Congratulations, Mr Speaker, on your election as the President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It is an absolute amazing achievement. I present the 16th report of the Petitions Committee for the 48th parliament, together with 68 petitions and 41 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. The petitions being presented cover a range of topics such as the varroa mite infestations, access to nicotine pouches, blood donations and visa processing. There are currently 58 petitions open for signatures on the house e-petitions website on matters such as aged-care assessments, visas, an Australian bill of rights and targeted online advertising. Further certifications will follow at the committee's next meeting.

To those people looking to submit a petition, as the chair I would like to remind people to make sure when they prepare a petition they are sending it to the right level of government. Nearly 50 per cent of the petitions we receive are for state, territory and local governments. Because these e-petitions are being sent to the incorrect level of government, unfortunately they are deemed out of order. In the next month, the committee and I will be tabling a report including a range of recommendations to ensure there is more information on petitions website so that we receive the right petitions for the right level of government. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and, once again, congratulations. I look forward to providing the House with further updates on the work of the Petitions Committee.

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:

Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr Speaker, before I start, let me join my colleagues on the other side in congratulating you on the high honour of being elected as the President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The Antisemitism in Higher Education Bill 2026 is a bill about the kind of higher education system we want today and the future we want to give our children for tomorrow.

But I need to start by giving some of the bitter context for this bill.

That starts by remembering the October 7 attacks by the Palestinian terrorist organisation Hamas.

Because, even though antisemitism has been prevalent and growing in this country for a number of years, the October 7 attacks on Israel set off a wave of Jew hate around the world.

They were the catalyst that sent antisemitism off the Richter scale here in Australia.

They tapped into and unleashed a wellspring of Jew hate that continues to undermine Australian society today, to corrode our national character and to put the security of all Australians at risk. So it's important that we remember those attacks for what they were: attacks which deliberately targeted civilians; attacks which predominantly targeted Jews; attacks which took the life of Galit Carbone an Australian woman; brutal, horrific attacks, marked by actions of unspeakable cruelty—murder, kidnapping, rape. torture.

The accounts of those attacks are incredibly difficult reading.

The official reports of the October 7 attacks provide clear and compelling evidence of the systematic rape and gang-rape of women.

In the words of the UN special representative, there was evidence of the rape of women who were, 'then killed, or killed while being raped'.

In the words of that representative, there was evidence of, 'the rape of corpses of women, accounts of genital mutilation and sexual torture'.

There were beheadings, including one account of a Hamas fighter attempting to decapitate a Thai national with a garden tool.

Children were murdered in front of their parents—like Mila Cohen, just nine months old, who was murdered in her mother's arms; like Mayaan Idan, shot and killed in her safe room while her father tried to hold the door shut—and of course, the kidnapping and taking of hostages, so that the cruelty could continue.

That was Israel on October 7 2023, half a world away.

The Australian aftermath

But even though it was half a world away, the consequences here in Australia were immediate, and have been ongoing.

The very next day after the attacks, we had a public protest on the streets of Sydney in support of Hamas. A speaker claimed to be 'elated', calling it a day of victory and pride.

On October 9, we had an angry mob occupying the Opera House, letting off flares and chanting 'gas the Jews' and 'f the Jews', and the only man arrested there was a Jewish man holding an Israeli flag.

And the pathetic weakness, prevarication and equivocation of those responses, from this Albanese government and from others around the country, set the tone for the next 800 days.

There have been more than two years of consistent unalloyed Jew-hate in Australia to which the institutions and authorities consistently turned a blind eye, weekly antisemitic protests in our cities, antisemitic encampments in our public universities which fomented and intensified Jew hate Jews attacked on campuses and in the street, Jewish homes and businesses targeted, restaurants smashed, cars set on fire, a childcare centre burned to the ground, Synagogues firebombed.

And finally, on 14 December 2025, we saw the murder of 15 Jews on Bondi Beach, the murder of Jews celebrating the religious festival of Chanukah at an event that, to most Australians, looks like carols by candlelight.

There were 800 days of failure between October 7 and December 14. There were 800 days of weakness and equivocation that ultimately led to 15 deaths.

And in the time since, I am struggling to find a single effective thing this government has done to address it.

In the aftermath of the Bondi attacks, we had the idiotic and insulting kabuki play of the Prime Minister pretending the attack was caused by insufficient firearms restrictions, and not two- years of Jew-hate which he did nothing to address.

We had Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, which was given a ridiculous and arbitrary deadline—a royal commission the Prime Minister never wanted, didn't participate in, whose timeline he has refused to extend, and from which he has protected his most senior ministers.

We have never had Commonwealth ministers and key decision-makers front the commission and be held to account.

We never saw the protest organisers and committed antisemites answer for their role, and one has to wonder how well this commission can possibly give us the outputs we as a nation need, given the quality of the inputs.

Finally, on Australian campuses, we have had a conspicuous lack of action, universities as a vector of Jew hate.

Let me be clear: when it comes to the elements of antisemitism that have been so corrosive to Australian society, our public university campuses have a lot to answer for.

At the start of this year, I spoke about the three vectors of Jew hate in this country.

First, we have Radical Islam, with people like Sheikh Ibrahim Dadoun, the speaker at the infamous protest on 8 October in Bankstown, telling Australians that he takes pride in the gang rape and genital mutilation of Jewish women, that he was elated by the murder of Jewish children in the arms of their parents.

Second, we have Neo-Nazis and the extreme right—weak men who have betrayed our country by siding with the ideology our grandfathers fought to destroy.

Third, we have the academic and cultural left: institutions where Jew hate has taken deep root—universities and arts bodies; institutions like Macquarie University, which employs academic Randa Abdel-Fattah, who, in the wake of October 7, not only refused to condemn Hamas but was their outspoken apologist, who even called the October 7 attacks a 'glimmer of hope'.

Why is a taxpayer-funded academic at an Australian university calling the rape, torture, kidnapping and murder of Jews a glimmer of hope?

This is also a person who explicitly says, in print, that her politics should not be kept out of Australian classrooms, and who leads small children in chants of 'intifada'.

This is of course just one case among many, and the incidents are far too many to list.

We've seen Jewish students harassed, followed, abused, assaulted and even spat on by other students and staff.

We've seen campus employees and businesses abusing Jewish students, posting bizarre anti-Jewish conspiracy theories online, doxxing fellow academics, and glorifying Hamas.

We've seen weeks-long encampments, facilities defaced, buildings occupied, and Jewish staff whose offices were invaded, vandalised and even urinated on.

We've seen visibly Jewish people attacked on campuses, Nazi salutes, death threats.

In the last few weeks, a student group ran for the Sydney university student council elections under the name 'Globalise the Intifada'.

Well, we've seen what that means. It looks like 15 Jewish bodies dead and murdered on Bondi Beach.

To the public universities

To the public universities I say this.

In far too many cases, you have allowed Jew hate to become normalised on your campuses.

It always hides behind the fig leaf that abuse and intimidation isn't antisemitic; it's just anti-Zionist or anti-Israel.

That is a pathetic and ridiculous excuse where the targets are overwhelmingly Australian staff and students, in this country, and we all know that Zionist is just the politically acceptable way to say the word 'Jew'.

You've been told, unequivocally, by both sides of politics to clean up your act, to stop the antisemitism.

And what's been the response?

They've been arguing over the definition of the word!

You can't make this stuff up.

We now have the ridiculous situation where conduct that is antisemitic on one campus on one side of Sydney is completely acceptable at another campus on the other side of Sydney, because rather than show leadership and take a strong position, they've been arguing the semantics.

The universities have failed at the first hurdle.

If I were them, rather than focusing on the definitional issues, I'd be more worried about the attitudes I was allowing to take root.

Perhaps it's a coincidence that one of the two Bondi attackers came to Australia on a student visa.

Perhaps it's only chance that the pilot on the flydubai flight to Israel, Hammam al-Hammami, a man who planned an antisemitic 9/11-style terrorist attack that involved him crashing his plane into the Tel Aviv passenger terminal to kill as many people as possible, was radicalised while studying at RMIT.

But if I were the universities, I'd be terrified by the antisemitic attitudes that we've seen take root on their campuses.

What this bill does

Antisemitism is a national problem with profound national security consequences for this country.

This bill is a circuit breaker.

It's not a complete solution, but it's a start.

It's not a bill about a foreign conflict thousands of kilometres away.

It's about fixing a problem that affects Australians, in Australia.

It's about taking steps to ensure that Bondi is not the midpoint but the end of the story.

It does two simple things.

First, it requires the consistent national definition—the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition—for every university and the Australian Research Council.

That same definition has been adopted by the Albanese government, by all the state governments, by the royal commission and by the National Student Ombudsman.

How can we fight antisemitism if we can't define it?

And for those on the hard academic left who are obsessed with their ability to criticise Israel—don't worry, this definition permits the criticism of Israel, in the same way you'd criticise other governments.

What it doesn't tolerate is the abuse of Jews using Israel as a pretext.

The second thing it does is require universities to prevent, combat and respond to antisemitism.

It says taxpayer funded researchers must not promote, enable or amplify antisemitism.

These shouldn't be controversial.

What do we expect of our universities, if not to prevent, combat and respond to antisemitism?

And to Labor I say this: support this bill. I'm asking you to vote for your own policy.

I'm asking you to set it down in law, to send universities the clearest message that our parliament expects them to rid their campuses of the Jew hate they've allowed to fester.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise today to introduce the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work Amendment (Equality in Treatment in Religious Schools) Bill 2026.

Most Australians would be surprised that under federal law today, a religious school or university can still sack a teacher or expel a student simply because they are gay, transgender, divorced or pregnant. State protections vary, but federal law still allows it.

Stories

Today, I want to share three stories.

Karen Pack, who is in the gallery today, is an ordained minister and was a senior lecturer at Morling College, a Baptist college in Sydney. The college itself called her an 'excellent and committed educator' with a 'deep and abiding faith'. She was fired in April 2020 after getting engaged to her same-sex partner. In her words:

For most people, announcing their engagement means congratulations. For me it meant getting fired.

Karen still has a deep and abiding faith. Her sexuality does not erase that.

James Elliot-Watson is also here today. He was a model high-school student at a Christian school in Sydney and had been told he was a great candidate for prefect. But when he told a staff member he was struggling with his sexuality, he was threatened with expulsion and with being outed to his parents. His opportunity to become a prefect was withdrawn.

Sam Johnstone was a vice-principal at a Catholic school in Tasmania. After a difficult marriage break-up, he began confiding in a female colleague who showed him support. When he disclosed this to the school out of caution, he was stood down as the school found he could not be a leader because his marriage was not annulled. He told the Tasmanian parliamentary inquiry, despite no finding of professional wrongdoing:

I was treated as though I was morally compromised … when … I needed support and care.

As Sam's story shows, it is not only LGBTQIA+ Australians who are subject to this discrimination.

This bill removes the exemption in the Sex Discrimination Act that allows this, while preserving the ability for religious schools to both hire staff members based on faith and promote staff to some leadership positions, based on faith.

Precedent

These exemptions have already been removed in state and territory law, to varying degrees, but there are no national standards.

The variety of experiences in these jurisdictions shows that religious schools can continue to thrive, with greater protections.

The Australian Law Reform Commission's 2024 review found that religious schools could still maintain their ethos without this exemption.

What the bill does

This bill strikes a balance between faith and fairness.

At its heart, section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act is repealed in its entirety and replaced with a far narrower provision.

For students, the exemption is removed entirely, with a clause to put this beyond doubt.

No student should ever again be treated the way that James was.

The staff exemption is also removed. In its place, institutions may preference staff on the basis of faith at two points: initial employment, and promotion to senior leadership roles such as principal, vice-principal, religious education teacher, chaplain, or a role with comparable religious responsibility.

But preferencing is not a licence to discriminate. A school can choose a candidate because of their faith. It cannot fire someone because of their sexuality.

In section 23, protection is extended to boarding houses and accommodation, with existing exemptions for single-sex accommodation remaining. Section 37 is amended so that schools cannot fall back on the general religious body exemption.

Protections are also extended to a person's associates, as under the Disability and Racial Discrimination Act. This means a child cannot be treated differently just because she has two mums.

Finally, amendments to the Fair Work Act ensure its separate religious exemptions cannot be used to get around these changes.

How we got here

In 2022, the now Prime Minister committed that a future Labor government would:

Since 2016 there have been 10 inquiries, more than 260 hearings and consultations and more than 70,000 submissions on religious discrimination and the removal of exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act. More than four years on, we still have no legislation. This bill gives the government the opportunity to keep their promise.

Conclusion

Many students have wonderful, formative experiences at religious schools.

Many LGBTQIA+ students come out to their friends and teachers in these schools and are accepted.

But, as we have heard today, this is not everyone's experience.

And the law as it stands sends a message well beyond the school gate.

It says that a teacher can lose their job for marrying the person they love, which has been legal since 2017.

It says that a young person can be afraid to be honest with their friends and their trusted teachers about who they are, at the very time in their life when they are working that out.

As a country, we are diverse. We have a variety of practices, of beliefs, of religions and of social norms to which we are all entitled. Religion is deeply personal and religious schools are an integral part of our education system.

But we also have shared Australian values, and one is that no-one should be discriminated against because of who they are.

Another is that the first duty of a school is to the wellbeing of its students; it is where they are protected, can grow and can discover who they are without fear. These exemptions, as written, uphold neither.

Australians expect equality in front of the law, not least from those institutions that are partly funded by taxpayers.

Getting this balance right is not easy, but our laws need to be applied fairly across our country. I think there is a practical and sensible pathway through this and I welcome working with the government and colleagues across the House to do this. I believe there is a path that this parliament could unite around.

Finally, I'd like to thank, firstly, the people who have told me their stories—the ones I've spoken about and others—because that has informed, and I brought this bill to the House because of those experiences.

I also thank Equality Australia for their tireless advocacy and for working with us on this, and every student, teacher and family who has shared their story with others. Karen and James, thank you for being here, and thank you for your courage.

I commend this bill to the House.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion. In some states, including in WA, a religious school can expel a student for being gay or transgender. Religious schools can sack a teacher for getting divorced or for falling pregnant through IVF. This bill would change that. Across the country, it would remove the exemptions that allow religious schools to discriminate against students and staff because of their sex, sexuality, gender identity, relationship status or pregnancy.

Both major parties have promised this change. In 2018, Prime Minister Morrison said students should not be expelled because of their sexuality. Before the 2022 election, the now prime minister committed to protecting teachers too. In March 2024, the Law Reform Commission set out how to do it. More than two years later, the government still hasn't acted—which is why the member for Wentworth has, and I thank her for bringing on this bill.

This matters to the estimated 70,000 LGBTI students who attend non-government schools in Australia and the 10,000 LGBTI teachers who teach at them. The best teacher my kids ever had is gay, and it horrifies me to think that, at some schools, he could be fired for it. I've seen young people suffer at religious schools because of their sexuality, with long-term effects. It's hard for schools to send an unambiguous message of support and love with this in the background.

Parents no doubt have the best intentions in choosing a school consistent with their own beliefs, and they may not be aware of their own child's sexuality or gender identity when they make that choice. No parent wants to hurt their child or see them forced to leave their friends and their community. For young people discovering who they are, realising that your school could expel you or reject you for who you are is a painful and formative reality. We have an opportunity to protect young Australians from that experience.

We say that LGBTI people in Australia should have the same rights as everyone else, and this bill takes us a step closer to making it true. Tasmania has had these protections since 1998, the ACT since 2018, Victoria since 2022 and the Northern Territory since 2023. Religious schools there continue to operate according to their faith. In WA, the WA Law Reform Commission recommended narrowing those exemptions in 2022, and the state government agreed, but we're still waiting.

The government has said it will act only with the coalition's support, but this bill follows the Law Reform Commission's advice. We don't need to wait another two years. Students should be able to go to school as themselves, and teachers should be able to go to work without hiding their families. I commend this bill to the House.

The time allotted for this debate has now expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

MOTIONS Heart Health

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that World Heart Day will be held on 29 September 2026, raising awareness of cardiovascular disease and the importance of prevention, early detection and treatment;

(2) recognises that:

(a) cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of illness and death among Australian women;

(b) more than half a million Australian women are living with heart, stroke, and vascular conditions;

(c) women can experience different symptoms and risk factors for cardiovascular disease; and

(d) women's heart health has historically been under-recognised, under-diagnosed and under-researched;

(3) welcomes the Government's action to improve women's heart health, including:

(a) making cardiovascular health the first priority of the Ministerial Expert Panel on Women's Health;

(b) working with women, clinicians, researchers and advocates to improve prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care; and

(c) supporting access to Medicare-funded Heart Health Checks; and

(4) encourages all Australians this World Heart Day to know the warning signs, understand their risk and prioritise their heart health.

Nearly 10 years ago I awoke to an early morning call from my dad. My mum was in an ambulance on her way to emergency; she had suffered from heart failure. It's not the kind of call anyone ever wants to receive. My mum was in her early 60s and, thankfully, she did recover after a longer stay in hospital. But that morning changed how I think about heart health, and since then I've made sure to talk to my doctor about my own heart and see what I can do to look after it, even at a younger age.

Heart health is a women's health issue, and it deserves our attention. For too long heart disease has been seen as a men's issue, yet cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of illness and death for Australian women. Around one in four female deaths are attributed to it, and more than half a million women are living with a condition affecting their heart or blood vessels. Women's heart health has been underrecognised, underdiagnosed and underresearched. Chest pain is common in women and men, but women may also experience nausea, breathlessness, unusual fatigue or discomfort in their back or jaw. These symptoms are sometimes called atypical, but they are recognised symptoms. When they are missed or dismissed, women can face delayed diagnosis and poorer outcomes.

Fellow Queenslander and former Olympian Libby Trickett's recent experience is a powerful reminder of why women's stories matter. In June 2025, just two months after giving birth to her fifth child, Libby suffered a rare SCAD heart attack. Her symptoms were initially thought to be a panic attack, and she didn't learn the cause until months later. I want to thank Libby for speaking publicly about what has happened to her and raising crucial awareness. By sharing her experience she is helping people understand that serious heart events can affect young women who appear fit and healthy and that women's symptoms must be taken seriously and investigated fully.

These inequities are especially stark for our First Nations women and communities. Rheumatic heart disease is preventable, yet its burden remains devastating. In 2021-22, death rates were almost six times higher for First Nations people than non-Australians and up to 26 times higher for First Nations adults aged 25 to 64. In Doomadgee, a 2023 coronial inquest examined the deaths of three women from rheumatic heart disease. It found failures in their follow-up care and a health system marked by siloed services, unclear responsibility and a lack of community trust. The ABC reported this year that the number of people in Doomadgee requiring ongoing treatment has risen sharply since 2020. These are not failures of First Nations people; they are failures of systems that must provide timely, coordinated and culturally safe care.

In our recent inquiry into racism, hate and violence directed at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, we've heard evidence about systemic racism in health care and how it can undermine trust and fail First Nations Australians. We must take that evidence seriously. Addressing these inequalities is essential to improving heart health for all. That is why I am proud that the Albanese Labor government has made women's cardiovascular health a national priority. Over the next 12 months we're going to see the Ministerial Expert Panel on Women's Health identify practical ways to improve prevention, early intervention and care. It will consider priority populations and how to strengthen care pathways and workforce capability, drawing on clinical experience as well as women's lived experience.

Her Heart's 2025 survey found that 29 per cent of women have never had formal heart health checks, while 53 per cent said their doctor had never suggested one. Prevention and early detection matter. Through Medicare, eligible Australians aged 45 and over or First Nations people aged 30 and over can access a heart health check with their GP. Since these checks were introduced in 2019, more than 1.3 million have been provided. In the first six months of this year almost 160,000 were processed, an increase of 32 per cent on the previous year. In my community of Bonner, I know how much accessible and affordable health care matters to local families. Women who spent years putting everyone else first deserve the chance to look after their own health. World Heart Day, which was marked on 29 September, is a reminder to act, recognise the warning signs, speak with doctors and take our health care seriously. To every Australian woman, my message is very simple: your heart works hard for everyone else; it is time to protect it for you.

Is the motion seconded?

A government member: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I support the motion. Cardiovascular disease remains one of Australia's biggest healthcare challenges. Around 1.3 million Australians aged 18 and over are living with heart, stroke or vascular disease, and this motion rightly draws particular attention to women's heart health, with more than half a million Australian women living with a heart, stroke and vascular conditions. Women can experience different symptoms and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and for too long women's heart health has been under-recognised, underdiagnosed and under-researched. Improving awareness among patients and clinicians can help ensure that symptoms are recognised earlier and that women receive timely, appropriate care consistently.

In 2023 around 19,800 Australian women experienced an acute coronary event and around 19,000 suffered a stroke. Behind every one of these numbers is a person and a family whose life may be changed in an instant. That's why prevention, early detection and treatment matter. Regular check-ups can identify risks before they become life-threatening emergencies. Early action gives patients the best chance of healthier outcomes. The coalition has a strong record in this area. In government we established a 10-year $220 million mission for cardiovascular health through the Medical Research Future Fund and established the dedicated Medicare Heart Health Check. We also supported Her Heart to establish the Heart Health Hub, aimed at improving education, early detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease risk in women. In total, the former coalition government invested more than $662 million in cardiovascular disease research and provided more than $7.7 billion to prescribed cardiovascular medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

We welcome work by the government which builds on those initiatives. Heart disease should not be a partisan issue. Where we can improve prevention, diagnosis and treatment, members across this parliament should be prepared to work together. That principle is particularly important to me in another area of cardiovascular health. In March this year I was proud to join with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health organisations, community leaders, researchers and parliamentary colleagues to launch Parliamentary Friends for Ending Rheumatic Heart Disease here at Parliament House. I'm privileged to co-chair that group with the member for Leichhardt and the member for Wentworth. We launched the group in partnership with the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, the RHD Alliance and the Snow Foundation. It's deliberately bipartisan, because rheumatic heart disease is another issue where politics should stop and practical action should begin.

Rheumatic heart disease is preventable. It's been virtually eliminated from most non-Indigenous Australian communities, yet it continues to cause serious illness, disability and premature death among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. In 2024 First Nations Australians accounted for 93 per cent of acute rheumatic fever diagnoses and 78 per cent of people living with rheumatic heart disease on all jurisdictional registers. More than half of those living with RHD were under 35. Almost two-thirds were women, and more than 80 per cent lived in remote or very remote communities. Those figures should concern every member of the parliament.

A strep A infection can lead to acute rheumatic fever, and repeated episodes can permanently damage the heart valves. We know the importance of early diagnosis, treatment and ongoing preventive care. I was delighted a couple of years ago to meet Professor Andrew Steer of Melbourne University, who's working on a vaccine to prevent strep A. Australia should support the great research that's going on in this area. The challenge is ensuring that what works is available consistently in the communities that are carrying the greatest burden of disease. At the launch of Parliamentary Friends we heard directly from Aboriginal leaders and clinical experts and saw a special preview of Take Heart: Songlines. The message was clear: We need strong primary health care. We need to back ACCHOs, who know their communities and provide culturally safe care. We need to access essential medicines and specialist services. And we must address the underlying conditions that allow preventable disease to flourish.

RHD cannot be separated from housing overcrowding and housing infrastructure. Nor can it be separated from where the families can access primary health care when a child first develops a sore throat or a skin infection. This is why the role of the ACCHOs is so important. For a disease like RHD, that continuity matters enormously. It's one thing to diagnose a child or a young person; it's another to ensure that they receive the treatment, follow-up and support needed to prevent further damage to their heart. That requires trust, consistency and services that are present in communities for the long term. Australia is committed to ending RHD as a public health problem by 2030. That's an ambitious objective, but it is an objective worth pursuing. The Parliamentary Friends groups give members across the political spectrum an opportunity to keep the issue before decision-makers, to listen to communities and to maintain a focus on what works.

On World Heart Day, the message to Australians is simple: know the warning signs, understand your risk, don't ignore changes, talk to a GP, and recognise that heart disease can present differently in women. I want to acknowledge all the fantastic clinicians, researchers, Aboriginal community controlled health organisations, health workers and advocates who are working to improve cardiovascular health across Australia, and I commend the motion to the House.

I'm the youngest of three daughters. Growing up, I was so lucky to have both my older sisters to look up to. They inspired me and they mentored me. My sister Clara taught me about the world and that you should never be embarrassed about being excited about something that you're passionate about. She introduced me to politics, to the Labor Party and to her passion for improving Melbourne's western suburbs—my home, which I'm proud to represent in federal parliament.

Nine years ago, and far too soon, Clara passed away very suddenly. On World Heart Day and every day I think of Clara. Clara is not alone in her story and my family is not alone in our grief. We were left with many unanswered questions surrounding Clara's passing. But one thing I know for sure is that heart health will always be something deeply personal for me. Cardiovascular disease remains one of the leading causes of death among Australian women, with around one in four female deaths linked to cardiovascular disease—one in four. Many Australians will be surprised by this statistic because it's not something we talk about often. For a long time, we've treated heart disease as a men's health issue when really it's one of the greatest health risks for Australian women.

The statistics are sobering. Around 22,000 Australian women die from cardiovascular disease each year. Tens of thousands experience a heart attack, stroke or unstable angina, and hundreds of thousands of women are hospitalised because of cardiovascular disease. Symptoms of cardiovascular disease present differently in women and men, and they often go underrecognised in women. It means delays in diagnosis and treatment, and serious consequences for health outcomes. Meanwhile, women's heart health has also been underresearched, another barrier to early detection and prevention. Early diagnosis matters because early action can save lives. As women, we spend our lives caring for others, putting the needs of our families, kids and communities ahead of our own our own health often becomes the last priority.

But that's not the case with our Labor government. Women's health is a national priority, and we are treating it as such. I welcome the establishment of the ministerial expert panel on women's health. It will look closely at how symptoms present in women, the barriers women face in getting diagnosed, and how we improve care. Hearing from women with lived experience and advice from experts will help make sure policy is informed by the latest clinical evidence, research and lived experience.

I also welcome our government's continued investments in Medicare-funded heart health checks, which are helping Australians better understand their risk and act earlier. Medicare heart health assessment items give Medicare-eligible patients aged 30 years and over access to an annual heart health check from their GP. It means GPs can assess cardiovascular disease risk factors and intervene early before serious illness occurs. It also means GPs can deliver significant prevention, intervention and treatment as part of their usual care of their patients. Since the items were introduced in 2019, more than 1.3 million heart health checks have been provided to patients. It truly is saving lives.

World Restart a Heart Day is on 16 October, a reminder that being prepared for a cardiac arrest can also save a life. Each year, more than 32,000 Australians experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, yet only around one in 10 survive. I would also like to shout-out the work of the Australian Sudden Cardiac Arrest Alliance. I recently attended their event at parliament, where families of victims and survivors of sudden cardiac arrest had the opportunity to share their stories. It was deeply moving and deeply personal. AuSCAA are advocating for a national strategy to prevent sudden cardiac arrest related deaths to advance research, improve clinical standards and raise awareness. I commend their work in this important area.

World Heart Day is an important reminder that heart disease does not discriminate. Heart health is women's health yet, for too long, it has not been treated with the attention it deserves. Every Australian should know the warning signs. The message is simple: recognise cardiac arrest, call triple zero, start CPR and use a defibrillator. Every Australian should understand their risk factors and every Australian should make heart health a priority.

For these reasons, I'm proud to speak on the motion moved by my friend the member for Bonner recognising World Heart Day and raising awareness of cardiovascular disease and the importance of prevention, early detection and intervention. I commend this motion to the House.

Cardiovascular disease is a silent killer in Australia, and I commend the member for Bonner for moving this important motion so that, in this place, we can give voice to the importance of understanding the issue. As a very young 21-year-old volunteer ambulance officer, I went to my very first sudden cardiac arrest in the streets of Dalyellup. The reason it stayed with me is that the patient was just 40 and had experienced a cardiac arrest while out jogging. Now, a 40-year-old seemed a lot older to 21-year-old ambo Ben than to 38-year-old MP Ben, I might venture. We can't consider this to be an affliction of only the elderly. Cardiovascular disease is a serious issue for many of us, and the stats speak for themselves, with some 1.3 million Australians aged over the age of 18—which is six and a bit per cent of the adult population—living with one or more of the conditions related to heart, stroke or vascular disease. It's a pretty staggering number when you think about it, because what that means is that every single Australian knows someone or is related to someone who is suffering, or may be suffering themselves, from these sorts of conditions.

I have to confess that, until today, I wasn't aware of the imbalance when it comes to sex in the prevalence of this disease. The fact that there are aspects of cardiovascular health that are unique to women was news to me until today. So I think this is an important debate, and I do welcome the member for Bonner's motion and the work of the government in raising that awareness. The fact that, in 2023—the most recent numbers that are in front of me—almost 20,000 women had an acute coronary event and some 19,000 women had a stroke is actually staggering because what it represents is unawareness, I guess, on the part of so many in the population, me included. It's too easy to trivialise these sorts of debates and these sorts of days for the awareness of something.

So I personally, and certainly the coalition, support this initiative and the fact that World Heart Day is raising awareness of and highlighting the prevention, early detection and treatment of these sorts of diseases. When last in government we introduced a number of initiatives to support heart health in Australia, and specifically women's health. That included a 10-year, $220 million commitment through the Medical Research Future Fund, establishing the dedicated Medicare heart health check to support GPs and their patients in assessing cardiovascular risk, and supporting the organisation Her Heart, a group dedicated to supporting cardiovascular health in women through a $500,000 grant. In total, the coalition invested $662 million for research into cardiovascular disease and almost $8 billion in medication subsidies through the PBS.

To see that, in the spirit of true bipartisanship, the Albanese government is building off that foundation and making important further announcements, as the previous speakers have touched on today, is something that I think this House can be really proud of, and we certainly welcome the work of the government in that. We stand ready to work with the government and, indeed, all parties across the parliament to improve cardiovascular outcomes. Those sorts of numbers speak for themselves. Less than one in 10 people who suffer a sudden cardiac arrest out of hospital survive. My experience as an ambulance officer certainly speaks to the validity of those numbers, unfortunately, and gives us pause for thought, I think. When we can attack the early onset of these diseases, and where we can treat symptoms before they present in an acute setting, the outcomes are so much better. And the cost to a person who suffers a cardiovascular event in an acute setting shouldn't be underestimated. Even where they have reasonable outcomes through the prehospital—and, indeed, the hospital—setting, the reality is that their lives are seldom the same again. There are lingering deficits and adverse impacts that those people suffer, which speaks to these initiatives and the importance of conversations with your GP to make sure you're on top of your heart health.

I rise in support of the motion moved by the member for Bonner and, in doing so, congratulate her on her advocacy for heart health and her advocacy for women's health generally as well. What really attracted me to this motion was that it reminded me of some of the work that's being done by a local organisation, Heart Health Qld, based in Logan and run by two awesome community volunteers, Adrian Lee-Archer and Lyn Lee-Archer, who really do—as so many community organisations do, run by volunteers, led by volunteers and run on the smell of an oily rag—so much work out there in the community to improve the lives of people in the community.

Adrian had a heart attack back in 2017, when he was living in Port Macquarie, and he started a heart support group down there. He moved up to Queensland in 2021, and his cardiologist actually said to him that there wasn't anything like that in the local area and that perhaps he should think about setting up that group. And so it was that he and Lyn set up that group in February 2024. From nothing, they've now grown to a membership of somewhere around 170 people. They visit hospitals—in fact, they visit the Logan Hospital two or three times a week—where they see 20 or 30 patients to give them that information but also to give them that support and so they know that there is a connection for when they leave hospital, because nobody really tells you what's going to happen after you leave hospital. To know that you have that sort of connection out there in the community is so important for people, because what he sees is that, so often, the people that are there when he meets them for the first time come back two or three months later.

One of the real killers in all of this is the social isolation that happens after a heart event, because you're no longer, in many cases, able to do the activities that you were doing beforehand, so your support networks break down by virtue of the fact that you're not able to participate in those things anymore. That creates mental health challenges, which then lead to physical health challenges, and it becomes a vicious circle, and then, all too quickly, you end up back in hospital. Adrian and Lyn see it all too often. The work that they are doing to really provide that connection and to provide that community education as well is so critical. When I saw this motion, I really did want to take the opportunity to give a shout-out to Adrian and to Lyn for all of the work that they're doing.

When we were talking about this motion, which we discussed specifically, he said it's absolutely spot on that too many people think of heart disease as a men's issue, but, actually, it is one of the leading causes of death amongst women as well. He said that it is because, often, in women, it does not present as what he described as the 'Hollywood heart attack', which is clutching your chest, with a feeling like a bus has just parked on your chest, staggering around the room and then falling over. I think you could say that, for somewhere around half of women who experience a heart attack or a heart event, it does not present like that at all. It might be fatigue. It might be a sore jaw. But it is not something that you would typically characterise as what he called the 'Hollywood heart attack'. It is because of that that the impact it does have on women and women's health has been neglected, so that is something that Adrian and Lyn are focusing on as well. In fact, when you go to the website, they've even got resources there, especially for how it relates to women.

And so it is this work that people are doing and that the government is doing as well through really pumping up that heart check that you can get through Medicare. The increase between 2025 and 2026 of the number of people who are accessing that Medicare item number is somewhere around 30 per cent. So the message is getting out there, but it is getting out there because of the work of the government but especially the work of people like Adrian and Lyn in the community. I commend this motion to the House.

World Heart Day is fundamentally about prevention, early detection and treatment. Cardiovascular disease, or CVD for short, is not an abstract statistic in my electorate of Mallee. While 1.3 million Australians aged over 18 lived with heart stroke or vascular disease in 2022-24, there have been 634,000 CVD hospitalisations in the 2023-24 period, of which 564,000 or 89 per cent were acute care. In Mallee, La Trobe University describes the communities involved in its local trial as among 'Australia's highest-risk regional communities'. La Trobe says Mildura experiences about 40 per cent more cardiovascular incidents than metropolitan areas such as Melbourne, with the Mallee region having the highest rates in Victoria. That in itself is staggering.

The member for Gilmore and I support Heart Foundation screening in our electorates, and both Mallee and Gilmore were specifically identified as not looking well in the Heart Foundation's Heart of the Nation report. The statistics for Mallee from their screening show that 1,943 people accessed a heart station check, and 85.3 per cent had at least one cardiovascular risk factor on that check, which means either their blood pressure is above 140/90, their total cholesterol is greater than or equal to 5.5 millimoles—I think that is what the term is; I should ask Dr Freelander, who is sitting in the chamber right now—or their body mass index is above 30. In Mallee, 13.2 per cent had all three risk factors, and 36.8 per cent had high blood pressure. Most strikingly, 43 per cent of tests resulted in a GP referral for management or treatment discussion, and 23.3 per cent had not had their blood pressure measured in the preceding 12 months. This vital preventive screening initiative did more than raise awareness. It uncovered substantial untreated or unrecognised risk and connected people back into primary care.

This is why we need a cath lab in Mildura, which I and community advocates like Katrina Umback have been fighting for since Katrina tragically lost her husband to heart attack in his 40s. I am pleased to say, after a lot of hard work, the coalition's Medical Research Future Fund is running a heart health check community project to get strong data across our region for reasons I have just made plain. As Katrina Umback tells me, fewer than one per cent of eligible Australians access the existing GP-led heart health check model, and the trial was testing checks undertaken at home, in a community pharmacy or at a health centre with the goal of informing future national screening policy. Sadly, the present heart health journey is that rural people may first discover heart disease when they present to an emergency department. Consequently, Katrina turned her attention to prevention, because heart disease can be prevented or treated when detected early.

Preventive health only works when people can access primary care. Doctors and those that support them are vital in primary and preventive care, of course. Investing in primary and preventive care will help arrest the terrible mortality and morbidity rates we suffer in Sunraysia and elsewhere in regional Australia. A person's postcode should not determine their health status, but for people in Mallee it absolutely does. I began my journey in this House, representing the people of Mallee, back in 2019, and I made that statement back then. It is heartbreaking to me that the statistics have not changed. People cannot access primary health care. They cannot access the help they need at times of crisis, particularly in preventive care. This is something this government must address urgently for regional people.

I thank the member for Bonner for moving this very important motion for discussion. It's something I'm very passionate about, and I'm passionate about it because heart disease is my family disease. I myself have cardiovascular disease. Both my parents had heart attacks. My siblings have cardiovascular disease. I have uncles, cousins and relatives who've all had cardiovascular disease. It is really, really important that people get screened for cardiovascular disease. As the member for Mallee has already mentioned, only a very small percentage of people with risk factors are availing themselves of the heart health check, and that's really bad because we know that, with treatment and intervention, heart disease can be prevented and people like me can be prevented from suffering long-term cardiovascular damage.

I want to give a big shout-out to Professor Craig Juergens from Liverpool Hospital, the cardiologist who's cared for me for the last 20 years and kept me in good health. My family has familial hypercholesterolemia. It's the one of the biggest risk factors for cardiovascular disease. It affects men and women, and, with treatment and prevention, we can be kept healthy, we can be kept working and we can be kept in the community, rather than becoming cardiac cripples from repeated heart attacks. So this is a really important motion.

According to the Heart Foundation, cardiovascular disease accounts for one in four deaths in Australia. Many of them are women. Millions of Australians live with cardiovascular conditions and thousands of families are affected by the devastating consequences of heart attacks, strokes and other heart related illnesses such as chronic heart failure, which is a dreadful condition and leads to really poor quality of life. As I've mentioned, there are many Australians at risk—those who have high blood pressure, high cholesterol or diabetes and those who smoke, which is another very important risk factor. People must stop smoking. They are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, as are our Indigenous Australians. It's really important that they get screened and get treated.

We also need to recognise that heart health is not simply a matter of individual choice. Our health is shaped by our circumstances, and our access to health care, decent working conditions and early intervention is very important. The member for Mallee has mentioned that, in some rural and regional areas, it is very difficult to access appropriate cardiac intervention with high-quality 21st century care. I congratulate the Minister for Health, Disability and Ageing, Mark Butler, who has tasked the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability, which I chair, to conduct an inquiry into access to specialist 21st century care around Australia.

We also need to recognise that people need to be screened, and they need to be given access to screening. We know that many people are at risk. They should be screened, but they don't get it, and women are a big part of that because, as already mentioned, their symptoms may not necessarily be the classic heart attack symptoms. They may not get chest pain. They may not get a sudden drop in blood pressure or heart arrhythmia. They may just feel tired. They may just be a little short of breath. They need to be screened, and it's very important that we make sure that women who have any of those symptoms are given access to screening, no matter where they live. That is really important. We've all seen tragedies in our local hospitals where women who have presented with unusual symptoms have not been screened for cardiovascular disease and have died without receiving appropriate treatment. That should stop. We need to be aware of this.

I congratulate the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Rebecca White, who is setting up a women's health taskforce that will help provide appropriate community knowledge about the importance of cardiovascular screening and access to treatment. It is very important that everyone who has symptoms, even if they don't have good access to a GP or whatever, can get heart health screening—at their pharmacist, at their local hospital, at their local health clinic. It's really important. I congratulate the member for Bonner for bringing this motion to the House, and I think you can see there is very much multipartisan support for this. It is very, very important not just for our overall health but for women's health in particular. I congratulate you for bringing this motion. It's something we all should be aware of.

This motion encourages all Australians this World Heart Day to know the warning signs, understand their risk and prioritise their heart health. I rise to speak in favour of this motion moved by the member for Bonner which notes that World Heart Day will be held on 29 September 2026 to raise awareness of cardiovascular disease prevention, early detection and treatment.

Whilst I've been asked to talk about how this matter affects women, I recognise that cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of illness and death among Australian women. More than half a million Australian women are living with heart, stroke and vascular conditions. Women can experience different symptoms and risk factors, and historically women's heart health has been underrecognised, underdiagnosed and underresearched. Welcoming actions like making cardiovascular health the priority of the Ministerial Expert Panel on Women's Health and supporting access to Medicare funded heart health checks are important steps forward.

However, when we examine the health statistics, the data presents a much broader picture—one that shows heart disease remains a national emergency affecting both sexes, with men facing severe clinical impacts across every major indicator. According to official 2024 causes-of-death data, cardiovascular disease claimed 42,300 lives across Australia in 2024, representing 23 per cent of all deaths nationwide. While around 20,200 women died from CVD, men faced a 1.5 times higher age-standardised death rate. When we look specifically at coronary heart disease, the 2024 AIHW causes-of-death dataset reveals that CHD claimed 16,275 Australian lives, with 10,153 of those deaths occurring among men, compared to 6,122 among women. In fact, in 2024, the Australian Burden of Disease Study reports that cardiovascular disease accounts for 14 per cent of total male health burden, compared to 10 per cent of women, with coronary heart disease standing as the No. 1 single cause of health burden for Australian men.

In terms of medical interventions, 2023-24 national hospital morbidity data shows that, out of 634,000 total CVD hospital admissions, men required 96,000 coronary angiography procedures, or 67 per cent, compared to 47,300 for women, which is 33 per cent. Men underwent 34,600 precautionary coronary interventions procedures, or 75 per cent, compared to 11,700 for women, or 25 per cent. Coronary artery bypass grafts—men accounted for 10,500 open heart surgeries, or 83 per cent, compared to 2,100 for women, which is 17 per cent.

This broader picture worsens when you travel to regional and remote Australia. In remote and very remote communities, CHD hospitalisation rates climbed to 753.4 per 100,000 for men and 484.6 per 100,000 for women, a 37.2 per cent increase over major capital cities. In contrast, overall remote CVD death rates are 1.4 times higher than in metropolitan areas. In regional Queensland, the Queensland chief health officer report confirms that our regional health service areas bear the highest crude coronary heart disease mortality rates in the state, led by Wide Bay and Darling Downs and central western Queensland.

In my electorate of Flynn, in 2021, the ABS census's QuickStats show that 6,597 residents lived with diagnosed long-term heart conditions. But, in Flynn, the healthcare challenge is compounded by the clinical infrastructure realities. Public hospitals in major regional centres, like Gladstone and Emerald, lack the 24/7 public catheterisation laboratories for stenting for emergency PCI. When a resident suffers an acute heart attack in Gladstone or Emerald, local clinicians must administer thrombolysis and organise urgent aeromedical retrieval via the RFDS or LifeFlight to Rockhampton or Brisbane. Distance and time in the bush are always working against us.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting.

Veterans

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Government's proposal to introduce a $5,000 annual cap on allied health services for veterans, which has caused significant concern amongst veterans, allied health providers and veteran advocates across Australia; and

(b) that on 8 September 2026, the Senate passed amendments and resolutions opposing the Government's proposed $5,000 allied health cap and calling for veterans' healthcare to be determined by clinical need rather than budgetary considerations, with Government members voting against those measures, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives;

(2) recognises many veterans rely on allied health services, including physiotherapy, exercise physiology, occupational therapy, podiatry, chiropractic services, psychology and other treatments, to manage service-related physical and mental health conditions;

(3) acknowledges veterans have expressed concerns that the proposed cap may lead to reduced access to essential healthcare, increased out-of-pocket expenses and poorer health outcomes;

(4) further notes:

(a) that RSL Australia, based on data from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, estimates approximately 25,000 veterans spend an average of $9,700 per year, well above the proposed $5,000 annual cap;

(b) the Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs has undertaken a national listening tour to meet directly with veterans, ex-service organisations, healthcare providers and community groups, from every state and territory, to hear firsthand their views on the proposed changes; and

(c) that participants in these forums and meetings have unanimously called for greater consultation, transparency and engagement before any changes to veteran healthcare arrangements are implemented;

(5) further recognises the contribution and sacrifice of Australia's veterans and their families, and the nation's obligation to ensure they receive the healthcare support they have earned through their service;

(6) calls on the Government to:

(a) suspend the proposed allied health cap until meaningful consultation has occurred with the veteran community;

(b) publicly release the evidence and modelling underpinning the proposal;

(c) listen to the concerns raised by veterans and healthcare professionals; and

(d) guarantee no veteran will be worse off as a result of changes to allied health arrangements; and

(7) notes that if the phrase 'for what they have done, this we will do', the concluding line of the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant Oath, is to mean anything, the cap must be scrapped.

Since this notice of motion was submitted, the government has backflipped, but the elements of this private members' motion and the circumstances around it are still very relevant to this parliament and specifically to our veterans, who number more than half a million across the nation and who have families who are still worried. Yes, the insidious $5,000 allied health cap which was placed during the budget on our veterans has been apparently scrapped, but what will replace it? What will this government do as far as that situation is concerned for our veterans who put on a uniform and went to serve our nation to protect our people? At the bottom of the white and gold card our veterans carry is the phrase 'for what they have done, this we will do'. It's also the concluding line of the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant Oath. If this means anything, then the government must come clean on what it is proposing to do for allied health for our veterans.

The minister unfortunately has form in this regard. You only have to look at the funding for the Invictus Games, where $3 million has been backflipped upon. Doug and Kaye Baird's travel entitlements to go around to RSLs and schools to talk about the legacy of their fine son who was posthumously awarded a Victoria Cross, Corporal Cameron Baird VC, MG—again another backflip. For the time limitation placed on medallic recognition—again another backflip, and, for the allied health cap, there's another backflip. Only late last week we saw that Rifle Company Butterworth's veterans were coming to this place to rally outside this Wednesday, and after years of procrastination the government again backflipped. They've changed the service classification. The next backflip that must occur is with the sell-off, the fire sale, of defence assets. Yesterday, at both HMAS Penguin in Mosman and Victoria Barracks in Paddington, in Sydney, there were more than a thousand people rallying to tell this government no. Why would the government want to sell off these heritage sites, these important sites? Rest assured that their value as a strategic asset for defence may well come into play. I hope it does not, but they're still used by cadets, they're still used by reservists and they're still very much needed for our defence of this nation.

The figure $44,294,000 should strike fear amongst our veterans. Yesterday many, many people gathered at the Australian War Memorial. It was a fantastic commemoration for 25 years since we sent troops to war in Afghanistan. That is our longest ever conflict that this nation has participated in: 2001 to 2021. Those veterans there at that service at that sacred place were there with pride. They were there, some with tears in their eyes. And there were families there at last night's last post remembering the 47 whose names are on the roll of honour at the Australian War Memorial because they lost their lives in the service of our nation during the Afghanistan conflict and since.

Yet that figure I mentioned, more than $44 million, is going to the Office of the Special Investigator in the 2026-27 budget to investigate Afghanistan veterans' conduct in that conflict. This is an unnecessary witch-hunt. That money could be far better used for the service, the health, the mental health and the physical help of our veterans, yet this government is overseeing a witch-hunt against our Afghanistan veterans. If their service in Afghanistan means anything, then we should make sure we say, 'Lest we forget,' but we shouldn't go on a nationwide, special investigation witch-hunt of our brave and courageous veterans who went and did what this nation and this parliament asked of them.

Is the motion seconded?

The motion is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Riverina. The central issue in this motion has now been resolved. The proposed $5,000 allied health threshold has been taken off the table. The government listened to veterans, their families, ex-service organisations and health providers and responded to the concerns raised. Eligible Veteran Card holders will continue to access allied health treatment under the current arrangements.

But it's also important to be clear about what had been proposed. This was not a hard cap where clinically necessary treatment simply stopped. The proposal sought to replace the existing treatment cycle, where veterans can be required to return to the GP for another referral after 12 allied health visits. For around 90 per cent of veterans, practitioners and GPs, the intention was to reduce that administrative burden while clinically necessary treatment could continue above that threshold. The government heard the concerns about that approach and acted on them. This is meaningful consultation: develop reform, listen to the people affected and allow that consultation to shape the final policy. What remains is this government's commitment to improving access to allied health care. The increase in DVA allied health provider fees announced in the budget will still go ahead, the largest increase in 20 years.

This motion also gives us an opportunity to look at the broader Veterans' Affairs record. The member for Riverina knows the portfolio. He served as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs from December 2017 until March 2018. Over nine years of coalition government, Australia went through six ministers for veteran affairs. Now, I don't question the commitment of each person who held the portfolio, but six ministers in nine years creates a continuity problem. Australia already has short election cycles. Governments have, at most, three years before they face the Australian people again. We do not need to make that effective policy cycle even shorter by continually changing the minister responsible. Veterans' Affairs deals with compensation, rehabilitation, health care, transition from Defence, support for families and legislation accumulated over decades. It is a portfolio where experience, relationships and continuity are particularly important.

The member for Burt has served as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs since June 2022. During that period, there has been substantial reform. When Labor came to government, almost 42,000 veteran claims had not even been allocated for assessment. The government properly resourced DVA, and that inherited backlog has now been cleared. We've also undertaken major reform of the veterans compensation system. For decades, veterans could find themselves navigating three separate compensation and rehabilitation acts. The royal commission found that the complexity of legislation could adversely affect veterans' mental health. From 1 July this year, new compensation and rehabilitation claims are being dealt with under one ongoing act, making the system simpler for veterans and their families.

Of the royal commission's 122 recommendations, the government has now agreed in principle to 113. These are substantial reforms, and they require a minister who understands the portfolio, has relationships with the veteran community and remains responsible for carrying reform through. That is why stability is important. Stability does not mean refusing to listen. The allied health consultation demonstrates exactly that. Veterans and providers raised concerns; the government responded. The fee increase remains, while work continues to strengthen the broader veteran support system.

The cost of political instability is not simply another reshuffle. It is the disruption to long-term reform and the loss of institutional knowledge each time responsibility changes hands. Our veterans deserve a properly resourced system. They deserve meaningful consultation. They deserve reform that lasts, and they deserve ministers who remain in the portfolio long enough to see that reform through. That is what the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and this government are continuing to deliver.

It is really telling that government ministers and members are coming in today and talking about the $5,000 cap on allied health for veterans and saying, 'We listen and we change.' They argued for it time and time again in the parliament. When veterans came to meet with the minister, he was too busy. So, the 'listen, work and deliver' that we've just heard in that speech is wrong. The Prime Minister had to step in and get involved because the minister wasn't doing his job—wouldn't meet with veterans. There was no consultation done before this announcement. No veteran asked for it, and it was not in the royal commission. This was a cost-saving measure that was placed on veterans. There was money to be saved on their allied health care. We heard from veterans around the country time and time again: 'We didn't ask for this. We don't want this. The minister's not listening. We need to scrap the cap and scrap the minister.' They said this, even yesterday, at the Australian War Memorial commemoration of 25 years since we've been in Afghanistan—a place where we lost people and where people were wounded in combat, including myself. Veterans from around the country had travelled, and they said to me time and time again: 'Thank you for standing up and fighting for us. Thank you for being in the fight to scrap the cap, because the government didn't listen.' The next words out of their mouths were: 'Do you think the minister will change? He didn't listen to us then, and he won't listen to us again.' I think he should. I think the minister should change.

On the $5,000 cap on allied health care for veterans, Labor members were up I think about 15 times trying to debate it here and in the Federation Chamber. They kept saying: 'It's not a cap. It's great. It's not a cap. It should stay.' But now, because of political pressure and pressure from veterans around the country, they've decided to quickly shuffle the deck and say, 'Alright, we'll get rid of it.' Why did it have to take this long? Why did veterans have to be placed in mental health facilities because of the stress this was placing on their families? Why did veterans have to contact my office and the member for Dawson's office and say things like, 'I will not be a burden on my family'? Do you know what that means? They were talking about suicide, once the $5,000 cap runs out, which will be in about two months. This is the reality that veterans and their families go through every day, without more of the complexity and failures placed on them by a government that doesn't care.

I am glad that we've scrapped the cap. I am glad that this happened. But it didn't happen because the government wanted it. It didn't happen because the government reflected on their bad policy. It happened because of political pressure, because bark got taken off the minister and the Prime Minister, because veterans had to fund themselves to travel from around the country to come here and pick a fight with the minister and the Prime Minister to get change. That shouldn't have to happen. Our veterans have already paid enough on the battlefield and in training. Their families have already done enough. They shouldn't have to then try and find funding. They shouldn't have to come to Canberra to look a minister in the eye—if they can get a meeting—and say: 'We really don't want this. This will hurt us.' Yet it's been argued that it should be kept. It's been argued for, and it continues to be spoken about. But it's really disappointing that when you hear government members say, 'Oh, we've listened.' Well, you didn't even have enough consultation. You didn't travel anywhere. It was very rushed through, because you needed to change it.

We wonder why the general public has lost faith in politicians. It's because they don't trust them, because, when it comes to it, they don't tell you the truth. Right now, every government member should stand up here and say: 'I thought it was a good idea. The government thought it was a good idea. We were trying to make cost savings on the back of veterans. We made a mistake, we got politically beaten up and, now, we've changed it because of that.' That's what should be said. The people in the gallery and around the country would say, 'You know what? That's some truth coming out of a politician's mouth today.'

Instead you'll hear, time and time again today, the government members say, 'I listened to you.' It's rubbish. You can go through Hansardand see where they stood up and fought for this. They patted Minister Keogh, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, on the back and said, 'You're doing a good job.' He didn't do a good job. He hasn't done a good job. And the one thing that I and the coalition will continue to do is fight for our veterans. I'll fight every day for them, because I'm one of them.

I'd like to start by thanking the member for Herbert for his service, particularly in Afghanistan. Yesterday's Afghanistan commemoration service at the War Memorial was very moving and well overdue. I want to thank any members in this House who have served in the military and, particularly, the member for Herbert, who served in Afghanistan, as did the member for Canning.

I'd like to make something very clear. When veterans raise concerns about their health care, we have a responsibility to listen—not just to nod along and thank them for their time and their service but to take those concerns seriously and do something about them. When the proposed changes to veterans' allied health arrangements were announced, I heard from veterans across Petrie who were deeply concerned about what this might mean for them. These are people who have served our country, who live with the physical and mental impacts of that service and who depend on allied health services to manage their conditions. They were worried about their access to treatment and whether the support they needed and relied on would change.

I shared those concerns. I wanted them to know that their local member would make their case and would not just send a standard response and leave it there. I committed to meeting any and every veteran who wanted to speak with me about these changes, and I kept that commitment. I sat down with veterans, listened to their experience and heard firsthand why they were worried. Some of those conversations were really difficult. People were frustrated, and they have every right to ask questions about the decisions affecting their health. Those conversations informed the position I took. I brought their concerns back to the government and made my view clear: the proposed $5,000 threshold needed to go.

I understand what our government was trying to achieve. The proposal was intended to reduce how often veterans need to return to their GP for referrals by replacing the existing 12-visit treatment cycle with a new review threshold. Just to put that into context: 12 visits to, say, a physio is just under $1,000. There was a threshold of about $1,000 for a 12-visit referral, and that's a barrier for many veterans. But it's important that people can understand the changes, and I support the changes that we have since made. These changes were accompanied by the largest proposed increase in allied health provider fees in 20 years, and clinically necessary treatment could have continued well beyond that threshold. But the veterans had serious concerns about how it would work in practice, and that is very valid.

When people relying on a service tell you something isn't right, you have to be prepared to reconsider it. That's why I argued alongside colleagues—including the member for Solomon, Luke Gosling, and the member for Spence, Matt Burnell, and many others who were hearing the same concerns. We made the case directly to the minister that the threshold needed to be taken off the table. A proposal meant to improve a system can not succeed if it leaves the people relying on it feeling unheard. The minister listened and acted in the best interests of veterans, as he has always done.

I'm proud of the role I played, and I'm proud to be part of a government that is prepared to listen when its members bring their community's concerns to Canberra. When veterans in Petrie raised concerns about the proposed allied health changes, I listened. I met with every veteran who asked to speak with me and I took their concerns back into government. Alongside colleagues including the member for Solomon and the member for Spence, I pushed for the $5,000 threshold to be taken off the table, and that is exactly what happened. The minister listened and the government acted. I'm proud to have helped deliver that outcome, but the real credit belongs with the veterans who spoke up.

On 17 September, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Matt Keogh, announced that the government would withdraw the proposed threshold. That was the right decision and it is an important outcome for the veteran community. I acknowledge the veterans, the advocates and the ex-service organisations who spoke up, including those who engaged with members on both sides of this House. Their concerns led to action—and that doesn't mean our work is finished. The government remains committed to increasing allied health provider fees from 1 July 2027 to help veterans access the care they need. We're continuing to implement recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and make the veteran support system easier to navigate, and we'll keep working with veterans and healthcare providers to improve that system.

An important part of being a local member is making sure that the people you represent have a voice here in Canberra. Sometimes that means difficult conversations. Sometimes it means pushing for a different approach even within your own government. That's part of the job, and it's a responsibility that I take seriously. To the veterans who contacted me, met with me and trusted me to continue to take their concerns forward, I thank you. Your voices were heard, your advocacy made a difference and I will continue to stand up for you.

It's interesting to see Labor trying to defend the indefensible. Our veterans fought for us. They served in places most of us will never see. They sacrificed to protect the freedoms and the way of life we enjoy here today and they carried the consequences home long after the mission ended. And what did this Labor government do? They put a price tag on their care. Labor announced a $5,000 cap on veterans allied health. That's a cap on the treatment that keeps injured and traumatised veterans functioning day to day—a cap on health care. That meant a veteran with a complex injury or a mental health condition stemming from service was being told that the government's generosity had a ceiling and that, at some arbitrary dollar figure, care might stop or be put into doubt. Veterans pleaded with the government to think again, and for months Labor defended the cap. Even today we do not have the Minister for Veterans' Affairs here defending the cap or, now, defending the backflip. Think about what this cap would do to a person. A veteran managing chronic pain or post-traumatic stress is already carrying a heavy load—along with the worry of whether the treatment they rely on will still be there next year and months of feeling like their own government was against them.

