veterans, particularly regional Australians, for whom services are not always as readily available as they are for those who happen to live in capital cities. Certainly when it comes to psychological welfare, and also the physiological services that that have been provided, we just need to be a little bit careful about making changes and then perhaps not explaining them as well as we should have.

The government tells us—and the minister has been quite clear on this—that it will do consultation over the next 12 months. That might all be well and good, and the government may well be undertaking that consultation as we speak, or beginning to. But that consultation should have been done six months prior to the budget being handed down. This is so typical of this Labor government—that it hasn't done the consultation with stakeholders prior to bringing legislation into the House of Representatives on so many occasions. Then we're left to deal with the fallout when something is not as it should be. Either it gets through the Senate and comes back, or it doesn't pass muster in the upper house, and we're left with legislation that needs adjusting.

A classic example this week was in the online space. That legislation needed to be updated, and the minister gave a press conference and gave an explanation while introducing the amendment as to why it was necessary. She shouldn't have needed to do that, because the legislation should have been right in the first place. I realise that in many areas of endeavour and many portfolio areas sometimes it is a moving feast, but if you do the work, if you do the background, if you do the consultation, if you take stakeholders on board with you—as we did when we were in the coalition and in government for nine years, we didn't have the messes to mop up that Labor seems to be having on such a regular basis. We did not have to go back and implement amendments and strategise about how we were going to handle the fallout, because we did our work, we did our research, and we took on board so many stakeholders.

Our veterans are more important and our veterans need the very best health and wellbeing and welfare. The government shouldn't be having to provide consultation on legislation that is either before the House or in the budget. You understand it with so many of them; they are triggered by things from their service. Rest assured, many veterans are not broken. They are not—they are contributing to civil society and getting back into the community and taking up jobs and doing all the sorts of things you'd expect them to be doing. Many of our finest Australians are people who've worn the uniform, and many of them are not broken. But for those who are, we need to be there for them. They had our backs when we sent them to conflict zones; we need to have their backs when they need it the most. They need it the most right now, and they should be having a $5,000 cap on allied health. They should not be having that without it having to be explained to them as to why this is necessary and then having to justify why they need it. The minister needs to come clear on why it's necessary and explain himself a lot better than he has been.

I would also like to mention the fact that I caught up this morning with David Johnson, who has been a fine Chief of the Defence Force. He is retiring—Admiral Johnston is—after 48 years of service, and we do thank him for those 48 years of service. That is extraordinary. We welcome Vice-Admiral Mark Hammond. He has been Chief of Navy, and he is very much going to fill the role well. We need the very best people as CDF. We need the very best people in our defence forces, and aren't we lucky we have them? But when they finish their service we've got to be there for them. We've got to be, and we need to make sure that every provision of health and wellbeing is there for them.

I rise today to speak in support of the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026. Before I turn to the details of this bill, I want to take a moment to share something with the chamber that speaks directly to why this legislation matters. This is very much in the lived experience of the community I proudly represent in the southern part of Sydney.

A few weeks ago I held the inaugural meeting of the Barton Defence Community Council. It's an initiative that I've started, and it was established in my electorate to bring together a lot of the veterans, ex-servicepeople, serving defence personnel and families in one room on a regular basis to be heard. We had representation from local RSL sub-branches and RSL LifeCare. We had people from LifeUnleashed by Integra Service Dogs Australia and Soldier On Australia. We had veterans who served decades ago sitting alongside families navigating the realities of defence life today. What struck me very importantly was not only the single stories that were brought up but the simple fact that people stayed back after the formal proceedings. For many of them, it was the first time in a long time that someone had organised an actual space and a form of engagement specifically to listen to them.

I want to thank the special guests at the event. They generously gave a lot of their time and expertise. Both the member for Hunter, Daniel Repacholi, the Special Envoy for Men's Health, and Sergeant Kirsty Claymore, a local CSS, brought much insight, candour and warmth to the conversation, and their presence reminded everyone—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:25 to 16:46

Sergeant Kirsti Claymore CSC brought insight, candour and warmth to the conversation that day. Their presence reminded everyone in that room that the issue really transcends electorate boundaries and political divisions. It is a national responsibility.

I established the Barton Defence Community Council because I believe that good policy starts with listening. God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason. The people best placed to tell us what is and isn't working are the veterans, the serving members and their families living it every day. The council gives Barton's defence community a standing forum to raise concerns, to connect with the services and organisations that support them and to know that their member of parliament is not simply present for ceremonial occasions but genuinely engaged in their wellbeing all year round.

It is in that spirit of listening, acting and taking seriously the responsibility we owe to those who serve that I rise to support the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026. At its core, this bill is about information sharing. That might sound like a dry, technical phrase to some, but, for the families of those lost to suicide and for those currently serving who are silently struggling, it is anything but dry. It's about whether the right people in Defence and in the Department of Veterans' Affairs can see the full picture of a person's circumstances in time to intervene before a crisis becomes a tragedy. This bill creates the legislative authority for that information to move where it needs to move—between Defence and the DVA—underpinned by strong safeguards so that proactive support, early intervention and meaningful research and evaluation become possible rather than merely aspirational.

This reform does not exist in isolation. It is part of the Albanese Labor government's ongoing, deliberate work to implement the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide—a royal commission this government called for while it was in opposition, because we understood that the scale of veteran suicide in this country demanded more than sympathy.

On 2 December 2024, the government handed down its formal response to the royal commission's findings. Of the 122 recommendations made, the government agreed or agreed in principle to 104 of them, with a further 17 noted for continued consideration. By the end of the year, 32 of those recommendations had already been implemented. By the end of this year, we expect close to two-thirds of all recommendations to be in place.

These are not just numbers that I read into the Hansard for the record. Behind every recommendation is very much a story that the royal commission had heard from a veteran, a serving member or a parent or partner who lost someone they loved. I want to acknowledge, as I know many in this place have, the extraordinary courage of those who came forward to share their experiences with the royal commission. They did so knowing it would be painful, and they did so because they wanted to spare other families the grief they have carried. We owe them more than gratitude; we owe them a follow-through. The royal commission found, in unambiguous terms, that the absence of effective information-sharing between Defence and DVA was a fundamental barrier to protecting the health and wellbeing of our Defence community. Interim measures have helped bridge that gap while this legislative reform has been developed, but interim measures are not where this work should end. This bill is that next necessary step.

The bill implements 35 of the royal commission's recommendations, spanning health and wellbeing outcomes, suicide prevention, family support, transition arrangements and the modernisation of governance and accountability structures across Defence and DVA. At its core, the bill amends the Defence Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to provide clear legislative authority for Defence, DVA and other Commonwealth agencies to collect, use and disclose information—including personal and sensitive information—for the purposes of research, analysis, evaluation, prevention and early intervention. These are significant powers, and they are rightly matched by significant safeguards. Compliance with ministerial guidelines and an alignment with the Privacy Act framework ensures that this is not information-sharing for its own sake but information-sharing in the service of saving lives.

