I move:

That:

(1) a Joint Select Committee on the Centenary of Parliament in Canberra be appointed to oversee planning and delivery of the commemoration of the centenary of Parliament in Canberra, in consultation with the Presiding Officers;

(2) the committee consist of nine members: Ms Claydon as Chair, Mr McCormack as Deputy Chair, Mr Dreyfus, Ms Payne, Ms Sharkie, Mr Rebello, Senator Stewart, Senator Walker and Senator Kovacic;

(3) the members of the Committee hold office as a joint select committee until 30 November 2027;

(4) the deputy chair shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;

(5) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(6) the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equally divided vote, a casting vote;

(7) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(8) the Committee:

(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equally divided vote, a casting vote;

(9) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not, present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;

(10) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(11) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(12) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(c) sit in public or in private;

(d) report from time to time; and

(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives and the Senate;

(13) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and

(14) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

This year, Australia is celebrating 125 years of Federation, and I was with you and other members in Melbourne to commemorate that event of the first sitting of parliament, and it was a very good celebration of our history, which is worthy of celebration. In 2001, we had re-enactments and a great celebration there in Melbourne, as well, for the centenary of Federation.

Next year is, of course, another really important commemoration—one which we should celebrate as a profound national achievement and the beginning of a string of world firsts. We were the first country on earth created by the free and peaceful vote of its people. We were the first democracy where women could vote in elections and stand for parliament, and we were the first parliament anywhere in the world where a Labor Party formed national government. We Australians sometimes think of ourselves as a young nation on an ancient continent, yet by global standards, of course, we are one of the oldest and strongest democracies in the world.

Next year will mark an important anniversary: the 100th anniversary of Australian democracy making its home here in Canberra, our national capital. It has been 100 years since members and senators from across the country took their places in what was then called the Provisional Parliament House. It is important that we mark this milestone as a parliament and as a country and do so in a way that deepens Australia's understanding of our democracy and the pride that all of us can take in its ongoing resilience.

I know there's a great affection for Old Parliament House, as we call it now, and the history that it holds. Next year, I propose that our parliament holds a special sitting in the old building down the hill so that we can pay tribute to its service to Australia and reflect how what was debated and decided there and then continues to shape the life of our nation here and now. I'm pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has agreed, and members who I have spoken have agreed to join this Joint Select Committee on the Centenary of Parliament in Canberra. It will be chaired by the Deputy Speaker the member for Newcastle, and the former deputy prime minister the member for Riverina will be the deputy chair of that committee. We've tried to bring together a group of people who would represent what parliament looks like today and would contribute. I note the member for McPherson, who's a former attendant in Parliament House, has agreed to be one of the members of that committee as well, and that's a good thing. The member for Canberra, Alicia Payne, will be a member of that committee as a local member, and we have a broad cross-section of people who would work together to get through the detail, working with the Speaker and the President of the Senate.

The Museum of Australian Democracy, under Barrie Cassidy, the chair, has written to me already making suggestions, including the sitting of the parliament. We'll work through and make sure that there are constructive debates on the day. This isn't a day for partisanship; it will be a day for celebrating what unites us as a nation. Included in that will be a question time in both chambers. Parliament has not been expanded since 1984, so people squished in there for all those years, and they'll be very close to each other in that time. This is an important opportunity. The terms of debate take it up to 30 November of 2027, so it may well be that the members of the committee come up with different ideas to celebrate and engage.

I note that Senator Jana Stewart will be a member of the committee as well. That's pretty important because one of the things that didn't happen a hundred years ago was the recognition of First Nations people and their role in this country. That will be important. I also want to shout out the member for Mayo, who will ensure that crossbench members can be engaged. She's someone who's passionate about it and tells me about her constituent who is 108 years old and travelled, as a very young boy, from South Australia with family for the opening of the first parliament—and he's still there. We hope he's able to attend again. We might fly him across, I'd suggest, at this time, but that would be remarkable.

We need to tell our stories. We need to have pride in who we are. This is a great democracy, and this is an opportunity for us to celebrate it. The national capital here in Canberra, sometimes denigrated, is a fantastic achievement. This planned city—and it is planned, perhaps because of disagreement between Sydney and Melbourne, and all those debates—has turned out to be, because it is planned, very functional and livable. That is what we have here with all of our national institutions. One of those national institutions is the Museum of Australian Democracy. It's where a whole lot of students go. There is range of activities that people come up with. One of the appointees to this committee with this motion is Senator Walker, elected on her 21st birthday last year. I thought it would be a pretty good idea to get a young person's perspective as well. Charlotte will make a contribution, as will all the members of the committee.

Senator Kovacic will also be a member. She actually grew up in Canberra. I thank Michael McCormack in particular with Sharon Claydon for the engagement we've had over recent weeks to try and work through these proposals constructively. Everyone will go into this with a sense of goodwill. I really look forward to Sharon and Michael's leadership on this—he's already organising things—together with your fine leadership, Mr Speaker.

This will be a really important moment for the nation, to bring us together. We need more of that, not less. These can be troubled and turbulent times globally. At a time when democracy around the world is actually, if you look at the global surveys, in retreat in terms of the way that people perceive democracy as a system, it is absolutely critical that we celebrate this. I commend the motion to the House.

On behalf of the coalition and the federal opposition, it gives me great pleasure to support the motion moved by the government. We warmly welcome the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on the Centenary of Parliament in Canberra.

Our history must be remembered, our history must be protected, and our history and the stories associated with it must be celebrated. That includes the history of this great parliament and the old parliament just down the hill. In the end, the parliament is the people's house, and the parliament is very much about the history of Australia and the Australian people. As we've just heard from the Prime Minister, our parliament is absolutely central to our wonderful democracy, the greatest democracy in the world, in my view—and long has been.

It was in 1927 that the federal parliament moved from Melbourne, where it had sat for 26 years. It's a much better location here; I'm in agreement. It did take up a beautiful sheep station, but it has become a great city. It came to a provisional building, as we just heard, in the new capital of Canberra. It wasn't very provisional, of course; I'll come back to that! But that building that we now refer to as Old Parliament House was opened on 9 May that year, and that building would remain the site of the federal parliament for 61 years, until 1988, when it moved to this building.

During the opening of the first federal parliament in Canberra, the King's message was read expressing his pride in the new capital city. His son the Duke of York, the future King George VI, was there in person. He captured the aspirational spirit of the Australian people when he said:

One's own life would hardly be worth living without its dreams of better things, and the life of a nation without such dreams of a better and a larger future …

Prime Minister Stanley Bruce delivered an address in which he said:

May those who enter this open door govern with justice, reason, and equal favour to all. May they do so in humility and without self-interest. May they think and act nationally. May they speak with the voice of those who sent them here—the voice of the people.

That day, Australian soprano Dame Nellie Melba sang 'God Save the King', our national anthem at the time. There was a band. A crowd of about a thousand people gathered. It was one below expectations. Given the shortage of accommodation in the new capital, I think it was largely restricted to tents at that point. Consequently, the overcatered event reportedly saw a large quantity of Sargents meat pies left over. Legend has it they were disposed of in a pit where the Treasury building now stands. I think the productivity has gone up since then; sometimes I wonder! RAAF planes flew overhead, and, indeed, the celebration that day was sadly marred by tragedy. Flying Officer Francis Ewen, swept from flying formation, crashed and was killed.

Of course, it was a great moment despite that tragedy. There will be much to remember and celebrate next year at the centenary of parliament in Canberra. I'm sure that all in this place look forward to that special sitting of the parliament in Old Parliament House to commemorate the occasion, and I warmly welcome that opportunity. I feel lucky enough to have sat in the public gallery there in the 1970s with my two grandparents who lived at the time just on the other side of Red Hill, in Garran. I was young and I didn't fully understand what was going on. How could you in this place? I'm still working it out! But what I did know about what was going on was it was important. It really did matter. In fact, it inspired me to want to be part of this place in the future.

What has happened down at Old Parliament House is worth celebrating, and it will be a true honour to be sitting there. I'm sure it will be a very civil question time—

It won't!

and an important event. Maybe it won't—I'm being told by the Manager of Opposition Business! I'd ask the members of the joint select committee one thing, though, which is to ensure that our national anthem is sung at the event. That didn't happen at the event at the Australian War Memorial recently. It is important at these events. This matters, and it is crucial that that occurs. But it is an important commemoration, and, on behalf of the coalition, I support the motion.

A government member interjecting

It is a big issue—I will take that interjection. It really does matter. I do support this motion. It's important to be bipartisan and it's important we work together to make it a great event.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That:

(1) the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be amended to read as follows;

(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to foreign affairs and trade as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister;

(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:

(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and

(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;

(3) the committee consist of 19 members, eight Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, five Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and two Senators to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;

(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;

(6) the committee elect a:

(a) Government member as its Chair; and

(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;

(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;

(9) six members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(10) the committee:

(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equally divided vote, a casting vote; and

(c) appoint the deputy chair of each subcommittee who shall act as chair of the subcommittee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee and who shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equally divided vote, a casting vote;

(11) in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (10), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed;

(12) at any time when the chair and deputy chair of a subcommittee are not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;

(13) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(c) sit in public or in private;

(d) report from time to time;

(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and

(f) conduct meetings for the purpose of private briefings at any time;

(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence, and Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, appointed during previous Parliaments;

(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and

(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

I move:

That subparagraph (6)(b) in paragraph (1) of the motion be amended to read:

"(b) Opposition member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;"

The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has had a very long tradition of having a chair from the government and a deputy chair from the opposition parties, given its long-term standing and importance to the nation. As a former diplomat, I know this committee has always worked in the national interest, has carried out incredibly important work on behalf of the nation and, on the whole, has always acted in a very bipartisan way. I think it's really important that that continues, and I hope that the government will support this amendment, which would continue that long tradition and make sure this very important committee can continue to do that important work.

Of course, there will be hefty debates within the committee about various things, but what we would like to see is that long-term tradition of a member of the government as chair and then a member of the opposition as deputy chair. That's why I'm moving this amendment. I made sure we notified the Leader of the House that we would be doing this.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment. I support the Manager of Opposition Business. This is a worthwhile amendment to the motion and one that respects the longstanding traditions held in relation to the conduct of this committee. To further support that I say that there should be no watering down of or walking back from the important role that government and opposition play in this place, and we should maintain the integrity of those two roles, particularly in the important business of a committee such as this.

This is an amendment about who the deputy chair should be and whether they should be a member of the opposition. The deputy chair of the committee is a member of the opposition; it's Senator Dean Smith. As a result of this resolution, there would be changes to other parts of the committee, but it doesn't demand a new election of the deputy chair. I know there's a lot happening in the opposition these days, but my understanding is that Senator Dean Smith is still a member of the opposition and is still deputy chair.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

I move:

That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence:

(1) have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence, and Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, appointed during the current and previous Parliaments; and

(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

Question agreed to.

on indulgence—When the government seeks to have a debate management motion, there's always discussion in the House as to whether or not that is reasonable. In order for us to make sure that we can respect all 150 members of the parliament, there are a number of things that members ordinarily do. One is to follow the advice of the clerks in terms of when amendments can be grouped together. I would note that the opposition, even though it could be disruptive for them to do otherwise, have in every situation where amendments can be grouped together sought leave to do so and leave is granted and we get constructive debate. Similarly, people make strategic decisions, when they know the outcome of a division, as to which divisions are called for and which are not.

I think it's fair to say that that sort of respect is ordinarily there regardless—it's nothing to do with the gravity of the issue. It's just an acknowledgement that each of us is one out of 150, to make sure that we are conscious that, if everybody acted the way we might want to act in a particular moment, the House could itself become unmanageable.

I have been asked by some people for further consultation on this. I would make clear to the House that the motion that I put on the Notice Paper, government business notice No. 4, remains the government's position. But I've been asked to have further conversations about it, which I am happy to do. But I want to be absolutely clear. No-one should pretend that this is a gag or a denial of democratic process or anything like that. The reason for this is we cannot have a situation where any one member of parliament acts like they're the only person in the room. That's what we can't have. It takes a lot for me to point to the opposition as an example of being constructive—

Opposition members interjecting—

Yes, don't talk me out of it! But the concept of amendments being grouped together and being sensible about deciding whether or not divisions need to occur means that there is a standing order that was put in place at a time when there were fewer than five crossbenchers that does not quite work now that the crossbench is so much larger, and we will have a point where we have to reckon with that. But, as a matter of good faith for the requests that have been made to me, I will instead, under standing order 45(c), move that we move to the next item of government business.

on indulgence—This is obviously an issue between the teals and the government. There's obviously been some disagreement about how the House should be managed. Our hope is that the teals and the government will be able to work it out and that this issue won't further delay all the bills.

For the purposes of this debate—I know how the manager is very consistent on correct titles in the House, as we indicated last week during question time. I know he is particular about that, so if we could perhaps just—

An opposition member interjecting—

Order! We'll just refer to people by their titles or members in the House. I think it'll be a lot easier for the debate.

The crossbench and the government. Our hope is that this won't delay the House any further, that they'll be able to work it out and then we'll be able to move on with the business of the House.

on indulgenceI just want to acknowledge the Leader of the House and thank you for considering this in the way of a conversation with us. I think the crossbench has become a large crossbench because of the way that we engage with legislation in a very detailed way and seek to collaborate and seek to improve legislation. We do that in good faith. I acknowledge that the workings of the House have to continue in a way that makes sense and progresses things through the parliament without losing the parliamentary tools that we all have at our disposal. The crossbench uses those parliamentary tools, I think, in good faith, and I welcome the opportunity for us to discuss with you how we do that in a way that doesn't diminish that but enables the House to get on with its work.

I just want to point out to the opposition that grouping the crossbench into nomenclature which makes no sense, frankly, doesn't assist in having a really good parliamentary process, which is something we're all very, very committed to.

on indulgenceI also acknowledge that it's a very good idea that we do have a conversation about this because it's a critical thing. We here on the crossbench are representing our constituents, and we are giving them a voice here in this parliament. Any potential suppression of that is a suppression of the voices of our constituents. I'm very concerned that other constituents across Australia, with this kind of motion and this move, would not understand how their own representatives had voted. I think it's really critical, particularly on very, very important and life-changing bills, like we saw yesterday with the NDIS, that individual constituents in those electorates actually understand what their MPs have voted for or voted against. So I think it's really critical for the retention of democracy and the voices of the millions of people that we represent to make sure that our voices are still heard in this democracy.

Under standing order 45(c), I move:

That notice No. 5, government business, be called on immediately.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Introduction

This bill will introduce a meaningful and impactful suite of reforms to protect Australians, particularly children and young people, from gambling harms.

It will help minimise children's exposure to wagering advertising, while also reducing the overall saturation of advertising on radio and television, and the targeting and saturation of advertising online.

The bill also contains provisions to disrupt illegal gambling operators, strengthen BetStop—the National Exclusion Register—and crack down on damaging and emerging online lottery products.

Context

The reason is clear: gambling advertising restrictions have not kept pace with community expectations.

People are seeing too many ads, particularly during children and family programs and live sports events.

For Australians who don't want to participate in gambling or see gambling ads, they have become inescapable and constant.

The Albanese government wants Aussie kids to be able to participate in sport—whether that's cheering on their team, knowing the stats of their favourite player or having a kick down at their local sporting field.

And we want them to be able to do this without being bombarded with gambling promotion.

With this bill, the government is acting to reduce children's exposure to gambling ads, reduce the targeting and saturation of advertising online and break the nexus between sport and gambling.

The gambling reform bill 2026 comprises five schedules that deliver on the government's commitments.

Advertising ban

Schedule 1 is a comprehensive package of restrictions to tackle the proliferation of gambling advertising, helping keep our kids' eyes and ears free from those ads.

This includes legislating a ban on the broadcast of wagering ads during live coverage of sporting events between 6 am and 8.30 pm and banning the broadcasting of odds.

It is clear that there are too many ads on TV. In 2024 the number was as high as eight ads in a single hour.

This is why we are making sure people are no longer saturated with gambling ads by capping the number at three per hour between 6 am and 8.30 pm.

We are also ensuring our kids won't be hearing gambling ads on the drive to and from school by banning advertising on the radio during these times.

And when these ads are broadcast we will ban advertising content that includes harmful or misleading information.

The government will also ban gambling ads online.

This ban applies to any online site, including on social media, news websites, Spotify and podcasts, streaming services, YouTube, and in search.

The only exception will be if you are logged in, are over 18 and have an option to opt out of seeing these ads.

This triple-lock approach means kids won't see ads online.

And it means that people who don't want to see gambling ads online—whether they are watching a streaming service, scrolling Instagram or searching for a recipe on Google—can opt out of seeing them.

It will be up to online platforms to implement these restrictions, and, if they choose not to, then the rules are clear: they can't show gambling ads at any time, to anyone.

Sport ban

The government is determined to act on the nexus that has formed between our love of the game and the push to gamble.

Our sport stars have gambling logos on their uniforms. There are banners promoting gambling on the field.

Australians love their sport.

But they don't love constantly seeing gambling advertising throughout a game.

This bill will put a stop to that.

We will legislate rules to ensure no ads appear during play at any time of day.

And we will make Australian sport a gambling-ad free space by banning ads on sporting uniforms and at sporting venues. This includes at training, at press conferences and at amateur and grassroots sports events.

Celebrities and Influencers

Gambling companies are regularly finding new ways to advertise.

The Albanese government's reforms will address this.

We will ban notable people including athletes, celebrities and influencers from promoting gambling.

We have used broad definitions in the legislation to reflect the fact that the nature of celebrities is changing.

We know gambling companies are targeting young people through influencers on social media.

The changes in this bill will put a stop to that. It doesn't matter how many followers they have or which platform they use.

Under this law a gambling company cannot enter into an arrangement with an influencer to promote gambling to their followers.

Offshore Gambling

Schedule 2 provisions will enhance the ability to disrupt illegal gambling services.

We have already taken action against these gambling services, which operate outside Australian law without the important consumer protections that exist here, with more than 1,700 illegal gambling websites blocked since 2019.

But the current settings are unwieldly and inhibit the independent regulator, ACMA, from investigating and responding rapidly.

The amendments in schedule 2 will improve the government's ability to tackle illegal gambling through four key mechanisms:

1. Placing an obligation on financial institutions to block transfers from Australian bank accounts to accounts that belong to illegal gambling operators.

2. Enabling ACMA to share information with financial institutions to assist them to block transactions.

3. Placing an obligation on digital services, including search engines and app providers, to block access and advertising to illegal gambling services online.

4. Enabling ACMA to issue 24-hour take-down notices to these digital services and influencers to assist it with weeding out the promotion and access to these illegal gambling services.

BetStop

Schedule 3 will strengthen the operation of BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register—an important piece of the government's gambling harm reduction measures.

BetStop enables people to self-exclude from all Australian-licensed online and telephone wagering providers.

Since its launch in 2023, BetStop has had over 65,000 registrations, with over 39,000 Australians currently self-excluded from gambling, many of whom have spoken about the positive impact it has had on their lives.

But this critical service can be even stronger and more effective.

The world is changing rapidly, and gambling companies are taking advantage of this.

The changes in this bill will ensure BetStop can keep up with emerging and future technologies so when people opt out of marketing it isn't just email and texts but also includes apps and push notifications.

BetStop will also be empowered to adapt to new ways that these companies might seek to market information in the future.

It will deliver on all the legislative recommendations of the statutory review of BetStop and improve clarity, user experience and safety outcomes.

Lottery and keno changes

Schedule 4 introduces amendments to tackle harmful online lottery-style products.

Keno

Many people in this parliament have spoken of the harm caused by problem gambling on poker machines.

Of great concern to the government is the opportunity for that harm to extend into people's pockets, on their phones.

That is why the government is committed to banning online keno through this bill.

These 'pocket pokies' have a rapid-draw format, high frequency of play and high spending limits.

They have a capacity to cause significant harm, with people able to lose up to $1,000 every three minutes.

There is no community benefit from people participating in these games online, and we make no apologies for taking a strong stand.

Foreign matched lotteries

This bill also takes decisive action against foreign matched lotteries by banning them from operating in Australia.

Eight years ago, this parliament came together in a bipartisan effort to ban what was then the primary form of foreign lottery operations in our market: lottery betting services.

On the initiative of the former coalition government, the parliament rightly recognised that these foreign operations undermined crucial income streams, not just for state governments, but for thousands of small businesses across Australia. They threatened our newsagents, pharmacies, pubs, RSLs and community clubs.

As then Minister Fletcher observed at the time in relation to foreign lotteries, they 'provide little taxation revenue and no benefits to the thousands of small business owners across Australia'.

Since those important reforms, new players have entered the market and are using loopholes to find their way around the laws this parliament delivered.

Under the new operating model, instead of offering bets on the outcome of a foreign lottery, these companies act as middlemen, offering to buy a physical ticket in the foreign lottery on the customer's behalf. If an Australian customer wins, the company claims the prize overseas and say they will forward the winnings back home.

While the mechanics have changed, the threat to Australian small businesses remains the same. That is unacceptable.

The government is also deeply concerned by the opaque arrangements underpinning this foreign matched lottery model.

Media reports reveal that one Australian operation was acquiring its US tickets through a single establishment, the Pit Stop Sports Bar & Grill on the outskirts of Portland, Oregon.

According to media reports, a single individual, acting under a power of attorney, was responsible for making every single winning claim.

We have profound concerns about this model.

First, the US operators of these lotteries do not want the participation of offshore buyers or lottery couriers.

In fact, a number of US authorities have actively amended their rules to explicitly exclude them and prevent winnings from being paid out to these entities.

If an Australian citizen were to win a major jackpot, we cannot have any confidence these rules would not be invoked to deny the payout.

Second, even if a major win were technically permitted under the rules, a jackpot of magnitude would raise serious questions about whether these opaque contractual arrangements would actually be honoured.

Third, if there is a default and those winnings are withheld, an Australian winner would be left stranded with potentially no viable legal remedy to recover their money.

It is simply not clear that the companies offering these lotteries in Australia have the balance sheets to make good on a billion-dollar jackpot if the overseas operator or agent cannot or will not pay.

An unchecked default of this scale would shatter the trust Australians place in regulated lotteries, including those run by states and territories and by Australian charities. This would flow directly through to thousands of small businesses, potentially having a catastrophic effect on those relying on foot traffic and commissions from lotteries conducted in Australia.

This parliament cannot, and should not, sit idly by and wait for that to happen.

This bill ensures that we close the loophole, protect consumers and back our local small businesses.

Trade promotion lotteries

Just as we are taking action on foreign matched lotteries, we are also acting on fake domestic lotteries

In recent years, we've seen a proliferation online of fake lotteries operating under the guise of trade promotions.

They are fake because, unlike an official lottery, the rules are never clear.

There are genuine lotteries that operate under trade promotion rules. For example, McDonald's FIFA World Cup ticket giveaway, or a competition to win free groceries when you spend at a supermarket chain.

The difference is these genuine lotteries are focused on promoting actual goods and services, and you don't have to buy a ticket in the lottery if you just want to buy the product.

Fake lotteries ask you to enter a lottery as a requirement to gain access to the thing they are promoting, whether that's discounts, extra services or entry into the lottery itself.

They have murky payment arrangements, where people can become trapped in monthly fees that are hard to extract themselves from.

And worse, we have seen cases where these lotteries aren't operating properly under state laws, meaning that even those who win these lotteries are losing out.

We saw this in South Australia where a woman thought she had won a $3.5 million property through one of these fake trade promotion lotteries and couldn't actually access this 'win' because the company was operating without the proper state licences.

The harm done to entrants from these fake lotteries is one thing, but there is also broader harm to our society through the impact they are having on charities.

Charity lotteries estimate these fake lotteries diverted more than $60 million from the charity sector in 2024.

These vital charities are suffering, and that's why we are acting.

The common thread, through our action on foreign matched and fake lotteries, is the recognition that the right to run a lottery in Australia is a privilege.

Governments have long recognised that, while the chance of winning a lottery may be low, it should not be zero, and it should be fair.

Because otherwise, running a lottery becomes a licence to print money—and consumers are the losers.

Conclusion

Australians love their sport; we are a sporting nation.

But Australians want to know they can sit down and watch sport or their favourite show without being inundated with gambling advertising, either on the TV, online or on the field.

These are important reforms and we are proud as a government to be reducing gambling harm.

There will be views from some members who, while they agree with the reform direction will say it does not go far enough.

My message to them is this: if you believe in banning online keno, if you believe in supporting charities, if you believe in supporting local newsagents and if you believe in reducing gambling ads, support this bill.

Finally, I'd like to say a few words about someone who was a valued member of this house, and a close friend—not only to me but to many of my Labor colleagues.

Peta Murphy was a passionate advocate for her community on issues from healthcare to employment, and on gambling harm reduction.

The work she did as chair of the Inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm has had a significant impact on Australia, including through the strong measures we deliver today.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The recent statutory review of BetStop the National Self-Exclusion Register, tabled in February 2026, found only one in four people are aware that BetStop exists.

And among people who placed a bet in the last 12 months, it was still only one in three.

We need to make sure every Australian knows about this vital service.

We also need to place the onus on gambling companies, not taxpayers, to fund this work.

The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 also includes a number of other provisions to strengthen the operation of BetStop.

This bill will expand the cost-recovery framework to ensure it covers the full range of activities that ACMA and the department undertake to ensure the effectiveness of the register, including promotion and awareness raising activities.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I introduce the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, another important step in the Albanese government's plan to protect Australians' choice at the checkout and ensure no community is left behind as payments change.

We have already made it mandatory for major supermarkets and fuel retailers to accept cash for essential purchases, because Australians who want or need to use cash should not be forced out of the economy.

This bill backs that commitment with practical safeguards to keep cash moving, particularly for regional communities, older Australians, small businesses and those who rely on cash during emergencies and outages.

Guided by recommendations from the Council of Financial Regulators and the ACCC, it will ensure the cash distribution system continues to serve Australians for years to come.

Cash plays an important role in promoting economic inclusion, payments system resilience and as a store of value particularly in times of uncertainty.

But declining transactional cash use is placing pressure on the economics of storing, processing and transporting cash around the country.

The framework will keep cash distribution working in the public interest by promoting fair and transparent commercial arrangements between providers, financial institutions and Australian businesses while also supporting the long-term viability of cash distribution services.

It will support the government's cash acceptance mandate by helping businesses access cash at reasonable prices, so they can continue accepting it as a means of payment.

And it will strengthen a system that remains essential for many Australians, particularly those in regional Australia.

The framework has three key elements.

The first provides powers to the Reserve Bank to designate entities that have a significant role in the cash system, or those that provide critical cash distribution services.

Limiting regulation to critical entities will keep the framework proportionate, targeting areas of greatest benefit while avoiding unnecessary burden on smaller providers or new entrants that do not provide critical services.

The second enables the ACCC to oversee designated entities, including fair and efficient pricing of cash distribution services, which is essential to maintaining access to cash.

ACCC oversight will support fair, transparent and reasonable pricing outcomes, while helping maintain the long-term economic viability of the sector.

The bill creates obligations for designated entities when negotiating cash distribution service and access agreements, and allows the ACCC to approve standard terms for classes of agreements.

It also establishes arbitration to resolve negotiation disputes and enables the ACCC to determine dispute resolution requirements for designated entities.

The ACCC is also empowered to establish service-level standards to support fair and reliable access to cash across Australia.

These standards may cover factors such as availability and timeliness, with the ACCC having regard to the bill's objects and the public interest.

The third gives the RBA powers to ensure continuity of critical cash distribution services and help prevent disruptions before they occur.

While transactional cash use has declined, many Australians would still face genuine hardship if cash became harder to access or use.

That is why the Reserve Bank needs appropriate powers to act quickly and decisively to sustain critical services and resolve a crisis.

The bill provides the Reserve Bank with crisis and resolution powers, including directions, appointing a statutory manager, or transferring business assets or shares of a cash distribution service provider in crisis.

It also enables up to $400 million in funding support to ensure the continuity of critical cash distribution services.

Funding support is intended as a last resort, limited to situations where an entity's resources and recovery tools are insufficient to address losses or threats to cash availability.

Any unrecovered funding would be recovered from major users of cash distribution services, recognising their role in enabling cash access for businesses and the community.

The crisis and resolution powers are subject to clearly defined triggers for intervention and are distinct from the Reserve Bank's day-to-day monitoring and regulatory functions.

They are consistent with crisis and resolution frameworks applying to other critical services in banking, insurance and clearing and settlement.

The bill also establishes criminal and civil penalties and provides information gathering and enforcement powers to regulators to support compliance.

Together, these powers create a coherent framework to support the continued availability and long-term viability of cash as a means of payment in Australia.

I thank the businesses and community members who engaged in the extensive consultation on the proposed framework.

I note the Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was notified in relation to the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

As payment methods change, the government is making sure the system works for everyone, not just those who can easily move away from cash.

The bill keeps cash available for the people and businesses who rely on it, while building a stronger and more resilient payments system. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Under standing order 143, I move:

That the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for consideration and an advisory report by 11 August 2026.

Three years ago, this parliament received the Murphy report You win some, you lose more, the product of a meticulous, evidence based inquiry into online gambling. I sat on that committee. We heard from people whose lives had been torn apart by an industry that is addictive by design, marketed aggressively and disproportionately harms young people and vulnerable communities. We heard stories like this one from a woman struggling to make her marriage work:

Gambling harm has already completely eroded and killed my relationship with my husband. I started out empathetic and compassionate to help my husband overcome this mental health condition that is gambling addiction, but my help and compassion was preyed upon and made harder by the relentless onslaught of gambling available in Australia. We would get on top of going to pokies in venues, and then online pokies became available, sportsbetting became easier through apps.

There really is no escape from this nightmare now. My husband's pay can go into his account in the middle of the night and by the morning it is all gone from the comfort of his phone. The addiction is flamed harder because it is now so readily available and solitary in nature. It fuels secrecies and betrayal in marriages. There is no avenue for spouses to step in and restrict gambling harm by placing blocks on apps. No avenue to call up customer service at these companies and request this person be denied an account. Our nightmare never ends. There's nowhere to help us.

The only option presented seems to dissolve the marriage and the family. Gambling only brings misery and destruction to the lives of vulnerable people, their families, friends, colleagues and further afield in communities where their contributions can be far more impactful if they didn't have the temptation of gambling. The once long-held dream of mine to find a partner to do life with, buy a house, build a home, have children, go on holidays, build long-term wealth and prosperity, are now replaced with anxiety, financial insecurity, spousal abuse and depression.

We also heard stories like this one:

Many years ago I went to pick up a friend for an outing. She lived in one half of a single house divided into two separate dwellings. She got on well with the quiet single working man next door. This particular morning she was devastated and in shock. The man had hung himself in the shed where she found him, and left a note listing all the people he owed money to including the amounts. She was one of them of course. He stated his reason for suicide was because he just couldn't stop gambling and knew he would never be able to repay all these people.

There were stories like this one:

My town is suffering, the people here are suffering. Gambling addiction means there's no food on the table and no money to pay bills. I see here in Alice Springs, exactly who is hardest hit by the gambling culture and it isn't whitefellas and it isn't anyone who can afford to lose money.

Our report made 31 unanimous recommendations. Its central finding was unambiguous: Australia needs a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising, phased in over time.

It took this government nearly three years to respond. In that time, nothing changed for the roughly 550,000 high-risk gamblers in this country. Sixteen per cent of them have experienced suicidal thoughts. Two-thirds have faced serious financial hardship, including going without meals. Almost one in five people whose partner gambles weekly or more experiences intimate partner violence.

This is a public health crisis. It's been playing out in lounge rooms across Australia, and it's been allowed to fester for years and years while gambling companies spend millions perfecting the art of keeping people hooked. Gambling is Australia's blind spot. So, when the government finally produced a response, Australians had every right to expect it would match the scale of the problem. It does not.

On my count, this bill fully addresses only a handful of the Murphy report's 31 recommendations. There is no national regulator. There is no restriction on inducements. And the flagship measure, the advertising restriction, is not the comprehensive phase-out the report called for. It is three ads an hour on television with no cap at all after 8.30 pm—the time at which the government has apparently decided every Australian child is asleep.

The so-called safeguard for online ads is an opt-out function. We already know how that performs in practice. SBS has run an opt-out model, and, based on publicly available figures, less than 0.1 per cent of subscribers have used it, even though three in four Australians say they wanted gambling ads banned altogether. The government knew this when they designed this measure. An opt-out nobody uses is not a protection. It is a fig leaf.

The evidence on partial bans is already in. When advertising restrictions were tightened in 2017, gambling ads on television increased. Half measures do not reduce harm. They reroute it. This bill, as drafted, repeats that mistake at a moment when we finally have the chance not to.

That's the case for proper scrutiny on the substance. The case is even stronger on process. The government gave stakeholders representing millions of Australians affected by gambling harm a single 45-minute consultation session on the exposure draft, with written submissions due the next day. Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, who took part in that session, described it afterwards as a charade. When he asked what evidence supported allowing unlimited advertising after 8.30 pm, he was told that it was a political decision, not an evidence based one. That's a remarkable admission for a bill that follows the most rigorous evidence-based inquiry this parliament has conducted into gambling harm in a generation.

People with lived experience of gambling harm, researchers and public health experts have had almost no opportunity to be heard on legislation that will shape how this country deals with a predatory industry for years to come. The gambling lobby, by contrast, has had ample access. That imbalance should trouble every member of this House, regardless of which side of politics they sit on.

A short, structured inquiry by this committee after years of inaction could fix that. Five weeks is not a radical ask. It's the minimum required for a public process that actually deserves that name. It would allow submissions from the people the Murphy report was written for—those with lived experience, clinicians, researchers and community organisations who have been locked out of the conversation so far. Let us be honest about what this would actually cost the government in practical terms: nothing.

This House is not scheduled to sit again until 11 August. There is no version of events in which this bill passes both houses in the next five weeks, regardless of what this parliament does today. A referral to a committee does not delay reform by a single sitting day. It simply ensures that, when this bill does come back before the House, it's been tested against evidence rather than against a 45-minute Zoom call and a deadline of the choosing of vested interests.

I understand that a committee may have been established in the other place, and I welcome this news and the work of the opposition, the Greens and Independents to get that done. But I hope, too, that the committee that prepared the original report, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, can consider this package of reforms. If the government is confident that this bill reflects the Murphy report and the public interest, it should have nothing to fear from a committee process that tests that claim in the open. If it is not confident, that is precisely why this scrutiny is needed. I commend this motion to the House.

Is the motion seconded?

I second this motion and commend the member for Curtin's motion to refer the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 to the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. This should not be a controversial request. It's a sensible and reasonable solution and suggestion from the crossbench and is exactly what legislation of this significance deserves. Australians have waited more than three years for meaningful gambling reform in the wake of the Murphy report. That's a thousand days of inaction from this government and a thousand days in which young Australians, the Australians that we represent, have been harmed by that inaction.

Australians have continued to lose their savings, their relationships, their homes and, in some tragic cases, their lives because of the inaction of this government. After this sort of delay, the government has no excuses for not getting this legislation right. But it's rushing to introduce legislation that has been denied input from the public. The families who we represent and the young people who are being taken advantage of by predatory gambling industries have been given no ability to have input into this crucial legislation.

The government's released an exposure draft but has not decided to conduct appropriate open and transparent public consultation. Instead, it's held targeted conversations with the broadcasters, the sporting codes and the gambling industry. What about the families who live every day with the consequences or the ongoing challenges of harm caused by gambling? What about the parents who are concerned that every time their kids open the AFL app, they see Sportsbet? What about the clinicians, the researchers, the public health experts and the community organisations who have spent years documenting the devastating impact of gambling addiction? Some of them have been given days to review this complex legislation and provide feedback on it to a very limited extent. Some have been given no opportunity at all.

A committee inquiry would allow us to hear directly from those people who would be most affected by this legislation to test the evidence, to identify the potential unintended consequences and to improve the legislation. That's what this place and the committees associated with parliament are supposed to do. There are questions that deserve careful examination. The Murphy report was pretty clear. It recommended a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising, including online advertising. The government has not responded to that recommendation appropriately. Its proposals fall well short of that. There are ongoing and serious questions about the extent to which this legislation will provide any support or any protections for children and for vulnerable Australians. The parliament is showing a willingness to legislate on digital harm and to act on the digital environments. The government has constantly trumpeted its social media ban, which is not working, but the government is not taking action to protect young Australians from a danger which is just as significant and which is in front of them every single day.

Peta Murphy was a friend of many people in this House. She was closer to members of the government than she was to the crossbench or the opposition. We shouldn't have to keep reminding the government of the extraordinary work done by one of their own. We know that members of the government feel conflicted about their inaction on this point. We know that it upsets them and angers them when we raise the question of Peta Murphy's contribution and how strongly she felt about this. We shouldn't have to do this. We shouldn't be having these difficult, tortured conversations. We should just be doing what is right for the people and the communities that we represent in the best interests of not just the parliament but the constituents who come to us every week and raise this issue. Their spirit and their belief in the democratic process should not be disrespected by this parliament.

We've waited more than three years. We can wait another three or four weeks and scrutinise this legislation properly. If the government believes that this legislation is worth doing, then it should subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves. That includes giving the public an opportunity to feed back on something which will change their lives—one of the most significant public health crises that the country is facing right now. For those reasons, I urge the House to refer this bill immediately to the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs so that the parliament can properly examine the evidence, hear from those Australians affected most by this legislation and ensure that these long overdue reforms are as effective as they can possibly be.

I move:

That the question be put.

The question is that the question be put.

The question now is that the motion be agreed to.

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that this morning the Government introduced useless legislation which will do little to prevent gambling advertising and protect vulnerable Australians and children from gambling harm; and

(2) calls on the Prime Minister to personally explain to the House, and to all Australians, why protecting gambling companies, media companies and major sporting codes is more important to him and his government than protecting the interests, and lives, of Australians.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Clark from moving the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that this morning the Government introduced useless legislation which will do little to prevent gambling advertising and protect vulnerable Australians and children from gambling harm; and

(2) calls on the Prime Minister to personally explain to the House, and to all Australians, why protecting gambling companies, media companies and major sporting codes is more important to him and his government than protecting the interests, and lives, of Australians.

Sadly, this is not my first rodeo. We've been here before and we've already seen into the heart of the Labor Party in Australia. From 2010 to 2013, my first term, I had a written contract with the Prime Minister that there would be widespread and deep gambling reform in the country. But, of course, the gambling industry applied the blowtorch to the government, and I assume the factions applied the blowtorch to the Prime Minister. Ultimately, the Prime Minister refused to honour that deal, and the government went on its own path with much weaker gambling reform. Of course, that didn't save the Prime Minister. Prime Minister Gillard was eventually toppled by the factions, in fact, and it didn't save the government, because the government lost in a landslide to then opposition leader Tony Abbott.

I'm not saying that the government's behaviour at the time was the reason for that election loss, but I will assure you, Deputy Speaker Garland, it was in the mix. It was one of the significant factors among a complex set of factors as to why the Labor Party lost power in 2013, and here we are again—an opportunity for a Labor government to enact very meaningful gambling reform and implement the 31 recommendations of the Murphy report, which is without doubt the best blueprint for gambling reform this country has ever seen. It's not like 2010-13, when it was a power-sharing parliament and things were difficult for the government. This time is completely different. The government has a thumping majority in the House of Representatives, and, if it were to try to legislate and enact strong gambling reform, I don't doubt it would have the support of the Greens in the Senate.

In other words, this time around, the Labor Party has a clear runway. There is no obstacle in the way to finally doing it, so we've got to ask ourselves: why is the government acting in this way? Why is the government determined to run a protection racket for the gambling companies, for the media companies and for the major sporting codes? Is it because the government is gutless and scared stiff of the gambling companies, the media companies and the sporting codes? Or worse, is it because the government is complicit and is a fellow traveller with the gambling companies, the media companies and the sporting codes? Or even worse than that, is it because the government has no humanity and does not care about the human cost of gambling in this country? It's not just the financial cost.

It was interesting. We had a counter put out yesterday by the Australia Institute, and it shows the amount of money lost to gambling in this country since the Murphy report was given to the government. It has now exceeded $100 billion. I'll say that again. In Australia, more than $100 billion—with a B—has been lost by gamblers since the committee brought down the Murphy report. How can we tolerate that? And it's not just a financial cost; It's a personal cost. Who knows how many people in Australia are battling gambling addiction or are at serious risk of developing a gambling addiction at the moment? I remember back then, 2010-13, the figure for just poker machine gambling addiction was over 100,000. Now, with the avalanche of gambling addiction from online and sports betting, we can safely assume it's hundreds of thousands of Australians either addicted to gambling or at serious risk of developing an addiction.

We know from very, very good research that, for every gambling addict in this country, between five and 10 other people are affected by that person's addiction—mums, dads, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, work colleagues, friends, people in the street who are victims of crime. The gross number of Australians who are affected by this is easily measured in the millions, and what does the government do? It brings out this half-arsed set of reforms in this bill this morning that will do very little to address gambling addiction in this country.