When the backlash grew, did Labor admit that they had made a mistake? No, they didn't. Did they try to pretend that the cap wasn't a cap? Yes, they did. You can change the label on the tin, but it's still the same tin, and we all knew it. Then Labor finally backed down and scrapped the cap all together. That decision is of course extremely welcome, but let's not pretend that this is a story of good government. It is a story of a government that got it wrong, defended it wrong and only fixed it when it was forced to. The coalition opposed it from the very start and the minister responsible, who sat through months of pleading from veterans and still defended the indefensible, has failed in his duty to those he was supposed to serve. But this is not over. The Department of Veterans' Affairs is still considering what will replace the cap. Whatever comes out of this must not be a cap by another name. Labor has already shown us it's willing to rebadge the cap and hope no-one notices. We will be watching the DVA's consultation very closely.

We also welcome the fee increase for allied health providers, but it must now go ahead in full with no strings attached. If veterans are to get the care they need, those who deliver it must be properly supported, and that is why this bill matters. It locks in what veterans fought for so no future government can quietly bring back a cap on their care. Members in this place who say they back veterans now have a chance to prove it, because this is about more than one cap.

We believe our Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans deserve better. They deserve certainty, not months of worry. They deserve respect. This is why we will fix the economy and protect our way of life. Our plan includes a national security strategy and investing at least three per cent of our GDP in Defence so our servicemen and servicewomen have the resources, equipment and protection they need. Those who protect us should never have to fight for what they have earned. Labor has finally done the right thing, but it took months of pressure and a government dragged kicking and screaming to the right answer. Our veterans deserve better than that, and they always have.

As a veteran and as someone who has spent years working alongside the veteran community, I take this motion very seriously. But on its central demand, it's important to acknowledge that it has been overtaken by events. The minister responded to the feedback from veterans and veteran service organisations and took the $5,000 threshold off the table. As previous speakers have mentioned, I and my colleagues consulted with our veteran communities. DVA ran consultations that were open to anyone that wanted to take part: veterans, families, advocates, VSOs—veteran service organisations—and providers. I certainly provided my feedback to the minister, as did others. It was overwhelming, and the message was very clear: this was not the right way. So the government listened and changed course. Veterans told us they'd rather keep a system they know than accept a limit that they didn't trust. The minister will, of course, keep working with veterans and providers on a better system and better ways to cut red tape while protecting the integrity of the system.

We support the providers who do the right thing. The biggest increase in allied health fees in 20 years is going ahead because some providers had stopped seeing veterans when DVA fees didn't keep pace. We all know that that was happening. It was leading to less access for our veterans. In the 2025-26 financial year, around $15 billion was provided in payments and services to more than 360,000 veterans and families. That's the highest investment in the history of the veteran support system.

But that money is only as good as where it ends up. On Monday 5 October, the ABC Four Corners program called 'Defenceless' examined the conduct of some commercial advocacy businesses and service providers. Veterans told their stories with real courage. The alleged fraud and misconduct they described are deeply concerning. Let me be clear. The overwhelming majority of providers and advocates absolutely do the right thing. But a small minority see the scale of this system, this investment in our veterans and this additional budget as a business opportunity. DVA has identified overcharging, kickback arrangements, misleading advice and undeclared conflicts of interest, and misleading health advice can do real harm to a veteran's health. That's why our government has invested $203 million in provider integrity and advocacy. That includes $151 million for DVA to prevent, detect and act on wrongdoing. It also includes more than double the funding for free advocacy through veteran service organisations so that veterans get good advice without someone taking a commission. DVA has also tightened medicinal cannabis prescribing, including requiring an initial GP consultation.

This motion ends with the final line of the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant:

For what they have done, this we will do.

I've lived by these words, and I agree with the member for Riverina that they must always mean something. To our government, they mean paying fair fees so good providers keep their doors open to veterans. They mean standing between veterans and those who, disgustingly, see their service related entitlements as a business revenue stream. They mean that we consult early so, when veterans tell us we've got something wrong, we listen and we fix it.

In the time remaining, I want to reflect on the tragic loss of a Darwin service member, an Australian soldier that became a junior leader, a corporal in the Australian infantry: Corporal Brendan Hannam of the 5th/7th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment. I want to pass on my condolences to Brendan's partner, Montana, and their two children and to the extended family, and I extend my condolences to Brendan's mates. I want to thank the first responders who saved the lives of the other soldiers that were with Brendan at the time of the vehicle accident. There's an enormous amount of support pouring in for Brendan and his family. I visited some of them in hospital. May Brendan rest in peace.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Health Care

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) private hospitals perform more than two-thirds of planned surgeries, and deliver essential healthcare across Australia, including in regional areas;

(b) private healthcare exists to provide choice, not to compensate for a public system in logjam;

(c) rising costs relative to revenue have driven hospital closures and sales, with obstetrics and mental health services under particular pressure;

(d) hundreds of thousands of Australians are downgrading their private cover as its value erodes, a trend the Government's cut to the seniors' private health insurance rebate will accelerate, adding further pressure to the public system;

(e) private health regulation was designed for an earlier era of high membership, not-for-profit insurers and larger hospital numbers, and now lacks flexibility to respond to demographic change, contract imbalances and economic shocks;

(f) no dedicated, whole-of-system mechanism exists to balance the interests of patients, doctors, hospitals, insurers and device manufacturers; and

(g) selective contracting and vertical integration increasingly threaten patient choice and the doctor-patient relationship; and

(2) calls on the Government to establish an independent statutory Private Health System Authority within the Health portfolio to:

(a) monitor and report on the sector's financial sustainability, from premiums and benefit payouts to regional hospital viability;

(b) ensure fair insurer-hospital and insurer-practitioner contracting, including sustainable payment arrangements given bargaining power discrepancies;

(c) safeguard against managed care by assessing arrangements on their actual effect, not stated intent, where they restrict patient choice, interfere with clinically appropriate care, or distort clinical decisions, including in emerging hospital-in-the-home care;

(d) advise government on policy levers, including premiums, rebates, product tier design and risk equalisation, to lift coverage and reverse the drift to exclusionary products; and

(e) oversee safe, clinically-led expansion of out-of-hospital care that is properly funded and benchmarked, without shifting cost or risk to patients and families.

Australia's health system is built on a partnership between a strong public system and a substantial private sector. These sectors are interconnected. When one comes under strain, the effects are felt across the entire healthcare system. That's the reality which underpins this motion that I put before the House today. Private hospitals are not a peripheral part of healthcare delivery in Australia. As much as I would like a universal public healthcare system which is appropriately resourced and able to meet the needs of all Australians, the reality is that we currently need private health care. Indeed, private hospitals account for more than 40 per cent of all hospital admissions and perform around 70 per cent of elective surgery nationally. Moreover, almost 13 million Australians hold private hospital cover. Take that capacity away, and the public system simply won't be able to absorb it.

Right now, the warning lights are flashing. The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing's own private hospital sector financial health check found that costs are growing faster than revenue in many parts of the sector. The Australian Private Hospitals Association reports that more than 20 hospitals have closed and more than 80 services have been withdrawn in recent years. Meanwhile, private hospital profitability had hit a 15-year low, with ABS figures showing the sector's operating result went from a $36 million loss in 2023-24 to a $750 million loss in 2024-25. Capital expenditure fell from $782 million to $754 million while demand kept climbing. These figures show a sector in trouble, and the consequences extend well beyond individual businesses. Make no mistake—when a private hospital shuts its doors or stops offering certain services, the patients don't vanish. They turn up at the public hospital down the road, which is already stretched to breaking point. A weakening private sector therefore becomes a public healthcare issue as well.

At the same time, there are consumer concerns about the affordability and value of private health insurance. As of June 2026, almost 46 per cent of Australians, almost 13 million people, held private hospital cover. But, with premiums continuing to rise and cost-of-living pressures continuing to bite, people are asking whether they're getting any value at all. This will be exacerbated if the government gets its way in winding back the private health insurance rebate for over-65s. Plenty will downgrade. Some will walk away entirely. Then the pressure lands on the public system again.

So who's watching the whole picture? There's currently no independent body responsible for monitoring the private healthcare system as a whole. Yes, we have regulators for parts of the system, but no independent body looks at how insurers, hospitals, practitioners, governments and patients actually interact. Nobody connects the dots and nobody is equipped to deal with a sector which, as all the indicators are showing, is plummeting.

That's what this motion seeks to address. It calls for the establishment of an independent statutory private health system authority. The authority would monitor and report on the sector's financial sustainability, including premiums, benefit payouts and the viability of regional hospitals. It would shine a light on contracts between insurers, hospitals and practitioners so that power imbalances don't quietly erode access to care. Importantly, the authority would safeguard against the emergence of managed care arrangements that restrict patient choice, interfere with clinically appropriate care or distort clinical decision-making. Australians rightly expect healthcare decisions to be driven by clinical need, not by an insurer's balance sheet.

The authority would also provide independent advice to government on important policy levers, including premium settings, rebates, product design and risk equalisation arrangements. These policy settings influence both affordability and participation in private health insurance and therefore have implications for the sustainability of the broader healthcare system. Finally, as care moves towards hospital in the home and other out-of-hospital models, there's a need to ensure that innovation remains patient focused. Indeed, with more than 74 per cent of private hospital admissions already same-day episodes of care, emerging models must be clinically led, properly funded and rigorously evaluated.

Let me be clear. This isn't about favouring private over public. A strong public healthcare system must remain the cornerstone of Australia's health care. But a sustainable private sector keeps waiting lists shorter and capacity available when Australians need it. An independent private health system authority gives us transparency, scrutiny and evidence based advice so we spot the risks before they become crises. It would help ensure that Australia's mixed healthcare system remains sustainable, equitable and focused on patient outcomes. I commend the motion to the House.

Is there a seconder for the member's motion?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I thank the member for Clark for bringing this motion to the House. This is an important motion for us to discuss, and both our federal Labor government and I agree that all Australians deserve access to affordable treatments and devices they need to stay healthy and live full and productive lives. I've given more than half a century of my life to serving patients in need of medical attention and care in both the public and private system. This experience is why I'm standing in front of you today.

We've had a hybrid model of care in Australia for as long as I can remember, and it's served us very well. I can attest to the hybrid model working well across the board for many generations. I've examined health systems throughout the developed world, and that's why I think we need to continue with that hybrid model. However, there is not the degree of transparency regarding private health care that there should be, and I agree with the member for Clark that some sort of independent overview of what is happening in private health care is very important.

We hear on the one hand that private health insurers are making large profits. On the other hand, we hear that private hospitals are struggling to make ends meet. Indeed, I've seen many areas where private hospitals have closed their doors. We've seen that on the New South Wales South Coast. We've seen it recently with the Healthscope private hospital system, which was bought by private equity and had a very strange model of financing. Some of those hospitals have closed their doors. We have a large Healthscope private hospital in my own electorate. If it were to close its doors, it would be devastating for health care across the board.

The Labor government has invested billions of dollars in our public hospital system, and it will reach a record of public hospital funding from the Commonwealth of $220 billion in 2030-31. In New South Wales public hospitals the Labor government has invested an additional $6½ billion over five years, with total public hospital funding of $64 billion over the duration of 2026-27 to 2030-31. We're investing billions of dollars for more beds.

We live in a population that is ageing, and health care is becoming more expensive. Our hybrid healthcare model only works when we make sure that every single dollar for health care is spent efficiently. I've seen quite a number of healthcare so-called innovations developed in the last 10 years that really are very inefficient. We've created silos in things like mental health care and developmental care for children. They are disconnected, and the health dollar is being spent very inefficiently. The Labor government is committed to improving choice and transparency for all Australians with private health insurance, and the recent cutback in the extra rebate for those over 65 is not unreasonable given the efficiency of our spending. Why should someone who is under 65 and has a young family have to spend more for their private health insurance than older people who are over 65, who are more likely to have need of the system? There are really good reasons to make access to private health insurance important, sustainable and equitable.

We're committed to improving choice, as I've said, and that means delivering on our commitment to strengthening Medicare as well as providing hospital care for people who need it. As the member for Clark has already mentioned, there are many new developments in health care such as Hospital in the Home and new treatments for chronic conditions that require some hospital management that need to be funded and provided in an equitable manner around Australia. Private health insurers were previously required to apply to the Minister for Health and Ageing if they wished to change a premium for an existing product. The government's legislative changes now require an insurer to seek ministerial approval for the premium charge for a proposed new product and, where changes are made that reduce cover, a benefit of an existing product. This is important in making our health dollar more efficient.

We're trying to make our health insurance premiums go further in a market where the costs of health care are expanding much more rapidly than the inflation rate, and the government will continue to monitor progress in the private system to ensure that the millions of Australian families that are handing over their hard earned cash every month for their private health insurance are getting value for money. But I do agree that there is not a lot of transparency in the system. The average premium increase under the Liberals was more than four per cent; under us, it's just on three per cent. We are doing better.

I'm really pleased to second this important motion. Every year, Australians with private health insurance feel like they pay more and get less. This year, Australia's average premium rise of 4.4 per cent was the highest in nearly a decade. The five biggest funds raised gold-tier premiums by an average of more than 13 per cent. Out-of-pocket costs keep climbing. The average gap for hospital treatment is now $513, which is up from $437 just two years ago. The share of hospital premiums that were returned as hospital treatment benefits was only 84.2 per cent in 2024-25. Insurer profits, though, rose by nearly 50 per cent in the six years to June 2025 while industry modelling projects that premiums will grow by 17 per cent to 2030 against inflation of only 11 per cent. Meanwhile, many Australians are making the very difficult decision to drop or downgrade their private health cover.

In 2020, four in 10 hospital policies were gold. Today, it's barely one in four. Gold tier is the only tier that's legally required to cover cataract surgery, joint replacements and dialysis. Older Australians dropping their cover from gold to silver tier may lose exactly those parts of the cover that they are most likely to need. In my submission to the economic roundtable last year, I said to the Treasurer that private health insurance has to deliver a public benefit, real access to care and real value for money. But, instead of investing in whole-of-system reforms, the government is undermining value for money by cutting the private health insurance rebate for over-65s. Let's remember that, in 2023, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing published independent advice which showed that the over-65s rebate represents the highest value for money for governments, hospitals and insured people.

Until I obtained independent analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Office, the government failed to concede that half of the $3 billion it claims will be saved by this measure will be clawed out of the pockets of pensioners. The government has not been transparent about how many Australians will have to downgrade cover that they no longer can afford or the cost of that to our already overburdened public hospitals, nor does it have a plan to monitor or counter the predictable adverse outcomes of this legislation. Even after these proposed changes, the government will still be supporting the private health system by more than $7.6 billion a year, not counting revenue forgone through the Medicare levy surcharge.

The private health insurance rebate has cost this country over a hundred billion dollars since its introduction, but in 27 years its value for money has never been formally assessed. The impact of the rebate is contested. No single body has oversight of our private health care system. Its rebates, its premiums, its product design, hospital viability—no single body has oversight about whether those parts of the system are working for patients and providing value for money. Regulation of private healthcare and private health insurance is too fragmented across the department, Ahpra and other agencies. No single body currently tracks whether the public's contribution is passed through to patients as benefits or whether it's absorbed in insurers' margins and management expenses.

That's why I stand today with the member for Clarke in calling on the government to establish an independent, statutory private health system authority within the health portfolio to monitor the sector's sustainability, ensure fair contracting, guard against managed care and give the government frank, independent advice on the levers that would lift coverage and restore value to our private health insurance system—in short, to ensure that insurance products and services prioritise consumers over shareholders. We can't make rational, evidence based and fair decisions about our private health system while spending remains opaque and benefits decrease. We have to protect Australia's choice and quality and the value of the health care that they receive. We need to avoid another 80 private hospitals closing over the next five years and the downstream impact of those sorts of closures on service provision. Australians who pay for private health cover deserve to know that it will be there when they need it. So I commend this motion to the House.

I want to thank the member for Clarke for this motion and acknowledge the previous speakers, the members for Macarthur and Kooyong, for their contribution to the health of Australians. All Australians deserve access to the affordable health treatments and devices that they need to stay healthy and to live full and productive lives. Our world-leading healthcare system is built on a foundation of strong public and private sectors working together to deliver quality care to all Australians. As my friend Dr Mike, the member for Macarthur, said, our hybrid system only works when we efficiently connect health services for our people, and I'll provide a practical example of this from the north shortly. Private health insurers must ensure their members are getting value for their money. Australians deserve transparency, fair pricing and confidence that their premiums are being directed where they are needed most.

Our government is committed to improving choice and transparency for Australians with private health insurance. Our government is also committed, in a way that I think that no other previous government has been, to the extent of the work that we're doing to ensure that our Aussie public health system is strong and sustainable. The Albanese government is delivering record funding for Northern Territory hospitals, the biggest investment by any federal government ever into Territorians' health: an additional $741 million for NT public hospitals through the National Health Reform Agreement, with total Commonwealth hospital funding reaching $3.5 billion over the five years. This funding will help improve hospital waiting times, reduce ED crowding and free up hospital beds. We're also providing $95.5 million over two years from 2026-27 for primary health care services in remote Northern Territory—the area of the Territory that you so ably represent, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour. There's also a one-time, top-up payment of $66 million in the 2026-27 financial year for the Territory to address many challenges that smaller jurisdictions like ours can face in delivering health services. That's record funding for the Northern Territory from federal Labor.

In addition, our Medicare urgent care clinics are making a real difference in the Territory, helping people get the care that they need while taking pressure off our EDs. As I mentioned in this place previously, our Darwin urgent care clinic opened in May to complement the one in Palmerston, as well as the ones in your electorate, Deputy Speaker. This means not only that Territorians are getting urgent care outside of hospital, but it's also freeing up ED beds for people who really need them. They're fully bulk-billed, open seven days a week, and they are working. That's good for patients and good for Royal Darwin Hospital.

In July, our prime minister came to Darwin and announced $10 million to upgrade maternity services at Royal Darwin Hospital following the closure of Darwin Private Hospital's maternity ward in June last year. The investment will upgrade existing birthing suites, maternity wards and neonatal services to improve facilities and accommodate increased demand. Now why is that needed? Well, it needed an upgrade anyway, but also approximately 250 additional births are expected at Royal Darwin Hospital annually following the closure of private maternity services. While our investment will improve public maternity facilities, it does not replace the private maternity service that was previously available in Darwin.

The NT government were made aware that Darwin Private Hospital would close its maternity services in September 2024, not long after they came to government. Healthscope made this public on 20 February 2025, with the ward ultimately closing on 6 June 2025. At the time, the NT government acknowledged that it had been aware the service was under pressure for months prior to the closure announcement. Last month, the CLP government welcomed Calvary Health Care as the new operator of Darwin Private Hospital, and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has promised a return of full private health maternity services at Darwin Private Hospital. We look forward to seeing that full return of a full private maternity service at Darwin Private Hospital becoming a reality. In the meantime, our federal Labor government will continue to have record funding into Territory health.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

PRIVILEGE Federal Court of Australia: Subpoena

Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. I raise it at the first opportunity, since I was served with a subpoena on 30 September 2026. The matter concerns the subpoena issued by the Federal Court of Australia in proceedings Whykes v Swan NSD 1117 of 2026, requiring that I produce documents. It was issued at the request of the applicant, Mr Alan Whykes, and is returnable on 14 October 2026, a day on which the House is scheduled to sit. I table the subpoena.

I will obviously not comment on the merits of the case, because it's before the court. What I am concerned about, though, is the effect of this subpoena on the functions of the House and the performance of my duties as a member. The subpoena is very broad. It asks for every document, including notes, recordings and drafts, that mentions a media outlet and the names of three individuals. It also asks for any information given to me by Mr Swan. This could well include correspondence, notes and preparation I've done as part of my work as a member of parliament, and some of it might relate to things I've raised here or may yet raise here as part of my parliamentary duties, therefore being within the scope of proceedings of parliament.

I submit that in these circumstances there is a prima facie case that section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 precludes the applicant from obtaining communications between my office and Mr Swan. In doing so, I draw your attention to the Queensland Court of Appeal's decision in O'Chee v Rowley and the committee of privileges and members' interests report of October 2021 on illegal actions in the Federal Court and the possible issue of parliamentary privilege.

There's also a bigger point here. People come to members of parliament with information they wouldn't take anywhere else. They do it because they trust it'll be used by the member for the purpose of transacting the business of the House. If a subpoena can pull that material out of a member's office, people will no longer have confidence in their MPs and members will find it harder to hold others to account and expose wrongdoing through parliamentary processes. The subpoena is also arguably a contravention of section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, which refers to improper interference with the free performance of the member's duties as a member. It is relevant here that I have a long history of protecting whistleblowers and giving them a voice in this place.

I have acted promptly. I acknowledged receipt of the subpoena on 2 October. My office has been in contact with the applicant's solicitors several times last week, and on 9 October I wrote to the applicant's solicitors identifying my concerns and asking them to withdraw the subpoena by 5 pm on 9 October. As far as I know, I have not yet received a formal response. I've written to the applicant's solicitors again this morning requesting consent orders to extend the return date until no earlier than Wednesday 11 November 2026. I have not yet received a formal response to that letter. I have also raised the matter with the Deputy Clerk of the House and earlier today met, of course, with you, Speaker.

Privilege, of course, belongs to the House, not to me as an individual. So it is for the house through the Privileges Committee to decide how and when it applies. Accordingly, I ask you to consider giving precedence to a motion to refer this matter to the committee to consider whether the subpoena issued to me raises issues of parliamentary privilege or contempt such that the House should intervene in the court proceedings to assert the protection of privilege. As the subpoena is due this Wednesday morning at 9:30 am, I suggest that the House, should it decide to intervene, would need to act urgently. I thank you for your consideration of this matter, Speaker.

I thank the member for Clarke for raising this matter under standing order 51, which I accept he has done at the earliest opportunity. I will consider his statement and any tabled material in the usual way and report back to the House as soon as possible.

BILLS Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill 2026; Second Reading Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill 2026

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australia's autonomous sanctions framework is an essential tool of foreign policy to respond quickly and flexibly to situations of international concern alongside our international partners. In an increasingly uncertain global environment sanctions allow Australia to demonstrate our commitment to and support for the international norms and values to which Australia subscribes. Australia imposes a range of sectoral sanctions which prohibit the supplying of certain goods to and obtaining of certain goods from certain countries and parts of countries. The provision of services in relation to those goods is also prohibited. These measures help eliminate Australian raw materials, equipment, technology and other goods from being used by malign international actors to further their nefarious ends and help deprive repressive regimes of revenue.

The Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill 2026 puts beyond doubt questions of validity and enforceability of certain sanctioned goods instruments, including as specified in eight instruments made in the period between 2012 and 2016 relating to Iran and Syria. While validly made under Australia's Autonomous Sanctions Framework, they were published as gazette notices rather than being registered as legislative instruments. This bill simply registers them as legislative instruments and maintains the effectiveness of sanctions as a response to situations of international concern and behaviours contrary to Australian values and national interest. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

BUSINESS Orders of the Day

I declare that Federation Chamber order of the day No. 1, government business, Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, stands returned to the House for further consideration.

The matter will be set down for consideration at a later hour this day.

BILLS Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026; Second Reading Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026

My constituents often raise with me their concern about the sale of illegal tobacco in our community, the stores that are selling it and that seem to be getting away with it and the impact that it's having on people, particularly children and young people who might be encouraged to take up smoking in spite of the decades of action that we've taken to prevent this. This bill, the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026, is all about taking the fight up to the suppliers and sellers of illegal tobacco and nicotine products in our communities. For too long, these insidious purveyors of illegal tobacco have been able to get away with their crimes because of gaps in policing and loopholes in law. Organised criminal syndicates have looked at the illicit tobacco trade and seen an opportunity for big profits. Comparatively low risk and penalty regimes have not kept pace with the scale and sophistication of their operations.

While our law enforcement agencies have worked tirelessly with the tools available to them, those tools have simply not been sharp enough for the job at hand, and this bill will sharpen them. The only way to address the scourge of illegal tobacco is by giving the Australian Federal Police, Customs and police in the states and territories all the tools they require to take on sellers and by implementing reforms that prevent importing and profiting from illegal tobacco. We cannot tinker around the edges of this problem. We cannot rely on piecemeal, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction responses to what is fundamentally a national and, in many respects, an international criminal enterprise. This bill recognises that reality and responds to it with a coordinated, modernised legislative framework.

This bill will amend the Customs Act 1901 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to implement reforms relating to illicit tobacco enforcement and proceeds-of-crime investigations. The bill will modernise illicit tobacco offences, restore customs control over duty refundable tobacco, amend seizure and forfeiture arrangements, introduce tobacco-related licensing conditions, amend production order and pecuniary penalty order frameworks and enhance the efficiency of the unexplained wealth framework. Taken together, these measures represent the most significant modernisation of our illicit tobacco enforcement architecture in a generation.

Existing tobacco offences often require proof that tobacco was imported with the intention of defrauding the revenue. In practice, this has proven to be an exceptionally high bar for prosecutors and investigators to clear. Criminal networks are sophisticated. They structure their operations specifically to obscure intent, to distance the organisers from the physical goods and to ensure that, by the time law enforcement catches up with a shipment, establishing the precise state of mind of those responsible is close to impossible. This is precisely the kind of loophole that has allowed the illicit tobacco trade to flourish largely unchecked.

This bill will close that loophole by introducing new offences relating to the importation, possession and transportation of illicit tobacco products based on reasonable suspicion that goods have been unlawfully imported or that importation would result in a defrauding of the revenue. This is a commonsense, proportionate reform. It brings our tobacco offences into line with the standard of proof used effectively in other areas of customs and border enforcement, and it removes an artificial barrier that has for too long protected the people at the centre of this criminal trade rather than the community. This is about giving police and customs officials the tools they need to take the fight up to illegal tobacco importers and sellers. It is about ensuring that when our officers identify a shipping container, a warehouse or a retail outlet dealing in illicit tobacco the law empowers them to act decisively—to seize the product, to pursue forfeiture, to shut down the business and to follow the money back to the organisers who are profiting from this trade—rather than being tied up in proving an intention that the criminals themselves have gone to great lengths to conceal.

The reforms to the unexplained wealth framework are just as important. We know that the illicit tobacco trade is not simply about cigarettes changing hands on a street corner. It is a multibillion-dollar criminal enterprise that funds broader organised crime and in some documented cases has been linked to violence, extortion and arson attacks on competitors as well as legitimate retail businesses that refuse to stock illegal product. By enhancing the efficiency of the unexplained wealth framework, this bill helps to ensure that the proceeds of this criminality can be identified, traced and clawed back, hitting these networks where it hurts most: their bottom line. Restoring customs control over duty-refundable tobacco addresses another significant gap that has been exploited by those seeking to move product outside legitimate channels. The introduction of tobacco related licensing conditions gives regulators a further layer of oversight, making it harder for illegitimate operators to gain a foothold in the market in the first place.

It would be remiss of me not to address the response from those opposite. The populist parties of the Right—the Liberal, National and One Nation parties—are engaged in a race to the bottom with their frankly bizarre calls for tax on tobacco to be cut. This is an absurd proposition. Making tobacco cheaper would not prevent sellers of illegal tobacco from undercutting the price of legal products. It is a policy response built on a fundamental misunderstanding or a wilful misrepresentation of how the illicit market actually operates. Illegal tobacco will always be cheaper than legal tobacco, even if taxes were to be completely removed. That is because the entire business model of the criminal syndicates behind this trade depends on evading duty, evading regulation and evading the costs that legitimate businesses are required to bear. You cannot outcompete an operator who pays no tax, follows no packaging or quality standards and answers to no regulator simply by lowering the tax paid by legitimate retailers. That gap will always be there. The criminals will always find a way to keep their product cheaper, because undercutting the legal market is the entire point of what they do.

Only tougher laws and better enforcement can possibly stop the criminal activity around tobacco supply and sale. That is the plain, unavoidable truth that those opposite refuse to confront. It is far easier politically to promise people cheaper cigarettes than it is to do the hard work of modernising customs offences, closing legal loopholes and giving police the investigative powers they need. The Albanese Labor government is not interested in easy answers that leave Australians worse off. Of course, making cigarettes cheaper would achieve the attraction, addiction and killing of countless thousands of new smokers. That is basic economics and basic public health—evidence recognised in this country and around the world for decades. When the price of a harmful addictive product falls, consumption rises, and it rises most sharply among young people and low-income Australians, who are the most price-sensitive and most vulnerable to developing a lifelong addiction, Cutting tobacco tax is not a victimless piece of economic tinkering. It is a policy that would put more cigarettes into the hands of more teenagers, in more schoolyards and in more communities right across this country, including here in my community of Canberra.

Making cigarettes increasingly expensive has been an enormous success in driving down the numbers of smokers in Australia. Successive governments, both Labor and coalition, have understood that price is one of the most powerful levers we have to reduce smoking rates, particularly among young people who have not yet formed the habit. This has had obvious benefits for the general health of Australians and helped to reduce the costs of tobacco related illnesses on our healthcare system—costs that are ultimately borne by every taxpayer, every hospital and every family who has watched a loved one suffer through a smoking related illness that could have been prevented.

It is simply incomprehensible for anyone to suggest that it's a good idea to undo decades of progress on smoking rates by cutting the price of cigarettes. We would be trading away a public health success story, built up carefully over generations, in exchange for a short-term political talking point—and for what? To hand a competitive advantage to criminal syndicates, who will simply drop their own prices further to stay ahead. It defies logic, and it defies the responsibility we all hold as members of this place to legislate in the long-term interests of the Australian people, not the short-term interests of a headline.

Whether we like it or not, cutting tobacco tax would mean fewer quitters, smokers smoking more cigarettes every day and more kids taking up smoking, all of which equals more tobacco related disease and death in Australia, and the opposition haven't even bothered to cost the impact on government health budgets of that happening. In fact, the coalition policy would give the multinational tobacco industry a multibillion-dollar tax cut that they are not even forced to pass on to customers. Their policy would do nothing to eliminate the illicit trade or the violence over market share going on between criminal sellers.

The coalition's financial estimates on their tobacco policy simply don't make sense. They claim that $8 billion over four years, or around $2 billion per year, will be raised by cutting by 80 per cent a tax rate that currently raises around $4 billion per year from imported tobacco. It's sloppy calculations like this that go to the heart of why the coalition cannot be regarded as a party with economic credibility. They imply that what will magic up this outcome will be that smokers currently buying cheap, illegal cigarettes will all willingly shift to buying taxed cigarettes. But that would require nearly eight times as much legal tobacco consumption as is happening today, and why would any smoker currently buying cheap, illicit smokes do that, when the illegal sellers will still have lower prices on day one and plenty of room to go lower if they need to? They also think that a new tax on vaping would somehow contribute financially, but we've already got a regime for people to get regulated vapes from chemists to help quit smoking, and you can't sensibly tax them.

The coalition even had the nerve to claim that their imagined increased revenue would pay for increased enforcement funding to offer to the states but that, at the same time—like the magic pudding—it would also pay for petrol tax cuts right here in 2026. What a total fraud on the Australian public. All this is being justified by a mythical 'PBO costing' document, which they are too afraid to let anyone see, including the media. In fact, the coalition leadership know that their cost estimates are a fantasy, which is why they won't even share it with the shadow health minister.

Making cigarettes cheaper isn't what parents in my electorate of Canberra want to see. They tell me that they want their children to grow up free of the scourge of nicotine addiction. They tell me that they want their kids to grow up in a society that is free of the temptation to buy a pack of cheap cigarettes to try with their friends or to be lured towards vaping and nicotine products marketed and sold entirely outside any regulatory oversight. They tell me that they want to see government take strong action to destroy the illegal tobacco trade, not hand it a competitive gift by making the legal product cheaper and, in doing so, growing the overall pool of smokers that the illegal trade can also draw from.

I have heard from local small retailers in Canberra who are doing the right thing—selling tobacco legally, paying their duty, following the rules—and who are watching illicit tobacco outlets undercut them, sometimes operating brazenly and openly without fear of serious consequence. This is not a level playing field, and it is not fair to the businesses in our community who play by the rules. This bill is about restoring that fairness, as well as protecting public health.

This government is committed to a comprehensive approach: strong deterrence through the tax and excise system to reduce the number of Australians taking up smoking in the first place, combined with strong, modern law enforcement powers to dismantle the criminal trade that has sought to profit from addiction. Those two elements work together. They are not in tension as those opposite would have us believe. Weakening one does not strengthen the other. It simply hands more ground to organised crime while doing nothing to protect the young Australians we should all be trying to keep away from a lifetime of nicotine addiction.

I commend the work that has gone into developing this bill, including the consultation with state and territory police forces, customs officials and health experts, who have long called for these reforms. This is legislation that responds directly to what those on the front line of this fight have been telling government: 'Give us the powers, close the loopholes and let us do our jobs.' The people of Canberra, and Australians right around the country, deserve a government that takes the fight up to organised crime, that protects public health and that does not cave to simplistic slogans dressed up as policy. This bill delivers on all three fronts, and I commend the bill to the House.

I'm pleased, as always, to see a number of young people in the galleries. I say to those young people what I say to all young people when I visit schools and when they come to parliament. My electorate has more schoolchildren, as I understand it, who come to parliament than any other electorate—first of all, because it's such a big electorate and, second of all, because it borders the Australian Capital Territory. I say to those children two things: don't smoke, because it's expensive, it's dumb and it's unhealthy, and, when you go online, don't write something that you wouldn't like said about yourself. They are two pretty easy principles to follow and they lead to good values and good health outcomes. So please follow this old fellow's advice. You'll go okay if you follow just those two basic principles.

My late father, Lance, died, ultimately, from having too many cigarettes. Dad was a pack-a-day smoker for many, many years and he died before his time, it's sad to say, back in 2008. Never a day goes by that I don't think of my dad and miss his presence. I know he would have been able to provide some really valuable advice because he was a good, practical, commonsense, salt-of-the-earth type of person. I've never put a cigarette to my lips—I haven't. I don't begrudge those who do. I know how addictive nicotine is and I don't knock anybody for smoking should that be what they want to do. We live in a free world. We're adults—apart from those schoolchildren, who need to heed my advice.

I am really concerned about what we have seen, in Victoria particularly, in recent times with small businesses which are able to sell cigarettes. There are little tobacco shops and, as long as the sale of cigarettes is legal, then they are perfectly entitled to do just that. I note that there are two Victorian members, a minister and a shadow minister, here at the table. I have to say that the trade of illegal cigarettes has become so totally out of control in Victoria that insurance companies are now no longer providing cover for shops next door to those particular stores selling legal tobacco, because of the Molotov cocktails being thrown at these legal entities and because of the pressure being brought to bear and the number of stores being firebombed. Sadly, the illegal nicotine trade has become the source of revenue for bikie gangs. It has—there is absolutely no question. Police are almost powerless to stop these firebombings, to stop these bikie gangs and to stop the violence and thuggery that have occurred as a result. It's simply not right.

We've got an election coming up on 28 November in Victoria, and the voters of Victoria are going to have a very clear choice to make. I think the choice has to be for change and has to be to a Wilson-O'Brien Liberal-Nationals government. The Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 will not be opposed by the coalition. It will not be. I say that at the same time as I want to very much put on the record a commendation for two particular coalition members: the member for Cowper and the member for Monash, who have been strident in the work that they have done to bring about better legislation and better policy in this particular area.

All politics is local; we know that. In April 2026, my local newspaper in Wagga Wagga, the Daily Advertiser, reported the number of local shops, both at Wagga Wagga and at Gundagai, having been shut down due to the sale of illicit tobacco. I know, from speaking to highway patrol officers—who contacted my office because the Hume Freeway intersects my very large New South Wales electorate—the number of times that they have pulled up vans, the drivers of which were speeding. That's why they were pulled up, but then when they went through these particular vans, these particular vehicles, they were laden with illegal cigarettes, illegal vapes and cash that was in eye-watering amounts.

Yet, unbelievably, along the Hume, one of these drivers, who was pulled up for breaking the law, for breaking the traffic rules, and was found to have a stash of cash that was unimaginable as well as illegal product, went to court, and the matter was thrown out. Now wait for this. It was thrown out of court because—let's just say that the driver wasn't of Anglo-Saxon heritage, and the magistrate in said court said that the officers had failed in their duty because they were racially profiling. I don't know about anybody else, but when you've got a lidar or radar and you're aiming it at a car and the car is going well and truly over the 110 kilometre an hour speed limit, you don't know what nationality that person behind the wheel is. You're just pulling the person over because they're speeding, breaking the law and placing people's lives in danger. That just seemed oblivious to this magistrate. I think a lot of things are oblivious to magistrates, sometimes, these days, when I look at certain judgements in domestic violence and certain judgements about environmental law and, certainly, when it came to this. It's no wonder that police are frustrated. It's no wonder that the Victoria Police—and they do a fine job, just like all of our other state police—just shake their heads in wonder at the legislators in this country and what we're doing to protect them but, moreover, to protect the people of Australia.

This particular legislation contains some sensible measures. We have to be able to provide Commonwealth law enforcement and border agencies stronger tools to combat the illicit tobacco trade. We must do that, but I'll tell you what we also need to do. We need to encourage, from this place and wherever else we are, whether that's singing in the church choir or at the local fair or at the local sporting ground—we have to make sure that we send a message. This will become very prevalent on 28 November and on 13 March next year, when we've got the Victorian and New South Wales elections, respectively. We must make sure, at the ballot box, that we send a very strong message to Spring Street in Melbourne and Macquarie Street in Sydney that enough is enough, that our police need support and that, when they bring charges to the courts, there are provisions within the act, and pretty stringent provisions, so that we can't have magistrates going off on a folly. We can't have them going off on a frolic and doing judgements like they did in the case of that Hume pull-up where the driver was speeding and carrying lots and lots of illegal tobacco and money—nefarious people at best. There must be stringent penalties for those law-breakers. The state voters of New South Wales and Victoria have a big job to do.

Australia's illegal tobacco crisis has become so serious that I read a report recently where four in five cigarettes sold and smoked in Australia are illegal. That's 80 per cent. Can you imagine the excise duty that this government is not collecting when only one in five cigarettes is legal? Let me tell you, that excise duty payable to Treasury has just gone south, absolutely nosedived, since Labor came to office in May 2022. I appreciate that the government has done all it can to talk about the health implications of smoking. I get that. I understand that. Having had a father die from smoking related cancers, I appreciate that. I do. But this government has a duty to do so much more. Whilst this legislation goes some of the way, it doesn't go all the way.

I have to say that the policy areas that we've been enunciating recently as far as reducing excise and making other provisions in relation to this particular policy area should be listened to closely by the Labor government. They should not, as they always do, get the Sussex Street talking points and announce it. The government has, quite frankly, shown ineptitude and incompetence on the issue of illegal tobacco.

This bill makes certain changes to the Commonwealth enforcement framework applying to tobacco imported into and subsequently possessed and/or moved within Australia. I also appreciate that those border officials cannot possibly check every 20-foot container that comes into Australia. But, at the same time, our borders need bolstering. I don't think that we've paid enough attention and provided enough funding to our border security situation to have the staffing and the resources that we need at those ports when those 20-foot containers come in and, somehow, some way, they just seem to be laden with illegal tobacco.

When we talk about the vapes, the government has just been sitting on its hands when it comes to making sure that we stop these illegal vapes coming into Australia. The difficulty is we just don't know what's in those vapes. I wouldn't want to put one of those things to my mouth for love nor money. They have all these wonderful-sounding flavours like strawberry, banana and passionfruit, and names that make you think you're going to find romance and find a whole new utopia if you actually put one to your mouth. Well, it's not the case. God only knows what they've got in them. I'll tell you what, it's not going to be good for your lungs or any other vital organ in your body if you put one to your mouth, but people do. Sad to say, it's out of control. It actually is out of control.

In particular, the bill establishes a clearer offence framework covering the unlawful importation of tobacco and its subsequent possession, movement, sale and supply across this nation. Unfortunately, because of Labor's horrendous mistakes and failed predictions, the coalition, whilst supporting the bill, have little confidence that the changes will get the effects that Labor is hoping for.

The bill also seeks to address longstanding evidentiary difficulties by allowing the illicit character of tobacco to be established through objective and observable circumstances, giving rise to a reasonable suspicion. Relevant matters can include extremely low prices, noncompliant packaging and an inability to demonstrate a legitimate source or supply chain. That's all well and good. Try telling that to the police officer who is doing a call-out for domestic violence. They've got to monitor the situation because the state health department has told them to go and investigate illegal supply of tobacco and packaging et cetera over the counter. Our police are under so much pressure. And I appreciate that that is a state matter.

Whilst the coalition supports this legislation and whilst there are elements of it that are very good, Labor could have done so much more—and it could have done so much more so much sooner. But, in typical Labor style, it has left it to the last minute. It always leaves it to the last minute. It always leaves it until you open up Pandora's box and the evil genies are out of the box and spreading their harm, and that's the case with this. All I can say, unfortunately, is: typical Labor.

Illicit tobacco is not a victimless crime. It damages public health, it exposes Australians to an unregulated and dangerous market, and it's become an enormously profitable business for serious and organised crime. The Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 is about changing that equation. For too long, illicit tobacco has offered organised crime an attractive proposition: extraordinarily cheap global supply, enormous potential margins and enforcement laws that have not always kept pace with the way modern criminal organisations operate. The market has changed. Our laws need to change with it. That is what this bill does. This is the most significant modernisation of Australia's illicit tobacco customs enforcement framework since 2018. It builds on legislation recently passed by this parliament which increased penalties, expanded law enforcement tools and strengthened our proceeds-of-crime laws.

These reforms start with an important understanding of who we're dealing with. These are not simply people moving a few packets of cigarettes to avoid duty. We're dealing with sophisticated criminal organisations. They operate across borders; they use complex supply chains; they exploit freight, warehousing and distribution networks; and they are not particularly loyal to tobacco. They operate rather like multinational businesses—just without the annual report or the inconvenience of obeying the law. If there is money in tobacco, they will sell tobacco. If there's money to make somewhere else, they will go somewhere else. The product changes. The motive does not. They want to make money. So if we want to disrupt the market for illicit tobacco we have to change the calculation being made by the people supplying it: make illicit tobacco harder to import, harder to conceal, harder to move, easier to seize, easier to prosecute and much harder to keep the profits. That is the structure of this bill.

The first problem we are addressing is a very practical one. Our existing tobacco offences can require prosecutors to establish not simply that tobacco is illicit but also what somebody knew about its importation and the duty that should have been paid. Modern criminal organisations understand this. They separate the different parts of their operations. The person storing the tobacco may be nowhere near the person who imported it. The person transporting it may have nothing to do with the paperwork at the border. And the people directing the operation can deliberately insulate themselves from both. The further somebody is removed from the original importation, the harder it can become to prove precisely what they knew. The conduct may be obvious. The evidence required by the existing law may be buried inside a supply chain deliberately designed to conceal it.

This bill responds to the world as it actually exists. The new framework allows law enforcement to rely upon observable indicators of illegal activity: Is the tobacco in non-compliant branded packaging? Is it a prohibited product? Has it been concealed? Are the import records missing? Is it being sold for less than the excise and the GST legally payable on it? Those are facts that investigators can easily establish. Where the statutory test is met, those facts can establish the reasonable suspicion necessary to establish the new offence. That is much more practical as a law enforcement tool. Instead of requiring investigators to reconstruct every stage of a deliberately hidden criminal operation, the law allows them to act on the evidence in front of them. Importantly, the law follows the tobacco—importation, possession, transport, distribution and sale. The objective is not simply to intercept a container at the border; it is to make the entire illicit supply chain more vulnerable to enforcement.

The bill also closes an important gap involving duty-refundable tobacco. This is tobacco supplied through duty-free arrangements for export or sale to eligible travellers. Under the existing framework there are circumstances in which that is not subject to customs control. That creates an opportunity for diversion. The bill restores customs control until the tobacco is actually exported or sold to an eligible traveller. It sounds technical, but the principle isn't. If there is a gap in the supply chain through which illicit tobacco can flow, close it. Criminal organisations are very good at finding those gaps. Government needs to become equally good at closing them.

The bill also modernises seizure and disposal. The volume of illicit tobacco being intercepted has increased significantly, but some of the administrative machinery surrounding seizures belongs to a different era. Frontline officers can spend hours documenting and processing individual seizures. That is time they are not spending examining another consignment, investigating another importer or intercepting other prohibited goods. Paperwork is necessary, but paperwork is supposed to support enforcement. It should not become the enforcement. These reforms streamline seizure and disposal, strengthen the response to tobacco imported contrary to permit conditions and reduce opportunities to manipulate notification processes simply to delay enforcement and destruction. That gives operational time back to the people whose job it is to protect Australia's border.

The bill also recognises a basic feature of organised crime: tobacco does not magically move from an overseas factory onto an Australian shelf; it needs freight, storage, warehouses, depots, transport, some documentation and distribution. Sophisticated criminal organisations therefore look for opportunities to exploit the infrastructure through which ordinary commerce moves. The bill strengthens obligations applying to customs brokers, depots and warehouses. It requires licence holders to take reasonable steps to prevent their operations facilitating prohibited tobacco imports and strengthens oversight across critical parts of the customs supply chain. If you occupy a trusted position in Australia's customs system, that trust comes with obligations. If organised crime depends upon access to infrastructure, government should make that access harder.

But perhaps the most important principle in this legislation is also the simplest: organised crime is organised around profit. Prosecutions matter. Seizures matter. Penalties matter. But, if we seize one shipment while the criminal organisation keeps the profits from 10 others, we may have disrupted the business without fundamentally changing the business model. That is why proceeds of crime matter. The bill strengthens pecuniary penalty orders. It improves the way criminal benefits are calculated. It allows restrained property to be used more effectively to satisfy those orders. It strengthens production orders so investigators can obtain financial information as investigations develop, and it improves the unexplained-wealth framework so that we can better identify and recover wealth generated through criminal activity.

There is a simple principle underneath a lot of complicated law: crime shouldn't pay. A penalty is a penalty; it is not a business expense. You don't make $10 million from crime, subtract the penalty and call the remainder your profit. That is creative accounting in the most generous sense. The objective is to make the consequences real. Take the tobacco, take the proceeds, take the property bought with those proceeds, increase the chance of detection and increase the consequences for being caught, and suddenly a market that once looked high profit and low risk begins to look rather different. That is how we attack the economics of organised crime.

Enforcement cannot be separated from public health. Australia has spent decades reducing smoking. Those gains were hard won. The most recent national data shows smoking reducing. I know there's contest, but the pattern is very clear. We've been reducing our smoking rates for a very long time. Tobacco nevertheless remains one of Australia's greatest causes of preventable disease and death. So our objective is not simply to change where Australians buy cigarettes; our objective must be to have fewer Australians smoking them. We want people who smoke to quit. We want fewer young Australians becoming addicted to nicotine. We want to dismantle the criminal economy that has attached itself to these products. That requires enforcement, but it also requires prevention, health promotion, education, cessation support, better intelligence, better border detection, better financial investigation and laws that continue to evolve as organised crime evolves.

There is no simple lever marked 'solve illicit tobacco'. Every government would be happy to pull that lever if it were obvious and there in front of everyone. It is a complicated market. It requires sustained pressure across the system, and that is what this legislation provides.

There is another approach being advanced by the coalition and One Nation. I want to deal with it fairly, because I accept that they are, perhaps in good faith, seeking to address what is a serious problem. And the starting proposition has force. There is an enormous difference in price between the taxed and lawful tobacco and that which is being sold illicitly. But their proposed response is a dramatic reduction in tobacco excise, with the coalition proposing an 80 per cent reduction, on the basis that cheaper legal cigarettes will draw consumers away from illegal tobacco and undermine the criminal business model. There is some intuitive logic to that proposition. My concern isn't with their intention; it is with the distance between their confidence of the prescription and the strength of evidence supporting it. An 80 per cent reduction in tobacco excise is an enormous intervention, and its success depends on a sequence of events and assumptions about what happens next.

I looked at the PBO modelling underpinning it. It assumes that the illegal market doesn't respond in any way to that change in market forces. It assumes that the price of illicit cigarettes remains exactly the same as it is, notwithstanding the price reduction. That would be quite a deviation from all conventional economics. We know that there is room in the profit margins from illicit tobacco to keep up with price. So the risk is that what we would really be doing is, effectively, creating a price war where the price of smoking goes down. The coalition's own analysis and the PBO reports that underpin it make clear that there is a connection between price and take-up. So, even if you don't believe it is a likelihood, you have to accept that there is a material possibility that you'll be making smoking cheaper and that you will have more people smoking as a result of that approach. When making those suggestions I think it's important to at least have the humility to appreciate that there is a real, material risk of making the problem much worse and that a bidding war with illicit tobacco, as it is currently structured, is a war that the legal market is very unlikely to win. We could be exacerbating the problem manyfold.

So then the question is whether enforcement alone is enough. And now we have data from Queensland: a 55 per cent increase in the take-up of legal cigarettes and significantly more calls to Quitline because the Queensland government has taken enforcement on as a serious idea. They are shutting down shops. They're using orders to conclude leases. They're creating obligations. And they're backing it up with resources. The Albanese government is backing them up as well, recently announcing an additional $2.7 million of support for their important enforcement work. We have to appreciate, as the member for Riverina said, that the resourcing of enforcement is a key aspect. What we see from that demonstration in Queensland is that the Albanese government is ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with state governments of any political persuasion to take this serious issue on. The Queensland government is to be commended—as is the South Australian government, which has followed through with very similar laws. We've seen across the country, including in my home state of Victoria, shops being shut down and this being treated with the seriousness it deserves.

The question is: have we done everything we can to exhaust the capacity of enforcement to respond to this issue? The truth is that, up to this point, we have not. The laws have not been fit for purpose. We are addressing that now in this bill, and it is being addressed by state governments across the country. It is important that we all take the initiative and that we put the resources into it to ensure that we are facing this crisis head-on. My fear is that a simple bidding war with organised crime is not going to have a happy ending. We're going to see more smokers. We're going to see more health issues. We're going to see the lawlessness continue as it's going right now.

We need to ensure that we are rigorously reviewing and analysing all of the assumptions underpinning policy proposals. And, with the greatest respect to my colleagues on the other side of the House, I would posit that the analysis is incomplete. It relies on PBO analysis that does not seek to project future behaviour and does not account for the fact that the illegal market may shift its pricing as well. Those are fundamental issues with any economic analysis of the likely outcome of that excise change. It is an incredibly risky and dangerous proposition, one that Queensland has proven is not inherently necessary to deal with this organised crime issue. We need to make sure that the laws are right, that the enforcement is backed up and that we are doing everything we can to change that risk-reward equation for organised crime. And that doesn't mean propping up other tobacco products. It doesn't mean promoting vaping in shops around the country. It means dealing with this as both a criminal and a health issue simultaneously, because, ultimately, we want fewer smokers and we want healthier Australians.

The more grounded course is demonstrated by this legislation. We can strengthen enforcement. We can close the legislative gaps that criminals have been exploiting up to this point. We can increase the probability that illicit tobacco is intercepted. We can make distribution harder. We can improve intelligence, attack criminal finances, confiscate proceeds, strengthen international cooperation, invest in prevention, help Australians quit, prevent young Australians becoming addicted in the first place and measure what works. Those measures attack both sides of the illicit market. They make the criminal business harder to operate, they make it harder for individuals who are recruited in it to get away with what they're doing and they ensure that organised crime will be kept up with. As they adapt, so will we, and we must be as ready as the organised criminals are to adapt at all times. We are never going to settle on laws that are perfect, and we do have to be ready to come back in to this House and do whatever is necessary to take this very serious issue on. So I proudly commend this bill to the House.

I rise also to speak on the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. I appreciate the comment of the previous, government speaker that what we want is fewer smokers and less smoking. He acknowledged that that is what people on both sides of this House want and the difference of opinion is in how we go about it. I appreciate him for acknowledging that; not all of his colleagues have. There have been some spurious accusations that somehow our policy seeks to have more smokers. That is not the intention. It's just how we go about it in terms of a public policy response.

There is something that I see regularly as a Victorian—as someone from a Victorian regional city. In the cities and towns of my electorate of Nicholls, there are outlets that freely trade in illicit cigarettes and vapes. I could take you to a convenience store in the CBD of Shepparton. It has lollies on the shelves and giftware on display, but behind the counter there are loose tobacco, cartons of manufactured cigarettes and vapes. It is open seven days a week, there is a steady stream of customers and there is no great effort to conceal what is happening because the illicit market has become normalised, brazen and deeply embedded.

A carton of Manchester Cigarettes imported from the UAE—10 packets of 20 cigarettes—can be bought for $120 cash or $140 by card. That's $12 a packet if you're using cash. A carton of the equivalent legal product at a major retailer costs $489.90, just under $50 a packet. Earlier this year, there was even a shortage of illicit tobacco. That wasn't caused by effective enforcement in Australia. It followed disruption to the market—to the international shipping—associated with the conflict involving Iran. The illicit market adapted, and cigarettes produced for the Australian market, complete with health warnings and apparently sold as seconds, appeared for just $9 a packet.

I wanted to bring up that example from my electorate—and it's happening across Australia but very prevalent in Victoria—because it tells us three things. The first thing it tells us is that illicit tobacco is not confined to back alleys or obscure criminal exchanges. It is being sold through ordinary-looking retail premises. The second thing that it tells us is that the price gap between legal and illegal products is so extreme that it has created an enormous commercial opportunity for organised crime. The third thing is that the supply chains behind this trade are international. They are resilient and they are capable of adapting quickly.

I think it's against that reality that this House needs to consider the bill. The coalition's position is that we will not oppose this bill. We support sensible measures that give Commonwealth law enforcement and border agencies stronger tools to combat illicit tobacco. This crisis is far too serious for this parliament to reject practical improvements merely because they are incomplete. They are practical improvements, but the response of this government is incomplete and the response of the Victorian government is incomplete. I note that the Victorian government has been there since 2014 and the federal government since 2022, and the problem is getting worse.

This bill amends the Customs Act 1901 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It creates a clearer offence framework for tobacco that's unlawfully imported into Australia and then possessed, moved, sold or supplied within Australia. It seeks to overcome longstanding evidentiary difficulties by allowing the illicit character of tobacco to be established through objective circumstances that give rise to a reasonable suspicion, and those circumstances may include an extraordinarily low price, packaging that does not comply with Australian government requirements or an inability to identify a legitimate source or supply chain. These are sensible reforms. An enforcement framework should reflect the practical reality facing the investigators and the people who have to lay charges in relation to this. When cigarettes are sold at a fraction of the lawful retail price from premises that are unable to demonstrate a legitimate source, the law should not require agencies to perform the impossible before they can act.

The bill also strengthens the proceeds of crime measures. That matters because product seizures alone are not enough. Organised crime treats stock losses as a business expense, and the previous speaker enunciated this very well. The more effective response is to follow the money, restrain assets, recover criminal profits and prevent offenders from arranging their affairs in order to frustrate confiscation. The bill further tightens the integrity of customs depots and licensed warehouses through stronger licensing, compliance and oversight arrangements and it increases the scrutiny of licence holders, associated persons and those with access to customs controlled premises and goods. These are worthwhile measures to reduce opportunities for tobacco to be diverted into the black market.

It's a worthwhile bill and it will be supported, but support for these measures must not be confused with satisfaction from those on this side of the House, our communities that we represent or the broader community about the government's overall response to this problem. After years of failed predictions and a rapidly expanding black market, there is little basis for confidence in Labor's management of this issue. No-one should mistake this bill for a comprehensive answer. Illicit tobacco is now a major organised crime, border security, community safety, public health and revenue crisis. The government's own Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner estimated that illicit products accounted for between 50 and 60 per cent of tobacco sold in Australia in 2024-25. The estimated value of that market was between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion while estimated excise and duty evasion was between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion, so billions of dollars are flowing away from legitimate businesses and into criminal networks.

The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has warned that organised criminals regard illicit tobacco as low risk and high reward. It should be high risk and low reward. It has previously observed that, on some importation models, one successful container out of 30 can be enough to return a profit. That's an economic proposition that Australia has allowed criminal syndicates to exploit. This is not simply about somebody buying cheap cigarettes under the counter. Australia has seen deaths, firebombings, intimidation, extortion and violence linked to the illegal market. Legitimate small businesses have been threatened, communities have been placed at risk, and revenue that should support hospitals, schools, roads and essential services is instead financing organised crime, not to mention that, when those businesses located next door to the illegal tobacco suppliers get firebombed, they get affected and have to deal with the insurance fallout as well.

AUSTRAC has identified the trade as a serious organised financial crime problem. Cash deposits, private ATMs and EFTPOS facilities can all be used to move and disguise illicit proceeds. That's why the proceeds of crime provisions in this bill matter, but it's also why legislation must be matched by intelligence, operational capacity and sustained financial disruption. There have been some significant seizures. The Australian Border Force reported that, in 2025-26, it seized more than 2.2 billion cigarette sticks, more than 586 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco and more than 13.2 million illicit vaping products at the border. Those results demonstrate dedicated work by officers, but they also reveal the extraordinary scale of the trade that they are confronting. And while record seizures occur at the same time as the illicit retail market continues to grow, it demonstrates that interdiction alone is not a silver bullet.

A policy failure on this issue is that Australia has reached this position despite new offences, higher penalties, funding announcements and repeated assurances that enforcement has been strengthened. Labor's fundamental mistake has been to treat the crisis principally as an enforcement problem while refusing to confront the policy settings that have made the illicit market extraordinarily profitable. In the May 2023 budget, Labor imposed an additional tobacco excise increase of five per cent in each of the three successive years on top of an existing twice-yearly indexation. Those increases took effect in September 2023, 2024 and 2025. The government forecast that this higher excise would raise an additional $3.3 billion over the forward estimates. Instead, tobacco revenue has fallen dramatically as consumers shift towards the illicit market.