The bill also establishes, for the first time, a dedicated legislative basis for defence health services, covering clinical governance, health monitoring, quality assurance and continuous improvement. This means the data we collect can be used lawfully and proportionately to improve the quality of care our defence personnel receive and strengthen suicide prevention efforts across the system. Importantly, this bill also turns its attention to defence families. It improves how information is shared and communicated between Defence and families and critically ensures that benefits and supports can continue for a former spouse or partner in the immediate aftermath of separation where family and domestic violence is present. This is about ensuring that no-one falls through the cracks at the exact moment they are most vulnerable.

The bill also strengthens integrity and safety around who serves in our Australian Defence Force. It prohibits people convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for serious, violent or sexual offences from joining the ADF. It introduces mandatory discharge for members sentenced by an Australian court to imprisonment. It consolidates the 'fit and proper person' requirements that underpin service, and it aligns substance-related separation processes with existing medical separation arrangements—recognising that these matters are often, at their root, health issues that deserve a health-informed response. Finally, the bill makes minor and consequential amendments to support the effective operation of the newly established Defence and Veterans Service Commission, ensuring that the broader architecture of reform coming out of the royal commission can function as intended.

Together, these reforms support a far more integrated approach across Defence, DVA, the new veteran and family wellbeing agency, and the Defence and Veterans Service Commission. They enable earlier, more effective information-sharing to support continuity of care, proactive outreach and smoother transition arrangements, including the earlier transfer of relevant information from Defence to DVA so that claims are processed faster, compensation reaches people sooner and individuals identified as being at increased risk receive tailored, timely support. This is what the royal commission asked of us: not piecemeal fixes, but a system-wide change that recognises that Defence and DVA must work as one continuous system of care, not two agencies operating in parallel with a gap between them where people can fall.

The bill directly implements 15 of the royal commission's recommendations and supports further focus on the health and wellbeing of our Defence and veteran community. That is meaningful, measurable progress. But I want to highlight to this House that progress is not the same as completion, and the work does not end with the passage of this legislation. The health and wellbeing of our defence personnel, our veterans and their families must remain a standing priority of this parliament, not fleeting. It must be reflected not only in the bills we pass but also in the community councils we establish, the conversations we have at RSL gatherings and the willingness of every member in this place to keep listening long after the cameras and formalities have gone. To the veterans and families of Barton who showed up to that first council meeting and to every defence family across this country still waiting to see whether reform translates into real changes in their lives, I say this: we support you and we have not finished.

I commend this bill to the House, and I call on every member of this parliament to treat the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations not as a tick-and-flick exercise but as a debt to be honoured to those we have lost and to the families we still have the duty to protect.

There are moments in this parliament when we are not simply debating legislation but answering a national moral obligation. This is one of those moments. The Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 is part of Australia's response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It speaks to service and sacrifice, grief and responsibility and the duty we owe to those who have worn the uniform of our nation. This bill is about making sure that when a person serves this country they and their family are not left to navigate a disconnected system alone. It is about making sure 'thank you for your service' is matched by systems that work when people need them.

The royal commission delivered its final report on 19 September 2024, making 122 recommendations. The Albanese government agreed or agreed in principle to 104 recommendations, and, significantly, this bill implements 15 recommendations and supports a further 20. These changes are a very good thing because they move us from a system that too often waited for people to fall through the cracks to a system built to see them, support them and reach them before crisis may turn to tragedy.

This bill matters because the royal commission made clear that the system supporting defence personnel, veterans and families have not always been connected enough, fast enough or human enough. Too often, people have had to tell their story again and again, and we know that leads to deepening trauma, while the system that should have supported them could not speak to itself. Information has too often been trapped in silos between Defence and DVA. These silos create delays and delays can mean claims held up, care interrupted, families unsupported and risks unseen. The failure this bill confronts is not a lack of courage from those who served but a lack of connection in the systems built to support them. This bill is about a system that can see risk earlier, can respond faster and can support people before that crisis becomes tragedy.

I also speak on this bill as the member for Lalor, representing communities across Werribee, Hoppers Crossing, Point Cook, Truganina, Wyndham Vale, Manor Lakes and Mambourin. These reforms matter in Lalor. They matter in my community because veterans and defence families live in these suburbs. They're raising their children in our suburbs, their kids are attending our schools, and they sit at kitchen tables trying to make sense of complicated systems.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Werribee RSL and the work of the Vietnam veterans, who've done such important work, and the wider network of local veteran organisations, volunteers, advocates and families who continue to support our veteran community. Their work reminds us that support for veterans is not only delivered through legislation but through local relationships, trusted community connections and people who keep showing up. This bill matters to them because, as they have relayed to me time and time again, it has often been a struggle to support young veterans, to connect those things for them, to interact with systems. This bill matters to a veteran in Werribee navigating a DVA claim while keeping work, supporting family and managing their health. It matters to the partner seeing the warning signs.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:59 to 17:10

It matters to the partner in Tarneit seeing the warning signs but not knowing who to call or what support is available. It matters to the family in Wyndham Vale facing transition, only to find that the information that is needed to support them is caught between agencies. It matters to children in Hoppers Crossing and Manor Lakes who live with the ripple effects of service long after the uniform has been put away. When systems do not connect, families carry the load. When records do not move, people fall through the cracks. When agencies cannot share information responsibly, risk becomes invisible.

Schedule 1 of this bill strengthens information sharing to improve wellbeing, health and safety outcomes for Defence members and to limit the risk. The royal commission found that defence and veterans systems hold critical information but that information has too often been fragmented, delayed or unavailable when needed. This schedule creates a clearer legal authority for information to be used for research—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 17:11 to 17:21

This schedule creates clearer legal authority for information to be used for research, data analysis and evaluation relating to wellbeing, health and safety. These powers are balanced by privacy safeguards, including ministerial guidelines, de-identification where appropriate and alignment with the Privacy Act framework. This is information sharing for prevention, for early intervention, for continuity of care and for saving lives. For a veteran, this could mean that DVA receives information earlier so a claim can be processed more quickly. For a serving member leaving the ADF, it could mean transition support before the final day in uniform, critically, not months later when a crisis has already developed. A system that learns can change. A system that refuses to share what it knows is condemned to repeat its failures.

Schedule 2 of the bill modernises the legislative framework for defence health services. The defence health service system has a unique role because it must keep members fit to serve while also supporting their lifetime health, wellbeing and safety. The bill establishes for the first time a comprehensive legislative basis for defence health services. It clarifies who works in the system, what services are provided and how health information may be used.