It has completely ignored the flagship recommendations of the Murphy report. It has completely ignored that there be a phased out but ultimately complete ban on gambling advertising, which three quarters of Australians desperately want. It has completely ignored the recommendation that there be an independent national regulator instead of this complete nonsense where a part-time regulatory body in the Northern Territory of all places, populated by officials who have connections to gambling themselves, are regulating all of these online sports betting companies Australia-wide. What complete and utter nonsense.

The government has completely ignored the use of inducements by the gambling and sports betting companies, and I'll tell you why. I want to speak in support of a lot of my colleagues in this place—a lot of backbenchers. There are a lot of good people in the House of Representatives. There are a lot of good people in the other place. But they are being stopped by their leadership. I'll talk in detail about the Prime Minister in a moment. But, briefly, to talk about the opposition, I don't think the opposition leader gets it. I don't think he understands the enormity of the problem. I don't think he even understands the politics of it. He's finally got an issue where he can polish up the brand of his party, because support for reform extends from the far left across to the far right.

If you just want to talk raw, grubby politics for a minute, you could ask: why are we doing alright? It's because we focus on the issues the majority of people care about. So I say to the opposition leader: do your research, talk to your backbenchers and get on side.

But I say to the Prime Minister, who ultimately controls the government: stop blocking reform. Stop going into your caucus and telling your caucus members what they will do and what they will say and how they will vote. Listen to your membership, because everyone in this place—opposition, crossbench, government; all of us—is confronting, every day, people calling for reform.

Every day we're meeting with people who are battling addiction. We're meeting with families who have had someone in their family suicide because of addiction. They say that at least 400 people suicide a year as a result of gambling addiction in this country, and we know that the prevalence is probably chronically underreported. In other words, since the Murphy report was provided to the government, more than a thousand Australians have suicided because of inaction by politicians and governments. How can we live with that? How can we sleep at night? How can the Prime Minister sleep at night?

I say to the Prime Minister: if you're not going to fix this, then get out of the way and let the parliament fix it. Give us a free vote. Let us decide this. Let us represent our communities. Until we fix this, we are complicit. This parliament is a fellow traveller with the gambling companies, the media companies and the sporting codes, who are like jackals feeding on the carcasses of gambling addicts. This is intolerable.

I call on the government to put aside that rubbish bill that was tabled today—or at least let it go to a committee, as was moved by the member for Curtin earlier today—and fix this. Fix it once and for all and be seen as a government with integrity. Stare down the media companies. Stare down the gambling companies. Stare down the major sporting codes. But represent the majority of your community. And do you know what? You might even be rewarded politically. It sure didn't help Julia Gillard in 2012 when she ditched these reforms. It was in the mix when she was toppled as leader and defeated at the polls.

Under standing order 45(c), I move:

That notice No. 7, government business, be called on immediately.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, I am also introducing the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026. This bill makes consequential amendments and transitional provisions to support the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, which seeks to maintain access to cash across Australia and support businesses and financial institutions to continue offering cash services. Importantly, it gives the ACCC an interim transitional power to help ensure continuity of cash distribution services while the broader framework is implemented. The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was notified, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

For all the reasons I outlined in my remarks on the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends Treasury legislation to strengthen the integrity of the tax profession, make a range of improvements to our tax system, deliver targeted refinements to Australia's merger regime, and give force of law to current national competition principles.

Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Tax Agent Services Act 2009to strengthen the Tax Practitioners Board sanctions regime as part of the government's response to the PwC tax leaks matter, announced on 6 August 2023, to crack down on tax adviser misconduct and rebuild people's faith in the systems and structures that keep our tax system and capital markets strong. The reforms also implement recommendations from the 2019 Independent Review of the Tax Practitioners Board.

The reforms complement a broader suite of government reforms to strengthen integrity and accountability across the tax system and professional services sector.

This includes work to progress further targeted exceptions to tax secrecy rules and enhancements to the Australian tax office's and Tax Practitioners Board's information-gathering powers outlined in the 2026-27 budget, and just yesterday we released an options paper into the regulation of accounting, auditing and consulting firms in Australia.

It builds on earlier reforms, such as:

These reforms will enable the Tax Practitioners Board to impose a suite of new and expanded regulatory sanctions, that escalate in severity in response to more serious contraventions of the law, and respond to misconduct, including poor and unlawful tax advice, in a timely way.

The changes include new criminal penalties for unregistered preparers, new civil penalty provisions and increased maximum civil penalty amounts for tax practitioners and unregistered preparers, new powers that enable the Tax Practitioners Board to issue infringement notice penalties, enter into enforceable voluntary undertakings, and impose contingent and interim suspensions of registration, and an increase in the maximum duration of terminations of registration from five to 10 years.

These reforms will improve protections for taxpayers by driving better behaviour, addressing and deterring misconduct, and maintaining community confidence in the integrity of the tax system.

Schedule 2 to the bill strengthens the foreign resident capital gains tax (CGT) regime.

This reform ensures foreign residents pay their fair share of tax when selling assets with a close economic connection to Australian land and our natural resources, while providing generous concessions for investments in renewable energy as set out in schedule 3.

The schedule has four elements.

First, it clarifies the definition of 'real property' on which foreign residents are subject to CGT.

This confirms that assets with a close economic connection to Australia—such as energy infrastructure, transport and telecommunications assets, and water entitlements—are in scope of the foreign resident CGT rules.

This responds to a longstanding area of uncertainty which has been compounded over time by the absence of a clear definition of 'real property' in the Commonwealth tax law.

It also addresses the interactions with state and territory property laws, which have increasingly produced unintended outcomes, with infrastructure assets being taxed differently depending on the jurisdiction in which they are located.

From commencement, this measure will ensure the Commonwealth tax law determines which assets are subject to the foreign resident CGT regime.

This will support certainty and ensure consistent tax treatment across the nation so investors can make long-term decisions with confidence.

It also restores the integrity, fairness and sustainability of the tax system.

Second, the measure confirms when the Commissioner of Taxation can amend a past assessment for matters relating to the foreign resident CGT regime.

The legislation limits the ability of the commissioner to amend an assessment where the taxpayer's limited amendment period has ended, except in cases of fraud or evasion or where the taxpayer objected to their assessment prior to 10 April 2026, which is the date of the exposure draft consultation for this schedule.

This effectively means that, where a foreign investor had previously paid and settled a historical CGT liability, they will be unable to have their assessment amended because the commissioner will not be able to extend the review period.

This will protect existing revenue by preventing foreign investors from seeking opportunistic windfall gains by taking advantage of recent Federal Court decisions to reduce their previous tax payments.

Third, the schedule introduces a new requirement for foreign investors to notify the Australian Taxation Office, ATO, before they dispose their interests in an Australian entity, when the transaction is valued at $50 million or more.

This ensures the ATO has more visibility over high-value transactions in which a foreign resident claims they are not subject to CGT, because they are disposing a non-Australian real property interest. This new notification supports tax compliance.

And fourth, the schedule enhances the integrity of the principal asset test. This test determines whether the value of a foreign investor's interest is mainly from Australian land or land-like assets and therefore is subject to CGT.

Foreign investors are now required to apply this test at any time during the 365 days before the CGT event instead of just at the time of disposal. This is consistent with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's practice.

The schedule includes two instrument-making powers to balance compliance costs for investors. It is intended that these powers would be used to exempt certain foreign investors from having to notify the commissioner of certain public transactions and to provide an alternative testing approach for certain investors in how they value their interests in complying with the principal asset test. These details will be subject to consultation.

Schedule 3 to the bill is a transitional concession for foreign investors in the renewable energy sector. It provides a 50 per cent CGT discount on the disposal of eligible assets until 30 June 2030.

This recognises the importance of foreign investment in the renewables sector, helping support our clean energy objectives.

This concession balances ongoing government support for Australia's practical action on climate change with the need to ensure the tax treatment of these assets aligns with the treatment of other assets in the longer term.

The targeted, time limited concession will apply to grid-scale renewable assets such as battery storage systems, wind turbines and solar panels.

Schedules 2 and 3 were informed by extensive consultation with stakeholders. The schedules will commence on the first quarter after royal assent.

Schedule 4 to the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to deliver targeted refinements to Australia's merger regime. The government has heard from businesses, advisers and regulators about how the regime is working in practice and what needs to be fine tuned.

First, the amendments adjust the legal consequences when merger parties fail to notify the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, ACCC, when they should have by making such acquisitions voidable instead of automatically void. This minimises unintended consequences, especially for innocent third parties, where the existing voiding provisions would otherwise automatically unwind transactions, while still preserving the incentive for parties to notify when appropriate.

Second, the amendments introduce a mechanism for merger parties to seek extensions from the ACCC for the period in which they can put an approved acquisition into effect. The extensions can be up to six months each. Multiple extensions may be granted. This will also apply to transactions already approved in the 12 months prior to commencement of this bill.

Third, the amendments better target when an acquisition needs to be notified. Parties will not need to notify acquisitions that are unlikely to result in a practical ability to influence competition, as originally intended. For example, it will benefit venture capital investing in startups.

Overall, these amendments will reduce the regulatory burden on industry while preserving the integrity of the regime. They support a faster, more transparent and risk based regime.

These amendments also reflect the government's commitment to listening and responding to stakeholder experiences to ensure the merger regime continues to promote competition and economic activity in the interests of Australians.

Schedule 5 to the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Productivity Commission Act 1998 to give legal force to the current national competition principles and regulatory structures, which were agreed by the Commonwealth and all states and territories in November 2024. The measure substitutes references to the Conduct Code Agreement and Competition Principles Agreement, from 1995, with references to the 2024 Intergovernmental Agreement on National Competition Policy and introduces definitions of public interest test and competitive neutrality arrangements. To future-proof these amendments, the measure also introduces powers for the minister to specify any new agreements to be the NCP agreement and new arrangements to be the competitive neutrality arrangements.

Schedule 6 to the bill amends the tax law to specifically list the Ross House Trust, Tanarra Social Purpose Ltd and the I4give Foundation Ltd as deductible gift recipients and extends the existing listing of the Australian Academy of Law and Cambridge Australia Scholarships Ltd.

Schedule 7 to the bill amends the tax law to change the name of the philanthropic funds known as ancillary funds to giving funds. This better reflects the purpose of these funds and implements a recommendation of the Productivity Commission's philanthropy inquiry.

Schedule 8 to the bill makes minor and technical amendments to the tax law to give effect to the Australian Taxation Office's current administrative treatment to ensure tax credits arising from amounts withheld from the disposal of Australian real property can be claimed in an assessment for the same income year that the disposal is recognised for tax purposes.

Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to the amendments in schedule 4 to the bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, I introduce the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026.

This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Therapeutic Goods Act) to implement several important public health measures, including in relation to the management of medicines shortages and discontinuations.

Medicines are essential for the health and wellbeing of Australians. This means that shortages and discontinuations of medicines can cause significant impacts for Australian patients, and the health practitioners and systems that support them.

Interruptions to the supply and availability of medicines in Australia can occur for various reasons, and unfortunately some supply disruptions can be unavoidable. Medicine supply chains are complex global systems and there are numerous points in the supply chain where problems can cause a medicine supply disruption, each requiring a different response.

Although many improvements have been made since the introduction of the mandatory medicines shortages and discontinuations reporting scheme, the Australian government is continuing to make improvements to the way that supply disruptions are monitored and managed to further reduce impacts.

The government has undertaken extensive consultation over the past two years to better understand the most pressing challenges and barriers experienced by individuals and businesses in Australia relating to medicines shortages and discontinuations.

This bill introduces legislative changes designed to address key challenges raised by stakeholders across the medicines supply chain in their consultation feedback.

These legislative changes will strengthen key aspects of the mandatory reporting scheme under the Therapeutic Goods Act, to enable Australia to be better prepared for shortages and discontinuations of critically important medicines.

Specifically, this bill includes amendments to require sponsors to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing of any decision to permanently discontinue the supply of reportable medicines in Australia at least 12 months in advance.

This will provide more time for health practitioners and patients to make plans for ongoing treatment, where needed. The existing clause'or as soon as practicable after the decision is made' will be maintained, acknowledging that unforeseen circumstances can impact a sponsor's ability to report a discontinuation 12 months in advance.

Further, sponsors who give such notice will be required to update the secretary if there is a change in the initial approach, including if the supply is no longer proposed to be discontinued, or if the discontinuation is to occur at a different time than previously notified.

The bill also enables the secretary to require all sponsors of approved medicines to provide, upon request, information about the availability, and any shortage or discontinuation, of their products in Australia.

Currently, this information can only be requested about a subset of approved medicines that are designated as reportable medicines. The bill will enable this information to be requested regarding any approved medicine, not just reportable medicines. This is important, as shortages of any approved medicine can have a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of people in Australia.

In addition to the medicines shortages and discontinuations measures, the bill makes several other important amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act.

The bill enables the secretary to determine common biologicals groups so that similar biologicals can share a single entry in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (the register).

Currently, a sponsor must navigate duplicative processes. This includes maintaining separate entries in the register for biologicals that are essentially the same but have minor differences—such as minor formulation changes or extensions of indications. They must bear the cost of maintaining multiple listings for essentially the same product. They may also be required to cancel existing entries when a new product with only a minor change in indication or intended use is approved, resulting in avoidable cost, delay, and administrative burden.

This amendment will allow sponsors to combine their entries in the register, avoiding duplication and reducing costs and regulatory burden for industry.

Additionally, the bill makes a technical amendment to confer clear legal powers on authorised persons to enter, search and inspect clinical trial sites. Such inspections will ensure that unapproved therapeutic goods supplied and used in clinical trials are in accordance with the applicable exemption and approval schemes, and will safeguard the rights, safety and wellbeing of clinical trial participants.

This will be implemented by moving existing powers from delegated legislation to primary legislation to ensure that the legislation operates as intended.

The bill also enables the instrument made under section 30EJ of the Therapeutic Goods Act, known as the Medicines Watch List, to incorporate other documents as in force from time to time.

This instrument lists certain medicines for which a shortage or discontinuation in Australia would be of critical impact. This amendment will ensure that the list of critically important medicines specified in the instrument remains as current as possible at all times, for the purposes of mandatory reporting requirements and timeframes.

The bill includes other minor consequential and technical amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act, including to improve consistency, remove outdated provisions and correct errors.

The bill is complemented by the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026 which makes associated amendments to the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Act 1989 to allow the prescribing of annual charges for the inclusion of grouped biologicals in the register. This will ensure that the common biologicals groups measure in this bill is able to operate as intended.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, I introduce the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026.

This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Act 1989 to allow the prescribing of annual charges for the inclusion of grouped biologicals in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (the register).

The amendments in this bill are related to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026, which amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. They implement several important public health measures, including to enable the secretary to determine common biologicals groups so that similar biologicals can share a single entry in the register.

The amendments made by this bill, together with the associated amendments in the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026, will reduce costs and regulatory burden for industry.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Decommissioning of the National Research Cyclotron Facility, Camperdown.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation seeks parliamentary approval to decommission and demolish the National Research Cyclotron Facility, located near the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney. These works are required to meet the organisation's end-of-lease obligations to the Sydney Local Health District. The total estimated cost of the works is $17 million excluding GST.

The proposed works were referred to the public works committee on 3 March 2026. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve that it is expedient to carry out the proposed works. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in January 2028 and be completed by August 2029. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Makin, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

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:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

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

by leave—The NDIS is one of the most significant social reforms in Australia's history. It has changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability and their families by giving people greater choice, control and access to the supports they need to live the lives they choose. This is why protecting the integrity of the scheme is so important. The NDIS was built on trust—trust that participants would receive the right supports, trust that providers would act in the best interests of the people they support and trust that public funding would be used for its intended purpose. As the scheme has grown, the risks facing it have also evolved. The committee heard that, for a number of years, the integrity settings around the NDIS did not keep pace with the rapid growth and increasing complexity of the scheme. The result was a scheme where important foundations, including market stewardship, provider oversight and information-sharing arrangements, require further strengthening. Since 2022, significant work has been undertaken to address these challenges and strengthen the integrity of the NDIS. This includes a greater focus on fraud prevention and detection, stronger oversight of providers, improved collaboration between agencies and reform to better protect participants.

During the committee's inquiry, what was highlighted was the importance of such continued work. This report builds on the government's integrity reforms and sets out further measures to strengthen the foundations of the scheme, including better identity verification and data sharing; stronger collaboration between agencies; improved provider accountability; and greater capacity to identify and respond to risk and fraud. A key part of this is ensuring that people delivering supports have the right skills, qualifications and professional standards. Participants and their families deserve confidence that the workers entering their homes and providing essential supports are appropriately trained, properly supported and accountable. That's why the report supports stronger workforce standards, including consideration of an NDIS worker registration scheme focused on entry requirements, qualifications and ongoing professional development.

A strong, stable workforce will help protect participants, support quality providers and ensure the scheme continues to deliver the high standard of care that Australians expect. The report also recommends stronger protections against misconduct and exploitation, including tougher action and penalties against fraud and criminal behaviour, and measures to prevent conflict of interest and inappropriate practices. It should be noted that, throughout this inquiry, the committee made clear that choice and control are the foundation of the NDIS, and they must remain at the centre of any reform.

During this inquiry, the committee heard from people with disability, families, advocates, providers and experts. Their experience and the insights they have provided are critical in shaping this report and recommendations I tabled today into the integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I thank all those who contributed, and I thank my colleagues on the joint standing committee for their work and constructive engagement. I also thank our secretariat. Thank you for your hard work and diligence throughout the course of this inquiry.

The NDIS is a reform of national importance. Our responsibility is to ensure it remains a scheme that Australians can trust—one that delivers high-quality supports, protects participants and is sustainable for generations to come. I commend the report to the House.

Our green and gold Medicare card means opportunity. It means receiving high-quality health care, regardless of your bank balance. I'm so proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, which is committed to strengthening Medicare for generations to come, and this bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026, is an important part of exactly that. Labor has always and will always fight for accessible health care. Medicare is one of the reasons I joined the Australian Labor Party when I was a teenager.

We have more than 50,000 families across my electorate of Gorton, and new ones are moving in, building their homes and their futures in Melbourne's western suburbs. These families are feeling the cost of living when paying their bills at the checkout or at the bowser. With competing cost-of-living pressures, these families shouldn't be worrying about the cost of seeing a doctor as well. These families deserve regular access to affordable GP appointments, and that's why this bill matters.

The bill before us provides a clear legislative framework for our primary care incentive payment programs—programs like the Medicare Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program, which is increasing access to free GP appointments right across the country. This bill is about strengthening the accessibility of health care for all Australians. It's about making sure that every Australian can access the care they need, no matter where they live. It's another piece in a huge body of work by this government that is ensuring that quality health care is accessible and affordable for every Australian.

Our introduction of Medicare bulk-billing clinics is really making a huge difference in our communities across the country. I'm really proud to report that, in my community, there are now 24 Medicare bulk-billing practices—up from 13 before our bulk-billing changes were introduced. That means that at 75 per cent of our clinics in Gorton you can see a doctor for free, and this is all thanks to Labor's single largest investment in Medicare ever, which is delivering an additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits every year so more Australians can see a GP for free.

With the Sunshine and Melton urgent care clinics nearby, our community can also access free walk-in urgent care. The Sunshine and Melton urgent care clinics have together seen over 46,000 visits since opening. This is massive. It means that, in Melbourne's western suburbs, people in our community have access to free walk-in care when they need it. With this budget, we're making urgent care clinics like the ones in Melton and Sunshine permanent.

Urgent care clinics play a really important role in taking the pressure off our emergency departments. In the western suburbs through the Melton urgent care clinic in the member for Hawke's electorate, the Sunshine urgent care clinic in the member for Fraser's electorate and the Werribee urgent care clinic in the member for Lalor's electorate, urgent care clinics are making a real difference in our community in the west. The Sunshine urgent care clinic has seen over 12,000 presentations since its opening in August last year.

Let me tell you about one of those patient experiences. A constituent of mine, Carl from Burnside Heights, recently visited the Sunshine urgent care clinic. He had an injury at home on a Sunday night at about 9 pm. He was at Sunshine urgent care clinic by 9.15 pm, seen by a clinician, had six stitches put in and was out by 9:40 pm. How good is that? Carl was able to access walk-in care close to his home in Burnside Heights. That is exactly what we introduced urgent care clinics for: when you need urgent care and you can't possibly wait for a GP appointment, but it's not serious enough for the emergency room. This means that Australians are getting the care they need when they need it without overloading our doctors and emergency systems.

That's not all we're doing to strengthen Medicare and our healthcare workforce here in Australia. We took health care to the election, and right across the board we're legislating change. We've capped the cost of PBS-listed medicines at just $25, the lowest it's been since 2004—when I was in primary school—which has seen a saving of more than $14 million in my electorate of Gorton. We've doubled the number of medicines now available for 60-day prescriptions, and we've introduced new medicines to the PBS. We've launched the Medicare Mental Health Check In, a free service connecting you with professional mental health support over the phone. For many in our community this is a lifeline.

We're growing the health workforce to deliver more doctors and nurses than ever before, including the largest GP training program in Australian history and hundreds of scholarships for nurses and midwives to extend their skills and qualifications. This includes incentives like the Commonwealth Prac Payment, which means students on their mandatory nursing and midwifery placements will be paid for their work, making life easier for our nursing and midwifery students.

We're also tripling the bulk-billing incentive for people who need to see their GP most often, helping pensioners, concession card holders and families with children. We're investing landmark commitments in women's health, working to reverse decades of neglect to women's health. We've now opened 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, and more than 380,000 women have accessed new, cheaper contraceptives in the first year of their listing on the pharmaceutical benefits schedule. Initiatives like these are saving Australian women and their families thousands of dollars on health-related costs across their lifetimes.

We're also backing men's health. For too long, mental health in Australia has been overlooked. We've established and are expanding a network of Medicare mental health centres, helping Australians have better access to mental healthcare services. We're also delivering $11.3 million to provide men's healthcare training to primary healthcare workers and to develop a campaign to encourage men to visit the doctor. That's in addition to $20.7 million in grassroots initiatives that support men's mental health and wellbeing in community settings.

Today we're establishing a clear legislative framework for Commonwealth primary care incentive payment programs, including the Medicare Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program. Primary care incentive programs encourage GP practices to deliver high quality, continuous and accessible care through incentive payments. The Medicare Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program established by Labor is probably the most well-known program, but there are also several other programs accessible to practices and doctors that ensure Australians receive the best possible care. The General Practice in Aged Care Incentive is one such program, which supports older Australians living in residential aged care. It encourages GPs to go out and visit their older patients at their residential aged-care facility, rather than seeing them at their own practice. This makes it easier for older Australians to access ongoing quality health care in a way that's most accessible to them, supporting the health and wellbeing of older Australians and reducing the pressure on our hospitals by ensuring continuous, consistent care.

The longstanding Practice Incentives Program encourages doctors to meet outcomes that plug gaps in the healthcare system and ensure accessible health care for all Australians. These outcomes include offering care after hours, making e-health services available, providing teaching sessions to medical students, servicing rural and regional areas and more. This is complemented by the Workforce Incentive Program, which assists GP practices with the cost of employing a large range of health professionals from various disciplines, as well as encouraging doctors to provide services in regional, rural and remote communities and attracting doctors with additional advanced skills to work outside metropolitan areas, improving access to quality and comprehensive medical, nursing and allied health services in regional, rural and remote areas. These programs are such an important way for us to realise quality, accessible and affordable health care for all Australians, to make seeing a doctor affordable, to attract doctors to where they're most needed and to make sure that all Australians, not just those who live in metropolitan areas, can access multidisciplinary health care that addresses their specific concerns.

That's why this bill is so incredibly important. Currently, these incentive payment programs operate without a clear and consistent legislative framework behind them. That's a gap because it impacts their effective administration, including strong process around compliance and integrity. The bill before us plugs this gap, inserting a new part into the Health Insurance Act 1973 which provides a consistent statutory basis for the establishment and administration of these programs. This will improve the effectiveness of these programs in a few ways. It will give healthcare providers and the government more certainty by giving these programs a strong backing. It will create clear and consistent rules for how these programs are run, including how providers can participate, how often decisions are made and stronger protections to ensure decisions are fair. And it will protect public funding by making sure the right rules are in place for compliance using information and recovering overpayments in incentive payment programs.

This bill also modernises the laws that underpin these programs, allowing some administrative tasks to be carried out automatically while including safeguards to ensure the process is transparent, properly monitored and accountable as well. This will help manage large numbers of applications and decisions more efficiently while still protecting people's rights to have those decisions reviewed. There will also be very clear review processes as well. Providers can ask for the decision to be reconsidered internally, and, if they are still unhappy with the outcome, they can apply for an independent review by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This bill will do a lot to support the good administration of these programs, but it won't change them. Providers currently participating in these programs won't need to reapply, and there won't be any changes to substantive eligibility criteria or payment amounts, meaning that these programs can continue delivering good outcomes for Australians.

This bill is about protecting Medicare. It's about making sure these programs have the strong legislative foundations they deserve. It strengthens integrity, it improves transparency, it gives providers greater certainty and it helps ensure public funding is spent where it should be. Most importantly, it helps protect the programs that Australians rely on—programs that make it easier to see a GP, programs that support our health workforce, programs that make health care more affordable and more accessible—because every Australian deserves access to quality health care no matter where they live, no matter how much they earn. That has always been the Labor way, and it's what this government is delivering—stronger Medicare, better health care and a health system that's there for every Australian. I commend this bill to the House.

I understand the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into Hansard, in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.

That's correct. Thank you.

The incorporated speech reads as follows—

Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

I rise today to speak in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026.

I do so as the Member for Pearce, a community that continues to grow and evolve, with families, retirees, small business owners, health professionals and workers who all share a common expectation of our health system. They expect that it will be there when they need it. They expect it to be fair, accessible and reliable. And they expect that the systems underpinning their care are well governed, transparent and focused on delivering the best possible outcomes for patients.

Those expectations are reasonable. Australians rightly place enormous trust in our health system.

Every day, people rely on Medicare, on general practitioners, on specialists, on allied health professionals, on nurses and pharmacists, and on the countless administrators and support staff who keep the system operating. While most people do not spend much time thinking about the legislation that underpins those services, the work we do in this Parliament helps ensure those systems remain effective, accountable and fit for purpose.

That is why this Bill deserves the support of the House.

Although many of its measures may appear technical, they are important. Good legislation is not always the legislation that attracts the greatest public attention. Often, it is the legislation that quietly strengthens the institutions Australians rely upon every day.

This Bill does exactly that.

It provides a modern and consistent legislative framework for Commonwealth health incentive programs, strengthens governance arrangements, improves compliance mechanisms and updates the legislative architecture supporting the administration of Medicare.

Those are sensible reforms.

Health policy is often judged by the services people receive, and rightly so. But behind every consultation, every health assessment and every patient interaction sits a framework of legislation, administration and accountability. When those foundations are clear and robust, the system functions more effectively. When they are outdated or fragmented, unnecessary complexity can emerge for governments, providers and ultimately patients.

This Bill recognises that reality.

For many years, Commonwealth incentive programs have played an important role in encouraging quality care, preventive health and better health outcomes across Australia. They support providers to deliver services that improve the health of patients while strengthening the broader health system.

As healthcare continues to evolve, it is appropriate that the legislative framework supporting those programs evolves as well.

One of the strengths of this legislation is that it establishes a clearer statutory basis for the operation of these programs. Rather than relying on arrangements that have developed over time, the Bill provides greater certainty about how incentive payments are administered, monitored and governed.

That certainty benefits everyone. It benefits government because programs operate within a clearer legislative framework.

It benefits healthcare providers because expectations are more transparent and administrative arrangements are more consistent.

Most importantly, it benefits patients because confidence in the integrity of the health system is strengthened.

Public confidence matters. Australians expect that public funds are administered responsibly. They expect that incentive payments supporting healthcare delivery are subject to appropriate oversight and accountability. They expect that programs funded by taxpayers operate according to clear rules and deliver public value. Those are entirely reasonable expectations.

This Bill helps meet them.

It introduces a more coherent approach to administering Commonwealth incentive programs while providing appropriate compliance mechanisms that protect the integrity of those programs.

Some people hear the word "compliance" and assume it simply means additional regulation. But good compliance is not about creating unnecessary bureaucracy. Good compliance provides confidence that public programs are operating as Parliament intended.

It protects taxpayers. It protects honest providers.

And it protects the integrity of Australia's health system.

That integrity becomes increasingly important as our healthcare system grows in scale and complexity.

Australia's health system is one of our nation's greatest strengths. It combines universal Medicare with a highly skilled health wo�kforce, world-class research and innovation, and partnerships across primary care, hospitals, community health and private providers.

Maintaining that system requires more than funding alone.

It requires legislation that keeps pace with changing models of care. It requires governance arrangements that provide certainty.

And it requires accountability that gives both providers and patients confidence that public resources are being used appropriately.

This Bill contributes to those objectives.

It also recognises something important about modern public administration. Legislation should be clear. Programs should operate according to transparent statutory authority. Administrative arrangements should be understandable.

And governments should continually review whether existing legislative frameworks remain fit for purpose.

That is good governance.

These principles are not abstract. They shape how effectively governments deliver services and how confidently providers engage with Commonwealth programs. For healthcare providers, certainty matters.

Doctors, nurses, allied health practitioners and practice managers already navigate an increasingly complex healthcare environment. They should be able to participate in Commonwealth incentive programs knowing that those programs are supported by a clear legislative framework with transparent rules and consistent administration. Providing that certainty allows clinicians to focus on what matters most: caring for patients.

In Pearce, I regularly meet healthcare professionals who demonstrate extraordinary commitment to their communities.

Whether they are working in general practice, community pharmacies, aged care, specialist clinics or allied health settings, they are united by a commitment to improving people's lives. They work long hours. They manage increasing demand.

They adapt to changing technologies and evolving models of care. They deserve systems that support rather than complicate their work.

Legislation such as this helps achieve that objective.

It is also worth recognising that the Bill includes the renaming of the Health Insurance Act 1973 as the Medicare Act 1973. While that may appear to be a relatively modest change, names matter.

For generations of Australians, Medicare has become synonymous with universal healthcare. It is one of the country's most recognised public institutions. Aligning the title of the legislation with the system Australians know reflects both clarity and common understanding.

It makes the legislation more accessible and more readily understood by the community. Good legislation should not be unnecessarily confusing. Where improvements can be made to clarity and accessibility, Parliament should support them.

This legislation does exactly that.

Importantly, this Bill should also be viewed within the broader context of strengthening Australia's healthcare system.

Healthcare is not static. Medical technology changes. Clinical practice evolves. Patient expectations continue to develop. Population growth and demographic change create new challenges for governments at every level.

Legislation must evolve alongside those changes.

That does not always require sweeping reform. Sometimes it requires careful, practical improvements that strengthen existing systems while preserving what Australians value most.

This Bill represents precisely that kind of reform.

It builds upon existing arrangements rather than replacing them. It improves governance without disrupting patient care. It strengthens administration without changing the fundamental principles that underpin Medicare.

That is sensible public policy.

Good governments understand that effective reform often occurs incrementally. Small improvements, consistently pursued, can produce significant long-term benefits.

Strengthening legislative frameworks. Improving accountability. Providing greater certainty. Modernising administration.

These may not always dominate public debate, but they contribute meaningfully to stronger public institutions. In many respects, this reflects the broader responsibility of Parliament. Our responsibility is not simply to respond to immediate challenges. It is also to ensure that the legislative foundations supporting essential public services remain robust for the future.

Australians expect that of us.

They expect Parliament to maintain the institutions that serve them well. They expect legislation to be contemporary. They expect governments to administer public programs responsibly. And they expect taxpayer funds to be managed with integrity.

This Bill reflects those expectations.

Of course, legislation alone does not deliver healthcare. People do. Every day across Australia, health professionals demonstrate remarkable skill, compassion and professionalism.

General practitioners build long-term relationships with families. Nurses provide care in hospitals, aged care facilities and community settings. Pharmacists offer trusted advice and accessible healthcare services. Allied health professionals help people recover, maintain independence and improve quality of life. Specialists deliver highly skilled treatment across every field of medicine. Behind them stand thousands of administrative staff whose work keeps appointments running, records maintained and services delivered.

All of them contribute to Australia's healthcare system. All of them deserve legislative frameworks that support their work.

This Bill contributes to that objective by ensuring Commonwealth incentive programs operate within a clearer and more consistent statutory framework. Ultimately, however, health policy is always about people. It is about ensuring Australians have confidence in the institutions that support their care. It is about maintaining systems that are transparent, accountable and well governed.

It is about ensuring governments remain responsible stewards of public resources. And it is about creating conditions in which health professionals can continue delivering high-quality care to communities across our nation.

For the people of Pearce, these principles matter.

Ours is a growing electorate with increasing demand for quality healthcare services. Families raising young children, older Australians planning for retirement, people managing chronic conditions and individuals seeking preventive care all rely on a healthcare system that is stable, trustworthy and responsive. They may never read the legislation debated in this chamber, but they experience its effects through the services they receive.

That is why getting the legislative framework right matters .

The measures contained in this Bill strengthen the governance of Commonwealth health incentive programs, improve accountability, modernise administration and reinforce confidence in the systems that support Medicare.

They are practical reforms. They are balanced reforms. And they are reforms that will help ensure Australia's health system continues to operate effectively into the future.

I also acknowledge the many organisations, health professionals and public servants who contribute to developing and administering these programs. Public policy is strongest when informed by practical experience, careful consultation and a shared commitment to improving outcomes for Australians.

This legislation reflects that approach.

It is measured. It is considered. And it strengthens the legislative foundations supporting one of Australia's most important public institutions.

Deputy Speaker, Australians rightly value Medicare.

They value a health system built on fairness, accessibility and quality care. Maintaining that system requires ongoing attention not only to frontline services but also to the legislative and administrative frameworks that support them.

This Bill demonstrates that commitment.

It modernises important aspects of our health legislation. It strengthens governance. It improves accountability. It provides greater certainty for providers. And it reinforces public confidence in the administration of Commonwealth health programs.

For those reasons, I commend the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026 to the House, and I support its passage.

Thank you.

I too rise to make a contribution, just as the member for Pearce just did, on the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026. At its heart is Medicare. Medicare is built on a simple but powerful principle that every Australian should be able to access quality health care when they need it regardless of their income, their postcode or their stage of life. It's one of the Australian nation's greatest achievements. For more than four decades, Medicare has been there for Australians during some of life's most significant moments. It's been there for young families welcoming new babies and children into the world, for workers recovering from illnesses, for older Australians managing those chronic illnesses, diseases and conditions and for communities relying on trusted, local GPs and doctors. It reflects one of our most important national values.

Health care should be available to everyone, not just to those who can afford it. Many people prioritise their health and paying their everyday essentials. That is a fact. We know that people out there who wish to have private insurance health cover sometimes prioritise it, and it makes them feel safer, more secure and they know that, if it's needed, it's there.

This Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill establishes that clear legislative framework for Commonwealth primary care incentive payment programs, including the Medicare bulk-billing practice incentive program. While these programs have played an important role in our community and an important role in supporting primary care, they've lacked a clear legislative framework—a clear direction. That has affected some of the administration and limited the ability to effectively ensure compliance, maintain the integrity and support the full expansion which this bill fixes. It creates a stronger and more transparent framework for administering incentive programs that support GPs, nurses, clinics and the healthcare providers right across Australia. It strengthens accountability, improves program integrity and provides certainty for the future.

Importantly, it ensures that financial incentives designed to improve access to health care continue to support those who need them most. That's important. These reforms are part of this government's broader commitment to strengthening Medicare and making health care more affordable and accessible for every single Australian. That commitment is not just a slogan; it has been backed by the biggest investment seen in Medicare in this country in the nation's history—an investment of $8.5 billion to strengthen bulk-billing and support the training of more doctors and nurses in our health system. This is absolutely transformational investment—investment that will make a difference. It represents a recognition that strong public health care is not just a cost to be managed but a necessity. It is an investment in healthier people, stronger communities and more, which means we will have a more productive nation.

A key part of this investment has been the expansion, as I said earlier, at the beginning of the speech, of bulk-billing incentives and Medicare. On 1 November, the government expanded the general practice bulk-billing incentive to all Australians, and, at the same time, practices that bulk-bill all their patients now receive an additional 12.5 per cent incentive payment. That certainly is an incentive. They're saying to GP clinics around the place, 'If your practice bulk-bills its patients, you'll now receive an additional 12.5 per cent on top of the incentive payment.' That's been taken up by clinics around the country. That reform was designed to make it easier for general practices to continue offering that affordable care while ensuring that patients can access treatment without worrying about those out-of-pocket expenses. It was a worry if you had a family and you were working—mum was working, dad was working, the kids were at school. If you have to be out of pocket every time you visit a doctor, it is a worrying thing. Sometimes that decision could be made where you forgo your healthcare needs for the economics of your family. That is a dangerous position to be in. We want people to be able to access the health care that they require.

We know that this 12.5 per cent incentive is working. The last quarterly figures show that the national bulk-billing rate reached 81.9 per cent between January and March this year, an absolute increase. It's going upwards. It's an increase of 4.6 percent compared to the same time last year. Every single state and territory across the nation, across Australia, has experienced an increase in bulk-billing. In my home state alone, bulk-billing has risen to 80.4 per cent across the state, representing one of the strongest improvements in the country. We heard, the other day, other statistics around the country. They are all increasing, and this is a good thing. It means people are having to fork less out of their pocket when visiting a GP. These aren't just the statistics. There are thousands of Australians who are now able to walk into a doctor's clinic to their GP; receive the care they need, the advice that they need and the prescriptions that they need; and walk out knowing that they've not been burdened with that additional cost.

The success of these reforms is also evident in the growing number of fully bulk-billed practices across Australia. What do we mean by fully bulk-billing practices across Australia? We mean 100 per cent bulk-billing within their clinic. There are now more than 3,800 Medicare bulk-billing practices operating nationally across the country. What makes this particularly significant is that more than 1,400 of these were previously mixed-billing clinics. What does that mean? It means that sometimes they bulk-billed depending on the patient, and sometimes they didn't. What they're doing now is bulk-billing every single person that walks in that front door into their clinic seeking medical advice, seeking treatment and seeking prescriptions.

That is really important because that gives the confidence to those people that I spoke about earlier, those families that are doing it tough that may have previously considered whether they received the health care that they really required and was a necessity or whether they put food on the table. This makes a real difference to those working Australians, people that are doing it tough on low incomes and paying the bills. Together with the tax incentive that they received as of yesterday, this plays a big role as well. That's something I'm very proud of on this side of the House. It also means that practices that once charged some patients are now able to bulk-bill everyone, as I said.

It's a remarkable shift from where we were to where we are. It means that Australians are seeing real improvement in access to health care. Around 97 per cent of Australians now live within a 20-minute drive of a bulk-billing practice. That doesn't include the out-of-hours Medicare centres that have been set up all across the country. That really matters because healthcare accessibility should never depend on your postcode, your income or where you live. Whether you live in a major city, a suburban community or a regional area, you deserve access to affordable health care close to home.

We're not saying everywhere is exactly the same. There are areas we have to focus on to ensure that they as well get the services that for whatever reason could be lacking in their areas. We should be focusing on that and concentrating on that to ensure that what we've seen generally across the country is actually taken to every single town and regional area and suburb of the cities across the country because, as I said, healthcare is so important.

The bill before us supports the ongoing operation of the Medicare Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program itself. This program is helping to create stronger primary care systems by ensuring clinics that commit to bulk-billing their patients are appropriately supported. What the government is saying is: you bulk-bill, and we'll support you. It's an important message to our medical doctors. It reinforces the central role that primary care plays in our healthcare system. When primary care works well, everyone benefits. People receive treatment earlier, chronic illnesses are managed more effectively, hospital admissions are reduced and pressure on our emergency departments is eased. Every dollar invested in effective primary care saves costs elsewhere in the system while delivering better health outcomes for Aussies.

The government's commitment to health care extends beyond traditional general practice; it also includes record investments in, as I said earlier, the Medicare urgent care clinics. As we've heard before in this place, the government is investing $1.8 billion over five years with ongoing funding secured into the future to ensure that Australians have access to urgent health care when they need it most. In my home state of South Australia, this provides certainty for a network of nine operational Medicare urgent care clinics. No matter where you live within the federal electorate of Adelaide, you are no more than 20 minutes away from either a doctor who bulk-bills or a Medicare urgent care clinic. We have four of them: one in Gepps Cross, just on the border of my electorate; one in Norwood; one down in Marion, at the southern end of the electorate; and, in the western suburbs, one in Albert Park, towards Port Adelaide. This means my entire electorate is surrounded by urgent care clinics—north, west, east and south—which is really good for those who require after-hours treatment et cetera.