So the policy didn't eliminate demand. It redirected the demand into a criminal supply chain. And it doesn't diminish the profound health harms caused by smoking. It means policy must respond to evidence and to the unintended consequences. A tax that is avoided on a massive scale does not produce its intended health or revenue outcome. It produces a windfall for organised crime. The government points to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional enforcement funding, yet the illicit market continues to expand. Former senior border officials have described the response as 'an under-resourced game of Whac-A-Mole' with inadequate intelligence and too few experienced personnel. The central problem underlying this bill is therefore straightforward: police can be given stronger powers, but if the potential profit remains extraordinary and the risk remains manageable then organised crime will continue to enter, adapt and ruthlessly exploit the market.

The coalition's alternative is a substantially more comprehensive policy. It's designed not only to pursue criminals after an offence but to destroy the business model that sustains them. Our plan combines tougher enforcement with the reform of the tax and regulatory settings that have pushed consumers into the black market, together with stronger measures to reduce smoking and nicotine harm, and that's what we want to achieve. First, the coalition proposes an 80 per cent reduction in tobacco excise. This would lower the excise component of a standard pack of 20 cigarettes from around $30 to $6, with the rate reviewed after two years. The purpose is not to encourage smoking—absolutely not. The purpose is to collapse the extraordinary price differential that's made Australia one of the most lucrative illicit tobacco markets in the world and to shift consumers away from organised crime and back to a lawful regulated market and then hopefully out of tobacco altogether.

Secondly, we propose a $200 million nationwide law enforcement blitz. This would support additional raids, arrests, seizures, investigation, shop closures and border disruption with a stronger operational focus across the Australian Border Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and AUSTRAC. Third, we would establish a legal, regulated and taxed adult market for nicotine vapes and nicotine pouches while maintaining firm protections for children. The current arrangements have handed too much of this market—and it is a market; I don't like that it's a market, but it is a market—to unregulated sellers. A controlled adult framework would impose lawful standards, reduce the black market and protect minors more effectively than a system that is widely evaded. Fourth, we would invest $60 million in a national public awareness and education campaign.

Australians should understand that a cheap packet of cigarettes or an illicit vape is not a harmless bargain. It can be part of a supply chain involving tax evasion, money laundering, intimidation and violence. At the same time, the campaign must reinforce the dangers of smoking and help people access effective cessation support, because that's what we all want to achieve. It's not enforcement instead of prevention, regulation or education. It's an integrated approach. That's what we've been missing: an integrated approach that recognises that supply, demand, price regulation, health and organised crime are interconnected. Done properly, this is how the House ensures that urgent action can work.

The coalition's position is straightforward. We're not going to stand in the way of sensible new enforcement powers, and this bill is part of that. We support measures that help border and law enforcement agencies identify unlawful tobacco, disrupt distribution, secure the customs supply chain and seize criminal assets. But we will not pretend that another set of enforcement amendments, by itself, can solve a crisis that has continued to deteriorate under this government.

I want to start speaking on this bill, the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026, by being very clear about what we are tackling here. Organised crime is flooding the world with cigarettes that are produced for less than a dollar a packet. The illegal trade in tobacco is booming in the EU and, according to a report by the European Court of Auditors, almost one in 10 cigarettes there is produced illicitly or smuggled, causing an estimated 13 billion euro loss in tax revenue each year. In the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, anywhere from eight to 21 per cent of the approximately 264 billion cigarettes consumed in the US avoid or evade taxes, which equates to up to a US$6 billion loss for local and state revenues, and that's largely because of organised crime buying in low-tax jurisdictions and reselling in high-tax jurisdictions. The point is that, where organised crime sees an opportunity, they will take it, and Australia has not had the right regime in place to tackle their activity.

Back before the 2022 election, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission revealed that the amount of profit organised criminals make on just one container full of cigarettes means they only need one out of 30 containers to get through to still make a profit. They said that, while the profits were not as high as those for illicit drugs, the reality was that the penalties were less and the risk-reward pay-off was a lot more favourable to organised crime groups. We've been changing that, and this legislation is the next step in the government's ongoing crackdown on the criminals behind the illicit tobacco and vape trade. What we're debating today represents a comprehensive modernising of Australia's enforcement framework. The most comprehensive since 2018, it will keep pace with the increasingly sophisticated illicit market.

Before I speak to the detail of our measures, it's also important to acknowledge that there are many victims of this illegal trade, and they include those who've been victims of violence by organised crime. They also include legitimate businesses that are harmed by illegal sales: law-abiding retailers, small-business owners and local shopkeepers, who cannot compete with untaxed black market prices. Government and taxpayers are impacted because critical tax revenue is not paid and public health loses.

It says a lot about the good sense of Australians that smoking rates have continued to fall, with the latest data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare showing that fewer Australians are smoking than ever before—now down to 5.8 per cent for adults—and that vaping rates have stabilised, but smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease in Australia. I saw recently, in the Daily Telegraph, reports on the dangerous chemicals found in five types of illicit cigarettes that they sent for lab testing: pesticides; cadmium, a heavy metal and carcinogen; and more nicotine than the label indicated. Similar results were found by researchers from the University of Auckland. Their tests found higher concentrations of several harmful substances in illicit tobacco, including cadmium. The levels were up to 60 per cent higher in the illicit tobacco tested than in legitimate tobacco products. The study also identified unusual levels of metals, including tin, lead, indium, caesium and uranium. These findings are concerning and demonstrate the potential additional health risks posed by illicit tobacco products. Tobacco itself contains around 7,000 chemicals, with more than 70 known to cause cancer. Whether sold legally through a licensed retailer or illegally as counterfeit or unbranded tobacco, all tobacco products pose serious health risks. Illicit tobacco isn't regulated, and tests have demonstrated that they contain additional harmful ingredients, so the health risks are real. But there are clearly broader risks beyond the health to our community by the illicit tobacco trade.

This bill is designed to turn things around. Actually, I'm wrong in saying that because we've already taken many steps to change the dynamic for those who are trading in illicit tobacco. What will change specifically in this bill? It will modernise the illicit tobacco enforcement framework to increase deterrence, strengthen supply chain integrity and support more prosecutions. Right now, a prosecutor has to prove that tobacco has been imported by a person with intent to defraud the government for that revenue. The prosecution has to show that the person was aware that the tobacco was subject to a duty collection framework and that duty should be paid on importation. But knowing this bar, knowing that it was quite a technical term, organised crime have been able to distance themselves from the importation process. So with the scale and the complexity and sophistication of the organised crime groups, we are looking at a new approach.

This new framework will make it easier to hold those involved in illicit tobacco operations accountable, and will improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to pursue serious offenders. What's different is that there will be a list of observable indicators of illicit activity. It won't be subjective. If any one of these indicators is established then that will be taken to satisfy the reasonable suspicion test for a criminal offence. It will allow enforcement agencies to focus on what they can observe and what is factual, rather than trying to prove every detail of a concealed illicit supply chain.

Some of the things that will be considered are whether the packaging is compliant or non-compliant retail packaging—something that is observable; whether there are non-compliant tobacco products like menthol cigarettes hiding in plain packaging—again, observable; whether tobacco has been concealed to avoid detection; whether there is missing import invoices or paperwork; or if there is a very easily observable fact, the tobacco sale price is below the excise and the GST combined,—that fact alone establishes a reasonable suspicion that it is an unlawfully imported product. This observable list will provide a powerful tool for the Australian Border Force and all state and territory police forces to go after serious and organised crime.

In fact, anyone involved in the illegal tobacco and vape trade is on notice. Australian Border Force or state and territory law enforcement agencies will be able to enter retail premises and establish any of those facts. If they can establish those facts, then action can be taken. While the focus will be on using the new offences to go after serious criminals, it is very clear it will now also be easier for law enforcement to target those operating retail businesses that possess illicit tobacco. It might be a tobacconist company, a warehouse company, a distributor, a transporter, a logistics company. They are also subject to these rules, can be investigated and, if found that there is reasonable evidence, prosecuted, so anyone involved in the illegal tobacco and vapes trade would be wise to take note of this legislation.

Another thing this bill does is introduce stronger consequences for the most serious forms of offending, ensuring that organised criminals who engage in conduct at that most serious end of the spectrum receive a sentence that is appropriate to the gravity of their crime. The bill also helps reinforce the seriousness with which Australia treats prohibited tobacco imports, ensuring that criminals cannot avoid meaningful consequences simply because enforcement is focused on a complex question around duty evasion rather than the more commonsense approach that this is an illegal product being imported. The breadth of these reforms will mean a more consistent treatment of illicit tobacco, alongside other high-risk prohibited goods, and enable enforcement responses that reflect the actual harms associated with this trade.

One of the other measures in this bill closes an important legal loophole that affects tobacco when customs duty has been paid. This relates to tobacco that would otherwise be offered duty free for people eligible to purchase that as they leave the country. The current framework means that there is no customs control, and that creates an opportunity for diversion into the black market at duty-free prices. So this bill reduces the opportunities for diversion and ensures appropriate oversight of these products through the supply chain. If you're a legitimate duty-free operator, these reforms pretty much formalise the existing expectations and the way that you work, so little will change. It's aimed not at imposing new burdens on businesses that already handle these products responsibly but at ensuring that the opportunities for diversion to the black market are closed off. There are also measures in this bill to streamline the seizure and disposal of illicit tobacco. Right now, in many states, we are seeing large seizures of illicit tobacco. Each month records are being broken, and it is on a scale that we haven't seen before. Officers can spend hours and hours documenting and processing individual seizure notices in a very old fashioned way. This is time that could be used to locate more illicit supplies rather than doing the paperwork. The reforms in this bill will enable faster and more efficient seizure and disposal processes.

Another measure contained in the bill, which is a comprehensive way of changing how we chase these criminals and make them pay the price for the crimes that they have been committing, has to do with the integrity across the customs supply chain. Illicit tobacco operators often rely on people who are facilitating the process—their intermediaries. They are part of the process but not necessarily easily identifiable. This bill introduces additional licensing conditions for customs brokers and customs oversighted depots and warehouses to ensure that they refrain from conduct that facilitates, assists or enables the importation of prohibited tobacco products. They are licensed and this imposes a positive obligation on the licence holder to take all reasonable steps to prevent such conduct occurring within their operations. Taken together, all these reforms strengthen offences, tighten controls over the tobacco supply chain, elevate the seriousness with which illegal tobacco activity is treated, improve enforcement outcomes and increase the accountability across critical points of the importation process.

The second part of this bill is about strengthening Australia's proceeds of crime framework so that criminal groups can't retain the financial benefits that they generated from unlawful activity. It strengthens the ability of agencies to strip criminals of the profits they're making from illegal activities. That component of the bill applies to much more than just tobacco; it's modernising the proceeds of crime regime.

The final part in ensuring that crime doesn't pay is that the bill strengthens Australia's unexplained wealth framework by clarifying the methodology used to calculate a person's total wealth. These amendments will improve the operation of the framework and capture property owned or controlled by a person at any time. Together, they will better equip law enforcement agencies to identify, restrain and recover the financial rewards that make organised criminal activities attractive in the first place. This changes the way the law operates so that we stop criminals from being able to get away with things they've been able to get away with for far too long.

The Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 is one word for another bandaid on the bullet hole that is the illicit tobacco market in Australia today. Unfortunately, our illicit tobacco crisis has spiralled so far out of control and it has become so serious that this parliament can't reject any practical improvement to enforcement mechanisms, regardless of the fact that this bill represents a failure to comprehensively tackle this problem. We have seen some 300 firebombings. We've seen kidnappings and extortion. We have seen Australians killed on the front line of the black market for tobacco in Australia today. Unfortunately, this bill represents only a step in the right direction and is far from a smoking gun, if you'll forgive the pun.

The bill does make various changes to Commonwealth enforcement frameworks applying to tobacco and the movement and possession of that tobacco within Australia. It establishes clearer offences, and government speakers have spent some time articulating that. The issue—and the reason that we have such little confidence in the government's ability to respond to this—is that, after all of their horrendous mistakes and missteps, the failed predictions and the repeated mismanagement of this issue, these changes make Commonwealth laws only slightly more effective in terms of their enforcement. But they fail to deal with the fact that excise is pushing Australians to seek out black market cigarettes. It is plain human nature that, where they can obtain cigarettes at a fraction of the cost of lawful cigarettes in Australia, Australians who are doing it tough under this government's homegrown, inflation-driven cost-of-living crisis will do so.

Throughout human history we have seen that punitive measures on enforcement alone can never address a problem that is as far out of control as it is today. Indeed, the ABF themselves have said that you can't seize your way out of this crisis by playing some sort of whack-a-mole operation with limited resourcing. Albeit this bill increases their resourcing and addresses some of the measures under the Proceeds of Crime Act that we've seen play out, it again falls short of what a truly comprehensive response to this crisis would be. The reason we know that this falls well short of a truly comprehensive solution is that we have tabled one. Rather than—as we have under the Albanese government—watching illicit tobacco develop into a major organised crime issue for border security, community safety and public health and, ultimately, into a revenue problem, we've seen them ignore our calls for a comprehensive response, which includes dealing with excise.

The government's own Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner estimates that illicit tobacco represented some 50 to 60 per cent of tobacco sold in Australia in the 2024-25 financial year. The problem with that is that it's on the low end of estimates. Indeed, we see public estimates that indicate that, in the current environment, some 80 per cent of cigarettes sold and smoked in Australia are illegal. Not only does that mean that they are not paying excise—which, again, depending on the estimates you believe, ranges from some $8 billion to $11.8 billion a year in forgone revenue, which is desperately needed for a budget that's so deeply in deficit, as we see today—it also means that those tobacco products and cigarettes don't carry the health warnings that the Labor Party, when last in government, mandated. So, not only do they have the sexy branding and gold embossed packaging and the like; each cigarette, when lawfully sold in Australia, must carry its own health warning—failing to do so in some 80 per cent of cases. This is a crime crisis, it's a health crisis, and it's a revenue crisis. That's why the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission describes illicit tobacco as one of the most significant organised crime commodities in Australia. It's remarkable that you'd see an Australian government agency talking about black market cigarettes as a commodity in Australia today.

This problem, unfortunately, is not simply about people buying cheap cigarettes under the counter. As I said, hundreds of firebombings, intimidation, extortion and violence associated with this market have seen legitimate small businesses and innocent community members caught in the crossfire. This is across the country, including in my own electorate of Forrest. In the south-west corner of WA, even in smaller communities like Margaret River, we have seen organised crime seizing upon the extraordinarily lucrative and profitable opportunity that a market which is so deeply taxed and so underenforced has created.

The ABF has also described illicit tobacco as a low-risk, high-reward commodity—again, that commodity word, it's remarkable!—whilst observing that the market continues to grow in scale, complexity and profitability and that organised crime networks are exploiting the profitable price differentials that are presented through that extortionate tax and in the form of excise on cigarettes. So, despite the fact that there have been various bandaids slapped on this problem by the government—repeated penalty increases, funding announcements and new enforcement measures—we continue to see the problem spiralling out of control. We continue to see billions of dollars foregone in revenue that should be benefiting the budget and should be invested in health outcomes for Australians. We see legitimate businesses doing it tough, and we see innocent community members caught in the crossfire.

Senior ABF officers have described in Senate estimates to this very parliament that the government's response was a chronically underresourced and 'whack-a-mole' operation, alleging that there were no real intelligence collection and not enough experienced people left to do it. That's the central problem at the core of this bill. While we keep talking about trying to strengthen laws and at the same time organised crime figures can continue to achieve extraordinary profit margins, of course they will continue to enter and ruthlessly exploit the market, which effectively makes criminals out of ordinary Australians who are doing nothing except what could be reasonably expected when they're under such financial duress. It's not illegal to smoke tobacco in Australia, so why are we persisting with a regime that effectively makes criminals out of ordinary Australians who are making the choice to smoke?

We have presented a comprehensive and costed alternative, one that delivers some $8 billion of benefits in a budget, that includes an 80 per cent reduction in tobacco excise and that makes the cost of lawful cigarettes in Australia approximately comparable with those available on the black market. We also proposed a nationwide law enforcement blitz, supporting additional raids, arrests, seizures, investigations, shop closures and border disruption, with a stronger operational focus across all agencies including the ABF, the AFP, the ACIC and AUSTRAC. What that would do is deliver a comprehensive solution to address this multifaceted problem. At the same time, we would invest $60 million in a national public awareness and education campaign to address, in public, the rise of the issues associated with organised crime behind illicit tobacco and vapes and reinforcing the dangers of smoking.

We seem to have missed a trick with a whole generation of younger Australians who haven't grown up with the smoke aware campaigns that my generation certainly did. I think that's one of the glaring holes that I personally would love to see filled because, whilst I say that it is not illegal to make that decision, Australians should be fully informed about the risks to their own health and indeed the health of those around them and those near and dear to them that smoking represents. We're not going to stand in the way, because this is a step—another bandaid on the bullet hole—but it is far from a comprehensive and costed solution to the problem overall. I thank the House.

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

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Raise Our Voice in Parliament

I'm delighted today to read a speech by Dylan as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament program for 2026. Dylan said: 'I first realised the seriousness of Australia's invasive species crisis when my dog began stalking the possums in our backyard. She never caught them, but the thought of what she could do made me stop and think. What if she did? That moment pushed me to learn more, and what I discovered was alarming. Since colonisation, our biodiversity has plummeted. At least 45 uniquely Australian species have already been lost because of invasive animals. When species disappear, we lose part of who we are. As a community, we must choose: intervene now or watch damage accelerate. Right now, invasive species are spreading faster than we can keep up. Some introduced species, such as feral foxes and cats, only took 70 years to cover the continent. Every year we wait, the problem grows. Parliament must strengthen laws to prevent harmful new species from entering Australia, eradicate emerging threats and contain existing invasive species. If we act now, we can preserve Australia's natural heritage. If we delay, we risk losing it forever.'

I also rise to raise the voice of a young Australian. Zahin, a 20-year-old second-year medical student in Darwin, wrote:

Every morning that I wake up, I feel grateful. Grateful I live in a country where mental health is recognised as legitimate.

However, despite the enormous strides we have made, one demographic remains left behind: regional youth.

The Australian institute of health and welfare found that youth mental health disorders are 1.6 times more prevalent in outer regional areas than in the major cities, and in very remote areas, there are only 2 psychiatrists per 100,000 people on average.

As a young man, I can speak to this firsthand.

In 2020, I was diagnosed with a mental health condition. The hardest part about my struggle wasn't the condition itself, but the shame and confusion.

Shame, because I thought I was weak.

Confusion, because I didn't know where to access support, or how long it would take.

This is my story, but it's shared by countless others across regional Australia. That's why I'm calling on the Federal Government to ensure that where a young person lives doesn't impede their access to support, by bringing support closer to regional communities, investing in the workforce that delivers it, and by putting young people with lived experience at the heart of shaping service delivery.

I was obviously very happy and proud to speak with Zahin about the increased support that the federal Labor government is putting in not only to the workforce but also to headspaces around this country. I thank Zahin for taking a leadership role in raising his voice to bring the important issue of mental health for young Australians to this place.

New South Wales: Local Government

I rise today to condemn a profound failure of transparency that strikes at the heart of our federal funding dynamic and threatens the survival of local governments in New South Wales. The Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants are a direct federal lifeline, yet, under the guise of an arbitrary methodology review, the NSW Local Government Grants Commission is quietly short-changing our local communities.

The scale of this redistribution is staggering. Of our state's 128 councils, 63 are facing devastating funding cuts. These cuts hit at the worst time possible. Our councils are battling hyperinflation across their entire cost base, with soaring costs for bitumen, concrete, steel and insurance that local governments have no control over. Instead of throwing them a lifeline, this state government is throwing them a financial anchor.

What makes it offensive is a complete lack of accountability. The New South Wales government refuses to disclose the exact methodology or formulas driving these reallocations. They've given councils an unacceptably short window to respond to numbers they cannot verify. This is a distortion of federal intent. The Commonwealth allocates these funds to assist communities, not to give the state a lever to punish. I call upon the minister to ensure that the states are operating to the intent of the federal assistance grants act of 1995.

Veterans

Our veterans have given so much to our country. They deserve the care, respect and support they have earned. That is why I was pleased to co-host an RSL roundtable in Melbourne's south-east with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Matt Keogh, alongside Minister Hill and all of my colleagues from the south-east suburbs. It was an important opportunity to listen directly to our veteran community, hear their concerns and ensure their experiences inform the decisions we make.

Our government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. We have reduced the claims backlog, with annual claims determined increasing from 70,000 in 2022 to over 200,000 last year. Now we are strengthening access to allied health services, with increased provider payments backed by an additional $170 million in funding to help ensure veterans receive the treatment they need.

I want to thank President Lance McDermott, Vice-President Mark Osborne, Vice-President John McNeill and Secretary-Treasurer Stuart Couch from the Dandenong Cranbourne RSL for their engagement at this event. We must continue to deliver on our promises while listening to veterans and their families.

Roads

The Bathurst 1000 on the weekend was an outstanding success, but, as we watched the long queues of cars struggling to get back over the sandstone curtain, we were once again reminded of the failure of successive governments to deliver a permanent high-speed connection to Sydney. This is a failure on the part of government. It's negligence on the part of government, pure and simple. We've got businesses going broke, lives and livelihoods upended and destroyed and no plan or vision for the future of this vitally important national road corridor.

What really infuriates our communities is that we see billions upon billions being poured into gold-plated tunnels and motorways in Sydney and to the north and south coasts, yet our region is treated as an afterthought. You cannot fix a major artery with a bandaid, which is what's currently happening with the patch-up job on the broken 1832 convict bridge. Maybe we should get the convicts back, because it seems they were the last ones with any vision for that road! It's a disgraceful way to treat a region that contributes so much to the wealth and prosperity of our state and nation.

The Great Western Highway must urgently be designated a national infrastructure priority. It must be backed by serious state and federal funding. Our businesses must receive the support they need and deserve. We've had enough of the cheap words and the empty promises. This debacle is an ongoing disgrace. Fix it.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

In answer to the question of 'What is one big issue shaping your future, and what is a meaningful action you want parliament to take on it?' 10-year-old Aarush from my electorate of Sturt spoke about racism. These are Aarush's words:

Racism is something that many people face every day. Discriminating someone for absurd reasons is not acceptable in our country. This can hurt the feelings of other people and make them feel like they are not welcome in our country. This is something that ruins our country's reputation drastically.

I am only ten, but I know how much worse racism will get in the future. To make our country the greatest in the world we should find a way to end racism. I hope that by the next ten years Australia will eliminate racism for good. Racial equality is a must for the future years.

Our country is diverse and should remain so. You can all help, it is your moral responsibility to work on this. Treat everyone like your own family. Many cultures follow this rule, ours should follow it as well.

Hence, I strongly believe, eradicating racism from our country makes our schools, work environment, and public places safer, lovable and most enjoyable. Thank you for taking your time to read this. Let's join our hands to make Australia the best in everything.

Aarush, thank you for your wise words. On behalf of Aarush, I ask all members of this House and those from the other place to join hands to end racism.

Banking and Financial Services

Higher taxes, higher power bills and a botched surcharge ban—when it comes to small business, Labor keeps hitting 'decline'. Under pressure from this government, the Reserve Bank banned card surcharges from 1 October. The cost of accepting cards did not disappear; it landed squarely on the shoulders of small business.

Now, after a backlash, the Labor government is changing its tune. This morning, the minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories told the Sunrise program that the banks, not small businesses, should be paying for the point-of-sale machines. The government's own minister now concedes the job was only half done. If Labor government ministers like the minister for regional development are really serious, they should march on down to the Prime Minister's office and demand he intervene. Comments on breakfast telly will not pay a single small business's bill. Retailers in my electorate of Monash are telling me they've got no choice but to lift prices by a flat percentage across the board—even for customers who are paying cash—because everything is going up for them, from electricity to insurance costs, under this Labor government.

Small business owners have had enough. Walking out of Canberra Airport this week, you will see their messages on a billboard, loud and clear. Their message is simple: stop putting a surcharge on small business. Labor has maxed out its credibility with small business.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

I rise today, as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign, to read a speech written by Sophie Mitchell from my electorate of Bullwinkel. It reads as follows:

My name is Sophie Mitchell, I am a 17yo graduating student and soon-to-be new voter. I am writing to you as a member of the Bullwinkel electorate hoping to bring your attention to the importance of climate change to young people both in the Bullwinkel electorate and across Australia.

I would like to first applaud Labor on the recent 2035 target and all the government's efforts regarding climate action in recent years, but we still need further action. Climate change is rated among the top 10 most important issues for voters, and I can guarantee it is of great importance to me, my friends, and my generation. My big question for you and for all the Australian Parliament is—what kind of future will you build for us?

To continue Australia's transition to a sustainable and climate safe future, I urge those in power to consider the possibility of a price on carbon which proved to be the most effective and economically constructive way to cut emissions, so why not reintroduce it? I am asking for whatever is required for our carbon emissions to be decreased effectively and justly.

We need you, our representatives, to deliver the sustainable future that my generation needs and that Australia deserves. I hope you and your fellow electorates recognise the importance of this issue … and will do the right thing to protect our—

( T ime expired)

Small Business

Time and time again we see this Labor government backing down and reversing decisions, so let's hope, for the sake of small businesses in Hinkler, they get on with fixing more of the mess that they've made. Even better, how about they don't go after small businesses in the first place? Hinkler business owner Dion told me over the weekend, 'It's disgraceful how small businesses are the target of any and all cash grabs.'

Labor might have backed down and delayed the ATO ban on credit card payments, but now they need to go further. It must be scrapped altogether; don't just put the pain on hold. And, while Labor is in rewind mode, the Treasurer must abandon his trust laws. Small and family businesses and farmers who use trusts want one thing from this government: certainty. Send the legislation back for proper consultation and fix it before it becomes law, not after it blows up.

The message from Hinkler is clear. I've held small business surveys and roundtable meetings. Our hairdressers, cafe owners and butchers are all working hard, taking risks and investing, but, for them, all that is growing is a lack of confidence. The coalition will always back local first. Labor is doing all it can to break businesses with higher taxes, higher power bills and a botched credit card ban. Let's get back to local first, backing small business not breaking it.

Middle East: Iran

The conflict in Iran has not gone away simply because the media headlines have moved on, and the repression of the Iranian people has not gone away. Last month, the United Nations fact-finding mission on Iran reported on the brutal crackdown by the Islamic republic's regime against democratic protesters at the start of this year. The mission found that the regime forces used lethal force against protesters and bystanders, including children. The death toll reported by the regime was considered to be a significant underestimate, and some independent organisations report that the toll was around 40,000 people killed. The mission also documented mass arrests, torture and enforced disappearances, concluding that many of these abuses amounted to crimes against humanity.

The repression continues today. Between March and the end of August, Iranian authorities arbitrarily executed at least 59 men, following grossly unfair trials for politically motivated or vague national security charges. More than 70 others, including women and children, remain at imminent risk of a death sentence. At the same time, the broader conflict continues. Australians want to see de-escalation and diplomacy succeed, but an end to fighting cannot mean returning to a status quo where people are killed for demanding basic rights. This is not an abstract foreign policy for the Iranian Australians that I represent. It is family, it is friends, it is the country they love and it is the future they still hope for and a future that I'll continue to speak out for.

Lawes, Mr Wayne

I'd like to acknowledge in the gallery today Wayne Lawes. He's joined by his wife, Alice, and friends David and Gaynore. David is a former swimming coach. As a local Berwick resident, Wayne has dedicated 43 years to coaching and developing young Australians in swimming. His dedication has even taken him to the Olympic stage. In 2016, he was awarded the Australian coaches association award for outstanding contribution to Australian swimming. In Tokyo, he worked with Brendon Smith, who went on to win the bronze medal in the 400-metre individual medley at the 2020 summer Olympics, and Matthew Temple, who had the time of 50.25 seconds, blitzing the national record of 50.45 at the Tokyo Games. It takes a lot of hard work and coaching to reach the Olympic level, as we all know, and close to only 0.0001 per cent make it. Pair that difficulty with Victoria's peak of lockdown restrictions from Labor; that's when Wayne was in Beijing.

I make a special thanks to all our swimming coaches right across the nation. My daughter swims and gets up at four in the morning, but the swimming coaches do it for year after year. If you ever wonder why Australia does so good in the Olympics, you just have to go to any local swimming pool to see the coaches there with the kids. Again, congratulations, Wayne, for the work you've done for Australia.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

This year, students in my electorate of Hunter took part in the Raise Our Voice campaign. Today, I want to read a speech from young student Phoenix:

I wish to address an urgent issue within our communities: youth homelessness and its relation to the queer community in particular.

According to Homelessness Australia, people identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual were twice as likely to experience homelessness as the national average.

For gender-diverse people, this rises to one in five.

On average, 20 per cent of transgender people will experience homelessness in their lifetime.

LGBTI youth in Australia are often at acute risk of family violence due to their identity.

Queer Australians are forced to leave home for factors they cannot control.

As a member of the LGBTI community myself, you hear these stories, you know these people, and, well, it hurts.

This is why services like Link2home and Twenty10 are … essential in society.

They protect and shelter those most vulnerable.

However, these services remain inaccessible to many, especially in regional and rural Australia.

An expansion of these services, supported by local government and councils, is desperately needed, so anyone fleeing domestic violence, queer or otherwise, has a safe space to call home.

Thank you.

Thank you, Phoenix. There's nothing more important than a roof over your head. Keep up the good work, buddy, and I look forward to seeing you soon. Cheers.

Banking and Financial Services

Apparently, the Prime Minister has discovered yet another independent institution. First, it was the independent Reserve Bank. Now it's the independent ATO. It's funny how everything becomes independent the minute that Labor gets bad news about something, and the botched credit card ban is just another example. Labor celebrated banning the card surcharges, but those costs don't magically disappear. So, when the ATO realised that it would have to absorb these costs, what did it do? You see, it announced straightaway it would stop accepting credit cards. The government expects that small businesses will accept them, but the tax office won't. And, of course, when the backlash came, Labor ministers couldn't even agree on what the position actually was. They couldn't grasp the fact that the ATO is their department. This minister opposite, sitting at the table, wasn't even on the same song sheet as some of the other, senior ministers. The Minister for Housing thought, 'Oh, we should maybe wind them back,' but this bloke over here, the assistant minister, thought that this position was absolutely fantastic.

Member for Fadden, use correct titles and direct your comments through the chair.

Yes, Deputy Speaker, you're right. The Treasurer came out with this beauty:

We try not to interfere with the RBA or the ATO, but it's really important that we have stepped in today.

So they're only independent when it suits them. Are you actually serious, Treasurer? You've got no problem interfering when you want more tax money grabbed, but today you're not backing small business.

Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence

We've seen one very high-profile case of strangulation in the past week in Queensland, but there have been 440 alleged domestic violence related strangulation cases in Queensland in just two months, which is a 14 per cent increase on the same period last year. Over the last five years, the number of strangulation cases lodged in Queensland courts has increased by more than 42 per cent to 2,578 in the last year. Strangulation is one of the most serious warning signs of domestic and family violence, and the research is stark. Women who have experienced strangulation by an intimate partner have more than seven times the chance of subsequently being killed by a partner. Strangulation can cause serious internal injuries and brain damage, even when there are no visible marks.

In my electorate of Bonner, we have the Red Rose Foundation, which operates Australia's only strangulation trauma centre. Through Labor's frontline 500 Workers Initiative, we've funded additional workers at the Red Rose Foundation, but it continues to face increased demand. Recognising the warning signs matters, responding appropriately matters, and holding perpetrators accountable matters. We cannot wait until a woman is murdered to recognise that her life was in danger. To anyone who has experienced strangulation: please seek urgent medical attention, even if you have no visible injuries. Reach out for support. You deserve to be safe.

Small Business

Small businesses are the beating heart of my electorate of Barker. These are the people who start early, finish late and carry communities on their shoulders. The role of government, of course, should be to create conditions that allow businesses like this around our great nation to prosper. They need less red tape, lower taxes and lower energy costs. They don't need a handout; they just want a government that understands the best thing it can do is get out of the way. But what has this Labor government given small business? It's given them higher taxes, higher power bills and now a botched credit card surcharge ban. Labor promised power bills would fall by $275. Instead, every new power bill comes with its risks to small business. Then, this month, Labor's surcharge ban landed.

The Prime Minister tried to convince Australians that their coffees would be cheaper by banning the card surcharge. The problem is that the fee hasn't gone away, and the price of a coffee has gone up because cafe owners have to cover the costs of those fees. While already uncertain of their future, this cost shift is just another nail in the coffin of small business. Let's be clear. When a regional small business closes its doors, it's not just the shop that goes dark. It's a job lost, a sponsor gone from the footy club and a vacant shop on the street. For small regional towns, that could mean the beginning of the end. Labor should be backing small business, not breaking it.

Cybersafety

There's a quote attributed to Walter Isaacson that I've been thinking about. He wrote:

The technology that promised to connect us found a better business model in dividing us.

I reckon that captures one of the biggest problems facing our society. Social media was supposed to bring people together. Instead the business model rewards outrage, anger and division because keeping people angry keeps them engaged and keeping them engaged makes money. Now we're watching artificial intelligence accelerate this problem. Content can be produced almost instantly, fake news sites imitate genuine journalism, and the distinction between reporting and manufactured content is becoming difficult to identify. Meanwhile, local newspapers have been disappearing. The journalists who attended council meetings, reported on local businesses and held decision-makers accountable have increasingly been replaced by algorithms.

That's why it's encouraging to see local publications, like the North Coast Post in my electorate, serving communities like Moore, because journalism isn't just about producing words on a screen. It's about having someone who knows their community, asks difficult questions and takes responsibility for what they publish. Technology should serve the public, but, when the companies that control the technology make more money from dividing us than informing us, we've got a serious problem. We need a digital economy that rewards reliable information, not manufactured outrage. And we need to make sure artificial intelligence strengthens Australian communities rather than further undermining the institutions they depend on.

Banking and Financial Services

Labor should be backing small business, not breaking it. Nobody likes card surcharges, but you can't make a cost disappear just because it's no longer on the receipt. It has to go somewhere. Every time a customer taps their card, someone pays to process that transaction. It's either absorbed by the business or passed right back to the consumer through—you guessed it—higher prices. That's what we've seen. The government promised savings every time Australians tap, yet businesses are warning prices have risen and will rise. So much for cost-of-living relief from this government.

On the day of the ban, the ATO announced it would stop accepting card payments. If the ATO can't absorb the cost, why should small and family businesses? Now Labor has delayed the pain until June next year. Instead of delaying it, they should scrap this botched plan altogether. Having already endured four years of higher taxes, higher energy bills and higher inflation, and now this botched credit card ban, 30 Aussie businesses are going bust every single day—that's 30 livelihoods; 30 families. Small businesses don't need another year of uncertainty. They need a government with a plan to fix the economy and protect our way of life, and that starts by backing small business.

Ukraine

Earlier this month, I joined with the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs, the member for Bruce, at a citizenship ceremony welcoming more than 500 new Australians, including 70 from Ukraine. I am lucky to have the Ukrainian Community of Queensland very close to my electorate of Griffith, and I acknowledge the work of the president, Peter Bongiorni.

Four years since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Australian government stands firmly with Ukraine against Russia's aggression. Last month, Australia and Ukraine signed a bilateral security agreement, with a further $60 million in assistance, bringing our total support to almost $1.9 billion. This support helps Ukrainians defend their homes, protect their families and resist Russia's aggression.

That's why I was deeply troubled to hear Senator Shoebridge retreat from supporting a democracy under attack—a move that would embolden authoritarian states to act with impunity and would lead to a more dangerous world. He said military assistance could only be provided to Ukraine subject to a UN Security Council resolution, yet we know Russia holds the power to veto. It's shocking to hear Senator Shoebridge taking on the same position as One Nation—like Senator Roberts, who has said that Putin had 'earned his respect' by invading Ukraine, and continues to oppose Australian support for Ukraine.

We all want a world that is without war, and we must never stop working towards that goal, but we cannot ignore the reality of the world that we live in. Standing for peace means standing firmly against Russian aggression. Slava Ukraini.

Banking and Financial Services

This morning, cafes served their first cup of commercial hope before dawn. It was to a sparky making their way to their first job of the day—often a local small business, like the pharmacist who greeted their neighbours by name. Small businesses are the lifeblood of the community and our economy, but so often they feel alone. Last year, 15,000 went insolvent and even more closed their doors. Because, at the top of the hour, the news is always the same. The Prime Minister or the Treasurer is punching down on small business—higher taxes, delays and costly regulations—and now forcing them to absorb fees that the government won't adopt themselves and crunching payment options, and, with them, their necessary cash flow.

It leaves so many small businesses asking: 'Why does this government look to make our survival harder?' Perplexed! For every small-business owner who is being targeted by the Albanese government: we hear you, we see you and we stand with you. Our plan is simple: to introduce a legislative shield for small business, a small business act that protects you from the assault of the Albanese government to make sure you have a voice in the issues and decisions that affect you. To have your say on what you should say, go to standwithsmall.org. We want an Australia where you thrive, but not one where you struggle to survive.

Paterson Electorate: Roads

Thank you, Speaker, and congratulations on becoming the 32nd Inter-Parliamentary Union president. It was just over a month ago that we had the Prime Minister in my part of the world to open the M1 Pacific Motorway extension to Raymond Terrace. It is a project that was delivered 18 months early and on budget. It is saving time for thousands of motorists not just across my electorate but across the eastern seaboard of New South Wales. Most importantly, we are increasing productivity.

It was such a proud day to open that monumental piece of road. It is an intergenerational piece of infrastructure. After years of advocacy, people are now getting a clear run on the M1. It was delivered 18 months ahead of schedule and it in fact had thousands of workers. Seventy per cent of them came from our local area, and we had 99 apprentices go through their training on this important piece of infrastructure. The real progress is the time that is being saved. (Time expired)

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

STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Afghanistan War: 25th Anniversary

Yesterday I had the enormous honour of speaking at the Australian War Memorial to mark 25 years since the beginning of Operation Slipper, the dawn of Australia's mission in Afghanistan. In New York, fires were still burning at Ground Zero from the September 11 attacks a month earlier when Australia came to the aid of the world. The world at that time felt upended. All of us can remember where we were at the time of September 11. Though it would change so devastatingly a year later in Bali, it wasn't directly our fight at that time. Yet what Australia did was so resolutely in our nature. We went to support our friend and our ally. We went because of what was at stake, and we went on the principle that September 11 was an attack on a way of life that belonged just as much to us as Australians. The very freedoms at the heart of who we are as a people and a nation were under threat, and the enemy that had so devastatingly declared itself in opposition to those freedoms was al-Qaeda.

As then prime minister John Howard put it at the time:

If we left this contest only to America, we would be leaving it to them to defend our rights and those of all the other people of the world who have a commitment to freedom and liberty.

Over two decades, more than 35,000 Australian defence personnel served in operations relating to the war in Afghanistan. They made an invaluable contribution to a complex multinational mission, upholding the finest of Australian military traditions in the process. Their courage, the strength of their character and the bonds of their camaraderie are a beacon to us still. I acknowledge those present here today who also served, and, likewise, every single Australian who served in what amounted to a whole-of-government mission. Members of the Australian Federal Police and civilians from DFAT, including AusAID, were also there on the ground. It was an environment in which vigilance had to be as relentless as the dust was, where every footstep could feel heavy in the landscape sown with explosives, where any crowd might hold a suicide bomber and where the threats came from without and sometimes devastatingly from within.

We also honour the courage of the many Afghans who stood against their oppressors and put their own safety on the line to help. Our nation respects and thanks all who have served in our name—the fighters for peace, the keepers of peace. We honour all who went and all who fell. We honour those who came home wounded in body or wounded in soul, their hearts changed forever by the fight. We honour the families, those who have felt both the pride and weight that comes when a loved one puts on the uniform and those who have lived with the grief that is the pain of love wrapped around an absence that can never be filled.

As we look to Afghanistan, we are reminded again of what Australians in war have faced and the difference they have made in humanity's truest spirit. What Australians in Afghanistan embodied is something we must never lose. Lest we forget.

I join the Prime Minister in commemorating the 25th anniversary of Australian service in the war in Afghanistan, and, of course, I was privileged to be there yesterday at the War Memorial, at that commemoration. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, in America's darkest hour, Australia stood by our ally and our dear friend. On 14 September, showing moral clarity and leadership, John Howard invoked ANZUS, and, soon after, Australia joined a multinational mission to take the fight to al-Qaeda. For 20 years, under Operation Slipper and Operation Highroad, Australian warfighters achieved many things. They helped deny the terrorists a safe haven. They helped destroy al-Qaeda. They did lead-up work that helped US Navy SEAL Team 6 take out Osama bin Laden in May 2011. And they helped prevent further terrorist attacks from being carried out around the world and on our soil. It was right for our nation to join the war on terror.

My thoughts and deep gratitude are with the 35,000 men and women of the Australian Defence Force who served in Afghanistan and especially with the families of those 47 Australians who made the ultimate sacrifice. Their service made a difference and made our nation and the world safer. Can I acknowledge the members for Canning and Herbert—patriots, who were there on the front line. We thank all our veterans of Afghanistan for their service and sacrifice. Many still bear the wounds of their service, seen and unseen. We owe them a debt that can never be repaid, but our nation will never forget and will always honour what they achieved. I thank them most sincerely for the role they played in fighting Islamist extremism. We must never relent in that fight, inspired by the spirit and service of our veterans of Afghanistan.

Five years after the war in Afghanistan finished, Islamist extremism remains a real threat, a civilizational threat. It has evolved, taken many forms and been called many things. We must continue that fight with resolve, both at home and around the world, with our allies and partners. And fight it we will, because we love life more than those extremists love death. Lest we forget.

As a mark of respect for those who lost their lives during that conflict, I ask all present to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the House.

Israel Attacks: Third Anniversary

Last Wednesday, we paused to mark the third anniversary of the terrorist attack in Israel on 7 October 2023. With pain in our hearts, we reflected once more on the devastation that the terrorists of Hamas unleashed on that dark day, and we remembered the 1,200 lives that they robbed from the world. It was the largest loss of Jewish life on any single day since the Holocaust. We thought of everyone who was dragged into captivity, everyone who never returned home to their families and everyone forever scarred by what they endured. We thought of all who lost loved ones, all who suffered and all who entered that most agonising of vigils, struggling to bear the weight of hope as they waited for news of their loved ones held hostage. We continued to mourn Australian Galit Carbone. Our hearts remain with her family, who live each day with her absence. And we solemnly vowed—as we vow every day—to never forget what the terrorists perpetrated in all their cruelty. That they chose to target young people at a music festival that was promoting friends, love and infinite freedom sent the clear message to the world that Hamas stand in opposition to humanity.

Time marches on with an ease denied to the human heart. For so many, no day since has been easy, but anniversaries fall with their own terrible weight. And, for many others, what compounds the pain is the approach of the first anniversary of the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach. These few years have been hard beyond measure, but Australia stands with the Jewish community here and across the world. We stand against antisemitism and racism in all its forms because it goes against who we are. We stand against the Islamic extremists of Hamas, which must disarm and can play no role in Palestine's future.

Australia continues to push for the implementation of the Gaza peace plan to end the conflict after such terrible suffering and loss of civilian life. The Australian government encourages and welcomes all genuine moves towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East underpinned by the State of Israel and the State of Palestine living side by side within internationally recognised borders, in peace and security. Such a future would be the greatest victory of humanity over hatred. That is the future we must strive for together.

On 7 October 2023, Hamas terrorists invaded and attacked Israel. The terrorists from Gaza came not only equipped with guns and grenades; they also wore body cams and carried mobile phones to film their barbarous acts. They felt no guilt. They acted with glee. They weaponised rape. They tortured and mutilated children, women and men. They took some 250 people hostage. They brutally murdered some 1,200 people. October 7 was the greatest loss of Jewish life on a single day since the Holocaust, and it should not be forgotten that Hamas have vowed to repeat their savagery many times over until Israel is annihilated. On the third anniversary of Israel's 9/11, we remember those who were murdered, those who survived and are still living with the horrors of that day, those who endured the most unimaginable captivity and those families who are still grieving the loss of loved ones.

In October 2025, soon after the final hostages were released, I visited Israel. I went to the site of the Nova music festival where young people were massacred. I visited a kibbutz where families and communities were butchered. I watched the shocking footage of Hamas's sadistic crimes. I will never forget the images I saw. I spoke with the survivors and heroes.

That profound experience reinforced to me another thing we must do on every anniversary of October 7. We must remember the facts and fight for the truth. Because, even today, there are those who downplay, deny and even defend Hamas' atrocities. Even today, there are those who seek to portray the victim, Israel, as the villain and portray the villain, Hamas, as the victim. Even today, there are those who deceitfully accuse Israel of genocide and yet turn a blind eye to groups and regimes with real genocidal intent. Such perversions of the truth and lack of moral clarity help to fuel antisemitism and make it permissible. The fight against antisemitism is therefore a fight for the truth—a fight that continues on our soil too—and the fight for the truth is about acknowledging and combating all forms of antisemitism, especially Islamist extremism.

On behalf of the coalition, my prayers and abiding friendship are with the brave people of Israel and with our Jewish community, who are dear and valued Australians. Whether it's in Israel, in Australia or, most recently, thousands of feet in the air in a passenger jet, the Jewish people continue to be characterised by strength, stoicism and valour, and we, the coalition, are with you always.

As a mark of respect to those lives lost on October 7, I ask all those present to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

  I thank the House.

CONDOLENCES Baird, Hon. Bruce George, AM; Reference to Federation Chamber

I move:

That the resumption of the debate on the Speaker's announcement relating to the death of Mr Bruce Baird be referred to the Federation Chamber.

I, along with, I'm sure, a number of other members who served with Bruce Baird, would like to make a contribution. He was truly a great Australian and, whilst not a minister in this place, of course played a very critical role in the Sydney Olympics bid in my home city in 2000. He is fondly remembered, and I think members should have the opportunity to continue the discussion.

Question agreed to.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Small Business

My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are pleading with this Prime Minister to end his war on small business. Since Labor came to power, over 50,000 businesses have gone bust, killed by power bills no-one can afford, new taxes no-one voted for and a credit card ban no-one was told about. When will this Prime Minister start listening to Australians who have a go and stop waging war on small businesses?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Small business is absolutely vital to the Australian economy—no question about that. We want small business to grow and to thrive and we pay tribute to those who aspire, who take risks and who invest not just in themselves and their families but in the future of the Australian economy. That's why we've taken action to back small business. We made the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent so small businesses can invest in the tools and the technology and the equipment that they need to grow. We legislated a permanent loss carry-back tax offset to support small businesses' cash flow and resilience. Last week, of course, the government stepped in for the decision that was made by the ATO with regard to changes for credit card payments.

We back Australia's small businesses. We value their contribution. Indeed, under Labor, the number of small businesses since we came to office is, today, 2.7 million. That is 265,000 more than when we came to office in 2022. People talk about insolvencies. According to ASIC data, insolvencies under this government, as a proportion of all companies, have averaged 0.32 per cent. The rate under the Howard government was 0.5 per cent. Average monthly new company registrations are higher under this government than under any government on record, and an average of 900 companies have been created each day of this government.

An honourable member: Each day?

Each day 900—so 30 have become insolvent; 900 have been created.

Artificial Intelligence

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government making sure artificial intelligence works in Australia's interest, and why is this agenda so important?

I thank the member for Barton for her question. Indeed, AI offers extraordinary opportunities for Australia, for our growth, for investment, for productivity and for businesses such as those I'll speak with tonight at the Australian Industry Group about using AI to benefit their productivity and therefore to be able to grow. Our government knows that, and that's why we're legislating Australian standards for AI. That's why we're also consulting across the board, engaging seriously with other nations as well as with AI companies themselves, so we can make sure that AI stands for Australia's interests, harnessing its power as a tool to help us build a stronger economy.

We know that we need humanity to shape AI rather than the other way around. That is why we've established the AI committee that has been stood-up in a bipartisan fashion and has already begun its work under the leadership of the member for Maribyrnong and Senator Duniam in the other place. The hack by a frontier AI agent into government websites brought home to Australians that some of the risks which are there are very real indeed. We took strong action on that and made our nation's view clear that the breach was completely unacceptable.

It is clear for everyone to see that the AI genie is well and truly out of the bottle. We can't pretend that it doesn't exist and isn't already having an impact on the way that we work, the way that we engage and, indeed, the way that politics is conducted as well. That is why what really matters is how we respond to it and how we intervene and shape it. That is also why we are engaging with domestic and global companies and with other nations as well. We did that at the United Nations General Assembly last month. We did that as well in the meetings that we have continued to hold with major companies. We're going to make sure that Australia can gain from the benefits that can come from AI whilst mitigating the risks. That is the way forward, that is what is in Australia's national interest, and that is what we will continue to do. I encourage every member of this House to engage with this process because this will be one of the dominant issues over the next decade and beyond.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement

I am pleased to inform the House that on the floor of the parliament today is His Excellency Surangel Whipps Jr, President of the Republic of Palau, as well as First Lady Mrs Valerie Whipps. I also acknowledge His Excellency Roland Merar, the Ambassador of the Republic of Palau to Australia, and His Excellency Toby Sharpe, the Ambassador of Australia to the Republic of Palau. On behalf of all members, Your Excellency, I wish you a very warm welcome with your delegation to Australia and, in particular, to the House of Representatives.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

on indulgence—Mr Speaker, I join you in acknowledging my friend, President Whipps. He appears not only as the President of Palau but is wearing a second hat as well as Chair of the Pacific Islands Forum. President Whipps hosted a very successful forum that played a critical role in our region—critical for our national peace and security, critical for our economic growth, critical for dealing with issues such as transnational crime and, of course, critical for dealing with the challenge but also the opportunity of climate change, the issue that is front and centre in the Pacific.

When I was in Palau we had the opportunity to open a solar farm that was funded through the Australian process and with Australian support. That solar farm with battery will power up to a quarter of Palau's power, meaning less concentration on diesel as it goes forward. We all know from the Middle East conflict that that will build national resilience as well as improve economic efficiency and make a difference in reducing emissions in what is an extraordinarily beautiful country that the President represents. Can I also welcome Valerie, his lovely wife, who is here as well. They are very welcome guests here in Australia, and I look forward to, along with Jodie, welcoming Mr and Mrs Whipps to the Lodge in a couple of days time.

on indulgence—On behalf of the coalition I, too, would like to acknowledge His Excellency the President of Palau and welcome him to Australia and to our chamber. I congratulate him on his appointment as Chair of the Pacific Islands Forum. We welcome our two countries' renewal of a development cooperation agreement and we look forward to continuing to work with you in the future for the future of our two nations. Our futures are inevitably intertwined, and we need to work together. Together we must not just combat transnational crime, as we heard from the Prime Minister, but also resist coercion in our region. Welcome.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Banking and Financial Services

My question is to the Prime Minister. After Labor's bungled ban on small business using credit cards to pay their tax bills, one of your aspiring backbench Labor colleagues made the following admission: 'There is no-one in cabinet with any small business experience.' When will the Prime Minister start listening to small business, over-rule his Treasurer and scrap Labor's credit card ban for good?

I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question and I give him some points for courage—making comments about our frontbench, given that Josh Frydenberg, a predecessor, is out there campaigning openly against the frontbench on the other side, saying that they're not up to it, calling for an increase in the GST and, most remarkably, actually saying that they spent too much and wasted money during the COVID crisis. If only Mr Frydenberg was in a position to have some influence during that time! But perhaps the spending was the result of the other bloke, who was also the Treasurer, Scott Morrison.

The Prime Minister will pause. We'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

On indulgence, I want to congratulate the Speaker on his presidency. Speaker, there have been a few presidencies, and I just hope yours doesn't go to your head!

Okay, just get to the point of order.

Thanks, Speaker. It goes to relevance. There was nothing in this about the coalition. It's your own backbench undermining you and your cabinet.

The manager is correct. There was nothing in there about alternative policies. But it was a very political question; I think we can agree on that point of view. The Prime Minister was asked the question about the issue on the credit card surcharge, so I'll just draw him back to that part of the question. He's entitled to answer the question, being directly relevant. There was a political argument, but there was policy content in there as well. The Prime Minister has the call.

I understand why they don't want to talk about the issue they raised of people's comments about frontbenchers. They made the extraordinary decision to turn up at CPAC over the weekend. They weren't talking there about policies of small business—or they weren't talking about policies of big business. They were getting lessons from, of all people, the only person in the Western world who makes Tony Abbott's period as PM look long, which is Liz Truss, who lasted 45 days as a PM. That's who they get lessons from.

Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?

Yes.

Economy

My question is to the Treasurer. Why are the Albanese Labor government's budget savings, sensible tax reforms and responsible economic management so important? What would be the consequences of alternative approaches?

Thanks to the member for Gellibrand for his question and for the big contribution he makes to our team. Last Friday, Fitch reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating, and that means all three major ratings agencies have reaffirmed the AAA in the last few months since the budget. There are only nine countries with a AAA from all three agencies, and we are one of them. It's a reminder that Australia's budget and economy are in better shape than other countries', and it's another welcome endorsement of our responsible economic management.

When we came to office, debt was rising fast, deficits were much bigger, average real spending growth was faster, there were no savings in Josh Frydenberg's last budget and inflation was much higher than it is now and rising fast. We've delivered two surpluses and smaller deficits. The budget is $230 billion stronger. Gross debt is lower than what we inherited and is lower than every major advanced economy. Average spending growth is less than half. We found $880 billion in savings and banked upward revisions to revenue.

At the same time, we are reforming the tax system to cut taxes for workers, to make the housing market fairer for first home buyers and to make the system fairer overall. The trust reforms that we will introduce this week have gone through multiple rounds of consultation and don't start until the middle of 2028. Ninety-five per cent of Australians don't get income from trusts and less than 10 per cent of small businesses will be affected by our changes. About 90 per cent of total private wealth in trusts is held by the wealthiest 10 per cent of households. So our changes will better align the tax treatment of income from assets and income from wages and help fund tax cuts for workers.

Now, those opposite voted against tax cuts for workers before the election and after the election, and they've made well over $110 billion in unfunded commitments since then, which would double the deficits and, by their own logic, push up inflation and interest rates. Now we hear that Josh Frydenberg wants to jack up the GST as well, and that rings a bell. In fact, the House should be aware that the shadow treasurer, in his first speech in this place, called for a 20 per cent GST. So now the Leader of the Opposition is being stalked from the inside by the member for Canning. He's being stalked from the outside by the failed former member for Kooyong.

We are getting on with the job of reforming the tax system, improving the budget and providing the responsible economic management which underpins the AAA credit rating just reaffirmed by all three major credit ratings agencies.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement

I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation of senior Vietnam government officials visiting Parliament House as part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Canberra Fellowships Program. Also in the gallery today is a delegation from the Armenian National Committee of Australia's Youth Advocates program. This two-day program brings together a cohort of emerging Armenian Australian leaders who are gaining hands-on experience of Australia's federal political system as guests of the member for Berowra.

Matilda Wilson and her mum, Ange, who is her carer, are also in the gallery. They're here for the Parliamentary Friends of Cerebral Palsy launch at Australian Parliament House, with the co-chair, Dr Freelander, the member for Macarthur. Tilly is an 18-year-old disability advocate, content creator, public speaker and skateboarder extraordinaire who is showing what people with cerebral palsy can do. She's from the Gold Coast and she's the guest of one of the co-chairs, the member for Moncrieff. Welcome to Matilda.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal

My question is to the Minister for Defence because Defence normally categorises defence deployments. Minister, the decision to recategorise Rifle Company Butterworth is welcome, but other deployments remain in dispute; for example, the British Commonwealth Occupation Force, Operation Astute, Operation Habitat, and UN observers during the Lebanese Civil War. Anyone challenging disputed categorisations gets the right royal run-around from Defence, who made the original decisions and refuse to admit they got it wrong. Minister, will you finally address this and establish a genuinely independent, merits based review?

I thank the member for his question and for his acknowledgement of the reclassification of those who have served at Rifle Company Butterworth, which came by virtue of the Recognising their sacrifice report that was prepared by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. What that decision did was to elevate the recognition of service for those who had served at Rifle Company Butterworth between 1970 and 1989 from what had been previously defined as 'peacetime activities' to 'non-warlike activities', which is an elevation, as you're aware, and that is a different recognition of that period of service. That process, in a sense, answers the broader question that the member has asked, which was referring to other deployments or other operations that have occurred in our history. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, through the Recognising their sacrifice report, has jurisdiction here in looking at the service that has been provided by those who wear our nation's uniform in different contexts throughout our history. It is appropriate that that be considered on an ongoing basis so that we do get this right from a historical point of view, and we will continue to work through that process.

Superannuation

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. How is the Albanese Labor government demonstrating responsible economic management by strengthening Australia's superannuation system, and are there any risks to this approach?

I thank the honourable member for her question. I know the member, like every member on this side of the House, believes Australians deserve a strong superannuation system and dignity in retirement, as she has championed over many years. That is exactly what this government is delivering. Labor built compulsory superannuation and we're making it stronger. We've delivered payday super, ensuring workers receive super with their wages, and I pay tribute to the work of the Treasurer on this. This was a gaping $6 billion hole before those reforms. We've included super on paid parental leave so that parents can continue building their retirement savings while raising a family. We've strengthened the low-income super tax offset, helping about 1.3 million Australians build their retirement balances.

But I'm also asked about risks to this approach. While Labor is strengthening super, those opposite are trying to tear it down. This is about a government that is on the side of ordinary people and an opposition that is focused on relentless ideological crusades. We have a shadow Treasurer who has described super as 'a form of economic insanity', all while his leader says that, in principle, he supports it; and a Liberal senator who called superannuation 'one of the biggest public policy failures since federation' and a form of communism, that it's an ideological obsession against dignity and security in retirement. And their friends in One Nation are even worse. Their latest proposals would allow Australians to divert a quarter of their super contributions away from retirement, because they don't provide them enough alternative supports.