Schedule 3 of the bill strengthens support for ADF families, and this is one of the most human parts of the bill. The royal commission made clear that families are not bystanders in the defence and veteran experience. Families are often the first to notice when something is wrong. They are often the first responders in the home, making phone calls, filling out forms, attending appointments and holding everything together. This schedule allows Defence to communicate more directly with families about available services, payments and supports where appropriate. It also includes an opt-out mechanism, respecting privacy, autonomy and choice.

Importantly, this schedule also addresses family and domestic violence. It ensures former partners of ADF members are not suddenly cut off from assistance where family and domestic violence is present and support is needed for safe separation. Family and domestic violence can involve control over money, housing, transport, information and the ability to leave. If a person cannot safely separate because the system cuts them off at the very moment they need help, then the system becomes part of the danger. Where a family might be managing financial pressure—for example, mortgage pressure—safe separation is not a slogan; it is a practical question about where a partner or child will sleep tonight, how they will get their children to school and who they can call for help. No-one should be trapped in violence because bureaucracy cannot recognise the reality of their life. No family should be made less safe because support ends at the very moment courage begins.

Schedule 4 of this bill strengthens requirements for service in the Australian Defence Force. It ensures people convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for serious, violent or sexual offences cannot join the ADF. It also introduces mandatory discharge for ADF members who are sentenced to imprisonment by an Australian court. These reforms are about integrity, safety, accountability and public confidence. The men and women who serve Australia deserve to serve in an institution where serious violence and sexual offending are met with clarity and with consequence. The uniform of this country carries honour, and the standards attached to it must be clear. The schedule also consolidates 'fit and proper person' requirements and improves end-of-service arrangements. It provides clear and fair processes, including safeguards where convictions are overturned or pardons are granted. This matters because the ADF is not just another workplace; it is an institution built on trust, on discipline, on responsibility and on the confidence of the Australian people. Accountability and fairness are not opposites. In a decent system, they stand together.

Schedule 5 of the bill makes minor amendments that support the operation of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. These amendments support the independence, transparency and accountability of oversight mechanisms established following the royal commission. Oversight matters because reform cannot depend on goodwill alone. Reform must be built into institutions, measured over time, reviewed honestly and sustained beyond the moment of political attention. The defence and veterans system must be accountable not only for what it promises but for what it delivers.

The importance of this bill will not be found only in the words written on paper. Its importance will be found in the lives it helps, the families it helps reach and the harm it helps prevent. It will matter when a veteran lodges a claim and does not have to repeat the same painful story again and again. It will matter when a partner receives information before crisis point. It will matter when a family gets help navigating transition rather than being left to guess which agency is responsible. It will matter when data identifies a pattern early enough for intervention. It will matter when a clinician can speak honestly in a quality review so that the system can improve. It will matter when a former partner who experienced family violence can safely separate because support does not vanish when it is needed most. Most of all, it will matter when a person at risk is seen by the system before they disappear from it. Prevention is not just a recommendation or a policy idea when the risk is a human life.

I'm the proud granddaughter of a serviceman from World War I who fought at Gallipoli and at the Somme, and I am the granddaughter, also, of Kit McNaughton, who served as a nurse in World War I at Lemnos and in France. When she returned from that war, she joined others to fight for recognition of their service, so I have a critical understanding of how important it is to be a member of parliament working for our defence service personnel and for those veterans.

This bill sits alongside other reforms already progressed by the government, including the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission and the new Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency. It is part of a broader program of work to make the defence and veterans ecosystem more responsive, more accountable and more human. I acknowledge the work of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel in progressing these reforms and the ongoing work across government to respond to the royal commission with the seriousness, care and urgency it deserves. The royal commission forced Australia to look directly at grief. It forced us to confront the gap between the honour we express for service and the support we sometimes fail to deliver after service. We cannot say, 'Thank you for your service,' and then leave people to fight the system alone.

This bill does not do everything, because no single bill could. However, it changes the machinery of government so it is better able to act before it is too late. It gives agencies clearer authority to share information where that sharing supports wellbeing, health and safety. It strengthens Defence health services, recognises family, supports safe separation from violence, improves transition and continuity of care, strengthens integrity in the ADF and supports oversight and accountability. Most importantly, it says that the lives of serving members, veterans and families are not administrative matters but national responsibility.

To veterans and Defence families in Lalor, I say: your service, grief, frustration and advocacy have not been ignored. To those who gave evidence to the royal commission, I say: your courage is now part of the law-making of this nation. To families who carry in their hearts names that should still be spoken at birthday tables, graduations, weddings and Sunday lunches, I say: this parliament heard you. We cannot bring back those we have lost, and that is the heartbreak at the centre of this, but we can honour them by refusing to let the same failures continue. We can build systems that see people earlier, that listen to families, that share information responsibly and that understand that transition is a vulnerable chapter in a human life, not simply a date on a form.

A nation that sends people to serve must not leave them to suffer alone. A parliament that hears the evidence must not look away. A government that accepts responsibility must act. The measure of our gratitude is whether our systems are there when the uniform comes off, when the injury is invisible, when the family is frightened and/or when the person who served reaches out for help. This bill will be remembered as part of a pathway whereby Australia will not only honour those who serve but build a future where every veteran, every serving member and every family can be seen, supported and able to look forward with hope. I commend this bill to the House.

I would like to commend the previous speaker, the member for Lalor, for that fantastic speech. The Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 marks another important milestone in the Albanese government's response to the landmark royal commission into veteran suicide. Few issues examined by this parliament carry the same gravity and responsibility as the challenge of preventing suicide among serving personnel, veterans and their families. Behind every recommendation of the royal commission sits a person, a family, a story and, in far too many cases, a profound loss that should never have occurred.

The royal commission heard from thousands of Australians who shared deeply personal experience about their service, their transition to civilian life, their interactions with government systems and the support they received when they needed it most. Many recounted extraordinary acts of courage performed in service to our nation. Others spoke of circumstances where systems designed to support them fell short of what they deserved. Every contribution made to the royal commission came at a personal cost. Veterans, serving personnel, partners, parents, children and loved ones relived painful experiences so that future generations might be better supported than they were.

This parliament owes them more than gratitude. As well, it owes them action and reform. Most importantly, we owe them a commitment that the lessons of the royal commission will not gather dust on a shelf. The Albanese Labor government has approached this responsibility with the seriousness it deserves. Long before entering government, Labor called for the establishment of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide because we recognised the scale of the challenge confronting the defence and veteran community. Upon coming to government, we continued to support the work of the royal commission and committed ourselves to implementing meaningful reform.