The impact is already clear. Since the network commenced in 2023, South Australian clinics have delivered more than 172,000 fully bulk-billed visits. That means more than 172,000 occasions when individuals and families have been able to receive urgent medical care without needing to attend an emergency department or a public hospital and without needing to face out-of-pocket costs. This is important for parents whose child develops a fever at odd hours, for workers who suffer minor injuries and for older Australians needing urgent care. These clinics provide peace of mind, they provide convenience and they provide access.

Health care is ultimately about people, and behind every statistic is a story—a parent who can afford to take their child to a GP, an older Australian managing their health with confidence, a family avoiding a costly emergency-department visit and a healthcare professional able to focus on treating patients, rather than navigating administrative uncertainty. That is why this legislation really matters. It's not merely about creating administrative frameworks; it's about changing the system and strengthening the foundations of one of the most important necessities, and that is health care. It's about ensuring incentive programs are transparent, effective, accountable and sustainable. It's also about ensuring Australians continue to receive the health care that they deserve.

The bill also includes an important symbolic change. It amends the title of Health Insurance Act 1973 and renames it the Medicare act, a much more appropriate title. That is fitting because, for Australians, Medicare is far more than just a program; it is an institution, and it is a promise—a promise that health care will be there when people need it. It's a promise that quality care should never depend on the size of someone's bank account. This bill strengthens that promise. It strengthens bulk-billing, it strengthens primary care, it strengthens accountability and it strengthens Medicare itself. At a time when Australians are concerned about the cost of living, the government is ensuring that access to a doctor remains affordable. As I said, it's a necessity.

A strong Medicare system is one of the greatest expressions of who we are as Australians. It says that health care should never be a privilege reserved for a few but be a right available to every single Australian, regardless of their postcode and regardless of what their income is. The bill strengthens that principle, strengthens Medicare and ensures that future generations can continue to access the quality, affordable health care that they deserve.

It's easy to take the Medicare card for granted. All Australians above 15 years of age can obtain a card of their own, and despite the system not being perfect it really is the passport to the world's best universal healthcare system. Medicare is uniquely Australian and something that, as a nation, we can be very proud of. The antecedent of Medicare is Medibank, which was the promise of a previous member for Werriwa in 1972, and our community still values health above anything else.

Prior to Medibank and Medicare, I remember the conversations around the table about whether my parents could afford to take both or one of their kids to the doctor, as well as the home remedies that were tried and often failed before a doctor's visit was planned. My parents and our country were excited for Medibank; there would be no more bankruptcy to stay healthy. The disdain for the universal healthcare system from those opposite was established from the outset, as far back as 1975. When Malcolm Fraser took office, Medibank was changed any number of times to the point that it eventually, in 1981, ceased to exist at all, except in the guise of Medibank Private.

Thankfully, the return of Labor under Bob Hawke saw the reinstatement of Medibank—this time in the form of Medicare—in 1984. And, as they say, the rest is history. Forty-two years after Bob Hawke reinstated it, Medicare has continued to be the envy of the rest of the world. Interestingly, despite constant attacks by those opposite, Medicare has never been stronger or more supported by the Australian public. Indeed, Medicare and the PBS are among the most trusted federal public services in the country.

Medicare is central to Labor's philosophy and DNA. We will always defend it and strengthen it. To that end, the matter before us today is yet another step in the Medicare story. The Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026 establishes a clear legislative framework for the Commonwealth primary care incentive payment programs, including the Medicare Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program. It does this while leaving operational detail to the incentive payment programs' rules.

As at present, these programs lack a clear legislative basis, which impacts their effective administration, including robust processes to enforce compliance and protect program integrity. By introducing these amendments, the government will strengthen the way it provides financial incentives to primary care providers and ensure the integrity of existing and future incentive programs. At its heart, this bill supports the Albanese Labor government's $8.5 billion commitment to expand bulk-billing for all Australians, which includes the incentive programs for practices that bulk-bill every patient. The success of this initiative has been nothing short of phenomenal.

The latest quarterly bulk-billing data shows the national bulk-billing rate at 81.9 per cent for the January to March quarter. This is a 4.6 percentage point increase on the same period last year. Further, as a result of this initiative, there are more than 3,800 bulk-billing practices around the country. Previously, more than 1,400 of these were mixed billing practices. The upshot of this means that approximately 97 per cent of the population is now within a 20-minute drive of a bulk-billing practice. Across New South Wales, the bulk-billing rates stand at 85.4 per cent, which is up four percentage points, but in Werriwa the numbers are even better. There are 32 bulk-billing practices in Werriwa, which is an increase of seven. This means that well over 90 per cent of all GP consultations in Werriwa are bulk-billed.

Personally, I find it extremely gratifying to travel through the electorate and see the distinctive green-and-gold Medicare bulk-billing signs which identify a fully bulk-billing practice. Complementing this huge lift in bulk-billing is the additional number of Medicare urgent care clinics across the country. Since the urgent care clinic network commenced in 2023, there have been more than 623,000 bulk-billed visits in New South Wales. In Werriwa, the newly opened urgent care clinic in Austral has seen thousands of patients, which both helps those who need to see a GP and takes the pressure off our stretched public hospitals.

I received feedback over the last weekend about how well the Austral urgent care clinic is working. Chris is a constituent who has used the Austral clinic and who wrote to me with the following feedback: 'I used the Austral urgent care clinic around six weeks ago as I had a severe cut to my finger—not enough for hospital but more than I could take care of myself. My local GP was booked out and may not have been able to treat it even if they weren't. The Austral clinic was excellent in treating me—short wait time, great staff and a successfully stitched finger. Follow-up care was provided by my GP clinic. I'm writing to give feedback that these urgent care clinics are a great initiative and, at least for me anecdotally, provide a great service to the community. I'm happy that Labor put forward these clinics and will support them going forward, and that's a solid win for this policy and our government in my eyes.'

The upshot of the Medicare incentive program is that our universal healthcare system has never been stronger or more popular. Time today does not permit me to speak on the other parts of our health system, particularly the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and this government's support for our public hospitals across the country, but suffice it to say that, along with the pillar of bulk-billing, the picture looks wonderful. Australians look to their government and especially this parliament to support them with the services and programs they need. Most of these, perhaps none is more dear to Australia's heart than Medicare and bulk-billing. The bill supports the provision of this most important program. It should be noted that the Medicare incentive program also supports our primary healthcare professionals, most notably GPs. After years of neglect, the incentive program ensures that our GPs are appropriately remunerated for their skill and dedication. I would like to give a shout-out to all the GPs in my electorate who've embraced the incentive program and, in doing so, are now supporting bulk-billing.

To stand here as a member for Werriwa to speak about this bill and Medicare is a privilege. The cost-of-living pressures in the electorate are real, but the Medicare incentive program makes a real difference to thousands in my electorate, and it means they don't have to think twice about seeing their GP if they're unwell. I commend the bill to the House and thank the minister for bringing it forward.

I thank the member for Werriwa for her contribution and for her really strong support for everything we're doing to make Medicare stronger and make medicines cheaper. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. As the member for Werriwa said, Medicare is the very best of Australia. It allows Australians to receive high-quality health care regardless of their bank balance, and that was the mission that Bob Hawke had in mind. The Albanese government is strengthening Medicare, the heart of universal health care, to make it easier for Australians to see a GP for free.

The Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026 establishes for the first time a clear and enduring legislative framework for Commonwealth primary care incentive payment programs. These programs are a central part of how the government supports access, affordability and quality in Australia's primary healthcare system, including, particularly, in rural and regional communities. Primary care incentive programs represent more than $1.4 billion of annual government investment, yet a number of significant programs currently operate without a dedicated legislative scheme tailored to their establishment, administration, compliance and review. The bill addresses that gap by inserting a new part into the Health Insurance Act 1973, creating a consistent statutory basis for incentive payment programs while allowing detailed program settings to be dealt with in rules. That approach gives providers and the government greater certainty while preserving the flexibility needed to keep program settings up to date as health system needs evolve. Importantly, the bill does not change the underlying policy settings of existing programs. It does not alter substantive eligibility criteria or payment amounts, and existing participants are intended to transition into the new framework without needing to reapply.

The bill also supports efficient, high-volume administration by enabling specific administrative action to be undertaken with the assistance of computer programs—subject, of course, to oversight, transparency, substituted decision safeguards and review rights. Importantly, this bill provides stability so patients can continue to benefit from the outcomes of these programs and strengthened access to primary care.

A further important feature of the bill is the amendment of the short title of the Health Insurance Act 1973 to the Medicare Act, with a transition period to support the consequential amendments and system changes that are required across Commonwealth, state and territory frameworks.

This is a foundational reform that will strengthen the administration, the integrity and the sustainability of Medicare incentive payment programs and help ensure that government investment in primary care is delivered effectively. I commend the bill to the House.

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

by leave—I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. I'll start by saying this. I was amused to hear the minister tell me last week my own position on this bill. Apparently I oppose the bill and so does the coalition. Well, I hate to disappoint, but the minister's wrong on that. We haven't finalised our position on this bill, and that's because the coalition take this bill seriously. We approach it seriously and we will refer it to a Senate committee for inquiry and report and make our decision based on the evidence. We want the committee to examine this bill closely. That's the right course of action. It's the sensible and orthodox course of action. It's the course of action you take when the detail matters. When the drafting makes a difference, you examine it closely.

It's worth spending a minute on this, because I'll tell you what we're hearing already. We're hearing that the universities didn't see this bill before it was tabled. We're hearing there are elements of the drafting that have surprised the sector. We're hearing that the decision to avoid an exposure draft was deliberate. We're hearing that the consultation was so thin that it disappears when you view it from side on. We're hearing about stakeholders being shown a PowerPoint presentation and, extraordinarily, a non-disclosure agreement. It's not the type of process Labor promised in opposition, but it is the type of process they've delivered in government repeatedly. So, as I said, we will give this bill scrutiny.

I'll also say this, and let me be very clear both for the benefit of those in this building and for those in the sector who are watching: I will talk to the government. There is a world in which the coalition ends up supporting this bill, but there's also a world where the coalition ends up opposing it.

I could summarise it this way. The whole structure, design and intent of this bill is to hand unprecedented powers to the minister. That is the inevitable consequence of moving the university sector into a centrally planned economic model. It is a return to 'Moscow on the Molonglo'. This is not a bill about equity. It is a bill about power—about ministerial power—and it's antithetical to my Liberal instincts. It's not about using competition and deregulation to drive innovation and growth. Instead, it ends financial independence, competition and, by necessity, autonomy within the sector. But, on the other hand, the message vice-chancellors and the university sector have sent so far is this is what they want. You do not want to have the freedom to compete. Those institutions do not want to have the freedom to compete, to attract the student pool that they want to attract and to run their institutions in the way they see fit. This will instead be in the hands of the current minister and any future minister.

More importantly, the powers are so far reaching they actually offer a pathway to resolve desperately pressing problems outside the university sector: Labor's uncontrolled migration and the pressure it's placed on housing, infrastructure and services; the fracturing social cohesion that has its very roots in the university sector; insufficient support for private higher education; and neglect and limited economic opportunities in the outer suburbs and regions. This bill gives a pathway to address all of these issues.

If this bill comes to a vote in this chamber before the committee hands down its report, which I should indicate would not be my preference, we will not oppose it here. We will finalise our position based on the committee findings.

Let me then turn to the bill itself. Apart from the fact that it has a terrible name and should have been called the 'Managed growth bill', what do we know about this? It's a bill that does four basic things. First, it allows the minister to determine the pool of Commonwealth supported places, which will then be distributed by the ATEC. Second, it allows the minister to determine the pool of international students, which will then be distributed by the ATEC. Third, it confers extensive powers on the minister to allocate places directly, including to individual powers; to give binding directions to the ATEC; and to impose conditions on universities and other higher education providers. And, fourth, it establishes the needs based funding system to support students from identified backgrounds in accordance with guidelines that are to be determined by the minister.

There's a common thread that links these four points. It's not the ATEC. It's not the student places. It's not opportunity or increased spending in the sector. It is the minister. That should be no surprise, because, despite the sales pitch about dollars and university places, this is a bill that is designed to centralise power over Australian universities in the hands of the minister.

In passing, it's worth briefly commenting on the sales pitch, because all we heard about were the dollars of additional funding the minister's announcing and additional university places he'll buy. The minister said it in his second reading speech: an additional $3.6 billion over the decade and a further 230,000 university places. He said it in his press release, he said it in the media, but he didn't say it in the explanatory memorandum. On the very first page of the explanatory memorandum, the minister tells us:

The Bill supports an additional investment of $2.5 billion by the Australian Government in the higher education funding system over the medium term and is expected to result in an extra 200,000 commencing domestic students at university over the next decade.

In the financial impact statement of the EM he went on to qualify that quote. Those measures were announced in the 2024-25 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook: the government will invest an additional $2.5 billion in net funding over 11 years from 2024 to 2025. It's an extraordinary discrepancy. Why the sudden jump from $2.5 billion to $3.6 billion? Where does the extra $1.1 billion come from? Where did they find the extra 30,000 places? Why is there a $1.1 billion discrepancy between the minister's second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum he tabled on the very same day?

It's not the first time the minister has changed the figures he uses in announcements. On 25 March this year the minister stood in front of this chamber to talk about some other expenditure for which he was responsible—this time on schools, not universities—and told us he was spending 'an extra $16.5 billion over 10 years'. Nine weeks later, on 27 May, the same minister referring to the same expenditure stood in this chamber and told us he was actually spending '$20 billion over the next decade'. There was no new spending decision, but there was suddenly an additional $3.5 billion in the nine weeks to May. The minister has never given an explanation. It was concerning back in May in relation to schools, and it's concerning again today in relation to universities. It goes to the issue of whether the government is being transparent with the Australian people.

Why do the relevant MYEFO papers show $2.5 billion spending over 11 years when the minister is announcing a $3.6 billion spend over a decade? If numbers change, why didn't the minister include that update in this year's budget? How can Australians trust that the $3.6 billion the minister is talking about today won't become a higher number tomorrow? What prompted the minister to contradict his own explanatory memorandum in his speech and his press release? Where's this money coming from? Was it offset through the government's savage cuts to research or simply more debt to be added to Labor's trillion-dollar pile? All these things are for the minister to explain.

Coming back to the central theme, though, this bill is not really about funding. The funding decisions about the amounts to be spent on the sector and the number of places to be purchased were all made separately as part of the budgetary process. They were in MYEFO 18 months ago and perhaps should also have been in this year's budget. But that's not what this bill deals with. The budgetary decisions and the legislative drafting are related but separate. The decision to spend money to increase university places in particular could have been made with or without this bill. The minister could have increased funding under the current model. Equally, he could have switched to a managed growth model without changing the funding envelope. So, in examining this bill, it's appropriate to put any budgetary decisions to one side. They can and should be examined on their own terms. Instead, let's look at the statutory mechanisms that are introduced by this legislation.

Let me be very clear, as I was a few moments ago: this bill is about centralising power in the hands of the minister, because under this bill nearly every aspect of the future financial viability of our higher education institutions will be in the hands of the current minister and every future minister. The minister, whomever he or she happens to be at the time, will control the size of the domestic student load and will control how it's allocated both indirectly and directly. The minister, for all intents and purposes, not only will have the power to set an overall cap on international student numbers across all institutions but also can control how they're allocated. The minister controls needs based funding grants through the needs based funding grants guidelines that he will write, which will, in substance, determine how much funding will be delivered and to whom. In effect, this bill ensures the minister controls student fees and Commonwealth contributions, which are the financial lifeblood that allows our institutions to keep operating.

It's worth noting aside that the minister has increased reliance on that lifeblood by cutting research funding elsewhere. There has been a $2.2 billion cut to research from the Economic Accelerator, a $925 million reduction in the research capacity program compared to when the coalition left office, the end of hundreds of millions of dollars in research investment through trailblazer universities and myriad other cuts. The government has slashed the sector's other sources of income, reducing income diversification and concentrating reliance on allocated student places, which will now be determined by government.

Deputy Speaker, through you, I want to speak to all the university vice chancellors who are either watching this or will be reading this later. I'm surprised you signed up for this. You told us you wanted managed growth. I'm surprised you don't also want your independence.

On the theme of independence, those in the sector who are watching or who are on the crossbench of this parliament may have been told that many of the decisions about funding will be the domain of ATEC and that's okay because ATEC is independent. Let me say a few words about that. Independence is when you can't be sacked, when your funding can't be taken away and when you're not subject to direction. That's how we've guaranteed the independence of judges since at least the Act of Settlement 1701. But that's not how the ATEC is set up. ATEC commissioners are subject to termination at the satisfaction of the minister under section 67 of the ATEC act. All that's required is for the minister, whoever he or she may be, to be satisfied that the commissioners performance has been 'unsatisfactory for a significant period of time'. What constitutes unsatisfactory performance and a significant period of time are not defined. That's not independence.

As for remuneration and resourcing, the remuneration of ATEC commissioners is, of course, determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but the resourcing of ATEC is highly dependent on the minister. The ATEC Act makes it clear there is no ability for the ATEC to employ its own staff. Instead, the ATEC Act specifically stipulates in section 22:

The staff assisting the ATEC are to be APS employees in the Department whose services are made available to the ATEC by the Secretary …

Indeed, other staff are able to assist the ATEC only where the relevant agency head agrees, and the ATEC cannot even engage its own contractors or consultants. Section 24 of the ATEC Act says that this must be done by the secretary on behalf of the Commonwealth on terms and conditions that the secretary determines in writing. This means that ATEC commissioners are completely dependent on resourcing allocated to them by the minister and the secretary to perform their functions. That's not independence.

As for freedom from direction, there's no such thing. ATEC commissioners are explicitly instructed by statute to take account of the minister's short- and long-term priorities, which are set out under section 15 of the ATEC Act. The ATEC is also directly subject to ministerial direction about how they carry out their functions, with a couple of minor caveats under section 71 of the ATEC Act. Just in case those caveats turn out to be a little too constricting, this bill introduces a new special power for the minister to stipulate 'matters the ATEC must comply with' in relation to the allocation of international students. I'll come back to that. To drive the point home, the words 'independent' or 'independence' only appear five times in the ATEC Act. Two of those occurrences describe statutory reviews that must take place after two and five years. The other three occurrences relate to a requirement for commissioners to be independent of tertiary education providers. None of them describes any requirement for the ATEC or its commissioners to be independent of government.

The coalition did not support the establishment of ATEC. We thought it was a wasteful, unnecessary and duplicative bureaucracy—bad in principle. More to the point, this bill allows the minister to bypass the ATEC in a number of significant respects, effectively making it irrelevant. He can do this in a number of ways. First, he can decide to directly allocate places to institutions. This is because the minister has the power to allocate demand driven higher education places under the new section 30-55 of the HESA. He can allocate those places in specific courses to specific institutions. He also has the power to decide under section 30-60 whether a course is a demand driven higher education course. The ATEC does not have the power to allocate demand driven higher education course places. This means the minister can take places out of the hands of the ATEC and allocate them himself.

Of course, the minister also has the power to determine the total allocation pool. He can pause any growth in that pool. He can then ensure any future growth in student numbers comes from demand driven places which he controls. In theory, he has the power to exercise total control over future domestic student growth. Of course, like all good regulatory tools, it's likely he would never need to exercise those powers. But their mere existence—the threat of an adverse ministerial decision—would almost always be sufficient to bring a recalcitrant sector into line. But the power is there, just in case. That is just one of the powers the minister would acquire under this bill. A future minister would have those powers too.

The second area in which the minister can bypass ATEC independence is in relation to decisions about international students. The minister decides the number of students available. He can control how they're distributed. He can do that by making an international allocation pool determination and then giving directions to ATEC under the new section 46B of the ESOS Act. It's worth saying that, as a matter of drafting, it appears likely that the minister has the power to make course-level caps. This is either because the drafting refers to the minister's power to make allocations in relation to 'a course of education' or because his power to stipulate matters the ATEC must comply with when it allocates students is completely unconstrained, doesn't require consultation and is not disallowable. This means the minister has huge flexibility to determine the quantum, the location and the field of study for any future international student growth.

Third, the bill gives the minister unilateral power to impose conditions on higher education providers under the new section 36-65 of the HESA, which is introduced by this bill. The current version of section 36-65 of the HESA requires that there be an agreement in place with the provider. The new version does not. It appears the minister can at any time for any provider in relation to any matter whatsoever impose a condition on that provider for the purpose of a Commonwealth grant, which they are required by law to comply with if they take the Commonwealth supported places in that year. This power appears to be limited only perhaps by the Australian Constitution or administrative law statutory interpretation constraints as to the scope of the primary legislation. There's no requirement to consult. There's no requirement to involve AAT. This so-called system steward, ATEC, can be bypassed at any time by a minister choosing to exercise this power. Again, this means universities are, under this bill, subject to extraordinary control by this minister or any future minister.

Fourth, the ATEC is not involved in decisions about needs based funding, which instead is controlled by the minister. Under the new section 39-15 of the HESA, institutions receive needs based funding grants that comprise two components: the total equity component and the total regional component. The coverage of the equity component is unclear. It covers international students, but whether or not a person is otherwise eligible depends on whether they can satisfy criteria under the needs based funding grant guidelines, which are to be issued by the minister. It's unclear how much they'll be paid. The legislation sets a base amount, but this is multiplied by an equity modifier amount. The equity modifier amount is again specified in the needs based funding grant guidelines. Presumably, in theory, any future minister could simply determine that the equity modifier amount is zero. A similar arrangement applies for the regional component. In short, the amount of equity and regional funding you will receive under the needs based funding grant guidelines are within the control of the minister. The ATEC is not involved. To the vice-chancellors, I say: this is how you will be funded into the future.

It's worth noting a few points about oversight and review of the decisions made under this bill. In this bill, the minister's decisions about domestic student pools are not disallowable. The minister's decisions about international allocation pools are not disallowable, as I mentioned. The minister's decisions about the allocation of places for demand driven higher education courses are not legislative instruments and therefore not disallowable. A determination by the minister to impose a condition on the specified higher education provider is not a legislative instrument and is therefore not disallowable and is not subject to merits review. Conditions opposed by the minister in relation to needs based funding grants are also not legislative instruments and therefore not disallowable.

ATEC decisions about core student load, additional growth allocation, transitional places and a range of other things are not subject to merits review by the Administrative Review Tribunal. Presumably, if you're a university and you get a bad decision, then your only recourse is judicial review, litigation or a constitutional writ. It's not a great option when the target of your litigation will be the minister who will make the future decisions that shape your ongoing financial viability.

Again, I say to the university vice-chancellors that called for and welcome this bill: I'm surprised you signed up to this. I'm surprised you welcomed this legislation. These are matters that go directly to your institutional independence and autonomy. This is apparently what you wanted, though. Let me say this clearly: if it's not what you wanted, I do not think degradation of your independence and institutional autonomy can be fixed through piecemeal amendments. Ministerial control over the sector is embedded in every part of this bill. You cannot remove it through keyhole surgery. If you do not like it and do not want to accept it, you will need to persuade both the coalition and the Greens that the bill should be opposed.

That's the lay down on the bill. This bill is quite extraordinary in the amount of power it confirms on the current minister and indeed any future minister. But let's be honest. From this side of the chamber or, indeed, any part of the chamber, I doubt there's a politician in this place who would say that all is well with the sector. From concerns about quality to how universities are grappling with the challenges of artificial intelligence, the shocking failures in relation to antisemitism, the problems around international students and a general slide in rankings, the problems of our higher education providers are manifold. The suite of powers in this bill provides a pathway to fix many of them, and it provides a pathway to address some broader societal challenges as well.

First, on migration, when I spoke at the Universities Australia conference earlier this year, I said:

Australia's migration program must be designed to restore our standard of living and protect our way of life.

Our migration settings must be appropriately balanced against the capacity of our housing, our infrastructure and other services.

Currently, the pressure on infrastructure, services and housing—particularly in our cities—is being felt acutely across the board.

International students make up the largest component of Net Overseas Migration.

In any attempt to address the NOM, international students will play a part.

I said very clearly that I understand the value of international students to Australia. I also said:

We will want to make changes to the settings around international students, but I want the sector to know that we want to work closely with you to develop these policies and announce them in due course.

This bill provides a powerful pathway to bring down the NOM. In effect, it transitions the international student temporary migration program from a capped to an uncapped system, without needing to engage with the complexities of the Migration Act or the visa system. To get a student visa, you need a confirmation of enrolment. Unless a university is allocated international student places, they will not be able to issue that confirmation. The ATEC must consult with public universities before making an international student allocation. It is not required to consult with private providers. In any event, it must comply with the matters specified by the minister. The minister doesn't have to consult. In short, this is a powerful tool to bring down the NOM in the way we've outlined.

Second, on social cohesion, Blind Freddy could tell you that the universities have been one of the key sources of socially destructive trends, particularly around antisemitism in the progressive left but also in relation to the broader adherence to Australia and its values. In February this year, I commend the minister for saying this, he rightly called for schools to teach students that Australia is, 'the best country in the world'. You will never hear that in our universities. He said that Australian kids should be taught Australian values, which he defined as democracy, the rule of law, basic freedoms and a fair go. This bill would give a future minister the power to ensure that universities teach national pride in Australian values, as defined by the minister, as a funding condition for receiving a Commonwealth supported place. This should not be controversial. It is what the minister should do, and it's what any coalition minister would do.

The new condition-making power in section 36-65 of HESA allows the minister to impose conditions unilaterally on providers. As a condition of being allocated Commonwealth supported places, this power could be used to require a recalcitrant university or higher education provider to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. It could be used to require the teaching of Australian values, as defined by the minister of the day, rather than a divisive, progressive agenda. The control that the minister can exert over international students could no doubt have the same effect indirectly, if not in name.

To any who object, I say state your case. Why should our universities not teach pride in our country? Why should a minister not have the power to enforce that? Why would a responsible minister allocate international students that allowed Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Socialist Alternative to run encampments and take over the student representative councils? Why would we want to export our problems to the world by exposing international students to the worst aspects of woke ideology that have run amok on our campuses?

My colleague and friend Senator Bridget McKenzie recently gave a speech where she outlined concerns about the state of the sector, concerns that I know are shared by many parents, many students and my coalition colleagues about students spending years being grounded in woke ideology and even antisemitism and those ideas being passed on to the broader society. This bill empowers the minister to turn back the tide.

Third, on private higher education and sector reform, this bill allows the minister to prioritise growth both for Commonwealth supported places and international students outside the public universities. It envisages Commonwealth supported places going to private sector institutions for priority classes of courses. This is a new notion which replaces the much less flexible notion of a national priority that's in the existing legislation.

New sections 30.35 and 30.40 of the HESA make clear that the minister can easily list a particular course as a priority for the specified non-table A provider and thus open a gateway to CSPs. The pathway is much simpler and gives the minister a much more granular level of control than is currently the case. The minister simply needs to amend the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines. For effective and efficient private providers who do the right thing, why should they not play a part in educating our future students? You never hear about the socialist alternative taking over the campus of a private provider. You never hear about them having a problem with antisemitism. You never hear about them teaching our students to be ashamed of Australia. Why shouldn't we take some of the taxpayer funding that goes to public universities and give it to much better private bodies?

My fourth point is on economic opportunities in the outer suburbs and regions. A former leader of the National Party is sitting next to me at the table today. The suite of powers in this bill would allow a future minister to prioritise economic growth in these key areas by directing our student load and international cohort where it's needed, which is out of our CBDs and into the regions and the bush. This could be done by any of the following: giving directions to ATEC, under section 71 of the ATEC act, to prioritise student growth in those areas; determining that specified courses are not higher education courses in the hands of ATEC but are instead demand driven, which allows domestic places to be allocated directly by the minister; or directing ATEC to prioritise the allocation of international students to outer suburban or regional campuses under the new section 46B of the ESOS Act. This gives a future minister the ability to respond much more flexibly to the economic and future workforce needs of our vital regions in the suburbs and the bush.

In short, the powerful tools in this bill provide a pathway for a future coalition government to respond to broad societal changes in the national interest. Let me again say to the vice-chancellors: is this what you really want?

Those things aside, there are also clearly reasons to oppose this bill. This bill is not the way that we, on this side of the chamber, would approach university reform. We believe in competition and deregulation as formidable tools to drive innovation. That philosophy is not found anywhere in this bill. In fact, this bill ends competition between institutions and brings them under the heel of the minister and his ATEC. I want to say a few words about that. Bizarrely, this bill appears to be premised on the idea that competition between universities is a bad thing. Indeed, the minister made this his centrepiece; 'The hunger games are over,' he said. For those who've read The Hunger Games or watched the movies, we know the idea of The Hunger Games is that different districts are made to compete by selecting champions who then fight to the death to win food for their home towns. It's a sloppy metaphor when we're talking about universities. It only makes sense if the students are the food.

In marketplaces, competition is the friend of the consumer. In a competitive marketplace, you win consumers by offering a higher-quality product at a better price. The winner is the customer. That's the whole purpose of competition policy. In higher education, universities compete to attract students. They compete on academic prestige and research output, on student experience and on career outcomes. A university attracts students because they have a stronger offering. Competition means universities are incentivised to improve what they're offering to students. What the minister is saying is he wants to end that incentive. It's bizarre, because it puts the interests of students second to the interests of institutions. I understand the point that there are megauniversities which are rapacious, and the viability of the smaller players is under threat. But that's an argument about market power and relative size of the big institutions. The answer to a misuse of market power is to address that conduct, not to end competition altogether.

Another concern is that this bill strips institutional autonomy and independence from our universities. Higher education providers under the managed growth regime become highly reliant on the largesse of the minister and are subject to a range of intrusive powers. The billions of dollars in cuts to research funding limit the ability to rely on alternative sources of funding. A further undesirable aspect of the bill is the strange rejection of efficiency and productivity in the sector, which is demonstrated by its antipathy to overenrolment. A university's fees are made up of two components: Commonwealth contributions and student contributions. Under the current system, if a university enrols more students than they're funded for, they don't receive the Commonwealth contribution, but they may still receive the student contribution. This allows universities to innovate and find economies of scale that allow them to educate more students for the same amount of taxpayer dollars. This is referred to as overenrolment.

However, this bill significantly disincentivises overenrolment. If a university goes more than five per cent over their cap, they'll lose not only their Commonwealth contribution but also the student contribution. It's a de facto financial penalty. Why would we want to penalise universities for finding ways to educate more domestic students for the same amount of taxpayer money? And why would we want to deny students their first choice, to prop up competitor universities that they simply don't want to attend? How is this fair to students or their families? It's wrongheaded and inexplicable.

A further issue is that there appear to be unqualified financial risks in this bill. Under the current arrangements, universities receive a maximum basic grant amount and their load planners determine the types of places they'll offer. This bill changes it from capped funding to capped places, but the places cost different amounts depending on the course. The Commonwealth contribution to a history degree is $1,316; agriculture costs $32,400. Could a university which typically teaches history be allocated 100 places and decide to convert them to agriculture? (Extension of time granted, on the motion of Mr Leeser) And would this increase the financial risk to the Commonwealth? In theory, it's possible. Given the regulated nature of the industry, it seems unlikely, but it needs to be explored. Finally, because the needs-based funding grant guidelines are so dependent on the minister, they too appear to represent an unknown budgetary expense. That's something that should also be examined. All of these matters are things that we will consider through the committee stage.

The pathway forward is simple. We'll refer the bill. We will listen to the sector. We will think about the good of Australia and Australians and how the coalition would use these powers in the bill in the future, and we will make a decision in the best interests of the country. I thank the House.

I am proud to speak in support of the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026 because it continues the Albanese Labor government's reforms to help build a better and fairer education system for our country. The bill's title alludes to a statement made by the Prime Minister four years ago after Labor won government. The Prime Minister said:

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

To illustrate my passion for ensuring equal opportunity for all Australians, I would like to tell you about an amazing person in my electorate of Whitlam who has done incredible things with their education. I spoke about this person in the Federation Chamber earlier this week: Dr Jodi Edwards, a Yuin Dharawal woman who has dedicated her life to community, culture and language across New South Wales, including in the southern Illawarra region of my electorate of Whitlam. Jodi grew up in the southern Illawarra and experienced much of the structural disadvantage that impacts so many First Nations Australians. Jodi left school in year 10 to support her family after her father was injured in a workplace accident. However, Jodi is a determined woman and decided she wanted to pursue her education. She returned to high school at the age of 26 to complete her HSC—the first in her family to do so. Jodi did not stop there. Against all odds, Jodi was awarded her PhD from Macquarie University in 2021. Dr Jodi Edwards now works at the University of Wollongong, where she is the vice-chancellor's Senior Indigenous Research Fellow with the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security.

Two years ago, the Albanese Labor government invested in the University of Wollongong's Unbroken Whispers project, which is led by Dr Jodi Edwards. Blending Indigenous research and modern science, Jodi and her team are tracking southern right whales, humpback whales, orcas and dolphins along Australia's east coast. Jodi's project draws on stories and knowledge from the world's oldest living culture to better safeguard our incredible ocean environment. In 2022, Jodi was named Shellharbour Woman of the Year and Illawarra Regional NAIDOC Aboriginal Community Person of the Year for her enormous contribution to many organisations and initiatives within our community, and in 2023 she was nominated for the NSW Aboriginal Woman of the Year award.

Dr Jodi Edwards has made an absolutely extraordinary contribution to our community, and in large part this contribution has been made possible because Jodi was able to access an education. But her path was not easy. We want to make pathways for people like Jodi easier so that every Australian gets a chance to give back to the community, to achieve their potential and to be a leader in our community, just like Jodi is.

I'm proud to say that I come from a family of public school teachers. My father, aunty, sister and husband are all public school teachers, and I'm proud to have been educated in public schools. I'm very passionate about public education because, without it, I wouldn't be where I am today. My mother was raised in housing commission in Dundas Valley near Parramatta in Sydney's western suburbs. I come from humble beginnings, but, thanks to our public education system, I got an education. My parents were determined that my sisters and I would go to university. When I started law school at the University of Wollongong in the mid-nineties, all I had was a dream that my parents fostered—that there was no reason I could not achieve whatever I longed for. I was proud to become a lawyer and to work as a public interest and human rights lawyer for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. I've had so many opportunities to give back to the community working in the not-for-profit sector and for government. Here I am, 30 years later, after starting my studies at the University of Wollongong, in federal parliament. I'm very grateful for the education I've received, first at Hazelbrook Public School, then at Springwood High School and then at the University of Wollongong.

Part of what drives me is the inherent knowledge that there are talented people everywhere in our community. Your postcode does not dictate your ability to contribute and give back. As a Labor government, we know this to be a fact, and we want to ensure that every child and that every adult has an opportunity to get an education, to thrive and to reach their potential. I'm a passionate advocate for public education because it safeguards Australia's great tradition of fairness and equal opportunity and because I understand that education is critical to opening the doors of opportunity for every Australian. I am proud that, earlier this year, the Albanese Labor government reached agreements with every state and territory to put all public schools in Australia on a path to full and fair funding. This means that about $20 billion in additional Commonwealth funding will be invested in public schools across the country over the next 10 years. This represents the biggest new investment in public schools by an Australian government.

This bill focuses on tertiary education and will open the doors of opportunity for many thousands of Australians who might not otherwise have had the opportunity to study at university. Young people who grow up in families with less money or outside our big cities are less likely to have the opportunity to study at university than other Australians, and, if they start a university degree, they are less likely to finish it. The data indicates that they are up to twice as likely to drop out after their first year at university than other students. The Albanese Labor government wants to change this.

The genesis of this reform can be traced to the Australian Universities Accord, which was established by this government in November 2022. The accord was led by a panel of eminent Australians, and its objective was to devise recommendations and performance targets to improve the quality, accessibility, affordability and sustainability of higher education in Australia in order to achieve long-term security and prosperity for the sector and the nation. The Minister for Education asked the universities accord to look at seven priority areas: Australia's knowledge and skills needs, now and in the future; access and opportunity; investment and affordability in higher education; governance, accountability and community; connections between the vocational education and training and higher education systems; the sustainability and quality of higher education; and new knowledge, innovation and capability for Australia. The accord released its final report in February 2024, and it provides a valuable blueprint for higher education reform over the next two decades.

A key recommendation is that Australia needs to increase the number of people in the workforce with a certificate, diploma or degree. When the final report was released two years ago, 60 per cent of working Australians had a certificate, a diploma or a degree. The accord reported that this needs to increase by about 80 per cent by 2050, which is a significant jump. To achieve this target to deliver on Australia's future skills needs, we need to take action now. The universities accord recommended adopting a new funding model for higher education that is planned and managed by the Australian Tertiary Education Commission. It also recommended increasing the number of higher education students from underrepresented backgrounds, matched by a focus on success for these students. The universities accord found that 69 per cent of young Australians from wealthy families had a university degree, compared with only 19 per cent from less wealthy families. The Albanese government has responded to the Universities Accord by making a substantial financial commitment. That commitment is an additional $3.6 billion in funding for Australia's higher education system over the next decade. This investment will increase the number of students at university and help to meet Australia's future skills needs.

This bill enacts our commitment through a new funding system. It amends five pieces of legislation to do three core things. First, it embeds the new system to support growth in domestic students, including those from low socioeconomic and regional and remote backgrounds. Secondly, it establishes mechanisms to support students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, First Nations students and students studying at regional campuses. And thirdly, it formalises the role of the Australian Tertiary Education Commission in allocating Commonwealth supported places. Our reforms are expected to result in an extra 230,000 domestic students commencing at university over the next decade. There will be an additional 16,000 places for students in the system each year for the next three years, and this increases to 19,000 additional places each year from 2030. Our new system will effectively uncap the number of places for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and from regional areas.

We'll also provide that extra funding to support students who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, First Nations students and students studying at regional campuses, and that support will go a long way. This approach is similar to the Gonski model for school funding, which provides schools with extra funding based on where they are located and the needs of the students they educate. The needs based funding will provide universities with additional resources for tutoring, mentoring, academic assistance, scholarships and emergency financial support for these students.

I am proud of the steps that Labor has taken to try and make universities and further study more accessible and affordable for students from all walks of life. We've taken a range of measures which have been outlined in the accord. For example, Labor has cut 20 per cent of HECS debts. We introduced paid prac for the first time, which provides financial support for eligible teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students when they do their practical training. We've increased the number of free university bridging courses, which are an important link between school and university. We've introduced the National Student Ombudsman and a national code to prevent and respond to gender based violence. We've made demand-driven Commonwealth supported places available to all First Nations students where they get the marks to get in. Previously, this was only available for Indigenous students living in regional and remote Australia. The Department of Education estimates that over the next decade, this initiative could double the number of Indigenous students at university.

We need to take action now to help set our tertiary education system up to deliver on Australia's future skills needs. That means more people at TAFE and more people at university. The Albanese Labor government has implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations in full or in part.

As I mentioned previously, these changes inject an additional $3.6 billion in Australia's higher education system over the next decade to increase the number of students at university and to meet Australia's future skills needs. This bill enacts that commitment through a new funding system. The new system will address existing issues in the higher education funding system and will better align Commonwealth funding with enrolments. Importantly, higher education providers will be supported to transition to the new funding system. Under this new needs based funding system, the amount of funding per student will more than double next year in some cases. Universities will be able to put this extra funding towards things like: tutoring, mentoring and other academic supports; direct financial assistance like scholarships and grants; and offsetting the higher costs of campuses in regional and remote areas.

I am pleased these that reforms will mean that more local kids from my electorate of Whitlam will get a chance to go to university, people like Jodi, and they'll get the supports they'll need to stay there. They'll then give back enormously to our community through the professions of their choice. I am proud of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to education at all levels, and I commend this bill to the House.

I always admire the person in Labor's central command who writes the titles of bills before the House of Representatives. This one, the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026, is written as if you couldn't oppose it—'opening the doors of opportunity'. It's so often the way with Labor that it comes in here as the government of the day with a 50-plus seat majority and feels the need to word its bills in such a way that, if you opposed it or went against it, you would be the worst of the worst.

The coalition, as the shadow education minister, the member for Berowra, said, has not finalised its position on the bill. There are reasons for that. One of the reasons for that is, once again, Labor's lack of consultation. The coalition has concerns from the sector itself about the consultation process, including but not limited to the fact universities had not seen the bill before it was tabled. There are elements of the drafting surprising the actual sector. No exposure draft was released—probably no surprise there—and stakeholders were shown only limited material under confidentiality arrangements.

This is so typical of Labor. It comes in here with legislation and without the proper consultation. Just this week, we've seen in the online legislation designed to protect children that the work, the background research and the consultation was not done prior to the initial bill being put forward. I supported that particular bill; I was in favour of children under 16 not being able to access certain social media platforms. I do believe that children should be allowed to be children.