On Friday, new modelling from the Super Members Council estimated that One Nation's policy would leave Australian taxpayers facing a long-term bill of $190 billion in today's dollars. That's because less super today means more reliance on the pension in the future. According to Super Members Council, today's 20-year olds could end up paying an additional $3,700 in tax. But, of course, that's entirely consistent with those opposite. They went to the last election with a higher tax policy.

We know those opposite love lifting taxes, and so it's no surprise that Mr Frydenberg has recently penned a book on higher GST. The bigger question, though, is we know that the shadow treasurer advocates for a 20 per cent GST, and we know that the former treasurer advocates a higher GST. What we need is clarity between the shadow treasurer and the potential future leader as to how their two GSTs are going to apply to birthday cakes. We need a lot more clarity from those opposite as to their future tax agenda.

Labor is building on retirement savings. The coalition and One Nation are focused on ways to spend those savings. Australians deserve stronger superannuation, not political games, and they deserve a government that helps them retire with more, not an opposition that will leave them with less.

The member for Goldstein will cease making noises.

Small Business

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. After Labor's bungled ban on small business using credit cards to pay their tax bills, one of your Labor colleagues said:

We have a small business minister … who knows nothing about small business.

When was the minister first informed of the credit card ban and by whom?

I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question. We on this side of the House understand how important small businesses are for our economy and for our communities. Just last week, I was out in regional Queensland, in the member for Maranoa's seat, meeting with small businesses there. I had a roundtable with small businesses at the local cafe there, speaking to them about the issues that matter to them. Shortly after, I went up to Darwin and met with small businesses in Darwin as well.

Every time I meet with small businesses, I ask them about their challenges and their opportunities. Now, there's no doubt that small businesses are doing it tough. The costs of doing business are getting higher, margins are getting thinner, and businesses are struggling through. But that's why this government, in the last budget, dedicated $3.8 billion to assist small businesses. That's why this government has made permanent the $20,000 instant asset write-off, and businesses right across Australia have been using the instant asset write-off to ensure that they have cash flow, to ensure that—

The minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

On a point of relevance, Mr Speaker, the question was very specific: when was the minister first informed of the credit card ban and by whom?

We'll just do this in an orderly way. The Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business—and I presume this was accidental—has just misled the House in describing what the question was. The question was about twice as long as he just described, and, in being directly relevant, it is the right of a minister to be directly relevant to any part of the question. The first part of the question, the political sledge, effectively allows a much broader action.

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business further to the point of order.

On the point of order, Mr Speaker, yes, there was some preamble.

It was quote. It was a quote from you!

It was a quote which was directly relevant to the question: when were you first informed of the credit card ban and by whom?

We could spend all day going through these types of questions. As long as question time has been around, if you're adding extra things to a question—a quote, a comment or an interpretation—with a political edge to them—There was a specific question in that, I agree. But as everyone knows, and the leader is correct, if you're going to put a political connotation into a question, you'll get a pretty political answer. The minister hasn't gone down that path yet. She's being directly relevant. I can't compel her to give the name, time or date, as you request—I think everyone knows that—because the standing order doesn't enable me to do that. What I can do is make sure the minister is being directly relevant. She is. If she strays off topic or if she's starts not being relevant, I can assure the House I will bring her to order.

As I was saying, it's all very well to talk about small businesses, to cosplay as small businesses, to make reels where you're pretending to be a small business, but actually going out and speaking to small businesses means that we have a government that acts in the interests of small businesses by making the instant asset write-off permanent, by making the two-year loss carry back permanent and by delivering assistance to small businesses where they need it most and when they need it most. Importantly, every time I go and speak to small businesses, whether it's in the member for Maranoa's seat, whether it's in Darwin, whether it's in rural and regional Australia or whether it's in the cities, the thing that they ask for the most is access to workers. That's why we have free TAFE. That's why we have apprenticeship schemes to enable those businesses to access the workers that they need.

Now, the Prime Minister went through some numbers earlier. I think they warrant repeating, because those numbers mean something. Those numbers—the more than 600,000 new businesses that have started—show record numbers of new businesses starting since we came into government. Those record numbers every day and every month demonstrate something. They demonstrate something beyond numbers. They demonstrate the initiative—

Opposition members interjecting—

Yes, yes, and the hopes and dreams of Australians at.

Order! The minister will pause. Leader of the Opposition, and all of the opposition—I will not—

The Leader of the Opposition will be silent while I'm speaking. I will not have that sort of abuse to any minister from anyone in the chamber. I just ask that the tone of the House—please show respect and some decorum. The minister is not being provocative. She is answering the question. I just ask everyone lower the temperature today. Minister, I want you to be directly relevant to the question.

Anyone with even a cursory understanding of numbers will understand that the number of businesses opening compared to the number of businesses that are closing— (Time expired)

Wages and Salaries

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australian workers to get ahead, and what could place this progress at risk?

I'd like to thank the member for Aston for her question and for her commitment to backing Australian workers. Of course, this Labor government has delivered significant reforms to get wages moving and improve the pay of hard-working Australians. One of the many ways that we're delivering higher wages is through same-job same-pay laws. When those opposite were in government, they turned a blind eye when labour hire arrangements were being used to undercut the hard-earned wages of Australian workers. It took this Labor government to fix it. Our same-job same-pay laws are based on a simple idea: if you're doing the same work, you should get paid the same.

Now, of course, our changes have led to thousands of workers across a range of industries, including mining, aviation, warehousing and transport, earning up to $60,000 more a year. Not only are these workers receiving substantial pay increases, but many are being offered direct employment as well. One of these workers is Megan. Megan is now approximately $20,000 better off per year because of our laws. Megan is one of 750 domestic flight attendants that are receiving substantial pay rises because of our government. After waiting 14 years for a pay rise, Megan said that our laws meant her and her co-workers and 'are finally successful in receiving a fair wage'. This government believes workers like Megan deserve fair pay, and that's why we are backing them to get it.

I am asked what could place wage rises for workers like Megan at risk. Well, we all know what will place these wage rises at risk. It is the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation, who have opposed our laws every step of the way. You would think that with the clear evidence of workers like Megan benefitting they might have had a change of heart. But no, no, no. Earlier this year we've had Senator Hanson confirm she still opposes these laws. Just this month, Senator Hume turned up at the HR Nicholls Society and endorsed a radical workplace agenda which includes repealing same job, same pay. Of course, her position backs the Leader of the Opposition's position, which said these laws should be on the chopping block. It is only this Labor government that is backing working people and can be trusted with their wages.

Banking and Financial Services

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. When was the minister first informed of the credit card ban, and by whom?

I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question. As I mentioned in my last answer, this side of the House understands what small businesses are dealing with as prices and the cost of doing business increases, and as margins decrease. On this side of the House, we actually get out there and talk to small businesses. I do as the Minister for Small Business, and I know my colleagues here are always out there, talking to small businesses, listening to their concerns, coming back to me and coming back to our cabinet with what more we can be doing to help small businesses. I'm proud of a government that has allocated so much in the budget to assist small businesses.

On the matter of the credit card surcharge, or the ban to the credit card surcharge, it was a decision that was made by the RBA. I became aware of it, as did everyone else, when the RBA made that decision and made it public.

Avian Influenza

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the Albanese Labor government responding to H5 bird flu, including by helping Australians know what to do?

I do want to thank the member for Sturt for her question. I know that she has been particularly concerned about the H5 bird flu transmission in her home state of South Australia and her local community, and I thank her for her involvement.

This, of course, is about us taking steps to make sure that Australians are prepared for and able to respond to the H5 bird flu, particularly as we continue to see more detections in our wildlife. In the last few weeks, our government has launched the 'H5 bird flu. Know what to do.' national campaign. It's running across television, digital, radio and social media channels, providing Australians with practical information to help them prepare for the threats of the H5 bird flu, simple steps to know the signs of bird flu, to avoid touching sick or dead birds, to report suspected cases and to take precautions to protect pets and backyard poultry. From keeping your aviary and surrounding areas clean to keeping your pets' food and water away from wild birds, there is clear and practical advice from technical experts, and it continues to be available on birdflu.gov.au.

This campaign is, of course, part of our government's more than $270 million bird flu response, a response that has also been supporting our states and territories to roll out the H5 vaccines secured by the Commonwealth. I can advise the House that we've now had over 3,000 H5 vaccines administered to priority wildlife species nationwide. This includes the little penguins in Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT, and soon Western Australia. It also includes the regent honeyeaters in South Australia, orange-bellied parrots in Tasmania and Carnaby's black cockatoos in Western Australia. As I've said before in this place, this is understood to be the globe's largest vaccination effort of its kind. In my home state of Tasmania, wildlife experts also recently began vaccinating the endangered shy albatross, and I'm proud to say that this is again Australia leading the way. This is the first attempt across the globe to actually vaccinate albatrosses against the H5 bird flu.

I'm asked repeatedly about vaccinating mammals. Can I be clear that there have been limited trials undertaken globally. Given there is no approved vaccine for use in mammals in Australia or internationally, this is complex. But I can advise the member for Sturt that our technical experts are monitoring trials underway on Hawaiian monk seals in the United States, and we continue to work with the South Australian government to be able to assess the suitability of this vaccine for use in our unique marine mammals in South Australia.

I do want to reiterate that there remain no detections in our poultry or agriculture systems, and that the risk to human health remains low. I can say we've now had over 700 bird flu events across the country and 60,000 calls to our disease hotline, and I again thank Australians for helping.

Reserve Bank of Australia

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Did the Reserve Bank of Australia make the decision to ban credit card payments to the Australian Taxation Office?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order!

Order! The minister for the minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting or be warned.

I thank the member opposite for his question. I think it's pretty clear from the statements that were made by the RBA. The RBA made the decision to ban surcharges, and the ATO responded.

That doesn't mean they ban credit card payments.

Order! The member for Forrest will leave the chamber under standing order 94a. You've had a very good go today, but enough's enough.

The member for Forrest then left the chamber.

Cybersafety

My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government working to protect Australians from online harms? Why is it particularly important to protect young people from the harm on social media, online games and AI chatbots?

I thank the member for Maribyrnong for her question and for her lifelong commitment to better understanding and to combating the psychological harm that Australian children face each and every day. Mr Speaker, may I add my congratulations to you. Almost two years ago today, parliament came together and voted to give Australian kids a break from the pervasive pool of social media. We called out the harmful and addictive design features that were being used against them—targeted algorithms, doomscrolling, persistent notifications and toxic popularity metres that were stealing their attention for hours every day. I've heard from parents all over Australia who are so relieved that we have delayed access to social media until the age of 16, but they are understandably still worried about how they can protect their kids on other platforms like online games and like AI chatbots.

Parents are calling on the parliament to do more, and they're not alone. Experts and advocates are urging parliament to come together and take the next step in protecting young Australians from online harm by legislating a digital duty of care. A recent report by the National Mental Health Commission found it is not just content but platform design features that are linked to harm. The commission called for greater responsibility on tech providers to create safer digital environments. Headspace welcomed the proposed digital duty of care because the weight of trying to avoid online harms should not just sit with the young person or their family. The digital duty of care recognises that the responsibility should sit with the platforms. The Butterfly Foundation has backed the proposed digital duty of care because online content is an increasingly significant driver of harm for Australians experiencing eating disorders.

Last week, the Alannah & Madeline Foundation wrote to every member of parliament, calling on us all to support the digital duty of care. The foundation did a survey of primary school students across Australia. They were asked: what should the internet be like? Their answers included: 'safe', 'trustworthy', 'truthful', 'respect', 'learning', 'social interaction', 'integrity' and 'responsibility. I think if a few hundred primary school students can work it out, the adults in this place can too. Online safety should not be a political issue. All sides of parliament need to work together to deliver a digital duty of care. There is no reason why we can't work together to get this done.

North Queensland

My question is to the Prime Minister. You're aware that North Queensland's state government is 3,000 kilometres away. Queensland's budget is $70 billion. This is also the amount that will be squandered on a two-week athletic meet called the Olympics. Brisbane has 1.1 million people. North Queensland has one million people. Prime Minister, can a report be drafted on the viability of a North Queensland state, where at present $1,000 million in mining and 1,000 million in irrigated agriculture are both on hold by a government based 3,000 kilometres away?

I thank the member for Kennedy for his question—a question that, I've got to say, was not on my bingo card! The idea of a break-up of the states, including the great state of Queensland, would perhaps see a premier Katter in Far North Queensland, which might or might which might or might not be a good thing. It would weaken the Queensland State of Origin team somewhat, given the magnificent players who've come from places like Cloncurry and Mount Isa. I understand that Queensland is such a big state, which is why I have visited the member for Kennedy on multiple occasions. In Cloncurry I've been to the Mount Isa rodeo with the member for Kennedy. We built the Cloncurry bypass. We're dealing with the challenges with the flood that has impacted Cloncurry—Julia Creek and all these magnificent communities. I've been into some pubs with the member for Kennedy and sat in the wrong seat, as the member for Kennedy would recall. A seven-foot gentleman asked me to move, and I moved very quickly!

But there is certainly a case for making sure Far North Queensland gets its share of resources, particularly infrastructure. That's why I'm very proud of the Einasleigh River Bridge, the upgrade to Karumba Airport, and the visits to Normanton and all those communities that I've had, together obviously with the magnificent work that the member for Leichhardt does in Cairns. I'm not sure where the Torres Strait would fit under the analysis by the member for Kennedy.

But I do want to say, with regard to the Olympics, that one of the things that will happen is that there will be some events throughout regional Queensland, something I've emphasised with Premier Crisafulli. I think the Queensland Olympics will be a great thing for Queensland, for economic activity and for jobs and will make a big difference for Queensland. I know the infrastructure that was built for the Sydney Olympics, like the infrastructure that was built for the Melbourne Olympics, has lasted and has produced an outstanding outcome. And we're working constructively. Last week I had a discussion with Greg Norman, who's the federal representative on the Olympics committee, to make sure it's the best it can be. (Time expired)

I give the call to the member for Banks.

Cybersafety

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations. My question is to the Minister for Education. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to combat bullying in our schools and online? What has been the response?

I thank my friend the big-brained and big-hearted member for Banks for his question. School holidays are over. Kids are back at school in most parts of the country. For some kids, bullying hasn't stopped over the break. That's what the internet means today. And here are a couple of facts that are hard to hear. One in four students tell us that they've been bullied at school. One in two say they've been bullied online. Thirteen per cent tell us that online bullying has involved someone telling them that they should die. Complaints about online bullying to the eSafety Commissioner have increased by 450 per cent. That's the world that our kids are growing up in today, and, the truth is, it's getting worse, not better.

Since we last sat, three weeks ago, more young people have taken their own life here in Australia because of bullying. That's why the new rules that come into force next year are so important. They'll require all schools—Catholic, independent and public schools—to take initial action on bullying complaints within two school days. That involves taking initial action to stop the harm that's occurring; talking to the children that are involved; contacting both sets of parents—the parents of the child that's being bullied and the child that's allegedly doing the bullying; and, in some very serious and extreme situations, contacting the police as well.

But that's not the only thing that we need to do. Because so much of this is happening on the internet, we've got to act here as well, and that's what the Digital Duty of Care Bill does. If a child is being bullied online, it's not just them who can see it. Their friends can see it. Others can see it. Everyone can see it. It can make you feel, if you're a young person and you're seeing all of this online, like you can't escape, like you can't breathe. It can make minutes feel like hours. It can make days seem like forever. And that is when really bad things happen.

That's why this legislation is important. It means that, when this happens, it can be taken down faster. It cuts the time before a removal notice can be issued in half. This includes the latest plague, these new nudify apps—where photos of our kids are cut and cropped and pasted onto naked bodies—all designed to demean our kids, to degrade our kids and to humiliate our kids. I want everyone just to imagine: if that was your child, what would you expect us to do? I reckon the people of Australia would want us to act, to take this filth and this evil stuff down. This isn't about political censorship; it's about protecting our kids.

Banking and Financial Services

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Last Friday, the Treasurer confirmed that he was informed by the ATO, not the RBA, about the credit card ban 'in the lead-up' to the decision. The minister just told the House that you became aware of the decision when it was made public. Why were you, as the minister, not aware of a decision that would harm thousands of small businesses until it was made publicly?

You are conflating two things.

Order! The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, absolutely, will be warned if she continues with that behaviour.

I'll just repeat my answer from last time, but I'll add a bit of clarity to it. The RBA announced their decision to ban surcharges on 31 March of this year, stating that surcharges will be banned from 1 October. On 1 October, the ATO announced their decision that they would not be accepting credit cards, and that's when I found out.

Critical Minerals Industry

My question is to the Minister for Resources. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to grow Australia's critical minerals industry and deliver a Future Made in Australia, and what are the risks?

I want to thank the member for Lingiari for her question. It was a delight to join her, about 130 kilometres outside of Alice Springs, just last week to attend the groundbreaking ceremony for the Arafura Nolans Rare Earths Project. Once operational, the Nolans project will become Australia's first integrated ore-to-oxide rare earths facility; not only mining rare earths but also processing them here as well. It will supply up to about five per cent of the world's demand for rare earths.This is to produce things that go into high-performance magnets that go into EVs and fighter jets and submarines—all the things we need for our national security. And this will produce a remarkable change in global supply chains. Importantly, this Arafura Nolans project is a game changer for the Northern Territory and for Central Australia—600 jobs during constructions, 350 ongoing operational jobs and billions of dollars of investment in industry and local communities.

The Arafura project is a demonstration of how the Albanese government's plan is working to support new critical minerals projects here at home for a future made in Australia. And can I be very clear: this project would not be happening without the leadership of this government and, in particular, this prime minister. Our cornerstone investment through loans of $1.2 billion from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the Critical Minerals Facility of Export Finance Australia, and the National Reconstruction Fund—as well as having the first transaction of our world-leading Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve—took the Arafura Nolans rare earth project to final investment decisions a few weeks ago. I want to thank the team at Arafura, including the CEO, Darryl Cuzzubbo, and the head of the NT, Stewart Forrest, and I commend the Arafura team on this important milestone.

In particular, I want to say a very special thank you to the traditional owners, the Anmatyerr people and the Alyuen people, for their active participation in this really important project, and I was delighted, along with the member for Lingiari, to speak with them extensively last week. This project is not only significant for the economic empowerment of their families and generations of traditional owners in Central Australia; it is of enormous importance to Alice Springs, to the Northern Territory and, indeed, to the whole country. The deep engagement of traditional owners in this really important resources project truly is a gift that they give to the nation but also to the world and to the global supply chain of the products that will be made from the dirt that they have been walking over for tens of thousands of years.

This is a globally significant rare earths project. I thank the traditional owners for all of their deep engagement in it. This is Australia and Australians stepping up to take responsibility to lead on critical minerals and rare earths globally.

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

STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Speaker

Mr Speaker, one of the very few things that there is no political divide on—from every member of the House of Representatives—is our regard for you and the job you have done as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Not always!

He indulges you enough, so just say thank you and move on! I consider, Mr Speaker, that you are the best speaker that I've seen in my time in the House of Representatives. That is to your great credit, and, on the weekend, that was acknowledged in your election as President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Now, that is a body that has been around for 138 years but has never had anyone from this part of the world as its president. And, at a time where democracy is under challenge, which is the truth, where democratic values need to be nurtured, where young people, worryingly, in surveys by the Lowy Institute, for example—the figures on democracy versus authoritarianism are not going in the right direction. Your absolute vigilance and the work that you do, going into schools, right across the parliament, right across the country, to promote democracy, your bringing together of the Youth Parliament for the first time here as well—your commitment to civic education is a good thing that I'm sure you will now spread to other parts of the world.

Your election is a great personal achievement for you, but, importantly, it's a proud moment for our nation as well, for Australia. When Australia has a candidate for a position, we back them. I know that your candidacy had the backing of—I saw people from across the parliament there in Tanzania backing your candidacy, and that is a good thing. Australia is a middle power. But we punch above our weight on the global stage. That's a good thing. Your election provides another forum in which Australia will have a louder voice as a result of your success.

I have no doubt that you will be a champion for democracy at a time when democracy needs all the friends it can get. Congratulations on a personal level to you, Mr Speaker, and thank you as well for the work you have done in promoting Australia. I thought your campaign, with the kangaroos and the paraphernalia, was very well conducted. It showed your campaign internationally was as successful as your campaigns in Oxley have been. I wish you well.

Mr Speaker, I too would like to congratulate you on your election as President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the IPU. The IPU is, of course, the oldest multilateral political organisation in the world, and you are the first Australian to lead this important body in its 138 years. In fact, you are the first, as I understand it, from the Pacific to lead this organisation in 138 years.

It was founded in 1889 and works for peace and cooperation. Importantly, as the Prime Minister has just said, it works to champion the establishment and development of parliamentary democracies around the world. That is a cause that should be championed and must be championed at this time. It's a noble and worthwhile cause, especially at a time when we see, as we've just heard, threats to democracies around the world—threats that we should all be concerned about.

This has, as I understand it, also been a two-year campaign. Many who have come from this side of the chamber, or indeed the other side at times, have played an important role in getting you into this position. We join with the rest of the chamber in congratulating you on this role. You are eminently suited to it. I know you will do a magnificent job and you will do our nation proud in that job. We wish you every success.

I know it's unusual for the Nationals also to comment after the coalition leader has spoken, but I do want to associate the Nationals with the comments made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

It is a great nation, Australia, where the son of a butcher from Brisbane and a nurse and midwife can find himself in this parliament representing the community he loves with an enormous amount of passion. We all knew him when he was just Milton from Oxley, and now he's El Presidente. We look forward to serving you in this place as best we possibly can, Mr Speaker.

But, seriously, Mr Speaker: I have seen you in action on international delegations. You have covered yourself with great respect. The dignity you bring to the office when you represent Australia, and the way you, in a bipartisan way, encourage other members to participate in those delegations, is a credit to you. I'm sure you will do well in your new role as the President of the IPU.

Mr Speaker, I make the point that there are a lot of people over in this corner of the parliament. Mr Speaker, when you decided to become Speaker instead of taking on a senior portfolio, I asked you, 'Why are you doing this?' You said, 'Because I want to make the parliament work.' I think that you've gone a long way to achieving that, and I think future generations will thank you for that.

I don't want to detain the House, but I am deeply honoured by the generous remarks from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and, on behalf of the crossbench, the member for Kennedy. This election is, of course, an honour for the Australian parliament, but, more importantly, it's an opportunity for Australia to say to the world that we promote democracy at a time, as the Leader of the Opposition said, when democracy is facing significant challenges. We are seeing backsliding in democratic countries around the world and the rise of authoritarianism. That's why the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union has never been more important. Democracies don't collapse; they crumble. I want to use this role to give the strongest voice I can to democracy internationally.

I want civics education, particularly the way we do it here in Australia, to help change the conversation across the globe. I want the world to see what we are doing locally, and I want to see the institutions—particularly through civic participation and respect for one another—that make our country so great.

I have never been prouder to stand on the stage in front of thousands of people, in front of every parliament across the globe, and say, 'Australia is the best country in the world.' This victory was long and difficult, but it belongs to the entire parliament. Every member has contributed to this success. The whole parliament had a role to play in this achievement, and I'm deeply grateful for your support that I have received from across every side of this chamber.

The IPU is the world's oldest multilateral organisation. As president, my role is to chair two assemblies for one week per assembly and to help guide the organisation. My commitment is to make the role more accessible and more connected. I want to be much more as a virtual role so that more participants, particularly those in the Pacific family, can participate.

The first person I spoke to about this campaign was the Prime Minister, and without question or hesitation he said it was a team Australia moment. As he always does, he put our country first. At the same time, I've had the privilege of working alongside three leaders of the opposition who have backed this campaign. Their message, every one of them, was the same: if it is good for Australia, it's good for our parliament. I particularly want to thank the former leader of the opposition, the Hon. Sussan Ley, for her insights, encouragement and advice throughout the campaign. I also want to thank the shadow foreign minister, Ted O'Brien; Senators Paul Scarr, Jess Collins, Susan McDonald and Sarah Henderson, for their support; and of course the member for Wannon, the manager, for our regular Wednesday political campaign meetings alongside Ministers Rowland, Rishworth and Madeleine King and the member for Paterson.

This campaign was also contributed to by some of the finest campaigners of the National Party, the members for Capricornia, Riverina, Gippsland, Maranoa, Flynn and Page. I also want to make mention quickly of the outstanding support provided on the ground in Tanzania by the Deputy Speaker, Senator O'Neill, Senator McLachlan, the member for Bennelong and the mighty member for Durack. I thank the crossbench for their support throughout the process, as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, led by the Foreign minister and her office, and the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. Thank you also to the members for Corangamite, Chisholm, Macquarie and Bendigo. My campaign also had a broad coalition and was supported by the former foreign minister Julie Bishop and former speakers Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Smith.

Finally, I acknowledge the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk of the House for their wise counsel, professionalism and support, together with the staff of the interparliamentary relations office and of course my own personal staff, led by Shannon Threlfall-Clarke and Natalie van Dartel. This result demonstrates what we can achieve when Australia works together. Now, for me, it's business as usual. Not much will change. Let's get back to work. I thank the House.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing

In accordance with standing order 105(b), I wish to draw your attention to an overdue question in writing, question 234. On 11 August, I asked the Minister for Health and Ageing critical questions on suicide prevention policy. I still have had no response. Mr Speaker, can I ask you to write to the minister and seek his explanation as to why he has chosen not to answer my question in writing within 60 days?

I shall do so, as the standing order provides.

DOCUMENTS Australian National Audit Office; Presentation

I present the annual report of the Australian National Audit Office for 2025-26.

Document made a parliamentary paper.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report Nos 5 and 6 of 2026-27

I also present the following Auditor-General's audit reports for 2026-27: No. 5, performance audit Artificial intelligence and Medicare benefits integrity: Department of Health, Disability and Ageing; and No. 6, performance audit Effectiveness of the Strategic Commissioning Framework: Australian Public Service Commission.

Documents made parliamentary papers.

DOCUMENTS Presentation

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

BILLS Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026; Second Reading Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Here are a few hard facts. Smoking kills. Smoking kills more than 20,000 Australians a year. That's 66 people every day. There is no safe level of tobacco use. Smoking kills. Vapes are no better than cigarettes and in many instances may be much worse. And, while Australia's national accounts suggest that the purchase of legal tobacco has halved since 2020 and AIHW data shows that the number of smokers in Australia continues to drop to record lows, we know that rises in nicotine residue in wastewater supplies show us that some people who do smoke are increasingly using products with higher nicotine levels—that is, illegal tobacco and vapes, unregulated. Who knows what may be in them. Some vapes have been shown to have the same amount of nicotine as nine entire packets of cigarettes. If big tobacco doesn't care that their product will kill you, imagine how much organised crime cares.

It is estimated that, in 2025, illicit tobacco constituted 80 per cent of the total consumption of tobacco in Australia, an increase of 12 per cent since 2017. The total value of the illicit market is estimated to be between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion. Legal tobacco continues to pose a significant threat to the health of the Australian public. The unregulated illicit tobacco market also poses a significant threat to the Australian public, our health system, our communities and our economy. To be blunt, people die and are dying from smoking every single day, and these criminals are facilitating Australians' deaths.

The problem is that Australia's current regulatory framework with respect to illegal tobacco is outdated. It is not fit for purpose. While criminal syndicates and organisations are getting more and more sophisticated, Australia's current regulatory framework is an attractive proposition for these criminals. It's low risk and high reward. It was designed to target minor revenue infractions, but these are multinational outfits that operate outside and inside Australia. They are a global operation. They are lawyered up. They consider product losses due to Border Force and other regulatory activities to be a cost of doing business. They understand Australia's laws and actions against illicit tobacco inside out.

These criminal organisations and syndicates are motivated by one thing: money—nothing more, nothing less. They don't care about the individuals at the receiving end of their illegal activity. They don't care that over 20,000 Australians die every year as a result of smoking and that a fair number of them are smoking their illegal tobacco products. They don't care that their products don't adhere to any standards. Not only do they not care but it's probably a positive to their business model if their products have additional nicotine in them, making them even more addictive. An addict is a great target market—that's their business model. Currently, internationally, there is a massive oversupply of cheap tobacco, and they can produce cigarettes at an input cost of mere cents.

Organised crime has industrialised and commercialised illicit tobacco at scale purely for their own profit. Our response needs to keep pace with the sophistication of the challenge and the scale of the challenge. But we also need to be clear about what we're tackling here and not undermine our world-class public health measures that have resulted in record low rates of smoking. We are tackling organised crime here. We are not competing in the market with them. We are not enabling legal tobacco to become a more affordable product, as big tobacco would like us to do. Smoking kills, whether it is legal tobacco or illegal tobacco. Smoking kills, and we need to continue our world-leading efforts to help Australians quit tobacco products and vapes and to stop a new generation of smokers and vapers from starting the habit.

This bill is about tackling the organised crime that is profiting from illegal tobacco and all the additional societal issues that come from organised crime operating within the country. We know that this works. Queensland's recent crackdown on illegal tobacco resulted in a 55 per cent increase in sales of legal tobacco—people leaving the illegal market and going back to legal tobacco—but, more importantly, a doubling of the calls to Quitline.

The Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 addresses these deficiencies in Australia's current regulatory framework. It will introduce new offences for the import, possession and distribution of illegal tobacco, including an aggravated offence. Authorities will no longer have to prove criminal intent. Instead, they only need to prove that their suspicion of criminal activity satisfies one of the indicators—for example, non-compliant retail packaging, non-compliant tobacco products, concealing tobacco sales to avoid detection or underselling below market value. And illicit tobacco will be designated a tier 1 prohibited good in line with other goods that are controlled at the border.

This bill will streamline seizure practices because authorities are bogged down by and are spending excessive time on paperwork and the documentation process of individual seizures. It will mean additional licensing for facilitators and intermediaries who maintain illicit tobacco in their storage facilities, freight networks, depots and other supply chain infrastructure while operating under the cloak of legitimacy. Further restrictions will be placed on customs brokers and other licence holders from participating in the supply of illicit tobacco—a positive obligation that will be imposed on them to show that they've taken all necessary measures and met all requirements to avoid facilitating the importation of illicit tobacco. These measures will improve regulatory oversight, tightening our control over the supply chain and enforcement at every point along the distribution trajectory of illicit tobacco.

This bill will also target the criminals themselves. It will ensure that criminals can't profit from their operations and, in the process, will deter potential criminals from engaging in this conduct. It will, for example, allow courts to obtain the necessary documents and other relevant information after the commencement of and during a proceeding or criminal investigation. It will free authorities from the jurisdictional limitations that may currently prevent them from acquiring these documents. It will make changes to the pecuniary penalty order framework. This means that criminals will no longer be able to take the risk of relatively minor fines and penalties when they engage in illegal activity while profiting from their supply of illicit tobacco, which currently is seen by organised crime as a bearable cost of doing business. This measure will comprehensively deprive individuals of the benefits gained from their offending. It will take away the assets of criminal actors—because crime should not and will not pay. This is not a victimless crime. People are literally dying. This bill ensures that total wealth is properly calculated for the purposes of determining unexplained wealth or identifying tainted property during a criminal proceeding. As a result, confiscation procedures and prosecutions will be streamlined, and individuals won't stand to gain from their illegal conduct.

The Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill complements the Albanese Labor government's National Tobacco Strategy 2023 to 2030, which aims to reduce many of these impacts and harms. In 2024, the government committed more than $365 million to tackling the illicit tobacco black market. We established the Illicit Tobacco National Disruption Group—in addition to the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce from 2018—made up of the Australian Border Force, the Australian Federal Police, state and territory authorities, the Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and health and tobacco authorities. This group targets, disrupts and dismantles these crime syndicates and organisations—because what is needed is a whole-of-government approach that includes both traditional and non-traditional agencies to create an environment in which criminals dealing in illicit tobacco cannot and do not have the opportunity to thrive.

That is also why, in our most recent budget, the Albanese Labor government invested $33.5 million in the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce to target the proceeds of illicit tobacco, including $17 million to state and territory law enforcement agencies, because we can see that, where states and territories are cracking down on organised crime and their illicit tobacco products, illicit tobacco reduces; and, where they don't, organised crime runs rife. We will continue to expand the powers of law enforcement and increase penalties and consequences. We know that illicit tobacco is a global market. Because it defies defined borders, it requires a combined response that pre-empts illicit tobacco long before its arrival in Australia, that stops illicit tobacco at the border if and when it does arrive and that continues to relentlessly pursue illicit tobacco once it's in this country. Every checkpoint along the journey needs to be guarded.

But we know that our actions to clamp down on illicit tobacco are working. In 2025-26, more than 2,300 tonnes of illicit tobacco and 13.2 million vapes were seized by the Australian Border Force. That's an increase of 496 per cent in cigarette stick seizures and 232 per cent in illicit tobacco seizures since the previous financial year. These are record levels of seizures. We've seen massive crackdowns across the country, from retail and convenience stores to your local pubs and hairdressers, and we've seen the recent successes in Queensland.

My home state of South Australia has taken a lead on this, with more than 320 shop closures and, as the South Australian government reports, increases to the cost of illicit tobacco, removing the basic rationale for criminals to operate successfully. Smoking rates are coming down, falling to 5.8 per cent among adults in 2025 from 7.7 per cent in 2022-23. Vaping rates have flatlined, and the number of young Australians between the ages of 14 and 17 who have never vaped is fast growing. Vapes were initially sold as a way of getting off smoking, but then they started being sold in colours, flavours and designs that appealed to children. Vapes are not safe. While we don't have 20 years of data to show long-term death rates, we do know that vapes kill now and vapes cause cancer now. Some of them have excessive amounts of nicotine and all sorts of other toxic chemicals. One vape can contain as much nicotine as nine packets of cigarettes, so they are no healthier than cigarettes—or, perhaps better worded, vapes are as toxic and as deadly as cigarettes.

We now know that vapes are a gateway drug to cigarettes. People who vape are five times more likely to start smoking, and just that proportion of the population, by itself, is estimated to cost the health system an extra $180 million per year. So, when big tobacco tries to get vapes legalised and deregulated—and some of those opposite led the charge on this, trying to stop our previous legislation restricting the import and sale of vapes—we have to remember that smoking kills and vapes kill. We need to remember that big tobacco and organised crime are in it for the money. They don't care about the impact on the lives of Australians—our health, our life expectancy—or the impact that this has on our health system. They only care about making money, and addiction is their business model.

This bill is a massive stride forward, but there is so much more to do, and the important thing is that we stick to the path that we know works. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. The coalition will not oppose this bill. We support sensible measures that give the Australian Border Force, the Australian Federal Police and other agencies stronger tools to intercept illegal tobacco, prosecute offenders and confiscate their criminal profits. But this legislation is not a comprehensive solution to Australia's illicit tobacco crisis. Australia's illicit tobacco trade has become a multibillion-dollar organised crime industry. It is linked to extortion, intimidation, firebombings and violence. It undermines public health, deprives Australians of billions of dollars in revenue and damages legitimate small and family businesses.

Convenience stores, newsagencies and service stations are already struggling with higher power bills, insurance premiums, rents, wages and supply costs. They obey the law, pay their taxes, employ local people and support their communities. Yet they are forced to compete with criminal enterprises that pay no excise, ignore packaging and licensing requirements and sell illegal products at a fraction of the lawful price. That is not fair competition. It is a displacement of legitimate businesses by organised crime.

In my electorate of Lyne, an illegal tobacco shop operated two doors down from my electorate office. It was raided, and is now closed. I welcome that action, as do legitimate local retailers. Another one was another two doors down the road. The fact that it could operate so openly illustrates the brazenness with which this trade has spread. These businesses are not hidden in back alleys. They operate in ordinary shopping strips beside retailers doing the right thing. I found another one only yesterday in North Haven. It's very easy to spot them. With the purple and all the windows covered, it's very easy to know that it's an illegal tobacco shop. Every illegal outlet allowed to remain open sends a terrible message to the honest retailer down the road: 'You carry every cost of compliance while the criminal business undercuts you and appears to operate with impunity.'

The scale of this crisis is staggering. The Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner estimated that illicit tobacco represented between 50 and 60 per cent of tobacco sold in Australia in 2024-25. The illicit market is estimated to be worth between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion annually. Estimated excise and customs duty evasion is between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. The Australian Bureau of Statistics found that nicotine consumption increased by almost 40 per cent between 2017 and 2025, with most of that increase occurring after 2021. Legal tobacco sales have collapsed, but nicotine consumption has increased. Too many customers have moved into the illegal market.

This bill contains six schedules addressing different parts of the enforcement framework. Schedule 1 creates new offences for importing, possessing or conveying unlawfully imported tobacco products. It also establishes an aggravated offence for more serious conduct, including offending involving larger quantities. The bill introduces objective and observable circumstances that can establish a reasonable suspicion that tobacco was unlawfully imported. These can include an implausibly low price, non-compliant packaging or health warnings, missing required markings, or an inability to demonstrate a lawful source and supply chain. These changes should make it easier to act against distributors, warehouse operators and retailers dealing in clearly illegal tobacco.

Schedule 2 provides for unlawfully imported tobacco to be prescribed as a tier 1 good under the Customs Act. That recognises that illicit tobacco is no longer simply a revenue compliance issue. It's a high-risk, organised crime commodity causing serious economic and community harm.

Schedule 3 addresses duty refundable tobacco. This includes tobacco supplied to duty-free operators for export or sale to eligible travellers.

Schedule 4 streamlines the seizure, forfeiture and disposal of illegal tobacco. The sheer volume of illegal tobacco being intercepted has imposed a substantial administrative burden on frontline officers. Officers can spend hours processing individual seizures rather than examining cargo or investigating criminal networks. The bill should allow products to be seized and destroyed more efficiently and prevent offenders from misusing administrative claim procedures to delay their disposal.

Schedule 5 strengthens licensing arrangements for customs brokers, depots and licensed warehouses. These provisions recognise that organised crime depends upon access to warehouses, freight networks, customs expertise and apparently legitimate commercial infrastructure.

Schedule 6 amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It strengthens production-order provisions used to obtain documents during investigations, changes pecuniary penalty arrangements to improve the recovery of criminal benefits and clarifies how total wealth is calculated in unexplained-wealth proceedings. These are worthwhile measures.

Confiscating a shipment, though, is not enough. Authorities must be able to identify the people directing the enterprise, follow the money and recover the assets obtained from and through criminal activity. That is why the coalition will not stand in the way of this bill. But these measures are directed primarily at enforcement after illegal tobacco has entered the supply chain. The bill does not confront the price differential making the illicit market so profitable. It does not contain the coalition's proposed $200 million enforcement surge, establish a regulated adult market for alternative nicotine products or fund a comprehensive national education campaign.

Nor does it adequately address the movement of illicit tobacco sales online. An ABC investigation found dozens of websites advertising cheap tobacco and vapes from what appeared to be ordinary online stores. Reporters purchased a carton of illegal cigarettes for $150—around one-third of the equivalent legal price. They paid by bank transfer, communicated through WhatsApp, received an Australia Post tracking number and had the cigarettes delivered within three business days.

The Australian Association of Convenience Stores has warned that Australia Post's network is being exploited to distribute illegal tobacco. Australia Post cannot reasonably inspect every parcel, and responsibility should not fall on local postal workers, delivery drivers or licensed post office operators. Indeed, licensed post office operators have raised concerns about Australia Post's corporate leadership increasingly orientating the business around parcel delivery. If parcel delivery is central to Australia Post's commercial future, its corporate leadership must accept the responsibilities accompanying that strategy. Its leadership has an obligation to ensure its systems and infrastructure are not exploited to help criminal gangs distribute illegal tobacco.

The bill's new conveyance offences apply to corporations as well as individuals. The minister has expressly said that transport and logistics companies may be investigated and prosecuted. However, the bill does not make Australia Post automatically liable when illegal goods are concealed in a parcel, nor does it appear to impose on Australia Post a specific obligation to identify and report suspicious consignments. The government should clarify how the conveyance offences would apply if a transport corporation became aware that its network was being systematically exploited but failed to respond appropriately. Australia Post should be working closely with the ABF, AFP, AUSTRAC, Therapeutic Goods Administration and state police to identify repeat bulk senders, false sender information, suspicious parcel volumes and accounts linked to illegal tobacco websites. We need action against the whole online operation—the website, the messaging account, the payment facility, the warehouse, the sender and the criminal profits.

Organised crime is commodity agnostic. These syndicates do not care whether their profits come from tobacco, vapes, alcohol, drugs, stolen vehicles or extortion. They follow the money. In Victoria, the threats, firebombings, rammings and extortion associated with the tobacco wars are now being seen in attacks on bars, nightclubs, restaurants and liquor businesses. Police raids associated with so-called alcohol wars have uncovered illegal tobacco, cash and weapons. There are also reports of sophisticated criminal syndicates stealing Australian vehicles and sending them offshore in shipping containers. We should not claim without evidence that every one of these crimes is controlled by a single organisation, but networks developed to import and distribute illicit tobacco can use the same warehouses, transport routes, money-laundering arrangements, encrypted communications and criminal facilitators for other commodities.

There is an even more disturbing potential national security dimension. Kazem Hamad, an alleged offshore leader associated with Victoria's illicit tobacco wars, was deported to Iraq and accused of continuing to direct criminal operations affecting Australia. Public reporting has linked criminal intermediaries associated with his network to activity allegedly directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. These serious allegations must be expressed carefully. They do not establish that Iran controls Australia's illicit tobacco trade. They do, however, demonstrate the risk created when violent, well-financed criminal networks become entrenched and are potentially available to foreign state actors. This is therefore an organised crime and border security challenge with potentially broader national security consequences.

That makes recent reports about Australian Border Force deeply concerning. Former senior officers have described the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce as an underresourced operation too focused on seizure numbers and insufficiently equipped to dismantle criminal networks. They have alleged that experienced personnel have left, investigations have been abandoned and intelligence gathering capability is inadequate. The ABF disputes any suggestion that its operational capability has been diminished, but this parliament cannot ignore these warnings. A new offence will not inspect a container. A higher penalty will not conduct surveillance, trace criminal money or prepare a complex prosecution. The powers in this bill must be backed by experienced officers, intelligence capability, modern technology and secure, long-term funding.

The government must also confront the policy settings making this market extraordinarily profitable. In the 2023-24 budget, the Albanese government imposed an additional five per cent tobacco excise increase in each of the three successive years, on top of twice-yearly indexation. The government forecasts an additional $3.3 billion in revenue. Instead, tobacco revenue fell dramatically as consumers moved into the illicit market.

Reducing smoking remains an important public health objective, but responsible government requires examining the real world consequences of policy, nor should we simply blame individual consumers, particularly people struggling with addiction and severe cost-of-living pressures. Responsibility lies with the criminals who are exploiting them and with a government that is refusing to confront the price differential that is sustaining this market. This is where the coalition's policy differs fundamentally from the government's bill.

The bill strengthens powers to pursue offenders within an illicit market that is already deeply entrenched. The coalition proposes to attack the commercial foundations of that market. Our policy includes an 80 per cent reduction in tobacco excise, reducing the excise component of a standard packet of 20 cigarettes from around $30 to approximately $6, with the rate reviewed after two years. The purpose is not to encourage smoking. Smoking is harmful, and we must continue to help Australians quit. The purpose is to collapse the extraordinary price advantage enjoyed by organised crime and return consumers to a lawful regulated market. The coalition would support that reform with a $200 million nationwide law enforcement blitz, delivering more raids, arrests, seizures, investigations, shop closures and border disruption. We would establish a legal, regulated and taxed adult market for nicotine vapes and nicotine pouches, with strong protections for children. We would also invest $60 million in a national education campaign exposing the organised crime behind illicit tobacco and reinforcing the dangers of smoking and nicotine addiction.

The government's bill changes enforcement laws. The coalition's policy combines enforcement, tax reform, regulation, education and demand reduction. The success of this legislation will be measured by its results: whether illegal shops close and stay closed, whether online distribution is disrupted, whether criminal assets are confiscated, whether syndicates are dismantled and whether legitimate Australian businesses can once again compete fairly. Australia must not become a country where obeying the law places a business at a competitive disadvantage. We must stand with our law enforcement officers, licensed post office operators, legitimate retailers and communities threatened by this trade. The coalition supports the practical improvements contained in this bill, but we will continue to press for the comprehensive policy needed to destroy the illicit tobacco business model rather than merely managing the consequences of its continued growth.

I rise to support the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. This bill sends a firm message: Australia's tobacco policy will be set by the government in the public interest, not by criminal syndicates. We will protect the community, back our border and law enforcement agencies, stand with legitimate businesses and support Australians who want to quit smoking. This bill is about keeping Australians safe, protecting our borders and ensuring that organised crime does not profit from addiction, illness and harm in our communities. It updates Commonwealth laws so enforcement agencies can respond to an illicit tobacco market that has changed in scale, in reach and in sophistication.

Cigarettes are the only legally available product that, if used as intended, will more than likely kill you. Decisions about tobacco must be made in the public interest, guided by evidence and focused on saving lives. They must not be dictated by criminal syndicates seeking to profit from addiction. Our public health policy is clear. We want to stop people from taking up smoking, and we want to help smokers quit—for their health and longevity, for their families and for their household budgets. We want fewer children becoming dependent on nicotine, because we know that once you are hooked it's very hard to give up. We want fewer adults living with preventable illness and fewer families losing someone they love before their time. About two-thirds of people who smoke actually want to give it up. That matters. It tells us that smokers are not asking government to make tobacco easier to obtain. They want a fair choice to stop. They deserve practical, evidence based support and a lawful market that does not undermine their efforts through cheap, unregulated products sold by criminal networks.

The latest evidence from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that Australia has made real progress. In 2025, 5.6 per cent of people aged 14 and over smoked daily, down from 8.3 per cent in 2022-23 and 19 per cent in 2001. Among adults, the daily smoking rate fell to a record low of 5.8 per cent. Daily vaping has stabilised, although nicotine use amongst young people remains a serious concern. These are hard won public health gains, and we must protect them. But national progress can hide local inequality. AIHW data shows that in 2022-23 11 per cent of Tasmanians aged 14 and over smoked daily compared with 8.3 per cent nationally. The AIHW also reports that people living in the most disadvantaged areas were 3.3 times as likely to smoke daily as people in the most advantaged areas. That evidence is highly relevant to Braddon. My electorate includes regional, rural and remote communities where disadvantage, distance and access to services shape health outcomes and tobacco harm remains a serious local issue.

Smoking contributes to cancers, heart disease, stroke and chronic lung conditions. Second-hand smoke also harms adults and children, while exposure during pregnancy can affect both the pregnant woman and the baby. The financial burden of smoking is huge. AIHW reports that the estimated social cost of tobacco in 2020-21 was $155.4 billion and was projected to reach $159.7 billion in 2022-23. Those costs include premature death, illness and the provision of health care. At the household level, smoking also takes money away from groceries, power bills, rent, school costs and the everyday things that matter to families. AIHW data reinforce that cost and health are powerful reasons for smokers to change. In 2022-23, 53 per cent of smokers who tried to quit or change their smoking behaviour said tobacco costs too much, while 45 per cent said it was affecting their health or fitness. That is why support to quit and firm regulation and enforcement belong together.

A criminal market that sells cheaper illicit tobacco works directly against the choices that many smokers are trying really hard to make. The sale of illicit tobacco is not a harmless bargain or a victimless crime. A global surplus of extremely cheap tobacco is being exploited by transnational organised crime, which targets profitable markets regardless of public health laws. The trade undermines tobacco control measures, deprives the community of revenue, damages legitimate businesses and gives criminal groups money to fund further offending. The violence associated with the illegal trade, including threats, intimidation, arson and other offending, is a danger to workers, to small businesses and to our local communities. Every illicit pack of cigarettes sold strengthens a criminal business model. It exposes consumers to unregulated products and undercuts responsible retailers who follow the law, pay their taxes and look after their staff.

Australia's long-term fall in smoking did not happen by accident. It came through sustained action, including education, restrictions on advertising, smoke-free environments, plain packaging, health warnings and support to quit. Importantly, it also came from a tobacco excise, which acted to discourage people from taking up smoking and encourage them to give up. This bill is the next step in the government's crackdown, building on the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Act 2026. It modernises a customs framework that has not kept pace with the scale and sophistication of today's market. Criminal operators exploit complex supply chains, false documentation, warehouses, freight routes and distance from the border. The law must address conduct at every stage, from importation to possession, transport, storage and sale.

This bill creates new offences for importing, possessing or conveying illicit tobacco. Existing offences can require prosecutors to prove knowledge of the duty framework and an intention to defraud government revenue. Organised criminals have adapted by separating people further down the supply chain from the original importation. The new framework focuses more directly on the unlawful conduct and the objective circumstances surrounding it. Observable indicators will help establish reasonable suspicion. These include noncompliant packaging or products, concealment, missing import paperwork and a sale price below the combined excise and GST. That gives the Australian Border Force and state and territory police practical, evidence based grounds to act without having to reconstruct every hidden step in a criminal supply chain. The offences can apply to individuals and corporations, including retailers, distributors, warehouses and transport businesses that become involved in the trade.

The bill also closes a gap involving duty-refundable tobacco supplied to duty-free operators. It will keep that tobacco under customs control until it is exported or lawfully sold to an eligible traveller, reducing the risk that products bought at duty-free prices are then diverted back into the black market. For responsible duty-free operators, this largely formalises existing expectations rather than creating unnecessary new burdens.

Seizure and disposal processes will also be streamlined. Border officers are dealing with unprecedented volumes of illicit tobacco, yet existing procedures can require hours of paperwork for individual seizures. Faster processes will free frontline officers to focus on stopping tobacco, drugs, weapons and other dangerous goods.

The licensing framework for depots, warehouses and customs brokers will be strengthened as well. Licence holders will be required not to facilitate prohibited tobacco activity and to take reasonable steps to prevent it within their operations. These businesses occupy trusted positions in the movement of goods across our border. Stronger integrity settings protect reasonable operators while making it harder for criminal groups to hide behind legitimate supply chain infrastructure.

The second major part of the bill strengthens the Proceeds of Crime Act. Prosecution and seizure matter, but organised crime is driven by profit. Law enforcement must be able to restrain assets and recover the cash, property and other benefits generated by offending. The bill clarifies financial penalty orders, strengthens processes across jurisdictions and improves the calculation of unexplained wealth. It also makes clear that fines and penalties are not expenses criminals can deduct from their unlawful gains.

Together, these measures shift illicit tobacco away from the old calculation of high profit and low risk. They give border and law enforcement agencies clearer tools to prosecute offenders, secure and destroy unlawful products, protect the integrity of the supply chain and strip criminal groups of the rewards that they seek. They also support a coordinated national response, because these networks do not respect state borders or administrative boundaries.

For communities in Braddon, this is not an abstract debate. People expect governments to uphold the law, protect honest businesses and keep criminal violence out of our towns. Retail workers should not face intimidation, and a legitimate shop should not lose trade to an operator selling illegal products without regard for tax, product controls or community safety. The Commonwealth's strong border laws must be matched by effective postborder action to close unlawful retail outlets.

Many people began smoking when they were young, when social attitudes were different or before today's risks were as widely understood. Our job is to make quitting easier, reduce barriers to support and prevent criminals from exploiting dependence. That means accessible cessation services, trusted advice from health professionals and support that works for our regional communities. It means recognising that people may make several attempts before they quit for good. Every attempt should be encouraged because every day without smoking benefits health and reduces those household costs. Our approach must continue to put health first—helping people quit, preventing young people from taking up smoking and protecting families from the harms and costs of tobacco use. We cannot allow illicit sellers to undo that work by placing cheap, unregulated products within easy reach or by presenting smoking as normal, harmless or consequence free.

There is also a question of fairness. Australians who obey the law should not carry the cost while criminal operators pocket the proceeds. Responsible retailers should not be disadvantaged for meeting their obligations. Taxpayers should not be left to fund the health and enforcement consequences while organised crime takes the profit. Strong enforcement and strong public health policy are not competing ideas. They reinforce one another. Enforcement protects the measures that help drive smoking rates down. Public health action reduces demand, supports people to quit and prevents a new generation from becoming dependent. Together, they reduce harm and weaken the market on organised crime.

For someone who quits, the benefits can be deeply personal—more years with family, better breathing and fitness, less fear about future illness and more money available each week. For the wider community every successful quit means less preventative disease, less pressure on health services and a stronger, healthier workforce. That is the positive purpose behind this legislation. It is not simply about punishment. It is about protecting the policy settings that help people live longer and healthier lives. It is about ensuring that criminal enterprises cannot profit by frustrating the efforts of Australians who want to quit. We can be proud that smoking rates have fallen while being honest that the work is not finished. In Braddon and across Tasmania we must keep investing in prevention, trusted health advice and practical quitting support. We must also ensure that the law keeps pace with those who would undermine that effort for profit. I commend the bill to the House.

The Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 is an important piece of legislation because this is an important conversation about illicit tobacco. There would not be any community across our country that has not been impacted by the scourge of illicit tobacco, its links to organised crime and, particularly in Victoria, the firebombings and associated crimes as syndicates have fought for control of the illicit tobacco market. In my community, the innocent business owners of Seville were impacted when an illegal tobacconist was firebombed a few years ago. It's taken many years for those businesses to get back up and running, and it's good to see that they're up and running. That is what we are talking about here: innocent people and innocent businesses impacted because of illegal crime and illegal actions by organised crime.

Let's understand the scale of the problem and how much it has grown in the last few years, in particular in the last decade. In 2017, about 12 per cent of all cigarettes sold were illicit. As we come to 2025, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the government's own numbers, 80 per cent of all tobacco consumed in Australia was illicit. There are many Australians who seek to do the right thing but realise that they can't because the price difference between an illicit tobacco cigarette and a legal tobacco cigarette is so significant, and this is driven by the excise that the government puts onto cigarettes. Now, because of this growth to 80 per cent, the illicit tobacco market in 2024-25 was estimated to be $6.9 billion. That's $6.9 billion of revenue and profit going to organised crime in this country to do things like fund terrorism, fund other illegal drugs and fund other criminal behaviour. That is the reality of what we are talking about.

It was interesting that the member for Braddon said, 'Organised crime is driven by profit.' The member for Braddon is correct. If the member for Braddon acknowledges that growth and acknowledges that organised crime is driven by profit, the logical next step is to take away the profit from organised crime. How do you do that? You reduce the excise and take away the differential between legal and illegal cigarettes. That's what the coalition proposes, because the coalition has recognised that this is a significant issue. It's something we've been working on for a long time. Angus Taylor, when he became the leader in February, created the Coalition Illicit Tobacco Taskforce, led by the member for Monash, Mary Aldred, and Senator Richard Colbeck, to do the work to get the settings right and crush this organised crime network, protect Australians and make sure that they are safe in their communities. The member for Monash and Senator Colbeck did a lot of great work to engage with stakeholders and get across the detail. They understood what needed to be done. That's why the coalition plan will work—because we've done the work to make sure that it's there. We will reduce the excise by 80 per cent. We will take away the profits from organised crime. As the member for Braddon said, we will take away their profits. We will also invest another $200 million into enforcement to squeeze them at both ends—squeeze their profits, confiscate their illicit tobacco and lock them up. This is a multitargeted approach that was six months in the making, because that's what good policy takes. It takes time and effort to get it right, and the coalition have got it right, led by the member for Monash and Senator Colbeck under the leadership of the opposition leader, Angus Taylor. He knew this was a big issue.

But what do we see from the government? We see two bills rushed through the parliament in the last month, conveniently after the coalition announced their illicit tobacco policy. They are two bills that we support because something is better than nothing, but they don't go to the heart of undermining the organised crime model. Let's also understand the flow-on impacts of this business model, with these stores and vapes. Let's be serious. Not one Australian actually thinks that the government's plan to sell vapes through pharmacies is working. Is there one Australian walking into a pharmacist to say, 'Can I order my vapes, please—can I pay for my vapes?' No, they're walking into illicit tobacco stores to buy their vapes there. Do we really think that these illicit tobacco stores that are knowingly breaking the law see a child that's 13 or 14 or 15 or 12 walking into the store and say, 'There's a 12-year-old; I better not sell them a vape or a cigarette'? Of course not. Of course they are going to sell those vapes and those illicit tobacco products to those young children, because they do not care about the law. But we have to put up with sanctimonious lectures from the Minister for Health and Ageing, pretending that the government have solved the vaping issue in our schools and with our young people because they gave the responsibility to pharmacists. Let's remember that, when the minister for health and the Prime Minister gave vape sales to pharmacies, they didn't consult with pharmacists. Their original plan was for it to be through GPs, and they backflipped and changed to do a deal with the Greens to get it through the parliament. Pharmacists don't want to sell vapes. I talk to my local pharmacists all the time. They're there to help people. They're there to look after their health, not to sell them vapes.

But this is the world we live in under the Albanese Labor government. It's all about headlines, all about spin and all about pretending that they do the right thing, but they're not actually making a difference. It's worse than that. They are not only not making a difference; they are making it worse. They are actively making it worse. But the government have finally wised up because the coalition have led this conversation. In question time, after the coalition announced their policy, the Prime Minister was asked repeatedly about the excise and whether he would confirm that he was not going to make a change, and this prime minister refused to answer. Literally, question after question, he wouldn't answer. He handballed it to the Treasurer. He handballed it to the minister for health. At one stage we thought we were having an audition for the next prime minister. This prime minister didn't have the courage to stand up and defend his own policy. He let his ministers do that, and he now lets his backbenchers stand up and regurgitate talking points, knowing that this prime minister is going to flip. He's going to flip and he's going to change on the excise because, in his heart of hearts, he knows that the excise system is broken.