On 2 December 2024, the government released its formal response to the royal commission.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 17:33 to 18:06

That response reflected both the significance of the findings and the determination of the government to drive lasting change across Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the broader support systems that serve military families. The government accepted the overwhelming majority of the commission's recommendations. We agreed or agreed in principle to 104 of the royal commission's 122 recommendations. A further 17 recommendations were noted for continued consideration and detailed policy development. Those figures demonstrate a government determined to act rather than delay. They reflect an understanding that reform cannot be achieved through rhetoric alone.

Delivering meaningful change requires legislation, investment, administrative reform and sustained commitment across multiple portfolios and agencies, and progress is already being made. By the end of 2025, 32 recommendations had been implemented. By the end of this year, it is expected that approximately two-thirds of the royal commission's recommendations will have been implemented. That represents substantial progress on one of the most significant reform agendas affecting the defence and veteran community in recent history.

The legislation before the House today is a critical part of that work, as it translates recommendations into practical reforms. It strengthens the legislative framework that governs how Defence and Veterans' Affairs support current and former personnel. It builds stronger foundations for early intervention, continuity of care and suicide prevention. Most importantly, it seeks to ensure that government agencies are better equipped to identify risk, provide support and respond effectively when individuals and families need assistance.

One of the clearest findings of the royal commission was that enhanced information sharing is fundamental to improving health, wellbeing and safety outcomes. The commission identified circumstances where information that could have supported an individual was held within one agency but not available to another. It highlighted situations where fragmented systems and administrative barriers prevented timely intervention. Evidence presented throughout the inquiry demonstrated that support services work best when agencies are able to collaborate effectively and share relevant information responsibly.

Effective care depends upon continuity, early intervention depends on awareness, and prevention depends upon understanding risk before a crisis occurs. The royal commission recognises these realities and recommended substantial reforms to improve information sharing across Defence and Veterans' Affairs. While a number of interim measures have already been introduced, permanent legislative reform is necessary to provide certainty, consistency and accountability. That is precisely what this bill delivers. The bill directly implements 15 recommendations of the royal commission. Beyond those direct measures, it further supports 20 additional recommendations. Taken together, the legislation enables and supports 35 recommendations that are focused on improving the lives of serving personnel, veterans and their families.

This bill establishes needed reform across information sharing, health services, family support, service entry and exit arrangements, and governance structures. The legislation is structured across five schedules. Each schedule contributes to a broader objective of strengthening wellbeing, improving safety and reducing the risk factors that can contribute to poor outcomes. Schedule 1 focuses on information sharing. Schedule 2 modernises the defence health services framework. Schedule 3 strengthens information sharing and support arrangements for defence families. Schedule 4 reforms service entry and exit provisions. Schedule 5 improves governance and accountability measures. Together, these reforms create a more integrated and responsive system. They recognise that suicide prevention is not the responsibility of a single agency. It requires coordinated action across Defence, Veterans' Affairs and other government bodies working towards common objectives.

A central feature of the bill is the creation of clear legislative authority for information sharing. The legislation enables Defence, the DVA and other Commonwealth agencies to collect, use and disclose information for research, analysis, evaluation, prevention and early intervention purposes. When covering areas of sensitivity such as this, the bill contains robust privacy safeguards to ensure information is handled appropriately, while ministerial guidelines will govern the exercise of these powers. The reforms align with established Privacy Act principles and broader privacy protections.

Achieving the right balance is essential. Government agencies require access to information that can help identify risk and support vulnerable individuals. At the same time, Australians rightly expect strong protections for personal and sensitive information. This legislation delivers both objectives. Better information sharing is not an administrative exercise; it is a practical reform with real-world consequences. When agencies can identify emerging risks earlier, support can be offered sooner. When information follows an individual through different stages of service and transition, continuity of care improves. When researchers and policymakers have access to better data, future interventions become more effective. These outcomes can save lives.

The bill also strengthens arrangements between Defence and DVA during periods of transition from military service to civilian life. Transition to civilian life represents a significant change for many personnel. I've seen this happen many times. While countless veterans make that transition successfully, the royal commission identified circumstances where individuals experienced challenges accessing support during this period. Delays, administrative complexity and fragmented information systems can create additional stress at a time when support is most important. The reform contained in this bill addresses those concerns directly.

Earlier transfer of relevant information from Defence to DVA will support more timely claims processing. Improved access to information will assist compensation arrangements and tailored support services. Agencies will be better positioned to proactively engage with individuals identified as being at increased risk. These changes support a more coordinated and person centred approach to transition. Rather than expecting veterans to navigate multiple systems independently, government agencies will be better equipped to work together on their behalf. That represents a significant cultural and operational shift.

Another important aspect of the bill concerns defence health services. The legislation establishes a dedicated basis for defence health services and modernises the framework governing their operation. Contemporary health care requires clear governance structures, strong quality assurance mechanisms and robust clinical oversight. The reforms contained in schedule 2 reflect those realities, as they provide legislative support for clinical governance arrangements, health monitoring activities and quality improvement initiatives.

A modern defence force requires a modern health system. Personnel serving in uniform deserve healthcare arrangements that reflect contemporary clinical standards and best practice. Enhanced governance contributes to better outcomes for patients. Improved monitoring supports early identification of emerging issues. Stronger quality assurance promotes continuous improvement across the health system. The bill also enables lawful and proportionate use of health information to improve service delivery and support suicide prevention initiatives. Evidence based decision-making depends upon access to quality information. These reforms strengthen the capacity of defence health services to identify trends, evaluate interventions and improve performance over time.

Support for defence families forms another significant component of the legislation. The royal commission repeatedly highlighted the vital role families play in supporting serving personnel and veterans. Partners, parents, children and carers are often the first to recognise changes in physical and mental wellbeing. They frequently provide practical and emotional support throughout periods of service, transition and recovery, yet families themselves can experience significant challenges. Improved information sharing and communication arrangements will help families remain connected to relevant support systems.

Greater recognition of family needs strengthens the broader wellbeing framework surrounding defence personnel. Particular attention has been given to circumstances involving family and domestic violence. The bill ensures that benefits and support arrangements can continue for former spouses and partners in the immediate aftermath of separation, where family and domestic violence is present. These provisions support safer separation outcomes. They recognise that access to support can be especially important during periods of heightened vulnerability. This represents a practical reform designed to assist individuals facing difficult and often dangerous circumstances.

The legislation also addresses integrity and safety requirements associated with service in the Australian Defence Force. Public confidence in defence depends upon maintaining high standards of conduct and character. Service in uniform carries unique responsibilities. Australians rightly expect those entrusted with those responsibilities to meet appropriate standards. The bill strengthens existing arrangements in this area.