We saw it in the veterans legislation, where there is now going to be a $5,000 cap on allied health for veterans to access important services. The Labor Party said: 'Trust us. We'll do the consultation over the next 12 months.' It's not good enough. The consultation should have been done prior to the budget, prior to the legislation, prior to our veterans being unnecessarily alarmed by what the budget changes could entail. They've got every right to be concerned, to be worried and, in some cases, to be fraught with anxiety. It's their livelihoods; it's their quality of life. All of that is at stake because of changes brought about by a government which doesn't do the consultation.

The thing is that this government has a huge majority. It shouldn't need to decide on a policy and then ram it through this House. It should be doing the consultation because, irrespective of what legislation it brings before this place, it's going to get it through. It doesn't need to ram it through. But it does need those stakeholder groups across industry, across Australia's society, it needs to do the proper groundwork, and it needs to consult. The coalition believes that this bill should be, has to be and must be referred to a Senate committee for an inquiry and report. It should. As the shadow minister for education said in his contribution: 'The equity modifier amount is again specified in the needs based funding grant guidelines. Presumably, in theory, any future minister could simply determine that the equity modifier amount is zero. A similar arrangement applies for the regional component. In short,' he said, 'the amount of equity and regional funding you will receive under the needs based funding grant guidelines are within the control of the minister,' Deputy Speaker, you no doubt would have heard me say often that I am not against ministers being ministers and ministers having control. But there is some concern in this particular legislation in relation to the control of the minister. The Australian Tertiary Education Commission is not involved. To the vice-chancellors—I'm quoting the member for Berowra here—'This is how you will be funded into the future.' And he expressed surprise at the fact that the vice-chancellors had so readily and so quickly signed up to this arrangement.

Now, I represent the Riverina, and throughout the Riverina we've got many Charles Sturt University students. Charles Sturt University's genesis goes back to, would you believe, 1892 with the establishment of the Wagga Wagga Experiment Farm. In 1947, the Wagga Wagga Teachers College was founded, and just two years later the Wagga Wagga Agricultural College was established on the site of the experiment farm. In 1972, the teachers college reformed as the Riverina College of Advanced Education, which merged with the Wagga Wagga Agricultural College four years later. In 1985, the Riverina College of Advanced Education was renamed the Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Education, with campuses at both Wagga Wagga and Albury-Wodonga. In 1989—and I will remember this because I was the subeditor and night editor of the local Wagga Daily Advertiser newspaper at the time—the historic merger took place between the Mitchell College of Advanced Education and the Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Education, incorporating into Charles Sturt University, with campuses in Albury-Wodonga, Bathurst and Wagga Wagga. I'm also proud to say that my three children, Georgina, Alexander and Nicholas, are all products and graduates of CSU, in teaching, accountancy and policing, respectively.

I worry about and I am very alarmed at the fact that CSU has found itself in a very unfortunate debt situation. Professor Renée Leon, the vice chancellor, in a statement on 27th June last year, just 12 months ago, said:

Charles Sturt University announced to staff and other stakeholders the need to remove $35 million from the University's operating budget between now and the end of 2027.

She wrote:

As distressing as this decision is, it should not come as a surprise. In recent years, the Australian university sector has been in crisis, with jobs, courses and research jeopardised by needlessly restrictive and unsupportive government policies. We have been saying as much to those responsible but those comments have fallen on deaf ears, to the detriment of our staff and communities.

Whilst that is worrying, it's not entirely government's fault that CSU has found itself in such a predicament, but something needs to happen and be done to provide more support for regional education. The member for Whitlam gave a contribution prior to me and indicated quite rightly and appropriately how hard it is for young people in the regions to get that diploma from the university of their choice, because of socioeconomic factors, distance—all manner of reasons. And she was right.

The central issue in this bill is not only funding or student places. The bill centralises enormous power over universities and higher education providers into the hands of the minister, yet, as the shadow education minister indicated, the vice-chancellors have agreed to this. I defer to CSU's vice-chancellor when indicating the debt situation that that university unfortunately finds itself in, yet vice-chancellors have agreed to a position which provides a centrally managed model. The minister and future ministers would gain extensive powers over domestic Commonwealth supported places, international student allocations, demand-driven higher education course places, needs based funding, conditions imposed on providers, and priorities and directions given to ATEC.

These powers could be used by a future government to address serious policy problems. However, they do raise significant concerns about competition. Charles Sturt University, University of New England and other country universities which provide a great service—CSU does, and I'm fully supportive of that organisation—are in competition with the sandstone universities in our metropolitan cities. There are also significant concerns around institutional autonomy, efficiency, parliamentary oversight and ministerial discretion. We have to make sure that our regional universities are thriving, because the success of our sandstone universities is dependent on the success of our regional universities. It's like the hub and spoke model. Our cities can't survive and thrive without our country towns. They cannot. It's the same with universities. Our sandstone universities, which have been very successful for a very long time, cannot continue to survive and thrive without the success of universities such as CSU and other regional universities. I will champion those universities for as long as I have breath in me, because all too often in country communities our best and biggest export are our children, our young people, those with the most potential.

I have to say, and I really stress this, just because you have a university degree doesn't make you better than somebody without one. It does not. Some of our best and brightest people are those who would never go near a university other than to maybe fix the fridge or work as a chippie, a sparky or something that doesn't require generally a university degree to do that job. As long as you're contributing to the common wealth, then good on you—as long as you're having a go. I've always said a TAFE certificate is worth every bit as much as a university degree—a hundred per cent it is—but we have to look at the model of universities.

Labor claims that the Universities Accord bill before us is doing just that. I remain wary. I remain cautious. Whenever Labor says that it's opening the doors of opportunity or says, 'Trust us. Everything will be all right,' I must admit it does send a shiver up my spine. The minister's public sales pitch has been $3.6 billion over the decade and 230 000 additional universities places—all of this. Well, we will live in hope.

The government must come to grips with the debt problem faced by not just CSU but also our regional universities. I say again that the sandstone universities are only as strong as the success of regional universities success. We have to make sure that our country kids who want to go to university are able to go to a university in a regional setting, because the chances are that, in three-quarters of the courses and cases, they will stay in that regional setting and we will not be exporting some of our best and brightest to the cities, never to see them again in our country settings.

I withdraw an unparliamentary remark that I made yesterday during the MPI. In withdrawing that remark, I would also like to apologise to you and to members of this House. I used a word that was not up to the high standard that we would expect of this place and the high standard that I expect of myself. I apologise.

I rise to speak in support of the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. At its centre, this bill is about whether a kid growing up outside capital cities can look at university, TAFE or any form of tertiary education and see a real path rather than a distant idea. It is about whether a young person in a country town or a regional community or a family without much spare money gets told that this door is open to them.

I grew up spending time in Dungog and Merriwa in New South Wales. I spent time visiting family in Auburn in South Australia and Woy Woy on the Central Coast. Those places shape the way you see education, opportunity and distance, because, in country towns, distance is not just kilometres on a map. Distance is cost. It is accommodation. It is transport. It is leaving family. It is leaving work. It is moving away from the people you know. It is trying to work out whether you belong in a lecture theatre when no-one in your immediate circle has done it before. Those communities are not short of ambition. They are not short of capable students, practical intelligence or people who work hard. What they are often short of is access—access to campuses, access to advice, access to financial support and access to someone saying early enough and clearly enough that tertiary education is a realistic option.

There is a phrase that often gets used: you cannot be what you cannot see, and there is truth in that. When a young person grows up seeing people around them go to university, apply for apprenticeships, finish diplomas, start careers, retrain and move between industries, their sense of what is possible grows. When they do not see it, that path can feel like it belongs to someone else. That is not about ability; it is about visibility. It is about confidence. It is about whether a system has been built with you in mind. Too often, it is not. This bill helps change that.

The Australian Universities Accord sets out a long-term plan for what Australia needs from its tertiary education system over the next decade and the decade after that. One of the central conclusions is clear: Australia will need more people with qualifications, certificates, diplomas and degrees. It says we will need around 80 per cent of the workforce to have a tertiary education over the coming decades. That means more people at TAFE. It means more people at university. It means more people getting skills for the jobs our economy will require. But we cannot reach that goal by relying only on the same students from the same suburbs going to the same institutions through the same pathways.

If Australia needs more skilled workers, then Australia must widen the pool of people who can get those skills. That is the logic behind this bill. The Albanese Labor government has already implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations in full or in part. We have made HECS fairer, introduced paid prac, expanded study hubs, increased bridging courses, created the National Student Ombudsman, strengthened protections against gender based violence, opened demand driven places for First Nations students and established the Australian Tertiary Education Commission.

This bill is the next step. It provides a new managed growth funding system. In plain English, that means we're moving to a system where growth in university places is planned and funded more sensibly. The Australian Tertiary Education Commission will have a formal role in allocating Commonwealth supported places. That is important because the system should not rely on drift, guesswork or a contest where universities chase enrolments without the Commonwealth funding being properly aligned.

The bill also establishes demand driven, needs based funding. That phrase sounds technical, but the idea is straightforward: if a university enrols more students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, more First Nations students or more students studying at regional campuses, it will receive extra support to help those students participate and succeed. That funding can go to tutoring. It can go to mentoring. It can go to academic support. It can go to scholarships and grants. It can help meet the higher cost of operating campuses outside the major cities.

In this bill, the base equity amount is $1,535 and the base regional amount is $1,398. Those amounts are more than double what some previous programs involved, but the real point is not a figure in isolation. The real point is what it lets universities do. It lets a university notice when a student is struggling and intervene earlier. It lets a regional campus provide support that would otherwise be stretched too thin. It helps make success part of the funding design, not an afterthought.

For students from country areas, the obstacles do not end when they receive an offer. In some ways, that is when the real test starts. There is the cost of moving. There is the cost of staying. There is the pressure to work long hours. There is the pressure of being away from home. There is the feeling, sometimes unspoken, that university is a place built for someone else. It can determine whether a student asks for help or stays silent. It can determine whether they keep going after the first failed assessment. It can determine whether they feel like they have the right to be there. This bill says that participation and success are both part of the job. I know the value of this personally. I was the second person on one side of my family to go to university. That is not said as a complaint; it is said because it gives me a clear view of what opportunity can do when a door opens at the right time.

My own pathway was not a straight one. I went to TAFE in Maitland to get into university. I later did a pre-apprenticeship in South Metropolitan TAFE in Beaconsfield before starting my electrical apprenticeship. Years later I went to Murdoch University to study law. None of those steps were inevitable. Each one gave me a rung on the ladder. Each one gave me the chance to build a life, develop skills, change direction and contribute in a different way. I would not be who I am today without that opportunity, and that is why I do not see TAFE and university as competing ideas. I see them as part of the same ladder. For some people, the first rung is a bridging course. For others it is a certificate. For others it is an apprenticeship, a diploma, a degree and a second chance later in life.

Good policy keeps the ladder in place; great policy makes sure more people can reach the first rung. That is why I'm less interested in reciting every number in the legislation and more interested in what those numbers mean when they land in a family living room in a regional town. They mean a student in Merriwa does not have to see university as something for other people. They mean a student in Dungog who has the ability, drive and curiosity has a better chance of finding a pathway. They mean a young person on the Central Coast, in country South Australia or in any regional community should not have to overcome the system before they even begin their course. And they mean that Australia get the nurses, teachers, engineers, electricians, social workers, accountants, scientists and skilled workers that we will need.

I often speak about my trade training and TAFE because that is part of my story. I became an electrician. I know the value of a trade, and I know that university is not the only path to a good life, and it should never be treated as the only respectable path. A good tertiary system is not university versus TAFE. It is not degree versus trade. It is about building a system where people can get the skills that suit them and where those pathways are respected.

The bill also effectively uncaps the number of places for students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and regional areas through the new managed growth arrangements. The ATEC will be able to allocate additional places where they are needed. If the demand from those students exceeds the allocation pool, the ATEC can seek an increase. When a student has the marks, the ability and the determination, the system should be able to respond.

This bill is also about stewardship. That is not always an exciting word, but it is a necessary one. For too long, parts of the higher education policy have been pulled towards short term politics, institutional competition and funding settings that do not always meet national needs. The ATEC is intended to provide a more coherent view across the sector, including through mission based compacts.

When the Commonwealth invests in higher education, it should know what we are trying to achieve: more teachers, more nurses, more workers in areas of national demand, stronger research, viable regional campuses and better pathways for students who have been locked out. This bill also contains provisions about international student places and modernises information-sharing between the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, and the ATEC. Those provisions are important for administration and oversight. The machinery needs to work even if the machinery provisions rarely stir the soul.

For a young person in a regional town, a single closed door can be enough to stop them. The family cannot afford rent in the city. The student cannot afford to stop working. The campus is too far away. The course feels out of reach. The paperwork is confusing. The student starts but falls behind and the support is not there. Each of these barriers can look small from Canberra. They do not look small when you are the one facing them. The purpose of government is not to pretend those barriers do not exist; it is to remove as many of them as we reasonably can. That is why this bill is important; it funds growth in a managed way and attaches additional support to the students and the campuses that need it most.

For the electorate of Moore, this reform also has a local significance. We have the Joondalup Learning Precinct with Edith Cowan University, North Metropolitan TAFE and the Western Australia Police Academy. We know the value of education precincts that connect skills, training, employment and community. But this is not only about Moore; it is about the national interest. Australia cannot afford to waste talent because of postcode, family income or background. We cannot tell regional kids to dream big then build a system that makes those dreams too expensive, too distant and too fragile. We need the child in the country school to know that university is possible. We need the apprentice to know that further study is possible. We need the single parent returning to study to know that support exists. We need First Nations students who earn a place to know the place will be there. We need regional campus to know that its higher operating costs are recognised and not ignored.

This bill does not solve every problem in higher education—no single bill does, and anyone who claims otherwise either has not read enough legislation or has read far too much of their own press release—but it does make real structural change. It moves us towards a system where growth is planned, funding follows need and opportunity is not rationed by geography. I support this bill because it reflects a principle Labor should always defend—talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not. Government has a responsibility to narrow that gap. The child growing up in Dungog, Merriwa, Auburn, Woy Woy, Joondalup or anywhere else in Australia should be able to see a path forward. They should be able to pursue a trade, a diploma, a degree or a change in career without the system quietly telling them that ambition is reserved for someone else.

I got chances because education and training opened doors for me. I will do everything I can to make sure more people get the same chance and bring more people up the ladder of opportunity that this bill helps build. It says that if you have the ability and determination, the country should back you. That is good education policy, it is good economic policy and, most importantly, it is the kind of country we should be building. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. I acknowledge the member for Moore and his time he spent in the wonderful community of Dungog. It is a terrific place and I know that the teachers and educators in that town do a wonderful job. Well done.

As the member for Lyne, I approach this debate from the perspective of regional Australia and, in particular, the Mid North Coast and Hunter region of New South Wales. For many Australians living in our major cities, attending university is often a matter of choice, but for many Australians living in regional communities, attending university is often a matter of opportunity, and that difference is important. In Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne, students can choose between multiple universities within commuting distance of home. They can often live with their families while they study. For a young person growing up in Dungog, Taree, Wingham, Gloucester, Harrington, Tea Gardens, Bulahdelah, Forster, Tuncurry or the Manning Valley or the many other small towns and hamlets in my electorate—

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

Labor MPs were sitting around a table with Sportsbet at the Midwinter Ball last night, and this morning they introduced gambling reform designed to appease the gambling lobby. Gambling is a multibillion-dollar industry built off the losses of everyday people. People are losing their livelihoods and their lives over this. The government is too close to the gambling industry, and these laws are not a serious response to the scale of gambling harm in Australia. There's no national regulator in these laws. Remember, reporting from last year revealed that the industry is effectively regulated by six people in the Northern Territory, most of whom have huge conflicts of interest. They're not fixing that with this bill.

They're selling out our kids. An arbitrary number of three gambling ads an hour is apparently OK. Then they'll go to bed at 8:30, right? It is very realistic to expect that kids won't stay up to watch their favourite team. Kids will grow up thinking the link between gambling and sports is totally normal, and they've failed to do anything about inducements which are truly insidious methods the gambling companies use to relentlessly target addicts for everything they have. The government should be ashamed of themselves.

As family, friends and our community gather at Hidden Valley right now, I rise to acknowledge the passing of my dear friend Jeremy Scrivens, co-founder of Love in Action in Wallan. He was a man whose compassion, faith and commitment to helping others transformed countless lives across our community, a gentleman of humility and wisdom, someone whose deep thinking was only matched by his generosity, compassion and human spirit. Jeremy was a rare gift to this world. He inspired, uplifted and set challenges for everyone around him. To me, he was a friend and a mentor. Over many years, I've had the absolute privilege of learning from his example. He had an extraordinary ability to see the good in people and to bring people together in service of a common purpose. Through Love in Action, Jeremy and Sue quietly and humbly supported those facing hardship across the community.

His loss will be felt by many. His family—Sue, Sarah, Michael and Ruby—have all lost a devoted husband, father and grandfather. The Love in Action family has lost their inspiring founder, our community has lost one of its most generous servants and I have lost a cherished friend. I extend my deepest condolences to his family, friends and all those who loved him. His legacy will live on in the countless acts of kindness that he inspired. I want to say thank you, Jeremy, for your friendship and your unwavering commitment to serving others. We could all learn from it, and our community is a lot better for having you.

I recently met with members of Australia's Tibetan community who generously shared their stories and raised the alarm about the Chinese government's escalating cultural genocide against Tibetans. A particular concern is China's new law on promoting ethnic unity and progress which came into force yesterday. It's Orwellian title hints at its true intent—to accelerate the assimilation of Tibetans and others into a single Chinese national identity. In essence, the law codifies and expands practices that have long undermined Tibetans rights and freedoms, providing a new legal framework for policies that marginalise the Tibetan language, destroy Tibetan Buddhism, distort or eliminate Tibetan history and erode the foundations of Tibetan family and community life. This includes, most heartbreakingly, taking Tibetan children away from local schools and forcing them to attend Chinese language state boarding schools in a clear attempt to sever connection to family, language and culture.

What's more, this law also seeks to hold groups and individuals outside of China legally accountable for undermining ethnic unity and progress or inciting ethnic separatism. This attempted cultural genocide and extraterritorial and transnational repression is appalling and must be resisted in the strongest terms. I call on the Australian government to act and ensure they do not put the relationship with the Chinese government ahead of the fundamental human rights and cultural survival of Tibetans.

The Albanese Labor government is delivering the investment the Illawarra needs to be a true force in the advanced manufacturing and clean energy industries. Illawarra company Sicona Battery Technologies is pioneering the next generation of battery materials. Their innovative technology, born out of work at the University of Wollongong, will cut battery charging times by 40 per cent, improve performance and create a sovereign battery supply chain in Australia. It is compatible with existing lithium-ion technology, which means it can be used in everything from electric vehicles to drones, laptops and so much more.

I am delighted that the Albanese Labor government is investing in Sicona, with $45 million delivered this week through ARENA. This funding will help Sicona expand its production capacity by 300 times, taking the tech from pilot scale towards full commercial scale. As global demand for batteries continues to grow, particularly for energy storage and electric vehicles, this investment will unlock enormous potential across Australia and globally.

Our region has the skills, capability and drive to lead the clean energy transition and strengthen Australia's advanced manufacturing future. Local companies like Sicona, Hysata, Green Gravity, Gridsight, Gravitas and more are creating a cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy system. We're backing local jobs and local innovation, and we're backing the future made in the Illawarra.

For the last 25 years, even though we've had national laws to protect the places we love, our environment has continued to deteriorate. Experts say that's because our key environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, is all about following processes and not about achieving outcomes. Last year, the government passed major reforms to try and fix this problem. The linchpin of the new law is a set of rules called the national environmental standards.

These standards are supposed to set clear, enforceable limits on decision-making to prevent environmental harm and improve outcomes for our threatened species, our forests, our rivers, our wetlands and our oceans, so it's disappointing that the draft standards do not set clear outcomes for the environment. They're full of vague, non-binding language and they're all about process. To be clear, there are some good things in the draft standards, such as requirements to have community engagement plans and strengthened water protections. But when it comes to preventing the most important things, like habitat destruction and degradation, they fall short.

What we need are science based limits on these drivers of extinction, because koalas don't care whether companies and bureaucrats follow the right processes; they care about whether their trees are cut down. Environmental laws should do what they say on the tin: protect the environment. I call on the government to strengthen the standards before tabling them in parliament.

If you've ever sat in your car at the Coopers Plains crossing on Boundary Road, you would know that it can feel like an absolute eternity. It's been consistently named by the RACQ as one of the worst crossings in our entire state. Locals in my community have been waiting decades for the promised overpass to that rail level crossing. That's why I fought hard to make sure that the Albanese Labor government invested an additional $99.7 million to make this long-awaited important project a reality. That's on top of the $179.5 million that the federal Labor government had already invested.

But if you'd cracked open the LNP's budget last Tuesday, what you would have found as you sorted through the papers is that there was no commitment and no timeline to this important project being delivered, despite the state previously having committed $179.5 million to the project as well. I've written to the Premier to ask him a few questions: Has their position changed? What's happened to the money? What is the timeline? People in my community deserve to get home to their families faster and more safely, and people in my community deserve to know the answer to these questions.

It is part of our role as decent human beings to shed light on human rights where they are being violated, even if that's not in our own nation. Today, I voiced my concerns about the case of barrister Syed Sayedul Haque Suman, who is being held in custody in Bangladesh. This matter has been raised with me by many of my constituents on behalf of the Bangladeshi community in Dubbo and across Australia. I'm informed that Mr Suman, known as Barrister Suman, has been a prominent voice against corruption, injustice and abuse of power. He has worked for the poor and disadvantaged to improve their lives.

Under the current interim government, he has been arrested and is facing multiple charges that I am advised are politically motivated. There are also concerns about the treatment of Barrister Suman and other political figures facing charges while they're in custody. There are reports of people dying in custody following allegations of torture, extreme malnutrition and denial of adequate medical care. Many supporters of Barrister Suman hold great concerns for him and his family, who have been forced to flee Bangladesh. As a country, Australia is an advocate for human rights, including freedom of religion and belief. I would like the federal government to advise what representations they are making in relation to those reported cases and what further steps may be available. I represent the Bangladeshi community of Dubbo in raising these profound concerns.

Yesterday was 1 July, a day that saw significant reform from the Albanese Labor government implemented. Starting this week, the Labor government is delivering more cost-of-living relief for workers in Hughes. Every worker is getting another round of income tax cuts, saving the average taxpayer up to $2,800 a year, a tax cut that those opposite voted against. Three million minimum-wage workers will be getting a pay rise of 4.75 per cent, a pay rise backed by those on this side but not backed by the three right-wing parties over there. We're banning supermarket price gouging to give Australians a fair go at the check-out—one they're not getting under the status quo that those opposite defend.

We're extending paid parental leave to a full six months, giving families more time with their little ones and more support, because, unlike those opposite, we believe in supporting parents as they raise the next generation. We're making urgent care clinics, like those in Liverpool and Campbelltown, a permanent part of Medicare so Australians can get the health care they need when they need it, not when they feel that they can afford it. We're giving first home buyers a fair go because, when Australians work hard and save, they should be able to buy a home of their own. Lower taxes, higher pay, a fair go for families and first home buyers—that's the real change that matters to Australians, and it's the real change that we'll keep delivering, even if those opposite keep defending the status quo that hasn't worked.

Yesterday, during question time, the Prime Minister was twice asked directly to guarantee that the housing market in Australia wouldn't tank, and twice he refused to do so. I rang a number of real estate agents in my electorate this morning, and I spoke with them. I'm going to record into Hansard what three of their comments were. The first one was: 'Interest has certainly softened. Inquiries are down to around COVID levels. It's like someone has turned a tap off to our industry.' The second one was: 'This week, I've had three appointments for inspections. They simply didn't show up. I'm worried for my business, and we can't sustain this. Scotty, you've got to get rid of this bad government so that our business can survive.' The last one was: 'Scotty, it's like a perfect storm of despair for us—continued interest rate rises with more to come, government policy designed specifically to devalue the family home and crippled consumer confidence. If the government wants to give kids a hand up, why don't they try building homes to suit the kids' budget? Don't raid the single largest assets of families by devaluing the family house.' These are comments from real Australians, from real estate agents and from business owners who employ people in my electorate. They deserve better. The Labor Party can't come in here and say that they're doing everything. They're not. They're crippling our country.

Labor was elected with a clear promise: to back working families with real cost-of-living relief. From 1 July, we are delivering. Whether it's a young worker stacking shelves at Woolies while studying or new parents welcoming their first child, Labor is making life a little easier. From 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut, with the lowest tax rate dropping from 16 to 15 per cent, putting more money back into workers' pockets. We are making tax time simpler, introducing a new $1,000 instant tax deduction. We are expanding paid parental leave to six months, giving parents more time with their newborns. We are delivering payday super, meaning super is paid at the same time as wages. The minimum wage will increase to $26.44 per hour. This will see wages lifted by 4.75 per cent for over three million Australians.

While the opposition has advocated against these reforms, we know that these are practical policies that reward hard work, ease cost-of-living pressures and put working families first. This is what Labor stands for—no-one held back and no-one left behind.

It's a privilege to rise for my 100th contribution to this place. In doing so, I want to address a barbeque-stopper of a conversation topic in my electorate of Monash, and that is homeownership. I'm deeply concerned. Building approvals dropped in May for the third consecutive month. This is an impact of the budget's housing tax changes. Clearance rates have tumbled, and Australians are paying nearly $30,000 on their mortgage. Household savings are 6.2 per cent of income; people are dipping into their savings just to survive. The Victorian government provides a great example of how to lower the housing market by taxing and regulating everything.

The Prime Minister couldn't rule out—in fact, he was asked twice—that prices would not tank further. You can measure the budget deficit of this government in numbers, but nothing compares to the deficit of trust it has created in Australia. We need to unlock supply and enable local infrastructure like Weebar Road in Drouin, in my electorate of Monash, which I've been fighting very hard for.

It's 60 years since Robert Menzies left office. A proud achievement of his was to create the first standalone housing portfolio. He lifted taxes and he boosted supply. That's why the Liberal Party will always be trusted to deliver housing ownership and affordability for more Australians.

Labor stands for equality of opportunity, and at the heart of equality of opportunity is accessible, universal health care. That's why, from 1 July, we'll deliver over $25 billion in additional funding for public hospitals over five years, including $5.8 billion in Victoria alone for places like Box Hill Hospital, which do so much to support members of my community in Menzies when they need it most.

At the last election, we promised we'd get bulk-billing rates up, and that's exactly what we've done. In Menzies, we now have 29 bulk-billing practices, up from 19 since just last year.

Since 1 July, 10 new medicines have been added to the PBS, including treatments for five different cancers along with new listings for severe asthma, autoimmune disorders and growth hormone deficiency.

Since we cut the maximum cost of PBS medicines to $25—and $7.70 for concession card holders—members of our community have saved over $600,000 at the pharmacy counter. Some of these medicines would have cost patients tens of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Now, they're the same cost they were in 2004, when Shannon Noll's 'What About Me' was at the top of the charts.

I'd like to acknowledge our hardworking emergency doctors, nurses, GPs, pharmacists and every single health professional across Menzies and across the country. Better funded hospitals, more bulk-billing, cheaper medicines and urgent care clinics—that's what the Albanese Labor government promised and that's what we're delivering.

Australians deserve honesty. They don't deserve to be treated like mugs by their own government. But yesterday we saw the Prime Minister call those on this side of the floor 'the axis of grievance' while evading giving an actual answer to any question posed by the opposition on behalf of those we represent.

But I think he misspoke; rather than 'axis', he meant to say 'apex'. I do understand, Prime Minister; they're easy words to mix up.

Yes, we on this side of the floor are absolutely the apex of grievance. By definition, the apex of grievance is a legal phrase referring to the absolute peak or breaking point of a prolonged complaint or injustice. It refers to the climax of a dispute or a historical flashpoint.

As representatives, we are here to make sure that the collective grievances of our constituencies are heard by those opposite—that their legitimate and real pressure points are being expressed and considered in the policies we create and not swept aside by spin and gaslighting. After four long years under this government, we are at a historical flashpoint when it comes to the erosion of living standards for the average Aussie. They deserve a government that listens, answers and acts, not one that diverts, deflects and denies the problem exists.

Yesterday marked one year since the Albanese government's landmark $3.9 billion National Access to Justice Partnership 2025-30, the NAJP, commenced. It represented our government's largest investment in legal assistance. The NAJP is strengthening responses to family and domestic violence by investing in specialist service delivery models such as family advocacy support services, domestic violence units and health justice partnerships. The Albanese Labor government has committed funding of more than $320 million over five years for NT legal assistance providers such as Legal Aid NT and NAAJA. These Territory frontline legal services now have the stable funding required, providing Territorians with access to the legal support they need to get a fair go in the court system.

I acknowledge and thank these local providers and the private sector practitioners supporting them for their professionalism, their expertise and their unwavering commitment. It is imperative the NT government fulfils its own responsibilities under the NAJP to ensure that the legal assistance provided matches the increased demand that is evident in the Northern Territory. Importantly, vulnerable individuals, including children, need to be represented in criminal proceedings.

Twice the Prime Minister was directly asked whether he could guarantee that house prices wouldn't tank as a result of his government's housing policies; twice he refused to answer. Australians are entitled to ask why, for it was he who only months ago encouraged thousands of young Australians to enter the market with historically large mortgages. People did what the government told them: bought in, stretched themselves, got a foothold. Now they're exposed to the real risk of negative equity if prices fall further. So my questions are simple: Will the Prime Minister apologise to those Australians who followed government signals in good faith and now carry that risk? Can he guarantee his treasurer's reckless spending won't continue fuelling inflation, pushing interest rates higher again and putting these homes at risk?

At the same time, the government's own budget papers show rents are set to rise. Do those opposite realise that cheaper house prices mean nothing when the cost of living makes it impossible to save for a deposit? We already see young Australians locked out of independence, forced to live at home longer as rental stress worsens. Australians deserve honesty from this government, not spin.

This Saturday night, the mighty Melbourne Vixens are back in another grand final, their fifth in seven years, and we're going back to back. Five of these women also put on the green and gold for the Australian Diamonds, arguably the most successful national team our country has produced. But here's what gets me. More women and girls play netball than any other team sport, and on the world stage we're very good at it, yet it doesn't have the same platform that men's footy and cricket have. Generations of netballers who have represented our country have done so for next to nothing. Why? Because for too long we haven't valued women's work the way we value men's.

And it's not just netball players; it's early childhood educators and it's the carers and the nurses in my community who have carried this same story for decades. But this government is changing it. We're funding pay rises for female dominated sectors like aged care and early childhood education, and the gender pay gap is the lowest it's ever been. This week, paid parental leave grew to 26 weeks, with super paid on top, so that raising a child no longer costs a woman her career or her retirement. And we're making the biggest investment into women's health that this country has ever seen.

This is what happens when you have a majority-women government and a gender-equal cabinet. We don't just see and value women's worth. We are delivering the real change that ensures we have a fairer future for them. And I'd like to give a shout-out my daughter Gwen, who's in the gallery today. We're doing it for you. All the best of luck and go, Vixens!

After four years of the Albanese government, Australians are worse off and our nation is heading in the wrong direction, with the standard of living in freefall. The heart of the problem, why Australians are worse off, is very simple: we're being led by a prime minister who simply can't tell the truth. This prime minister can't be trusted to tell the truth in any circumstances, because the Prime Minister told Australians not once, not twice, but 50 times that he wouldn't change capital gains tax, negative gearing or the treatment of trusts. We all remember when the Prime Minister fell off the stage and said, 'Oh no, I stepped back one step; I didn't fall off the stage.'

Australians are still waiting for the $275 reduction in their power bills that the Prime Minister promised 97 times. This is a prime minister who said, 'I won't BS people,' but in question time we cannot get a straight answer out of this prime minister to any question. The Prime Minister told Australians, 'My word is my bond.' Remember that? Australians just want to know: when will this prime minister stop breaking promises and just tell the truth for once?

Some in this House have asked: how many cups of coffee can you buy with the Albanese Labor government's 1 July 2026 tax cuts? But I ask: how many cups of coffee can you buy with the money that you save from seeing a GP for free? How many flat whites can you buy after only having to pay $25 for medicines listed on the PBS, including the 10 new medicines listed from 1 July? How many espressos can you buy, Deputy Speaker Claydon, if you only pay $7.70 for your medicines? My coffee of choice is a long black with a dash of milk. How many long blacks can you buy with the money you save from having three hours of free power during the day or from no longer receiving an electricity bill because you have a cheaper home battery? How many cappuccinos can you buy now that 20 per cent has been reduced from your higher education debt? What about the number of short macs you can buy because your TAFE course in a critical industry was free?

With meaningful paid parental leave, you can buy your little one a babyccino at your next parents' group catch up. With your $20,000 instant asset write-off, you can buy a coffee machine for your small business. Our cost-of-living measures passed the pub test and the cafe test. With all of these savings, Australians will be able to afford an extra shot.

We all remember the budget speech of this year, which had all those toxic taxes and broken promises. Those toxic taxes and broken promises are getting bigger by the day, especially the broken promises. Who remembers the Treasurer saying: 'Reforming and strengthening care. There's $3 billion to deliver more beds, more packages and better aged care for older Australians'? We all remember now what that better aged care is all about—AI bots to make sure that poor old elderly Australians who are waiting for home care packages cannot get their policies considered properly. It's all being done by an AI bot. That's how those opposite think you should conduct your policies when it comes to aged care.

Worse than that, we've seen under the Albanese Labor government 4,812 people die while they've been waiting for those home care packages. It's an absolute disgrace. There are more broken promises from those opposite, more taxes and more spending. And now you are crippling older Australians who are waiting for aged care. It's a disgrace.

This has been a big week in parliament and a big week for delivery by the Albanese Labor government. The Solar Saver program started—three hours of power in the middle of the day. We expanded paid parental leave to a full six months. We opened the National Environmental Protection Agency and we opened a new veteran wellbeing agency. We're expanding the endo and pelvic pain clinics to include menopause. We got a pay rise for minimum- and award-wage workers, and payday super starts. We're banning price gouging at the supermarket. We're permanently extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small business. We're making urgent care clinics— (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. In February 2026, a constituent of mine, Mr Austin, aged 98, had his aged-care application reviewed by Labor's AI tool. Despite his age and having suffered a life-threatening fall, his application was assessed as 'low priority'. His family wrote to the minister—only to receive a generic departmental response. The next day, Mr Austin unfortunately died. Will the government now support the coalition's bill to provide human oversight of all aged-care decisions?

I thank the member for the question. Firstly, can I extend my condolences to Mr Austin's family. As I said earlier this week, it stands to any reasonable person's judgement that there's not a single person in this place who wants an older Australian to die while waiting for care. It's why our generational reforms of Australia's aged-care system have been, and continue to be, so important. The royal commission looked into older people dying while waiting for care, and, as I said earlier, at the peak of the aged-care crisis, in 2018, more than 16,000 older Australians were dying every year while waiting for care. And that aged-care royal commission released a report that was mononymously titled Neglect.

We, since being elected in 2022, have made the most significant investments in Australia's aged-care system ever. We are overhauling the aged-care system—whether it's in-home care or residential aged care—from the ground up. The way that we drive down the numbers, which we've successfully done, is to reduce the wait times for older people to receive the care that they need. The latest data shows that we are well on our way to doing that. Standard-priority cases are waiting on average three months less, medium-priority cases are waiting two months less, and high-priority wait times are now just one to two months. Those assessed as 'urgent priority', as always, will receive their full funding within a single month.

Assessment wait times have been reduced from the worst point, where people were waiting up to 10 months, and the median wait time for comprehensive assessments is now well under a single month. Next year, the federal government will invest $47 billion—

The Chief Opposition Whip, on a point of order?

On relevance, and I appreciate the tone of the minister. But the question that Mr Austin's family particularly want to know about is the government's view in relation to the AI assessment tool and whether you will support the coalition's bill to humanise these decisions.

That wasn't in the question; it's an interpretation of the question. The question was about coalition policy and the legislation the coalition has introduced. I'll draw the minister back to the question regarding opposition policy. I understand he's outlined the government's policies and what the government's doing, but there was a part in that question about the opposition's policies.

Let me be very clear. There is no artificial intelligence in our aged-care assessment system, and it is dishonest for any actor to pretend otherwise. The integrated assessment tool uses qualified human assessors to complete the clinical assessments, and that is then used to apply the aged care rules so that we have a system that is fair for every single Australian. We will continue to make sure that Australians get the very best care. That's what they deserve. You guys should have done it when you were in government.

My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government working to strengthen Australia's world-leading social media laws to protect young Australians from online harm, and what is standing in the way?

I thank the member for Menzies for his important question. Last year, the member for Menzies and I visited the media students at East Doncaster Secondary College to talk with them about Australia's incoming social media minimum age. Their questions were thoughtful and nuanced, and we all agreed on the importance of holding—

No. We're not having those sorts of interjections. Member for Bowman, you are warned. The minister is 20 seconds in. We don't want those sorts of sledges across the chamber. I'm not having those personal attacks. I'm just asking everyone to just lift up a little bit today.

Their questions were thoughtful and nuanced, and we all agreed on the importance of holding social media platforms accountable for the harm they do to these students and their friends. This week, the Albanese government introduced a bill to parliament to strengthen Australia's world-leading social media minimum age law. The bill has four pages of content. It sought to achieve two goals. The first goal is to empower Australia's online safety watchdog to compel documents from big tech companies in their investigation into systemic non-compliance with the social media law. The second goal is to double the fine for non-compliance from $49.5 million to $99 million. That's it—two changes to strengthen a bipartisan law designed to protect young Australians from the harms of social media.

Last night, the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition broke bipartisanship and sided with social media platforms over Australian parents. Last night, the coalition sold out Australian kids to some of the richest, most powerful companies in the world, giving them at least two more months to sharpen their legal strategy, to get rid of documents and to continue to do the bare minimum to follow Australian law. They did a deal with the Greens political party to send a four-page bill with two simple goals to a two-month Senate inquiry—a bill that Australian parents implored this parliament not to treat like a political football. The Leader of the Opposition and the coalition have treated those parents with utter contempt.

Wayne Holdsworth is a brave Victorian father, whose son Mac died by suicide due to sexual extortion experienced through social media. We all welcomed him to this place on Monday. Here's what Wayne had to say last night after news of the coalition deal broke:

As every day goes by that we don't up the ante on tech giants acting responsibly, innocent kids are targeted by sex extortionists and the kids will become anxious, depressed, have suicidal thoughts and take their lives.

This is absolutely pathetic and I want to meet Angus Taylor and look him in the eye and tell him the actual damage this will cause. His predecessor Peter Dutton was a leader with genuine compassion this block shows no genuine compassion at all.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Under Labor, aged care wait times have blown out to over a year. More than 200,000 Australians are waiting for care. Today, Labor was defeated in the Senate, which passed the coalition's bill to put people back in charge of aged care decision-making. Why won't Labor support the coalition's bill to provide human oversight of all aged care decisions?

I'll make two points before I ask the minister to respond. The first is that the premise of the question is wrong. There is human oversight over all of these processes. The second is that for the party of robodebt to have the hide to come in here and talk about these issues shows extraordinary gumption, when we were left with an aged-care system that was titled—summed up by one word on the interim report of the royal commission established under the former government, and that word was 'neglect'. We have not engaged in neglect. What we have done is have legislation that passed the parliament.

I ask that that be withdrawn.

There was an unparliamentary remark made. To assist the House, I'd like for it to be withdrawn. I didn't hear the remark because there was constant interjecting. But, if the member for Goldstein has made an unparliamentary remark, I'm just going to ask him to assist the House and withdraw and we'll move on.

If it assists the House, fine. Sorry, I withdraw. Fine.

I thank the member for Goldstein.

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

The member for Calwell then left the chamber.

When someone is withdrawing to assist in the House under the direction of the Speaker, I want all members—on both sides—to remain silent to show respect to the member who's doing the thing that I've asked them to do. Now the House has come to order, we'll hear from the Prime Minister.

The final point that I will make is that the aged-care legislation that passed this parliament in the last term, which was the most significant reform of aged care this century, by a long way, was the initiative of the government but, to give credit where credit's due, passed with the support of the Peter Dutton led opposition at that time. That was a good thing. As a result of that, you have seen these changes flowing through from a period when it was frankly in a state of collapse.

Let me be clear. Assessments are always conducted by qualified human assessors, with clinical input documented from start to finish. This is about delivering a system that is efficient, accurate and fair so that, no matter where in Australia someone lives or who does their assessment, they are treated equitably. Being a responsible steward of this system upon which so many older people rely means approaching changes in a careful and considered way. The government have been clear we share the intent of the private senator's bill, but we're concerned that in practice it would lead to inconsistent and subjective decisions and increased wait times for older people.