But we'll hear some more speeches from those opposite pretending. I know they're well meaning. I genuinely sometimes feel sorry for Labor backbenchers that they have to regurgitate the talking points knowing that they're wrong. We've had some of them speak out with a little bit of background. They didn't put their names to it, but we had one talk about how the Minister for Small Business is a terrible small-business minister and doesn't know what they're doing. We had multiple backbenchers talk out, criticising the Treasurer, saying that he has been a disaster and has failed multiple times with his budget. I wonder how long it will be before we get an unnamed backbencher starting to criticise the Prime Minister and the minister for health because of this failed policy. That is what we're going to see when they flip and those opposite will have to come in here and talk about how they got it wrong and how, suddenly, cutting the excise is the right thing to do. That is the joy of being a member of the government: you've got to follow what the Prime Minister says.

But this issue is building, and, particularly as a Victorian, this issue does not stop with illicit tobacco. We need to cut the excise, put money into enforcement and crush these organised crime gangs because this issue has now moved to alcohol. In Victoria, because of illicit tobacco and illicit alcohol and a weak Labor government under Ben Carroll that has refused to hold criminals to account, we have seen firebombings of hospitality venues and kidnappings of hospitality operators. Why has this happened? Because there is now a market for illicit alcohol, because, again, the differential between the excise on alcohol and illegal alcohol is so significant. The scary part for Victorians and for every other Australian, when it comes to illicit alcohol, is that the firebombings, the kidnappings and the beatings have happened quicker than anyone expected, and the reason is obvious and straightforward. The organised crime organisations already have the business model. They already have the networks in place. They already have the young people that are willing to take the money to commit these crimes, knowing that even if they get caught, under Ben Carroll and the Labor government in Victoria, they'll get a slap on the wrist and be let out on bail so they can go about their business. That is why we have seen crime out of control in Victoria, because of a weak Labor government, fuelled and funded by organised crime, fuelled and funded by illicit tobacco and now fuelled and funded by illicit alcohol.

That is why we need to act. That is why something needs to change, because these criminals are getting more brazen. They have more resources than ever and, of course, they're not going to walk away without a fight. Six point nine billion, and the government think tweaking around the edges and increasing penalties by even a little bit is going to make a difference? It is absolutely not. Once you break their business model, every time you confiscate illicit tobacco it hurts them so much more, because it impacts their profit. That is what you need to do. You need to understand the root cause.

For 4½ years the Australian people have had to put up with a government and a prime minister who is an expert at political spin and an expert at political optics, who says one thing but delivers another for the Australian people, and this bill and the one before it are two classic examples of this. Let's be clear: these bills are being introduced into this House only because of the policy and the work of the coalition to lead the conversation on illicit tobacco. But these bills alone will not make a difference, not when you are dealing with $6.9 billion that funds other illegal activity. It funds organised crime organisations to pay young people to steal cars, to take those cars to the port and to send them to black markets in the Middle East. In Australia, 69 per cent of all car thefts happen in Victoria—again, because you've got a government weak on crime but fuelled and funded by the profits made by illicit tobacco.

As a coalition we want to keep Australians safe, we want to protect our way of life and we want to make sure that we have a strong economy. But that only happens if criminals are held to account and if we crush the organised crime networks in Victoria and across the country, and that starts with having the courage to say the current system is not working. We need to break the model, and we need to arrest these criminals and confiscate their goods. If illicit tobacco went from 12 per cent in 2017 to 80 per cent in 2025, in a couple of years there will be no legal tobacco products left. It will all be run by organised crime, and that will fuel more violence in all of our communities.

I rise to speak in strong support of the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. This bill is the next vital step in the Albanese Labor government's systematic crackdown on organised crime syndicates that have, for too long, sought to operate in the shadows of our economy and have cast a dangerous pall over our communities. For years the illicit tobacco trade was treated as a victimless tax dodge. The reality on the ground in our suburbs, however, tells a more sinister story. What we are witnessing is an organised crime crisis that threatens community safety, undermines legitimate small businesses and targets our children. The Albanese Labor government will never surrender our nation's public health policy to criminal syndicates or big tobacco, whose entire business model relies on hooking a new generation on nicotine.

Illicit tobacco is a global issue. Across the world, regardless of local tax rates, countries are battling illicit cartels. A packet of 20 cigarettes can be produced in South-East Asia for as little as 28c. Smuggled past our borders, those same cigarettes sell for $7 or even $8 a pack on the black market. The massive profit margins build a multibillion-dollar criminal war chest. And that money does not stay in tobacco. It funds illicit drug imports, cyber scams that rob our seniors and violent turf wars that put our neighbourhoods at risk. Rather than waving the white flag, our government has committed over $365 million since 2024 to combat illegal tobacco before it arrives at the border and across our communities. This bill amends the Customs Act 1901 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to close legal loopholes, overhaul seizure rules, restore customs control and strip the profits straight out of the criminals' hands.

As member for Bullwinkel, I see these impacts firsthand. My electorate spans from the Perth Hills to the growing suburbs in the valley, home to hundreds of family run newsagents, convenience stores and service station operators. These are small business owners that do the right thing every day. They pay their taxes. They enforce strict age checks and support the local economy. When an illegal pop-up shop opens up down the road selling unregulated chop-chop and vapes at pocket money prices, it's not competition; it's economic sabotage. It draws intimidation, violence and criminal networks into our community shopping strips.

This issue is also deeply personal to me. As a nurse, I have seen the devastating end-stage consequences of tobacco use up close. I have held the hands of patients gasping for air, suffering through terminal emphysema and lung cancer. I have sat with families navigating the heartbreak of an illness that was entirely preventable. In clinical care, you fight to save lives one person at a time. But in this parliament, as legislators, we have the ability and responsibility to protect millions.

Smoking remains one of the leading causes of preventable disease in Australia. It kills 66 Australians every single day. Two in three long-term smokers will die of a smoking related illness, and tobacco accounts for 20 per cent of our cancer burden. Speaker, I remember—maybe you do too; maybe you're too young—when people smoked freely on buses, in aeroplanes and in offices, but we have come too far over the past three decades to let criminal syndicates torch that progress for a quick buck.

Some in the public debate have lost sight of Australia's extraordinary achievements in reducing smoking rates to among the lowest in the developed world. The latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data proves our policies are delivering results. Daily smoking among adults aged 18 and over has dropped to a historic low of 5.8 per cent, well below our 10 per cent target, representing 500,000 fewer daily smokers than just three years ago—half a million. For Australians aged 14 and over, daily smoking sits at 5.6 per cent. And after years of alarming increases, daily vaping has stabilised at 3.6 per cent, while overall current vape use has fallen from seven per cent to six per cent. These aren't just statistics; they represent the hospital beds spared and lives saved. But, as the Australian Council of Smoking CEO, Laura Hunter, pointed out, when a product that kills two in three long-term users is still sold across tens of thousands of retail outlets nationwide, it normalises supply and creates avenues for criminals to exploit it. That's why our enforcement must be unrelenting.

This government is backing our frontline agencies with unprecedented funding with $188.5 million in 2024-25 for the Australian Border Force to bolster interdiction; $156.7 million in 2025-26 to strengthen national compliance, including $49 million to expand the AFP led Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce; and $20.3 million in 2026-27 to support state and territory compliance, fund storage and disposal and monitor consumption trends.

We established the National Disruption Group led by the ABF, uniting Commonwealth, state and territory agencies against the entire supply chain. The results are record breaking. Pre border, working with international partners between December 2025 and March 2026, we stopped over 35.6 million cigarette sticks, 257 kilos of loose-leaf tobacco and half a million vapes before they ever reached our shores. At the border, in the 2025-26 year, the ABF seized over 2,300 tonnes of illicit tobacco and 13.2 million vaping devices. That is a staggering 496 per cent increase in cigarette stick seizures and a 232 per cent surge in domestic seizures. Under Operation PRINTWALL alone, the ABF intercepted more than a kiloton of tobacco in just four months.

There's also domestic confiscation. The AFP led taskforce has restrained over $47.5 million in criminal assets. AUSTRAC intelligence has triggered more than 700 suspicious matters reports, resulting in over a thousand illicit tobacco banking profiles being exited. The Multi Agency Strike Team has dismantled two major syndicates, charging seven individuals and seizing over 245,000 vapes and 60,000 nicotine pouches valued at over $12 million.

But the Commonwealth government cannot do this alone. State and territory compliance teams are also needed. The state and territory compliance teams have already shut down over a thousand illicit shops. In South Australia, closing more than 320 stores has driven up black market prices, altering the risk-reward equation for criminals. In Queensland, regional blitzes targeting 100 per cent of illicit outlets have collapsed local black markets and driven consumers back to legal channels. I also want to commend the work being done in Western Australia, my home state, by the Cook Labor government. Premier Roger Cook and health minister Meredith Hammat introduced nation-leading laws with penalties of up to $21 million for corporations, 15-year jail sentences and 12-month closure orders. Crucially, jurisdictions must back these powers with strong landlord penalties. If a commercial property owner knowingly leases a shopfront to an illicit tobacco operation targeting local kids, they are complicit in that enterprise, and we must shut those doors and keep them locked.

This bill modernises the Customs Act 1901 to remove outdated procedural hurdles. These reforms were developed in deep consultation with Health, Treasury, the ATO, the Attorney-General's Department, the CDPP and the AFP. The bill modernises offence provisions under part 13. Organised syndicates exploit the system using complex freight chains and front companies to mask intent. This bill introduces offences based on reasonable suspicion that goods were unlawfully imported or that importation would defraud the revenue. It also facilitates prescribing tobacco as a tier 1 good, unlocking serious penalties of up to 10 years. This bill restores customs control over duty-refundable tobacco. It overhauls seizure, notification and disposal provisions because currently syndicates use lengthy appeal windows and spurious return claims to tie up seized goods in Commonwealth warehouses at immense public expense. This bill introduces alternative notification methods, including direct, bulk and electronic notices, and prevents claims for the return of specific illicit tobacco seized under prescribed powers, providing immediate forfeiture and swift destruction. Fourthly, we are securing logistics supply chains. This bill establishes statutory licence conditions for custom brokers, depots and warehouses handling tobacco. We're expanding the remit of the National Customs Broker Licensing Advisory Committee to cover depots and warehouses, renaming it to the National Customs Licensing Advisory Committee.

Intercepting cargo at the port is only half the battle. If penalties are treated merely as operating expenses, cartels will simply factor them into their bottom line. This bill amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It hits production orders by increasing penalties for destroying or tampering with documents. It also hits pecuniary penalty orders and unexplained wealth. We're streamlining the definition of total wealth so traced assets originating from a single source are not counted redundantly, ensuring faster civil confiscation of unexplained criminal wealth.

The contrast with the opposition could not be more stark. What they're proposing—to slash tobacco excise by 80 per cent, when they have offered no economic modelling and no health analysis—we know would be a disaster. It would strip billions from public services, flood hospital wards with preventable diseases and drive smoking rates up. Their proposal would destroy 20 years of bipartisan health policy, and, as a nurse, I can't take it. When the coalition was in government, they increased tobacco excise by over 215 per cent without investing that revenue back into public health.

Vapes are not harmless, nicotine is not harmless and vapes are an on-ramp to addiction. This bill is about the kinds of communities that we choose to build. Do we accept a status quo where organised cartels operate brazen storefronts down the street from our schools, or do we stand up for lawful retailers, back our border officers and protect the health of our children? The Albanese Labor government chooses community health and the rule of law. This legislation modernises our border enforcement, closes regulatory gaps, accelerates the destruction of seized contraband and dismantles the financial empires of organised crime syndicates. I commend the bill to the House.

At the start, I move an amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Kooyong, as circulated in my name:

That all words after "the" (first occurring) be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"House, whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, calls on the Government to immediately reduce the tobacco excise by 75 per cent to encourage consumers to move back to legal products, smash the black market and reduce the rampant organised crime which is now widespread in tobacco retailing".

I'm sure the member for Farrer will second it—I hope!—in a short period of time.

It's pretty simple economics. If you reduce the price of something, you will have more people buy it. If you increase the price of something, it becomes unaffordable for people. It's a very fundamental design of economics. Whether it was Marshall, Keynes or Friedman, they were all pretty keen on the idea. It works pretty well.

What we have with cigarettes is an issue. You have an addiction. Cigarettes are addictive. Nicotine is very addictive. You have very much a static market there. You have a demand, to be quite frank, that is pretty constant. The elasticity in that is to where they buy them from.

There are a couple of unfortunate things about cigarettes. One is they kill you. You die if you smoke cigarettes. Sometimes you'll die quickly; sometimes it'll take longer. But, if you keep smoking, smoking will kill you—unless something else kills you first.

If you're going to die, it'd probably be better to die with a regulated product than an unregulated product. To have more people smoke a regulated product, we have to reduce the price. It is a reality that we have legal cigarettes for about $55 a packet, or something like that, and illegal ones—we all know, because they're everywhere; they're ubiquitous—are about $15 a packet. So people are making an economic choice. They are buying the illegal ones and, by so doing, sponsoring the mafia.

Who is actually missing out? Well, it's the government. A couple of years ago, there was about $12 billion, I think—it might have been a bit more—in excise revenue. Last year, I think we got a bit better than $4 billion. Where's that money going? I can tell you where it's going. It's going to the same group that has been burning down shops and blowing people up and shooting up places. It's pretty violent where the cigarettes are coming from.

If we want to take control—well, we're never going to get rid of it completely, but if you want to have some semblance of it and get it back into orbit, you have to bring the price of the legal cigarettes back into an orbit where the illegal ones are. Then people will probably pay a little bit of a premium because they'll want to know more about the regular cigarettes that are killing them, because you have no idea what you're getting in a packet of unregulated cigarettes. If they're going to bring them in illegally, they're probably not too worried about your health or about quality control. This is something that we've got to deal with.

Here's another interesting thing. To be quite frank, you're ripping people off with a product that's killing them: cigarettes. You're ripping people off because, after you've said it's evil, the biggest commercial beneficiary of cigarettes is the government. The government says, 'Smoking's evil. You shouldn't do it. But, by the way, we're going to take most of the money from it.' Who smokes? Unfortunately, it's poor people overwhelmingly. The people who can least afford it are the ones who smoke. So the government is getting a benefit from the poorest people in society. That is wrong on a whole range of levels.

What we in One Nation are asking for is a reduction of 75 per cent in the excise. This, as stated in the actual amendment, will encourage consumers back to the legal products. We've seen in other places such as Canada that this works. We're getting some mixed news that's going around out there. People are saying, 'They've increased the policing and it's brought down the consumption.' The only way, ultimately, you can check that is by the analysis of sewerage and things like that, because you can pick up nicotine levels. Some of the other studies say that it's pretty constant at about one in 10 people smoking, and that's not surprising because it's addictive.

One of the issues we have with illegal cigarettes, of course, is that, when the people who bring in the illegal cigarettes are not riding Harley-Davidsons and going to chapters of their clubs, they're bringing in other things, such as methamphetamines, heroin and a whole list of drugs that are very, very bad for you. They're much worse than cigarettes. Cigarettes will kill you, but if you're having a cigarette while driving down the road, it shouldn't really affect your capacity to drive; however, if you're on methamphetamines or even marijuana, it's probably best that you don't drive.

There is vastly more of an issue with illegal cigarettes, which is that they are being used to develop a wider drug market. There's a massive profit to be made in illegal cigarettes. One of the issues is the monitoring, and I'm sure the member for Farrer, who is vastly more across this than me, will go further into it. Let's just say our capacity to monitor the ports is not as good as it should be, so you have many containers—the vast majority—that are not inspected. If you can get a fair few cigarettes in one container, or even in a part of, there's a big profit to be made.

What we are trying to do is bring economic sanity back into this issue of a product that has a similar product that is less than a third of its price and of the thinking that people are going to buy the legal one. If you want to get a real insight into how this whole process of dealing with illegal cigarettes is going, you should go to a shop that sells legal cigarettes. They will give you a very clear insight into what's happened to their client base. Their client base has basically walked out the door. In this parliament, where we talk in riddles, let's remove one riddle and ask: how often now, when you see someone smoking cigarettes, do you see that there are no real health warnings on the packaging because they don't come from Australia? They're illegal. In fact, I reckon it's sometimes hard to find someone smoking legal cigarettes, and that shows what a failure in policy this is.

One Nation came up with this policy, and, like everything, it took merely a period of less than 24 hours and—God bless them—the coalition followed our policy, and that was good. They are following our policies. At times they're following our lines. They're now calling the people on the other side 'socialists', as they are. Even though there are no labourers on the frontbench of the Labor Party, there are socialists, ex-student unionists, who have a big issue about small things. But within another 24 hours, the Premier of New South Wales also said what a great idea One Nation's policy is. Now, there's nothing remarkable about that because the policy is just common sense. It's just the most obvious thing to do.

There are also other parts. People who are addicted to nicotine can find other ways to get nicotine. There are patches, but there are also forms of chewing tobacco, forms of pouches—I don't even know what they call them, but they put them in their lip and walk around with them.

It's a plug.

What do they call them?

A plug.

A plug—there you go. Now you're seeing more of them and they're also illegal. We could get some common sense about this, maybe put this one through the PBO. That'd be a good one. Put this one through the PBO and ask this very simple question: if we reduce the price of legal cigarettes by reducing the excise, will we sell more legal cigarettes? It shouldn't take the PBO too long to get to an answer. Then ask this: if the government sells more legal cigarettes, will the government get more excise revenue? And that shouldn't take the PBO too long to work out either. I think they are two very quick questions. They will be able to work out that you're vastly better off if you reduce the price of a product if you are desirous of the idea of wanting to sell more of them.

Ultimately, how do we actually stop people smoking cigarettes? There's no argument that that would be great. Well, the first thing is you can't just order people to stop, and you can't just make it so that you build it on a financial rock, because all people do is go to the illegal product. You have to continue to do it with an education campaign, continue to do it with good role models, continue to do it with a process of basically just appealing to their common sense of trying to look after their own body and their own health. I used to smoke—very naughty boy. I had my first cigarette when I was in sixth class, so it didn't take me long to get off them—about 30 or 40 years. But it's a tough game. Through the whole process, I think we have done a good job.

In essence, now there's a lot more of a health-conscious vibe going through schools. It's helping the reduction of alcohol consumption as well. You find that there are a lot of people growing up now who just don't drink, and you can see that when talking to some of the some of the companies that produce wine. They say they're pulling out grapes, pulling out vines. I ask: why? They say it is because a lot of people just don't drink anymore. So there is success.

Where could we get the money to run the health programs, because you always have to find your offset? Where would we get the money to run the programs to encourage people not to smoke? Well, you could get it from the excise that you would attain from reducing the price of cigarettes. The mechanisms of starting smoking are not so much price; the mechanisms of continuing smoking and the product you buy are very much determined by price. People start smoking not because it's cheap but because they think it is a scene. It's a form of rebellion. It's almost an iconography that they want to display. It's a statement about their independence. It's a range of things, but it's never really price. But once you hooked, by gosh, it's price that is the big determinant of the product you are buying.

In closing, I would say that this is just so self-evident. It's just right there in front of us. I know that the government will decide to continue on this path of finding the poorest people in Australia, charging them more and then complaining about the growth of the mafia market. Let's try and stop it. This is self-evident. I leave it to the House.

Is the amendment seconded?

I'd like to second the motion and reserve my right to speak on the motion.

Australians should be proud of how far we have come in reducing smoking rates over the past two decades. We've seen a significant decrease in the number of people smoking, and that's absolutely a good thing. It's good for the health and wellbeing of Australians and it's good for our health system. But organised criminals are threatening our progress. These criminals are exploiting the illicit tobacco industry and making huge profits from it, putting public health and legitimate businesses at risk across the nation.

That's why this bill is so important. The Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 strengthens the Commonwealth's enforcement powers and makes it harder for criminals to profit from illegal tobacco. For communities like mine across the Bellarine, Surf Coast and the broader Geelong region, this is about protecting young people and also backing local businesses and making sure organised crime cannot operate above the law.

The bill would create new offences relating to importing, possessing and conveying illicit tobacco. These offences will give authorities better ways to address unlawful activity across the supply chain. The bill also recognises that investigators need to be able to act on the evidence available to them because in so many instances there are practical indicators that can raise reasonable suspicion that tobacco is being sold unlawfully. These include products with non-compliant packaging, tobacco concealed to avoid detection, missing import documentation and tobacco being sold for less than the excise and the GST that would ordinarily apply. As part of this bill price alone will not establish every offence and the circumstances of each case will matter, but, where tobacco is being sold at a price that could not cover costs, authorities should be able to ask where it came from and whether the law has been broken. This is a pragmatic, practical approach to enforcement. It recognises the way illicit tobacco is sold and distributed, rather than leaving officers to rely on evidence that can be difficult to obtain in a complex investigation.

The legislation also strengthens consequences for serious offending and makes absolutely clear that companies can be held accountable where the relevant offences apply. A business structure should not provide protection for people who use it to facilitate illegal trade. That's a simple principle, but it's so important for local retailers. Business owners who follow the rules and run a legitimate business should not be undercut by a competitor selling illicit tobacco at a price that lawful businesses cannot match. Those operators are not competing on a level playing field. They are avoiding obligations that legitimate businesses meet every day, and they can use the resulting profits to expand their operations. That is unfair to local businesses and damaging to the broader community. Stronger enforcement will not solve every problem facing small retailers, but it is an important part of ensuring that the law applies equally.

The bill also addresses tobacco products for which customs duty can be refunded. Under the existing arrangements, tobacco intended for export or sale to eligible travellers can be subject to duty refund provisions. The legislation strengthens the controls that apply to these products, keeping them under customs control until they are exported or sold to eligible travellers. The aim is to prevent tobacco that is entering these arrangements from being diverted into the domestic illicit market. This is another example of closing a gap that can be exploited by people who are looking for ways around the law. Customs controls need to follow the product until it reaches its lawful destination.

There are also changes to the way illicit tobacco is seized and disposed of. Australian Border Force officers deal with large quantities of seized goods. The administrative processes involved can consume considerable time, particularly when procedural requirements delay the disposal of products that have already been taken out of circulation. The bill streamlines those arrangements and reduces unnecessary administrative burdens. Officers need to be able to carry out their work efficiently while maintaining appropriate safeguards and accountability.

The legislation also strengthens requirements for customs brokers, depots and warehouses. These businesses have important responsibilities in the movement and storage of goods entering Australia. Their operations must not be used to facilitate illicit tobacco imports. The new requirements are intended to make it harder for unlawful activity to pass through legitimate commercial infrastructure without being challenged. Businesses holding relevant licences will need to meet stronger obligations and take reasonable steps to prevent their operations from being used in connection with illicit tobacco. This is not about placing unreasonable burdens on businesses that do the right thing. It is about making sure that those operating in the customs supply chain understand their responsibilities and cannot ignore serious unlawful activity taking place through their facilities.

Strong enforcement also means following the money. Seizing tobacco and prosecuting an offender are important, but neither necessarily improves the financial incentive to commit the crime again. Organised criminal groups can treat a seizure or a fine as a cost of doing business if they are able to retain the proceeds. The Australian Federal Police has an important role in identifying and confiscating assets linked to criminal activity. It has confiscated more than $47 million in assets associated with illicit tobacco offending. That work demonstrates why the financial side of enforcement matters. This bill strengthens aspects of the proceeds of crime framework, including provisions dealing with pecuniary penalty orders, production orders and unexplained wealth. Pecuniary penalty orders allow courts to require offenders to pay an amount reflecting the benefits they have obtained from criminal conduct. The bill clarifies how those benefits are assessed and how restrained property can be used to satisfy a penalty order.

The legislation also makes changes to production orders which help investigators obtain information relevant to their inquiries. Better access to information can be particularly important when financial dealings and criminal networks extend across jurisdictions. Changes to the unexplained-wealth framework will help clarify how a person's wealth is assessed, including property the person owns or controls. The purpose of these reforms is to ensure that authorities have workable legal tools to identify criminal wealth and recover the proceeds of offending. Someone who has made money through an illicit tobacco operation should not be able to keep that wealth simply because it has been moved, concealed or held through complicated arrangements. Nor should a criminal penalty be treated as a bill that can be paid while the rest of the profit stays in the bank. For the people running these operations, removing the financial reward can be just as important as removing the products from sale.

Of course, Commonwealth legislation alone will not end the illicit tobacco trade. Products must be stopped at the border. But distribution networks also need to be disrupted and illegal retailers dealt with. That requires cooperation between the Commonwealth, states and territories. State and territory authorities have an important role in inspecting premises, enforcing retail laws and closing businesses engaged in illegal activity. More than 1,000 illicit tobacco stores have been closed by state and territory authorities. That is significant work, but it also shows how much enforcement is needed beyond the border. In Victoria, effective action against illegal tobacco retailers will remain important. The problem cannot be solved by making seizures at the port if the same products can still find their way into shops and onto the streets. Agencies need to share information, coordinate investigations and act on evidence wherever it leads.

All of this is shown by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which reports that daily smoking among Australian adults had fallen to 5.8 per cent in 2025. This shows that our approach is working. It is a considerable improvement on the rates Australians experienced in previous decades. We should recognise that achievement while being realistic about the work still required. Tobacco continues to cause serious illness and premature death. Nicotine addiction remains a concern, particularly for young people, and the availability of illegal products makes the job of protecting public health harder. Australia's tobacco control measures have been built over many years. They have relied on public education, regulation, taxation and support for people who want to quit. Enforcement against the illicit market is another part of that effort.

Despite this, the opposition has pointed to the fall in tobacco excise revenue as evidence that the government's approach has failed. But fewer people smoking means less tobacco being sold legally, and that means less tobacco excise being collected. The purpose of tobacco policy is not to maximise the amount of tax collected from smokers. The purpose is to reduce smoking rates and the enormous health burden that comes with them. That's why I'm so concerned about the proposals to make tobacco significantly cheaper. We need to deal with the illicit market by cutting tobacco excise, but cutting tobacco excise doesn't deal with the criminal networks behind that market. That requires enforcement. It requires governments working together to close businesses that are selling illicit tobacco. We also need to keep the focus on young people. Australia has made enormous progress in reducing smoking rates, and we must ensure the next generation does not become addicted to nicotine. That means continuing the public health measures that have brought smoking rates down, tackling illicit products being sold to our communities and strengthening the mechanisms to catch those who are doing the wrong thing.

The most effective response is to disrupt the supply chain and ensure that those profiting from criminal activity face real consequences. Since 2024, the Albanese government has committed more than $365 million to tackling illicit tobacco and nicotine products. This bill adds to that work by addressing specific weaknesses in the customs and proceeds of crime frameworks. There will still be challenges. Criminal operators will continue to look for new ways to move products and hide their involvement. Enforcement agencies will need to keep adapting and governments will need to maintain cooperation if they are to make lasting progress. But the answer is not to accept the illicit trade as inevitable. It is to give authorities the power they need, apply those powers effectively and make sure the consequences reach the people responsible. The legislation before us is a practical part of that response. It strengthens offences. It improves customs controls over tobacco products, streamlines seizure and disposal processes, places clearer obligations on relevant licence holders and improves the ability to recover criminal proceeds.

For the Bellarine and Surf Coast and my broader region, I want to see local businesses able to operate fairly. I want young people protected from the harms of tobacco and nicotine. Criminal operators must be given no opportunity to make money at the community's expense. We have made real progress in reducing smoking in Australia and improving health outcomes across the nation. Protecting that progress requires us to deal with the illicit market as well as continue the great public health work we are doing. It has served us well, and I support this bill.

Debate adjourned.

Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026; Consideration of Senate Message Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026

It is my duty to draw to the attention of the House the fact that one of the Senate amendments conveyed by this message raises an important point of constitutional principle. Proposed amendment (36) would have the effect of allowing higher education providers who will receive a certain grant under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to spend part of the grant in relation to a larger class of persons. Senate amendment 36 is covered by section 53 of the Constitution because it changes the destination of money appropriated, which will increase a burden in relation to an appropriation. The matter for consideration is not so much one of the privileges and rights between the two houses but observance of the requirements of the Constitution concerning the powers of the houses. I am advised that, in the application of standing order 180, a change to the destination of money drawn from an existing appropriation is considered to be a proposal requiring a message from the Governor-General under section 56 of the Constitution. I understand that such a message has been obtained in this case. If the House wishes to entertain the proposal reflected in the Senate's proposed amendment, the House may choose to proceed by alternative means.

I move:

That:

(1) the House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 185 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026; and

(2) the message be considered immediately.

Question agreed to.

I understand that it is the wish of the House to consider the Senate's purported amendment (36) first and then, when the purported amendment has been disposed of, to consider amendments (1) to (35) and (37) to (43).

I move:

That the Senate's purported amendment (36) be disagreed to.

I rise to speak on the amendments that have come back to the House now in relation to the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. Let me just say this first, because there may be some confusion among those who are watching about the procedure. They might be asking why the government is disagreeing with one of its own amendments, amendment (36), and then remaking it in exactly the same terms. The issue here isn't the policy; the issue is in relation to the technical constitutional rule that money bills cannot originate in the Senate and the respective positions that the two houses of parliament take on whether or not amendment (36) is caught by that rule. The procedural back and forth here is about an important constitutional principle, but it doesn't change the substance of the debate. It also doesn't change the coalition's policy position on the bill. I hope that clarifies some of the unusual procedural aspects.

Let me then turn to the substance of the bill. The bill is now a much better bill as a result of the coalition's amendments, and there are a few things I wish to say. First, after today, Australia will have two new universities listed in the Higher Education Support Act: Alphacrucis University College and the Australian University of Theology. They are both very fine institutions, and both will now be listed as table B universities under the Higher Education Support Act. It's a wonderful achievement; I congratulate both universities, and I thank the government for the support of those amendments.

Second, the coalition has secured a regional funding guarantee. This is an amendment that means that, when it comes to university funding, regional means regional. We've closed the loopholes that would have allowed regional money to go to inner-city campuses. Regional funding is squarely designed and intended to offset the higher costs of delivery in the regions. The coalition understands that. It's in our DNA, and we'll always stand up for the regions. Our amendments mean that metro universities can't set up a regional hub consisting of a laptop and a local administrator to 'administer' courses and then collect regional funding that was never intended for them. It's a guarantee that's critically important to regional delivery for higher education, it materially improves the bill, and I thank the government for adopting our amendments.

Third, despite the objections of the Greens—which were quite profound if Senator Faruqi's comments in the other place are taken at face value—we've locked in the power to cap international students and allocate international student places based on our national interest. These powers will help underpin the coalition's migration plan, which is designed to reduce numbers and raise standards. It's an important mechanism that the coalition considers will support the changes that we need to see in our national immigration policy.

On those bases, this bill will pass with coalition support. But let me also say this: there are many missed opportunities here for the Labor Party, which they will need to explain to the Australian people. Let me start with the coalition's changes to the overenrolment provisions. What we put on the table was a suite of changes to significantly expand student choice, to save millions in taxpayer money and to remove perverse incentives that penalise providers if they improve their student retention rates. The government voted against that, opting instead for milk-water changes proposed by the Greens. At a time when spending is out of control and driving up inflation and interest rates, Australians will pay more money to educate the same number of students, and, because of Labor's position on these issues, students will have less of a say in where they go to uni. That's for Labor to explain.

The coalition moved amendments to ensure that there would be support for students from regional areas regardless of where they study, and, indeed, if a regional student studied at a regional university, the benefits would stack. The government voted against that. They voted against the students from regional areas. That, again, is a matter for them to explain.

The coalition moved amendments to support independent providers and put them on a level playing field with other universities in relation to international students. The bill as drafted said that listed table A and table B universities deserved to be consulted about international students but that the independent providers—businesses who aren't taxpayer funded and who rely on international education for their livelihood—did not deserve to be consulted. We said, 'Put them on a level playing field.' Labor voted against that. Again, that's for them to explain.

The coalition moved amendments to completely remove the minister's power to unilaterally intervene in campuses. Labor voted against that—again, for them to explain. The coalition moved amendments to require transparency in terms requested by the sector. Labor rejected that. Again, it's a matter for them to explain. We moved amendments to adopt a single national definition of antisemitism, require providers to deal with festering antisemitism on campus and amend the National Tertiary Education Objective to actually mention teaching, learning and research, among other things, rather than simply referring to vague and ideological matters, such as 'social development' and 'sustainability'. On the point of antisemitism, it pains me that the government will not legislate its own policy. Again, Labor voted against those changes.

This is a much better bill as a result of the coalition's amendments. But Labor has nailed its colours to the wall on exactly who and what it doesn't support, and it will be accountable to the Australian people.

Question agreed to.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the proposed amendment announced.

I move that the amendment set out in the schedule circulated to honourable members be made in place of the Senate's purported amendment, which has been disagreed to:

SCHEDULE OF THE PURPORTED AMENDMENT MADE BY THE SENATE TO WHICH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS DISAGREED

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (lines 21 to 26), omit subsection 39-70(2), substitute:

Total equity component

(2) The higher education provider must spend an amount of the grant that is equal to or greater than the *total equity component for the provider for the year on the following activities:

(a) activities that are primarily for the purposes of supporting *eligible equity students to access, participate in and complete *eligible equity courses;

(b) activities that are primarily for the purposes of supporting persons mentioned in paragraph 39-25(1)(b) to access eligible equity courses.

SCHEDULE OF THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN PLACE OF THE PURPORTED SENATE AMENDMENT DISAGREED TO

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (lines 21 to 26), omit subsection 39-70(2), substitute:

Total equity component

(2) The higher education provider must spend an amount of the grant that is equal to or greater than the *total equity component for the provider for the year on the following activities:

(a) activities that are primarily for the purposes of supporting *eligible equity students to access, participate in and complete *eligible equity courses;

(b) activities that are primarily for the purposes of supporting persons mentioned in paragraph 39-25(1)(b) to access eligible equity courses.

This amendment is identical to the amendment agreed to by the Senate earlier today. It expands the activities a higher education provider may spend their needs based funding grant on to include supporting people from a disadvantaged background to access university. This amendment responds to stakeholder feedback, ensuring an appropriate range of activities can be supported using equity funding. These activities will help students from poor backgrounds, Indigenous students and students studying in the regions to access, participate in and succeed at university. I commend this amendment to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

I now move:

That Senate amendments (1) to (35) and (37) to (43) be agreed to.

This is an important bill, and I want to thank all members and senators for their interest in and contributions to this debate. This bill will open the doors of opportunity to our universities for more young people from poor families, from regional Australia and from the bush. This bill switches on the two big equity engines in the universities accord. The first is the new managed-growth funding system that will provide an extra $3.6 billion and support an extra 230,000 commencing students over the next decade. The second is the demand driven, needs based funding system. This will help more students from poor backgrounds, Indigenous students and students studying in the regions to participate in and succeed in their studies. Taken together, the impacts of these two big equity engines will be transformational for the university system but, even more importantly, for future university students—

A baby having begun crying in the gallery—

like one that I think we just heard a moment ago. They'll walk through the doors that we have opened through these reforms. Talent is everywhere; it's opportunity that's not. This bill helps to do something about that.

The amendments before the chamber are a culmination of work to strengthen the bill. I want to thank my friend the shadow minister for education and also Senator Faruqi for their constructive engagement on the bill and with me and with my office. I thank the shadow minister's office as well for the collaborative and professional way in which our two teams have worked together. We're proof that we can do it, and we have. This bill is better for the amendments that we've worked on together. I also want to thank members of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, chaired by Senator Marielle Smith, for their work to help improve the bill. I also want to thank those from the university sector who've helped to strengthen this important legislation, including Universities Australia, the 2050 Alliance, the Regional Universities Network and the Australian Technology Network of Universities, amongst many others.

When this bill was first debated here in the House of Representatives, I said that we would consider the amendments that were moved by members of the crossbench in this House once the work of the Senate committee was done. This has now happened, and I trust that members of this place will see improvements to this bill on matters that they were keenly interested in, such as ministerial powers, improved transparency, the use of needs based funding and ministerial directions in relation to particular courses. These improvements were made in the amendments agreed to in the Senate this morning. The universities accord is a blueprint for change to help us build something that's bigger and better and fairer than we have today and to help us build the workforce of tomorrow and the country of tomorrow. I commend the amendments and the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026; Second Reading Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026

The coalition thinks that taking good, sensible law enforcement measures to deal with illegal tobacco is a good start, and we support it. But we also will make very clear, and we do so through some of the amendments in this bill, that just taking these measures will not fix the problem of illegal tobacco in this country. The problem of illegal tobacco in this country comes down to one simple fact: we've taxed tobacco to death. And what's happening is the criminals have stepped in, have found a market and are exploiting it to the tune of somewhere between $4 billion and $6 billion and potentially $8 billion or more. What has happened is criminal revenue has gone up, through to the sky, and the government's revenue has fallen through the floor. You don't need to have a PhD in economics to understand what the solution to this is.

Excise is killing government revenue. Excise is absolutely lining the pockets of the criminals, so much so that—and I know the members on our side know this because we see it in our constituencies—we're seeing illegal tobacco shops pop up everywhere. This is bad enough that these criminal gangs are making a motza. They're making billions and billions of dollars. But it's worse than that. It's actually causing serious security issues in our communities because a lot of these tobacco shops are in main streets. I've got them in towns right throughout my electorate, and guess what? You've got the shop, and then, especially in rural communities, you'll often have a flat on top which is rented out. Those people, unbeknownst to what's happening in the shop below, could sadly be victims of firebombings. They could be asleep at night and all of a sudden—bang! There's a firebombing. Their safety is seriously at risk, and the government won't address the fundamental problem. We get enforcement modernisation; we're happy to do that. Our policy actually touches on that as well. We think what you need to do is, and the sensible approach is to, cut the excise. Government actually makes more revenue by cutting the excise. That's how bad things have got out of proportion.

So you cut the excise, and the government makes more revenue. Why do they make more revenue? Because more legal tobacco is sold and less illegal tobacco is sold, so the government makes more revenue. Then what do you do with that revenue? You have an antismoking campaign—good, sensible stuff—and you make sure you invest in law enforcement to deal with the rogue criminal elements which are left. This isn't 'way out there' policy. This isn't policy where the government should sit and say, 'For this reason and that reason we're not going to go anywhere near it.' What the government should do is say, 'The coalition's had another good idea.' Coalition MPs have put a lot of time and work into making sure that we've come up with this good policy, and I commend those MPs for having done that. I particularly single out the member for Monash. They've done a lot of hard work. And what you should be able to do, government, is something like happened with the previous bill: a bit of bipartisanship, and all of a sudden you've got $8 billion in revenue that you don't have now and you desperately need, because that could go to savings, and we would be getting rid of all the criminal elements.

I don't understand why your ego, your pride won't allow you to realise that we've come up with a ripping policy and you should adopt it. I say to all those in government, on the government benches: you need to seriously think about this, because it's the type of policy that would make the Australian people think, 'For once they're getting it; for once the government understands.' And I can tell you, out there at the moment the Australian people think the government has its priorities completely and utterly wrong. One of the areas where they think you've got it wrong is around crime, and what's causing a lot of the crime is that you are funding criminal activity, criminal gangs through your failed policies. And this one is the doozy of all doozies: you're funding up to $8 billion to criminal activity in this country. We've all seen the photographs: the Lamborghinis and Ferraris they're buying, the overseas holidays they're having—how this network actually funding overseas holidays. As a matter of fact, some of the criminal heads live overseas. This is what this policy is doing.

We need to deal with crime in this nation. We have to make sure we're doing everything we can to limit it, to restrict it, not to fund it. That's what this policy is doing. It is funding it. That's why we will support what you're doing here in terms of your enforcement modernisation, but we say to the government, this isn't enough; you've got to address the underlying problem. And what's the underlying problem? There is a tax policy. We all know that the policy was put in place with the right intentions. The excise was put in place to make tobacco more expensive so people would say, 'I don't think I should smoke, because I can't afford it.' But there are some people—and I get this; I understand—who want to smoke, and it's legal for them to do so. They want to keep doing it, and that's their right. They know the health impacts; it's made very clear to them. But they decide they want to do it. For those people, we've got to make sure that they're being supplied with tobacco legally rather than illegally.

There are actually some good health arguments for why this should be so. With illegal tobacco, no-one knows what the hell's in it. Through tests that have been done, we know there is some awful stuff in it. There's some stuff that is carcinogenic beyond belief. People who legally want to smoke but, because of the cost-of-living crisis we're in because the government, through their spending addiction, keep driving inflation through the roof, are now forced to go onto the black market to buy their tobacco, and they're doing more harm to their health by doing that. How can that be a good thing? Not only are we funding criminals; we're actually leading to detrimental health outcomes for Australians through this policy.

I can't see how this makes any sense whatsoever, especially when there is a policy that's fixed this and the policy has been through the Parliamentary Budget Office. They have said, 'Yes, coalition, you have this right.' Cut the excise by 80 per cent and increase revenue to the government by $8 billion. And guess what? You'd be selling legal tobacco to those people in Australia who want to smoke so you'd actually get better health outcomes for those people. With the $8 billion that you get back in revenue, you can have an anti-smoking campaign, like the good ones we used to run in this country, and everyone's a winner.

At the moment this illegal issue is like an elephant, and all this approach, your enforcement modernisation bill, is doing is removing a little pimple off that elephant's back. You have to address the fundamental problem, and that is the elephant size of excise on tobacco in this country. You've got to deal with that. If you deal with that, then you deal with the criminal gangs and the criminal activities and you make the community safer. That means that all those illegal tobacco shops, which are springing up left, right and centre right across this nation, all of a sudden don't have a business model anymore. We've all seen it. They are usually gift shops, those tobacco shops, and you'll see people walking in to get gifts at eight in the morning. They're not going in there to buy their illegal cigarettes. They're going in there to get gifts. Well, you start to put pay to that because people who want to smoke can afford to do it and can afford to do it legally.

So once again, I say to the government: just think about the national interests. Don't think of your political interests. Think about the national interests. Think about what's in the interests of the community. Think about what's in the interests of law enforcement. Imagine if law enforcement didn't have to deal with illegal tobacco. Imagine if law enforcement didn't have to deal with criminal gangs which are funded to the tune of $4 billion to $6 billion, maybe $8 billion, by this policy. Imagine if they could go about keeping communities safe. Imagine if people who lived above tobacco shops didn't have to worry about their flat catching on fire or being firebombed and their lives and their kids being put at risk. Imagine if communities didn't have to worry about some of the money that is used by those criminal gangs to recruit young Australians to get them to do their errands and start them on a life of crime. Imagine if we were able to deal with all that.

We can. We just need the government to open its eyes. We need the Prime Minister to get out amongst the community. I'm happy, if he wants to come to Wannon, to show him where the illegal tobacco shops are. I'm happy to say to him that there's a better way to deal with this. I'm happy to introduce him to local police officers who can explain to him what's fundamentally wrong with the current approach. We can do all that by just making sure we have a prime minister who gets out and about and knows what's going on in the community, and then he might come back and say to the relevant ministers: 'You know what? We need to fix this.'

The coalition stands ready. We've got a policy ready to go. It's a costed policy ready to go. It will deal with this issue. Bipartisan support means the criminal gangs stop getting funded. Bipartisan support means smokers who want to legally smoke in this country can do so and can do so knowing what's in their cigarette rather than not knowing what the criminals have put into the illegal tobacco they're smoking. There's a sensible way forward on this policy. I look forward to hearing from the next government speaker on this, saying that she's seen the light, and that the coalition has the right path.

When most Australians hear the words 'illicit tobacco', they might picture a few cheap packets being sold under a counter, but that picture is dangerously out of date. Illicit tobacco is not a harmless cash economy. It is a sophisticated, highly profitable market, increasingly exploited by organised crime. The people behind it are not simply avoiding tax; they are building criminal supply chains. They conceal ownership, misuse legitimate freight networks, move money through layers of people and businesses, and profit by selling an addictive and deadly product outside of every safeguard Australians expect. They do not care about public health. They do not care who they sell to. They do not care about the legitimate small businesses they undercut. And they do not care where their profits go next.

When organised crime changes the way it operates, our laws must keep pace. That is why the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 matters. It strengthens our ability to stop illicit tobacco at the border, secure it while it's under customs control, seize and forfeit it efficiently, investigate those behind it, and strip away the profits that make this trade attractive. It is practical legislation, but its purpose is very clear: to make Australia a harder place for organised crime to do business.

This issue is especially relevant to communities like mine. Bonner is home to more than 14,000 businesses. They include family-owned retailers, manufacturers, customs and freight businesses, transport operators, warehouses and logistics companies. It is also home to the Port of Brisbane, one of the most important trade gateways in our country. In 2024-25 the port handled around 1.6 million 20-foot equivalent containers, 34.9 million tonnes of trade and approximately $73.5 billion in international trade. The port and its supply chain support around 73,000 jobs. Those figures tell us something very important: trade is not an abstract idea in Bonner. It means jobs, investment and opportunity. It means the truck driver starting before dawn, the worker on the wharves, the customs broker checking a consignment, the small manufacturer waiting on an input, and a local business getting its product to market every day.

Enormous volumes of legitimate goods move through my electorate. Overwhelmingly, the people involved in that system are doing the right thing. They follow Australia's customs rules. They keep records. They pay their workers and their taxes. They carry the cost of compliance because they understand that a trusted border protects us all. They deserve a level playing field. They should not be forced to compete with the black market, whose competitive advantage is breaking the law. The most reputable businesses operating around the port should not have their industries or their community defined by criminals seeking to exploit legitimate supply chains. Strong enforcement protects the integrity of trade. It protects reputable operators, and it protects public confidence in the systems that allow goods to move efficiently into and across our country.

The scale of this problem is no longer open to any doubt. Recent operations in Queensland show both the size of the illicit market and the value of coordinated enforcement. In March this year, a multi-agency operation in North Queensland seized more than 5.89 million illicit cigarettes, more than 1.2 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco and more than 18,800 vapes. The combined estimated street value and duty evaded was over $12.5 million. In another Queensland operation, authorities seized more than 13.7 million illicit cigarettes, more than 380 kilos of loose-leaf tobacco and more than 27,000 vapes, dealing an estimated $23 million blow to the illegal market. And in August, the Australian Federal Police alleged that one network had used around 88 air cargo consignments, since May, to import illicit tobacco before storing it for distribution.

These are not isolated packets changing hands. They are commercial-scale operations requiring money coordination, storage, transport and distribution. That is precisely why the government established the Illicit Tobacco National Disruption Group to bring agencies together and target the mid-level criminals and enablers who import, store, move and distribute these products. No single agency can dismantle an entire criminal business model on its own. We need intelligence shared, we need action coordinated, we need pressure applied at every point in the supply chain and we need legislation that supports that work rather than slowing it down.

There is also a public health truth we cannot allow to disappear from this debate: tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death in Australia. Smoking takes more than 24,000 Australian lives each year. That is around 66 people every single day. My grandfather died of lung cancer, and he was a very heavy smoker throughout his life.

Australia has made extraordinary progress in reducing smoking. The latest national data show daily smoking among people aged 14 and over has fallen by more than 70 per cent since 2001. That progress is not accidental; it came from evidence based public health policy, education, plain packaging, advertising restrictions, quit support and tobacco taxes that reduce consumption, particularly among young people. We should be proud of that progress and determined to protect it. We should also be clear that illicit tobacco threatens it. Illegal sellers do not apply health standards. They do not respect packaging laws. They do not check whether a young customer is becoming addicted for their health and safety. Their only concern is making the sale.

The answer is not to surrender decades of public health progress by making a deadly product cheaper. The World Health Organization is clear that tobacco taxes are among the most effective ways to reduce tobacco use, especially among young people and people on lower incomes. International experience also shows that illicit trade can be confronted while strong tobacco taxes are maintained. The responsible answer is a strong public health policy and strong enforcement operating together. We can protect Australians from tobacco related disease and target the criminals exploiting the illicit market. In fact, we must do both.

We are already seeing the results of that work in my home state of Queensland, backed by more than $18 million in Albanese Labor government funding. New data shows legal tobacco sales jumped 55 per cent following stronger enforcement measures and remained 40 to 45 per cent above previous levels six months later. Calls to Quitline have more than doubled following major enforcement operations. That is what strong enforcement can achieve: disrupting criminal profits, supporting legitimate businesses and encouraging Australians to quit smoking.

One of the weaknesses in the existing illicit tobacco framework is that parts of it were designed for a different operating environment. Under existing offence provisions, authorities can be required to prove that tobacco was imported with an intention to defraud the revenue. That sounds straightforward on paper. In a sophisticated criminal network, it can be anything but. Organised crime deliberately creates distance between the person directing an operation and the product at the border. Ownership is hidden, documents are manipulated and goods pass through multiple hands. Corporate structures and intermediaries are used to blur responsibility.

This legislation modernises the offence framework by creating new offences covering the importation, possession and conveyance of tobacco where there is reasonable suspicion that it has been unlawfully imported or that its importation would defraud the revenue. It also allows tobacco to be prescribed as a Tier 1 good that enables existing serious customs offence pathways to apply where tobacco is imported without the permission or approvals required by law. These changes are about closing gaps between what enforcement agencies can see and what they can prove under laws written for another time.

Protecting the border does not end when a ship docks at the Port of Brisbane, when a plane lands or when a container is unloaded. Goods may move through licensed depots and warehouses before they are lawfully released. That period of time matters. Tobacco that's technically within customs control can still be targeted for diversion into the illicit market. The legislation therefore strengthens controls over tobacco held in licensed warehouses and introduces tobacco-related licence conditions for customs brokers, depots and warehouses authorised to handle these goods.

A licence is not merely permission to operate. It carries a responsibility to protect the integrity of the system. Where an operator is entrusted with goods under customs control, government must be able to set appropriate conditions and respond when those conditions are breached. For legitimate customs, freight and warehousing businesses in Bonner, this is fundamentally about confidence that standards apply across the industry, that bad actors cannot gain an unfair advantage and that government will act when legitimate infrastructure is misused.

The legislation also addresses a practical question: what happens after illicit tobacco is found? Enforcement does not become effective simply because goods have been located. The seizure and forfeiture process must also be fit for purpose. Existing administrative arrangements can require significant time and resources even where the nature of the goods and the circumstances of the seizure are clear. This bill modernises notification arrangements by enabling direct, bulk and electronic notices, as well as the publication of seizure information. For specified tobacco seized under the prescribed powers, it removes the ability to make a claim for return and allows the goods to be immediately forfeited. That means less time and public money spent processing claims that serve no legitimate purpose. It means seized products can be dealt with safely and efficiently, and it also means that our enforcement agencies can focus their people and resources on identifying networks, gathering evidence and disrupting the next shipment.

Finding and confiscating the product is still only part of the task. If we want to hurt organised crime, we must go after what organised crime cares about the most: the money. The illicit tobacco market exists because it is profitable. The product may be tobacco, but its objective, of course, is wealth. That is why the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act are so important. We do not only want to intercept a consignment and leave the financial structure behind intact. We want to identify the assets, trace the proceeds and dismantle the business model. We want the people financing and directing these networks to know that distance from the box or the warehouse will not place their profits beyond reach. Crime should never be a pathway to wealth, and no criminal enterprise should be able to treat the occasional seizure as simply a cost of doing business.

The world in which these investigations occur has also changed enormously. Once, obtaining a document meant identifying the office cabinet or archive where it was stored. Today, a document may be stored on a server on the other side of the country or the other side of the world and be accessed instantly from a laptop in Brisbane. The relevant evidence may sit across accounts, across devices and, of course, across jurisdictions. This legislation clarifies that production orders can be sought after proceedings have commenced and removes outdated jurisdictional limitations. The bill also strengthens the consequences for destroying, defacing or interfering with documents subject to a production order because deleting evidence must not be some easy way out. A person who deliberately frustrates a lawful investigation should face consequences that reflect the seriousness of that conduct.

These reforms take a coordinated approach to tackling illicit tobacco, strengthening border offences, tightening supply chain controls, modernising seizure and forfeiture processes, and improving investigations into organised crime and its profits. Developed through a whole-of-government approach, they recognise that illicit tobacco is not just a border issue. It is an organised crime, revenue, business integrity and public health issue.

The overwhelming majority of Australian businesses do the right thing. They pay their workers, meet their obligations and contribute to their communities. Across Bonner, I see hardworking business owners building their livelihoods and supporting our local economy. They deserve a level playing field free from unfair competition driven by illegal activity. This legislation sends a very clear message: as criminal networks adapt, so will our laws and enforcement efforts. We will continue to back honest Australian businesses, protect our communities and ensure that organised crime has no easy path to profit. I commend the bill to the House.

I stand to support the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 and I commend the government for the intent of what they bring forward to this parliament. But I fear what we are doing is what this parliament, as well as the three parliaments I've been part of previously, has failed to understand in trying to tackle this problem. We are only tinkering at the edges by not understanding the real issues at play that need to be addressed in a bipartisan way.

We've made great movements in the last 20 or 30 years. In fact, I pay homage to Nicola Roxon, the former minister for health minister and ageing, who, back in the late 1990s and the 2000s, made significant reforms in tackling the use of tobacco by Australians—in particular, by young Australians. She did a great job in regulating the product, making sure that the product was sold under a regulated process through licensed outlets. This ensured that young people were protected. We also invested in education to ensure that Australians understood the risks of the intake of tobacco and smoking and understood the health effects there. Investing in that education has saved us billions of dollars.

But subsequent to that, governments of all persuasions, including governments that I've been part of, have not understood that, in creating this excise and placing it year in, year out, we have created market behaviours that have now got us to this juncture where we have created another market. The regulated market has been overtaken by an illicit market and organised crime. That's our failure. It is a failure of parliaments of the past. We should stand up and admit that we got it wrong, and when you add to that the complexity of vaping and how it interacts with the illicit tobacco market, you see that we're not tackling the root cause here.

When we talk about the people who will primarily be impacted, we're talking about those who don't have disposable income. They are forced to change their market behaviours. They look to go to the illicit market because we are taxing this thing till it is out of their reach. We are putting them into an illicit market and a product that we do not have confidence in. And it's not just vapes; it is also illicit tobacco. In fact, there's a report out today that talks about how they cannot verify many of the carcinogens that are in the illicit tobacco that is being brought into this country. It's far more dangerous than the regulated product.

We are getting to a juncture where there has been a concerted campaign against big tobacco. I don't want big tobacco, but I can't stop people's behaviour. Prohibition has never worked in society. It will never work, and we have to face up to that. But at least, with a regulated product, tobacco companies are bound to maintain a product that is safe, to the extent that we can put it on the shelves of our shops. This is where we have lost the real intent of what we're trying to achieve. We're trying to protect Australians, and we see that organised crime has taken over the market because the government has taxed the market, taking many Australians out of it and putting them into the hands of the illicit market and organised crime.

We've lost somewhere between $7 billion and $12 billion worth of excise that would have gone towards funding the health issues that we are going to have from those who continue to remain on not just illicit tobacco but also vapes. We don't have that revenue stream to pay for those health consequences that we will have. What we are missing in all this is that, unless we're prepared to face up to the consequences of prohibition not working and to the fact that we will need to reshape the marketplace and the behaviour within that marketplace to get people back onto a regulated product, we are going to continue to make the mistakes of previous parliaments and the previous governments that I was part of.

I made those mistakes, and I don't contest the science in any way, shape or form. And I know the AMA have been very strong and very critical—even of myself, personally, because of my personal beliefs—but the AMA's capabilities start and finish at the science around these products being bad for us, and I don't contest that for one moment. I agree with them 100 per cent. But they have no ability to regulate a market or to understand borders and market behaviours. Their expertise starts and finishes with the science.

We have got ourselves into many of the problems. We have allowed health professionals to force us into a position of thinking that we can tax ourselves out of this problem when we cannot. We are going to face the health consequences without the economic grunt to be able to solve them. That is the stark reality of what we are doing again in this parliament. I stand ready to admit I got it wrong. It's important that we don't do this for much longer. If we continue down this pathway we will see a regulated market leave, because we are only a small part of the international market. We will be left with an illicit market and with organised crime organising our tobacco and vapes in this country.

An opportunity has been lost by this government. I don't condemn them for the intent of what they bring forward, but we are only tinkering at the edges if we believe that changing and modernising some of the enforcement around this will stop the black market. That will not stop them. That will not deter them. They will continue on, because this is lucrative to them. That's the stark reality of the situation that we find ourselves in. That's why we've said very clearly that we have to be bold in tackling this. We must be bold. We've said that we will cut the excise by 80 per cent, and the reason for that is around reshaping that marketplace.

The PBO has clearly identified that there would be increased revenue from excise because we reshaped that market. If we re-educate that market to buy a regulated product, that gets us the excise that has been taken away from us, and that gives us the money to not only be able to face up to the health consequences but also, in a responsible way, modernise many of the programs that Nicola Roxon put in place when she was health minister. We are allocating $60 million to make sure we continue to educate and get the next generation away from illicit tobacco and vaping. And, with $200 million into law enforcement, we can make sure we have the resources to undertake border enforcement. But you can only do that if you have the revenue stream to be able to pay for it, and that's what we haven't had since we've seen the illicit market take over, because we have lost that $7 billion to $12 billion in excise revenue. That's the consequence that we face up to at the moment.

I believe that, unless there is an epiphany from this government, we will miss this opportunity that lays in front of us again in this parliament. I believe that there is an opportunity for some bipartisanship to not only understand the real consequences of this problem—how it got here and how we have all contributed to it in some way—but also for us to acknowledge that simply believing that beating them at the border is the only way to beat organised crime and illicit tobacco in this country is naive at best. History has shown us that. I've seen it, and I'm prepared to admit it. It is now time for us to understand that there is a better way for us to tackle this problem and to protect the next generation.