Individuals convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for serious violent or sexual offences will be prohibited from joining the ADF. Mandatory discharge arrangements will apply to members sentenced by an Australian court to imprisonment. Existing 'fit and proper person' requirements are consolidated and clarified. Substance related separation processes are aligned with existing medical separation frameworks. These measures promote consistency, transparency and fairness. They also reinforce the principle that service in the Australian Defence Force is both a privilege and a responsibility.

Alongside these substantive reforms, the bill contains amendments that support the operation of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. Governance and accountability in these areas matter and effective oversight strengthens public confidence and improves institutional performance. The royal commission identified the importance of independent scrutiny and clear accountability arrangements. The reforms contained within this legislation support those objectives.

Collectively, the measures before the House represent practical change rather than symbolic change. They are informed by evidence. They respond directly to the findings of the royal commission. They seek to address systemic challenges identified through years of detailed examination and testimony. Most importantly, they focus on outcomes through greater information sharing, earlier intervention, stronger continuity of care, improved support for families, enhanced governance, safer service environments and more effective transition arrangements.

Each reform contributes to a broader objective of reducing harm and improving wellbeing across the defence and veteran community. No single piece of legislation can resolve every challenge identified by the royal commission. The tragedy of veteran suicide demands humility as well as determination. Lasting reform for veterans requires sustained effort over many years. It requires governments, agencies and communities to remain focused on implementation long after reports are handed down and headlines fade.

What this bill demonstrates is a commitment to continue that work by the Albanese government. It demonstrates a willingness to translate recommendations into action. It demonstrates an understanding that the health and wellbeing of defence personnel, veterans and their families must remain a national priority. This legislation represents an important step on that journey. Through stronger information sharing, modernised health frameworks, improved family support, enhanced transition arrangements and better governance, it delivers meaningful reforms that will help build a more responsive and effective system. The Albanese Labor government remains committed to implementing the royal commission's recommendations and ensuring that genuine change follows from its work.

For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide final report does not just make harrowing reading; it is a cry for leaders in government, Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to arrest the deeply tragic rate of suicide and suicidality among serving and formerly serving members of the Australian Defence Force. The numbers are confronting. The latest three-year suicide rate during 2021-23 was 26.4 deaths per 100,000 per year for ex-serving males, 16 for permanent males, 15.2 for reserve males and 10 for ex-serving females. We know that behind every number is a father, a mother, a sister, a brother, a son, a daughter, a friend. My community in Hughes is home to a significant veteran community, ranging across the Sutherland Shire around the Holsworthy Barracks and Moorebank, out to the Macarthur region in areas like Macquarie Fields and Glenfield. I'm sure that many know the gut-wrenching feeling of losing a loved one to suicide.

In opposition, we acknowledged the national tragedy of veteran suicides and have supported the work of the royal commission since coming to government. In December 2024 our response accepted the overwhelming majority of the commission's 122 recommendations. By the end of this year, we will have implemented two-thirds of these recommendations, and the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 is a critical step in facilitating or directly fulfilling 35 recommendations. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is the result of years of hard-fought advocacy by the family and friends of military personnel who have taken their own lives, as well as current and former ADF members fighting for better outcomes. More than 50 inquiries and reviews with over 750 recommendations relevant to suicide and suicidality among serving and ex-serving ADF members went into the work of the commission, and its reporting is a watershed for unveiling the reality that the families and friends of those lives lost to suicide know personally only too well.

While suicide is a complex personal and public health issue, there is a vast body of credible research on the risk factors for suicidality. As explained in the royal commission's report, ADF members are often placed in high-risk environments in service to their country. They are expected to live and work in extremely physically and mentally demanding situations and are exposed to high levels of stress, ranging from combat related deployments to domestic operations, natural disaster responses and humanitarian peacekeeping missions. Training can involve physically intensive live-fire exercises, explosives and training that simulates warlike conditions. These experiences are critical to ensuring that ADF members operate at the highest standards of performance and that our soldiers are able to act with maximum lethality in combat situations. The Australian Defence Force prides itself on the virtues of mateship, mentorship, discipline and service, and experiences in the ADF evoke these strengths of character. These positive aspects of military service are also protective factors against suicide and suicidality, instilling a sense of purpose and camaraderie amongst members. However, risks and protective factors can interact in ways that are often difficult to understand, with several diverse components often at play. What is clear is that the prevalence of suicide and suicidality in the veteran community is significant and that it is unacceptable. It is a burning platform, and our government has not wasted a day in advancing the large body of work required to implement the royal commission's recommendations.

The bill in consideration today is a large stride forward, directly implementing 15 recommendations and facilitating the implementation of 20 others. These include the direct implementation of recommendations 22, 61, 62, 64, 78, 80, 87, 94, 102, 106, 107, 108, 115, 116 and 121, as well as supporting recommendations 2, 5, 8, 14, 33, 39, 58, 59, 60, 65, 67, 68, 72, 74, 88, 98, 103, 113, 114 and 122. These recommendations are broadly focused on enhancing health, wellbeing and safety outcomes by improving information sharing and modernising governance arrangements. These include aspects such as the establishment of a brain injury program, transformation of research into outcomes, support for service members to transition into civilian life, a new agency focused on veteran wellbeing, improvement in the timeliness of information-sharing between Defence and DVA for claims processing, and much more.

The information-sharing provisions permit ministers to authorise the collection, use and disclosure of information concerning current and former ADF members by entrusted persons. Better information-sharing allows for a more integrated approach across departments and agencies, allowing continuity of care and for effective interventions to be made sooner. It will enable claims to be processed more efficiently, which is a measure of great importance to many veterans in my community. We have already made substantial progress in fixing the mess left to us by the previous government, under which a backlog of 42,000 claims were never even looked at. That wasn't an accidental oversight. It was a predictable outcome from a party that holds the gutting of Public Service jobs and wage suppression as a proud part of its DNA.

Our government was elected on a commitment to properly resource the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Thanks to the Albanese Labor government's increased staffing and resources for DVA, all new liability and incapacity claims are now allocated for processing within a two-week time frame. This is not just about abstract efficiency gains. It means that veterans are able to receive support when they need it, in a timely and compassionate manner, closing gaps and delays in service and saving lives.

The bill also provides a framework for the defence health system, including the provision of defence health services. The new powers are carefully balanced by privacy safeguards and guidelines. It inserts a new clause in the Defence Act focused on health and wellbeing support for veterans and their families and amends the Military Rehabilitation Compensation Act to give the Repatriation Commission more powers to provide wellbeing supports for ADF members transitioning into civilian life.

This transition point into civilian life was identified by the royal commission as a particularly high-risk moment. It is critical that our safety nets and support systems work as effectively as possible to facilitate veterans as they transition back into the civilian community. The royal commission found that while systems can hold information critical to the support of veterans wellbeing, deficiencies in integrated information-sharing between relevant bodies can result in agencies operating in silos, producing delays or gaps in access.