This morning I announced that the government will itself, through legislation, establish a new legislated escalation option so outcomes of the aged-care Integrated Assessment Tool can be changed in extenuating circumstances. This means that, in the small number of cases where a person's complex circumstances are not fully captured by the tool, under this new pathway their assessment can be escalated to the secretary of the department and adjusted if necessary so they get appropriate care.

We'll take the parliamentary break to consider what specific form this pathway might take. We'll consult with older people and the sector, and we will, if people are willing, work across the parliament to get the best outcomes for older people. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. What has been the impact of the Albanese Labor government's world-leading social media ban for under-16-year-olds, and what is standing in the way of strengthening them so that we can better protect Australian children and back Australian parents?

I thank the member for Petrie for her question and for her passionate support of young people in her electorate, based around the Redcliffe region, but also the backing of parents, who have welcomed this legislation. As a result of the reforms that we have put in place, conversations are taking place in schools, in parents groups and between families as well, but, most importantly, between mums and dads and their children. Being able to talk about these issues makes a substantial difference.

Together, we took action. We answered the call from the parents of young Australians who had taken their own lives. This was something that didn't arise from parliamentarians. It arose from people who had the courage to take what was personal tragedy and channel that into making a difference for others. Wayne Holdsworth—to respond to an interjection from those opposite during the minister's comments—is absolutely a hero. He was here on Monday to support the change in this legislation, along with the Let Them Be Kids campaign and the 36 Months campaign. They have responded, as the government has, to the call from the eSafety Commissioner to be able have the powers to get documentation from these big global giants that are exploiting young people and are motivated primarily by their profits rather than by—

Don't you care about suicide victims of gambling?

Order! The Prime Minister is going to pause for one moment. Member for Cook, we're not going to have that behaviour of people just yelling out nonstop during an answer. I'm going to ask you to leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Cook then left the chamber.

I ask all members to reflect on their behaviour today.

The member for Lingiari is warned. I'm asking everyone just to show some restraint today. I give the call to the Prime Minister.

The eSafety Commissioner has asked for the powers to be able to get documents from these big companies and also to increase the fines. That is what this simple legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives, with overwhelming support across this chamber, will do. It's four pages long. It's really simple. But the practical result of the coalition doing a deal in the Senate to kick this off to an inquiry for months is we are giving notice to these social media companies to clear out their documents, to clear out the evidence, to make sure that they can resist these changes.

Peter Dutton supported these laws, and the Leader of the Opposition can instruct his people—or some of them who might stick to it—over in the Senate to vote for this legislation today before parliament rises; if not, there are real-world consequences of this.

On a point of order and on indulgence, I didn't want to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I don't think anybody from the coalition was questioning Wayne Holdsworth. They weren't. I think it was the minister, to be honest, Prime Minister. I think it—

Honourable members interjecting—

Resume your seat. This is the meeting of the federal parliament. We're going to follow the standing orders.

I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are students from Barker College who are visiting as part of a work experience trip, as guests of the member for Berowra.

I'm also going to acknowledge someone today who, whilst not being here, is watching us online at the moment, and that's Mr Stephen Smith, a longstanding and highly respected Comcar driver based in Melbourne. He will retire on 10 July, next week, after an extraordinary 44 years of dedicated service. We all know Comcar drivers play a vital and valued role in supporting the work of parliament. They ensure that members and senators can carry out their duties safely, efficiently and reliably, often working behind the scenes but always contributing to the smooth functioning of our democratic processes. Their professionalism, discretion and commitment are greatly appreciated by all of those who serve in this place. Mr Smith in particular will be a familiar face to many present in the chamber. For more than four decades he has provided exemplary service to countless members. Mr Smith has asked me that I convey this message to all members today. In his words, it has been an honour of a lifetime to serve members of parliament for so many years. On behalf of the House, I thank Mr Smith for his remarkable contribution to the parliament, to the nation and democracy, and I give a shout-out to all Comcar drivers.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Education. It was reported today that the Australian Tertiary Education Commission won't advise on the reasonable costs of degrees until mid-2027 at the earliest, which means that the Job-Ready Graduates scheme will continue at least until 2028. Next year, 285,000 students will pay more than $54,000 for arts, law and commerce degrees, and $90,000 for double degrees. How can you justify this when you've acknowledged on many occasions that the Job-Ready Graduates scheme isn't working?

I thank the member for Kooyong for her question and for her passion in this area of higher education. Like me—like all members of parliament, I think—she understands the power of education to change lives. The truth is that we've got a good education system in Australia, but it can be better and it can be fairer, and that's what the reforms that we're implementing across early education, across school education and across higher education are all about.

Particularly in higher education, we're driven by the recommendations of the universities accord. We've now implemented 36 of the 47 recommendations in the accord in full or in part, and we'll continue to work through that report. As you rightly point out, that makes recommendations about the Job-Ready Graduates scheme. I have said it has failed. I've said work on fixing it is unfinished business, and I have said—and you all know—that the Australian Tertiary Education Commission has also pointed out the work they're doing on the cost of teaching and learning that they will finalise next year.

They are the facts. What is also a fact is that no government has done more to cut student debt than this government and this Prime Minister. We have cut student debt by 20 per cent for three million Australians, and by doing that have taken $16 billion off the backs of young Australians—something, by the way, that the Liberal Party described as 'profoundly unfair'.

They said it was vote-buying.

You said it was vote buying, did you? Yes—they still don't get it. But it sort of explains why they are over there and we're over here. The other point I'd make—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting.

is it's not the only thing we are doing to make our education system better and fairer, because there's also legislation in the parliament at the moment to invest an extra $3½ billion into our system to help more kids get a crack at going to university and, in particular, to help more kids from poor families, from the bush and from the regions to get a crack at going to university—something that the Liberal Party has just said they think is 'socialism'. I actually think it's fairness, and I hope that my friends in the National Party whose kids in their communities will agree, will do what they always do when they think the Liberal Party gets it wrong—that is, roll them and vote for legislation that will help kids from the bush.

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Can the minister update the House on the operation in Weipa, and what other approaches to border security are there?

I thank the member for Leichhardt. I acknowledge the strong role that the member for Leichhardt has had in combating foreign fishing and, in particular, in calling for the work of Border Force that's up there now in Operation BROADSTAFF. It has made an extraordinary impact, and some of those people who were trying to steal fish stocks from the locals up there in Leichhardt have discovered fairly suddenly that their vessels have been burnt and that those waters are there for the locals and not for those who want to come in from elsewhere.

Some of those would have seen some comments from the opposition this morning. Let me start with this: anyone who saw last night on the news that a number of people had tried to enter our country without a visa should know that, by the time they woke up this morning, every single one of them had been removed from Australia—every single one. Now, that simple fact did not stop members of those opposite claiming that the opposite was true. But the simple fact is that every single one of those individuals who tried to enter Australia without a visa had been removed by morning, and those who tried to assist them have been arrested.

There are two things that the opposition, right now, is wanting to deliver for people smugglers and that people smugglers would be tremendously grateful for. People smugglers want there to be footage of Australian voices claiming that people smuggling will work, and those opposite are providing it.

The second thing that people smugglers want is access to information. They want access to information about operations and surveillance, which is why I was surprised that, only this week, all three right-wing in the Senate parties voted with the Greens to make sure that surveillance information would be made available to people smugglers. All three of them voted.

For a long time, it has been accepted that there were good national security reasons for any information about surveillance—about surveillance contracts, about the operations of Operation Sovereign Borders—not being made public. When different occasions have occurred and briefings have been sought in private, that has occurred. But, instead, this Leader of the Opposition thinks it's okay that the information that the people smugglers want be made public and handed over directly to them. He's the friend they want that previous opposition leaders haven't been.

My question goes to the Prime Minister. Over recent weeks, shots have been fired at an Australian Border Force vessel from an illegal boat. We've seen the biggest seizure of cocaine in Australia's history, with police believing the drugs were imported by sea. And we've had 12 more illegal arrivals in Far North Queensland, who managed to have a frothy at the pub before authorities detained them. Why is the Albanese government so weak in protecting Australia's borders?

I am proud of our authorities when they intercept drugs. Those opposite see a drug interception as a problem for our authorities. Every time drugs are intercepted by Border Force or the Australian police, we have pride in the people who wear that uniform. We stand with them. When Border Force intercept, you get a sense—

Order! The member for Barker is warned.

of the level of aggression from those who want to harm our borders and those who want to harm our country. I am proud of Australian Border Force and Operation Sovereign Borders—that, even when people come with those sorts of weapons, we make sure that their operations are not successful.

There is something that I will pay credit to the previous government for, because it's something that has continued. It has been more than a decade since there has been a successful people smuggling operation, and we give that message because it's true. That's the message that people smugglers don't want to hear. But this character, this leader of the opposition, the guy who wants to bring all three right-wing parties together—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The manager, on a point of order.

I know that the Minister for Home Affairs has exercised—

What's the point of order?

It goes to correct titles.

Honourable members interjecting—

Resume your seat. I want to agree with the manager. He has made this point, and I 100 per cent agree with him. I want everyone addressed by their correct titles, not any other terms. I'm going to call the minister.

As I said at 2.30 pm on 2 July, he's the Leader of the Opposition, and I referred to him as the Leader of the Opposition. But let me say, the Leader of the Opposition—

Honourable members interjecting—

I noticed they took issue with the title but not issue with the accusation—no issue with the accusation at all. That is because he is giving the messages that people smugglers want.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order, the minister for climate change and the minister for infrastructure! The manager, on a further point of order.

It goes to relevance this time. There was nothing about the opposition in this question. It was about arrivals drinking frothies before they were arrested.

Honourable members interjecting—

That term wasn't in the question, but—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The minister has got just over one minute remaining. He has the call.

So you go through all three examples they gave. One was drug interception—successful; good. Second was Border Force intercepting and following on, even in the face of gunfire. Instead of standing with those Australian officials, you want to mock them. And, thirdly, 'What happened in Weipa?' That is clearly a question they wrote before they realised that every one of those individuals had been removed from Australia.

If you want to show that you care about the borders, stop providing information for people smugglers. Here is a hint on border protection: if the key question for the Leader of the Opposition is, 'Do you get your senators to vote with the Greens?' warning! That is a warning, in terms of where that leads. I understand the stance on border protection from those opposite. I will never understand, though, wanting people smugglers to have access to surveillance information.

My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to ease pressure on Australians and help first home buyers into housing? How does that compare with other approaches?

I acknowledge the member for Gellibrand and thank him especially for his work on Asian capability and the big report that he has just released as the chair of the education committee. Today is obviously a very important day. It's the 10th anniversary of your election, as I understand it—the class of 2016—but also the last day of the budget session of the parliament.

We have spent every day of this session delivering cost-of-living relief and delivering real change for Australians. We know, despite welcome progress in the Middle East and lower prices for oil and lower inflation and unemployment in the most recent data, that Australians are still under pressure. They have legitimate concerns about where they fit at a time of accelerating change and intensifying global and generational pressures. We don't just acknowledge those challenges; we are addressing them. That's why we are delivering more tax cuts for Australian workers, more pay rises for people on awards and the minimum wage and a fairer tax system for first home buyers. It's why we're delivering more help with the cost of fuel and more paid parental leave for mums and dads. It's why we're delivering super on payday and a permanent instant asset write-off for small businesses. It's why we're delivering our ban on excessive pricing at the supermarket. It's why we're delivering smaller deficits and less debt than the trajectory that we inherited from those opposite. It's why we're delivering the lowest average unemployment of any government in this country in half a century. It's why we have delivered and are delivering an ambitious budget defined by reform and resilience and responsible economic management.

We've been delivering for the Australian people while the member for Hume has been destroying the Liberal Party. We've been delivering for Australians. He's been destroying the once great Liberal Party. There's a very simple reason for this. The three right-wing parties in this country seek to capitalise on the real pressures that people are facing while they vote to make those challenges worse, not better. All three right-wing parties share this divisive anti-worker, anti-housing agenda, and you can see that in the way that they vote. So as those opposite leave the House at the end of this budget session, they should reflect on why the Liberal Party is circling the drain on the member for Hume's watch. It's because every time the Australian people need them to vote to help them with these real pressures that they face, they vote to make things worse rather than better. They leave this parliament today more divisive and more divided than ever. We leave this parliament today delivering for the Australians who sent us here.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Twice in this parliament, the Prime Minister has been directly asked to guarantee housing prices will not tank. Twice he refused. The Prime Minister keeps claiming his budget is helping first home buyers. Can he tell the House whether the number of first homebuyers has actually increased since the budget, and by how many?

I thank the member for his question. I'm asked about house prices, and I'm asked about first homebuyers. I really thank you for the question. When it comes to house prices, the shadow minister for housing has made some comments about this. He said this on just 1 July:

I think these are blips and bumps.

He went on the day before, in case you think there was an accident, speaking about Sydney and Melbourne:

In other markets, I note that there is still price growth.

And he says:

There may be some short-term hiccups as a result of interest rate rises and the like …

In case you're wondering whether that was an accident, he said this way back in May, 'I can tell you as shadow housing minister, I think house prices are too high'. Now, when the shadow minister for housing says that—he's been appointed to be the housing spokesperson for the Liberal Party and the National Party—then one would assume that that is all of their position. I assume that has been through the shadow cabinet and that that is their position.

Order. I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

I have a point of order, and it goes to relevance. The Prime Minister has been speaking now for one minute and 20 seconds, and all he's spoken about is the opposition.

An honourable member interjecting—

Apologies, I'll take the interjection. You're right, one minute, 11 seconds. He has spoken about the opposition. He wasn't asked about the opposition. He was asked twice about negative equity—

Resume your seat. Yes, the Prime Minister was asked that question. He was reading a comment from the shadow housing minister about housing prices to reinforce his point about the topic. He was—

Okay, Leader of the Opposition. We don't need your assistance at this juncture. So, the Prime Minister is using that.

An opposition member interjecting

Well, I haven't finished what I was going to say, but it's okay, everyone. I can see what's happening. If the Prime Minister is going to use any quote from industry, from the parliament, from a shadow minister or from a minister, he's got to make sure it's directly relevant. I have rulings here about previous speakers allowing comments to be made. He can't talk about opposition policy. He wasn't talking about opposition policy. He was talking about the government's policy and what the shadow minister's response was, and that is within the standing orders. There are examples where that happens. So just to make sure, if the Prime Minister is using a quote, he's got to be directly relevant to the question.

An honourable member interjecting—

Just to that—I'm absolutely allowed to.

Yes, you are—

Order! We're going to do this properly. All managers of opposition business have been entitled to raise subsequent points of order and to speak on points of order. That has been consistent, as when the Leader of the House was in that role. We're going to give the manager his due respect as well.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer to a quote from former speaker Smith. I know that you and the House respect former speaker Smith, and you've followed on many of the traditions. He said: 'In doing that, he needs to address the question that was asked, not just deal with the material that is on this policy topic.' I just want to add that as it's very important.

I agree with the point you made. The Leader of the House might want to give his point as well, and I'll allow him to do so.

Mr speaker, I won't, simply for the reason that the procedure is meant to be that the points of order are raised and, once you've given a ruling, that's it.

Yes.

We've got a practice now where you're giving the ruling and then it's effectively being contested, which is contrary to standing orders. Once a ruling is given—I get that a point of order will be asked beforehand, but this business of getting up two or three times is not what has ordinarily happened.

Opposition members interjecting—

No. That's okay. Members should not recontest points of order. The Leader of the House is the Leader of the House is correct. I was in the middle of answering his point of order, and he wanted to jump up again when I was finishing my answer. Maybe in future, I finish my answer before you jump up.

Member for McEwen. Order! We're just going to remain silent in that corner of the parliament for a little while. The Prime Minister is able to use a quote. He's got to be directly relevant to the policy he was asked about. He wasn't quoting opposition policy, so he's within order. Does the Prime Minister to continue his answer?

It's hard to remember what the question was, I've got to say. But I do know that the manager there has got his noggin on TV a few times. Congratulations. Well done.

I do find it astonishing that, in a question about housing, when quoting what the shadow minister for housing said yesterday, the day before and the month before, they object to that. But that says it all about the chaotic rabble that are opposite. I'm asked about first home buyers buying homes. Can I say that the member for Robertson's constituent Gino emailed him just today, thanking him for being brave enough to try and fix the property market to make it a fairer system. 'I have two grown-up children trying desperately to get into the property market, to just be outbid by investors, so much so, they have all but given up. We have noticed a drop in investors bidding of recent. Hopefully now all our young people may have a better chance of purchasing their first home.'

In the electorate of Tangney, according to the agents Zvon Mikulic, 'A family bought a four-bedroom home. They'd been renting; they were looking to have more kids and needed a yard and finally got into their first home,' and in Tweed Heads, in the electorate of Richmond, according to a real estate agent, 'They were nice local young family moving from a unit into their first home.' Right around Australia, this is what is happening and this is what will continue to— (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 how is it supporting families? What are the risks to this?

Thanks so much to the member for Cunningham. I know that she is out and about in her electorate all the time, and she knows that over 1,800 parents benefited from paid parental leave in her electorate just last year. Last week, I met Baby Zoe and her mum and dad. Baby Zoe is number three in a family of three children. What Zoe's mum, Anne, told me is that, each time she got paid parental leave, she got more time off and more money—the last two times because of the big changes that we have made since coming to government in 2022. And, if Anne and Dad Chris decide to have No. 4, they will get more time off: the full six months. They'll get more money, at the higher rate of over $1,000 a week. They'll get more flexibility—more time to take off together if they wish. And of course they are also part of the larger group of people that are eligible now, because we've increased thresholds. Thanks to our changes, families now get around $30,000 of paid parental leave. That's more than double what it was when we came to government.

But it's not just about paid parental leave. We've also increased family tax benefit. For example, a family with one kid over the age of 13 is about $1,500 better off a year since we came to government. Families are benefiting from higher wages, lower taxes, three hours of free power and a stronger Medicare system. And, of course, we're helping families get into a home of their own as well.

But none of this is safe if those opposite have their way. The Liberals have never supported paid parental leave. One Nation hates it. Senator Hanson said in 2017 that women just get pregnant for the money. She said in April: 'Listen, love, you have the equipment. That's what you're here for. If you don't want to interrupt your career, don't have a baby.' And, at the Press Club recently, she said, 'The gender pay gap is all smoke and mirrors. Women take time off, and they're not paid their wages, because they're not working. Fair enough.'

But this is typical. One Nation pretend they're for working families, but they're not. They're for lower wages. They say that workers are lazy, should be easier to sack and are paid too much. It fits right in with the Liberal Party, who say that low wages are a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture.

On this side, we know what we're for. We are for higher wages, we are for lower taxes, we are for stronger paid parental leave, we are for a stronger Medicare system, we're for free TAFE and lower university costs and we are for working families. Those opposite are all whinge and all pretence.

My question is to the Prime Minister: I refer to another mean-spirited act by the Prime Minister—cutting the private health insurance rebate for Australians aged over 65. The CEO of National Seniors Australia, Chris Grice, has said:

The cuts could push people to downgrade their cover, potentially leaving them underinsured when they need it most. At the same time, this will add pressure to an already stressed public hospital system.

Prime Minister, how many older Australians will be worse off under this broken promise?

I thank the member for his question, which is a question I've answered before in this place since the budget. As I've said on a number of occasions publicly and in this chamber, the additional support that over-65s have received since about 2004 for their private health insurance premium is something we did revisit given the significant pressure on our aged-care system and the need to find additional funding to deal with the demand that has been the subject of some discussion in this parliament over the course of this week.

Let's be clear: the additional premium on the rebate has meant that households next to each other on exactly the same income have been receiving a different level of support for their private health insurance based solely on their age.

The minister will pause. The member for Cowper—there are consequences for actions. You've asked your question. You were heard in silence. I made sure the House heard your question. I want to hear the minister's answer as well. We showed you respect; I'm asking the minister to be showed respect. It's a two-way street.

At a time when, as I said, we need to lean so heavily into the need to find additional capacity in the aged-care system, that was not a use of taxpayer funds that we felt we were able to continue.

Now, to the question that I was asked or referred by the Prime Minister, our modelling indicates that this will lead to a change of about 44,000 people in the health insurance system—or about, I think, 0.4 per cent of the health insurance membership. Set that against the fact that health insurance membership has been climbing by two per cent per year on a very consistent basis over the last several years. Health insurance will continue to grow.

My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering the largest reforms to defence in over 50 years? Why is this important for protecting our national interest and keeping us safe?

I thank the member for Makin of the state of South Australia for his question. Since 2022, the Albanese government has undertaken the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in Australia's history. We're making this investment because the strategic circumstances we face demand it and because we're committed to ensuring that the men and women of the ADF have the capability they need to protect our national interests and keep us safe. We're also doing this because investing in our defence and building our self-reliance and defence industry represents the progressive patriotism that is at the heart of the Albanese Labor government.

But, with this record investment comes a responsibility—a responsibility to ensure that every dollar delivers value for money for taxpayers. That means ensuring that Defence has the structures, the focus and the resources to deliver the right capability projects on time, on scope and on budget. That's why we're undertaking the biggest reforms to the Department of Defence in 50 years—because the truth is the system is not fit for purpose, and it hasn't been for well over a decade.

One project that occurred under the Liberals when they were in government involved the Navy setting requirements that breached the laws of physics, then asking the defence industry to breach the laws of physics and then a defence company contractually agreeing to breach the laws of physics. Then—surprise, surprise—a few years down the track, no-one could agree on what had gone wrong.

The good news is we fixed it, but it's a symptom of a system that is broken. We've got committees that are meeting for hours on end without actually making any decisions, so things have to change because these projects matter. We're talking about multibillion-dollar capability projects integral to the defence of our nation and to peace and stability in our region.

Let me be crystal clear. This is not the fault of the highly skilled and experienced public servants in the department. Defence personnel are some of the hardest-working, smartest and most committed in the game. But the systems were broken. A catastrophic mistake was made under those opposite in 2014 when they abolished the project management organisation and outsourced it to the private sector. At the same time, they cut the defence budget by $20 billion, continuing the tradition that began under Menzies. The truth is they're big on rhetoric but weak on action.

For our reforms, we're making sure that Defence is developing the capability projects we need. We're setting them up for success so we can respond more effectively to emerging threats and support Australia's national interest. That's why you can only trust Labor when it comes to defending our nation.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Every year, more than 400 Australians die by suicide linked to gambling. That's more than 1,000 lives lost since the Murphy report was handed down. The government has ignored key recommendations from the Murphy gambling inquiry, including establishing a national regulator and ending gambling inducements and advertising. Prime Minister, why has the government chosen to protect the profits of gambling, media and sporting companies instead of implementing all the inquiry's recommendations in order to save the lives of Australians?

I thank the member for Mackellar for her question. The legislation that was introduced into the parliament today follows on from the previous work that my government has done—more work than has been done by any government since Federation to crack down on gambling. This legislation will make an enormous difference. It restricts advertising of gambling. It makes sure that people can opt out of receiving gambling—it addresses issues of online gambling advertising as well. It addresses the issue of overseas and international companies and makes sure that they can be excluded. It addresses also issues that have never been addressed, such as—I forget whether it was the member for Mackellar or the member for Warringah—giving Manly Warringah a home turf. The ground there at Brookvale Oval, as I call it, was of course sponsored by a gambling company, so every time there's a game on there you see that constant advertising around the ground. What our legislation will do is make sure that future contracts can't be issued with things such as advertising on jerseys or advertising on grounds.

We have sat down and worked constructively with the antigambling sector, we've worked constructively as well with the commercial broadcasters and we've worked constructively with sporting organisations to make sure that we can minimise harms and to make sure that reforms are practical. That's what governments have to do—receive appropriate advice. This is good reform. This is a major step forward, and the parliament should vote for it. If they don't, then they do have the option of the status quo.

Honourable members interjecting—

You do have that option. But what we will do is take the strongest possible action that any government has taken in history.

The minister for employment and the minister for infrastructure will not be interjecting any more during question time.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering a stronger Medicare for all Australians after a decade of cuts and neglect? Are there other approaches to the trusted Medicare brand?

Thank you to the member for Braddon, part of the mighty Tasmanian Labor team. A bit like South Australia, Tasmania is a little older than the national average, with a higher rate of most chronic diseases, and that makes a stronger Medicare there even more important. The member for Braddon and her colleagues never miss an opportunity to talk up the interests of their beautiful state when it comes to health, and this government is delivering.

Yesterday, Tasmania's hardworking public hospitals were finally freed of the shackles of the substandard Morrison-era hospitals agreement. Under that deal, their funding would have been capped at just $750 million this year. But, under ours, they'll receive an increase of more than 20 per cent, or an additional $160 million in this year alone, which means more doctors, more nurses and better care in Tasmania. We're also taking pressure off those hospitals, with urgent care clinics in Burnie, in Devonport and in other parts of Tasmania, and with a revival of bulk-billing. I'm pleased to report to the member for Braddon that bulk-billing in her electorate is up 12 per cent because of our investments and now sits at over 93 per cent for pensioners. It's at over 97 per cent for people without a concession card. It's increased by a whopping 25 per cent because of our investments. This is the sort of real change you get from hardworking Labor members like the member for Braddon.

But earlier today we were all in here voting on the latest instalment in the member for Lindsay's ongoing but thus far unsuccessful campaign to rebrand the Liberal Party. Even while we were reading about the opposition leader giving his party room a tongue lashing about rebranding, the member for Lindsay was moving a motion promoting the Liberal Party as the party of Medicare and the Liberal Party as the party of bulk-billing. I say to the member for Lindsay, in broad terms, good luck; in broad terms, strength to your arm!

But the Australian people know what the Liberal Party has always thought about Medicare. They remember John Howard describing Medicare as the Hawke government's greatest failure. They remember John Howard describing bulk-billing as an absolute rort. They remember Tony Abbott trying to abolish bulk-billing altogether. They lived through that infamous decade of cuts and neglect. Australians, if they're interested in Medicare, know the Labor Party is the party to deliver the real change and a healthier Australia.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Aussie legend Joseph Daoud spent $17½ thousand of his own money on billboards telling the Labor government to drop their ambition taxes. He's paid up again, winning an auctioned tennis match at the Lodge to get the Prime Minister's attention. The Prime Minister told the Australian people before the election that his word was his bond. So when Joseph gets to the Lodge, will the Prime Minister tell him why his word on negative gearing and capital gains taxes was broken, or will Joseph be served up another Labor tax hike?

That question was barely within the standing orders. It was a very, very, very broad question about the responsibilities of the Prime Minister. So I'm going to be clear with everyone. I think we're going to get a very broad answer.

The first thing I'd say is congratulations to the press gallery board, to Jane Norman and her team, in raising money for charity last night. The second thing is that, if I were someone on that side led by this leader of the opposition, I wouldn't be mentioning last night. I would pretend it was all a bad dream. Mr Speaker, I'm sure you and many from here were there. We're not supposed to talk about it in spite of the fact—

You're talking about it!

You just came in and asked a question about it. There are geniuses in the tactics committee! There's a lot of chatter about the member for Canning, who's insisting he's running again. Good luck to you, Member for Canning. Certainly, if it's you or One Nation, I'm for this bloke, let me tell you. That's where I come from. Good on you, for standing up to them. I suspect there's another bloke having a go over here—the bloke who stands up whenever a question is asked and moves two or three points of order and makes sure his KPI of getting on the TV 10 times every day is reached. Because why would you ask that question? Why would you ask that question?

I'll make this point. When it comes to this gentleman, I don't know who he is. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned him in his speech. He's obviously a mate, and they think it's very clever to do all this. I'm quite happy that more money is going to charity. I'll make that point. But let me make this point as well. If it's a choice between someone who's in the sector somewhere and who's got enough money to buy billboards and spend all this or first home buyers struggling to get into a home, I'm for the first home buyers. I'm for the first home buyers. I'm for the people who have nothing to give but their time. I'm for the people who work hard. I'm for the people who have a right to have the security of a roof over their head. Let me tell you this: the more they go down this road, the more aces we will serve up.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government helping more Australians build a future where their dream of homeownership can be achieved? Are there any risks to this work?

What a great question from the member for Bass. As we come to the end of question time for today, what a stark contrast this draws from the question that was just asked by those opposite—a hardworking local member who comes into this parliament week after week to advocate for her constituents, especially those who aspire to their own home, because her community, as mine, understands that there is no greater aspiration in this country than owning the home that you live in. This is a place you build your future; it's where your family can thrive. That's exactly what Labor's Homes for Australia plan is delivering.

I want to tell you about Christy and her beautiful family from Tasmania. Before buying their home through Labor's five per cent deposit scheme, they were living in an isolated area outside Campbell Town. When they found out they were eligible for this program, Christy said they were over the moon. They've been able to get into their own home. Now, they're living much closer to town, their 10-year-old son no longer has a long bus ride to school, and he gets to ride his bike instead.

They live around the corner from the skate park, and Christy says owning her own home has brought their family even closer together. Now, this beautiful family is planning renovations, and they're making this home truly their own. This is what homeownership is about for Australians. It's not just about buying a house. This is about security. It's about opportunity, and it's about giving your kids the future that they deserve.

I'm asked about alternatives, and the three right-wing parties of the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation have opposed every measure that our government has put in place to support first home buyers. I wonder what those opposite would say to Christy and her family who, in all likelihood, would still be renting if it were up to those opposite. Would they tell that family just to be happy stuck in lifelong renting outside of town? Would they tell her 10-year-old son that it's better for him to be taking that long bus ride rather than riding his bike to school? These are the kinds of consequences that their policies lead us to.

Remember, those opposite have opposed the expansion of the five per cent deposit program—something that's got 260,000 Australians into a home of their own. They want to scrap help to buy, which helps 10,000 people a year into their own home, and they want to double down on taxing every person in this country to subsidise investors to outbid first home owners in every auction in this country. As we come to the end of the budget sitting, this is becoming abundantly clear. We have a party over here who are the last people left in our country who cannot see our broken housing system, cannot see the pain this is causing and continue to defend the status quo. Our government wants to realise the aspiration of families like Christy's. That's why we're delivering real change for Australia's first home buyers.

My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The minister was quoted on Tuesday, saying that one in 10 veterans may go over the $5,000 cap for allied health services. One in 10 is circa 30,000 veterans. If the minister knows that 30,000 of our most injured veterans will be subject to the stress of reapplying for more assistance, why not do the right thing now and carve them out of the $5,000 cap immediately?

I thank the member for the question. Clearly, as we've articulated, the purpose of the cap is to replace the current treatment cycle system where veterans are going back time and time again to a GP after every 12 referrals in order to access allied health services. We're replacing that with the $5,000 allocation, which means around nine in 10 won't be going over that allocation and won't have to continue going back to GPs.

What we're trying to do here for the one in 10 is engage properly with those veterans to make sure that they're getting the right level of health care to meet their allied health needs as well as where there are other needs so they can provide them with the best overall wellbeing outcome whilst maintaining integrity in the system. The proposal you're making would make the entire system a nullity, which is not what we want to do. We're actually trying to provide better outcomes for our veterans in overall wellbeing.

Another key part of what we're doing here with these changes is making the biggest increase in fees that are paid to allied health professionals in two decades. We've heard from the veterans and we've heard from the allied health professionals that, if we don't pay them more, they won't be servicing our veterans. We can't allow that to happen. We want to improve our veteran community's access to allied health services, and that's what these policy changes will be delivering.

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change? What is standing in the way?

As we wind up the budget session here, I thank the member for Gorton for her question. This is a budget that delivers real change for Australians. We don't defend a status quo that doesn't work for people, nor do we pretend that the answer is to tear it all down and walk away. We do the hard work of building Australia up. We choose progress over protest. We choose action over anger. We choose outcomes over outrage. We choose real change to make a real difference for Australians, not just identifying issues but taking real action—not simply occupying the space or just passing the time but making a positive difference and delivering change that people can see and that they can feel. That is why, just this week, there was the increase in the minimum wage, the decrease in taxes, the support for paid parental leave, super being paid every payday. All of these changes make a positive difference to people's lives.

Whilst Australians can rely upon the Labor Party to deliver real change, they know that the three right-wing parties, the axis of grievance over there, will oppose all of the positive measures. We want higher wages; they actually argue for lower wages as a key part of their economic architecture. We want lower taxes; they go to elections arguing for higher taxes for every working Australian. We want more first home buyers. We saw, through the coalition's last question, who they want to represent and who they want to defend. That's their priority. We back Australian aspiration; they undermine it. The three right-wing parties just offer grievance and division, nothing more.

Labor backs every single Australian and backs their aspiration because Labor is the party of aspiration. It's aspiration for all, not just for some. We're a party absolutely committed, each and every day we're in office, to delivering real change. On that note, Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I move:

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

This House censures the Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for Pacific Island Affairs for comments made today at the National Press Club—

Just pause. The Leader of the House.

I move—

Do I have the call?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The manager will resume his seat. The House is not going to do anything until it comes to order. The manager was on his feet. The Leader of the House is entitled to make a point of order when he requires, as has happened before. So we're just going to ask everyone—I know this is an important issue for the manager, but we've got to follow the norms of the House as well. And the decorum of the House is important. I know everyone thinks that. I'm just going to invite the manager, and I want the House to deal with this in a sensitive and appropriate way under the rules. The manager is seeking to suspend the House. He has moved—

Order. Unfortunately, as has happened before many times—this is probably disappointing for the manager, but this is allowed under the House. This is what occurs. This is not new. This happens on a regular basis. This has happened since I've been in parliament. The Leader of the House.

Did he now move the motion if that's what he's doing?

Opposition members interjecting—

He read it out and moved it. He hasn't given his speech. I'm allowed to ask the question.

Yes, we'll just deal with that. The leader is seeking, 'Has the motion been moved?' and that—

Opposition members interjecting—

Alright. We're just going to get the manager to move the motion. He gets that entitlement under the rules. But there was a lot of noise, so, for him to successfully do that, I require the House to listen to what the manager is saying.

Thanks, Speaker. I move:

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

That this House censures the minister for Defence Industry and Minister for Pacific Island Affairs for comments made today at the National Press Club wherein the minister called former Prime Minister Sir Robert Gordon Menzies a Nazi appeaser.

This is an utter, utter disgrace.

Resume your seat. The manager has now, under the provisions of the House, moved his motion. I now call the Leader of the House.

I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The motion before the House now, as moved by the Leader of the House, is that the member no longer be heard. I put that question. The question is the member for Wannon be no longer heard.

Under standing order 45(c), I move:

That order of the day No. 3, government business, be called on immediately.

I would like, for the order of the House, for whomever made the comment that Menzies was a coward to please stand up and withdraw it.

Resume your seat. We're following the procedures of the House. The question is that government business order of the day No. 3 be called on immediately.

I give the call to the Minister for—Manager of Opposition Business?

I move that the question be put.

There's no question before the House.

We've just moved that we deal with an item before the House; the House has voted on that. The Clerk has brought on the item, as resolved by the House. I'm now going to give the call to the minister, because the House has decided to deal with this matter.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Honourable members interjecting—

I have a point of order on improper language.

Improper language?

No; I'm going to ask everyone to remain silent while I deal with this. If people have made unparliamentary remarks, we can deal with that, but the House has made a decision to do something. I will follow the will of the House. We're not interrupting a decision that has just been made by the Parliament of Australia.

We are dealing with the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The question is that the bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:

(1) a minister moving a motion granting members a leave of absence;

(2) a minister moving a motion appointing a participating member to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters;

(3) discussion on the matter of public importance then commencing immediately and continuing until 4.30 pm; and

(4) any variation to this arrangement being made only by motion moved by a Minister.

Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.

The Leader of the Nationals, on a point of order?

It's to do with the question of unparliamentary language. Earlier today, the shadow Treasurer assisted the House by withdrawing, and I invite the Prime Minister to withdraw his unparliamentary language.

The Prime Minister is not in the chamber. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?

I know this is unusual, but, during the attempted suspension motion, with regards to Sir Robert Menzies, the member for Gellibrand said that Menzies was a coward. I would ask that the member for Gellibrand withdraw that for the good dignity of this place. I know that Sir Robert Menzies is dead, but it would help the House if that was withdrawn.

The member for McEwen, on a point of order?

The Speaker has ruled, as the House of RepresentativesPractice clearly shows, that a person that is not a member of the House doesn't have the protections that we do in here, as has been shown under Speaker Bishop on multiple occasions. There's no need to have this.

For the dignity of the House and given the severity of this issue—and I can understand that there are strong views. I've made it clear during this fortnight I respect the dignity of the House and the institution. Therefore, I'm going to ask the member for Gellibrand to assist the House and withdraw that remark.

I withdraw.

I move:

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

Question agreed to.

For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of the status of government responses to committee reports as of 30 June 2026. The schedule will be incorporated in Hansard.

The schedule read as follows—

Speaker's Schedule of the Status of Government Responses to Committee Reports a s at 30 June 2026

The Speaker's schedule to the House of Representatives on the status of government responses to committee reports is generally presented at six monthly intervals. It is usually presented in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings. The last schedule was current as at 21 November 2025 and was presented in the House on 27 November 2025. The schedule presents a list of committee reports that contain recommendations requiring a government response. Government responses received during the period are included in the schedule and the report it relates to is then removed from subsequent schedules.

The timeframe for government responses to committee reports in this schedule is determined by the resolution adopted by the House on 29 September 2010. The timeframe is not inclusive of any period where the House was dissolved. This resolution requires government responses to House and Joint committee reports within six months of the report's presentation in the House.[1] The Senate resolution requires government responses to Senate and Joint committee reports within three months of tabling the report.[2]

This schedule does not list reports that do not require a government response. In the past, the practice was to include all reports tabled in the Speaker's schedule. However, the current intent of this schedule is to provide an update to the House solely on the status of government responses to committee reports containing recommendations to government.[3]

The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations that are wider than the provision of the bill and would therefore be the subject of a government response. A government response to a bill inquiry report is reflected when the relevant legislation returns for consideration in the House.

The schedule does not include reports on treaties referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (Treaties Committee) unless a report makes recommendations that are broader than the ratification of the treaty in question. This may include recommendations relating to additional consultation or requesting changes to the treaty. The ratification, or non-ratification, of a treaty is considered to constitute a government response and the government should communicate this outcome to the Treaties Committee.

The schedule does not include reports from the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, and the Publications Committee (other than reports on inquiries).

Further, as of the last schedule (dated 21 November 2025, tabled 27 November 2025), reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works (Public Works Committee) are included for formal tracking when the relevant expediency statement does not address recommendations. The

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' regular scrutiny reports on the human rights compatibility of bills and legislative instruments are not listed, as the timeframe for a response is specified in correspondence to the relevant minister.

Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit primarily make administrative recommendations but may also include policy recommendations, which require a formal government response. Responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an Executive Minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an Executive Minute within six months of the tabling of a report. Executive Minutes are included in this schedule and are listed as (Partial response) and are not considered complete or removed from the schedule until all recommendations have been responded to.

______

1 The resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on 29 September 2010 details the requirements for government to provide responses to committee reports within specified time periods, and processes to be followed should a response not be forthcoming.

2 This practice has arisen from a Senate resolution of 14 March 1973, in which the Senate declared its opinion that the government should provide a response to committee reports within three months of tabling. Successive governments have affirmed their commitment to providing such responses.

3 The Liaison Committee of Chairs and Deputy Chairs agreed at its meeting of June 2023 to recommend removal of all outstanding government responses for House or Joint committee reports presented prior to the commencement of the 46th Parliament (2 July 2019), unless the relevant committee's successor resolved to retain those reports on the schedule. This schedule is reflective of those removals or resolutions to retain the relevant reports.

The following table lists responses received since 21 November 2025 (the reporting date of the last schedule) and outstanding as at 30 June 2026:

[ i ] The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives or to the Speaker, whichever is earlier. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate or to the President or Speaker (if presented earlier out of session). Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date.

[ii] If the source for the government response date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate, the source is shown in an endnote.

[iii] The Government has undertaken to respond to committee reports within a six-month period—see House of Representatives Standing Orders, resolution of the House of Representatives of 29 September 2010. This resolution also puts in place additional steps for reports not responded to within that six-month period. The period from when the 44th Parliament was prorogued on 9 May 2016 to the commencement of the 45th Parliament on 30 August 2016 is not included in the response period. The period from when the 45th Parliament was prorogued on 11 April 2019 to the commencement of the 46th Parliament on 2 July 2019 is not included in the response period. The period from when the 46th Parliament was prorogued on 11 April 2022 to the commencement of the 47th Parliament on 26 July 2022 is not included in the response period. The period from when the 47th Parliament was prorogued on 28 March 2025 to the commencement of the 48th Parliament on 22 July 2025 is not included in the response period.

[iv] On 1 July 2023, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) transitioned into the new National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). Accordingly, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity ceased to exist. The oversight of the NACC is undertaken as of that date by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

[v] This date was previously reported in this schedule as 26/3/25 however, the report was received by the Speaker out of sitting on 6/3/25, then in the Senate on 25/5/25, then in the House on 26/3/25. Per endnote i, the date of presentation to the Speaker is the correct date to report.