No-one challenges the science. I passionately want to see these things gone. But I'm not naive enough to think that I'm going to stop people from smoking or that prohibition will work. When you look at what we've done with vapes—putting them through chemists, who don't even want to sell them anyway—of the people who have gone on to vapes, fewer than 10 per cent have a prescription. Let's be honest; that hasn't worked. That was one of the transition products away from tobacco. I will put my hand up. I was part of a cabinet that did that. We got it wrong, thinking that we could have a vaping market that wasn't regulated like cigarettes, that protected young people. That's why we've seen this explosion of crime and why we've seen illegal stores put up everywhere.

It is time for us to actually face up to the real problem. While the government is doing the right thing in these amendments—we support them wholeheartedly, and I thank them for that—I think realistically we have to understand as a parliament that, unless we're prepared to look ourselves in the mirror, look at what has come before us, look at what has been done and look at what has got us to this position, this won't change anything. This won't stop organised crime. This won't get young people away from going to illegal stores and getting illegal vapes or illegal chop-chop, products that we don't know anything about what's inside them. That's the stark reality. I know it's unpalatable for many who have a pure sense of the world in thinking that what we do in here will reshape it by what we do with this and by talking big numbers of what we stop at the borders, but it won't do three-fifths of bugger all. The stark reality is organised crime has changed the behaviour of a marketplace. The only way to take control of this is to take control of the market. That is the missed opportunity in this bill and this parliament to reshape and take control of the marketplace and to get back into a regulated market that gives us a revenue stream to pay for the health consequences and give us an opportunity to get rid of organised crime.

I'll finish on this. You can see this business model now going into alcohol. I fear that we'll be sitting in the next parliament or the parliament after, facing up to illicit alcohol. We are excising and taxing ourselves and people out of a regulated market, taking them out of pubs and clubs in a regulated environment that protects them and that protects the community. What we are doing is doing exactly what we've done with tobacco and with vapes. What's happened here is the canary in the coal mine. I can tell you, alcohol is the next frontier. We will see those licensed premises pay the same costs, the same price, as we have of these small retailers that are regulated and that do the right thing to protect young children in making sure that they can't get hold of cigarettes or vapes. That is a responsible way to regulate a product where prohibition can never work.

I commend the government for what they have put forward. I support it, but I ask them in all honesty to look in the mirror and look at what we've done. Yes, there are some great things we have achieved, but we are putting our heads in the sand if we believe the only way to solve this is through a market mechanism, and that is about retaking the market, reshaping the market back into a regulated model rather than a black-market model. This bill, unfortunately, will not do that.

One Nation and the coalition want to tell the Australian people that their policies to cut excise are a step forward, but standing still on the edge of a cliff is not progress. Hearing contributions and discussions on this debate, there has been something that continues to get lost—the extraordinary progress Australia has made in reducing smoking rates in this country.

Twenty-five years ago, smoking was a much more ordinary part of Australian life. In 2001, 19.5 per cent of Australians aged 14 and over, smoked daily. Among adults aged 18 and over, the figure was 20.1 per cent. Today, those numbers are dramatically different. The latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's National Drug Strategy Household Survey shows that in 2025, just 5.6 per cent of Australians aged 14 and over smoked daily. Among adults aged 18 and over, the rate was 5.8 per cent. That is a fall of more than two-thirds since 2001, and that is good national policy. The number of Australians smoking daily has fallen from around three million to just 1.3 million. This is an important and excellent public outcome, which reduces the burden on our healthcare system. Current vaping declined from seven per cent to six per cent over this period, 2025-2026. Dunkley is part of that story. That progress matters because tobacco remains one of Australia's major preventable causes of disease and death. It is a burden on our health system.

When we talk about illicit tobacco, we need to understand what is at stake. We're not simply talking about an unpaid tax bill. We're talking about an illegal market operating outside the regulatory system that Australia has spent decades building. Illicit tobacco is a global problem. Countries with very different approaches to tobacco taxation and regulation experience problems with illegal tobacco markets. Australia is not unique in confronting organised criminal networks that see tobacco as an opportunity for profit. In 1994 Canada sought to stop illegal smuggling by cutting the excise by 48 per cent. This resulted in 30,000 preventable and premature deaths and, later, a class action which saw a $32.5 billion settlement.

The coalition are proposing an 80 per cent cut to the excise. These so-called policies by One Nation and the coalition will lead to more smoking-related deaths and increased pressure on our health system. So my question to them is: how many deaths are you willing to accept? With this policy, any shred of credibility that the coalition and One Nation claim to have on health goes up literally in smoke. The economics of the illegal market help explain why. A pack of cigarettes can reportedly be manufactured cheaply in parts of South-East Asia and then sold for several dollars a packet on Australia's illicit market. That creates an enormous margin of profit for people prepared to break the law, and that is where the public policy problem becomes much bigger than tobacco excise. When criminal organisations can make substantial profits from importing, manufacturing and distributing illicit tobacco, they have an incentive to establish supply chains, recruit people, move money and find businesses through which to distribute their products illegally.

That is why the response cannot be simply about decreasing a tax rate; rather, it must be about not legitimising the black-market trade. This problem requires compliance and enforcement, it requires cooperation between Commonwealth agencies and state and territory authorities and it requires action at every stage of the supply chain. The government has committed more than $365 million since 2024 to tackling illegal tobacco and nicotine products. That includes $188.5 million in the 2024-25 budget for the Australian Border Force to strengthen action against illegal tobacco imports. It also includes $156 million in the 2025-26 budget to strengthen compliance and enforcement against illicit tobacco and nicotine products. The 2026-27 budget includes a further $20 million for measures including supporting state and territory compliance.

The government has also established the national disruption group, led by the Australian Border Force, bringing together Commonwealth, state and territory agencies. That matters because the illicit market does not respect jurisdictional boundaries. The response therefore cannot be confined to one agency or one level of government. There is work before tobacco reaches Australia. There is work at the border. The Australian Border Force is working with international partners to identify and disrupt shipments even before they reach our shores. Between 2025 and 2026, that preborder work prevented more than 35 million cigarettes, 26 tonnes of illicit tobacco and around 500,000 vapes from entering Australia.

At the border, the scale of seizures has also increased significantly. The ABF reports that in 2025-26 it seized more than 2,300 tonnes of illicit tobacco and 13 million vaping devices. Offshore seizures of cigarette sticks increased by 496 per cent, compared with an increase of 232 per cent in the previous financial year. Those numbers represent products that did not reach Australian communities and revenue that criminal organisations did not receive. But seizures are only part of the response. Once illicit tobacco has entered Australia, state and territory authorities have an important role to play. More than 1,000 stores have been shut down nationally under state and territory enforcement regimes.

The Commonwealth has also been working to follow the money. The AFP-led Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce has restrained more than $47.5 million in assets since June 2026. The Illicit Tobacco National Disruption Group has identified more than 100 people of interest associated with the illicit tobacco industry. AUSTRAC has received more than 700 suspicious-matter reports relating to illicit tobacco. And the Multi Agency Strike Team, involving agencies such as the AFP and the ATO, has charged seven people in operations targeting two multimillion-dollar criminal organisations involved in the illicit tobacco trade. These are examples of what a disruption strategy looks like when it moves beyond the border and follows the criminal enterprise through its finances and distribution networks.

But there is another group that deserves attention in this debate: local retailers. The overwhelming majority of small businesses in communities like Dunkley are legitimate businesses. They employ local people, pay rent and wages, comply with the law, and contribute to their communities. An illicit tobacco market can put those businesses in a very difficult position, particularly when illegal products are sold through premises operating outside the rules that legitimate retailers are expected to follow. That is why enforcement cannot stop with Commonwealth border operations. States and territories need effective compliance teams and powers that allow them to close premises where illegal tobacco is repeatedly being sold. Landlords also have a role to play when premises are knowingly being used for illegal activity. Long-term closure orders and appropriate landlord penalties can form part of a broader enforcement response.

But enforcement is only one side of tobacco policy. The other side is helping people quit. It's important that we do not turn smokers into the target of this debate. Nicotine dependence is an important part of the picture. It's an addiction. The public policy objective is to reduce smoking and nicotine dependence while ensuring that people who want to quit can access appropriate support. The latest national figures give us reason to continue that work. The decline in daily smoking means Australia has made enormous progress. But 5.6 per cent still represents around 1.3 million people smoking daily. There are people who have smoked for decades, there are people who are trying to quit and there are others who have tried several times and not yet succeeded. Then there are families supporting someone they love through the process. That is why tobacco control has to combine prevention, regulation, enforcement and cessation support.

We also need to recognise that nicotine use is changing. The 2025 survey found that daily vaping among Australians aged 14 and over is around the same level as it was in 2022-23. That gives us an opportunity to respond to the evidence rather than treat every nicotine product as though it presents exactly the same policy challenge. The principle remains straightforward: Australia's public health policy should be based on reducing tobacco related harm, preventing young people from becoming dependent on nicotine and supporting people who want to quit. And illicit tobacco should not be allowed to undermine that work.

The government's approach is, therefore, about disruption before the border, at the border, after the border and through the financial system. It's about cooperation between agencies and governments, making illegal supply chains harder to operate and removing criminal profits. We are ensuring that legitimate businesses are not left to compete with an illegal market. There is no single measure that will eliminate illicit tobacco. The scale of the international market means that enforcement will remain an ongoing task. But that is not an argument for giving up, like those opposite proposed we do. It's an argument for continuing to improve intelligence, border enforcement, financial disruption, and state and territory compliance.

Australia has spent decades building a tobacco-control system that has delivered one of the most significant public health challenges of our generation. The task now is to make sure that progress continues. We should not confuse a declining smoking rate with a problem that has disappeared. For Dunkley, as for communities across Australia, the goals should be clear: fewer people taking up smoking, more people able to quit, legitimate businesses protected from illegal competition, and organised criminal networks prevented from profiting from tobacco. The measure of success will be whether fewer young Australians become addicted to nicotine, more smokers are able to quit, and the next generation is smoking even less than the current generation. And that is progress worth protecting.

Last week, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released new data. Daily smoking prevalence has fallen to a new record low of 5.6 per cent in 2025, down from 8.3 per cent in 2022-23. Taken at face value, that's the best news in the history of Australian tobacco control. I want to be the first to say it plainly: the antismoking investment worked and it must be protected. But we owe this chamber the honesty about those numbers and what they do not tell us. These figures come from a self-report survey. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has acknowledged that the respondents tend to underestimate their actual consumption levels and that illicit use is particularly undercounted.

So here's the problem: when the previous survey ran in 2022-23, most tobacco was still bought legally. But by 2025, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated 80 per cent of all nicotine products were illicit. So the steepest fall in reported smoking in the survey's history was recorded over exactly the period in which smoking moved underground and became harder to measure. That doesn't mean smoking isn't falling; it means we should be cautious before we declare victory on the back of a number we can no longer fully see.

Regardless of the true rate, the bills keep arriving. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare tells us that smoking costs our health system circa $7.9 billion every year; smoking attributed to ill health, $29.8 billion; premature mortality, $107 billion; and a total social cost of $160 billion in 2022-23 alone. And 1.4 to 1.5 million Australians still smoke. These are some of the most expensive Australians to look after, and that cost lands on every taxpayer in this nation and in this chamber.

The violence is now a crisis in its own right. Since 2023, nearly 300 arson attacks linked to the trade have been reported nation wide, alongside countless episodes of extortion, intimidation and several murders. Australians now spend up to $8.5 billion a year on illicit nicotine. That's a big number compared to cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy and heroin. That makes illicit nicotine one of the largest and certainly the fastest growing black markets in our history.

The ports are working, but they can't do it alone. I want to give credit where credit is due. Australian Border Force officers are doing extraordinary work. In 2025-26, this current year, the ABF seized more than 2.2 billion illicit cigarettes, 586.7 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco and over 13.2 million illegal vapes. Those seizures represented an estimated $4.7 billion of evaded tobacco duty, largely detected through maritime cargo screening, container X-ray technology, intelligence sharing and offshore targeting. Through international intelligence partnerships, the Australian Border Force prevented a further 514.9 million cigarettes and 3.1 million vapes from ever reaching our shores. In the drug space, Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force seized 33.7 tonnes of illicit drugs and the precursors to them in 2023-24—methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin and MDMA.

Australian ports are among the most sophisticated border control environments in the world. This is the crux of my argument: the fact that we have a market worth up to $8.5 billion tells you enforcement alone is not solving the problem. Australia processes millions of containers annually. Only a fraction can be physically inspected. Criminal groups exploit false cargo descriptions, complex supply chains, multiple transhipment ports, corrupt freight operators and small-parcel postal channels. The Australian Border Force itself frames success as disrupting criminal networks and increasing their costs, not achieving complete elimination. Australian Border Force commander Ken McKern said plainly:

Unfortunately we can't seize this problem away.

Let me put it this way. Australian Border Force officers are seizing record quantities of illicit tobacco at our ports, but the size of the black market demonstrates that enforcement alone cannot solve the problem. We must also address the economic incentive that makes tobacco smuggling so profitable for organised crime.

We are currently not helping police. Every gram that gets through places a burden on our law enforcement agencies. Every seizure, every investigation, every firebombing consumes police resources, forensic teams and court time. Officers who should be hunting drug traffickers, child exploitation networks and violent offenders are being diverted into policing a black market that our own tax settings helped create. Then come the courts. Then come the prisons. Incarcerating a single offender commonly exceeds $150,000 a year. High excise creates the market, criminals exploit it, police and courts respond, and taxpayers fund the whole cycle. That is not a loss of revenue; that is a cascade of cost flowing through every level of government.

There are three things we clearly must do. Our tobacco control policies were designed when criminal suppliers played only a marginal role. Now they dominate the market. Those policies need an urgent rethink. First, cut the tobacco tax. Tobacco taxes are meant to reduce consumption by making cigarettes expensive. Right now, the tax only makes legal tobacco expensive, driving consumers to cheap illicit alternatives. Perversely, excessive taxation has made smoking cheaper than it has been in decades. Canada took this path in 1994, cutting its tobacco excise in response to rampant smuggling while stepping up enforcement. Within six years, contraband seizures fell 94 per cent. Critics will say a tax cut is what big tobacco wants. But, based on market share, organised crime effectively is big tobacco in Australia right now. A legal industry is preferable to a criminal one selling the same product without health warnings or plain packaging, and allegedly using the proceeds to kill, intimidate and firebomb those who get in their way.

Second, legislate safer alternatives. Smoking remains a leading cause of preventable death, so moving people back to legal cigarettes is only a partial win. We should repel the consumer vapes and legalise lower-risk products, like nicotine pouches. In May, Sweden became the first country to reach a smoke-free threshold of under five per cent daily smoking through a legal, regulated market for vapes and pouches. New Zealand legalised and regulated vapes in 2020, and adult smoking has since fallen by more than 40 per cent, with the steepest declines among the Maori and the lower-income communities—the very groups whose rates remain stubbornly high here. Third, keep enforcing against the shrinking market. Enforcement remains absolutely critical, but we must divert a critical mass of nicotine consumers away from criminal suppliers. With fewer customers and lower profits, the same raids and seizures can finally make a difference.

Let me talk about the bottom line. This debate is not about surrendering a public health win. It's about protecting that public health win. The investments worked, and smoking rates are down, but we cannot protect that again by pretending the black market isn't there or by pretending a self-report survey captures what has moved underground. When a tax policy enriches criminals, overwhelms police, clogs courts, fills prisons and costs taxpayers billions, it's no longer simply a health policy. It becomes a public policy failure. Australia's tobacco wars are a product of the settings that inadvertently handed organised crime a multi-billion-dollar market. Arrests alone won't end them; fixing the settings will. We can protect the investment and fix what's broken. We should have the courage to do both. It's from my narrative that I've just articulated that I support and second the member of New England's amendment to the bill. Use all and every strategy and every tactic to fight organised crime and stop this black market.

When people think of their childhood, often the sense that they relate to, that brings up old memories, is smell. My dad was a metalworker. When I smell grease, I always think of my dad. But my dad was also a pack-a-day smoker, and I'm going to say that when I smell tobacco I do not think about my dad whatsoever. He was a pack-a-day smoker but I'm going to say that, with good support from Australian public health professionals, he gave up smoking. This is a part of Australia's good story of what we do when we have good policies in place. It's interesting because what we see is that the people who are running illegal tobacco trades are organised and adept and they change quickly. They are criminal syndicates that operate across borders, funding shops within our communities that have the ability to pop up and disappear and then pop up again like a bad case of teenage acne that won't go away. These are syndicates that keep on evading harsh penalties, over and over again. They do not care about Australians, they do not care about public health and they certainly don't care about Australians' lungs.

In my electorate of Swan, local businesses are doing the right thing and they should not be undercut by criminals selling illegal tobacco. That is why this government will keep on modernising our laws and it's why I rise to support the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. This Labor government will go after these criminals with the full force of the law. We've been doing this through a step-by-step legislative uplift. This bill is the third instalment. The first instalment, the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026, lifted penalties and fines and improved our ability to intercept illegal product. The second instalment, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2026, will give AUSTRAC the power to shut down the laundering that this trade enables. This bill creates new offences for importing, possessing and conveying illicit tobacco. Until now, federal agents had to prove that someone intended to defraud the Australian government of revenue. This was hard to prove because the big players in these networks diluted their accountability by keeping their distance from the importing, transporting and selling of illicit tobacco products. For too long, the rewards were high and the risks were low, which allowed these transnational criminal organisations to take advantage of Australian people.

The new offences introduced in this bill come with a list of observable indicators. Where any one of them is established, it satisfies a reasonable suspicion test. This can include trying to hide tobacco from detection at the border, deceptive packaging or selling prices below excise and the GST combined. This last one is simple. If a pack costs less than the tax that should be paid on it, officers have reasonable grounds to suspect it came in illegally. These indicators let the Australian Border Force and state and territory police go after the supply chain on the facts in front of them, rather than a complex burden of proof, and it reaches the shops themselves. Where officers find any one of those signs in a shop, they can take action. We are also building capacity across agencies so they can work together, sharing intelligence and centralising data so that the picture is clearer.

This bill also tightens the rules on duty-refundable tobacco. This is tobacco supplied to duty-free operators for the export or sale to travellers. Right now it sits outside customs control, which opens the door for it to be diverted onto the black market at duty-free prices. This bill restores custom controls until tobacco is exported or sold to an eligible traveller. For legitimate duty-free operators, very little changes.

This bill also streamlines how illicit tobacco is seized and destroyed. The Australian Border Force is detecting record amounts, yet officers lose hours of work because of paperwork on a single seizure. Cutting red tape frees them up to stop drugs and weapons and other dangerous goods at the border. It also stops criminals using claim and notification processes to delay the destruction of what's been seized.

The bill goes after people who give these networks a way in. Illicit tobacco relies on storage, warehouses, freight and depots that are run to look like legitimate businesses, so the bill adds new licence conditions for custom brokers, depots and warehouses. Licence holders must not help bring prohibited tobacco in the country, and they must take reasonable steps to stop it happening in their own operations. That means these businesses are now accountable for what moves through their operations, and they cannot afford to look the other way. It also means being more careful about who they do business with. The new offences reach companies as well as individuals, so a distributor, a warehouse operator or a freight business can face charges.

The Australian Federal Police have told us that what really hurts these syndicates is taking their cash, their houses, their cars and their assets, so the bill strengthens orders which make offenders pay back what they have made from crime. It makes clear that criminals cannot subtract the fines they pay from the profits they owe. It updates the production orders so agencies can get the information they need to follow the money, including the proceedings, across every state and territory. It clarifies how unexplained wealth is calculated so that agencies can go after wealth that criminals cannot explain.

But none of this works unless it's enforced where the shops actually are, and that is largely the job of the states and territories. The Albanese Labor government will support every one of them in the fight against the illegal tobacco trade, regardless of politics. We are focused on coordinated disruption at street level to shut down illegal markets and drive consumers back to legitimate products. That matters because ease of access and convenience are a major driver of smoking rates. We have recently seen that enforcement is working in Queensland. Since November last year Queensland Health can shut down an illegal shop for up to 90 days without even going to court. Landlords who knowingly rent these to these operators face hefty fines and up to 12 months' jail. To stop these shops from popping back up after a brief shutdown, these enforcement blitzes hit every illegal shop in the area at once. In one recent 10-day operation 148 stores were issued with three-month closure orders and nearly 12 million cigarettes were taken out of circulation.

Legal tobacco sales in Queensland rose by 55 per cent in the first month after those powers began. Interestingly, calls to Quitline more than doubled in the 10 days after the major enforcement of these operations. This data suggests that when illicit tobacco gets harder to find people move to legitimate retailers and some might even decide to quit. South Australia showed the way, and Queensland has followed its lead. Across the country state and territory governments have announced over 1,000 illegal tobacco shop closures. Enforcement is what works.

We welcome the opposition's support for this bill, but this government will not support policies that echo what tobacco lobbyists want. The coalition's plan to cut tobacco excise by 80 per cent and legalise vapes does exactly that. Take the excise first. The coalition's 80 per cent cut is an incredibly risky gamble with the health of Australians, and we have seen no modelling of what it would do to smoking rates. You cannot cut a legal price and expect an illegal one to magically disappear. Illicit tobacco can be made for less than a dollar a packet, and it pays no excise at all. It will always be cheaper, and a tax cut will not put these criminals out of business. We are not interested in joining a price discounting war with organised crime with a race to the bottom. Criminals who pay no tax and follow no rules will always be able to go lower. A legal price can never beat that. We are not the only ones who see it that way. The Australian Council on Smoking and Health has acknowledged the substantial work this government has done to strengthen the national framework. These new laws are designed to strengthen border enforcement and help agencies disrupt the criminal networks importing and distributing illicit tobacco.

Yet the coalition's answer to the problem is the tax cut. But those opposite don't stop there. They also want to legalise vapes. Disposable vapes surged in this country during COVID, with bright packaging and flavours like bubblegum, grape and cherry. They were intentionally marketed to young people, and the nicotine in them is highly addictive. We know that young people who vape are three times more likely to take up smoking. That is why the government banned the importation of disposable vapes in 2024. This side of the chamber is taking practical steps to fight illicit tobacco at every stage of the supply chain through stronger enforcement. We are working with every state and territory to scale up enforcement and shut down shops.

Australia prides itself on having access to some of the best healthcare in the world. Labor introduced Medicare, and protecting people's health is what this government will always do. Medical experts and academics have warned, as they have done for decades, that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. It makes up 20 per cent of the cancer burden. Smoking kills 66 Australians every single day. That's around 24,000 families every year who lose someone that they love. But we've made real progress. In 1991, just over 24 per cent of Australians aged 14 and over smoked every day. In 2025, the National Drug Strategy Household Survey found it is now under six per cent. Daily vaping has stabilised at nearly four per cent. Those gains are hard won, and this government intends to protect them. But we also must support people to quit and to never take up smoking in the first place. Smoking remains legal, and this is not about telling anyone what to do. It's about making illicit tobacco harder to get and backing the people who want to quit. We saw in Queensland what happens when illicit tobacco gets harder to find. Some people move to legitimate retailers and some may decide to quit. Criminals are chasing the next generation of customers, so we want it to be harder for young people to get a hold of this product.

If I think about my 20s, when I used to go out nightclubbing, it was a time when smoking was acceptable in nightclubs. There was lots of alcohol, lots of tobacco smoking, and when you went home and you smelled your hair and your clothes, they would smell like an ashtray. They smelled absolutely disgusting. What's funny is that, when that policy changed, everyone just got to go home and feel a little bit brighter and cleaner and less disgusting. Australia always is at the forefront of thinking about the way we protect our fellow Australians, whether it relates to plain packaging—we were the first country in the world to do that—or to the banning of smoking in nightclubs. In making sure that we protect Australians, this is another feather in our cap, because, let's face it, the tobacco industry does not have Australians in its heart, soul or mind. What they really want is your money, and the price you pay for that is your lungs.

It's the Albanese Labor government that will keep on modernising our laws and reviewing how they work in practice, making make sure that we protect Australians not just for today but for tomorrow as well. I commend the bill.

I rise to speak on the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. The coalition will not oppose this legislation. We support sensible measures that give Commonwealth law enforcement and border agencies stronger tools to combat the illicit tobacco trade. Many in this chamber would know that this is an issue that I have campaigned and spoken on many times, so I do welcome the action that is being taken. However, nobody should mistake this bill for a comprehensive solution to a crisis that has been allowed to grow under this government. Quite frankly, we are really just tinkering at the edges. The bill strengthens the offence framework covering the unlawful importation, possession, movement and sale of illicit tobacco. It also improves the ability of authorities to establish whether tobacco is illicit, strengthens provisions targeting criminal proceeds and tightens oversight of customs depots and licensed warehouses. These are sensible measures. They have the potential to make it harder for criminal operators to exploit weaknesses in our enforcement framework and profit from the illegal tobacco trade.

But the question before this parliament is whether the government understands the scale of the problem and is prepared to address its underlying causes. The government's own Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner estimates that illicit tobacco accounted for between 50 and 60 per cent of tobacco sold in Australia in 2024-2025, with an estimated market value of between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion. Estimated excise and duty evasion reached between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. That's a lot of schools and hospitals. These are extraordinary figures. They represent billions of dollars in economic activity outside the lawful market and billions in potential government revenue that is not being collected. This is not simply a question of lost revenue or people buying cheaper cigarettes under the counter. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has described illicit tobacco as one of the most significant organised crime commodities in Australia. This is not confined to our capital cities. It is being felt right across Australia, particularly in regional Western Australia.

In Durack, the electorate that I represent, legitimate small businesses are paying the price. I was told by a local business in Durack that, over a six-month period, it suffered a $200,000 loss in sales each week. That is an enormous hit for any small business to absorb. The impact goes well beyond the sales figures. It affects staffing, customer foot traffic and the long-term viability of the business itself. These are businesses that employ local people, support families and contribute to the communities in which they operate. When their revenue is threatened, the consequences are felt throughout the local economy.

Lawful retailers have followed the rules. They have absorbed excise increases, updated their compliance practices and adhered to successive legislative changes. Yet they are being forced to compete against illicit operators selling cigarettes for a fraction of the price of legal products. A legal packet of 20 cigarettes can cost more than $40, with around $31 of that $40 attributable to tobacco excise. Meanwhile, illicit cigarettes can be sold for as little as $10 to $15 a packet.

Consider what this means for a legitimate retailer. They have to pay their staff, cover their operating costs, comply with regulations and account for the taxes imposed on the products they sell. Their illegal competitors can undercut them dramatically by avoiding these obligations. Clearly, this is not a level playing field. It is legitimate small businesses that are paying the price while organised criminals exploit the enormous gap between the legal and illegal markets. These mainly small businesses should not be left to fight this battle alone. The government has a responsibility to ensure that its policies do not leave law-abiding retailers exposed to criminal operators who have no intention of playing by the rules.

How has the Albanese government responded? It has introduced new offences, increased penalties and announced additional enforcement funding. Around $365 million in additional enforcement funding has been provided since 2023-24. Yet the illicit market has continued to expand. The government's failure has been its refusal to adequately confront the policy settings that have helped this black market become so profitable.

In the May 2023 budget, Labor imposed additional five per cent tobacco excise increases in each of the three successive years on top of existing twice-yearly indexation. Those increases took effect in September 2023, September 2024 and September 2025. At the time, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Health Minister Mark Butler forecast that the higher excise rates would raise an additional $3.3 billion over the forward estimates. Instead, the government has faced substantial tobacco revenue losses as tobacco consumers have shifted towards the illicit market. This raises a fundamental question about the effectiveness of the government's approach. If repeated excise increases help widen the price gap between legal and illegal products and criminal operators can exploit that gap to make extraordinary profits, then simply increasing penalties will not be enough.

Enforcement is, of course, essential. Those who import, distribute and sell illegal tobacco must face consequences. But enforcement alone simply cannot resolve a problem when the financial incentives driving the trade remain in place.

That is why the coalition has proposed a more comprehensive alternative. Our policy approach combines stronger enforcement with reform of the tax and regulatory settings that have driven customers into the black market, alongside measures to reduce smoking and nicotine harm. Firstly, the coalition has proposed an 80 per cent reduction in tobacco excise, bringing the excise component of a standard packet of 20 cigarettes from around $30 to around $6, with the rate to be reviewed after two years. The purpose is not to encourage smoking. It is to reduce the enormous price differential that has helped make Australia such a lucrative illicit tobacco market and to help shift customers away from organised crime and back towards a lawful, regulated market. Secondly, we have proposed a $200 million nationwide law enforcement blitz to support additional raids, arrests, seizures, investigations, shop closures and disruption at the border. This would strengthen the operational focus across the Australian Border Force, Australian Federal Police, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and AUSTRAC. Thirdly, we would establish a legal, regulated and taxed adult market for nicotine vapes and nicotine pouches while maintaining protections for children. Fourthly, we would invest $60 million in a national public awareness and education campaign exposing the organised crime behind illicit tobacco and vapes while reinforcing the dangers of smoking.

These proposals are intended to work together. Stronger enforcement disrupts criminal networks. Reform of excise settings seeks to reduce the price advantage enjoyed by illegal operators. Proper regulation provides a lawful framework for adult consumers, while education addresses demand and reinforces the health risks. That is the difference between simply responding to the symptoms of the problem and attempting to address the conditions that sustain it.

We will move amendments to this bill to give legislative effect, where possible, to key elements of our policy, particularly the proposed excise reduction and the changes needed to establish a regulated adult market for nicotine vapes and pouches. We must ensure that legitimate businesses are not unfairly caught up in any new arrangements. Concerns raised by customs brokers, freight representatives and other legitimate participants in the import supply chain deserve serious consideration. The objective, frankly, must be to disrupt criminal networks and prevent illicit tobacco from entering the market, not to make life unnecessarily difficult for lawful businesses. Legitimate businesses, we all know, are not the enemy. They should be partners in disrupting illicit trade, not collateral damage from the government's response.

The coalition will not stand in the way of sensible measures that give our law enforcement and border agencies better tools, but we cannot pretend that another set of enforcement amendments by themselves will resolve this crisis. For businesses across regional Western Australia, this is not an abstract policy debate. It is about sales, jobs, livelihoods and whether legitimate local businesses can remain viable while competing against criminal operators. The government must acknowledge that its approach has not worked and be prepared to address the conditions that have allowed this illegal market to flourish. The coalition offers the only comprehensive response: stronger enforcement, a major law enforcement surge, reform of tobacco excise settings, regulated alternatives for adults and a serious public education campaign. I do support this bill because enforcement agencies need effective powers to do their jobs, but, together with my coalition colleagues, I will continue to push for broader reforms that are necessary to undermine organised crime and restore a fairer operating environment for legitimate retailers. I thank the House.

I thank the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs for working on this very important proposed legislation, the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026, and bringing it before the parliament. I note the comments of the member for Durack, and she's quite right. We do need comprehensive policy to deal with the scourge of smoking and of nicotine addiction. Where we disagree is in the price signal of high excise for cigarettes, which—and this is very important—is one of the most important measures we can use to reduce smoking rates.

It's important to recognise that smoking kills about 70 Australians every year, and they don't die in a good way—if you can ever die in a good way. They die in a bad way. Dying of lung cancer, struggling to draw every breath through an obstructed major airway, is a really nasty way to die. Dying of emphysema—struggling and gasping for every little bit of breath until you can breathe no more with your hyperexpanded chest, your muscle wasted and your pulse in the hundreds—is a really nasty way to die. Smoking is bad for your health. Nicotine addiction is bad for your health. The cardiovascular damage that it causes is irreversible and causes early death in many, many people.

The importation of illicit tobacco has unfortunately expanded rapidly and is increasingly linked to organised criminal activity, with these criminal entities operating at such a significant scale that our communities' law enforcement agencies and reputable businesses have struggled to deal with it. These criminal entities have also managed to have end-to-end control over the illicit tobacco importation process and also the illicit importation of vapes. We know that the current offences and enforcement powers under the Customs Act specific to tobacco related misconduct do not adequately deter illicit tobacco importation—as the profits are huge—or support efficient enforcement, treatment, investigation and prosecution of these offences.

As such, the federal Labor government is acting with this amendment to the Customs Act to introduce five measures to increase the deterrence of criminal conduct in respect of the unlawful importation of tobacco and support more effective enforcement options and related prosecutions. It is very important that we have this comprehensive law enforcement and prosecution of the offenders. We also note that the products that they're importing are not regulated in any way. They often contain substances that are highly carcinogenic with high levels of nicotine, pesticides and other illicit substances that we can't even identify that are damaging to people's health. We are acting to try and reduce these importations.

These measures that we're introducing will also improve the operational efficiency of the Australian Border Force and its capability to respond to the prevalence of illicit tobacco imported unlawfully and circulated within the Australian community.

I'd like to note that I can see the clocks are not working.

The measures are not intended to affect legitimate participants—importers of tobacco, customs brokers, depot and warehouse operators et cetera—who comply with their legal obligations. This bill is the next step in the federal Labor government's ongoing crackdown on those behind the illicit tobacco trade, whose self-interest is causing social, economic and physical harm in our society. This self-interest is fuelled by profiteering off the addiction of others, the deaths of others, and has been weaponised by gangs and criminals who want to protect their own wealth at the expense of our health.

This bill follows the passage of the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill, which I spoke on previously, with its raised penalties. It unlocked new law enforcement techniques and updated the proceeds of crime laws. This bill builds on that work and is part of a comprehensive package of management of illicit tobacco and vapes. It raised the stakes for the criminals to what I hope will be unacceptable levels.

As noted by the Assistant Minister, the number of Australians who are smoking is fewer than ever. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's most recent report showed that daily smoking records show that it's now down to a record low of 5.8 per cent of Australians aged 14 and over. On top of this, vaping rates are now stabilised and have dropped a little to be under four per cent despite the best efforts of those criminals who are seeking to profit off tobacco addiction.

It's important to also note that we know the concerning relationship between vaping or smoking and seeing young people addicted to nicotine. Vaping in particular exposes young people to huge levels of nicotine over very prolonged periods, 24 hours a day. It very rapidly leads to nicotine addiction, and we know that those who become addicted to nicotine through the use of vapes are more than three times more likely to end up as chronic smokers than those who don't vape. It's also important to remember that the decline in smoking and vaping rates didn't just happen because we all collectively decided to stop using these silent killers. It took a lot of hard work over a long period of time, including reducing exposure to advertising of these poisonous products. It included campaigns like the BUGA UP campaign of the seventies that I remember well. And it included the very hard-fought battle that Nicola Roxon had to fight to get plain packaging introduced. It came about because of tough policies by Labor governments, who were prepared to take the hard battles on public health policy seriously and do what they could to reduce this dreadful social harm.

Unfortunately, smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease in our country and still represents 20 per cent of our nation's cancer burden. As I've said, almost 70 Australians die every day of a smoking related illness, and this is probably an under-reporting of the deaths from smoking. That is why this legislation is crucial. We need to bring these mortality rates down. We also need to reduce the morbidity that smoking causes, with cardiovascular disease, a variety of cancers, emphysema and chronic obstructive airway disease. We need to bring these rates down. We need to make sure people can get access to quit programs and harm-reduction programs for smoking and vaping and to make people healthier. We need to encourage them to engage in respiratory rehabilitation programs, and we do this through our public health policy.

This legislation is crucial. We need to bring down the rates of these health conditions, and we need to bring down the criminals and thugs who are harming our health for their wealth. This is also important to preserve and protect our public healthcare system, which relies on taxpayer funds to support people when they need it, especially those dealing with the health consequences of tobacco related products, such as cigarettes and vapes. The Labor Party has been the party for health in Australia for the last century. It's difficult for our public hospitals and our Medicare system to maintain the level of resources and treatments needed to manage tobacco related illness when the illicit tobacco trade avoids paying any tax at all and pays no excise that would go into the public purse to treat the health conditions that smoking causes. On top of that, we have people advocating to reduce tobacco excise, which would put smoking rates up. There's no better example than Canada, which, when it reduced its excise rates, showed a significant increase in smoking rates, at a time when most countries in the developed world had gradually decreasing rates of smoking.

This legislation would also reduce the illness rates caused by smoking in our health system. Some parties in this country are promising to reduce the tobacco excise rates, such as the coalition and One Nation, and to give tobacco a big boost and the illicit tobacco industry a big boost as well. I find both of these policy proposals shocking and disappointing. Trying to cater to both ends of this horrific industry will only have harmful effects, not only on our economy but also on our society. I don't want to see things go back to how they were when I was a student, watching people die every day from lung cancer and smoking related diseases in our public hospital system. It will have harmful effects on our economy and our society, and I can't believe that sensible people are advocating for reductions in excise.

This bill creates new offences for importing, possessing and conveying illicit tobacco, and I'm very glad of that. With the new framework, it will focus on unlawful conduct and better reflect the reality of concealed supply chains and distribution facilities. It introduces observable indicators of illicit activity. An established indicator must satisfy the reasonable suspicion element. It does not, by itself, establish guilt, but it will lead to easier prosecution of those who are distributing these poisonous products. Importantly, the reasonable suspicion test is objective and focuses on observable facts rather than requiring officers to prove every hidden detail of a criminal supply chain. It will make our law enforcement much easier, and it will help establish appropriate attacks on the criminals that are running these empires. Indicators include noncompliant retail packaging, noncompliant tobacco products including products concealed in plain packaging, tobacco concealed to avoid detection, missing import invoices or required paperwork, and tobacco sold for less than the combined value of applicable excise and GST, which surely should be a primary indicator of criminal activity. That final indicator is particularly important. The fact that tobacco is being sold below the excise and GST payable can, by itself, establish reasonable suspicion that it was unlawfully imported.

This will be a very powerful tool for the Australian Border Force and state and territory police forces and will help enforcement against criminal activity immeasurably throughout the country. It's very important, with over 2,300 tonnes of illicit tobacco and over 13 million vaping devices seized by our incredible law enforcement agencies over the past year. This number is mightily impressive from a seizure perspective; however, it's very frightening for public health perspective, and it's really frightening for our young people. Young people are being exposed to smoking products at very low costs with easy access at the present time, and it needs to stop. This should not be on the streets of our local communities. In my own community there are many, many tobacco stores who are clearly profiting from illicit tobacco, and they need to be closed down. We are working to ensure this legislation and these activities are backed up by ongoing law enforcement funding, with the 2026-27 budget adding over $20 million over four years to combat the illegal tobacco market. I congratulate the health minister and the Attorney-General for this. It means more boots on the ground strengthening licensing, supporting joint operations with our state law enforcement activities and enabling the storage and destruction of illicit products. This bill streamlines the seizure and disposal of illicit tobacco, which is an important step in helping our law enforcement agencies process the administrative task of their duties. It follows concerns raised by authorities about the difficulty with the large amounts of material being detected.

I'm very proud to be part of a government that's introducing this legislation. I'm very proud to be part of a government that recognises that illicit tobacco and vaping products are causing irreparable harm to our community, particularly to young people. I don't want to see a time when smoking rates in Australia start to go up because of poor enforcement activities. This is a very important public health measure, and I congratulate the government ministers responsible for this and for the work that they are doing. At this stage we know that, for criminals, illicit tobacco is a low-risk high-reward activity, and we know that we need legislation to increase the risk to them and to strengthen the enforcement tools available to our police officers and our enforcement providers. We need to improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to follow the money and get rid of these terrible criminals as part of our broader public health strategy. I strongly support this legislation. It comes at a crucial time when we must not give into illegal activities. I commend the bill to the House.

I have enormous respect for the member who just spoke. I know his incredible contribution to the health and wellbeing of the community. But I don't agree on all of his content, particularly his commentary about how any person could go on and support a cut in tobacco excise. While we are all concerned about smoking rates, and we are, and while we're all concerned about the health impacts of illicit tobacco, and we are, we're also concerned about the explosion in the illicit tobacco trade, and we are. The member knows full well that there has been a trajectory in the consumption of illicit tobacco that has perfectly correlated with the introduction of two policy measures. One is plain packaging for tobacco products, taking a lawful product that's branded and making it generic so that anybody can trade for it willy-nilly, as they see fit, such as with illicit drugs. Those policies aren't really that effective in shutting down people's pathways. The second one is the expansion of excise. I remember the time we debated the introduction of plain packaging. I remember then that it didn't work and so the government whacked a giant excise on top of it to try and demonstrate that a failed policy worked. It's the difference between policy design on outcome and policy based on intent. What we've seen, year on year, has been an increase in the amount of excise applied to tobacco by both coalition governments and Labor governments.

I don't know if you've heard about this, Deputy Speaker Freelander, but—shock, horror!—if you increase the price of a product completely disproportionate to the cost of its production, there are very fat margins that can be made and—funnily enough—international crime gangs like to get involved with them and engage in illicit products. We saw this with another product, for example. It's one I've mentioned already, which is illicit drugs. I'm not sure, but I don't believe there's any legal market for that. But the absence of a tax hasn't removed people's consumption of that. I will acknowledge that's because there is no legal product available. But take something by comparison. Remember CDs? Remember DVDs? Cost of production at the point of manufacture was very low—10c, 20c or whatever it was. The cost of sale was 30 bucks. There was quite a big margin there. Do you remember, Deputy Speaker—and I'm sure you do—when people used to sell illicit movies, video games et cetera? They were created from illegal products, knowing full well that the margins were there. Who was behind it? I think it was organised crime gangs, because there was a lot of money to be made.

So here we are in this parliament and we've had the federal government continue to increase the tax on tobacco products year on year so the margins and the profits are getting bigger and bigger. What a shock—illegal crime gangs have come along and taken advantage of it and profiteered! Even worse than that, they've made sure that the availability of illicit tobacco is now all over the community. The Deputy Speaker referred before to how great Nicola Roxon was as health minister. She was even given a World Health Organization award for being a leader. Her legacy was the expansion of illicit tobacco in this country, the firebombing of shops, the destruction of a legal market and the collapse in revenue from legal tobacco to reward international crime gangs. Sorry, Deputy Speaker, but it's nothing to be proud of. That is a shameful history and a shameful legacy. Even on her signature policy which she got that incredible award for and for which the world told her how wonderful she was, I can tell you it's pretty hard to find a pack of plain-packaged tobacco products in Australia because, when the illegal crime gangs move in, funnily enough, they're not that worried about what the law is from the starting position. They certainly don't follow branding guidelines or warning labels. They certainly don't report their revenue to the Australian Taxation Office, let alone pay the taxation and—shock, horror!—when all of the ordinary regulatory constraints that sit around a legal product are removed, suddenly you see consumption increase. Suddenly you see changes in behaviour. So I'm sorry, Deputy Speaker. I know the Labor Party think they're on the side of angels on this. I can fully accept that people do not like the problem and they also do not like the cure. But the thing about this parliament is we get elected to take responsibility and make best judgements as much as we can about how to run our country. And I can tell you there is no scenario in any book or, I suspect, in all of the parliamentary debates that are in front of us right now or in all of the parliamentary debates in the history of the Commonwealth where any parliament has ever turned around and said, 'Do you know what? Even if we disagree with how they use that freedom, in a choice between supporting people's right to choose to pay lawful tax and buy lawful products and rewarding the international crime gangs and selling out our citizens'—as the current law and current tax laws do—'I'm going to give this one to the international crime gangs.' Well, that's not true. In the 48th Parliament, we have made history, because this government is so stubborn, so pigheaded and so obsessed with its own history that, rather than focusing on the Australian people, they have now deliberately designed laws—and are defending the deliberately designed laws—to reward organised crime.

We've seen this not just in tobacco, and we know it full well. I've written to the Prime Minister and said, 'Prime Minister, would you audit the amount of money that you took from the Australian taxpayer and gave to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel by funding Victoria's Big Build projects? Would you actually audit that so Australian taxpayers' money doesn't end up in the hands of organised crime?' Silence. We're now seeing a pattern of behaviour where the Labor Party funnels public money—and that of Australian taxpayers—to reward international crime cartels. I say that, and there's nary a peep in the House because the reality is they all know it's true. All the ministers over there know it's true. All the backbenchers over there know it's true. Everyone knows that the Labor Party finances and facilitates the reward of international crime gangs, and I cannot believe that this is not a point of pure rage not just from the Australian community but, more importantly, from people within their own government saying, 'Prime Minister, why are we rewarding international crime gangs?'

I don't know about you, member for Fadden, but if we were ever sitting on the other side of this chamber and you came up to me and said, 'Do you know that our policy is rewarding international crime gangs?' my response would be, 'No, that can't be right. We'd never allow that to happen. We would shut down any pathway whereby international crime gangs had access to Australian taxpayers' money, let alone to consumers.' One of the first things I'd be quite unapologetic in saying would be: 'No. I'm really against international crime cartels and organised crime, and we're going to shut that down.' But in the Albanese government, the answer is: How big should the cheque be? How high would the international crime gangs like us to jump in terms of the volume of excise?

This is sheer insanity. It is utter insanity. But this is currently the state of the Commonwealth of Australia and its government. I don't think most Australians looking at the parliament would think that this government has any reason or any sense about its approach to tobacco regulation. The idea that it actually wants to stop smoking rates or stop illicit trade is, frankly, laughable. We know full well the legacy of not just what we've seen has happened with illicit tobacco. The follow-through is that we're now seeing a replication of that in illicit alcohol consumption. By building out the supply chains for illicit tobacco, the federal government has also provided a pathway to reduce tax revenue. I'm not sure I'd say, 'Tick!' but it's an achievement of sorts—one of the insane variety. But now they've built the supply chains that other products where the cost of production is low and the profits are large, like alcohol, can be put onto. In Melbourne, we now have illicit tobacco in nightclubs, restaurants, cafes and pretty much anywhere. Apparently Uber drivers sell it. In nightclubs, you go in and buy, essentially, from the mafia.

I don't know what victory the government is celebrating here, but we know full well that excise revenue has collapsed. We know that it is going to follow in terms of alcohol. And the only answer from the Prime Minister and the ministers sitting on the government benches is to applaud themselves and tell themselves what a wonderful job they're doing. I'm sorry. We have entered the Twilight universe. We are Through the Looking-Glass. This is an Unreality, because I am here making the case that we should shut down the pathways for organised crime to enjoy superprofits and not pay any tax, and I get opposed by members of the Labor Party.

It's unbelievable.

As the member for Fadden says—I agree. It's actually more than unbelievable. Yes, it's unbelievable, but it's mind-blowing to think that this is a situation we're in. Because we don't do it, guess what happens? Those organised crime gangs go around and firebomb businesses and risk people's human health. People have died. People have ended up in hospital from fire burning. People have lost livelihoods. People have lost property. Insurance premiums are going through the roof. And it's all to reward organised crime.

We know full well and I do understand that the relationship between organised crime and the architecture of the modern Labor Party is embedded. It is a deep relationship where money, particularly taxpayers' money, is funnelled through the Labor Party to organised crime. I do understand that they use it as part of their corrupt patronage network, where people are paid off between the CFMEU and government contracts and decide who gets to sit in positions including in this chamber. Again, there's no objection while I'm saying these things. There's no suggestion that there's any misleading of the House. Welcome to the modern Labor Party.

The idea that that corruption translates into what happens on the streets of our communities and that corruption directly threatens the safety and the wellbeing of the Australian community is, frankly, despicable, but here we are. The Labor government turns a blind eye and, like that meme character sitting on a chair surrounded by a bonfire, says, 'This is fine.' It is so mind-blowing to me, but this is where we are. Illicit tobacco, superprofits for organised crime—and the response of Labor is, 'This is fine.'

We see this all over the country. In my electorate, we've seen it. News agencies being targeted, milk bars being targeted, convenience stores in Highett, in Cheltenham, in Sandringham Village, in Beaumaris—it pretty much doesn't matter where you are; illegal crime and illegal tobacco is running rife. We hear these local stories, and I want you to hear the story of Dave. He runs a business in the community. He says:

I would really like to pass my business on to my kids, but it is getting that marginal, purely because of external environment factors out of my control, that I really don't know how much longer we can go on. Every week or so we become aware of another business that has closed, and just wonder how many more will go before our politicians listen.

Listen! Listen to the voices within the community. They're not asking for a handout. They're not asking for any particular assistance. They just want the firebombings to stop. Dave has said he has one existential issue for his business, and it's called insurance. He says:

We pay almost $100k a year as it is, and with the growing illicit alcohol trade bringing the same criminality that we have seen with tobacco, insurance will simply become either unaffordable or simply not available, as it is now for tobacconists.

Fantastic work, well done, congratulations, Prime Minister. What we've seen now is a replication in tobacco policy of what we saw during the prohibition era in the United States. It's bad policy by bad governments that refuse to swallow their pride. They turn lawful citizens into criminals. They actively subvert the law to advance their mad ideology. Some of us don't hold this view, and the sooner this government is removed and their relationship to organised crime is removed, the better Australia.

Sorry, I'm trying to talk. I've been biting my tongue for so long I can hardly talk. I call the member for Fadden.

I have to agree with you, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander. That was a thoroughly enjoyable and persuasive performance by the member for Goldstein, the shadow treasurer. Even in your fair medical mind, I think there would have been a few points made there that were very worthy of consideration, so I'll ask you to just turn your mind to those over time before the vote is taken on this. You know, it's never too late for turning someone of your status within the Labor Party, so I look forward to seeing what side of the chamber you move to.

We are supporting this bill, the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026, and I'll tell you why we're supporting it. It is because this Labor government needs as much help as it can get. They are so in over their heads with all of this governing stuff that they've got to do while they're sitting on that side that they actually have lost the ability to do it competently. So, when they come to us and they say, 'Look, we've got an incremental bit of something that we think might help,' we will help, because, by God, they need it. What we've seen in the illicit tobacco market at the hands of this Labor government is an absolute explosion in the business model of gangs of illegal operators, and in the end it's all Australians who are paying.

The Treasurer delivered a budget on 12 May this year, and one of the hallmarks of that particular budget was higher taxes. Since that budget was delivered, we have made the point time and time again that, when you tax something—like housing—more, you will get less of it. Deputy Speaker, I understand your point medically. It is that we want to try and put in barriers to the consumption of smoking. I get it; I really do. But the problem is this: the tobacco excise has now reached a point where, as I said, the tax is so high that you are getting less of it. The problem is that the 'less of it' is not the purchase of legal cigarettes and not the smoking. What it's doing now is pushing people into an illegal marketplace. So, yes, it's giving the outcome of 'less of' something, but what it is 'less of' is legality.

As the member for Goldstein rightly pointed out, every single smoker who goes in and buys a pack of cigarettes from an illegal operator is not in any way, shape or form contributing to the taxation base of this country. They are also absolutely missing out on the health messaging that they are supposed to be getting, because, as the member for Goldstein said, when they go and order these illegal tobacco products through Uber, through some pop-up shop, over some random counter or whatever the case may be, they are not getting the taxed, properly packaged, properly warned, controlled content product that they would prefer to consume by choice and that the government wants them to consume. That's not what's happening.

Instead, we have got not just a bin fire but a bonfire of all sorts of illegal activity going on across the country. Where has this been particularly noticeable? I come from Queensland, where we've got a very competent LNP government led by Premier David Crisafulli. They have been working their guts out to hold these illegal operators at bay. They can do some work to stop shopfront operators, and that has worked. But you see that where this disaster really takes off is in the state of Victoria. You see this double Labor thing going on. The business model is being provided by the federal Labor government and the absolute lack of attention on the ground is being provided by the state Labor government. That is providing the environment for all of these illegal gangs to operate without any checks and balances. What do we see on a daily basis on the news all across the country? Firebombing after firebombing after firebombing. We don't know what the hell is going on because these guys are running their own racket. They're trying to protect their own market. They're trying to put the legal operators out of business. They're trying to scare other operators into not going into business. This is actually the most extraordinary set of circumstances that have arisen.

Debate interrupted.

ADJOURNMENT Boyce, Dr Edwin (Ted), OAM

Tonight I'd like to honour Dr Ted Boyce. Ted Boyce is more than just a principal and leader of the Pacific Hills Christian School and one of the great people in the broader Christian education movement. He is indeed one of the most globally significant education figures that this country has produced. He's touched the lives of tens of thousands of people—not only those who've gone to the Pacific Group of Christian Schools, for which he's been the shepherd for the last 41 years, but people all across the world who he's helped form in their knowledge of Christian teaching and whose God given gifts he's helped bring out through his care and concern for every student, for every staff member and indeed for everyone he's come across. Tonight I want to put on the national record in this parliament the grateful thanks of a nation for an extraordinary man, an extraordinary servant of God, an extraordinary educator, and wish him well in the next chapter of his life.

Ted Boyce began teaching at the Bush School and later lectured at Macquarie University. His own studies took him from the University of Sydney to Canada, where his doctoral research focused on supporting teachers. That concern for the people in the classroom has remained central to his work. In 1985, he became the second principal of what was then Pennant Hills Christian School. The school began in 1979 with eight students and one teacher. This year, Ted leaves the school, the Pacific Group of Christian Schools, with 10 schools and an early learning centre across six locations, educating around 3½ thousand students. Families in regional New South Wales have gained access to a Christian education through schools including Pacific Coast and Pacific Valley. Building one school requires enormous work, but growing a group of schools while sustaining the faith and the purpose of the original community is an achievement that deserves particular recognition. Ted has given successive generations of staff a clear understanding of the responsibility entrusted to them; he's backed them and he's backed their vision, too.

His leadership has also expanded opportunities for students who needed additional support. New Hope Christian School opened at the Dural campus in 2015. Alongside Pacific Hope and Valley Hope, they continue the group's commitment to students with disabilities. Ted also established the Pacific Gulgangali Jarjums Christian School, a dedicated school for Indigenous students. These developments reflect his determination to offer an education that recognises the needs and abilities of every child.

I've been particularly influenced in my work as the shadow minister for education by the conversations I've had with some of the outstanding educators at the school, including their outstanding Indigenous educators. I saw the Pacific Group's philosophy of education in action when I opened the new early learning centre. I spoke with a mother who was a former student and a current drama teacher. I remarked to her that Pacific Hills has produced some remarkable performers over the years, and I asked how the school had developed such exceptional standards in music and drama. She explained that, at a Christian school, they believed God had given students gifts that they could not completely understand. Their responsibility was to honour God by allowing students to explore those gifts as fully as possible. I thought this was a beautiful explanation of the school's approach and of Ted's guidance. Ted has encouraged that approach across the life of the school. The school's missions program, which began in 1991, has given students opportunities to serve here and overseas.

Ted's contribution to Christian education was deservedly recognised with the Medal of the Order of Australia in the year 2000. Throughout his leadership, Ted has continued to support teachers and their professional development. His involvement in tertiary education has also continued, including the development of Southland College. He has understood that the future of these schools depends on preparing and encouraging people who will teach in them.

As a Jewish Australian, I've got a deep appreciation for the contribution of wonderful Christian educators like Ted. At the Christian schools summit earlier this year, I spoke about the religious leaders that regularly check in with me and offer encouragement in good times and difficult ones. Ted is a particularly good example, and I'm grateful for his friendship. I've deeply valued his private encouragement and the way his Christian faith finds expression in his work and his words.

Ted describes his grandmother as his greatest teacher. After preparing a meal, she'd give thanks that she'd been able to serve others. That simple example stayed with him, and it's a fitting way to understand the servant heart he has brought to his work. Thousands of students and families have benefited from that heart. I want to encourage all of them to take a moment over the next few weeks, as Ted finishes his time at Pacific Hills, to write to him and say something of what he's meant to you in your life.

I want to say to Ted: thank you for enriching my life. Thank you for showing me what it is to be a good servant, what it is to be somebody who sees God and the Bible as the centre of their life. Thank you for your example. Thank you for your friendship. Thank you for being what God has called you to be. May he continue to bless the work of your hands and the prayer of your heart. On behalf of the Parliament of Australia, we all wish you good luck and godspeed.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence and efficient and effective regulation can coexist. Government and industry can collaborate with respect to AI for the benefit of the Australian people. The private sector and public sector can realise a shared vision and goals when it comes to artificial intelligence. But all of this takes leadership underpinned by three critical things: decisiveness, targeted stakeholder consultation and expertise.

That is the approach this government is taking with respect to AI. By bringing government and industry together to develop policy solutions, it's possible to harness the opportunities, reduce the known risks and plan for future ones. Partnerships of this nature mean there's no need to choose between letting innovation grow and flourish without controls or regulating to paralyse development. Regulation or innovation is a false choice. Both are important, with regulation needing to safely facilitate innovation, creativity, competition and entrepreneurship, not paralyse them.

Another false choice is deciding now whether AI will be an existential threat to the human race and then regulating on the basis of that choice. This is lazy, populist, apocalyptic thinking that helps no-one, creates unnecessary fear and discourages populations from embracing opportunity. It also paints industry as the bad guys when, in actual fact, it is industry that has the technology we want and that the Australian people expect we will have.

Most reasonable Australians will also accept that accessing and using artificial intelligence does require a level of regulation. It does not mean more government or bigger government for the sake of it. It means targeted government action informed by public sector and private sector industrial expertise, so that relevant issues like urban and regional planning, energy and water use, economic development, workforce planning, education, service delivery, organisational accountability and community confidence can be confidently and expertly managed. This is to make sure that once a particular aspect of artificial intelligence really gets going, we have the understanding and means to intervene—not to paralyse it but to manage it in the event that unintended consequences begin to play out.

First and foremost, regulation with respect to artificial intelligence must have two key objectives. Regulation must both reduce harm and promote timely access to evidence based technological resources that benefit people. Achieving these two objectives requires consideration of different criteria.

Firstly, regulation must be proportionately incremental, integrating lessons learned from measurable data at each step along the technology's development. It must also recognise and reflect that there are different regulatory layers and address them in a tailored way. Regulating the AI infrastructure layer, the AI frontier layer and then the AI application layer will require different approaches, and some layers may require less regulation than others.