No veteran should fall through the cracks because of agencies not talking to one another. That's why schedule 1 of this bill allows entrusted persons to collect and use relevant information to support a veteran's health and wellbeing. The other measures in this bill are also important, relating to the determination of benefits to former partners of Defence members in circumstances of family and domestic violence, clearing up a system that, previously, could be too difficult and draining for victims to navigate. This legislation ensures that Defence and DVA are better equipped to intervene early and effectively when members, veterans and their families are at risk, saving lives before it's too late.

The Albanese Labor government's record of investment for Defence and veteran communities is profound. It extends from system-wide changes to make it easier for veterans to access support to early interventions and to on-the-ground facilities to support health and wellbeing. My electorate of Hughes spans across southern Sydney, from the edge of the Royal National Park through the Shire and Holsworthy over to the Macarthur region, including suburbs such as Ingleburn and Glenfield. It is home to more than 3,600 current serving and former ADF members. It hosts the Holsworthy Army Barracks, a range of proud RSL sub-branches and veterans' social groups.

Our community will soon be able to access a new veterans and families hub at the historic Bardia Barracks site on the former Ingleburn Military Army Camp. Ingleburn holds a rich heritage for our Defence community, and Bardia Barracks is a proud part of this story, having been a major training camp for infantry units in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. During the 1990s, many buildings were ravaged by fire and units began to be transferred to other military camps. It had been vacant since the turn of the century and had recently been occupied by the Ingleburn Military Precinct Association, catering for RSL sub-branches, school visits and historical tours.

The new Bardia veterans and families hub will preserve this cherished history with a museum of local military history while being repurposed to provide extensive new support for veterans' wellbeing and access to services. Over 19,000 veterans across south-west Sydney will benefit from this new hub that will form part of an integrated support system for ADF members, veterans and their families. This is a significant investment in the wellbeing of our local defence community and a celebration of their immense contribution to our local area and to our country. It's a project that the member for Werriwa was a fierce advocate for when Ingleburn, Bardia and Macquarie Fields were part of the Werriwa electorate. The hub will provide services and support related to wellbeing claims, social connection and pathways to health, employment, housing and community services. The bill before us today sets the legislative framework by which new services and facilities like the Bardia veterans and families hub can most effectively operate. When service providers are linked and effectively communicate with each other, veterans engage with a more holistic support network that is more likely to make effective interventions and facilitate improved long-term wellbeing.

From today, 1 July, we are also launching the Veteran and Families Wellbeing Agency with $78 million in funding to support veterans and their families as they transition out of service. This brings the Albanese Labor government's total spend on veterans' health care, support and compensation to $15 billion. That's $5 billion more than the Morrison government spent in their last year of office. This spending is carefully targeted with the establishment of a national veterans data set as part of this plan to better inform evidence based policy evaluation and service delivery.

RSL sub branches, peer support networks and local coffee groups are often the first point of contact for veterans doing it tough. In my electorate, there are many fantastic groups that provide a sense of camaraderie and shared experiences. The families and carers who support those living with physical and psychological wounds of service also provide unparalleled love and support for these veterans. The information-sharing provisions in this bill support them by allowing the Public Service and other relevant actors to perform their role more effectively and strengthen the broader ecosystem of support.

The reality is that for far too long, too many veterans have put their lives at risk in the highest level of service to our country, only to struggle to adapt to civilian life while navigating a dauntingly complex support system. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide shone a light on the consequences of these critical safety nets failing to catch veterans when they needed help the most. Not only have the Albanese government voiced their ambition to fix this system, we have acted and we are delivering. For those who give everything, it is the responsibility of this government, of Defence and of community leaders to work hard at improving and strengthening the support system for our veterans, and to act at pace to reduce the tragic rate of suicide and suicidality in our defence community. The Albanese government takes this responsibility with the utmost seriousness and is committed to improving outcomes for our veterans. I commend this bill to the House.

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026. This bill reflects the Albanese 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. I'm really pleased to see that this bill is progressing rapidly through the House with the support of the opposition. It's important that we progress this at pace. This bill directly implements 15 recommendations of the royal commission and supports the implementation of a further 20 recommendations focused on improving health and wellbeing outcomes, improving suicide prevention and information sharing, supporting defence families, enhancing transition, continuity of care and modernising governance and accountability arrangements.

Broadly, the reforms put forward are about people—the current and former serving members of our Australian Defence Force and their families—and making sure that they are all looked after when in need. Our priority is their health, wellbeing and safety. We can better support them through the reforms in this bill—through improved information sharing and better integration across defence, DVA and other portfolio agencies, including the newly established, from today, Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency; through establishing more robust frameworks for defence health services by enhancing family supports; and, vitally, through ensuring people who have been imprisoned for serious violence and sexual offences can never serve in our Defence Force.

Together with other reforms we're implementing from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, 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. We're working to make sure defence and DVA systems are contemporary and fit for purpose and that those systems have the wellbeing of our people at the forefront.

I want to thank the opposition and the crossbench for their engagement on this bill to date, as well as the many ex-service organisations that we've been engaged with and everyone who's contributed to the debate on this bill in the House for sharing their own experiences of engagement with our ex-service community, veterans and families. I look forward to the support of the entire parliament in the future as we progress this bill through the Senate inquiry and its passage through the parliament so that we can get on with the business of implementing these 35 recommendations supported by this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

I rise to speak in support of the Statute Update Bill 2026. I begin with a confession. This is not a bill that will have Australians gathering around the kitchen table tonight cancelling their plans and saying: 'Quick! Parliament is dealing with obsolete acts, incorrect cross-references and the national crisis of the missing full stop.' But that does not mean it is unimportant. In fact, some of the least dramatic work of this parliament is also some of the most necessary. The law has to be maintained. It has to be kept coherent. It has to be capable of being read, used and applied by the people who rely on it. As a former industrial lawyer, I have spent enough time with statutes, awards, agreements and regulations to know that small drafting errors can become very practical problems. A wrong cross-reference can send parties in circles. A missing word can generate a dispute. A comma can ruin a perfectly good afternoon. The difference between 'and' and 'or' can, in the wrong hands, become a three-hour argument followed by a letter beginning, 'With respect, your construction is misconceived.'

That is why this bill is worth doing. It is also why I have some sympathy for the drafters. They are asked to produce laws that are precise, durable and readable while knowing that every word may one day be examined by people with too much coffee and a professional interest in disagreement.

The Statute Update Bill 2026 makes minor and technical amendments across the Commonwealth statute book. It amends 42 Commonwealth acts, repeals 106 spent or obsolete acts, corrects clerical and drafting errors, updates references, removes spent provisions and improves consistency across Commonwealth legislation. This is legislative maintenance. It is not glamorous, but neither is changing the oil in the ute, testing a circuit, updating a register or cleaning out a filing cabinet that has been threatening to achieve a legal personality. These things are done because systems work better when they are kept in order.