[vi] Public Works Committee recommendations are typically addressed through the expediency statement when the House approves the public work. In instances where the expediency statement does not address these recommendations, the Public Works Committee reports will be included in the Speaker's schedule for formal tracking and response.

by leave—I move:

That Mr Gee be appointed a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the 2025 federal election.

Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I have a question for you concerning the administration of the House as it relates to today's matters of public importance. Can I begin my question by stating that I am in no way challenging or dissenting—

I want to explain to the House what's happened here. Things have moved quickly as a result of the suspension that the manager tried to do, so we had to deal with that. We've dealt with a resolution of the House, and the House has made a decision. That time for asking me a question has now passed because we've done four things. The House has passed the resolution with four things. We're going through those things now. If we are going to variate that, it'll have to be moved by a minister, and the House has voted on that. I can appreciate what you're saying, but we've passed that in time due to the actions that the House has taken and voted on.

I've received letters from the honourable member for Ryan and the Deputy Speaker proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I've selected the matter which in my opinion is the most urgent and important. The Speaker cannot be required to give reasons for choosing one proposed topic ahead of another, but, before I give the call to the member for Newcastle, I want to explain that today's selection of the MPI topic was a decision I did not take lightly, because of the compelling nature of both proposals. Both are critical issues to our community, but the issue of online safety is the one that I believe holds the most importance for our parliament today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Newcastle, namely:

The urgent need to hold big tech companies to account and keep our kids safe online.

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—

Speaker, it will be of no surprise to you why I would regard this as a matter of public importance and great urgency to be brought before the House today. Indeed, the work that you pursue internationally and that this parliament has led around the world—we now see 20 countries following the efforts of the Australian government to ensure the safety of children everywhere—is something to be commended and something the Australian parliament should be incredibly proud of.

It's not just that 20 countries are looking at us in order to implement similar laws. It's that the Australian parliament—at least until yesterday, and I'll come to that—had the courage to stand as a collective, in a multipartisan way, to ensure that we stood up to the one challenge that was asked of us by more than 120,000 families across Australia who pleaded with the parliament to show leadership, put our differences aside and put children first. That was a simple ask of this parliament. It should not be beyond us to put children first.

This parliament had, until yesterday, done the right thing, and that's why I stand with such utter dismay at the results of yesterday. The coalition decided to, in the other place, block and delay urgent legislation that, only hours before, they had supported and passed through this House. That's the very legislation that we need to hold big tech to account—to make sure that kids are not left fending for themselves against these giants that have never, ever displayed an intention to change their business model and to do the right thing, which has constantly been asked of them.

I don't think the Prime Minister or our minister could have made the serious nature of this any clearer. Since day one, the message to the big tech guys has been very clear: if you want to conduct business in Australia, if you want to have a social platform in Australia, it comes with social responsibility. They have shown every resistance every step of the way, and that does not surprise anyone on this side of the House. I don't think it surprises anyone in this parliament. We knew the fight we were up against. There was never going to be an easy pathway, but we're not here to make easy decisions. We're not here to do the simple work.

I chaired a committee two years ago in this place, the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. It was when this parliament first started taking a serious look at the impacts that social media was having on our communities. We took a lot of time to undertake the inquiry. We had people from across all parties, from across both houses, who heard the stories from parents about what they felt were unrelenting attacks on their children. These kids were way too young to be making calls about what was appropriate material online.

These families begged us to ensure that we put our differences aside, as I said upfront. They knew that this was going to be a challenging moment for the Australian parliament. They knew it full well. They knew the arguments they were having every day at their kitchen tables and in their lounge rooms about kids spending so much time doomscrolling. But they also knew it wasn't the fault of their kids. They knew straight up that there were algorithms designed to do harm, that there was a business model that in fact ensured the continuity of harmful practices online.

I'm not going to go into all that detail, but those submissions were made. Parliamentarians heard the evidence loud and clear, and we were begged to act. And this parliament rose to that occasion. The ban on under-16s having social media accounts was world leading—just in the same way that the Australian parliament led the world on the banning tobacco advertising. That was not an easy decision back then. We know what happened. We know the litigious nature of big tobacco and big tech, and that's why this is so damn critical right now. That is why every parent in Australia is asking: 'How can this be happening? How is it that the coalition stood here in the morning and backed this in, knowing full well we needed to give the eSafety Commissioner additional powers so she could enforce the will of the Australian parliament and the will of the Australian people, before backflipping in the Senate?' She needed that, and she is on record saying exactly why that was required. So it's no surprise to anybody in this parliament.

The parents need us to stand up. They haven't gone away. The pain and trauma that we asked people to go through again when they gave evidence to our committees—we asked them to open up. These are parents that lost their kids. These were kids who were victims of addictive design features in social media that led to self-harm, extreme levels of anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body image harm, cyberbullying, misogyny, radicalisation and mis- and disinformation. None of these are things that you want your children ever to have to live with. We heard from those families.

I see the member for Fisher sitting in the room. He's the only member of the coalition—sorry, I am to be corrected there. But I am pleased to see his presence in this chamber because he sat on that committee. He heard that evidence firsthand, and I can only imagine what he feels right now, because we know how important it was. Member for Flinders, also, you know what's at stake.

There was a decision to support those extended powers that the eSafety Commissioner asked us for. She has made very, very clear she needs this to ensure that enforcement actions are taken, including the doubling of those fines. These companies do not want to see these laws enacted. We have to be up for this fight, colleagues. We have to be up for this. Australian kids are relying on us to deliver this. Australian families are relying on us to deliver this. We have a request to strengthen the enforcement framework that underpins that social media minimum age ban, and we cannot deny it. Yet that is exactly what happened in the other place just hours later. What the hell happened there? That's what parents are asking today. What the hell happened there?

I'm going to quote the eSafety Commissioner herself, because this office was stood up by the former coalition government. We backed you every step of the way. She says, 'Any delay in proposed enhancements to eSafety’s powers will also delay enforcement of the social media minimum age, and the improved safety protections for Australian children it is designed to provide.' That is what the delay is putting at risk.

I honestly cannot believe that you did this backflip in a matter of hours, between this place and that place. I don't know what on earth happened in that time, but you've got to change your mind. You have to come back and offer that bipartisan support to put children first again. (Time expired)

The first duty of a government is to protect its citizens and, in particular, its most vulnerable citizens, our children. In the course of my service in this place, I've met with people on the front lines of child protection work in various guises and sought to advance their work—people from the International Justice Mission and ICMEC. I've met former AFP officers who've had to spend day after day watching child sex abuse materials online. I think of colleagues like the member for Fisher and the member for Flinders, who've been at the forefront of debates about online child safety. I think as well about people like the member for Fairfax, who, with the member for Fisher, has supported Bruce and Denise Morcombe and the Daniel Morcombe Foundation. I think about the experiences of the members for Wide Bay and La Trobe, who are sworn police officers, and hearing the stories of the member for Wide Bay, particularly, about going to child sex abuse cases and having to confront some of the worst people imaginable.

I've repeatedly raised issues of child protection and child safety in this place. In the recent budgetary consideration in detail, I raised in the Federation Chamber, and not in a political way, a series of questions about whether, under the current implementation of the Hague Convention in this country, we are sending Australian children into harm's way to be abused—questions that the Attorney-General did not answer. When I and the member for Fisher were in the role of shadow attorney-general—we were shadow attorneys-general in succession—we moved private members bills to increase the penalties for child sex abusers in the wake of scandals of paedophile rings in childcare centres and people getting off with too-light sentences for multiple child sex offences. We moved a bill to address that—to have mandatory minimums for first child sex offences—yet the government voted against bringing on that bill for debate. That was not because the government brought on a subsequent bill to protect children but because they didn't like the fact that it was us raising the issue.

As shadow attorney-general in August last year, along with the then shadow minister for education, I called on the government to, within the year, implement a national working-with-children check because they had said, no, it would be implemented in a longer period of time than that, and it just didn't seem right. We're still waiting. The national working-with-children check has not been implemented.

So we on this side of the House are not going to take a lecture from those on that side about child safety. It was our side of the House that devised the national centre for countering child exploitation. It is our side of the House that's been the leader in relation to online safety. We built the global model for it. Every major protection that Labor now relies on was legislated by the coalition.

In 2015, we had a world first. We created the children's eSafety Commissioner, the first dedicated online safety regulator anywhere on earth. The world didn't lead us. We led the world, and other democracies are still copying the coalition's model. In 2017, we dealt with image based abuse. We built the world's first scheme to force platforms to take down intimate images shared without consent and hit perpetrators and non-compliant platforms with real financial penalties. In 2021, we introduced the Online Safety Act, the most comprehensive online safety regime in the nation's history. We codified the basic online safety expectations and created an adult cyberabuse takedown scheme and slashed the time platforms have to strip illegal and terrorist content from their feeds. That's not rhetoric; that's a record. That's the record of the coalition in government.

We support the social media ban. The social media ban was our idea. It was born of coalition conviction that childhood is worth protecting. I've mentioned my friend the member for Fisher. In several committees, he pursued these issues. I've mentioned the member for Flinders. It was Peter Dutton, when he was Leader of the Opposition, and it was David Coleman, as the shadow minister, who first suggested these ideas. In November 2023, a coalition private member's bill forced age verification onto the agenda. Labor knocked it back, then bowed to pressure and funded a trial in the 2024 budget.

In June 2024, we pledged we would deliver an under-16 ban within a hundred days. Only then did the Albanese government try and play catch-up. The 2024 ban passed with our support, because we'd been calling for it all along, but—and this is the issue—having seen Labor's social media ban in place, we've seen it not be effective. What Labor is asking us to do now is to not subject the bill to the ordinary parliamentary processes.

For the first six years of my parliamentary career, I sat on the other side of the House. Again and again I heard Labor members stand on this side of the House and call on the then government to deal with legislation in the ordinary way and to subject it to ordinary parliamentary scrutiny. That is all that is proposed here. The reason it is necessary in this case is that the Labor Party fumbled the ball so badly in relation to the first tranche of this legislation. We need to have another go. We need to hold big tech to account, but we need to make sure that the measures that are being proposed are actually the right ones.

The eSafety Commissioner's own March 2026 compliance update finds that 70 per cent of children are still on social media. A landmark BMJ study has found that 85 per cent of under-16s are still logging in. Its verdict is that there's been limited implementation, incomplete compliance and substantial circumvention. It's in these circumstances that we cannot simply just wave a bill through; we need to use the processes of the parliament. We need to do our job as legislators and apply the ordinary scrutiny to these important bills—and scrutiny of legislation is what we are all paid to provide.

I believe these bills are very important. The social media ban is obviously important because it protects young, vulnerable children from the scourge of child sexual abusers and paedophiles and those people that would seek to prey on them. But, as the shadow education minister, I've another reason for supporting the social media ban. The challenges that the world faces today will require our children, the next generation, to use all the brain power they have available so they have strong concentration spans to ensure that they can address issues of global conflict, economic insecurity and AI.

We're not going to be able to address that properly if we have young children addicted to social media, which ruins their concentration spans. That's why we've been so strong over the years on things like banning mobile phones in the classrooms and reducing the use of technology in the classrooms. We know that this has a very negative effect on children and on their learning and their capacity. It's why we support the social media ban. But we are not going to wave things through carte blanche, given the record of this government and this minister and the failures of the first attempt here. The eSafety Commissioner herself called the original ban a 'very blunt force approach' thrown together 'very quickly' with 'very thin scaffolding' and with no 'potent powers'. In her words, taking on the world's biggest tech companies is not like 'sticking a pink parking ticket on a windshield'.

We want to make sure that we've actually got the right powers to take rapacious big tech on and to make the penalties stick. That's the important thing here. That's what we on this side of the House are trying to do by doing our job—our duty as parliamentarians—of subjecting the bill to the proper scrutiny, hearing from the stakeholders and hearing from people who are advising big tech about what they think of this bill in order that we can plug any loopholes that might be found and make the scheme safer. We don't want to be back here in six months, patching up the scheme again and again. We want to get this right this time. It's already failed once because we have a minister who fumbled this and a government that did not take these issues with all seriousness. Instead, we have an opportunity to get this right, and that's why we are sending these matters to a Senate committee.

These amendments are a confession that Labor should have done the job right from the very beginning, not in the way that they did it, not in a way that was broadly criticised, not in a way where the minister, instead of focusing on the bill and on the detail, focused on selling the bill during her $100,000 New York trip. What we needed to do was to make sure that we focused on the very detail of the bill, and that's what this opportunity gives us.

So it's sad today that we are having the matter of public importance on an issue in which there is broad agreement. There is agreement that we need to protect the safety of our children. We need to protect our children. No-one in this place doesn't believe that we need to protect our children. But we on this side believe that we won't get a third go at this. We've got to get this right. We've got to demonstrate that there are proper safeguards in place. We've got to demonstrate that this law is absolutely right. And the way to do that and to put it beyond doubt is to have the parliamentary committee look at it properly.

One of the early scenes in the 2010 movie The Social Network depicted young women at Harvard recoiling in disgust as they discover a website created by one of their peers that allowed male students to compare them based on their so-called 'hotness'. The website was a precursor to what would become Facebook. It's a scene that reminds us that, right from the very beginning, these platforms were not necessarily designed to inform, educate or bring out the best in human behaviour; they were designed to attract attention, drive engagement of any kind and keep users hooked at all costs. Back then, it wasn't just harmless fun; it was harmful, hurtful and damaging. Twenty years later, the platforms are bigger, more sophisticated and more powerful than ever before, and so too are the harms. That is why keeping children safe online should be a bipartisan issue.

When the Albanese Labor government introduced the social media minimum age of 16 last year, we did so because we listened to parents, educators, experts and young people. We recognised that, while social media can offer connection and opportunity, it can also expose children to bullying, harassment and harmful content in ways previous generations never experienced. Last December, I visited Morialta Secondary College in my electorate of Sturt with the Minister for Communications and the Premier of South Australia to discuss the social media ban, and what struck me most was how thoughtful and insightful the students were about it. These are young people who have grown up online. Social media is a part of the world they have always known, yet they were remarkably forthright about its downsides. They spoke about algorithms that keep them scrolling, the pressure to seek approval through likes and followers, and the impact social media was having on their confidence, self-esteem and mental health. They understood something that the big tech companies seem reluctant to admit, which is that these platforms are not simply passive products; they are designed to keep people engaged and capture attention. They were not designed to protect our kids, and that is why we introduced the world-leading social media minimum age.

But, six months into the operation of these laws, it's clear that some of the world's largest tech companies are barely bothering to comply. The eSafety Commissioner has identified serious compliance concerns and is actively investigating five major platforms due to their noncompliance. All the Albanese Labor government is seeking to do is to give the eSafety Commissioner stronger information-gathering powers so she can obtain the evidence needed to investigate noncompliance and take enforcement action. The commissioner herself has said that any delay to these powers delays enforcement of the social media minimum age and delays the improved safety protections Australian children deserve. We also intend to double the maximum penalty for noncompliance to almost $100 million. These are some of the richest and most powerful corporations in the world, and, if penalties are to act as a real deterrent, they must be significant enough to get their attention.

But we need action from the entire parliament, in this place and in the other place, for that to happen. I call on all members and senators to walk together to take this action. I do that because this issue is also deeply personal for me. In my first speech to this parliament, I spoke about my own experience of bullying at school. As a shy young girl who moved schools a lot, I was an easy target. School was not always a good place for me, but I could escape from it, to a degree, at home. Now, bullying no longer stops when the school day ends. Children endure it before school, after school and on weekends because of social media, and the harassment is public, relentless and impossible to escape. A cruel comment can be shared instantly. An embarrassing image can spread to hundreds of people. What once happened in a classroom or playground can now follow a child forever. No child should have to face that alone. No parent should be expected to fight some of the biggest companies in the world on their own. That is why I call on those opposite to please put Australian children and families ahead of big tech and support this important work.

I think it's really important when we have this discussion, that we separate the intent versus the outcome. Now, it's clear the intent is to make sure all those under 16 do not have access to social media. As a father of a 10-year-old and 12-year-old, as someone that visits many schools, I don't want anyone under 16 to be on social media, and that's not in doubt on this side of the house. But intent is one thing, and outcome is the other. An intent without outcome being delivered is irrelevant, and the reality is that this legislation has not worked. Six months later, we are back again because it has not worked. Those opposite ask what has changed from yesterday and the day before when we supported it in the House to now in the Senate. It's the government guillotining debate and refusing to have an inquiry into this legislation. They weren't prepared to look at the detail and understand.

Let's look at history. This legislation was introduced on Monday this week. This government wants to ram it through the house on Thursday. But let's look at December when the first legislation was brought in. The government rushed a committee through that allowed four hours—four hours—of public hearings on the social media ban for under 16s in December last year. They rushed through this process. They would not have debate and engagement to understand that this is a technical decision to get right. They rushed it through in December, and we are back here again, looking to make amendments because the legislation hasn't worked. They are doubling down on making the same mistake.

The coalition is saying, 'Let's take the time to have an inquiry, to do the work, to understand why it has failed and why we can get it right the second time.' As the member for Berowra said, we don't want to be back here in six months' time having to amend it again. The detail was wrong the first time. Let's get it—

A government member: Why not?

Why not? Why don't we get it right the second time? The minister is happy to fly to New York, claim 'Mission accomplished' like former president Bush did, and we have not succeeded. We have not succeeded. I will not take moral lectures from those opposite who think Mark Latham is fit to be leader of the Australian Labor Party. I will not take moral lectures from you all. I understand it's a little bit of a nerve for those opposite. You spend a lot of time rushing legislation through this House for political means, but doing your job is getting the legislation right. This legislation is not working. Young—

A government member: How?

How is it not working? I will explain to you if you stop interjecting and listen. Young children are still on social media. They deactivate their accounts and create new accounts. Your minister failed. Your minister rushed this legislation through the house, and we need to get it right. We need to get this legislation right. It was wrong the first time. Six months later, we are seeing that. There was no proper inquiry into this legislation in December, and this government is refusing to have a second inquiry to try and clean up its own mess. I understand it is a sore point for them. We see time and time again that the backbench has to follow orders. They can't get what they want on gambling reform. They have to take the sandwich from those. They have to follow the Prime Minister's lead on a bad budget, and they have to continue to follow the minister that is failing when it comes to social media. The intent is correct; the outcome is wrong.

And we know that the outcome is wrong because the minister is back here trying to fix up the mess that the minister made. If the minister had got it right the first time, we wouldn't be back here the second time. The real question is this: why is the minister not prepared to actually have some scrutiny of the legislation? The reason is that the minister knows they failed the first time and they have failed again the second time by not doing the process. The reality is, as the member for Berowra said, we don't want to come back and have to do it a third time in six months time or 12 months time. Let's let the experts have their say. Let's get it right so we can protect young Australians.

Protecting big tech or protecting young children—easy choice. Those opposite have the wrong priorities for this country, and we see it time and time again, whether it's keeping Australians locked out of the housing market, not supporting wage increases, voting against higher taxes or not acting on climate change. Now, they have the chance to come together in this parliament to protect our children. And what have they chosen? They've chosen the interests of big tech ahead of keeping our children safe, with the red herring argument.

On this side of the House, we make no apologies for keeping our children safe on social media. That's why, last year, we introduced some of the most significant and controversial technology reforms in Australia, introducing that minimum age of 16 for social media use. Since the introduction of those reforms, we have seen over five million accounts belonging to under-16s deleted off social media. That's an outcome, Member for Casey. This is a very positive development. However, we know that kids are still getting through, and it's clear that big tech companies just aren't doing enough to keep children off the platforms. That's why this government is stepping in, to get things done and to do more. We announced this week that we will double the penalties for tech companies and give more powers to the regulators so they can investigate what's going on within those big tech companies. It's a pretty simple bill.

Why did we decide to act? We heard from the member for Newcastle why it's so important, but social media really, truly has transformed how we communicate. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and X are all central to our modern lifestyle. But, while they're great opportunities to learn, to be creative, to connect, they also expose young people to significant risk. I'm going to make a point here: there is research behind this. There are facts that support this. Research has linked excessive social media use with increased rates of anxiety, depression, body image concerns, cyberbullying, sleep deprivation and reduced attention spans, especially amongst teenagers. Many young people, too many, compare themselves to unrealistic online standards. Algorithms, as we know, prioritise and push sensational or emotionally charged content to keep the users engaged, to keep our kids scrolling. They can create endless cycles of that.

Parents, teachers and mental health professionals have increasingly expressed concern that social media companies have prioritised engagement and profit over children's wellbeing. In response to that, this government has acted and, importantly, has tried to take a bit of the effort away from parents and put it where it belongs—with tech companies.

There are potential benefits in these reforms. Again, the data is there. The first is improved health, improved teenage mental health. Teenagers are still developing emotionally and psychologically, and removing this constant exposure to bullying and addictive algorithms—all that we see online—can reduce stress and anxiety. Second is the benefit of increased face-to-face interactions, participating in sports and hobbies and having conversations with families and friends. Third is better sleep. Fourth is greater protection from online predators, scams and harmful content. Finally, the reforms send a strong message to the technology companies that child safety should be built into platform design rather than treated as an afterthought.

Australian parents and carers have called on this government and those before to act and to look after our young people. And we are. Despite what the member for Bowman says, by voting against this bill in the Senate, turning and pushing it away, they are walking away from protecting our kids online. Increasingly, governments around the world are asking tech companies to accept greater responsibility for products they create and profit from. Australia's reforms are already world leading, and we've got plenty of countries that are following us.

I'm pretty proud that the government is standing strong against big tech because that's what we need to do. We went out alone, but there are 16 more countries that are coming in behind us, which is pretty important. That's a pretty strong contrast to those opposite, who have chosen big tech over Australian kids. I really do feel like it's climate 2.0—when those opposite are presented with facts and research, instead of taking note and showing leadership for change, they fail Australians. They're putting politics over people, ideology over safety, and they're not helping our kids. (Time expired)

Wet lettuce. That is the official verdict on this government's attempt to prevent harm to Australian kids via social media regulation. 'Wet lettuce' were the exact words the eSafety Commissioner used to describe the reforms a month ago in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald.

Government members interjecting—

The member for Flinders will pause while I hear the point of order.

I have a point of order. The standing orders clearly apply to both sides of the House. We sat here in absolute silence while the last speaker gave her contribution, irrespective of whether or not we supported it. We obliged by the standing orders. Our speaker is a couple of seconds in to a gaggle from the other side. I'm just asking you to enforce the standing orders.

Julie Inman Grant compared the government's mechanism for banning social media accounts for under-16-year-olds as the equivalent of sticking a pink parking ticket on a windshield. In March, the Social media minimum age: compliance update report from the eSafety Commissioner reassuringly told us that 4.7 million age restricted accounts were removed or restricted from the designated platforms as at mid-December. It's not bad, given that we only have about 1.5 million 13-to-16-year-olds.

But talk to any parent and they will tell you that the ban's implementation has been far too hit and miss. The University of Newcastle carefully studied the ban's implementation, following around 400 people between the ages of 12 and 17 in the period when the law came into effect. What did they find? More than 85 per cent of adolescents under 16 continued to use the restricted social media platforms, predominantly via their own accounts. Two-thirds may have encountered an age verification test that was easily passed by a self-declared age or by uploading a selfie.

What else did the study find? That this government's attempt to ban social media accounts for under-16-year-olds, which we had supported in 2024, in good faith, because, after all, we had been the original proponents of the ban. But that had largely and unacceptably failed.

During question time today, government members, led by huffer-and-puffer-in-chief, the Minister for Communications, were outraged about the simple act taken by the Senate last night to refer—

The member will pause. I give the call to the Chief Government Whip.

I ask that the member refer to members by their appropriate titles.

Thank you for the reminder, Chief Government Whip. I remind the member to refer to people by their correct titles.

The minister was outraged by the simple act taken by the Senate last night to refer the legislation to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for investigation, with a reporting date in August—a three-month inquiry—acting like we, working with their bedfellows in the Greens, personally put Australian children at risk because we dared to demand a modicum of scrutiny for this legislation. We dared to demand an investigation into whether the flimsy measures contained in the bill will, in fact, do what we all want to see—meaningful barriers between young people and the most dangerous aspects of social media to mitigate its negative effect on mental health and wellbeing, to close it down as a means of transmission for child sexual abuse material and to block it as a vector for extremism.

A few days ago, I gave my speech in the second reading debate on the government's strengthening bill, and in it I provided a brief history lesson for those on the other side, reminding them that they failed repeatedly to pick up and act on our determination to do something about the harm social media was doing to young Australians—harm I had raised in my maiden speech in September 2022, harm which is detailed repeatedly in the books of Jean Twenge and Jonathan Haidt and by local researchers like Brad Marshall, harm which the then leader of the opposition committed to investigate back in April 2024 and then to act on a few days later, and harm the premiers of New South Wales and South Australia had agreed they would act on by mid-2024, frustrated by this government's failure to actually act.

When the Prime Minister did finally relent and agreed this government would act, the draft legislation was introduced into this place in a rush, and the Senate was given four days to conduct an inquiry—four days. And now this government dares to throw a hissy fit because the Senate demands a three-month inquiry. 'Trust us,' the government says. 'Trust us. We failed the first time, but this time we won't. You don't need an inquiry. You don't need to test the efficacy.' Well, guess what? Trusting you didn't pay off last time. Australia ended up with a legislative framework that didn't do the job.

The member for Flinders will pause. I give the call to the Chief Government Whip.

I'd ask you to remind the member to address their remarks through you.

I remind—time has expired, so we'll move on to the next speaker.

I rise to support this profoundly significant matter of public importance put forward by my friend the member for Newcastle—not least because this is an issue that matters to so many people across our great country but also because it matters to so many parents in my electorate of Banks. It is also pertinent to the many young children we have up in the gallery today.

My sister and I are raising our own families in the area where we grew up, but times have changed a lot since then. While each of our children is still a little too young to understand social media fully, they deserve to grow up without the constant, pervasive pull of social media. When I'm speaking to locals in my community, parents share the same concerns with me. They are worried about the type of content that is out there online that their children could inadvertently be exposed to. They want to see greater protections for their children online.

Keeping Australians safe online, particularly children and young people, is a top priority for this government. Our social media ban for under-16s is aimed at delivering the protection our parents want to see and our young people need. It is a world-first initiative and it is lighting the way for other countries, with Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and the United Kingdom among 20 other countries implementing legislation or announcing plans to follow Australia's lead.

We have seen progress. Already more than five million social media accounts have been removed, deactivated or restricted. Unfortunately, though, in March of this year the eSafety Commissioner published their first compliance update, which contained some unwelcome news. The commissioner had serious concerns about compliance and the practices of some of the platforms in the tech industry. The eSafety Commissioner made it very clear that, while they are actively investigating the compliance of five different platforms, when considering potential enforcement action in response to this noncompliance they required stronger investigation powers.

The government made it clear at the outset that we would not hesitate to take further action to ensure the effectiveness of these reforms and to hold big tech to account if we needed to, and this is what we are trying to do. As the compliance update demonstrates, the need exists, and the legislation passed by this House earlier this week is the consequence of big tech failing to respect Australian law and uphold the standards Australians expect. The legislation ensures that eSafety has every tool available, with stronger information-gathering powers, so that big tech can't avoid providing the information needed to assess important compliance. Additionally, the bill doubles the maximum civil penalty for noncompliance with minimum-age obligations to $99 million, strengthening deterrence and aligning it with recent changes to other consumer laws.

The compliance update shows that big tech is trying to get away with doing the bare minimum and failing to meet their obligations to our communities. Let's be clear: if these companies want to do business in Australia, they must obey Australian laws. It is important to note that the legislation passed by the parliament to institute this ban was the beginning and not the end of this reform. The same is true of the legislation passed yesterday. Being the first in the world to institute these reforms means we have to create our own road map to success. Taking on tech giants means we have to be responsive. We have to be adaptable. This is exactly what we are doing.

When the need to hold big tech accountable and keep our children safe online arises, this government is not afraid to take action—unlike some others. It is inexplicable that those opposite are seeking to delay the important legislation not by days or by hours but by months. I'll let them explain to Australian parents this choice of theirs. (Time expired)

On 3 January 2018, Dolly Everett passed away at the age of 14. She was a young woman, a young lady, who had been bullied mercilessly. Sadly, she took her own life as a result of the bullying she encountered on social media. That happened not long into my parliamentary term in this place. As a result of Dolly's passing, I travelled down to Sydney and held a meeting with all of the social media companies that were presently in existence, or the main ones anyway, as well as Google and Microsoft. I walked out of that meeting with the express understanding that I had just spent the last two hours or so with big tobacco in the late 2000s.

These companies gave me every reason under the sun for why they were protecting young lives—which was all rubbish, and we all know that. Based on that meeting, I worked pretty closely with the former shadow minister for communications David Coleman, and I was the chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee when, with the member for Newcastle, we held an inquiry into protecting the age of innocence. Some of the recommendations in the report from the inquiry called for an age restriction for pornography and gambling. The member for Newcastle would remember this well. It was a well-respected inquiry.

Fast forward to November 2023, when the then shadow minister for communications David Coleman—we'd lost government by that stage—introduced a private member's bill that required the government to conduct a trial for age verification technology on pornography and social media platforms. That bill was not supported by the government. Later, in June 2024, the then opposition leader Peter Dutton pledged that a coalition government would implement a ban on social media for under-16s within 100 days of taking office. The Labor government did not introduce a bill to protect under-16s from social media until 12 months after we introduced our private member's bill. The Prime Minister was dragged, kicking and screaming—you can shake your head; you probably weren't even here then—to introduce a bill 12 months later.

The Prime Minister has made a big fanfare, and those members opposite try to rewrite history. But the reality is that history has always been on the side of the coalition when it comes to the protection of children. We established the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. It was the coalition that consistently led the charge on the protection of children. We actually set up the eSafety Commissioner—and what we now know, from the eSafety Commissioner herself, is that 70 per cent of children are still on social media as a result of this government's flawed legislation.

So you will excuse us if the opposition say we don't trust the government to get this next tranche right. That's why we are saying that this legislation needs to follow the usual course. It needs to go to a Senate inquiry because we don't trust that Labor have got this right. The government stuffed it up last time. Chances are it will continue to stuff it up again. (Time expired)

I understand how difficult it is for those opposite. Having voted in support of this legislation, they've seen their vote overturned by their Senate colleagues. I understand that they're disappointed. To the children in the gallery and the families that are with us today: we're debating something we call a matter of public importance, and today it really is a matter of public importance, because we are debating why the Senate has voted to prolong or delay the enactment of this piece of legislation—which is an addition, if you like, to Australia's world-leading bipartisan legislation that was designed to make big tech companies responsible for enacting— (Quorum formed) This is the legislation that those opposite are suggesting is really difficult and needs a three-month inquiry. Front cover, table of contents—it's a four-page document! It's a four-page document that does two clear things. It gives the eSafety Commissioner something she has asked for. She has asked for a law that will allow her to compel documents in her investigation as to why big tech companies are not complying with the laws set by this country, set by this House and the other place. She's asked for that. It does one other thing. It raises the fines for big tech if they're found guilty of being noncompliant with Australian law. This is world leading legislation that had bipartisan support, driven for a long time. This is not rushed. Nothing about this has actually been rushed. There was a joint inquiry.

This is the motion that Labor just tried to stop me talking about: the need for essential public services to return to public ownership. Instead, Labor replaced it with their own topic. I've never seen this happen before in the entire time I've been here. Clearly, they desperately don't want to talk about how Australians are being ripped off on their phone bill, energy bill, internet, even mortgage. They're being ripped off because Labor and the Liberals, both major parties, have been privatising public corporations and essential public services for decades. Here is just one example. According to the Australia Institute, in 2024, AGL made $755 in profit per customer per year for household electricity. You're not just paying for these essential services; you're paying for the price of privatisation on top. It's no wonder that they want to stop me talking about it. They don't have the solutions. The real solution is staring us in the face. We have to end 40 years of privatisation and corporate rule.

If you're out there in the real world listening to this, I just want to say something. You, we, can win a tax on gas corporations but not if we leave it to the politicians. Let me explain. In 2024, we won 50 cent public transport fares in Queensland. We didn't do this by doing political deals. We did it by organising. In 2020, the Greens announced a free public transport policy. At the time, we were laughed at, but then hundreds of everyday people doorknocked tens of thousands of voters. We talked about free public transport, among other bold policies. We terrified the major parties because they knew it was popular and they were going to lose votes if they didn't do something. So they caved. Both Labor and the Liberals committed to 50 cent fares permanently. In 2022, we won bigger taxes on coal corporations in Queensland with the same method. We announced our policy. We campaigned on the ground. We won the argument. Labor were forced to go much further than they'd planned. We also won a far bigger build of publicly owned renewables in Queensland, same story. Last term in federal parliament, we won an extra $3 billion for public and community housing with the same approach again, organising.

These politicians in the major parties, they're not leaders; they're followers. They follow the line set for them by their corporate donors and lobbyists unless they're forced to follow the people. That's why I reckon we can win a gas tax, but only if we organise. We know the people in Labor and the major parties are still too close to big corporations to really put everyday people first, so we'll have to replace them. But you know how we replace them? By getting organised.

Lastly, I just want to talk about what happened in the House yesterday. We were speaking to and voting on the government's heinous NDIS bill. We saw the two old parties lining up together to support a bill that will destroy lives. Seeing them all there, ganged up against the most vulnerable Australians with many backbenchers who I'm convinced didn't know what they were voting for, was horrendous. It was soul destroying. During what should have been a serious and critical debate, there they were, chattering amongst each other, laughing and joking about going to the Midwinter Ball that night—what they're going to wear, how much they would drink, how late they would party—while voting for one of the most appalling pieces of legislation brought before this House. Straight after their vote to remove basic human rights for people with disability, they went to the ball to party with the likes of Sportsbet, arguably another vehicle for destroying lives. I just felt a pox on your House.

I didn't go to the ball. I went home to, frankly, have a little cry. I had a little cry of despair, but I woke up this morning fresh—not hungover like a lot of people here today, I've got to say—with fresh resolve to keep fighting for vulnerable Australians even as their government seems lined up against them.

Yesterday didn't just mark the beginning of a new financial year, it marked the next step in the Albanese Labor government's crusade to ensure that cost-of-living relief is delivered to everyday Australians, and it sits in stark contrast to what we've seen from those opposite this week. What we've just seen in this place is an opposition blocking reforms designed to protect children. The members across can sigh, but there's no quorum count this time. It's an important reform, and it's a reform that they've ganged up with the Greens to block.

This is something that we've seen before, so in reality it should come as no surprise. We've seen it on climate. We've seen it on housing. We just heard during the MPI in this parliament every excuse that they could think of—every obfuscation that came to mind, every reason—to not back reform that protects our children. The news I want to give to those opposite is this: we will not lie down when it comes to ensuring that Australian children are safe. We will not go away, and we will not rest because the sacrifices endured by those parents who have lost their children should not be in vain. This government will do everything to make sure their sacrifice is not in vain.

I want to address briefly what the member for Griffith has just said, because, as a Queenslander, I'm very proud of a number of the reforms that the member just mentioned, but I will note that these are Labor reforms. It was Steven Miles who introduced 50c fares, which go to making sure that people can have relief when they tap their card at the bus or to get on the train. And it was many energy workers who came together to make sure that publicly owned renewables could be back in state government hands. Those reforms, which were about making sure that Queenslanders have relief that they need when it comes to hip-pocket issues and the cost-of-living matters that are impacting on families every day, are echoed by what the Albanese Labor government has done this week to roll out critical reforms and real, positive changes that will improve the lives of every Australian—changes that help workers and families, that support health care and that help with the cost of living.

It is important to remember that yesterday marked a tax cut, the fifth from this government, for every Australian taxpaying worker. It is important to remember that this government, unlike those opposite, backed in minimum and award wage increases which came into effect yesterday. It's important to remember that from this moment forward, if you're getting paid superannuation, it's getting put on your balance when you earn it. It's important to remember that a Labor government didn't just deliver paid parental leave; it's now expanding it to 26 weeks. It is a time when it is most important to spend more time with our littlest Australians. There have been 137 Medicare urgent care clinics rolled out across the country. The Oxley Medicare Urgent Care Clinic in my local electorate on Brisbane's southside is proud to have had over 33,000 visits. An extra $25 billion has gone into public hospitals and we have banned supermarket price gouging. Our government is focused on delivery.

I've recently been spending a lot of time thinking about what moral government is and what type of government seeks to divide citizens, feed corruption and break trust within the community. The short and sharp of it is that it's an immoral government. I want to make this clear: it is now a moral imperative to remove the most immoral government in Australia's history, the Albanese government. I don't say this lightly. Right from the moment it was first elected, it sought to divide Australians. It sought to have a referendum based on the social solidarity of our most marginalised population. I fully respect the fact that it had a right to do that by putting the voice to the Australian people. What's immoral about their choice is that they knew it would fail. The idea that you would put the social solidarity of the most marginalised section of our community on a ballot paper knowing it would fail is an abrogation of leadership and responsibility and something I do not think this prime minister will ever be able to shake. He took not just social solidarity but reconciliation, to bring our nation united, to move forward together, and made sure it would fail.

Even in the days leading up to that referendum, there was the complete failure of moral leadership we saw as the events of 7 October 2023 unfolded. On 8 October 2023, we had protesters saying despicable and horrific things on the steps of the Sydney Opera House. This was a moment where we needed leaders to stand up and call out antisemitism and speak to the type of character and country we wanted to be. The silence that we heard from our prime minister and our national leaders every step of the way led to horrific incidents like, on 10 November, the protests at the front of Central Shule in Caulfield South in the Goldstein electorate. It led eventually to the most horrific terrorist incident on our most famous national beach. That is an unforgivable failure of leadership—an immoral failure of leadership—by this government.

But it didn't just end there. What we've seen at every point is that this government has been prepared to eat into the equity of the spiritual nature of our country, eat into the character of who we are, for their own political survival. You just need to look at what they did in the lead-up to the last election. I know the Labor Party is used to branch stacking to be able to achieve an outcome they seek. But to engage in citizenship stacking, where they deliberately went around and targeted electorates and got people to become Australian citizens on the eve of a national poll, is absolutely disgraceful. Not only that; we've seen that the minister has brought in people from overseas conflict zones and bypassed identity, health and security assessments as part of the pathway to bring them into Australia, without any proper measure of who people are, whether they are unsafe for the Australian community and whether they pose a threat to the rest of us. This is not a debate about the individuals; it's a debate about government policy. It was an immoral act by this government.

Now, we see even more immoral leadership as the Prime Minister and his ministers refuse to audit whether federal money has found its way into the hands of organised crime through the CFMEU Labor cartel. The reality is that we have public money finding its way into the hands of organised crime and with complete disinterest from this government. Even worse, we saw the Prime Minister say 50 times over before the last election that he wouldn't introduce a suite of taxes that he then went on to introduce once he had secured his victory. A moral government is one that builds trust, works with the community and seeks to achieve an outcome to improve the whole of the nation. We presently have an immoral government that is focused on how it divides the Australian community and leaves us in a weaker position to save their own electoral bacon.

There is hope. We can have a moral government again that's focused on uniting Australians and building trust and taking Australia forward together. But the only way we can do that is by seeing a change of government and the end of the Albanese government. Whether it is dividing Australians on the basis of race—and we need to acknowledge that this prime minister has overseen the greatest spike of racism in Australia's history—or whether it is stacking the electoral roll, bringing people into Australia without security assessments, facilitating corruption from the CFMEU or breaking promises on the budget, this government has broken its promise to the Australian people.

Congratulations, Speaker, on your 10 years in the parliament, which you and the class of 2016 are celebrating today. I want to highlight some of the changes the Albanese Labor government has delivered from 1 July. We are completely focused on helping Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures. We know that people have been doing it tough, with rising costs from the servo to the supermarket, so we're helping people earn more and keep more of what they earn. From 1 July, every Australian taxpayer received their third tax cut, thanks to the Albanese Labor government. The combined impact of our tax cuts will leave the average working Australian up to $2,800 better off every single year.

At the same time, 1 July saw three million workers receive a well-deserved pay rise, with modern award wages increasing by 4.75 per cent and the national minimum wage going up by six per cent. We have advocated for increases to the minimum wage at every annual wage review since we came to government. As a result, for five years in a row, these workers have seen increases in their pay, with the national minimum wage now $12,000 a year higher and above $1,000 a week for the very first time. That's more money in the pockets of cleaners, care workers, workers in hospitality and retail, and more.

We know that one of the most important foundations for a comfortable and secure retirement is a healthy super balance. At the moment there is about $6 billion a year in unpaid super. This disproportionately affects younger workers and those in insecure work, who are often lower paid and vulnerable. They are also the people who can least afford to miss out on retirement savings. That's why I am so delighted that, as of 1 July this year, superannuation must be paid within seven business days of pay day instead of every quarter. This means that workers will start earning returns on their super sooner, reducing the risk of unpaid super and ultimately leaving them better off when in retirement.