Regulation must also reflect and speak to existing public policy frameworks such as competition, industrial relations and energy. And, in this sense, it must be developed in a way which does not impose disproportionate or new and excessive compliance and reporting burdens on industry. It must be developed in a way that is proportionate to the actual risk and the actual evidence based opportunity. It should be designed in the way that the technology should be—with gateways, so a single regulatory action does not lead to an irreversible outcome or cause unnecessary paralysis. Finally, regulation must encourage trust and confidence between government and industry because it's only through effective and efficient partnerships between government and industry that we will be able to build the foundations upon which the benefits can be safely harnessed and the risks minimised.

We are already seeing a divergence of regulatory approaches across the globe. The EU is proceeding by prioritising rights based safeguards, the US is prioritising innovation and China is prioritising strategic control. But global collaboration is crucial. International interoperability is crucial to ensure that regulation is not only compatible but fair, allowing all nations the opportunity to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence. That is the challenge before us and that is what the Prime Minister was calling for in Australia's national statement at the UN last month. That call was urgent and that call was right.

National Security

The first responsibility of any government is to keep Australians safe. Tonight I want to raise serious concerns about whether Australia's national terrorism threat framework remains fit for purpose. As Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I have enormous respect for the men and women of our law enforcement and other intelligence agencies, who work tirelessly to protect our nation. But, when ASIO director-general Mike Burgess repeatedly raises concerns about our terrorism threat warning system, the government has a responsibility to listen and to act. Instead, what we've heard from the Albanese Labor government is crickets.

Australia's deteriorating security environment should concern every member of this place. On 14 December last year, 15 innocent Australians were murdered in the horrific terrorist attack at Bondi. Since that atrocity, Australian intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted a further 20 terrorist plots, including four assessed as major imminent threats and another 16 serious but less imminent plots. Twenty plots have been disrupted, and yet Australia's national terrorism threat level remains at 'probable'. Australians are entitled to ask whether that setting adequately reflects the threat environment we now face. Australia's national terrorism threat level was lowered to 'possible' in November 2022 before being raised to 'probable' in August 2024, as our security environment deteriorated. Under the current framework, 'probable' means there is a greater than 50 per cent chance of an onshore terrorist attack or attack planning within the next 12 months. The next level, 'expected', applies where intelligence identifies a specific threat. But what happens when the security environment continues to deteriorate? Plots are repeatedly disrupted and threats become increasingly difficult to predict. At what point does 'probable' stop adequately describing the danger Australians face? That is the question I've been asking publicly for several weeks, and this government must answer it.

Mike Burgess has raised concerns about whether the existing terrorism threat framework adequately reflects Australia's changing security environment. I want to be absolutely clear. I'm not suggesting politicians should determine Australia's terrorism threat level. That responsibility must remain with our intelligence professionals, who make assessments based on the intelligence available to them. But there is an important distinction between determining the threat level and determining the framework within which those assessments are made. ASIO determines the threat level; the government is responsible for ensuring the framework remains fit for purpose. If the definition of 'expected' cannot adequately capture a deteriorating threat environment without intelligence about a specific attack, then surely that framework deserves closer examination. Yet, despite repeated warnings, the Minister for Home Affairs, Tony Burke, has failed to demonstrate the urgency that this issue deserves.

This is not about creating fear or unnecessarily expanding the powers of our intelligence agencies. It is about ensuring our agencies have the legislative powers, resources and threat assessment framework to identify, investigate and disrupt terrorism before Australians are harmed. Any changes to intelligence powers must be necessary, proportionate and subject to proper parliamentary oversight.

I understand the importance of getting that balance right. We must protect Australians from terrorism while safeguarding the freedoms and democratic principles that make our country worth protecting. But doing nothing in the face of a changing threat environment is unacceptable. I'm calling on the Albanese government and Minister Burke to urgently announce a change to Australia's national terror threat framework—one that is fit for purpose, one that deals with the threats that we are currently facing in the ever-deteriorating world in which we live.

Labor Government

I'm proud of our record of delivery and our unwavering focus on easing cost-of-living pressures facing Australians. We know people want to see practical action that makes a real difference to their daily lives, and that's exactly what we're focused on delivering. We're determined to keep turning our promises into meaningful outcomes for our community.

Before Labor came to office, bulk-billing rates were declining, creating greater barriers to health care for families in communities like mine. Thanks to the Albanese Labor government's historic investments in Medicare, our community has seen the number of local GP clinics that fully bulk-bill more than double, reaching 94 per cent, so locals can now see a doctor for free. That means more people can access free health care closer to home, with 49 Medicare bulk-billing practices now serving our local community, and overall bulk-billing rates in our area have risen to 95.9 per cent. That's real progress in making health care more accessible and easing the pressure on household budgets.

We haven't stopped at the GP clinic. Under Labor's cheaper medicines policy, over 2.4 million cheaper scripts have been issued locally, helping people in our community access the medicines they need at a lower cost. We've also expanded the range of medicines available on the PBS, helping to make prescriptions more affordable. We've capped the cost of PBS medicines at just $25 per script, the lowest level since 2004, and, for concession card holders, the cost is capped at just $7.70 per script.

These measures have delivered over $14 million in savings for families in our community, money that can go towards groceries, bills and other everyday essentials. We believe access to health care should depend on what you need, not what you earn. We'll always stand up for Medicare and the PBS, protecting Australia's universal healthcare system and ensuring people can access the care and the medicines they need.

We're also making it easier for people in our community to access mental health support when they need it. Work is currently underway on a Medicare mental health hub in Broadmeadows—providing free, confidential, in-person mental health support in our community. There's no need for a referral, and anyone can walk in and access support, because getting help should be simple, accessible and affordable, and no-one in our community should have to face mental health challenges alone.

At the same time, we took the axe to student debt balances, cutting them by 20 per cent. This helps not only those who went to university but also those who undertook a VET course. Over 24,000 people in my community alone benefited from a 20 per cent cut to their HECS and VET student loans—reducing the cost burden of accessing higher education through our structural changes and providing much-needed cost-of-living support when people need it most. And we've delivered a university study hub, bringing university closer to home in our community, including for the many students who are the first in their family to attend university.

We're making homeownership a reality for many first home buyers, opening the doors of opportunity to 4,730 locals in our area who have bought their first home thanks to Labor's five per cent deposit scheme. We're also helping over 12,000 locals pay the rent, with a more than 50 per cent increase in Commonwealth rent assistance.

Two thousand, three hundred and ninety-six—that's the number of cheaper home batteries taken up across our community. That's local households and businesses investing in energy upgrades that help lower their power bills and give them back control of their energy costs, helping families save both now and into the future.

As part of our pipeline of major road upgrades underway across the outer north, we're delivering stage 2 of the Mickleham Road upgrades, with $250 million in federal government funding, alongside stages 1 and 2 of the $170.1 million Donnybrook Road Upgrades.

This is what delivery looks like. From cheaper health care and medicines to student debt relief, housing, cheaper energy, infrastructure upgrades and a future made in Australia, we're focused on the things that matter most to people in our community. We know there's more to do and we're getting on with the job by easing cost-of-living pressures, creating opportunities and delivering practical results. When it comes to delivery, our government won't stop fighting for our community and for our local families.

Taxation, International Relations: Armenia and Azerbaijan

Why is it that the Labor member for Bentleigh, Nick Staikos, supports the Prime Minister's high taxes on investors, property owners and small business? This is the problem. Before the last election, the Prime Minister went to the Australian community and promised 50 times over that he wouldn't introduce new taxes on trusts, on small businesses and on property, and the Prime Minister broke his word. Now we have a Labor member in Bentleigh who supports the Prime Minister breaking his promises on higher taxes that apply to properties, investors and small businesses. What we need is representation in Bentleigh from people who are prepared to stand up for the community in the aspiration to get ahead. There is hope. Liberal candidate Tynan Putt, a former copper, is a man with integrity who will stand up against Labor, the Prime Minister, the Premier and their agenda for higher taxes on small business, investors and Australians that want to get ahead.

Another topic I want to raise tonight is the importance of the hostages currently being held in Azerbaijan. In September 2023, while I was out of office, I was part of a delegation to visit Armenia. In recognising my Armenian heritage, it was an enormously important visit for me. What I didn't realise was the scale of the importance of the visit, because one of the days we were there was the day of Azerbaijan's invasion of the Republic of Artsakh, the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Over the following days, we went down to the town of Goris, which is on the border of Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh, and watched 100,000 displaced people move from their homeland into Armenia. They were received by the International Red Cross and needed immediate support and assistance. The terrible thing—as we were driving to get to Goris from the capital, Yerevan—was that we watched as the ambulances whirred past. Goris is a small town. It's the first town on the border. It didn't have ambulances. The Azerbaijanis were blowing up petrol stations that were fuelling the vehicles of the Armenians that were fleeing the region and going into Armenia for safety, and the ambulances were racing off to be able to make sure that people would get home safely.

Today I had representation from the Armenian National Committee of Australia—and I want to thank them for their representation. They particularly highlighted the ongoing imprisonment of Armenians held by the Azerbaijani regime: Arayik Harutyunyan, Davit Babayan, Davit Ishkhanyan, Levon Mnatsakanyan, Davit Manukyan, Bako Sahakyan, Arkadi Ghukasyan, Ruben Vardanyan, Madat Babayan, Melikset Pashayan, Garik Martirosyan, Davit Allahverdyan, Levon Balayan, Vasili Beglaryan, Gurgen Stepanyan, Erik Ghazaryan, Vicken Euljekjian, Gevorg Sujyan and Davit Davtyan. All have been held as hostages by the Azerbaijani regime ever since, often, to be frank, on questionable charges, many sentenced to many years of life in prison, and all because they stood up for their homeland against an invading nation. We have to be very clear eyed about the consequences of what happens when people are held as hostages and the need for them to be able to be released. So, to the Foreign minister, I hope that there are appropriate representations for their release and to make sure that they are not punished simply for wanting to defend their homeland and stand up for their way of life.

YiSSA

I rise today to speak on an immensely important issue back in the Northern Territory, the YiSSA facility. I'm here to speak on the inhumanity and the incompetence of the Northern Territory government in their handling of this matter. The YiSSA facility at Batten Road in Darwin has, over many years, provided a safe haven for Aboriginal people from remote communities in the Top End. There are many Lingiari residents who use this facility to access services that are not available in their home communities, such as for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence, shelters that are not available in remote communities and, more importantly, dialysis treatments. It's run by an Indigenous organisation, Yilli Rreung, which has effectively been operating in the remote and social housing space for decades. The structured living arrangements at YiSSA include culturally informed administration and rent management and have an ongoing presence of contract security personnel.

YiSSA is located on crown land controlled by the Northern Territory government. This crown land gives the Northern Territory government enormous capacity to maintain assistance for vulnerable Territorians without having to expend taxpayer funds on purchasing or leasing private land. Because it is Northern Territory crown land, the Commonwealth cannot purchase the land or the assets without permission. The Northern Territory government has rejected our offers of support. A few months ago, the Northern Territory CLP government announced the decision to close this facility and forcibly relocate residents 100 kilometres away. Yesterday, this process began.

The decision to close this place of refuge beggars belief. The federal minister for Indigenous Australians proactively and constructively engaged on this issue, offering a substantial amount of federal funding to keep YiSSA going. This was a timely and important step taken by Minister McCarthy, demonstrating sensitive engagement and a lot of leadership on her part. Residents of YiSSA and the special care they need and deserve cannot and should not be summarily banished to a distant location outside of the city limits. This is especially the case when a more measured and consultative approach could have resulted in a better outcome. Both Indigenous and many mainstream organisations who work with these individuals and families have spoken out publicly in opposition to the closure and have written to me in my capacity as member for Lingiari.

The two cohorts of particular concern are, firstly, those who require critical ongoing medical treatment and, secondly, families, women and children escaping domestic and family violence who need specialised long-term support across a range of needs. There is a significant overlap between these two cohorts. I note that, although assurances have been given that residents with ongoing medical treatment needs—for example, dialysis—would not be moved to Batchelor and would instead be found a suitable alternative accommodation in Darwin, nobody trusts this government and they don't trust those government agencies in charge that their wellbeing will be looked after. Regarding the families who require specialist DV assistance, we've had not only a lot of lobbying but also calls for a deferral until after the wet season in mid-2027. This will enable robust safety planning, client-by-client case management plans and consultation with the Aboriginal community controlled sector, who would carry the service through the wet season when demand and the risk of evacuations are the greatest. By all accounts and by what I've been told today, the relocation has turned into an absolute fiasco. People's belongings are being moved out, but the facility that they're going to hasn't been sorted out nor fixed. This is an abhorrent decision by the Northern Territory government and one that is placing people's safety at risk.

There are four federal members elected to this parliament for the Northern Territory. Three have been calling for solutions and resolutions to this important issue. The CLP senator for the Northern Territory is missing in action. I want to say to Senator Price that her electorate is not in Queensland. She is an elected senator for the Northern Territory, and she should step up and talk to her colleagues in the Northern Territory government. To pick on vulnerable women and children who have escaped sometimes the worst violence in their life and to think that this is okay, to push around those women and particularly those kids that have already been traumatised, is absolutely abhorrent. The government should hang their heads in shame.

House adjourned at 20:00

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Gas Industry: Taxation

If I said, 'Let's sell off all of our public schools and have them all run for profit,' I'd rightly be called a nutter. If I said, 'Let's flog off all our public hospitals and let the private market sort out who gets health care,' people would be up in arms—rightly so. Public ownership of essentials is just common sense. It's downright Australian. It's one of the things our country can take pride in. So, why are our politicians so allergic to public ownership of other essentials? Why did they sell off our energy? Why did they sell off our telecommunications? Why did they sell off our banks, our rail and our airports? We get worse service at a higher cost while big corporations just make more money. Why, for that matter, is our supermarket system run by a giant private duopoly making record profits at everyday people's expense? Zohran Mamdani has proven that a public grocery store can compete with big corporations and reduce grocery bills significantly.

I'm not saying that everything should be public. Obviously, a healthy private sector is also important, including small businesses. I am saying that, if we accept what our politicians tell us is possible, we're allowing ourselves to be taken for fools. Don't let politicians make you think you're missing something; you're not. Some things are as simple and as obvious as you think. Yes, gas corporations are ripping us all off, making billions and not paying tax. Yes, they donate millions to the major parties' election campaigns. Yes, they have a huge lobbyist network staffed with former major party staff. Yes, you could fix so many problems with the $17 billion we would raise from taxing these big gas corporations. You could put dental into Medicare for $16.8 billion. You could deliver universal free child care for $10 billion. You could give every household more than $1,000 in energy rebates every year. Or, with that $17 billion, you could build around 34,000 well-designed public homes a year—more than 10 times our current build.

Look, some things are difficult; not every problem is easily solved. Politics can be tricky. But some things are actually very, very simple. Taxing gas is one of those things. Don't let people in this place convince you that you don't understand.

Hawke Electorate: Child Care, Mental Health Month, Hawke Electorate: Infrastructure

It was great to drop by Goodstart Early Learning in Sunbury last week to talk about Labor's commitment to local workers in our area. Quality learning begins with quality educators, but for too long the dedication of these educators was not matched by their pay. That's why Labor has locked in a 15 per cent pay rise for more than a thousand early childhood educators in Hawke, in our community, who are working hard every day with our kids. Every family in our community of Hawke wants the same thing: for their kids to have the best possible start in life. Backing the people who make that happen is part of how we get there. To the director, Sally-Anne, and her team at Goodstart Sunbury and to every childhood educator across Hawke: thank you for the work that you do.

October is Mental Health Month and I want to mention something I've taken on with some of my federal parliamentary colleagues across the aisle and across our team—the Top Blokes Foundation Lift the Load challenge. The goal is to walk or run 50 kilometres wearing a weighted vest. I'll be very honest: the vest is not comfortable; it's pretty damn heavy. But that's, of course, entirely the point. It represents the weight that so many young people carry every single day, silently, feeling like they have to manage it alone. Top Blokes does incredible work—helping young people to build resilience, confidence and the support networks that they need. I want to say thanks to the member for Hunter, one of the top-est blokes in this place, for getting us all on board for this important cause.

I want to give an update on the Western Freeway Upgrade because I know people in Hawke are thinking and worrying about the same traffic that they were sitting in three years ago. That frustration is completely fair, so I want to speak about what's actually been happening. Back in 2022, we fought to get a business case funded. Some people might think that that sounds a bit boring, but I assure you that it's a necessary first step before a billion-dollar major infrastructure project can go ahead. We got that done. Off the back of it, we secured a billion dollars towards the project from the Albanese Labor government, and, a few weeks ago, the Victorian government put in another $550 million. That's $1.55 billion locked in for 30 kilometres of new lanes between Melton and Caroline Springs as well as for upgrades to the interchanges. Based on this work, we know the scope, too: three lanes in each direction between Ferris Road and Hopkins Road, four lanes between Hopkins Road and Ballarat Road and new interchanges at Ferris Road, Leakes Road, Hopkins Road and Mount Cottrell Road. This has taken years of hard work, and I know that doesn't help when people are stuck in traffic every single morning. We want people to be able to get to work and home to their families. This is real money. It's locked in, and we're going to see this upgrade through for our community.

Banking and Financial Services

Cameron, from my electorate of Mallee, is an engineer who wrote to me on 2 October. Cameron runs multiple businesses and farms and consults with mines in our region and around the world. He asked how we could stop the sudden ATO decision not to accept credit card payments from 30 November.

As background to Cameron's comments, I note that Treasurer Chalmers said on 8 October that the ATO had made their decision alone and that he had sought a transition period from the ATO. But, then, the Minister for Small Business, Anne Aly, said small businesses should have been consulted. Minister for Housing O'Neil said the government had 'real concerns'. Cabinet Secretary Charlton said:

The government supports the ATO's decision.

On 9 October, Minister Wong said:

They are independent. Governments can't direct the Tax Office to implement tax in a certain way.

Yet, lo and behold, within hours, the Treasurer declared:

… we try not to interfere with the RBA or the ATO … but it's really important that we have stepped in today.

Amazing! The Treasurer has reached, yet again, into taxpayers' pockets so the ATO will take credit card payments until 30 June 2027, not 30 November 2026, in a month's time.

My constituent Cameron, reflecting on this whole fiasco, says:

It's pure chaos—everyone is running their own show in the government—nobody is in charge—its madness—if you ran a corporation like that it would be broke in 6 months—across the cabinet, nobody knows what anyone else is doing—they are half-cocked on everything!

It is so true. Labor brings half cocked bills to parliament, then negotiates—instead of consulting first. Who would have thought that was a good idea! Labor have been cunning with the marketing to get into government but unable to govern—or even govern themselves. We don't need further delay on the ATO ban on credit card payments; we need it scrapped.

Small businesses in Mallee, businesses like Cameron's, are battling under blow after blow from this government. COSBOA research shows that 87 per cent of regional small businesses report higher expenses, 73 per cent have falling profits, 87 per cent have trouble filling vacancies and 77 per cent are experiencing business related stress or anxiety. It is no wonder.

Medicare, Redcliffe Peninsula Rail Line

The Murrumba Downs Medicare urgent care clinic is turning three years old. And what a difference it has made to our community! Whilst the clinic sits just outside of my electorate of Petrie, it serves the families of Griffin, North Lakes and Mango Hill in the thousands. Whether it's a child who has hurt themselves on the playground or an infection that can't wait for a GP appointment, the clinic is there when locals need it. It's open seven days a week, it's fully bulk-billed and you don't need an appointment. And, might I add, it's also part of a fully bulk-billed GP clinic and is a direct result of the investment that the Albanese Labor government has put into our GP services. This is what the Medicare urgent care clinic is all about—being able to provide that affordable health care for the locals. It's taking pressure off the local emergency departments. I want to thank the doctors, the nurses and all the other staff who make this clinic such success. Happy third birthday to the Murrumba Downs urgent care clinic.

I have some fantastic news for the people of Redcliffe. Our Redcliffe Medicare Mental Health Centre is expanding. Its opening last year, which was actually on my birthday, was a fantastic gift for the community. The centre has made an enormous difference to people, meeting their mental health needs right when they need it. And the demand has been huge. The centre has reached its capacity, and it has become clear that we need to do more. That's why I've been fighting for an expansion. So, 364 days since its opening, I get to announce that we're expanding this clinic to be able to better meet the growing needs of the community. I think that's something we should all be immensely proud of.

Mental health is so important to health outcomes, and we're providing a space where it's walk-in, no appointment needed. This facility is so incredible. You walk in and it feels like you've walked into a living room. It's so inviting. You can go make yourself a cuppa. You can sit on the couch. There's some beautiful art as well. And you can reach the services that you need. I'm extremely proud to stand here and say that we're expanding that service. I know the community is going to be very grateful for this, and I'm very grateful for this.

On 3 October, I had the absolute pleasure of celebrating 10 years of the Redcliffe railway line. It's hard to believe it's already been a decade since the first train arrived at Kippa-Ring station, right into the heart of Redcliffe. People might not know that this railway line had been promised for 130 years. It was first proposed back in 1885. Many people thought the concept was maybe off the rails, but our signals weren't crossed when Anthony Albanese, who was the infrastructure minister, now prime minister, was able to secure funding for this project. It was due to the advocacy within the community and a great local member for Petrie, Yvette D'Ath. I want to thank them all—and happy birthday, Redcliffe train line.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

I rise to recognise Nate Ralph from Mackay, whose speech was selected by the Raise our Voice committee as the winning entry from Dawson. Nate's speech is as follows:

The future of Australia is in the country.

With 70% of export earnings and half of the tourism industry, 9 million Australians who do not live in our capital cities are powering this country.

However, these same people driving the nation are faced with communities underfunded, overlooked and full of barriers against their way of life.

From being nearly 3 times more likely to die from preventable diseases and lives a decade and a half shorter than those in the city, Regional Australian's have a raw deal.

They face a lack of basic infrastructure and health services you would not expect living in a first world country.

But it doesn't have to be this way, regional Australia deserves a fair share of their earnings.

With the resources industry generating billions in revenue, every dollar comes from regional Australia.

The communities creating this wealth must be able to have a part of it.

Through bringing these royalties back to the regions, we can have safe and quality infrastructure you can rely on.

We can have quality healthcare that can close the gap between the country and the city.

Regional Australia deserves a fair deal for the work they put in because the Future of Australia is in the country.

Well said and thank you, Nate.

Nate was also a member of Mackay's inaugural youth council, which made history in 2023 as Australia's first youth council democratically elected by the young people. It's an initiative that started in Mackay and has since expanded to communities all over Australia. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting this year's young candidates, and I have to say I was incredibly impressed. Their passion for change, their ingenious ideas and their innovative campaign strategies were outstanding. In fact, some of their campaign ideas were so good, you might see me borrowing a few of them for the next federal election. One young fellow particularly caught my attention. He was campaigning to stop kids vaping with a clever message about not being fooled by vape flavours, and he even brought along a selection of lollies, encouraging people to choose them instead.

These young Australians aren't sitting around waiting for someone else to make a difference. They are stepping forward. They're speaking up. They're offering real solutions. Mackay's future is in good hands. As Nate's speech reminds us, the future of Australia really is in the country.

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

The incorporated speech read as follows

I rise today to speak on behalf of two remarkable young women from my electorate of Pearce: Grace, a 16-year-old student, and Juliette, a young Nyoongar woman. Both are part of the Raise Your Voice campaign, and both remind us that the future of this country will be pioneered by young people, teenagers and students just like them.

Grace speaks for a generation that were told that Australia's future rests on their shoulders, yet who watch housing prices skyrocket and our environment destroyed. She has seen friends, once as passionate as she is, become disengaged and demotivated, feeling as though the future is already a lost cause. These young Australians have the right to inherit an affordable, clean future. Grace calls on the changemakers in this place to listen when young people say that, at this rate, they will not be able to afford basic necessities and that we are damaging the land we all share. She asks us to prioritise affordability and sustainability, because young Australians will support a country that supports them. Grace knows that without action, her generation will inherit debt, instability and environmental damage which they did not create. She is asking us to choose differently: to build a future where young people can afford to live and work in the communities they call home.

Juliette reminds us that where you are born and the opportunities you are given shape the future you can build. Opportunity is the bridge between talent and the future. Without it, too much potential remains undiscovered. Equal access to opportunity creates equality. As a young Nyoongar woman, Juliette knows that Indigenous young people still face barriers in education, employment and leadership. Progress has been made, but many students still lack equal access to mentoring, pathways, scholarships and culturally supportive programs that help them thrive. These programs open doors and give young people the confidence to walk through them.

Juliette asks parliament to expand investment in mentoring, leadership development, apprenticeships, university pathways and culturally safe education initiatives that empower Indigenous students. Closing the gap is not just about statistics. It is about creating equal opportunities for young people to discover their strengths, build confidence and contribute their leadership. When Indigenous young people succeed, communities grow stronger and Australia benefits.

Together, Grace and Juliette show us what is at stake. Right now, the future is just a prediction. But, with the voices of young Australians and the power of the people in this room, we can ensure that it is safe, clean, affordable and fair. Young people in Pearce are asking for a seat at the table, for policies that reflect their reality and for the chance to build lives in the country they love. They are asking us to listen when they say that housing must be affordable, our environment must be protected and every young person must have genuine access to opportunity.

Laverton Hospital

I rise today to acknowledge a landmark achievement for the Northern Goldfields town of Laverton and the many remote O'Connor communities that it serves. Last week, the new Laverton Hospital welcomed its first patient, marking the culmination of more than a decade of advocacy, determination and perseverance by the Shire of Laverton and its residents. As their federal member, I've been privileged to be involved in this project throughout its chequered history thanks to the tenacity of long-term Shire of Laverton President, Patrick Hill, and his dedicated councillors.

In 2015, the replacement for the 50-year-old Laverton Hospital secured state funding through the Barnett government's Royalties for Regions program. However, following the election of a Labor government in Western Australia, those funds were withdrawn by the then health minister and now Premier Roger Cook. Meanwhile, Laverton residents were left waiting for vital healthcare infrastructure they had long been promised. The former federal coalition government recognised the importance of this project, and then health minister Greg Hunt announced a $16.8 million fund through the Community Health and Hospitals Program. That investment reflected a strong coalition commitment to improving health outcomes in regional and remote Australia. The project suffered further delays but, thanks to strong local advocacy, the new hospital finally achieved practical completion—at a blown-out cost of $67 million.

The significance of this new hospital extends well beyond the town boundaries. Laverton is the WA gateway of another passion project of Councillor Patrick Hill, the Outback Way, Australia's longest shortcut connecting Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. As the sealing of this iconic 2,700 kilometre transcontinental highway continues, an increasing number of tourists, along with mining, agriculture and freight logistics, is anticipated. This new hospital will play a vital role for the safety of those travellers and improve access to health services for the many remote Aboriginal communities and pastoral stations between Laverton and the tri-state border. For many, access to modern healthcare infrastructure will mean timely treatment closer to home, instead of lengthy journeys to Kalgoorlie or Perth.

This new facility will provide better working conditions for our regional healthcare professionals and improve emergency and clinical services for all. I acknowledge the Shire of Laverton, the healthcare workers and the locals who worked tirelessly to bring this project to fruition throughout years of setbacks and uncertainty. On 14 November, I will join the community in Laverton to celebrate this achievement. After years of waiting, Laverton finally has the modern fit-for-purpose hospital it deserves. Regional Australians should never have to settle for second best when it comes to essential health services.

Clifton Hill Scouts, Yeronga State High School Mental Health Week, Yeronga Devils

If you've ever wanted to know how to pitch a tent, how to start a fire or how to tie a knot, all you have to do, if you live on Brisbane's south side, is ask Brolga, Scorpion or Badger. These are the three scout names of leaders at the Clifton Hill Scouts Group—Scott McDonald, Kate Russell and Robert Speight, as they might be known in their everyday lives.

It's a scout group that's over 100 years old, with a den in Moorooka that's been there for over 60 years. I had the great pleasure of meeting with them last week, catching up with the Cubs there who'd just come back from their cuboree. It's a scout group that has over 80 participants aged five to 17 with the joeys, cubs, scouts and venturers, and 18 to 26 with the rovers. They don't just teach life skills; they bring our community together. And they're backed by parent helpers who put in the effort by volunteering every single day of the week.

Yeronga State High School celebrated and drove awareness for Queensland Mental Health Week with a youth expo on 8 October. The popcorn was out, the bubble tea was out, and the sausage sizzle was on, but the core of the day were the support services that were available for young people at Yeronga high. They were raising awareness and having the important conversations that make a difference not just on that day but on so many days in young people's lives. A big shout out to the principal, Ben Orford, the wellbeing support officer, Lisa Williamson, and the aim to inspire young people, strengthen community connections and showcase all of those supports is not only commendable; it can be life saving.

The leather was flying through the uprights on Saturday. We were at the Yeronga Devils AFL trophy day, and the Yeronga Junior Australian Football Club is a pretty mighty club in my local electorate, and their club song, which I won't sing but I will tell you, is this:

Cheers, cheers, for the old red & black,

Yeronga DEVILS are on the attack.

Every time we play to win,

That's why we never, ever give in.

Whether the odds be great or be small,

Yeronga DEVILS will win overall.

Forward loyal DEVILS of Yeronga,

Go onwards to victory!

That song inhibits what is so important at the Yeronga Devils. They're a resilient team that have overcome flooding. They're a team that brings the community together and helps each other out when they're in need. To Peter Oxenham, Sam Corless, Juliet Brooks and all of the parents and players, congratulations on yet another cracking season.

Goldstein Electorate: Community Events

Raise Our Voice Australia is an initiative that gives young Australians the chance to speak directly into the nation's parliament. Each year, students write a speech on an issue that matters to them. This year's question asked them to name one big issue shaping their future and one meaningful action they wanted the parliament to take. In our community, Alice, who is 11, took up that challenge. Her concern is simple: Australian kids are spending too much time on their screens, and there aren't enough local playgrounds. She said, in her own words:

I believe not having enough playgrounds is a big problem shaping our future. As parents are so exhausted and tired, they are not willing to drive kids to the parks. Children are being distracted and screen time is increasing every day, which is not good for their health.

I am also worried about the lack of playgrounds because there are currently only 40 active playgrounds in local councils in Victoria. That is not enough!

Kids are resorting to going on their screens when going outside isn't an option. Not having enough playgrounds for our future is a problem. Neighbourhoods with little kids should have playgrounds. Kids with no playgrounds plus screen time increasing can shape their future.

Screen time has increased massively, by around 70 per cent in kids in the last five years, Google states, because of parents who can't be bothered taking their kids to a playground when it's not within walking distance. Ultimately, playgrounds are a necessity to the lives of young people and to communities around Victoria. This has to stop now!

Alice does not mince her words, and neither should we. Alice's message to parliament is simple: put a playground within walking distance of every young family. She has shown real courage in raising her voice, and she has made a powerful case for letting kids be kids. Congratulations, Alice.

There are also other significant contributors in the Goldstein community. On Sunday 13 September, runners, walkers and families came together for the 14th Connor's Run—and it was, in fact, my 10th—of 18.8km. You wouldn't imagine it, but it did happen. The Connor's Run was born of a human tragedy where Robert Connor Dawes lost his life to paediatric brain cancer, and Liz Dawes OAM and Scott Dawes turned a tragedy into an opportunity to help raise millions of dollars towards addressing paediatric brain cancer.

More than 5,300 people participated this year, and approximately $1.7 million was raised. I'd like to thank the foundation's board, Miriam Dexter, Michele Williams, Ellen Webb, Tim Mitchell-Adams, Graham Lee, Allison Blahna and John Phillips, for their support, as well as the operations team, Sophia Ali, Dr Kim Wark and Anna Skelton, along with every runner, volunteer and donor. Keep up the great work. Thank you for everything you do. You make our community and our country a better place.

Barton Electorate: Community Events

Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the jubilee community celebration hosted by the Moslem Alawi Youth Movement at Gough Whitlam Park. The event brought together local families, community leaders and representatives from across our diverse community in a wonderful celebration of culture and connection. The atmosphere was vibrant with food stalls and lots of charcoal barbecues, showing the rich diversity of our community and creating a welcoming space for people of all ages to come together. The highlight for me was meeting some young people from the Al Sadiq College, whose passion and commitment to their communities was very inspiring. It was also a pleasure to connect with the officers from the Burwood Police Area Command and acknowledge the important work they do in supporting our community safety and building trust across our local neighbourhoods. Events such as these remind us of the strength that comes from bringing people together and celebrating the diversity that makes Barton such a special place.

As year 12 students for 2026 across Barton prepare to sit for their HSC examinations, I would like to wish every student the very best for the weeks ahead. Reaching this milestone is a result of years of hard work and dedication, and students should be very proud of all the work that they've been able to achieve. I had the privilege of attending several year 12 graduation ceremonies in the recent weeks, including at Kingsgrove North High School, led by Principal Jim Mallios; St Mary and St Mina's Coptic Orthodox College, led by Principal Mary Nicola; and St George Christian School, led by Principal James Honor; Kingdom Culture Christian School, led by Principal Pavina Lee; St Ursula's College, led by Principal Vivienne Awad; and Bethany College, led by Principal Kristina Flanagan. I thank these principals, their dedicated teaching staff and all school leadership across the electorate of Barton for the incredible role they play in supporting and guiding our next generation.

This week I hosted the Barton charity and not-for-profit roundtable alongside Minister Andrew Leigh. Hosted at the St. George Leagues Club, the roundtable brought together charities and not-for-profit organisations across the local area to discuss some of the challenges the sector is facing and to really explore opportunities for collaboration. Participants spoke about the rising cost of rent, the operational challenges, the increasing competition for grants and the need to build long-term financial stability. We also discussed improving access to community infrastructure and shared spaces. It was a productive and insightful conversation, and I want to thank all the participants for the valuable contributions and the ongoing service to our community.

There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called on.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Climate Change

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) extreme weather caused $4.8 billion in insured losses in Australia in 2025, according to the Insurance Council of Australia;

(b) home insurance premiums increased by 51 per cent in the past five years, according to data analytics firm Finity;

(c) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation advises that each dollar invested by Government in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction saves up to $11 in recovery costs; and

(d) research from the University of New South Wales warns that economic models excluding global weather impacts can substantially underestimate climate damage, including supply-chain disruptions;

(2) recognises that:

(a) climate resilience is essential to household security, insurance affordability and national productivity; and

(b) short term construction savings should not come at the expense of building standards that reduce long-term energy bills, disaster damage and rebuilding costs; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) legally mandate independent national climate change risk assessments to be conducted every five years;

(b) allocate 0.25 per cent of gross domestic product to national climate adaptation and disaster resilience, with this funding structure to be reviewed and adjusted every five years following the publication of each independent national climate change risk assessment;

(c) establish a fully funded national adaptation plan to determine measurable outcomes and timelines, with annual evaluations submitted to Parliament;

(d) establish an independent National Climate Adaptation Authority to manage, implement, and coordinate resilience plans across jurisdictions;

(e) update the National Construction Code and strengthen land-use planning frameworks to promote low-cost, climate-resilient housing and protect communities from extreme weather risks; and

(f) release a declassified version of the Office of National Intelligence report into climate change-induced security threats so the public and policymakers fully understand the risks Australia faces.

The laws of physics and their consequences don't care whether you believe in them or not, and in fact they don't even care whether you understand them. The reality is they are going to happen. Despite what many in this place believe, the physics of climate change is not going away. In fact, it's only escalating, because as pollution increases so do the consequences. Climate fuelled damage currently costs Australia and Australians all around our country around $38 billion annually, rising to at least $73 billion by 2060 even under our best-case emissions reduction scenarios.

According to UNSW, the full economic cost of climate change is estimated to be around $22,000 per person. That's every one of you whether you believe in it or not and whether you have caused it or not. But the costs are not only economic—biodiversity loss, threats to national and regional security, rising cost-of-living pressures and harm to people's health, homes, livelihoods and our very way of life. It's a disruption and sometimes loss of that way of life that we need to address with urgency. We have a responsibility to protect and prepare our communities for these risks.

That responsibility extends beyond Australia to our Pacific neighbours. We need to make sure our whole region is safer. Across the Pacific, extreme weather events, sea-level rise and ocean warming are already having devastating impacts on communities, economies and ecosystems. These nations have contributed little to global emissions, yet they face some of the most severe consequences of a changing climate. And don't think that is just happening there. Coastal Australian communities are facing much the same challenges. That's why I continue to push the government and call for an independent national climate change risk assessment and adaptation plan every five years, backed by legislation. I'm calling for Australia to invest a quarter of a per cent of GDP in climate adaptation and disaster resilience. This must be reviewed against each new risk assessment. We need to get to a point where Australians are actually protected. It should not be ordinary Australians left to pay. We need to ensure polluters pay for the damage they are causing.

We need governments to prioritise ensuring that our built environment can actually withstand future extreme weather events. Nearly 50 per cent of buildings standing in 2050 will be built between now and then, which means today's building codes are vital to ensure that we build fit-for-purpose and safe, climate-resilient homes. We need to uplift building standards and ensure we have robust land-use planning that takes into account these risks, not wind back those resilience measures in our building codes. Both the government and the coalition are winding back requirements for resilience. That is absolute lunacy. While subpar standards might help to reduce construction timeframes now—and developers will enjoy those standards—ordinary Australians will pay the price, because the cheapest house you build is the one you build only once. It is not the one that is destroyed in every disaster.

Climate change also presents a national security threat. I continue to push the government to release a declassified version of the Office of National Intelligence's report on climate induced security threats.

This week, there's a lot on the agenda as we head into COP. I'm hosting two roundtables focusing on practical solutions. The first brings together representatives from the finance and insurance sectors to examine how we can mobilise investment in climate adaptation and resilience. The second is to look at the impact on the Pacific and our geopolitics. For many in Australia who have been criticising the Pre-COP in Fiji where I decided to go in a private capacity to hear from those communities and the challenges they face, we don't blink an eye at investing $600 million to launch an NRL team in Papua New Guinea to ensure we have good geopolitical relations with Papua New Guinea. The investment around the Pre-COP was to bring together the leaders of Pacific nations so they could work on solutions, collectivise their efforts and their power in negotiating for finance for loss and damage compensation and look at how are they going to build resilience within their islands and electrify their operations.

There were so many heart-wrenching stories that came from those Pacific communities. Australians should remember our Torres Strait Islands are at just the same risk of being swallowed up by the seas as so many Pacific islands, and yet there is still not the action needed. At the same time as the government is at Pre-COP making many promises, there is also still approval of more coal and gas. This is pollution that keeps making the problem worse.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Climate change and the effects it has on our country and the planet is something none of us can turn our attention from. We as a parliament must continue to deliver policies and legislation that tackle the seriousness of this issue.

In my community of Melbourne, the calls for climate action have been loud and clear. There is real ambition and drive in the people I represent. Recently, in one of my environmental reference groups, I heard directly from passionate people on the legislation passed by this government. The message was crystal clear: they want us to succeed. People want renewable energy infrastructure built, emissions to come down and our natural environment protected, and they want this government to make the big decisions needed to get us there.

As we continue this work, I bring Melbourne's voices loud and clear into the room of government, not just shouting from the sidelines, and I will continue to advocate on behalf of my community about where this government goes next and what more I can deliver. There has been real change in this country since Labor came to government. One of our first acts in government was to legislate an ambitious 43 per cent emissions reduction target for 2030 and net zero by 2050—and, yes, it can be done. Last year, following the independent advice of the Climate Change Authority, this government set a 2035 target to reduce emissions by 62 to 70 per cent. Since May 2022, more than 25 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity has been added to the grid. That additional capacity is more than four times the capacity of the Snowy Hydro scheme, and Labor is backing the next stage of that transition. Another $2 billion is going into the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to help accelerate renewable projects around the country and continue putting downward pressure on electricity prices. A new $5 billion net zero fund, through the National Reconstruction Fund, will help larger industrial facilities decarbonise while scaling up renewable energy and lower-emissions manufacturing in Australia. Australians can also see part of this transition happening on their roofs and in their homes. More than one in three Australian households already have rooftop solar, and Labor's Cheaper Home Batteries Program has now supported more than half a million battery installations. Families are now storing the clean solar energy they produce during the day and using it where they need it more.

While this transition continues to take place, there is another responsibility facing government. The climate has already changed, and Australia needs to be prepared for the consequences. Last year, the Albanese Labor government released Australia's first national climate risk assessment. It drew together work from some of the best expertise Australia has, including the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, the ABS and Geoscience Australia. No Australian community will be immune from climate risk. The effects will reach our health, our infrastructure, our economy and, of course, our natural environment. Labor commissioned that important assessment because good government needs good science behind the decisions it makes, and it has been followed by Australia's first National Adaptation Plan. To date, this government has committed $3.6 billion to preparing for climate change and building resilience alongside around $9 billion in policies and programs that support these efforts. The $1 billion Disaster Ready Fund is supporting projects that reduce disaster risk and help communities prepare. Australia now has its first National Health and Climate Strategy. The government is working with insurers through the hazard insurance partnerships and with states, territories and local governments on the next stage of the National Adaptation Plan.

When you put that work together, you can see how far Australia has moved. Australians elected a Labor government that accepts the science, understands the scale of the job and is prepared to use government to get things done. For the people I represent in Melbourne, the work could not be more critical. They want this transition to succeed. They want Australia to keep going, to keep building renewable energies to keep emissions down— (Time expired)

For millions of Australian households and communities, climate change is already an active environmental and economic issue. Climate disruption threatens the security of our nation and our region. Australian families are already living with heightened physical risk from increasingly intense and frequent bushfires, floods, storms and heatwaves. Now they're increasingly enduring a second threat: financial insecurity caused by insurance risk. Insurance is already unaffordable or unavailable for more than 650,000 Australian properties. Driven by climate risks and building costs, insurance premiums have soared by 51 per cent around the country in the last five years, but, irrationally, governments continue to spend overwhelmingly on recovery, not on resilience. We wait for disasters to happen and then we rebuild. This approach is an enormous drain on our economy. The CSIRO has reported that every dollar the government invests in adaptation or disaster risk reduction saves up to $11 in recovery costs.

Australia faces a summer of deadly heat, with an unprecedented Super El Nino already underway and forecast to bring record global temperatures over the next year. Climate disruption, extreme heatwaves and drought threaten Australians' health and livelihoods and our energy and transport systems, water security, crops, livestock and food prices. Significantly hotter than usual temperatures are already driving increased bushfire and drought risk, piling pressure on vulnerable communities, infrastructure and emergency workers.

The first responsibility of government is to protect their citizens from harm. That principle is accepted when we speak of defence, when we talk about biosecurity or when we talk about public health. It should be equally applied to climate risks. That's why I support the member for Warringah's call for an independent legislated national climate change risk assessment and adaptation plan, updated every five years. We desperately need a comprehensive evidence based up-to-date understanding of the risks that our communities face, a national plan to prepare for those risks and dedicated funding to remove or minimise harm and a plan which will transparently address food and water security, supply chains and the risk of economic disruption and regional instability. By properly taxing gas exports or by winding back the overly generous diesel fuel tax credit, the government could build a war chest to fight climate risks.

The most dangerous and deadly of these risks is extreme heat. Heatwaves kill more Australians than floods, bushfires and cyclones combined. They worsen cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and mental ill health. We know how to protect Australians from extreme heat. We can invest in cooling centres and grow urban tree canopies. We can improve building standards so homes remain safe during heatwaves. We can strengthen early warning systems, support delivery of local heat resilience plans and provide targeted energy assistance during periods of intense heat. Defence experts and our Pacific neighbours have warned for years that climate change is a threat multiplier. It increases instability, it displaces communities, and it puts pressure on scarce resources. Australia's future security hinges on our ability to create meaningful alliances with large and small nations across the region in supporting their climate preparedness.

The Prime Minister recently acknowledged this threat, but his words are meaningless while the government refuses to accept any responsibility for the emissions released by our exported fossil fuels and while it hides what it knows about the threat to our national security posed by climate change. I call on the government to immediately release a declassified version of the Office of National Intelligence's assessment on climate security risk. The government commissioned this report. It owes Australians transparency and the power to arm themselves with knowledge and with evidence. No amount of denial or misinformation will make climate change go away. Its risks and its harms are escalating. Our government's responsibility is to anticipate those risks and to prepare and to protect communities, not to respond after a tragedy occurs. We can't control every flood or fire, but we can decide whether our communities are prepared to face them. We can take action to prevent unnatural disasters supercharged by fossil fuel induced global warming and human inaction. I thank the member for Warringah for bringing this critical issue to the House.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Consumer Protection

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that backing consumers and competition helps to keep prices down, expand choice and reward businesses that innovate and treat their customers fairly;

(2) commends the Government for strengthening Australia's competition and consumer framework by:

(a) making excessive pricing by very large supermarkets illegal from 1 July 2026;

(b) increasing maximum penalties for major breaches of competition and consumer law to $100 million;

(c) passing laws to ban subscription traps, drip pricing and unfair trading practices from 1 July 2027; and

(d) providing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with an additional $67.7 million over four years to strengthen enforcement;

(3) notes that these reforms protect consumers from misleading and unfair conduct, while supporting businesses that compete on price, service and quality; and

(4) supports the Government's continuing work to tackle shrinkflation, strengthen unit pricing, and improve price, promotion and loyalty transparency for shoppers.

I am deeply passionate about effective competition policy, as it is the cornerstone of well-functioning markets and therefore the foundation of our ongoing economic success. This Labor government is committed to ensuring strong protections for Australian consumers. We understand that consumer and competition laws are not just about fair treatment for consumers but also about making sure that businesses who find advantage in new innovations are rewarded. It is why we have a comprehensive program of reforms, some of which are already fully implemented. We are protecting Australian consumers at the check-out, putting an end to nefarious practices, supporting enforcement and ensuring that, where consumer law is breached, penalties are significant enough to change behaviour and meet community expectations.

This government understands that Australians are currently feeling the pressure of their weekly shop. That's why we have initiated a wide-ranging cost-of-living crackdown on anticompetitive behaviour in the food and grocery sector to hold big supermarkets to account. We've made supermarket price gouging illegal; we've banned unfair trading practices that manipulate, distort or direct consumer choice; we've made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory; and we are strengthening the unit price code to crack down on shrinkflation. All of this is backed by stronger penalties, with the maximum fine under the Competition and Consumer Act increasing from $10 million to $100 million. Our ban on supermarket price gouging will subject offenders to penalties of $10 million, three times the value of the benefit or 10 per cent of annual turnover during the preceding 12 months—whichever is greater. This will help ensure that price gouging and anticompetitive behaviour can never be written off as a cost of doing business.

Another element of the government's policy in this space is reform to end unfair and, frankly, annoying tactics like the subscription traps used by some businesses. Too often, subscription arrangements are designed around the assumption that consumers will forget to cancel, won't notice a renewal payment or will struggle to follow a convoluted or unclear process for cancellation. This is something that, like many in the community of Banks I represent, I have experienced myself. I've seen this with streaming services, with gyms and with certain online stores. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Act stipulates that businesses must clearly disclose information about a subscription and that cancellation must be straightforward. This reflects the principle that, if a subscription can be started in just seconds, it shouldn't take hours to cancel.

Another such practice is drip pricing, where mandatory transaction fees are excluded from the price until the very end of the check-out process. Now, under the act, businesses will need to disclose all mandatory fees alongside the base price, making sure consumers are given the real price upfront and other businesses are not disadvantaged by those who conceal the true costs of their goods and services through these practices.

There is so much more that we are doing to improve competition in the Australian economy. We are supporting growers and producers with grants to help them stand up to the big supermarkets in negotiations and extending the right to repair to agricultural machinery. We have also implemented the biggest overhaul of merger laws in 50 years, helping to prevent the emergence of monopolies. We're making it easier for new entrants to the supermarket sector while also increasing enforcement and scrutiny through the ACCC and through CHOICE. This is a comprehensive agenda for competition and consumer law. It protects consumers from misleading and unfair conduct and supports businesses that compete on price, service and quality—as it should be.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Let me make one thing very, very clear from the outset: the coalition supports stronger consumer protections, fair competition and holding businesses accountable when they do the wrong thing. Australians deserve to know what they are paying for, to be treated fairly and to have confidence that businesses are in fact doing the right thing. But what Australians don't deserve is a Labor government that uses consumer protection as an excuse to bury small businesses in another mountain of red tape. That's exactly what this government has done.

Labor had an opportunity to deliver sensible consumer reforms, with bipartisan support, but instead chose to impose more than $120 million a year in additional regulatory costs on Australian businesses. Treasury's own estimates put the annual regulatory cost of Labor's unfair trading reforms at $123.2 million. Of that, approximately $103.6 million falls on small businesses. That's more than 1.5 million small businesses expected to be affected by the new general prohibition alone. These aren't multinational corporations with enormous legal departments and compliance teams. They're family businesses, sole traders, local retailers, cafes, tradies and service providers, including thousands right across my electorate of Fisher. They're already dealing with higher electricity bills, rising insurance premiums, increasing rents and Labor's ever-growing compliance requirements. Now Labor wants them to spend even more time and money navigating complicated new laws. And for what? The government has quantified the costs but hasn't quantified the benefits.

The coalition put forward practical amendments that would have strengthened the legislation while protecting small businesses from unnecessary costs. We proposed inserting the word 'unfairly' before 'manipulate', and 'material' before 'detriment', providing greater legal certainty about what conduct would actually be prohibited. These changes were consistent with concerns raised by the Law Society about the need for greater certainty. We also proposed delaying commencement until July 2030 for businesses with an annual turnover below $10 million. That would have given small businesses time to prepare, understand their obligations and adjust to the new requirements. These were reasonable, sensible amendments that would not have undermined consumer protections. But, of course, Labor rejected them, and it failed to provide a convincing justification for why small businesses should be denied those protections.

When Australians raise concerns about subscription traps, hidden fees and unfair online practices, they're overwhelmingly concerned about the conduct of large businesses and major online platforms, and rightly so. Nobody should sign up for a subscription and find it almost impossible to cancel. We've all been there. The coalition supports targeted action against these kinds of practices, but Labor's response has been to introduce a broad prohibition that leaves ordinary businesses wondering whether everyday commercial decisions could breach the law. The big corporations can afford the lawyers to work it out. Small businesses simply cannot.

And this doesn't happen in isolation. Labor is already making life harder for small businesses through increasingly complex tax arrangements and the implementation of payday super—and its handling of credit card surcharging. We all know what's happened in the last couple of days. Labor members have been consistently out there saying: 'Nothing to do with us. We can't impact the outcome.' And then, all of a sudden, yesterday it's all fixed or at least temporarily, for 12 months. Every additional compliance obligation means more paperwork, more administrative costs and less time spent serving customers, employing Australians and growing a business. Who ultimately pays? It's the business owners, their employees and, of course, ultimately their customers.

On the Sunshine Coast, our small businesses are the backbone of our local economy. They deserve a government that backs their ambition, rewards their effort and makes it easier to succeed. Instead, under Labor, they're treated as an afterthought. The coalition supports protecting consumers and strengthening competition, but good consumer protection and a strong small-business sector should go hand in hand.

We are all consumers. We all need to purchase goods and services for personal or household use. Australians participate in the consumer marketplace by contracting to agree to pay a certain amount of money in exchange for the provision of goods or services. All day, every day, there are thousands of consumer interactions, contracts and exchanges. You cannot live and participate in life today without being a consumer. Some people consume more than others, but, whatever the nature and number of transactions Australians participate in as consumers, the system must be fair, simple and trustworthy, with contemporary and effective protections in place.

We know that there are things that consumers can do to protect themselves. They can carefully read all the terms of a contract before signature, get legal advice, ask questions, shop around, check the quality of goods, ask to see samples of previously delivered services and be sure about what it is they want or need. They can also keep copies of receipts and other transaction documents. But caveat emptor, or 'buyer beware', should not and does not extend to accepting unfair or unequal practices.

That is why the Albanese Labor government has a laser focus on Australia's competition and consumer framework, including improving protections against current and emerging unfair trading practices. It did so by introducing a general prohibition on unfair trading practices towards consumers, strengthening protections against drip pricing by requiring transparency on transaction based charges and introducing protections against subscription practices that are detrimental to consumers and small businesses, who also procure and use goods and services.

Drip pricing is a practice where a consumer buys a service at what appears to be a reasonable price and then experiences death by a thousand cuts—little price creeps here and there—where new fees, previously unexpected, start to come in. We've all bought a ticket to a concert, to a show, to live sport or to a movie and then experienced an inexplicable and proportionately large booking fee being tacked on at the end of the transaction. You still want the ticket, so you pay the booking fee. Now, businesses will be required to disclose these mandatory transaction based charges like booking fees at the same time that they display the base price. This is only fair. The consumer can then decide earlier in the process whether they wish to proceed with the transaction or not. This reform doesn't prohibit businesses from charging a booking fee. It recognises that there are in fact legitimate reasons to do so. All it does is ask businesses to be upfront about these costs. This is entirely reasonable.

We have also addressed subscription traps. Subscriptions to streaming services, newspapers, gyms, style guides, blogs, software services—they're often designed on the assumption that consumers will forget to cancel free trials, will simply shrug off renewals or will find it difficult to find out how to cancel and therefore just roll on with it. I've spoken previously in this place about my attempt to cancel a subscription to a style app that I signed up to following my last birthday, as I'd hit my mid-40s and decided it was time to become a little bit more stylish. Predictably, the app was not a revelation; it was a giant waste of money, so I proceeded to try and cancel before I got trapped in an endless renewal cycle.

Cancelling was quite the exercise. I wanted out, but I kept being directed to offers, promises and alternatives on a web page that was clearly designed to make it hard for me to find and activate the cancel button. I had to trawl through the app, go to settings on my phone, get a couple of codes and then click on a link in an email that was eventually sent to me. I'm all for businesses promoting their products, but why couldn't I just press a button and cancel? I, and my fellow style-app Australians, will now be able to do that, because subscription services will have to clearly disclose that a customer is entering into a subscription, what it costs, how long it runs, how it renews and how it can be cancelled, with cancellations required to be straightforward and easy to find. This is all part of the Albanese Labor government's agenda, which is to make the marketplace fairer and more transparent for consumers.

I want to begin with where I agree with the government: competition keeps prices down; choice matters; businesses that treat their customers fairly deserve to be rewarded. As someone who grew up in a small family-run business, every day that I have the privilege of serving in this place I will stand up and fight hard for Australian small-business owners right across this nation. But this motion asks the house to commend the government, and families in my electorate of Monash might beg to differ. They will not judge this government on the title of motions like this, but they are judging it on the total at the bottom of their supermarket docket. On that test alone, it has failed abysmally. Canstar compared the same basket of groceries at Woolworths in March 2025 and in July 2026. It cost $213.89 back then. It now costs $232.02, an increase of 8.5 per cent in little more than one year. Food prices rose 3.2 per cent in the year to July. Beef and veal rose 13½ per cent in the year to February, and lamb rose 12.9 per cent. Four in five Australians say their grocery bill is higher than a year ago, and they are doing it really tough. More than half say financial pressure has forced them to buy less food. I can tell you from speaking with local food banks in my electorate that that stacks up. In one of the great food-producing nations on earth, Australians are buying less food and paying more.

The motion commends the ban on excessive supermarket pricing from 1 July. In the first month of figures since, food inflation barely moved. The motion commends a ban on drip pricing that does not begin until July 2027. It commends more money for the ACCC. I support a strong regulator, but a penalty paid to the Commonwealth does not put a dollar back in the pocket of a family doing the weekly shop in Korumburra.

What this motion does not mention is the cost this government has pushed on to small business, and it is not fair. On 1 October, the card surcharge ban this government championed came into force. Small businesses can no longer pass on the cost of card payments. They are being forced to absorb it. Retailers are telling me that, instead of a precise surcharge on customers who pay by card, they're now lifting prices by a flat percentage across the board to cover that plus all of the other input costs that are going up across the board, from insurance to electricity, rent and other costs. So everyone pays more, including those customers that decide to pay cash. It is another decision of this government that will push prices up. It will push inflation up. That has an impact on interest rates.

I also want to draw the House's attention to recent events in Nedlands in Western Australia. This didn't occur in my electorate, but it should matter to every independent grocer across this country. In an article in the Australian on 11 September, Joseph Carbone reported that at least a dozen uniformed Woolworths staff had walked through the Taylors Road IGA in suburban Perth together. This is a small, family-run business. Woolworths is building a new store just up the road. The paper later reported that the same group had later visited a second independent store nearby. According to the owner, James Kelly, the staff took photos, made notes and remarked that they would do a better job than his store. Checking a competitor's prices is not illegal. It is a normal part of retail, and independents do it too. But there is a world of difference between quietly checking prices and marching a squad of uniformed staff through a family-run business in front of its own customers. The way this was done was, in my view, completely unacceptable. Mr Kelly said his store would survive, but he also said, 'It's the small guy we worry about.' No small-business owner or their staff should be made to feel intimidated on their own shop floor by a corporate giant that thinks in Albanese's Australia it can get away with it.

So I want to say this to that family-run, small-business grocer in the electorate of Curtin. The coalition will stand up for you and every family-run small business every day of the week. This matters. It matters to that store. It should matter to every small business across Australia.

I often talk about the fact that, if you stood at my electorate office in Sunnybank and threw a rock as far as you possibly could and then drew a circle from it, what you'd find are scores and scores of small businesses. Some of them are in retail, some of them are in hospitality and some of them are in manufacturing. What those small businesses do every day is not only support our local communities but help drive our economy.