The Commonwealth statute book is large. It deals with family law, electoral law, social security, Veterans' Affairs, health, customs, transport, communications, the environment, agriculture, fisheries and many other areas. Over time, provisions expire. Agencies change their names. Courts are restructured. Transitional laws complete their purpose. Drafting conventions change. References that were once accurate become outdated. A statute book that is not regularly updated becomes harder to navigate, and that has real consequences. It makes the law harder for public servants to administer. It makes the law harder for lawyers to interpret. It makes it harder for businesses, unions, community organisations and ordinary Australians to understand. The rule of law is not assisted by legislation that reads like an archaeological dig.

Schedule 1 of this bill makes general amendments to 42 acts. These amendments are intended to enhance readability, facilitate interpretation, and administration, and promote consistency across Commonwealth law. They are minor and technical in nature. They either make no change to the substance of the law or make minor changes consistent with the scope and purpose of the relevant provisions.

Some of the examples are modest. Some are almost charmingly modest. The bill corrects a punctuation error in the Australian Centre for Disease Control Act 2025, where a provision ends with a colon rather than a full stop. Now, I do not want to overstate the national significance of a full stop. No-one is going to the barricades over punctuation. But legislation is a place where punctuation can do a surprising amount of work. A colon where there should be a full stop might not bring the Commonwealth down, but it should still be fixed before some poor lawyer decides to see how far they can run with it—and let's be honest: some poor lawyer absolutely would.

The bill also updates references to the Federal Circuit Court so that they properly refer to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2. That is not just a cosmetic update. If a person is reading the Federal Court of Australia Act, they should be able to identify the correct court without first needing to understand the full history of the court restructuring in this country. The law should not operate like a scavenger hunt. A reader should not have to move from an old act to a repealed act to a transitional provision to a renamed institution and then finally to the body that actually exists. Updating those references makes the law more accessible and easier to administer.

There are also amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982. These update requirements about how certain applications may be sent to the agency or minister. The existing provisions refer to methods that no longer properly reflect the current framework. The amendments align those provisions with modern communication methods, including electronic communication. That is sensible. The public should not be forced through outdated procedural hoops because the statute book has not caught up. There is a place for paper, and there are some who remain deeply committed to it. I have met lawyers who would laminate an email if they could. But even the most committed paper enthusiast would accept that legislation should reflect how government actually operates.

The bill also corrects technical errors in family law, electoral law, health law, maritime safety law and other areas. For example, it corrects an incorrect reference in the Family Law Act 1975 relating to child related proceedings and the application of the law against hearsay. It corrects errors in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, including references to registered political parties and timing terminology. It updates references connected with Western Australia's application of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. It corrects a reference in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 concerning crisis or emergency funding as a result of a significant change to a participant's support needs. These are not headline reforms, but they are precisely the kinds of corrections that make the law work better. They reduce confusion. They assist administration. They help ensure that the words on the page match the intended operation of the law.

As an industrial lawyer, I've often seen how much turns on the words of a page. In workplace law, people tend to find out very quickly whether a clause is clear. If an enterprise agreement is drafted badly, someone will discover it, usually at the worst possible time, often on a Friday and almost always after everyone else had thought the issue had already been settled, and the same lesson applies to legislation. Clarity is not an optional extra. It is part of making the law usable.

Schedule 2 the bill repeals 102 spent or obsolete acts. These acts have done their work. They no longer have an ongoing role. The repeal of these acts does not alter the current or future effect of the law. It does not remove rights. It does not create new obligations. It simply clears away legislation that is no longer required. Of those 106 acts, 104 are from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio. That is quite a harvest. There is no criticism in that. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry may have technical, transitional and amending acts over the years, but, once those acts have performed their function, there is no great public benefit in leaving them sitting on the statute book indefinitely. At some point, the legal paddock has to be cleared. The statute book should not be a storage shed for expired machinery, old forms and equipment nobody has used since 2004. It should be accurate, current and as accessible as possible.

Some may ask why parliament needs to spend time on this kind of bill. The answer is simple: the quality of legislation affects the quality of government. A statute book that is accurate and up to date is easier to administer. It is easier to comply with. It is easier to enforce, and it is easier for the public to trust. When the law contains obsolete provisions, outdated references and technical errors, people lose time working around them. Departments have to explain them. Lawyers have to interpret them. Courts may have to resolve them. Members of the public may be left wondering why a law points them to an institution, provision or process that no longer exists. That is not good administration. It is not good drafting, and it is not good enough.

This bill also has a broader democratic purpose. Legislation should be accessible to the people who are governed by it. Of course, not every statute will be read like a beach novel. No-one is taking the Income Tax Assessment Act on holiday unless something has gone terribly wrong. But citizens should be able to approach law with a reasonable expectation that the references are correct, the provisions are current and obsolete material has been removed. That is part of the discipline of responsible government. It is also part of respect for the public.

The law belongs to the public. It should not be maintained only for lawyers, judges, departments and parliamentary counsel. It should be maintained because the people are entitled to know the rules that apply to them. They are also entitled to expect that those rules are written, updated and organised with care. As someone who worked in industrial relations, I know, when laws and instruments are clear, disputes can often be avoided. Employers, workers and unions may not always agree on the policy, but at least they can understand the starting point. When the text is unclear, outdated or inconsistent, the dispute shifts from the real issue to the wording itself, and that is rarely efficient. It is very good for billable units but less good for everyone else. Good drafting reduces friction. Accurate references reduce confusion. Removing spent law reduces clutter. Modernising language and structure improves access.

This is not about changing the direction of government policy. It is about keeping the statute book in working order. The explanatory material makes that clear. The amendments are minor and technical. This bill has no financial impact. It is compatible with human rights, and it does not limit human rights. It does not change legal rights obligations or entitlements except in minor ways consistent with existing provisions. That is why these bills are traditionally non-controversial.

Since 1934, statute law revision and statute stocktake acts have been used to correct errors, remove obsolete provisions and keep Commonwealth legislation accurate. That history reflects sensible a proposition: parliaments should not only make new laws; they should also maintain laws already made. We do that in every serious field. In construction, we maintain buildings. In electrical work, we maintain systems. In public administration, we maintain records. In law, we maintain the statute book. If we fail to do that, we should not be surprised when people find the system harder to use.

This bill is modest, but it is useful. It will not dominate the evening news. It will not trend online unless punctuation Twitter has a very big day. It will not produce a dramatic division across the chamber, but it will make the Commonwealth legislation cleaner, clearer and more coherent. There is value in that. The public does not benefit from unnecessary complexity. Public servants do not benefit from obsolete provisions. Practitioners do not benefit from incorrect cross-references. Courts do not benefit from avoidable drafting confusion. Even lawyers, despite our reputation, do not need every possible interpretive argument preserved for future generations. Some clutter can simply be removed.