We're also helping all Australians to get a fairer deal at the checkout, with our ban on supermarket price gouging now law. From 1 July, if supermarkets are doing the wrong thing and are charging prices that are not in line with what it costs to stock their shelves, they will pay the price. The ACCC has the funding and the power to seek penalties for supermarkets of up to $10 million per breach of our new laws or 10 per cent of their annual turnover in the previous year. It's just one of the ways that we're working to keep supermarkets competitive and fair for customers.

We're also making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, tackling shrinkflation with stronger unit-pricing rules and funding CHOICE to give shoppers more information on supermarket prices. Personally, I've always been a big supporter of local fruit and veg shops. Our changes are also backing them in, with $2 million in grants to help fresh produce suppliers to get the skills they need to take on the big supermarkets. More competition strengthens the grocery market. It keeps prices down and it gives everyone a fairer go at the checkout.

Something I am particularly excited about is that, as of 1 July this year, Australia now has a national environment protection agency. It will be a national environmental watchdog with real powers, a clear set of rules, a clear mandate to monitor and enforce those rules, and big consequences for doing the wrong thing. In my electorate along the beautiful Illawarra coast, we have one of the most beautiful natural environments you will find anywhere in the world, and we're a regional city that is growing, so ensuring that the rules around what you can and can't do are crystal clear actually supports everyone. It protects our precious environment, and it helps us to get on with building the critical infrastructure we need in housing and energy in the right places, in the right settings, and with consistency, transparency and integrity. The National EPA will be a modern and effective regulator, enforcing the rules we have put in place under the reformed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

There is a long list of changes that have now come into force, far too many to cover here, but I am so proud that our government is getting on with the job of delivering the change that our communities need. We're helping people with the cost of living, lifting wages and giving everyone a fair go.

Speaker, I too acknowledge your 10 years, and each and every other member who was elected in 2016. I well remember that election campaign. It was very cold. It was a very cold winter. It was a very long campaign. But the parliament was made better by the people who came into this place then. I think we all come to this parliament with a view to making our communities better, for a start, and to making our society better and to making our nation stronger. That said, I think standards are important in the federal chamber. I think it's good that the winter recess is now upon us, because I think we all need to take a deep breath and reflect upon those standards over winter. There's been a bit of faux outrage, a bit of confected indignation, today.

But I was disappointed by the Minister for Defence Industry in relation to his comments at the National Press Club. I've given speeches at the National Press Club, and, like in the parliament, you need to have the right tone. You need to have the right message. You need to have the right narrative. To suggest for a moment that former prime minister Menzies was anything other than a patriot I think is a step too far. I don't think it is, in the national debate, right just at the moment—at any time.

The Prime Minister has for some months been telling us to bring the temperature down, and I don't disagree with the Prime Minister in those sentiments, because we all need to reflect on our language. We are leaders in this nation, and our messages are important because they reach a lot of people. There are a lot of Australians out there at the moment who are very angry, and, when there is anger, there is unfortunately a race to the bottom when it comes to healthy debate. I don't need to remind the House about the sovereign citizen movement and what that can do to Australia and the nature and discourse of debate. We've seen all too often our police being shown utter disrespect.

When we as leaders make comments about former prime ministers—and we can go through each and every former prime minister's tone and language, but we're in 2026 and we need to be better than that. We absolutely do, I think.

We are also in the midst of an antisemitism royal commission, and I think whatever we say in here and outside is really important, given some of the harrowing evidence at that particular inquiry. I note the member for Macnamara's presence in the chamber, and I note too his comments before that inquiry, in other motions before this place and in the media about the need to ensure that people in Australia feel safe. It's really important that Jewish Australians who have contributed mightily to this nation over many decades feel safe in this country. It is not right that children going to a childcare centre have to have additional security, that children going to cricket practice in Melbourne have to have additional security—quite frankly, any security at all—or that people worshipping at their synagogues have to have armed guards outside, protecting them when coming in and out of that particular place of worship. We have to be better.

We know that the darkest chapter in history was the Nazis' extermination of six million Jews, and we must never, ever forget that. We must never, ever fall into being a society that allows anything about Hitler, about the Nazis and about their evil regime and the Holocaust to be forgotten.

I think that the member for Shortland is better than his comments that he uttered today. It's unfortunate that he made them. Given the fact that he also made them in this parliament previously, I think he needs to really curb his language and be mindful of what he is saying and the people who might be affected by that sort of narrative, which is so unnecessary.

With that, I wish everybody a very good winter. With that, I wish everybody a very good winter.

It could go a bit rogue, I'm not exactly sure what's about to happen, but we're going to go through it anyway. I wanted to speak this afternoon at the end of a long sitting period before the winter break about the changes that came in yesterday for paid parental leave. In doing so, I wanted to reflect on my own personal journey because this year I took parental leave from this place in Canberra. It was a decision that my partner and I discussed as to how we would make it possible. My partner is a member of the Victorian parliament, and she's exceptionally hardworking. We won't go into the political situations in our particular household, but I am constantly in admiration of how hard my beautiful partner, Georgie, works and how incredibly smart and dedicated she is to her job.

We made the decision that I was going to take two months off coming to Canberra in order to help raise our daughter, Lilah, who is very busy at the moment, and probably—

Mr Burns's baby having interjected—

I'll take that interjection!

Exactly—point of order, Speaker! There was a two-month period where I didn't come to Canberra. I still worked for the people of Macnamara because this is one of those rare jobs where you feel like you can't waste a day. In saying that, I also didn't want to waste and not see a moment of the precious first few months of our amazing daughter's life, as well as how quickly she grows and how quickly she develops, and how privileged I was to be a part of that.

What I saw were two things. One is that the standards are, frankly, different for men and women when entering into those circumstances. I announced that I was going to take a couple of months off coming to Canberra, and the responses I got were things like: 'Great work,' 'Good on you,' 'Well done; it's about time dads stepped up to the plate.' Yet, my partner, Georgie, who's also a member of parliament, could not win. If she brought our baby to work, she was criticised for bringing her; if she was at work without our baby, Lilah, then she was a neglectful mother and choosing to be at work over with her family. What was unfortunately so starkly pointed out to me as a father was how different the treatment is for mums and dads, and for men and women still in 2026.

For paid parental leave, it's not just about being able to survive and support your family; it's actually about families making decisions for what works for them and encouraging families to have those discussions so that it is possible to share that amazing period in your child's life. If it's one of the parents making the choice to be at home, then that's amazing. If the other parent decides that they're going to go back to work, then that's okay. Whatever is right for the family needs to be possible.

Mr Burns's baby having interjected—

I'll wrap it up soon; don't worry. I'm getting the wind-up. I think the changes that came in yesterday to paid parental leave are really so important. They build on the extension of paid parental leave, resulting in more money each week.

Mr Burns's baby having interjected—

That sound could be one of a few things. The extra funds obviously make it more possible for families to have support, but the other big change that came in yesterday was that superannuation would also be paid to parents. When you're in this period where you're choosing to have kids or you're fortunate enough to be thinking about all these really hard but rewarding decisions, you don't want to be in a situation where your retirement is potentially going to be affected by the fact that you're taking some time away from work—or your career, for that matter. Unfortunately, for too long, that's happened, and it's fallen to mums to make those sacrifices, put a pause on their career and lose out on superannuation. That's just not right. It's not right that it's not possible.

Mr Burns's baby having interjected—

We're almost there. It's not fair that it should be systemically burdening women in their careers or in their retirement, and these changes are really just another step forward to make it easier for families—to make it less of a burden just on mums to miss out on such important parts of their working lives. I feel very blessed to be in this place at the end of a sitting week with my daughter here with me, and I know that I'm very lucky compared to so many others, but I am also proud of the reforms that we've brought in to make it easier and more possible for families, fathers and mothers to take this time away to be with their beautiful kids.

Welcome to Lilah.

House adjourned at 17:00

Think about what the internet could have been: a place where children learn, create and connect safely, where people in crisis find support and where algorithms surface what's true and valuable. Instead, children are being exposed to violent, sexual and misogynistic content. They're forming unhealthy emotional attachments to AI companions designed to maximise engagement. Adults are being radicalised by recommendation systems engineered to serve increasingly extreme content. This is the predictable consequence of design choices made by platforms that seek to maximise engagement and profit.

I commend the government for committing to a digital duty of care. This will require digital platforms, including social media sites and AI chatbots, to be safe by design. Digital platforms will have a legal responsibility to prevent harm, but the design of this commitment matters enormously, and I want to flag three things that the government must get right. First, there must be a single overarching duty. This would mean platforms had a general obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to users, rather than a list of named specific obligations. The difference is significant. A list of specific duties only captures what the drafters anticipated, not new and emerging harms. Specific duties for the highest risk categories can sit underneath an overarching obligation to give industry and regulators clarity, but the overarching duty must not be traded away.

Second, the framework must capture the full range of harms. The government's current issues paper sets the threshold at serious harm. But serious harm means loss of life or severe physical injury, and that threshold risks leaving out harms that are less acute or immediate but still deeply damaging and widespread. This could include the erosion of a child's developmental capacity through unhealthy relationships with AI companions, with a slow degradation of mental health and a teenager who spends years in an algorithmic environment that continues to serve up distressing content. None of these may clearly meet a serious harm threshold, but all of them are deeply problematic, and the government must lower the bar to harm, not serious harm.

Third, the eSafety Commissioner must be properly resourced and empowered. A well-designed duty of care on paper means nothing without a regulator capable of enforcing it. The commissioner needs powers to compel the production of documents and data from platforms to audit recommendation algorithms and to litigate appeals. It's great to see that the government has acted on this, passing laws this week to strengthen the commissioner's powers, but I remain concerned about the commissioner's budget and her ability to take on the tech giants. This will also be essential to an effective digital duty of care. Get these three things right and a digital duty of care can be genuinely transformative.

Today I rise to pay tribute to a dear friend, trusted colleague and lifelong Labor activist, Nick Mowbray. Nick's passing has come as a profound shock to so many of us who knew him, worked alongside him and had the privilege of calling him a friend. On behalf of the people of Shortland and the wider Labor family, I extend my deepest condolences to his parents, Gerard Mowbray and Gai Keegan; his sisters, Sarah Mowbray and Alex Kenny; his brothers-in-law, Michael and Joe; and his much-loved nieces and nephews, Bobby, Lyla, Florence and Hillary.

Nick dedicated much of his life to the causes and values of the Australian Labor Party. His involvement began when he was a student, following work experience with the then member for Wallsend, John Mills. He joined the Labor Party as a teenager in 2000 and, from that point on, remained a committed and active participant in our movement. I first came to know Nick through our work with Greg Combet. From the beginning, he combined sharp political instincts with a genuine commitment to improving people's lives. He understood that politics was not about personalities or titles. It was about delivering outcomes for working people and the communities we represent.

When I was elected to parliament in 2013, Nick joined my office, and, for the next 11 years, he was my senior adviser, trusted confidant and one of the most capable people I've ever worked with. He helped shape campaigns, policies and speeches. He provided honest and often funny advice, thoughtful counsel and unwavering support. Whether helping a constituent navigate government services, advocating for local projects or developing policy solutions, Nick approached every task with intelligence, empathy and determination.

Beyond his professional achievements, Nick's greatest contribution was to the Labor movement itself. He served as secretary of the Cardiff-Elermore Vale branch and as secretary for both Charlton and Shortland FECs for many years. He represented our region at state conferences for two decades and played a role in countless campaigns for Labor candidates, including John Mills, Sonia Hornery, Yasmin Catley, Jodie Harrison, Greg Combet and myself. Nick was always a person who turned up. He was the first to volunteer and the last to leave. He believed in doing the work and supporting others.

There's something difficult about standing in this chamber today. For more than a decade, Nick helped write many of the speeches I've delivered in this parliament. He had a gift for finding the right words and understood the values that should guide everything we do in public life. For more than a decade, Nick helped write many of my speeches that I delivered in this parliament. He had a gift of finding the right words and understood the values that should guide everything we do in public life. Today I rise to deliver a speech that Nick did not write. Instead, I rise to speak about him and to thank him for his friendship, his service and his unwavering commitment to our movement and our community. Above all, we remember a loving son, brother, uncle and friend, whose kindness touched countless lives. Nick made our movement stronger and our community better. He will be deeply missed. Vale Nick Mowbray.

Last month, I met with a group of victims-survivors of family and domestic violence from my community, and I'd like to use my time today to read some of their experiences into the parliamentary record. These statements are delivered anonymously, having regard to the privacy and safety of the women, as well as legal matters which are afoot. One statement reads:

Imagine being four years old, having moved home eight times, crossed state borders for safety, having survived strangulation before you even took your first breath, witnessing your mother being raped repeatedly, not being protected by a Family Violence Order, and living with the ongoing risk that family law orders could require you to spend time with the man responsible for that violence.

That is the reality for my son.

While governments continue to pledge their commitment to ending family violence and femicide, victim-survivors need to see tangible reform. Perpetrators must be held accountable, removed from their victims' lives, and our system must prioritise community safety. Australia can, and should, do better.

I welcome the intent of the government's National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, but intent without meaningful action and adequate resourcing is just a press release. I will use the words of one of the women I met:

Real reform means moving beyond ongoing promises and creating systems that genuinely prioritise the safety and wellbeing of women and children in Australia.

On average one woman is killed by a current or former partner every week, and that is obviously completely and utterly unacceptable. Clearly the systems we have in place are not working because at best they do little to protect vulnerable women and children and at worst send them right back into the arms of their abusers. As one of the women said to me:

A lot of the process is the punishment.

The abuse of institutions is a big part of the problem. Abuse of the courts, vexatious claims made against victims-survivors and lies told to government agencies like the ATO and Centrelink are some of the accounts given to me. Frankly, it's a damning indictment of our system that the processes designed to protect victims-survivors are being turned into a weapon against them. Several of the women I met with detailed how they now have criminal records because of the lies told in court by abusers. The national plan is good, but it's time for some national action to address this crisis. These women and children need leadership from governments, and they desperately need it now.

It was 10 years ago today that I had the great privilege of being elected as a member of Wills. In my first speech, I said that I was elected by the people of Wills to serve them and to make a difference in their lives. That sounds simple, but it is a really important commitment and promise. What I've learnt over those years is that, in doing so, it wasn't just a one way effort. I was doing it with them. We did it together. We actually worked together to deliver real improvements for the community, and that's been the most satisfying part of being a member representing my community.

We've secured a Medicare urgent care clinic in Coburg and in Carlton as well, which is also in my electorate now. We've backed local arts, schools, sports clubs and community organisations through all of the different federal government investments, grants and election commitments, which have been so critically important for those communities. In the environment, we've revitalised sections of Moonee Ponds Creek, which is the border of my electorate. It was once a concrete canal—it was all concreted up. We've returned that to nature. We've removed the concrete, and we've done so much to open that up for the local community to enjoy the natural flora and fauna of that urban waterway. I've put two solar community batteries into my electorate. We've funded an amazing arts place called Balam Balam Place in Brunswick that includes an Indigenous art gallery, performance space for artists, and it's just wonderful to visit. Nationally, I think it's important to note that we've delivered multiple tax cuts, more bulk billing, five per cent deposits for people's first home, expanded parental leave and early education, free TAFE, 20 per cent off HECS and so much more.

But most importantly, my office and I have really put first and foremost service to the community as our objective. We've assisted constituents to access Centrelink, the NDIS, aged care and, through other government services, helped them navigate what is often a very difficult process, especially if they're vulnerable and unable to do so of their own volition.

The thing that I'm very proud about as well—and it's very rewarding but difficult work—over these past 10 years is helping hundreds of refugees and migrants secure visas, begin their new lives in Australia and make their contribution. It's one of the great privileges of my time in this place. In my first speech, I warned that we must beware of the demagogues and charlatans who take advantage of the disaffected and angry in our society and direct that anger towards minorities and refugees to stir up their own political ends. Sadly, that warning still pertains today. It's as relevant today as it was then.

I will continue to stand up for the people who are vulnerable in my community. But it's been a great privilege serving in this parliament and serving my community.

I rise to present a petition signed by more than 13,000 Australians. The petition has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. It calls on this House to amend the Criminal Code Act so that it no longer applies to voluntary assisted dying, VAD. Thirteen thousand people have delivered a simple message to the government: a dying person should not suffer because of an anomaly in Commonwealth law.

The problem isn't complicated. VAD is now an established part of Australia's health system. Every state and the ACT have legislated for it with strict safeguards. The Northern Territory may follow this year. Yet a provision in the Commonwealth Criminal Code written in 2005, 12 years before any VAD law existed and aimed at pro-suicide websites, criminalises the use of telecommunications for VAD. A doctor who uses the phone, internet, fax, email or video conferencing to provide lawful VAD care risks prosecution and fines greater than $300,000. This means seriously ill patients must attend every consultation in person, travelling long distances while gravely unwell, often more than once, to make and confirm their request. This particularly affects Australians in rural and remote areas.

This petition was brought to the House by Emma Hargreaves on behalf of her father, Terry. In his final weeks just reaching the bathroom was a huge task, let alone getting into a car for a medical appointment. This outdated Commonwealth code provision meant telehealth was not an option for Terry. It should have been. Emma said it would have made an enormous difference and empowered her dad in his final moments. Terry deserved a better death. VAD is lawful in every state, yet dying people like Terry cannot properly access it.

Australia is the only country in the world that prohibits telehealth for voluntary assisted dying. The solution is simple and it's ready. I introduced a private member's bill in 2024 and relisted it on the Notice Paper this year to amend the Criminal Code so it no longer applies to accessing VAD through telehealth in line with state and territory law. The Attorney-General has described this as a complex issue. With respect, it really is not. All states and the ACT have done their part. Every one of them has legislated with safeguards. The only barrier that remains is a single provision of the Commonwealth Code, so the problem is one of will not complexity. The AMA, the Law Council, VAD regulatory bodies, 20 health organisations and state attorneys-general and health ministers all support this change. Refusing to fix this is a choice, leaving Australians like Terry to suffer needlessly. I commend this petition to the House.

Has the petition been approved by the Petitions Committee?

Yes, it has.

Well, it's finally open. After years of planning, investment and construction, the Nyaal Banyul Geelong Convention and Event Centre is now welcoming visitors. While it's on Geelong's waterfront, the benefits won't stop there. Every conference or major event will bring people looking for somewhere to stay, somewhere to eat and somewhere to explore. Whether it's a tourism showcase, a technology summit or a manufacturing expo, the convention centre is a dynamic piece in the puzzle that will put the wider Geelong region on the map. That means more visitors discovering the Bellarine wineries, restaurants and pubs; more people extending their stay on the Surf Coast; and more customers for local cafes, retailers and tourism operators from Torquay to Ocean Grove, from Barwon Heads to Portarlington, right here in my electorate of Corangamite. That's what makes this project so important. It's an investment that strengthens Geelong as the gateway to everything my part of Victoria has to offer, and it's already delivered 1,400 jobs, with more to come.

It builds on the work we're doing across the Bellarine and Surf Coast to support growing communities. We will soon open a headspace and a four-court sports stadium in Armstrong Creek, aquatic facilities in Torquay and Drysdale, and new and upgraded sporting facilities in Ocean Grove and Grovedale. At Leopold Memorial Reserve, we've just delivered a major $3.5 million upgrade for local sports clubs and community groups. It means change rooms that meet the needs of both men's and women's sporting teams, more parking, better lights, a new scoreboard and so much more. We're also delivering stage 2 of the Barwon Heads Road Upgrade, improving safety and connectivity for one of the fastest growing parts of Victoria.

These projects work together. Better roads connect communities. Better sporting facilities bring people together, and a world-class convention centre brings more visitors who will experience everything the Bellarine and Surf Coast have to offer. That's good for local business. It's good for local jobs, and it's another example of what can happen when governments invest in a long-term future. I'm proud to be part of a government that's backing this part of Victoria, creating opportunity today while building confidence for the future.

As at the last election, the AEC boundary changes meant that the town of Kilmore came into the electorate that I represent, the electorate of Nicholls, and Kilmore is one of the oldest inland towns in Australia. It's a beautiful place. It has bluestone buildings, a historic jail and a monument to Hume and Hovell. It's also one of the fastest growing regional communities in Victoria, and population growth across the Mitchell Shire is placing enormous pressure on roads that were never designed to carry today's traffic volumes. Residents, businesses, freight operators and visitors are all experiencing increased congestion, delays and safety concerns.

Heavy vehicles are continuing to travel through the centre of Kilmore, creating safety risks for pedestrians, shoppers and local businesses. Local roads are carrying not only local traffic but also growing commuter and freight movements, and congestion reduces productivity, worsens amenity and undermines the liveability of the town, and the Kilmore Structure Plan identifies Highgate Road as a key strategic road project needed to support the town's continued growth, and, without appropriate link roads, traffic from new estates is forced to add to the congestion to get to the commercial precinct, and the Mitchell Shire Council has already allocated funding for planning and design works for a future road connection between Kings Lane and John Street, and the link roads are a critical first step for Kilmore, but it needs government attention.

The Mitchell Shire Council has identified the Kilmore-Wallan Bypass as one of the highest advocacy priorities, but the project has been languishing for years. The bypass is essential to improve safety, reduce congestion and return the historic town centre to local residents and businesses. The bypass would remove significant volumes of heavy traffic from Sydney Street and the town centre. The historic buildings, part of Kilmore's enduring charm, were built for horse and cart not the heavy transport now rumbling through the town. Better roads support local businesses by improving access to shops, services and industrial areas. The improved freight routes strengthen regional supply chains and help local producers get goods to markets efficiently, and safer roads mean fewer accidents and a better quality of life for local residents.

Kilmore cannot continue to grow with yesterday's road network. The community needs a coordinated package of infrastructure investment that includes important link roads and the Kilmore Bypass. Honestly, it has been ignored by too many governments for too long. State and federal governments need to focus on Kilmore, focus on the population growth, look at the infrastructure that needs to be developed and built, and get on with the job.

In my electorate of Bonner, Labor's cheaper medicines policy has delivered 2.7 million cheaper scripts, putting more than $19 million back in the pockets of locals. From 1 July, people in my community—and, of course, right across the country—have gained access to 10 new and expanded PBS listings, making more life-changing medicines affordable for everyday Aussies.

Tezspire is now listed for severe uncontrolled asthma, with around 18½ thousand Australians expected to benefit from access to treatment that could otherwise cost up to $1,600 per injection. Neffy will provide a new needle-free option for children and adults at risk of anaphylaxis, with around 150,000 Australians currently accessing comparable treatments. Tresiba is now listed for people living with type 1 diabetes, benefiting around 14,000 Australians, while reducing costs by up to $500 per pack. Rystiggo is now listed for adults living with generalised myasthenia gravis, with almost 5,000 Australians expected to benefit from treatment that otherwise costs up to $10,000 per pack. Expanded access to Alecensa will benefit around 440 Australians with certain types of lung cancer, avoiding treatment costs of around $188,000 per course of treatment. Expanded access to Perjeta will help more than 3,000 Aussies with HER2-positive early breast cancer receive the treatment that they need. Labor is strengthening Medicare and making sure Australians can get the medicines that they need at just $25 for their scripts, or $7.70 with a concession card. That is Labor making a real difference to everyday Aussies.

Building Australia's future also means backing the small businesses that keep our communities and local economies strong. Bonner is home to more than 14,000 small businesses, and that's why the Albanese Labor government continues to fund the Small Business Debt Helpline, providing free, independent and confidential support to small-business owners and sole traders experiencing financial difficulty. Whether someone doesn't know where to start with their business debt, needs more help in negotiations with the ATO or is considering the future of their business, the helpline provides practical expert advice. Importantly, it also supports victim-survivors of domestic and family violence who have been left with business debts experienced through financial abuse. If you're a small-business owner doing it tough, you don't have to face it alone. Help is available, and that is what we are here to deliver.

I want to acknowledge the passing of a great Australian, Isaac Wakil AO, aged 104. Isaac's story is the great Australian story of a person born overseas, fleeing persecution, making his fortune and giving back in spades to the country he loved.

Isaac Wakil was born in Baghdad in 1922. He was a survivor of the 1941 Farhud pogrom against Iraqi Jews. He came to Australia in 1949 and became a successful entrepreneur in the clothing industry. It was while working in fashion that he met his beloved wife, Susan, who he married in 1953. He was besotted by and absolutely devoted to her. They were married for 65 years until Susan's death in 2018. After her death, her life became the inspiration for the good works and opportunities he created for others.

In business, they were extremely successful. Susan and Isaac worked hard, invested wisely in property and became lifelong supporters of the arts, particularly Opera Australia and the Art Gallery of New South Wales. In the seventies and eighties, they were one of Sydney's glamour couples. I first met Susan and Isaac in 2017. They'd taken an interest in my career, and they were generous hosts and bons vivants. It was 10 o'clock in the morning, but Isaac said: 'Julian, you've come over. We must have champagne!'

As Susan's health declined, they retreated from society. A decade ago, they began liquidating their property holdings and established one of the most significant charitable foundations in Australia's history. Through the Susan and Isaac Wakil Foundation they touched tens of thousands of lives, supporting patients, students, artists, Aboriginal people and young people experiencing opera for the first time. When I sat on the council of the National Library, I approached Isaac about supporting the digitisation of performing arts materials, including Opera Australia productions that the Wakils had originally supported. He gave $1 million to make these materials accessible to all Australians. They made a $24 million gift to the Art Gallery of New South Wales, the largest monetary gift in the gallery's history. They gave $35 million to the University of Sydney to establish a purpose-built health sciences facility that now bears Susan's name. As Isaac said when the gift was announced:

Australia is a great country and it's a good feeling to give something back.

As a proud member of the Jewish community, Isaac was very disappointed by the antisemitism that was allowed to run rife at Sydney university, and he made his feelings known to Vice-Chancellor Mark Scott and called on him to take stronger action. Susan and Isaac supported the incredible work of the Sydney Jewish Museum's education programs and the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. He was also a great supporter of the Liberal Party and especially supported and admired the leadership of Scott Morrison. Both Susan and Isaac were appointed officers of the Order of Australia in 2017.

This is a sad time for the Wakil, Khedoori and Lipmann families. It was my privilege to know a wise, generous, kind man who took an interest in the lives of others, a Jewish Australian patriot who wanted to create opportunities for others and whose generosity was inspired by his abiding love for his wife. Isaac is now reunited with his beloved Susan. May his memory be a blessing.

This year's King's Birthday Honours recognised 14 Griffith recipients whose service reflects the best of our community. In my short few minutes here today, I want to acknowledge a few of them. Matthew Ames received his honour for significant service to community health, engineering, business administration and corporate governance. A Metro South Health board member since 2022, Matthew brings more than 20 years experience in environmental health and safety, risk management and governance. He has also been a strong consumer advocate across Queensland health, helping ensure patients and families have a voice in the systems that affect their lives. Matthew has given years of service to Hear and Say, supporting better outcomes for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. He has also been a leader in sepsis advocacy, helping improve awareness, care and recovery for people affected by sepsis.

Professor Hans Peter Soyer received his honour for distinguished service in dermatology, skin cancer diagnosis, medical research and governance. As Director of the Dermatology Research Centre at the University of Queensland's Frazer Institute and through his work at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, Professor Soyer has helped advance the early detection and treatment of melanoma and other skin cancers. Professor Soyer's work has been vital in Queensland, where skin cancer affects too many families as the melanoma capital of the world. Professor Soyer's research brings together clinical care, new technology and collaboration, including 3D total body imaging and the use of artificial intelligence, in dermatology. His work aims to find skin cancers earlier, improve patient outcomes and address gaps in access to care, especially in regional, rural and remote Australia.

Katarina Carroll AO APM received her honour for distinguished service to law enforcement, disaster management and the community. As a former Queensland Police Commissioner, Commissioner of Queensland Fire and Emergency Services and a leader through floods, cyclones and major public safety operations, Katarina has served Queensland with strength and calm.

Christine Castley OAM received the Medal for the Order of Australia for service to the multicultural community and public administration. As CEO of Multicultural Australia, she helped support refugees, migrants and new Australians to find safety, belonging and opportunity. Christine also contributed to the taskforce on domestic and family violence which delivered the landmark Not now, not ever report. She now serves on the board of DVConnect, continuing to work to support people experiencing violence and abuse.

I also acknowledge the other Griffith recipients named in this year's honours. Associate Professor Alan Gale OAM was recognised for service to cardiothoracic surgery and the community. Craig Holden OAM and Craig Williams OAM have given decades of service in surf lifesaving. Mark Neave OAM was recognised for service to youth. Kathleen Noonan OAM was named for service to social welfare. There are so many more of these outstanding leaders across my community. On behalf of my community, I congratulate each of them and I thank them sincerely for their service to our wonderful community of Griffith, to Queensland and, of course, to Australia.

CFA volunteers give back so much to our community, and today I want to pay tribute to a good friend of mine, someone I've known for 20 years: Tim Mitchelson, better known to all of us as Loaf. He's stepping back from the BMT at the Wandin Fire Brigade, but he has served our community with distinction. He was fourth lieutenant from 2009 to 2016 and captain from 2016 to 2022, and he has been the first lieutenant from 2022 until today. Loaf, thank you for your service. You've given so much to so many, keeping the community in Wandin, the wider Yarra Valley, all of Victoria and the country safe when called on. We appreciate your service. I know you're going to continue to give more to the Wandin community, continuing to work and be a volunteer for the CFA. Thank you, mate. We love you. We appreciate you. Thank you again.

The Casey community is lucky to have the best wine region in the world, the Yarra Valley. In my community, it provides jobs, it provides opportunity and it brings tourism to our community. We always deliver quality wines, and I want to pay tribute to some of the winners of so many awards.

At the National Wine Show of Australia Awards, Coldstream Hills had chief winemaker Andrew Fleming and winemaker Greg Jarratt be successful in winning the Sparkling Trophy for their 2018 Yarra Valley Pinot Noir Chardonnay. I want to pay tribute to De Bortoli—the managing director, Darren De Bortoli, and the Yarra Valley estate manager, Leanne De Bortoli—for winning the Red Varietal Trophy for their 2025 Yarra Valley Estate Vineyard Gamay. Giant Steps general manager Melanie Chester received the Pinot Trophy for the 2024 Sexton Vineyard Pinot Noir, and they were also finalists in the Chardonnay and James Halliday red wine categories. To Soumah: congratulations on being a finalist for Sparkling. To Yarra Yering: congratulations on being a finalist for the cabernet blends and for being named in The Real Review's 2026 Top Wineries of Australia as Australia's top winery for the third year in a row. Levantine Hill, also in the Yarra Valley, came second. At the Victorian Wine Show, Oakridge Wines received the award for Best Wine of the Yarra Valley and the Victorian Premier's Trophy for their 2023 864 Funder and Diamond Drive Block Chardonnay. On the 2027 Halliday Wine Companion shortlist—with winners to be announced in August—are Oakridge Wines and Yeringberg for Winery of the Year; Rohan Smith from Medhurst Wines for Winemaker of the Year; Andrew George from Yarra Yering for Viticulturist of the Year; and Medhurst Wines for Best Value Winery. Congratulations.

There are not only amazing wineries—thank you for everything you give—but gins as well. I want to pay tribute to Four Pillars Distillery head distiller Sarah Prowse, who is the 2026 ADA Australian Distiller of the year, following in the footsteps of Cam Mackenzie, the founder and first distiller. Well done, Sarah. It is well deserved.

I rise to give a special shout-out to Oscar 1 CFA. The Oscar 1 CFA is quite a unique CFA volunteer unit in Bendigo. Its focus is on mine rescue. Like many old mining regions, Bendigo is littered with empty mine shafts. When people start to renovate, one may open up out in the Whipstick Forest or many of our other forests. They are everywhere and quite often weren't filled in properly, so there is a need for a unit like Oscar 1. They are made up of volunteers, many of whom work in the mining industry currently or are volunteers of other CFA brigades. They come together on Wednesdays to make sure that they are best at their speciality, mine rescue. As I said, they are unique and quite often can fall through the cracks of the very large organisation that is known as the CFA, but in my meeting with them I was impressed by their dedication to what they do. They get together. They train. They work in a really collaborative way—so collaborative that they actually took out first place in the Victorian Mine Rescue Competition hosted earlier this year by the MCA Vic branch at La Trobe University—volunteers beating companies across Victoria and New South Wales with their specialist approach and skills. Congratulations, Oscar 1, and thank you for what you do: making sure that all of us are safe when it comes to our local community and local environment and in the unfortunate situation that would arise if any of us or our pets were to fall down a disused mine shaft.

I'd also like to pay tribute and honour to the late Don Drummond. Don and I first met many, many years ago, before I was the federal member for Bendigo, back when Woodend was in the Bendigo electorate. Don passed away recently. Even though Woodend hasn't been in Bendigo for a long time, he had kept in touch. Don would always remind me of the time when he stood for Ballarat, back in the dark days of Labor. He was one of those warriors, those true believers, who would put on the shirt and fly the flag even when we knew it was impossible. Don and his late wife, Sheila, were known throughout Bendigo for their passion for the arts, particularly literature. They had well-established careers in publishing. Don will be missed. Before it was a thing in Labor, he always started branch meetings with a welcome to country and a value statement—the commitment to the burning light, as he said. Someone of great intellect and always a great ear, he was someone who was a true believer. Vale, Don. You will be missed.

I rise today with a heavy heart, because the scourge of domestic and family violence is no longer just a headline in the media for our local community. This week it has been happening in our own backyard. In Biggera Waters, 23-year-old Mallorie Jane Roberts, a young mum with a little son, was allegedly shot and killed in her own home. Police have charged her partner with domestic violence murder and a weapons offence, and have alleged a homemade, unregistered firearm was used. Mallorie was the 34th Australian woman to fall victim and be killed as a result of domestic violence this year, but she was more than just a number. Someone like Mallorie will be remembered by those who loved her as having a beautiful heart and a kind spirit. She was a daughter, a mother, a sister and a friend. And now a child will grow up without his mum. I also want to acknowledge the courage of neighbour Sharon Burgess, who did what every decent Australian hopes they would. She called triple zero and desperately tried to save Mallorie's life until paramedics arrived. Sadly, Mallory could not be saved.

Then, in Hope Island just a couple of nights ago, another horror unfolded. A 38-year-old man locked himself in a room in the home of his former partner and set the house on fire, killing himself and seriously injuring other occupants. These are no longer distant tragedies. Biggera Waters and Hope Island are suburbs in our community—streets our families know and suburbs where we live. To the families grieving this week, our community grieves with you. To anyone living in fear, please know this: you are not alone. You deserve help, safety and support. To all of us in this place: we must be clear; domestic and family violence must be called out wherever it occurs. Backed by our brave police, frontline services, neighbours, families and a community that refuses to look away, we must work together to end domestic and family violence.

Twice this week the Prime Minister was asked if he could guarantee house prices won't tank, but he refused to answer. The hapless Minister for Housing was asked the same question all week in question time, and she refused to answer too. Australians really deserve to know what it is that they're hiding. There's a big difference between making housing more affordable and crashing the value of homes of everyday Australians who have worked their whole lives to own that bit of Australia. The housing minister has talked about a 10 to 20 per cent 'correction', and that should concern every Australian with a mortgage. That's not a housing plan; that's an admission that this government has lost control. Sadly, the great Australian dream has turned into a nightmare under this Labor government. We know that the minister was hopeless in Home Affairs, and now she's hopeless with homes.

I rise today to raise the voices of community concerns in the outer west. In my community in Melbourne's western suburbs, there's been a proposal for the largest data centre ever publicly proposed in Australia. At 350 hectares, the Plumpton data centre project will cover the equivalent of 175 MCG playing fields. People in our community are rightly asking questions about what a development of this scale could mean for our growing suburbs. I want to take this opportunity in this parliamentary chamber to say that I hear the concerns about the potential impact on local energy and water resources, the increased traffic movements and noise, and the cumulative pressure placed on infrastructure that is already struggling to keep pace.

These are the right questions to be asking. They reflect a community who want to understand how a major industrial development would affect their quality of life, local environment and future of our region. As AI demand and reliance on cloud computing grows, data centre investment in Australia is necessary. But—in our community, near homes and close to schools—data centre development must happen in ways that deliver positive outcomes for the community.

The Albanese Labor government has set out clear expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure built here to ensure that investments provide tangible benefits both locally and across Australia. Operators must prioritise Australia's national interests, not only by strengthening our security and resilience but also by delivering benefits to local communities. They are also expected to support the energy transition with new renewable energy and to not put upward pressure on energy prices, to manage water responsibly, to create well-paid jobs and local skills, and to back startups, research, innovations and supply chains.

I will not support data centre developments that fail to meet these expectations. Our community deserves clear answers, genuine consultation and transparent planning processes. The west cannot simply become the destination for infrastructure that places additional strain on resources while delivering little in return. I will continue to listen to residents, seek answers on their behalf and advocate strongly for the long-term visibility, sustainability and wellbeing of our growing community.

These days we can let someone on the other side of the world know what we're thinking almost before we've thought it. But, sadly, it has become harder and harder to send a simple letter. Many people in my electorate prefer to do their banking, post parcels and letters to their loved ones, and pay bills face to face rather than online. But the services of Australia Post are not only costing more; they're becoming fewer and fewer. These services, some of the very few available to quite a number of my communities, are being whittled away.

I have had phone calls from no fewer than six licensed post offices across the Parkes electorate speaking up against the slow undermining of regional post offices. Between them, these people have served their communities for decades. They have listened to life stories, have helped elderly people with their complicated paperwork, have been the only break in the day for busy farmers, have signed important papers as justices of the peace, and have assisted people to pay their bills. As one licensee said: 'This is not just a commercial concern. When a small community loses its post office it loses much more than a place to send parcels; it loses its last point of banking, government services, JP functions and human contact with essential services. These networks that exist today took generations to build and cannot easily be replaced.'

Another licensee said: 'The post office is not one option of many. It is the infrastructure that holds communities together. If these services go, people in communities like White Cliffs, Condobolin, Peak Hill, Bogan Gate and Eumungerie will be forced to drive for 60 minutes—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10:17 to 10:31

People will be forced to drive 60 minutes, 80 minutes, two hours or up to six hours to the nearest town with a post office. Regional people once again are treated like second-class citizens. People are paying more and more, but less and less is being delivered. I look forward to the spotlight being shone on Australia Post at the Senate inquiry that will look at this government owned business's leaked plans to close up to 36 metropolitan post offices and change the licensing agreements to regional and rural post offices. The leaked business case, Post Office Network & Licensed Post Office Reimagined, dated June this year, envisages widespread changes to regional and rural post offices that could see them become nothing more than a parcel locker. I know that's the same for my colleagues in the room the member for Dawson and the member for Cowper. It's happening right across regional Australia, and enough is enough. Australia Post needs to take note. Regional people need essential services too.

Yesterday was 1 July, and this was a really important day where a lot of cost-of-living help was provided by this government. Starting from 1 July, I'm really very pleased that workers that rely on the national minimum wage and national minimum award wages will have seen a boost to their wages. Modern award wages have increased by 4.75 per cent and the national minimum wage has gone up six per cent. This is really important for our lowest-paid workers in this country, and our government strongly advocated for these increases because we believe that workers deserve to be paid fairly, and wages need to keep on moving. Workers like Brandon are an example of people that are benefiting. He contacted my office to let me know that this will make a huge difference to him and other young people in the retail workspace who now feel they can get ahead and start saving for a home.

Tax cuts are also coming in on 1 July. The Albanese Labor government is making sure that more workers right around the country, and have so many hardworking people particularly in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, have got a tax cut on 1 July. This is in addition to the tax cuts our government has already delivered, and there are more tax cuts coming. There is a new $1,000 instant tax deduction that was in the budget, along with a $250 working Australians tax offset coming next year. We are absolutely committed as a government to continue to ensure that workers are getting tax cuts over and over again to support them with the cost of living.

Of course, the Labor Party is the party of superannuation. We firmly believe that superannuation enables people to save for their retirement. It is a very important reform. It was brought in by a Labor government, and, of course, this Labor government has continued this legacy by ensuring that we reach 12 per cent in the contributions made. Also, importantly, from 1 July, we have introduced payday super. This is a really important reform that strengthens and ensures that we treat superannuation with the same importance that we treat someone's pay packet, making sure that they get paid on time and that workers get what they are entitled to and what they've earned. And, finally, from 1 July, parents of newborns can now have six months of paid parental leave.

Every parent wants better for their kids. That's why we turn up to work. That's why we save. That's why we drive them to piano lessons, take them to sports and put effort into their lives—because we want better for them. One of the great things about Toowoomba, while we have great schools, great hospitals and people coming to our region, is the opportunity that's provided in a region like mine. But the more I talk to my constituents, particularly in these times, I find that parents are losing that optimism. Having watched the changes that are taking place in the world around us, I can't blame them. When we turn on the news, we hear of geopolitical changes, with the world moving from rules based order back to spheres of influence. We see populist instability right across the world and the challenges to stable government that it presents.

I talk to young kids about the impact of social media and what they see on a regular basis, what my kids see on a regular basis, and how that impacts them. We hear the challenges of social cohesion right here in Australia, let alone what's happening around the world. These are things that we never thought we'd see, with Australians pitching themselves against Australians. I think that drags down that sense of optimism that we've all carried—that sense of optimism that's the reason we do the hard work. That future somehow looks a little bit less bright.

There was a time in this place when politics was a bit more left-right. I don't blame that, because the thrust of the conversation was good jobs and good pay and finding the balance between those who wanted to invest and those who wanted to invest their labour, and then, between that, finding that balance to say, 'I want you to have your job; I want to protect your job, but I want to make sure that business is thriving so that your jobs are encouraged and our nation can grow and prosper.' That's a good conversation to be having today.

Today we find ourselves questioning the very value of our institutions. I can't believe we're doing this. We're questioning the value of consensus between parties. We're seeing a 'my way or the highway' approach to politics. We're questioning political gradualism versus urges for revolution in the political sphere. I think these are terribly challenging things when we consider that. But part of the solution to dealing with these issues about making the future brighter is positioning our policy around our kids' future and reminding ourselves of the hard work that not only parents must do but governments must do to prepare that better future.

The appeal of chaos diminishes the longer into the future it has to be in place. I think that's part of the political debate that we have to have here. That left-right debate is a good debate when it speaks to stability, when it speaks to balance and when it speaks to finding the best way for Australians to have good jobs and good pay. For our communities to be protected and for their jobs to be protected, I think this is the conversation we should be having.

Today I want to celebrate three examples of what makes Petrie such a special place: creativity, community and confidence in the future. First, Redcliffe is fast making its case as the art capital of the world. Across the Peninsula, creativity is everywhere. We see it in our galleries, our community groups, schools and in the people who give their time and talent to make our community brighter.

The Redcliffe Floral and Art Show is a beautiful example of that spirit. It brings together colour, care, creativity and community pride. It reminds us that art is not distant or exclusive. It belongs in our neighbourhoods, community halls and in the hands of people who love creating something beautiful. This event has been organised by the fantastic Liz Peters, and it has gone from strength to strength. I also want to acknowledge the Redcliffe Art Society and its Exhibition of Excellence. For decades, the society has supported local artists, encouraged new talent and helped make Redcliffe a genuine cultural hub. To every artist, organiser, volunteer and supporter involved: thank you for adding so much life and colour to our community.

The second thing I want to celebrate is bringing parliament to Petrie. Recently at Bracken Ridge State School, I hosted Parliament in Schools program with the Speaker of the House. It was an opportunity for students to learn about democracy, representation and how decisions are made here in this building. Not every young person gets a chance to travel to Canberra, so programs like this matter. They show students that parliament belongs to them too. They help young people understand that their voices and ideas count and that democracy is strongest when people are informed and engaged. I thank the staff and students and the school community at Bracken Ridge State School, including the principal, Robyne Harris, deputy principal, Ben Laws, and the head of curriculum, Jess Edwards, for their warm welcome and embracing this opportunity.

Finally, I recognise a historic moment in our region—the ground breaking of PsiQuantum world-first utility-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computer. This is not just a major scientific milestone; it is a statement about Australia's future. It says world-leading technology, advanced manufacturing and the jobs of tomorrow can be built right here in our region. Quantum computing has the potential to transform industries like medicine, energy, agriculture, logistics, materials, science and more that we can't even fathom today. For our community, it means new opportunities, new skills and a place at the centre of this exciting technology.

From local artists in Redcliffe to students learning about democracy in Bracken Ridge to world-leading quantum technology being built right in our region, Petrie is a place of talent, ambition and possibility. I am incredibly, incredibly proud to represent this community.

Yesterday, we heard Labor spruiking their changes that came into effect with the new financial year, and there was a lot of chest beating and oversimplified statements around the standards of living that would make anyone not living in the real world think that things have never been better. But the average Australian knows that's not true, and they're feeling the pressure of household budgets at breaking point, and, at the same time, their salaries are not buying what they used to when Labor came in. It's simply Labor's 'divert, deflect and deny' talking points. I've taken the liberty to change the script, and it sounds a little bit like this. They say: 'As of today, we've hit new heights when it comes to the cost-of-living pressures, with increases in prices over the past four years that this country has never seen before. Insurance is up 42 per cent. Household electricity bills are up 38 per cent. Gas is up 37 per cent. Rents are up, and your weekly food shop is up 17 per cent. For those young Aussies with a mortgage, you've seen 15 interest rate rises since Labor came to power, and it is a direct result of inflationary policies—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10 : 43 to 10 : 54

Before I was interrupted, I was reading from the new Labor talking points. They go on to say: 'For Aussies with a mortgage, you've seen 15 interest rate rises since we came to power as a direct result of our inflationary policies, so, on average, you're spending another $29,000 on your mortgage. And, as a result of our May announcements, your house is now worth 10 per cent less—congratulations!

Small businesses, we haven't forgotten you. We know that your input costs are already through the roof and your profit margins are even slimmer. We know that the number of annual insolvencies has tripled this financial year when compared with 2022. But we're going to kick the boot in a little further and raise your labour costs by increasing the minimum wage, which sounds good on paper but actually means business owners will be forced to reduce their staffing numbers and unemployment is set to rise. Oh, and, if you're thinking about selling your business, we'll take an increased chunk of that too. But it's okay, everyone. Labor's groundbreaking income tax cut will put $4.80 back in your pocket to cover it.'

A tiny cut doesn't release the pressure created from failed policies that favour ideology over prosperity. Even if they don't realise it consciously, Australians are feeling it every single day. The coalition remains committed to reversing the decisions that have led to the biggest hit to Australian living standards this century. We will get back to basics with a sensible tax system that rewards aspiration and productivity. We will put in place an energy policy that ensures affordability over ideology. We will support small businesses and family households. And we will put Australians first.

I rise today to honour the life and service of Julia Morris and to extend my deepest condolences to her daughter, Mollie; her parents, Allan and Anne; her brother, James; and all of her friends, family and colleagues. Julia passed away last month after a five-year battle with breast cancer. She faced that battle with great courage, and in her final days she was surrounded by the people who loved her most.

Julia was raised in Newcastle by a family renowned for their commitment to service. It was no surprise that Julia would ultimately find her way to Canberra to pursue a career in the Parliamentary Service. For more than 30 years, Julia dedicated herself to serving others and, in particular, the Australian parliament through her work with the Department of the House of Representatives, the Senate and Hansard. Many members in this place will have known Julia through her work with our committees. Others may have sought her advice as a clerk at the table when in the chamber. Across each of these roles, Julia worked diligently to ensure the proper functioning of our democracy, serving the nation with integrity, accuracy and respect.

Julia applied these same skills and expertise to her work strengthening parliamentary institutions in the Pacific, and I know that was work that she deeply loved, especially through her work with the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. Importantly, Julia's contribution to the Australian parliament is measured not just in years but in also in the care, energy and generosity that she brought to the workplace. Colleagues fondly remember Julia's vibrant personality, her loyalty and the lasting impression she left on those fortunate enough to work alongside her.

On behalf of members and staff who were privileged to work alongside Julia, I want to put on record our sincere gratitude for her remarkable service spanning more than three decades. Julia will be greatly missed by her friends and colleagues here in this parliament but also by those in Newcastle who loved her dearly. Vale, Julia Morris. May she rest in peace.

I just acknowledge that Julia had a very private farewell here in Canberra, but her friends are gathering in Newcastle Friday week, on 10 July, to really come together to help celebrate her early life that was well lived in Newcastle and to surround her family there in Newcastle with all the love and support we can provide.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for member's constituency statements has concluded.

I rise to support this motion. Professor Richard Scolyer, who died on 7 June aged 59, three years after being diagnosed with a glioblastoma, was by any measure one of the most consequential clinician scientists this country has produced. He was a friend and he was the very best of us.

I'd like to read some words that his brother spoke at the funeral. Richard's brother, Mark, has been a dear friend of mine throughout my adult life, and it's a huge privilege to read what he said about his brother. Mark said:

I've been thinking about the essence of Rich, and what he is to me. Richard, my brother, my blonde haired brother, cheeky, annoying, funny, fun, showing off for the camera, spitting the dummy, being naughty, stuffing up, stubborn, determined, exploring, finding his own way to do things—like using the toilet facing backwards instead of facing to the front—challenging, succeeding, sometimes not succeeding, but always trying. Having a crack.

Our parents were always caring and supportive. Rich and I grew up learning to look after each other. We were shaped by challenges when we were young. We had to learn to look after mum when she needed it. We were always surrounded by family and friends, too many to mention. We were lucky to grow up in Tasmania in the sixties and seventies, and we loved it. We had a great public education. We were fortunate to have people in our lives who gave us a sense of what was possible—doctors, engineers, teachers and scientists. We learnt the importance and the wonder of learning and science.

There was always plenty of sport. We participated in everything, but particularly footy. Rich and I grew up loving being part of teams and learning the value of teamwork. We had great family trips, holidays and celebrations with cousins, uncles and aunts, even a summer holiday visiting family in South Africa. We learnt a love of bushwalking and spent eight summers camping at Ulverstone. In 2022 I walked with Rich into the walls of Jerusalem again, this time with our kids. It felt good escaping again as brothers and dads with our kids in the Tassie bush. Cousins are so important growing up. They're special relationships, the glue that holds us together. For Emily, Matt and Lucy, Noah and Maia, Millie and Rory—I know you share those special relationships and I know that they'll continue. I know that Rich knew that too.

Parkrun is something we all do together. It's really symbolic of Rich. We ran parkrun the last two Saturdays. It'll always give me the feeling of Rich. But Rich was competitive, too. He was always happy talking training, improving PBs, commenting on what you'd been doing, talking about races and his training with his great mates. The Tour de Cure was such a special thing to do with Rich. Less than two weeks after I got my first bike, I spent a week cycling with him. The last two rides started at 5.30 in the morning at the Harbour Bridge for his favourite ride out to West Head. Selfless as ever, he had a banana and a squashed peanut butter sandwich to share with me. It was a special week. We also pushed each other, running two full pace parkruns. He told me it was the best week we'd ever had together. I said, 'What about when we were kids?' He said, 'I've got brain cancer, so this is the best week.'

It was a privilege just being his brother. Being able to drive Rich to treatment was special time together, chatting and reminiscing, having fun, even with both Rich and Anna backseat-driving.

I've met many of his long-time colleagues and collaborators, particularly his friend and mentor, John Thompson. I learnt from so many how respected and valued he was. People shared stories about how he went out of his way to help them, to create opportunities for them and how much they appreciated it, how much they valued Rich as a colleague and a friend. He was in every way a great public servant and scientist, an example of why we should value science and public servants. He was a wonderful brother and a fantastic dad. Mark finishes, '"So what is the essence of Rich to me? I find it all around me—at parkrun, in the bush, riding solo, in family, in friendship. I'll keep asking myself: "What would Rich do?" His answer would be simple: 'Think of others. Contribute. Make a difference.'"

The country is poorer for losing Rich Scolyer. He was the very best and brightest of us all. I commend this motion to the House.

Today I rise to honour Professor Richard Scolyer ATO, a remarkable Australian and a deeply loved son of Tasmania. I didn't have the privilege of knowing Richard personally, but seeing how all of those who were able to interact with him throughout his life have reacted to his passing tells me that he was a truly great man. Many Australians knew Richard as one of the world's leading melanoma researchers. They knew him as the 2024 Joint Australian of the Year. They knew him as a cancer specialist who, when faced with his own devastating diagnosis, kept working, kept sharing and kept trying to help others.

But before all of that, Richard was one of ours. He was born in Launceston, he grew up in Riverside, he attended Riverside High School and went on to study medicine at the University of Tasmania. Even as his work took him to Sydney, to hospitals, laboratories and research institutions across the world, he remained proudly connected to our beautiful state, proudly connected to home. That connection was seen clearly at Bridgnorth Football Club, a club tied to his family for generations. Richard was their no. 1 ticket holder. He loved that club. He loved the community and the community loved him back. Because, for all of his brilliance, what so many people remember about Richard is not only what he achieved but how he carried himself—curious, brave, generous and humble. We should all aim for such lofty heights as these.

A person can change the world but still belong to a place, a school, a club, a family and to the people who knew them first. And Richard did change the world. Through his work with Professor Georgina Long and Melanoma Institute Australia, he helped to transform melanoma treatment. Advanced melanoma, once so often a death sentence, particularly in Tasmania, where we have the highest rates across the country, became survivable for many more people because of the work and the science that he helped to lead.

Then in 2023, in the face of being diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive and incurable brain cancer, Richard did something extraordinary that I don't think many people could. He became a patient. He did not stop being a scientist. He became the world's first brain cancer patient to have pre-surgery combination immunotherapy, an experimental treatment based on the breakthroughs that he had helped to pioneer in melanoma. He shared that journey with honesty and generosity, not because that made it easier and not because it would take away the fear but because he knew that what he learnt from his treatment might help the next patient, the next family, hopefully even the next breakthrough. That is courage and that is service and that is love in action.

Our thoughts, all of Tasmania's thoughts, are with Richard's wife, Dr Katie Nicholl; his children Emily, Mathew and Lucy, who were here yesterday in parliament; his parents Jenny and Maurice; his brother, Mark; his colleagues and everyone in northern Tasmania who had the privilege to know him not as just a national figure but simply as Richard. We are really proud that one of our own has managed to change the world, and may we honour him by continuing to back science, support medical research, care for each other and, as Richard would say, always giving it a crack. I commend this motion to the House.

As a nation we are often engaged in an examination of who we are as Australians. We're going through another episode of that right now. I think there are a lot of elements of what it means to be Australian that we reflect on at these times. When I think about this question I think quite often about the respect I have for our forebears, from First Nations to First Fleet, and the fact that when many of us take a moment to think about what our forebears had to do in this nation—with the climate, the environment that was there, to be able to survive when the odds were against them—it is something that should generate profound respect for a number of things. These things include not just our toughness and not just the fact that so often the Australian character is defined by a very heavy physical element, of being able to survive the elements themselves. One of the big things that's helped this nation survive is our know-how and smarts.

Know-how and smarts is not just something to make people think, 'I do not possess that; that is for someone who is much better than me.' Australians have a view that, whatever our walk of life, we've been able to make it in this country by thinking deeply about what it takes to survive. Again, I say that in the sense that, from First Nations to the First Fleet and beyond, we have had the odds against us. We've had poets write about our sunburnt country. The tragedy of that poem has befallen generations from then to now—the fact that we enjoy being in the sun so much. In many respects we have paid for that enjoyment, and in many cases we've paid for it with our lives, with the cancers that have emerged, particularly melanoma.

I think about the contributions by the member for Bass, the member for Kooyong and others who've spoken on this condolence motion today about Professor Richard Scolyer and the fact that he threw himself into trying to ease the burden and the dread that comes with a diagnosis. You are facing one of your most difficult challenges in life. He had spent the bulk of his time thinking about how we could beat melanoma and how we could free people from that death sentence—because, more often than not, that is exactly what it amounts to.

A lot has been said about what Richard Scolyer has done in terms of his professional, scientific and research background. But I want to come back, if I may, to the remarks I just reflected on. When we think of the Australian character we think of our ability to overcome with physical attributes. We also obviously think of our sporting prowess, and we've got a lot to be proud of there. But I think about how most people who've achieved an Order of Australia have come from a science and research background. Rightly, we give accolades for what occurs on the sporting field. But it's not just the physical that has led to heroism; it has also been the fact that Australians have dedicated their smarts and their know-how to helping their fellow Australians.

When I paid my condolences to Richard's wife, Katie—and Katie, Emily, Matt and Lucy were on the floor of the chamber with us yesterday—I expressed the view to Katie that her husband was a national hero. National heroes don't always attain that description of heroism because they've been successful. It is the journey and the struggle that they have undertaken that marks them out. In the case of Richard Scolyer, he became, as the member for Bass and others have observed, his own patient. When he had that seizure two years ago and he knew what was going to befall him, he said he did not want to die; he wanted to live. He threw everything into it, including his own body, not just to save himself but to save others. It's been that sacrifice that he made combined with the observation that, in so much of what he did, there was an absence of gravitas and ego.

Richard was us. He walked amongst us all, containing that special talent and gift that he had, with desire to save others. That, I think, marks him out. He was not successful in the journey he wanted so desperately to be successful in, but what he did and how he did it should mark him out as a national hero. My words to his wife, his widow, I gave from the bottom of my heart because this bloke was a national hero. I think it's right that we recognise that in this chamber—devoid of politics, devoid of division and united in the respect we have for a fellow Australian and what they're prepared to do for others. Richard Scolyer did that in spades.

I don't think any of us would not have been touched by that final letter that he penned, knowing how hard it would have been to write those words—every single letter in those words, every apostrophe and particularly the full stop. When he said we should commit to doing whatever we can to back science and research, he wasn't just saying that from a simple, mechanistic point of view. He was speaking to the Australian character, of which know-how is such a big part, and saying that we can get it done. It's not just about the know-how; it's about having faith in who we are. We are often the underdog and often underestimated, but we often achieve, and he wants to see more of that. If we honour this bloke, if we honour this national hero, in any way—if we are serious about honouring, in faithful regard, what he has done—we will pick up that challenge he set. That is to invest in science and in research, but also to invest in who we are as a country, who we are as a people and what we can do for the rest of the world.

I want to honour Richard Scolyer for what he did. I am but one voice, but, like many other voices in this country that wanted to honour him, I want to honour him in awe, in respect and in commitment to fulfilling what he asked of us—to pick up from where he left off and to deliver for others. Richard Scolyer was a national hero. Vale.

Those were beautiful, powerful and heartfelt words from the member for Chifley. We all share his raw emotion. I can tell by looking at him that he is very touched, as we all are and will go on being, by Richard Scolyer's life. Australia has lost two giants in recent weeks: Neale Daniher AO and Richard Scolyer AO. Both should be posthumously awarded ACs because they are the best of the best—two 'ordinary men', in their own words, who've done extraordinary things for Australia, particularly in fighting insidious diseases. As members of parliament, we should do—and do do, I think—everything we can to increase funding for diseases which beset our nation. These two men have done so much to raise awareness and the stakes, in making sure that we—in Neale Daniher's case—fight motor neurone disease.

I'll speak more about Richard Scolyer and his battles against melanoma and other cancers in this contribution, but we can ill afford to lose two men of their ilk and calibre and credentials at such a young age. Richard Scolyer was 59; Neale Daniher was 65. They probably lived a lot longer than some of the sufferers of the diseases which took both of those fine gentlemen, but they still went way too soon. They were still way too young, and they still had so much more to give. But their memory and legacy will live on thanks to their courage and the unique way that they both campaigned and advocated for and on behalf of the communities of people who are bedevilled by their suffering from MND and melanoma. The member for Chifley mentioned our sunburnt country, and, yes, we are.

I'm so very pleased that Annette St Clair, a wonderful human being from Wagga Wagga, has been asked to attend the state funeral service for Richard at the Sydney Opera House on 13 July, and she's quite moved by that invitation. Richard Scolyer and Annette St Clair met about eight years ago through Melanoma Institute Australia. Just two years ago, Professor Scolyer came to Wagga Wagga as a guest speaker at the annual Amie St Clair Melanoma Ball, held in honour of Annette and Peter's beautiful daughter, Amie, who died of melanoma in 2009. She was taken way, way too soon.

The world renowned pathologist and 2024 Australian of the Year passed away on 7 June. Annette said it was inspiring to hear his story throughout his journey. She told the local newspaper, the Daily Advertiser:

He shared his personal story and he was just such a brave, compassionate man—

and we heard that from the member for Chifley a moment ago. She continued:

He was the most warm, caring, generous man.

On Saturday, about lunchtime, I received an invitation that has come from his wife, Katie, and his family to invite us, which was lovely.

My husband and I feel very humbled to be invited to his state funeral.

Annette, the Wagga Wagga community and, indeed, the nation have been so touched and are mourning the loss of Richard. No-one is mourning it more than his wife and children. They shouldn't have lost their dad. He's fought the good fight. He's finished the race. He's kept the faith to make sure that people know about this disease and other cancers and know to do something about it. My thoughts and love and condolences go out to Katie and his children, Emily, Matthew and Lucy. It is a profound loss that they have suffered. I listened closely to the words of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Health and Ageing yesterday before question time. I think everybody shared their deep and meaningful words about what a loss this nation has suffered.

As the member for Chifley has just pointed out, the letter that Richard Scolyer wrote just prior to his death should be required reading in our schools. It shared the journey, the emotion and, you could almost argue, the Australian larrikin spirit of this bloke, and I'll call him a bloke because he was just one of us, but, then again, he was so much more special than most of us, because he knew what lay ahead. He knew that he was going to succumb to the diseases that were afflicting his body, and yet he used his final months, weeks, days and hours to send a message to the nation about what can be done, what should be done and how we should act. That is extraordinary, when, as the Prime Minister said, as did the member for Hume, most people would use those moments to shrink away from society, to spend them with family and perhaps to feel sorry for themselves, but not Richard Scolyer, not this man, not this bloke. Wow! What an amazing human being he was and is, quite frankly. I used the present tense there because he will continue to be a name that will resonate throughout this nation. Whenever melanoma is discussed, whenever funding is required and whenever awareness needs to be raised, the name Richard Scolyer will live on. Vale to a brave and warm and amazing Australian.

I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the Federation Chamber.

by leave—I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.

Ten years ago today, the community of Mayo put their trust in me to represent them. I'd particularly like to acknowledge former senator Nick Xenophon. Nick Xenophon put his trust in me to represent his party. Nick only stayed in the parliament for a year after I was elected, but I greatly enjoyed that time I had with Nick Xenophon and with Stirling Griff, a former senator as well.

As a community, when I look at Mayo, we've achieved so much together. If I think of the funding that we've been able to get into our community, whether that be the South Road upgrades from Aldinga to Sellicks; Victor Harbor Road; Long Valley Road in Strathalbyn; or the freeway, with both the upgrades that are happening now and the new interchanges that are happening at Hahndorf and Mount Barker. I mustn't forget Kangaroo Island and upgrades to Hog Bay Road which have improved safety. We've had such enormous population growth, but there is so much more to do. There's always so much to do.

When I look at health, we have emergency departments that have been upgraded at Victor Harbor and a new emergency department in Mount Barker. It's hard to believe that, when I started as a member 10 years ago, we didn't even have an emergency department in Mount Barker for such a big population. There's been so much that's happened across our community—some big, some small—whether it's the Summit Sports Complex, or Mount Lofty football club, or Houghton and their sporting clubs and footy club, or the Gumeracha tennis courts or, indeed, the Aldinga Soccer Club. These have all been incredibly worthwhile and important projects that our whole community has backed in together. One that we've all really loved and enjoyed being on is the Amy Gillett Bikeway. That's now been extended from Mount Torrens to Birdwood. Sometimes these things seem like an overnight success, but they take many, many years to come together.

There's always more to do, and, every time I cross something off the list, I know that there's more that our community wants to add onto the list, and that's how it should be. We've gone through so much together. In my community, in the summer of 2019 going into 2020, we had bushfires across the Adelaide Hills and in Kangaroo Island. It broke our hearts. It's left scars on our hearts. But we came together because that's what we do in Mayo.

People often say to me, 'What's the greatest thing that you love about your job?' I would say—what I love the most is actually never in the media—that what I love the most is when my team and I can help somebody with their aged care issue or their NDIS package or a Centrelink problem. When people visit their federal member, often in their darkest hours, if you can help them, I think that that is the greatest joy of what we do. It never makes the media and nor should it, but, when you get a hug in a supermarket from someone who says, 'Thank you so much for helping my family,' that, to me, is the greatest joy.

I'd like to acknowledge my team. Another member of parliament once said that we're all like swans or ducks, just gliding across the pond, but it's those legs underneath us that are moving incredibly fast that are making it happen. For all of us, and certainly for me, that is my team members, and some of them have been with me for many, many, many years. Whether they've been with me for a short time or a long time, I've got to say that every single member of my team has been fantastic. They really have. I love the team of people I work with. It makes me smile just turning up every day.

I'd also like to acknowledge three members of my team who have passed. We lost Dale, we lost Taylor and we lost Melanie to breast cancer, and that's been incredibly hard for us as a community and as a team in my office. But it was a great privilege to know to work with those three wonderful individuals.

In closing, I should thank my family. My children were quite young when I entered parliament. My daughter was just 11; she's turned 21. My two boys were teenagers; they're now getting married. To my beautiful husband, Nathan, who has stood by me for these last 10 years: thank you. Thank you, Mayo.

Thank you to the member for Mayo for that fine contribution to this House just now. Before I entered this place, I spent a decade working offshore in the Australian oil and gas industry. From 2006 until 2016, I worked as an able seaman and boatswain, serving aboard drill rigs, seismic survey vessels, anchor handlers and a range of offshore support vessels. Those years taught me plenty about hard work. They also taught me something far more important: no matter where a seafarer comes from, everyone deserves to be treated with respect, paid fairly and return home safely. Life at sea is unlike any other profession. The hours are long, the conditions are unforgiving, and you're no less than hundreds of kilometres from your family.

During that time, I also served as a union delegate. This was about making sure those without a voice had someone prepared to stand up for them. That experience has stayed with me ever since. Perhaps that is why I reacted so strongly after meeting two former Carnival Cruise employees, Queen and Christiana, this week. What they described left me entirely appalled. These were not isolated complaints about difficult work; they were accounts of systemic exploitation taking place aboard vessels carrying Australian passengers and operating from Australian ports. This is a workplace where retail crew members earn around US$225 each week. Spread across the hours they were expected to work, that amounted to little more than $2 an hour. No Australian should consider that acceptable for themselves, and neither should we accept that for anyone else. Queen and Christiana described having to purchase their own drinking water, Wi-Fi, toiletries and sanitary products while living on board. Basic necessities became another cost deducted from wages that were already impossible to live on. No employer should expect workers to pay simply to meet their most fundamental needs.

But this was just the tip of the iceberg. Meals served to crew were recycled from food left over in the guest dining areas. Workers suffering illness, including gastro, had to continue performing their duties because taking time off simply was not an option. Instead of receiving rest, they'd have their shore leave cancelled altogether. That should concern every Australian. Ships are demanding workplaces where the spread of illness places everybody on board at risk. Long shifts are routine, often stretching well beyond 12-hour days. Nobody should have to choose between protecting their health and keeping their job, and, after I heard this, nobody can convince me to go on a Carnival cruise in the future.

The Maritime Union of Australia deserves enormous credit for exposing these practices. For years they have fought to ensure vulnerable international seafarers receive the same dignity and respect every worker deserves. Without that advocacy, many of those stories would never have reached the Australian public or the light of day.

Queen captured this issue perfectly when she said:

Carnival needs to be held accountable for how they treat their crew members … it's nothing short of slavery.

She also reminded Australians that every cruise purchased allows these practices to continue. Christiana also said:

We need Carnival to stop exploiting the workers. We work very long hours and get paid not even peanuts.

Australia has built its reputation on fair wages, safe workplaces and respect for working people. Those values cannot stop at the water's edge. A multinational company should never gain a commercial advantage by exploiting vulnerable workers who have little ability to defend themselves.

Crew aboard Carnival's three Australian 'home ported' vessels have signed a petition calling on the company to commence collective bargaining and begin addressing these unacceptable conditions. That is not a radical demand. It is a right protected under international maritime law. This week, those crew members presented their petition to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the agency responsible for enforcing seafarer rights. I call on AMSA to ensure these rights are respected and enforced. I know the pride that comes from working in the maritime sector. I also know the sacrifices made by those who spend months away from their families to keep global trade and tourism moving. That commitment should never be rewarded with exploitation. Australia can do better than this and we expect better than this. Carnival Cruise, I suggest that you start doing better immediately.

As I've often said in this place, it's a great privilege to represent the electorate of Nicholls in northern Victoria, one of the great food-producing parts of Australia. Recently, I had the great honour to go to a place called Legacy Packing in Cobram for the official relaunch of their state-of-the-art packing facility. The business has invested $30 million in new AI grading technology, delivered in partnership with the company Tomra. It's the largest investment of its kind in the Asia-Pacific region and it will increase the packing facility fivefold. It's a major vote of confidence in Cobram, which is where the facility is, in the Goulburn Valley more generally and also in the citrus industry.

This area grows a lot of oranges and lemons. Now these will be packed here and sent both around Australia and for export. It's strengthening one of Australia's key export regions. Not only is fruit exported from this part of the world but so are dairy products. It gives the local growers the technology to meet the growing demand. There is demand for wonderful Australian produce. Much of the construction and installation was also carried out by local contractors and tradespeople, supporting jobs throughout the region. Legacy Packing will supply this fruit to supermarkets and wholesale markets across Australia and also to China, the USA, Singapore and the UAE.

Investments like this help Australian citrus remain competitive in global markets, and regional communities share those successes. We've also got high-tech investment in the dairy industry and the apple and pear industry and we have some new investments in the processing facility SPC, which is an iconic brand in Australia that processes peaches, pears, apples and also tomatoes.

But I do worry about the future of these industries and the future of investment because of government policies around irrigation water to do with the additions to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan which are incredibly regrettable and passed in the last parliament. These are changes which are making energy more expensive. The government not facilitating particularly the gas industry, which this fruit processing relies on, lack of business confidence and taxes are all threatening these future investments. A major agribusiness operator in northern Victoria who operates very successfully has told me: 'We're doing no more investment in Australia. The government's making it too hard. My investment from now on is going to be over in California.' It hurts me to hear that because that's a lot of jobs and investment that we won't even know we're missing out on. We won't be seeing it.

In addition, just in relation to the state of Victoria, there's a national company that's looking to put its new facility somewhere in Australia. That facility is going to create a lot of jobs and a lot of economic activity wherever it goes. I'm not going to mention what that facility is or what that company is because it was told to me in confidence. They said that they took Victoria off the list straightaway. They will put it maybe in New South Wales, Western Australia or Queensland, but they won't even consider Victoria. The taxes, the government interference and now this proposed work-from-home legislation just mean that Victoria is not an option. As a Victorian, as a person who loves the people I represent and wants to see them do well, it's really regrettable to me that a company would have that attitude. But, sadly, I think that's as a result of the way the Victorian government has conducted itself, and I worry that with the federal government conducting itself in such an anti-business way we're going to see global companies cross Australia off the list when they're looking at their investments.

We talk a lot about workers and rights, as we should, but we've got to have private industry in this country if we're going to have the jobs. So I urge the government to look at these things that they've done, look at this legislation around irrigation water, energy policy, taxes and business confidence and make sure that, when people are considering where they're going to invest, particularly in agribusiness but in all sorts of manufacturing, that they're not crossing Australia off the list because of bad government policy.

Before I came into this place, I spent about just over five years as the CEO of the Parenthood, Australia's peak advocacy body for parents and carers. Our work focused on how we make Australia the best place in the world to be a parent. I spent many hours in this building helping amplify the voices of parents and the needs that they had. When we talk about need, often this is expressed quite acutely in those first few weeks and months of being a new parent. I think, in particular, about the new mums that I met at my time at the Parenthood. Their stories were different, but, often, what they wanted most was the same, and that was time—to be able to afford just a few more months or weeks with their newborn baby.

Labor built this country's first national paid parental leave scheme. When it began in 2011, it gave families 18 weeks, and I watched it change households. I also watched how quickly it could be put at risk. In 2015, parents who used the scheme exactly as it was designed got branded double dippers by those opposite, as if caring for a newborn were a rort. To add insult to injury, the then treasurer announced these plans to end so-called double dipping on Mother's Day of all days. My job that year was defending the mums and dads whose only offence was wanting to spend more time with their newborn by utilising the scheme as intended. But the parents of Australia were not deterred by these attacks. They kept asking calmly, stubbornly and in their tens of thousands, and the country moved with them—unions, employers and, finally, this parliament. Yesterday, that ask was again answered in another large step forward—the biggest expansion of paid parental leave since Labor created the scheme.

This week, paid parental leave in Australia is now a full six months, 26 weeks, paid at a higher rate at just over $1,000 a week, with income limits lifted so more families qualify. Because we started paying superannuation on parental leave last year, taking those months with your baby no longer leaves a hole in your retirement savings. We delivered this because women should not retire poorer for having raised this country's children. The economic case for this reform is rock solid. Parents keep connected to work, and careers no longer stall at the first birthday. But, in the five years of advocacy, not one mum ever told me she wanted to leave just for some time off. She wanted it because you only get this chance with your newborn once, and it goes so quickly.

Our government's sole focus is on delivering real change for working people and their families. That is why, yesterday, every Australian taxpayer received another tax cut—13 million people keeping more of what they earn. Around three million workers on minimum and award wages got a pay rise, and among them are early childhood educators—those who I stood alongside in the Big Steps Campaign and those I've met locally, like Vanshika at Goodstart in Flemington—doing some of the most important work in this country. Our government has banned supermarket price gouging—it's now law with some serious penalties behind it—so working families doing the weekly shop get a fair deal. Superannuation now lands with every payday instead of months behind, which protects workers least able to absorb being shortchanged. Every one of those changes helps on its own, but, arriving all at once, they take the real pressure off working families. That is real change delivered.

I want to finish with the people who made this happen. To the parents of my community, the ones I've met out at local sporting fields and on the doors: you kept asking, and our government is listening. Change like this doesn't happen on its own. It happens when ordinary people organise. To everyone expecting a baby this year: congratulations. You will be among the first families in Australia to take the opportunity to have a full six months off. I hope you enjoy every single day. We know the job is not finished. There is always more work to do to support working families, and that's exactly what we focus on every day we're in this place and out in our communities.

The working homeless are one of our country's most worrying trends. When a working mother escapes violence only to trade fear inside her home for fear inside a parked car with her children, we should all be asking how Australia has come to this. Every woman sleeping in a car after finishing a day's work is a stain on our national conscience. The new face of homelessness is increasingly not someone disconnected from the workplace. It is someone who gets up every morning, goes to work, pays tax, contributes to their community and does everything we tell Australians they should do to get ahead.

The new face of homelessness is the working homeless, and nowhere is this crisis more visible than among women escaping violence both across the country and within my own electorate of Lindsay. It cuts me to the core to hear the Penrith Women's Health Centre say that around 10 per cent of their clients are now working homeless. These are women fleeing violence, often with little more than the clothes on their back. Last year alone, the centre supported 750 women escaping violence in their homes. They told me homelessness is increasingly a direct consequence of domestic and family violence. There are also seeing more older women seeking help—women with little superannuation, women experiencing elder abuse and women who are still working. The centre put it plainly: when and where are you going to find an extra $1,000 for a bond? They told me they have women living in cars while waiting for transitional accommodation, women that are working jobs, women trying to keep their children safe and women doing everything right yet unable to secure a rental property because the market is simply too tight. Seven in 10 women escaping violence leave behind their home and assets, often stepping directly into homelessness. Escaping a violent relationship typically costs $18,000 and takes 141 hours, an impossible barrier for many women.

The housing crisis is making an already desperate situation worse. National rental vacancy rates remain at just 1.2 per cent. In New South Wales, the number of people sleeping rough has climbed to 2,308 people, a 75 per cent increase since 2020. That should shame this government. In my own electorate of Lindsay, the number of people sleeping rough in the Penrith local government area has increased by over 30 per cent in just one year. For every person counted sleeping rough, there are many more living in cars, couch surfing or remaining in unsafe situations because they simply have nowhere else to go.

At the same time, cost-of-living pressures continue to crush household budgets. The latest Foodbank hunger report found that 3.5 million Australian households either ran out of food or were forced to reduce the quality of their meals over the past year, and, most disturbing of all, 64 per cent of those experiencing food insecurity are actually employed. Let that sink in. The majority of Australians struggling to put food on the table are working. OzHarvest's latest frontline report reveals more than 350,000 people are seeking food relief every month, while more than 74,000 are being turned away because services cannot keep up with demand. As OzHarvest founder Ronni Kahn so powerfully said, 'The cost-of-living crisis has become a cost of surviving crisis.'

Despite seeing Australians pushed to the brink, this government's budget does nothing. It delivers nothing for food relief organisations that are struggling under unprecedented pressure. Families in Lindsay told me they're hanging on by their fingertips. They worry about high rents, high bills and whether they can absorb one more unexpected expense. The warning lights are flashing across the economy. More than four million Australians live in poverty, rents have soared, childcare costs continue to rise, and homeownership is slipping further out of reach. Mortgage arrears have risen by 6.8 per cent over the past year, while credit card arrears among Gen Z have surged by almost 29 per cent. Hard work should lead to security, yet more than one in every 100 Australians sought homelessness assistance last year. Compassion begins with seeing this reality clearly and choosing to act. More than 20 years of work has gone into Christ Mission Possible's efforts for the local community. They've provided more than 60,000 nights of shelter across Greater Sydney, including in my community, and those beds represent more than accommodation; they represent safety, dignity and hope.

In Australia, a job should be a pathway out of hardship, not a front row seat to it. Hard work should deliver security, dignity and opportunity. That is the Australian promise. Everyone should afford a safe place to call home, and we cannot say that promise is being kept.

The federal government is gravely concerned about the Christian Brothers Oceania Province's 22 June 2026 announcement that it would seek creditor and court approval for a creditors scheme of arrangement and a moratorium on all current and future civil proceedings in connection with child sexual abuse claims. This is causing great distress across the community of survivors of child sexual abuse.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse caused hundreds of institutions, including the Catholic Church, to confront their shocking history of abuse. The misconduct and tactics that were used by institutions to avoid liability were laid bare. Among the royal commission's 409 recommendations was the establishment of the National Redress Scheme. The Redress Scheme has, since 2018, received 80,000 applications and disbursed over $2 billion in redress payments to survivors. Thousands have received apologies or counselling that have changed their lives. That acknowledgement has changed their lives.

There are several hundred pending claims against the Christian brothers in the Redress Scheme, and I expect there may be more before the lodgement date closes for applications. The Christian Brothers application to the New South Wales Supreme Court has injected even greater uncertainty into the lives of survivors, already forever altered by the conduct of members of the order. This situation has been brought about by the Christian Brothers view that it is confronting financial challenges and that these challenges will impact the order's capacity to meet future compensation payments.

I want to take the opportunity to note recent media reports, particularly those in the Australian Financial Review, which said:

Edmund Rice Education was created in 2007 and now operates dozens of schools affiliated with the Christian Brothers. … The split created a new organisation with the bulk of the Christian Brothers assets. Edmund Rice Education had more than $345 million in cash in its account at the end of December 2024.

And second:

In total, land deemed by EREA to be worth $891 million was transferred to it by the Christian Brothers between 2013 and 2017. The land has not been revalued in the accounts since its transfer, notes proxy adviser Dean Paatsch. Assuming a moderate 7 per cent rate of price growth, he estimates the present value of the transferred land at some $2 billion.

Growing up, I was taught that there was one church and one God, not multiple corporate entities that transfer assets for purposes that are yet to be made clear. It is, of course, entirely up to the court to interpret the legal validity of the application made by the Christian Brothers. I speak on behalf of the federal government in particular for the Redress Scheme, which I have responsibility to administer, but most importantly for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. The impact on victim-survivors of this application is manifold. They ask again: who can they trust? Of course, such an arrangement will have financial impacts on victim-survivors. The scheme's operating expenses are met by taxpayers, who also step in as a funder of last resort for compensation payments, so the financial impacts obviously go beyond the victim-survivors themselves.

Taxpayers should not have to step in to compensate victims of crime when the institution responsible is readily identifiable and has substantial wealth, but the feeling that no-one may be held to account for this abuse, that is perhaps even worse than the financial impacts. The idea that no-one will be held to account for child sexual abuse when it's identifiable where it happened and who was responsible, I think, is devastating for victims and survivors.

I was very pleased to see the President of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Timothy Costelloe, quoted in the Financial Review on 23 June. He said that the abuse occurred in institutions now operated by Edmund Rice Education Australia, an organisation that was split out of the Christian Brothers. He said of that:

It is the great hope of the Conference that the Christian Brothers find a way to support the provision of care for victims of abuse that occurred in institutions conducted by the Christian Brothers.

My department, the Department of Social Services, filed submissions in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 30 June 2026, and the department and the government were represented at a hearing held this morning, on 2 July. We will remain engaged as the matter works its way through the court. I know that no compensation can undo the harm and the hurt that so many victims and survivors of child sexual abuse experienced, but that compensation is the absolute minimum that they should expect and that is owed to them.

Question agreed to.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:56