The Statute Update Bill 2026 does exactly that. It corrects errors. It updates references and removes those spent provisions. It repeals obsolete acts. It improves readability and administration across the Commonwealth Statute Book, and, in a parliament which often deals with large and contested reforms, this bill is a reminder that practical work also counts. Sometimes governing is not about announcing a new scheme. Sometimes it's about fixing a section number, updating a court name, deleting the dead provision and putting the full stop where the full stop was always meant to be. That may not be dramatic, but it is necessary. I commend the bill to the House.

The Office of Parliamentary Counsel prepares what is a routine statute maintenance, and through the Statue Update Bill 2026, the statute updates will happen. It makes technical amendments to enhance the accuracy and operation of Commonwealth legislation. The member for Moore has just spent the best part of 15 minutes telling us, 'There's nothing to see here, nothing to worry about.' I always get a little bit concerned when Labor members utter such words, because you can never be quite sure lately when government members stand at the despatch box or at the lectern in either the House of Representatives or the Federation Chamber and say, 'All will be well.'

He also went to great lengths to talk about the necessity of sorts to reduce the amount of paper being spent printing bills and the like. Interestingly, at the weekend I see in the Sunday Telegraph James O'Doherty's column 'The Sauce', no less. Under the heading 'Papering Cracks', he refers to the New South Wales parliament. I appreciate we are the Commonwealth parliament, but it's interesting because the same sorts of things that happen in state parliaments occur here. Here we have the good old Greens, in this case Cate Faehrmann, costing taxpayers—wait for this—$733,000 in public servant hours with a parliamentary call for papers relating to music and arts grants, and what happened? Her parliamentary demand resulted in almost 700 boxes of paper arriving at her office. Can you just imagine that? You know what she did? Having called for the parliamentary papers, she then complained when they arrived because there were so many volumes of papers. The Greens MP says the volume of documents produced under her call for papers motion was 'absolutely ridiculous'. O'Doherty wrote:

Faehrmann made the complaints when seeking other documents, which she wanted in an "electronic form"—something the parliament refuses to do. Government emails are instead printed out, stapled and put in boxes. As someone who has spent hours poring over physical government documents, this Sauce columnist reckons she has a point. It's about time parliament joined the 21st century.

That is one thing, but that Greens MP, albeit at a state level, is just like any other Greens political party MP. They want something, they demand something, and, when they get it, they're never quite happy. They're never quite satisfied. It's so typical of the Greens.

I'm old enough to have started in the newspaper industry when we were still—I can see the smiles of those opposite—using typewriters, would you believe? They were good old Remington typewriters.

I've got a colleague who understands well! Thank you to my Tasmanian colleague. She gets it too. We used typewriters. And when the teletext machine would whirr into action, everybody got excited, because, at a country newspaper, it was something coming from afar. People might have thought it wasn't such a professional outfit, but when I became editor of the Daily Advertiser in 1991, I had 58 journalists in my newsroom, and there were 230 people or more who worked full time on that newspaper. They were heady days in the print industry. More's the pity, it's not the same now. I digress.

When the teletext machine whirred, we knew that something was happening. Generally, it was the Greens being the Greens. They were just starting as a political movement. They were just getting a little bit of unfortunate traction, and, instead of something important happening, they were the biggest users of the fax machine, which you couldn't stop. You couldn't dictate who was going to send something or not fax through the good old facsimile machine. It was the same with the teletext. The Greens political party are the biggest abusers of environmental processes. Heaven help them if they were here to talk about the very important statute update bill.

Schedule 1 of this bill contains 126 amendments across Commonwealth acts, and schedule 2 repeals more than 100 spent amending acts. As the member for Moore quite correctly pointed out—and he did, and I'll give him his due—the bill updates and maintains the accuracy and coherence of Commonwealth legislation, by correcting drafting errors, by repealing spent provisions, by removing obsolete legislative material and by updating terminology and cross-references inasmuch as where apostrophes—and nobody uses apostrophes any more, more's the pity; I do; I'm a real technical grammar—

Do you use them appropriately?

I absolutely do—100 per cent I do. Everybody should be taught how to use apostrophes. But where there are no full stops and where commas are out of place, which might change the context and the meaning, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel ensures that they're right.

I will just digress a little and say there is one fantastic organisation in this building, and there are many, but it's Hansard, because Hansard always gets it right. I mean, we are so blessed to have Hansard and the Parliamentary Library. They are two services that I think we probably undervalue. But I'll tell you what, they report things accurately.

The issues with this: most amendments correct spelling, punctuation, terminology and cross-references, update absolute references and modernised drafting without altering substantive rights, obligations or penalties. The only criminal law amendment repeals an expired transitional authorisation relating to plastic explosives—that's important—and the substantive offences and penalties remain unchanged. The most significant machinery amendment removes superseded veterans' indexation provisions. This is what I want to talk on just a little, because it appears to remove spent legislative machinery rather than alter current entitlements. I think that's important. Many of our veterans do tune in. They do read Hansard, and they are very across and aware of the legislative machinery when it comes to their entitlements.

We are having a debate in the parliament and across the country at the moment about making sure that veterans get their right entitlements. I appreciate that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, Minister Keogh, has issued a document creating a simpler, easier-to-use system for the veteran community. I think this document should be mandatory reading. We have the MRCA and DRCA and other provisions, which have been lumped into a much easier to follow process.

The Deputy Speaker and I had a discussion about this earlier. I'm concerned about the $5,000 cap on allied health. But when it comes to superseded veterans indexation provisions, we need to make sure that we explain it well to our veterans. I wouldn't want any veteran to think that just updating the statute bill will have in any way an impact upon ex-service men and women's provisions, which they rightly need. I say again that Minister Keogh has provided this document. He writes in this letter to members and senators:

I want you to be assured that when the changes come into effect, no veteran or family member will see an interruption or reduction in payments or benefits they're currently receiving.

I hope that's right, but, certainly with the provision of the improved Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, that document is commended and recommended to members.

Previous bills were introduced as statute law revision bills and statute stocktake bills. The member for Moore mentioned in his speech that there's been 92 years of this particular bill—probably under different guises and different names, but the statute bill we're referring to today is the 2026 version. The most recent act is the Statute Update Act 2016, so it's been a decade. There have been many, many bills passed and a lot of legislation concurred with in that decade. By convention, these bills are prepared by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and confined to technical machinery and non-contentious amendments. Given that, we'll take the government on its word. We hope that their word is their bond when it comes to the Statute Update Bill 2026, and I commend it to the Chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:02