Today, I want to talk a little bit about not only what this government is doing for small businesses but also what we are doing—looking at the motion that the member for Banks has put forward—to support the consumers who shop there. I don't think you can ignore the fact that there is an inextricable intertwining of small businesses and their customers. When their customers are doing well, we know that small businesses do well also. This government has put $3.8 billion into making sure we've got lower taxes for small businesses. They see it in the form of the $20,000 instant asset write-off being made permanent, they see it in the form of the loss carryback and they see it in the form of the productivity package of $10.2 billion a year that we saw handed down in this most recent budget, cutting regulatory costs and red tape. As productivity has been a challenge in this country for the past two decades, we have chosen to do something about it, to put in place the biggest, broadest productivity package that this country has seen in 20 years. On top of that, we've seen recently the reduction in the interchange fee cap, and the flow through to merchant fees for small business from banks is already starting to see results, reducing prices for many, many small businesses.

When it comes to everyday Australians—and I heard it at a barbecue over the weekend—people are concerned about how much they are paying when they get to the checkout. It is tough and rough out there. I heard it when I had a conversation with a young bloke who was booking his very first overseas holiday by himself. He talked about the fact that, when he clicked on the price, he thought it would be great. But when he got to the final checkout, and they added in the booking fee and added in a different fee and added in another one, it became predatory, and it became problematic for him to afford. I see it when I drop my daughter off at her swimming lesson, at Dunlop Park in Corinda, and I buy a cheeky Killer Python—and those things are not as big as they used to be when I was going to swimming lessons.

Listening to these stories is important. Understanding those big challenges that Australians face, particularly in a challenging global economic environment, is important. But right now Australians need more than that listening; they need someone who's on their side. They need someone who is taking practical action—not just talking about it, not just spitting rhetoric, but undertaking the things that will make a difference in their lives. That's what this government is doing.

Price gouging needed to go, and the Albanese Labor government made it illegal on 1 July 2026, on top of the mandatory Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, strengthening that unit pricing code and cracking down on the shrinkflation we see in so many of our classic Australian treats and sweets. On top of that is banning unfair trading practices that manipulate consumer choice and drawing a clear line against practices that game consumers and undermine fair competition—competition that we know drives quality and drives price. And we have launched the Supporting Fresh Produce Suppliers—Food and Grocery Code Education Program. But it's not only that; it's increasing funding by more than $100 million to the ACCC to make sure there is accountability, to make sure we are cracking down where people are taking it out on everyday Australians. Funding choice to provide quarterly monitoring reports and taking action on subscriptions and drip pricing—this is real action and this is Labor.

I thank the member for Banks for bringing forward this motion. He makes some good points about the regulation of unfair trading practices, manipulation and deception in competition. It's a good area of law for us to make sure that we have set the law to prevent bad businesses and unethical behaviour in relation to deceptive conduct. The member for Banks, of course, is wholly wrong when he speaks about government grants to compete. He fundamentally misunderstands, like a lot of Labor members do, the nature of real competition and what competition is a function of. It's a function of effective markets and private businesses and corporations, not a function of government. For a government grant to compete, we've already acknowledged a massive failure within the economy. Those were the words out of his own mouth, 'a government grant to compete'. I want to note that the RBA in its most chilling analysis, which was not highlighted enough, said that there will be no price deflation in the foreseeable future. That's what the RBA says. There will be no price deflation in the foreseeable—that's quite a long thing for the RBA—future. That means the price of every good and service is going to continue to rise.

It's no different in the supermarket area. In the past under coalition governments we had food and supermarket deflation. Prices came down. They went up; they also went down. But the RBA is now telling us that there will be no price deflation—a terrible situation. But what is the response we need? What we need is real competition in this economy. What we need is deregulation of the oppressive government regime in industrial relations and in overregulation that burdens Australian businesses in particular and that means there is zero productivity in our economy. They are unable to compete.

Now the government seems to be obsessed with shrinkflation, saying that any attempt by a business to make the same good for a cheap price will also be something they find illegal or be something they're concerned about. At the same time as much of the Left is spending all of its obsession and its time on an obesity crisis, which we do have within our country, they are also bemoaning shrinkflation, which is an attempt by productivity to produce something at a cheaper price. Why is that there? It's because you cannot compete or have productivity in other areas of the economy.

I want to say to the member for the Banks that I think this debate that he's brought forward about the ACCC is very naive, because the competition issues in our country are serious. They are there to be actually addressed by government. Let's look at the example of Drakes in South Australia. In January just this year, Drakes Supermarkets, which has been operating in South Australia for 50 years with 60 stores—it's a great example of an Australian business competing against Woolies, Coles and the big guys; members opposite are familiar with it—bemoaned the fact that, under leasing arrangements, a store that had been there 20 years, had invested millions of dollars and employed people was kicked out by Woolies and the lessor for no valid reason. In fact, Drakes was unable to negotiate. They were told for two years: 'Well, don't worry about it. We'll get on to it.' Of course, they were shut down and kicked out for Woolworths.

Here's what the ACCC has said about it. Here's the scandal that the government should be addressing. Until Drakes appeared on TV, all of their complaints were held with silence until two minutes after the national TV interview. Here's what the ACCC concluded about this matter. The ACCC concluded late last year that there was a 'low risk' of a substantial lessening of competition, noting Woolworths would be constrained by Coles, Aldi and other stores in the area. How is an Australian business competing against the biggest corporations in Australia supposed to compete effectively when they can't get through lease arrangements? We all understand our country and we understand our planning system and overregulated market. That grocery can't go and open up somewhere else. They can't reopen this. There is no opportunity for them to do so. These leasing arrangements are critical and critically manipulative. For the ACCC to adopt a view of 'there will be no lessening of competition by the closure of these Australian competitive grocers' is nonsense. Where's the minister? Where's the government on critical questions like this? Well, they don't understand the economy. Instead, the Labor Party wants to regulate price.

I say this to the government: you'll never successfully lower the price of goods and services through government regulation of the price. It's failed. We don't talk about the Soviet Union anymore. But, when we see the Greens proposing, every day, government run supermarkets—even the mayor of New York is proposing government operated supermarkets—we should all understand that the government will never lower the price of a good and service by regulating that price or price controls. It has failed everywhere. It will fail here, and we should resist all of this push to open government run grocers. That will push up the price of goods more than we've seen in any other way or by any other measure.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

National Disability Insurance Agency

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that despite the Government increasing the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) workforce by more than 5,700 public servants since the 2022 election, participant complaints, funding disputes, fraud investigations and demands on parliamentary electorate offices continue to grow;

(2) further notes with concern, the increasing seriousness and urgency of matters being raised, including cases involving loss of essential supports, participant safety, housing insecurity, hospital discharge delays and risks to health and wellbeing;

(3) expresses concern that administrative failures within the NDIA are placing an increasing burden on carers, providers, support workers and electorate offices, to resolve participant matters that should be addressed promptly by the NDIA; and

(4) calls on the Government to:

(a) urgently reduce the backlog of reviews, reassessments and participant decisions;

(b) prioritise participant-facing service and decision-making roles over administrative growth;

(c) reduce waste, inefficiency and unnecessary bureaucracy within the NDIA;

(d) strengthen accountability, timeliness and transparency in decision-making; and

(e) ensure that investment in staffing, technology and artificial intelligence delivers better and more timely outcomes for participants rather than greater administrative burden.

On this side of the floor, we know that bigger government doesn't necessarily mean better outcomes, and nowhere is this more obvious and evident than in the National Disability Insurance Agency.

I understand the logic here. You think putting more staff means more hands on deck, which should mean that those decks are cleared more swiftly and more effectively, but anyone working in an electorate office right now—it's a job that I would not like to do. It's a very difficult job, but we've got great people doing it. Anyone in an electorate office right now will tell you that they have never received more urgent and justifiable pleas for assistance from their constituents than they have in the past few months. Electorate staff have increasingly become an emergency escalation point at levels that they have not experienced before, particularly in regional seats like mine in Cowper. You've got to ask how that can be.

The NDIA has more than doubled its public service workforce since 2022, from just over 5,000 to a whopping 11,052. They've doubled it. They're now working on the federal scheme at a federal level, and they should be clearing it at twice the rate. This isn't just anecdotal feedback. You only have to look at the complaints lodged over a three-year period to see the outcome erosion in black and white.

As of 30 June 2024, around 71 per cent of requests undertaken that year were completed within 60 days. Seventy-one percent—that's not too bad. But that number fell to 54 per cent in June 2025 and then fell to just 30 per cent by 20 December 2025—30 per cent! It's a disgrace, considering that the workforce has doubled. These stats are taken from the government's own performance dashboard, and we need to remember these aren't just numbers on a page or a screen. These are people in need waiting for months and months and months for care, desperate care and, in many cases, people who have previously received care and have been unceremoniously cut off. We've all had examples of that.

Again, you just need to look at the government's own reports to validate this. The latest report shows a clear split between simpler front-end decisions and more complex matters for existing participants. Only 48 per cent of internal reviews were completed within 60 days, and only 32 per cent of participant requested assessments and 44 per cent of scheduled reassessments were completed on time. With the further impending changes to the scheme, this situation is only going to get worse. Foundational supports are capped at $10 billion over five years, jointly funded by the Commonwealths and states. Thriving Kids accounts for $4 billion of that amount, but not all states have signed up to the Thriving Kids, leaving implementation gaps.

Continued poor transition and implementation rollouts like these—we've seen service restrictions and closures and workforce losses and gaps in support, particularly in regional communities. This issue has to be addressed. Today, I'm calling on the government to publish the size and age-of-review reassessment and decision backlogs, show how many additional staff are participating in face-to-face roles and what results and efficiencies they have delivered, provide transparency over service standards for decisions, reviews and complaints, and report performance publicly. The government has doubled the NDIA workforce and is now reshaping how billions of dollars in disability support are delivered, but the results for participants most in need are already speaking for themselves. The government are failing on the NDIS, and they need to do better.

Is there a seconder for this motion?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I've got to say, when I hear the opposition talk about the NDIS, it really is a lesson in absolute rank hypocrisy that they come into this chamber with this motion. Because it is such a huge problem that we've been left with, it's difficult to know exactly where to start. But why don't I start at the beginning? I'd like to remind people that I had a life outside of politics. I worked on sheep and cattle stations. I ran a construction company. I had my own small businesses, which succeeded to various degrees. I say that as preface to the fact that I also worked for Senator Murray Watt from 2018 onwards.

The significance about 2018 is that that's when we really saw the NDIS begin to roll out. The member for Cowper talks about the strain on electorate offices. What I saw from the vantage point of being an electorate officer was a system that failed from the beginning, and it failed to have the support of the government. All of the problems that existed in 2018 when the scheme was really in its infancy expanded as the scheme expanded. What we were left with in 2022 was a scheme that was growing at about 22 per cent, something completely and utterly unsustainable. For the member for Cowper to talk about concern about administrative failures, to somehow blame the administration of the NDIA, is just a complete and utter inability of self-examination to realise it is them, their legislative failures and their policy failures that have left this government and our community with something which should be so good but for so many people has been so bad.

I know that from personal experience. My own son—Riley, 22—is autistic. I don't often talk about my family, but he's asked me to talk about this. He is somebody that probably doesn't need supports in the NDIS. He probably needs a little bit of help around the house and a little bit of help with daily living. But at the end of the day was the NDIS really designed for somebody like my son Riley? It is the question that we have to ask when we've got a scheme which was essentially designed for 95,000 Queenslanders. How have we ended up with a scheme with 175,000 Queenslanders? How did we end up with that?

That is because of the failure of the previous government to actually do the work of implementing it. I don't know what it was. They were too scared to touch it, completely and utterly negligent, or both. They just let it run completely off the rails to the point where it does cause absolute heartache for parents. I spent probably half an hour yesterday talking to a mum with carer burnout, and carer burnout is real. It is to the point where she's getting up multiple times in the night to clean the bum of her 14-year-old daughter. She has just had enough. She has had enough trying to deal with a system that actually in some way exacerbates that carer burnout.

That is not because of the administrative failures of the NDIA. It is not because of the fact that they are somehow negligent in the way that they carry out their duties. It's because they have been landed with a dog of a system. There are really two ways that you can look at it. I think it's the job of this place. Either there are administrative failures where the legislation is not being carried out properly or there is a problem with the legislation itself. It took this government to fix that problem. Many of the problems that we have seen, which we do see in electorate offices every day, I think are going to be solved by the fact that that we are now going to be able to take a more consistent approach to assessing people's needs, which is what should have happened back in 2018, by the way.

We are going to take a more consistent approach to eligibility, and we are going to support the supports that should exist outside of the NDIS as well for people like my autistic adult son. There are so many things in this motion that really just show a complete lack of self-reflection. One of them though, the one that I'll finish up with, is when they talk about fraud. There is one stunning figure which we know now. This government does more reviews into claims at the NDIA every single day than the previous government did in a single year. I oppose this motion with its hypocrisy, and I urge members to vote against it.

I rise to second the motion moved by the member for Cowper. This motion calls for the desperate need to fix the National Disability Insurance Agency and find a better deal for the Australians who depend on it. In Hinkler, we have 6½ thousand NDIS participants, placing us among the top 25 electorates in the country. That's 6½ thousand people whose independence, support and wellbeing depend on timely decisions that are right for them. Yet every day my offices in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay receive complaints from people struggling to get answers. Participants are waiting for reviews, carers are chasing decisions, and providers are delivering essential services without certainty they will be paid. Behind each complaint is a person. Behind each delay is a family trying to hold things together.

Take Simone. Her internal review remains unresolved, while essential supports continue despite insufficient funding to pay the providers. Those supports are needed now. The bills do not stop arriving while the NDIA considers her case. Aaron has had his support hours reduced and is seeking a review of the decision to cut his funding. He needs assistance but is now trying to manage with less support while he waits for answers. Then there's Dean, who has severe agoraphobia, complex PTSD and level 2 autism, with significant sensory processing needs. After spending time in a Hervey Bay facility, Dean was released into homelessness. He is concerned the assessors have not given appropriate weight to his medical, functional and risk evidence. These cases show why timely decisions matter. We're talking about essential supports, participant safety and whether someone has a secure place to live. Across Australia, electorate offices are dealing with increasingly urgent matters, including housing insecurity, delayed hospital discharges, exhausted funding and risks to health and wellbeing. The burden falls on participants, carers, providers and support workers. It also falls on parliamentary officers trying to resolve matters that should be addressed promptly by the agency itself.

Labor has more than doubled the NDIA workforce since 2022. Staff numbers rose from around 5,300 to over 11,000 in 2025, an increase of about 110 per cent. In 2025 alone, the agency added another 1,900 staff, including more than 400 executive-level employees. With that increase, Australians should expect faster decisions, clearer answers and fewer disputes. The government must explain why, even with the more than doubling of the workforce in the past four years, so many existing participants are still left waiting. The reporting shows that 96 per cent of access decisions and more than 97 per cent of first plans were completed within the required timeframe. In contrast, only 48 per cent of internal reviews were completed within 60 days, and only 32 per cent of some participant requested reassessments and 44 per cent of scheduled reassessments were completed on time. The agency is doing better at processing entry into the scheme than resolving complex problems for people already relying on it.

These delays have real consequences for families in Hinkler. Even contacting the agency can become another hurdle. Its enhanced identity authentication process requires identity, authority and consent to be rechecked for each phone contact. Safeguards do matter, but the process must allow authorised representatives to help people resolve urgent problems. People should not have to turn to their local MP simply to find out where a review stands. My staff will continue helping our community, but the agency must take responsibility for its own decisions and delays. Families already managing disability should not have to spend their time repeatedly explaining their circumstances, chasing paperwork and wondering whether the support they rely on will still be available. This motion sets out what the government needs to do—publish the size and age of review, reassessment and decision backlogs; show how many additional staff are working directly with participants and what improvements they have delivered; make service standards for decisions, reviews and complaints transparent and report publicly; and do not remove or reduce supports before viable alternatives are funded, staffed and operating.

The government cannot measure success by staff numbers, announcements or claimed savings. It must answer for the services Australians receive. The test is whether people get the right support from a viable provider without months of delay. Simone, Aaron and Dean and thousands of others like them deserve answers. They deserve certainty and a fairer go, and I commend the motion to the House.

The NDIS was built on a fundamental Australian value: fairness. It's built on the idea that, where we can, we help each other, support each other and build communities where everyone has the opportunity to lead a fulfilling life. Since it was introduced as a pilot program in my region, the Geelong region, the scheme has changed the lives of so many people with disability, their families and carers, and the people who have helped make this possible are those who work at the National Disability Insurance Agency. Many of these people are from my region, across the Bellarine and the Surf Coast, working at the NDIA head office in Geelong. They care and they work hard and they want to get things right for people with disability and their families. Those workers deserve our support, not criticism.

When the Albanese government came to office, we inherited a scheme that had been neglected for a decade. Costs were rising, wait times were a problem and the NDIA lacked the workforce and oversight needed to manage a scheme that was growing year on year. Around 2020, hundreds of staff in senior executive positions at the NDIA were engaged through labour hire. Labour hire can lead to instability and high turnover—two things you don't want when it comes to senior executive roles. Importantly, people with disability deserve better when they're trying to access support through the NDIS.

We have taken a different approach. The Albanese government has invested in more than 1,000 additional frontline NDIA staff, strengthening the capacity of the agency to support participants and manage the scheme properly. As Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, I chaired an inquiry into the NDIA'S capability and culture. During hearings, we heard about the dedication of its workers, alongside the areas where the agency needed to improve. We can all acknowledge those shortcomings without belittling the people working to address them.

In the June quarter this year, more than 96 per cent of participants received their first plan within the participant service guarantees timeframe; more than 96 per cent received an access decision within 21 days; 79 per cent received a decision within 14 days of providing additional information; and 97 per cent of home and living applications were closed within 90 days. We know there is more to do. Anyone who has waited too long for support knows that, but these results matter and so does the work of the people delivering them. In the same quarter, there were 10,867 participant complaints, equivalent to 5.1 per cent of active participants. That was the lowest complaints rate in two years. New participant critical incidents also fell from 3.1 per cent in September 2025 to 2.6 per cent in June 2026, and the NDIA's national contact centre recorded customer satisfaction of 93 per cent. The coalition should be thanking those staff and not attacking them.

Importantly, we are also fixing the problems the coalition failed to address. In October 2022, an NDIS participant who was medically ready to leave hospital waited, on average, 34 days to be discharged. By June 2026, that average had fallen to 15 days, with a median of zero days. That means more people are returning home to their families sooner.

We are also taking fraud seriously. The Australian National Audit Office found that, under the coalition, the NDIS lacked basic controls to prevent fraud and noncompliance. That came through loud and clear in the NDIS committee's integrity inquiry. In response to our inquiry and as part of the government's work to tidy up the coalition's mess, we invested more than $1.35 billion in tackling fraud and noncompliance, introduced whistleblower protections and banned kickbacks and inducements. On top of that, the Fraud Fusion Taskforce has launched more than 600 investigations, with close to 100 operations underway, and has referred 50 people to court.

In closing, we are focused on securing the future of the NDIS and doing that alongside people with disability and their families. Of course, there's more to do. The Albanese government will keep strengthening the scheme alongside participants and their families and ensuring the NDIS remains there for those who most need it.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Agriculture Industry: Machinery

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that:

(a) modern agricultural machinery is increasingly sophisticated and digitally enabled;

(b) farmers can face significant costs when machinery breaks down during narrow planting and harvest windows; and

(c) competitive repair markets can reduce downtime, lower costs and support independent repair businesses in regional communities;

(2) welcomes the Government's decision to extend Australia's Right to Repair framework to agricultural machinery, and its work to improve the existing Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme;

(3) notes that:

(a) extending Right to Repair to agriculture will give farmers greater choice over who repairs their machinery;

(b) independent repairers will have better access to the information they need to compete; and

(c) the Productivity Commission estimates that extending Right to Repair to agricultural machinery could increase annual gross domestic product by $97 million through increased grain output alone; and

(4) supports reforms that give farmers more choice, strengthen regional small businesses and promote competition in repair markets.

For farmers across north-east Tasmania, a machinery breakdown is not simply an inconvenience. When a tractor stops during harvest, the work does not stop with it. Livestock will still need feeding, crops will still need bringing in and the weather does not wait for a mechanic. For farming families, every hour lost often leads to more expense, more pressure and another worry at the end of a very long day. On Flinders Island, where specialist services can be even harder to access, those challenges are even greater. Our farmers work extraordinarily hard. They invest heavily in their businesses, often across generations, and they deserve the freedom to maintain the equipment that their livelihoods depend upon. And that's why I welcome the Albanese Labor government's commitment to extending Australia's right-to-repair scheme into agricultural machinery.

We've already seen that this can work. Since 2022, Australia's motor vehicle repair scheme has required manufacturers to provide independent repairers with access to essential services and repair information. It's given motorists greater choice, supported independent workshops and helped strengthen competition. Now we need to extend those benefits to farmers.

Modern tractors, harvesters and other agricultural equipment are sophisticated machines, increasingly dependent on software, electronic diagnostics and manufacturer controlled information. A qualified local mechanic may have the experience and the tools to repair a tractor, but, without access to the manufacturer's diagnostic information, they can be prevented from completing that job. That can leave a farmer waiting for an authorised technician, potentially travelling a considerable distance, while expensive machinery sits idle. Our proposed reforms would change that. Manufacturers would be required to share essential repair and diagnostic information with qualified repairers on fair commercial terms. That includes independent mechanics and, potentially, qualified technicians employed directly by farming businesses. The proposals also consider access to electronic service records, clearer pricing, support for diagnostic tools and faster access to the information needed to complete the repairs. The protections would preserve appropriate safety and security safeguards.

But it's not about giving just anyone unrestricted access to this complex machinery; it's about ensuring that skilled, qualified people can actually do the work that they are trained to do. So, for farmers around Scottsdale and Lilydale and across our region, that could mean getting a tractor back into the paddock sooner, rather than losing precious days or weeks waiting for a repair. It will also mean more work for our local mechanical businesses, supporting skilled jobs and apprenticeships in our regional communities.

Across Bass, our farmers are the backbone of so many of our regional towns. They support our local businesses and volunteer and community organisations and help sustain the schools, sporting clubs and services that keep our communities connected. Their contribution reaches well beyond the farm gate, and the strength of our region owes so much to their hard work, their resilience and their generosity. These are people who rise early, work through difficult seasons and take enormous pride in producing the food and the fibre that we rely on. They already contend with unpredictable weather, rising input costs and pressures beyond their control. We should be, and we are, doing everything practical to remove unnecessary obstacles from their businesses, not leaving them with fewer choices about how to repair the equipment that they own.

This reform is about fairness, competition and recognising the realities of farming in regional Australia. It's about backing the farmers of Bass and the skilled local businesses that continue to help keep them operating, and it's about giving those who work so hard to feed our country greater control over their own businesses and their own future.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

The first words in the first sentence from the member for Bass were 'farmers in north-east Tasmania'. I have every respect for the member for Bass, and she knows that I do, but those farmers in north-east Tasmania to whom she refers have benefited largely because of the establishment and construction, under the former coalition government, of the Scottsdale Dam on the Camden Rivulet. More than 85 irrigators are now able to grow some of the world's best produce, and I say it is some of the world's best because it is. But that would not have been possible without coalition infrastructure spending—coalition infrastructure spending which has now dried up, sadly, because of this Labor government. When Labor members come in here and talk about farming and helping farming, you know there is something tragically wrong.

The member for Bass talks about independent repairers having access to the information they need to compete with the right to repair et cetera. Certainly if there's something that's going to help our agricultural sector, all well and good. But, at the same time, this Labor government is making it harder to farm. They are taking away the spending on water infrastructure. The road infrastructure is appalling. It's approaching harvest, and those trucks and heavy harvesters, the machinery that's needed—the chaser bins et cetera—need to go from paddock to paddock, farm to farm, on roads that are deadly and dangerous.

The first budget that the member for Rankin handed down as Treasurer had $124 million in it for farming. Do you know what that farming spending was for? It was to stop the live sheep trade, to get those sheep farmers to do something else.

I'd really like to know what the members opposite think of the Australian Conservation Foundation telling an international conference, just in recent days, that beef is killing the reef. I need the government to stand up against the ACF and say that this is not acceptable. There is a proliferation of intermittent power projects taking up valuable farmland. When it comes to farming, the government needs to be strong and needs to say enough is enough.

Then, of course, we've got the water buybacks. Recently, the Labor government spent $430 million on 86 gigalitres of water—equivalent to 34,400 Olympic sized swimming pools—to take it away from farmers, to take it away from production and to take it away from the consumptive pool and do what? To flush it down the mouth of the Murray. This is wrong. It's just shortsighted. But wait for it—the government now wants to spend more money, even though it's over $1 trillion in debt, on a future buyback to the equivalent of about 130 gigalitres to reach former prime minister Julia Gillard's Goolwa 2012 pledge of 450 gigalitres. So they're 130 short and they're going to be buying—spending all of that money, going into the water market and distorting the water market. I appreciate it's a long way from Bass. I get that. But Tasmania is a microcosm of Australia, and the bad policies that this Labor government is putting in place in Tasmania are then replicated right across the nation.

When it comes to these intermittent power projects, my electorate of Riverina is renewable central. I've got a local government area, Upper Lachlan Shire, which hosts and houses more than half of New South Wales's renewable resource projects. What we're seeing is blackout after blackout in the largest centre of that particular LGA, Crookwell, yet they're hosting 53 per cent, or thereabouts, of New South Wales's power projects. On one of these renewable power projects, the proponent isn't even proposing to actually connect it to the grid. Do you know why they're not going to connect it to the grid? They don't care about how much power they're putting into the system; they just want the subsidies—the subsidies that come from Labor, the subsidies that are there on the table. This is nonsense. What we also need to do, and what the Labor government needs to do, is stand up to Premier Chris Minns and the stupid, absolutely ridiculous idea that these projects can get the tick-off under some state priority significance status, because it is cruelling our farmland.

Don't take my word for it. Ask Emma Webb or the mayor of Yass Valley Council, Jasmin Jones, who describes what is happening to her pristine, beautiful area as it being turned into an industrial junkyard by the policies of those opposite.

Agriculture is central to the economy and identity of my electorate of Braddon. Braddon's farmers produce high-quality world-class products. They support local jobs and businesses and help sustain communities across the north-west West Coast and King Island. Their success flows through to our transport operators, suppliers, processors, exporters and then the main streets. That's why practical reforms that help farmers stay productive matter so much in my electorate.

I rise today to address the Albanese Labor government's decision to extend Australia's right to repair framework to agricultural equipment. Modern farming often depends on sophisticated machinery. Tractors, harvesters and other equipment now combine mechanical parts with software, sensors, electronic logbooks and digital diagnostic systems. These technologies can improve productivity, precision and safety, but they can also create serious problems when a machine stops and the person who owns it cannot access the information or tools needed to diagnose or repair it.

For farmers, timing matters. A breakdown during planting or harvest is not a minor inconvenience. Crops do not wait for a technician to travel from the other side of a state. Approaching rain can turn hours of delay into lost income. TasFarmers put the issue plainly:

Downtime costs farmers money, particularly during peak periods when every hour counts.

It also stressed that the burden is greatest in regional areas, where there may be no nearby factory-authorised repairer. That's why the Albanese Labor government is committed to strengthening competition in the repair markets and expanding choice for farmers.

The Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme already legally requires motor vehicle manufacturers to share car repair and service information with independent repairers. Expanding those repair laws to agricultural machinery means farmers will have better access to local repair services, less downtime and lower costs. Right to repair does not necessarily mean that every farmer should attempt every repair, nor does it mean removing legitimate protections for safety, security, emissions controls or intellectual property. At its core, it concerns fair access to the service information, diagnostic tools, technical specifications and replacement parts required for qualified people to carry out lawful repairs.

Greater access will give farmers more choice, and we know that choice benefits consumers. Independent repair businesses will compete on price, availability and service, while also supporting local skills and jobs in our regional communities. There is also a broader economic case for reform. The Productivity Commission's estimates indicate that right to repair reforms could add $311 million to Australia's gross domestic product and that reducing harvest downtime could lift agricultural production by as much as $97 million. The design of an agricultural right to repair scheme requires care, and safety must remain central.

We also need to recognise the legitimate role of manufacturers and dealers. They invest in product development, training, specialist equipment and support networks. A workable framework should preserve incentives to innovate while preventing ownership of a machine from becoming dependent on a single repair channel. The consistent message across national and state farming bodies is that, when a farmer has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in essential equipment, lawful repairs should be completed promptly by a suitably qualified person.

A balanced right to repair framework can reduce avoidable downtime, widen repair options and strengthen all regional service capacity, while maintaining strong protections for safety, security and intellectual property. As work on the reforms continues, the tests should be practical. Can a farmer facing a breakdown obtain the information, the tools and the parts needed to safely get equipment working again within the narrow production window? If that answer is yes, the framework will be delivering what regional businesses, like many of those electorate in my electorate, need. These businesses really are the backbone of our communities. They help the farmers. They help the producers. They assist the economy right across regional Tasmania. Again, that framework needs to be delivered for those regional businesses. Electorates like mine will actually prosper and so will the farmers, which is a good thing.

Harvest has started in Grey. It's the second earliest start on record, with barley coming out of Thevenard some two weeks ago. Where I come from, harvest is about a week away. Across the Eyre Peninsula, the Yorke Peninsula and the Mid North, headers are being serviced, so are tractors, balers and trucks. Families in Grey have put a year of blood, sweat and tears into their crops, and a header or a combine harvester is how they get it out of the paddock. When one stops, the clock starts to repair it. Everything stops until that part is secured and the header is moving the next day. On more than one occasion, I have driven to Melbourne overnight—a 20-hour round trip—just to get a part so the header could keep moving.

As a farmer myself, I was always taught to know how to repair it yourself or replace it yourself, whether it was replacing a bearing or rebuilding a motor, servicing your own ute or building a new shed. My father always taught me that, if you want something done well, you do it yourself. That is why this bill is important. That is why a farmer's right to repair matters. I get very frustrated, even today, that I can't service my own vehicle or truck without it voiding the warranty. A farmer who owns a machine worth hundreds of thousands of dollars should be able to choose who fixes it. A new header will now cost more than $1 billion. That is before a single litre of diesel goes into the tank.

Families and farming businesses are already facing huge cost pressures. Now diesel prices are going up, and this Labor government is doing nothing about it. I want to take people watching at home back to when Labor was in opposition and when then opposition leader Anthony Albanese was attacking then prime minister Scott Morrison about the price of fuel. Well, the price then was about $1.75. Now prices are up at three bucks, and this Labor government is doing nothing to solve it. On the inverse, our fuel price shield means that the fuel excise would automatically be halved when the Brent crude price of oil goes above U$S100 a barrel.

When the government says it will extend the right to repair to agricultural machinery, it sounds good, but 'sounds good' is not the same as working. The government committed to this in November last year. A discussion paper followed in May. Consultation closed on 3 July this year. But a discussion paper does not fix a header. So the question everyone is asking is: what will it actually look like for farmers? Take the phosphine limits by this federal Labor government as an example. The state Labor government have just delayed the cut to workplace exposure limits for phosphine by at least 18 months—finally listening to farmers and the grain industry that their proposal would not work. We are heading into what could be the biggest harvest on record, yet, consistent with Labor, they pressed ahead with drastic changes without alternatives, risking major supply chain bottlenecks without thinking about how this would impact our farmers and our regions. There are still significant concerns around exposure levels to grain dust.

What gets me about this bill is the irony of this Labor government actually doing something for our farmers. This is coming from a government who has a Treasurer that thinks that chocolate milk comes from brown cows. Have Labor considered the logistics of this for our regions? Many repairers in our regions are independent small businesses. How will they be supported? It is all well and good to give local repairers more information, but the locals have to exist first. I support this reform. Farmers have waited long enough for the right to repair their own machinery, but this Labor government needs to tell the regions what it will look like in practice.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Cost of Living

I move:

That this House:

(1) condemns the Government for failing to ease the cost of living crisis, with inflation still at 3.5 per cent and housing costs rising 5 per cent over the year to July 2026;

(2) notes Australian families continue to pay more for everyday essentials, with food prices rising 3.2 per cent, health costs 3.8 per cent and education costs 4.8 per cent over the year;

(3) recognises the pressure that is being felt across Australian households, with living costs rising 3.7 per cent for employee households and 4.7 per cent for age pensioner households over the year to June 2026; and

(4) calls:

(a) out the Government for failing to get household pressures under control, with the cash rate at 4.35 per cent following three increases in 2026 and mortgage interest charges rising 8.2 per cent in the June quarter; and

(b) on the Government to take responsibility, restore economic discipline and deliver meaningful relief from the rising costs of housing, food, mortgages and other household essentials.

I move this motion on behalf of the millions of Australians who are bearing the brunt of this government's bad economic policies, and many of those Australians are in my electorate on the Gold Coast, and I recognise we have the member for Moncrieff as well. This is something that we both share: our passion for addressing this cost-of-living crisis that this government has created.

This motion—it's ironic, because the statistics that were used in this motion are already outdated, such is the incompetence of this government. From the time that I wrote this motion, we have seen an increase in inflation. It's now at four per cent in Australia. We have seen yet another interest rate rise. This is the 16th interest rate rise that this government have presided over in their term of office. We now see Australians suffering even more so than they did at the time that I put pen to paper on this motion.

As we all know on this side of the House, Australians are working harder and paying more, but what are we seeing? We're seeing them go backwards. Inflation, as I said, climbed to four per cent, with housing costs up five per cent over the year. Rate rises after rate rises—we're seeing this issue now as unique and isolated. We haven't had a cash rate at 4.6 per cent since 2011. That should tell you something.

On the ground, what does it mean? It means that insurance payments are up 43 per cent. Gas and household fuels are up 36 per cent, electricity up 32 per cent, rents up 20 for education 22.9, and health almost 20 per cent. With this government, it is ideology first and Australians second, because, under Labor, we're seeing power prices and energy costs at all-time highs. It's not just the individuals that are suffering; it's businesses that are suffering. We have thousands of incredible businesses on the Gold Coast who do the right thing. They work hard, they pay their staff, they generate employment, and they generate wealth in this country, but they're paying for expensive energy at the power point, the petrol pump and the supermarket checkout. While the world is abandoning net zero, Labor is ideologically pushing ahead at the expense of every Australian.

We've seen this government preside over the largest mass migration program in this country, with 1.5 million additional migrants that have come to this country—roughly the size of the population of Adelaide or more than double the size of the Gold Coast. What that means on the ground is, when housing can't keep up, that additional demand puts pressure on rents and availability, which not only does a disservice to Australians but also does a disservice to the new Australians that are coming here as well. We're seeing rents soaring. Homeownership is slipping further out of reach, and Australians are paying the price left, right and centre.

While the government and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy can issue press releases left, right and centre, a press release is not a house. It's not a cheaper power bill. It's an ideological obsession, ultimately, that the Labor Party dresses up in fancy words. Ultimately, this goes to the heart of the ideology of what's coming out of this government. They're focused on redistributing what we already have as opposed to remembering that, at the end of the day, somebody has to grow it and create it. Those somebodies are individuals and businesses. We have a 'taxaholic' Treasurer who says he understands tax and how to use taxes, but he doesn't know how to grow this economy.

The government, at the end of the day, has the power to address this crisis. They have the power to address this cost-of-living crisis. They can do so if they're focused on the long-term interests of this country, if they reconsider their government spending and if they actually impose upon themselves the same standards that they expect of the people that they govern—that is, fiscal restraint. Families have tightened their belts. Small businesses have tightened their belts. But Canberra hasn't. There is an addiction to government spending in this country. It's fuelling inflation and it's fuelling this cost-of-living crisis. The government should be ashamed.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for McPherson. I want to start by acknowledging something important. Australians are doing it tough. Families are struggling with mortgage repayments, groceries, insurance and electricity bills. I hear it from people across my electorate in Moore. Parents are worried about making ends meet. Pensioners are watching every dollar. Young Australians are wondering whether they'll ever afford a home. These pressures are real, and nobody on this side of the House is pretending otherwise.

But that doesn't mean accepting the coalition's version of economic history. Listening to those opposite, you'd think Australia's economic problems started the day Labor came into office. Apparently before May 2022 everything was wonderful—housing was affordable, groceries were cheap, electricity was practically free and the Liberal Party were shining examples of responsible economic management! The revision of history going on on that side of the chamber would make George Orwell blush. The coalition spent nine years in government. They doubled the Commonwealth debt before COVID. They left inflation above six per cent and rising, and they presided over some of the weakest productivity growth in decades. But apparently that has nothing to do with them.

I particularly enjoyed the member for McPherson's demand that Labor restore economic discipline! This is from a coalition that accumulated more than $600 billion in debt while in government and now has more than $110 billion in unfunded commitments. The coalition is trying to have a bob each way. When they're in government, they say debt is necessary. When they're in opposition, they say debt is a national emergency. When you ask how they'll fund their promises, suddenly they don't want to talk about debt. Apparently economic discipline is only something they believe in when someone else is running the economy.

But let's talk about inflation. The conflict in the Middle East is pushing up global oil prices. That increases the cost of fuel, transport and everyday goods. The Prime Minister does not personally set the global oil price. If he did, I'd certainly have a few suggestions about the price of diesel. When global fuel prices drive inflation, there's a legitimate question about how much raising mortgage repayments can address the problem. The independent Reserve Bank has a difficult job, but interest rates alone cannot fix every problem in the global economy. That's why government must provide relief while managing the budget responsibly, and that's what Labor is doing.

We're delivering tax cuts for working Australians. We've reduced the price of PBS medicines to $25. We're expanding bulk-billing and strengthening Medicare. We're helping families with childcare costs. We're backing higher wages for Australia's lowest-paid workers. These policies won't make every household pressure disappear overnight, but they'll make a practical difference to people's budgets. Under Labor, we've found almost $180 billion in savings and reprioritisation. We've delivered a budget position substantially better than the one we inherited. The average real spending growth has been less than half of the rate of our predecessors.

Meanwhile, those opposite have more than $110 billion in unfunded commitments. When Labor spends money helping Australians, it's inflationary. But, when the coalition makes promises it hasn't funded, that's responsible economic management? That's not economic theory; that is just Liberal Party accounting. And, when the numbers don't add up, it's somehow always Labor's fault.

Australians struggling with their mortgages aren't particularly interested in politicians trading economic statistics. They want to know their government understands what's happening in their household. They want wages that keep up with living costs. They want affordable health care, housing and child care, and they want an economy that works for people who get up every morning and go to work. That's what we're focused on. I would welcome a serious debate with the coalition about how we achieve those outcomes, but instead we get another motion demanding economic discipline from the people who left us with enormous debt.

Australians deserve better than politicians pretending these economic challenges are simple. Inflation is too high, housing is too expensive and too many households are under genuine financial pressure. Fixing these problems takes responsible decisions, practical relief and sustained economic reform. That's the work Labor is doing. If those opposite want to lecture Australians about economic discipline, they might start by explaining how they'll pay for their own promises. Australians are doing it tough, and they deserve more than another unfunded promise from the people who left us the bill.

The bluff and bluster from the member for Moore saying they won't take a lecture from this side and the tone that he had speaking directly to Australians was simply arrogant and was indeed a lecture. I want to remind the member for Moore, who has now scuttled out of the chamber, that there was this little thing called COVID in between. Remember, we were almost about to go back into the black. Remember the song 'Back in Black'? The former treasurer Josh Frydenberg said that we were about to go back in the black, and then what happened? Our country was hit with COVID.

Would the member for Moore like to come back and actually say that he would prefer that we hadn't done JobKeeper for all of those small businesses and everything else that the coalition government did at the time? We saved some 40,000 lives by closing the borders early and responsibly taking care of families and livelihoods. That would be my response to the member for Moore.

I want to talk about the cost-of-living crisis that the member for McPherson put forward, because it is putting immense pressure on families. This government seems to be in their Canberra bubble. They don't get it. They don't understand that you only get a few things for $40 at the checkout, like I put up last night on my Instagram: this is what you get for $40.76 or something like that. Thank you, Albo. Thank you, Prime Minister, for spending, spending, spending. Australians understand that spending, spending, spending means that you run out of money eventually and it catches up on you. That's what's happened with this government. They have amassed a debt of over $1 trillion, costing $52,000 a minute in interest.

If you had a credit card—and I'm speaking directly to Australians—and you were only paying interest, which many of you probably are because you can't afford to pay all your bills under this government, you would understand that that is not sustainable. This government is addicted to spending. It is spending for votes. That is what it is doing, and it must stop because there needs to be some responsible fiscal management that this Treasurer and this Prime Minister actually start to think about. One in two Australians are now agreeing with that. They understand that if you keep spending it's going to make things worse, not better.

Prime Minister, you cannot spend your way out of this cost-of-living crisis. What happens when the government spends is inflation rises. That means that the Reserve Bank has to put up interest rates. We've seen 16 interest rate increases under this government, putting families under immense stress and pressure. It's extra dollars that families are having to hand over at the supermarket and rising costs of keeping a roof over their heads when it comes to housing. For many Australians, there is simply nowhere left to cut back, absolutely nowhere left.

People in my community who work hard—the Gold Coast is known for working hard. We have the lowest unemployment around the country. People work hard. They're paying their bills. They're doing the right thing, and they are being punished, absolutely hammered, by this Labor government, which does not know how to rein in its spending. Australians should be able to work hard and provide for their families. They should be able to get ahead when they're doing the right thing. But people in my community, especially small and family businesses, are telling me every day that they are being slaughtered by this government, its taxes and its addiction to spending.

The pressure is not being felt equally and is being felt across the country. Living costs rose 3.7 per cent for employee households and an even greater 4.7 per cent for age pensioner households in the year to June. This Labor government is also punishing age pensioners. Think about what that means for a pensioner on a fixed income, like my dear old dad in Port Victoria; I talk about him quite often because he can't make ends meet, because he gets electricity bills that are $600 a quarter. How is a pensioner supposed to exist on that and buy petrol for their car to get around to medical appointments and pay extra if there's no bulk-billing—which there isn't in regional Australia, I can tell you. Pensioners are doing it tough.

Government spending under Labor has reached its highest level in 40 years—outside the pandemic; we must remember that, because the coalition did save our country during the pandemic. This heightened government spending is the core driver of inflation. As I said, the more the government spends, the more interest rates have to be put up by the Reserve Bank. It's like having one foot on the accelerator and one foot on the brake, and the whole economy comes to a grinding halt—and that's what we're seeing now. This government is the biggest-taxing and biggest-spending government in Australian history. I ask Australians to get rid of them. It is only the coalition that knows how to fix the economy and protect our way of life. Get rid of Albo and his mates!

Wasn't that contribution from the member for Moncrieff interesting, with the opening statement quoting Josh Frydenberg. It sounds like the comeback might be imminent. Whilst they are fighting amongst themselves about who's the leader or how far to the right they're going or who they are or aren't in coalition with, we will get on with the job of making sure that lives are better for every single Australian in this country.

On the weekend, we weren't fighting amongst ourselves and debating each other; we were out doorknocking in my community of Bonner and in the suburb of Tingalpa with local volunteers for our housing day of action. We spoke with people about the cost of living, finding a home, the challenge of saving a deposit and the pressures that people in my community are facing. Those conversations are always a timely reminder that the cost of living is about the choices people are having to make each and every week—what they can afford at the supermarket, whether they can pay a bill on time and how they balance work, care and the cost of raising a family. In Bonner, I hear those concerns from people every day. People are working hard and doing their best, but many are still feeling the squeeze. It is the job of government to listen, to take responsibility and to act. That means managing public money carefully, making savings where we can and directing support towards the pressures that people are facing—and that is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing.

Responsible management matters. The final budget outcome for the 2025-26 financial year recorded a deficit, yes, of $22.3 billion, but that was $6 billion lower than forecast in the budget. That doesn't mean the job is done, but it shows we can work to improve the budget position while continuing to support households and invest in the services that people rely on. We have made savings and reprioritised spending in every budget update. We have had to make some difficult choices, including slowing the growth in some areas of spending while protecting essential services and directing support to priorities like Medicare, housing and families.

Fiscal responsibility is not an end in itself; it must help us build on the economy that works for people and give us the capacity to act on the pressures they face. That is why we are cutting taxes for workers, paying higher wages for some of the lowest-earning people in our country and helping Australian families manage the cost of things like child care. Our new tax measures include a permanent offset of up to $250 for workers and a $1,000 instant tax deduction. This builds on the tax cuts already delivered. As the full package takes effect, an average earner will receive over $2,800 a year in tax relief by 2028. That is money people can put towards things like their groceries, bills, transport and school costs. We are backing higher wages for nearly three million of Australia's lowest-paid workers because Labor values the work they do in critical industries like aged care and child care.

We are helping get people into a home of their own. We know that, with the five per cent deposits, over 500 people in my local community of Bonner have already taken up that offer and are already in their first home, and we want to see more coming through that scheme. For the people I met on the weekend in Tingalpa, the challenge is not a lack of hard work; it is getting a foot in the door when rents are high and saving a deposit feels out of reach. That is why practical help, with things like five per cent deposits, matter.

We are making essential health care more affordable. People in Bonner have saved more than $19 million on PBS medicines across more than 2.7 million scripts. That's on top of our $25 scripts. We've doubled the number of bulk-billing clinics. We have not one but two Medicare urgent care clinics in my community, at Carina-Carindale and also at Capalaba. Already over 20,000 people have been through the doors of those services. Those services matter because, when you get sick, you need to be able to access health care when you need it most outside of hours, on the weekends when the kids are at sport, for free and fully funded by Medicare.

People deserve more than an acknowledgement that times are tough. They deserve a government that takes responsibility, manages the budget carefully and delivers practical help that they can use. That is exactly what this Albanese Labor government is delivering, and it is exactly what we will continue to do each and every day we have the privilege of governing this country.

Australian families are doing it tough, and this government has failed to ease the pressure. Inflation is still 3½ per cent. Housing costs rose five per cent over the year to July. Food is up 3.2 per cent, health is up 3.8 per cent, and education is up 4.8 per cent. Living costs for employee households rose 3.7 per cent over the year to June. For aged pensioners, they rose 4.7 per cent. Those who can least afford it are being hit the hardest.

These are not just numbers. A fortnight ago I visited the Baw Baw Food Relief centre in Warragul with the Leader of the Opposition, Angus Taylor. We met volunteers including Mark Kleeman, Kitty McCall and Michael Gray. The centre is set out like a small supermarket so people who need their services can come in and shop from aisle to aisle and keep their dignity. The centre's busier than ever. On an ordinary day, around 20 families come through its doors, and on some days that number reaches 50. Over the most recent 12 months reported, 2,684 local families relied on the Baw Baw Food Relief centre. That's up nine per cent on the year before. Those families included 2,825 children in my electorate, nearly 3,000 children in one shire relying on a charity for food. The volunteers are seeing younger faces too, and they tell a story that should stop every member of this place. Some people drive into the car park, sit there and drive away again, because they cannot bring themselves to walk in and ask for help. This is Albanese's Australia right now.

Baw Baw Shire is not alone. The latest Foodbank hunger report found that one-in-three Australian households, around 3½ million, experienced food insecurity in the past year, and it should be noted that almost half of renters are food insecure. Among households earning between $33,800 and $91,000 a year, food insecurity has climbed from 31 per cent to 37 per cent in just three years. These are working Australians, and they are running out of food.

The same day I had the pleasure of hosting the Leader of the Opposition in my electorate, we also visited Blackwoods Readymixed & Garden Supplies in Warragul. Michael Blackwood has spent 40 years building that business from a small garden supplies yard. He has built that business with his family from the ground up. It is a great success story that we are very proud of in our electorate, but right now Michael is spending around $40,000 a fortnight on fuel. Every load of materials Michael buys carries a fuel levy from his suppliers, adding about $10 to every cubic metre he produces. Building activity has slowed at the same time. Michael is being squeezed from both directions right now. Michael fears that experienced owners like him will just walk away, leaving regional communities with fewer independent operators. As he puts it, small businesses will diminish because it just gets too hard. When asked what would help in the Warragul& DrouinGazette, Michael's message to the government was simple: go back to the basics, cut costs, and stop wasteful spending. Michael and his business have to run to a budget. This Albanese federal government should be expected to stick to a budget too.

I was very pleased to take the Leader of the Opposition to Moe, where we held a small business roundtable with the Moe Traders Association at the fabulous Tommy Brock Cafe. There were some terrific community leaders there. We had a really important discussion, but the running theme was the same. Costs are up, income is down, times are tough, and small-business owners have never had to work harder for less and face more risk and red tape. We finished the day at the Longwarry Friendly Grocer, a great family small business. They've been the target of multiple ram raids, rising costs, rising crime and rising red tape. That's what small business owners and households are telling me, right across my electorate of Monash. It's exactly why this motion calls on the government to restore economic discipline, because, when this government's spending goes out of control, the consequences are felt and paid for by households and families right across my electorate and right across Australia. The Reserve Bank has pointed to the issue of inflation driving interest rate rises, and there is no relief in sight until this government gets its act together.

When I talk to people around Petrie, the cost of living comes up almost every single time. Whether I'm at the shops in Deception Bay, chatting to someone in Rothwell or talking to the parents at the school pick up in North Lakes, the message is the same—the weekly budget is tight. I don't dismiss that, and I don't think anyone should. Inflation is still too high, and global pressures are making things harder, particularly rising fuel prices because of the conflict in the Middle East. That doesn't make everyone's mortgage repayments smaller, but it is important to recognise.

I've read the member for McPherson's motion, and I think there's something missing. What are we actually doing to help families with their bills? That's what people in my community want to know. They don't want another argument about who's to blame. They want to know what is being done to make their life a little bit easier right now. One way to help is to make sure that people can keep more of what they earn. We've delivered tax cuts for Australian workers, with further relief flowing through, including the new working Australians tax offset and a simpler $1,000 instant tax deduction. We've also backed increases to minimum and award wages, because people deserve to be paid properly for their work.

It's also about bringing bills down. Medicare is a good example. In Petrie, the number of fully bulk-billed GP clinics has more than doubled because of our record investment into Medicare. More families can now visit a GP without paying a cent. Our Medicare urgent care clinic in Deception Bay is open seven days a week, fully bulk-billed and with no appointment required. We've recently expanded the Redcliffe Medicare Mental Health Centre—something that I have fought hard for because I know how much demand there is for it in my community. When someone needs mental health support, there shouldn't be worry about the cost. With PBS medicines now also capped at $25 for general patients, we're helping people afford that essential medication. Health care is a cost-of-living issue. Every dollar saved at the doctor or pharmacy can go towards groceries, electricity or rent.

It's the same principle behind what we're doing for families with young children. More than 1,600 early childhood educators in Petrie are benefiting from Labor's 15 per cent wage increase. These are hardworking people who look after our kids, and they deserve decent wages. We're also making child care cheaper so parents can go to work without so much of their pay disappearing into the fees. That's real relief for working families who are already juggling enough.

Housing keeps coming up constantly also, particularly for the younger locals. I've met people who've been saving for years and still cannot scrape together enough for a deposit. Some of them have really good jobs. They're doing everything right, but the house prices just keep moving further and further out of reach. Our expanded five per cent deposit scheme is helping to change that. More than 1,300 people in Petrie have benefited, helping them buy their first home without needing a 20 per cent deposit or paying lenders mortgage insurance. For those people, getting a foot in their own door is a pretty big deal.

We're also taking on excessive supermarket pricing, because families deserve a fair deal on essentials, and we're helping people get ahead through education and training. Fee-free TAFE, the Australian apprentice training support payment and paid prac for eligible university students all help ease the financial pressures on getting qualified. Getting the skills for a better paid job shouldn't mean putting yourself under financial strain. We have also delivered this relief responsibly. That's why we've found almost $180 million in savings and worked to improve the budget position. We can support households and manage a budget responsibly. That's what we're doing.

Now, I know things are expensive, and I'm not here to stand here and pretend otherwise. Here's what I want families in Petrie to know. We know things are expensive and we're not pretending otherwise. We're making changes that are actually going to help: tax cuts so you can keep more of your pay, cheaper medicines and more bulk-billed doctors, free urgent care clinics in Deception Bay and Murrumba Downs, expanded mental health care support in Redcliffe, better pay for our early childhood educators and a five per cent deposit for helping locals get into their own home and pay off their own mortgage rather than paying off someone else's. We're stopping supermarket price gouging. We're making TAFE apprenticeships and student placements more affordable. None of that makes a weekly budget magically easy, but every bit of it is taking some of the pressure off, right here, right now.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.

Pregnancy Loss, Stillbirth and Neonatal Death

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) October is Pregnancy and lnfant Loss Awareness Month and that Thursday, 15 October 2026 marks Pregnancy and lnfant Loss Remembrance Day; and

(b) this day acknowledges the shared loss experienced by parents, friends, and healthcare workers of babies lost through miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death;

(2) acknowledges:

(a) that there is a significant impact on families who have lost a baby;

(b) that every year it is estimated that:

(i) more than 110,000 Australians experience a miscarriage;

(ii) more than 2,000 experience stillbirth; and

(iii) almost 700 lose a baby within the first 28 days;

(c) that stillbirth occurrence is higher in First Nations and some culturally diverse communities; and

(d) all families who have experienced loss, either recently or over time; and

(3) commends the Government for providing more than $75 million in measures to support women and families in Australia to reduce stillbirths and preterm birth and support families impacted by perinatal loss.

The grief of infant loss never fades or goes away. The smallest of things and the smallest of triggers can in an instant bring back the saddest of memories. I know this only too well, having experienced a miscarriage and the loss of two children—Michael, 40 years ago, and Meaghan, 34 years ago—shortly after their birth. At the time of my loss, the issue of infant loss was largely ignored. This was not really out of callousness but more because society didn't know what to say or dealt with grief by moving quickly along. I can't count the number of times I was told: 'Just have another baby. You'll forget in time.' There are too many platitudes for those of us that have been touched by this loss. Those of us who've experienced the loss know you never get over it. You move on, and some of us are blessed with beautiful children and, now, grandchildren. But all parents know that they have infinite love for all of their children.

Thankfully, over the last ensuing years, attitudes, perceptions and public debate have changed. As a result, infant loss is no longer quite the taboo subject it once was. In Australia, we're lucky to have arguably the best health system in the world. Australia is one of the safest countries to give birth in in the world. Notwithstanding this, infant loss is by no means uncommon, and the tragedy and sadness of it affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians every year. Every year, nearly 110,000 Australians experience a miscarriage, and more than 2,000 experience stillbirth. Almost 700 lose a baby in the first 28 days after birth. Behind each of these numbers is grief, a story of shattered dreams and of broken hearts. For Indigenous Australians, the statistics are far more tragic, with up to a 50 per cent increase in pregnancy or baby loss.

The Albanese government is committed to supporting women and families to receive care that is respectful, supportive and based on the best available evidence while recognising their individual, cultural and community needs. Our government has invested more than $305 million in maternal health, perinatal services and support in the last six years alone and commitments of more than $22.6 million for stillbirth and miscarriage bereavement support. The government is continuing to fund Red Nose's Australian Hospital to Home Program, which supports parents and families after a stillbirth or infant loss. Families can access counselling, peer support, information, referrals and help connecting with other services. The program is delivered by trained bereavement workers, including people with their own experience of loss. In July 2026, the government launched Miscarriage Matters, a national program to reduce stigma around miscarriage; make it easier to talk about miscarriage and support someone who has experienced one; improve understanding of miscarriage; and provide practical resources for families, friends and the wider community.

Pregnancy and infant loss can have a significant impact on mental health as well. The government is investing in mental health services, screening and specialist support for families affected by miscarriage, stillbirth and infant loss. The federal government has invested to establish and run a network of 20 perinatal mental health centres. The centres provide mental health support for new and expecting parents, including people experiencing grief after miscarriage, stillbirth or infant death.

The government is also providing $5.9 million to update the Pregnancy Care Guidelines and develop new postnatal care guidelines. The guidelines include specific advice about supporting families after pregnancy loss and stillbirth. The guidelines recognise what every parent who has experienced this loss knows: losing a baby can have a lasting impact, and the care people receive afterwards makes a real difference. The guidance includes using respectful and sensitive language, giving families clear information about grief and what to expect, and much more.

I recognise all families, parents and loved ones who've experienced the loss of a baby and will continue to support everyone to remember these children forever.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to acknowledge Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month and Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day on Thursday 15 October. This is an opportunity to acknowledge the grief of families who have experienced miscarriage, stillbirth or the loss of an infant, and remind them that their loss is indeed not forgotten. Every year in Australia, more than 110,000 women experience miscarriage. Behind that number is a family—a mother, a father, siblings, grandparents—and friends whose lives are changed forever. For many, the healthcare system is a huge part of their experience during pregnancy, birth and loss. That is why we acknowledge Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day. But we also need to talk about whether every woman in Australia has access to the health care she needs and when she needs it.

According to Labor, there are two classes of women: women from metropolitan Australia and women from the regions. I'll explain why. Just recently, local GPs and anaesthetists in Jamestown and Crystal Brook reached out to me about changes to local birthing services. They are concerned the new model would see birthing services operate from one site at a time, with services alternating between Jamestown and Crystal Brook. Labor's answer to a shortage of midwives is to share out the shortage and to call it a service. For an expectant mother, this is not simply a question of where a service is located on a map. Pregnancy does not happen according to a roster. Babies do not arrive according to a government timetable. Regional mums need certainty about where they can give birth, not a calendar telling them where they can't.

Today I'm talking about the closure of Crystal Brook and Jamestown, but they are not alone. Earlier this year, birthing services at Kapunda closed, and birthing services in Whyalla are off and on. And today I'm still calling out the Prime Minister and the Treasurer for their dealings with Kate, a midwife who answered Australia's call to come out and fill critical shortages, and you've slugged her with a $44,000 fee and you'll not give it back.

The question has to be asked: why are regional women being asked to accept sub-par services and reduced access to maternity services? You wouldn't expect a regional emergency department to operate on a rotating monthly roster, so why should maternity care be treated any differently? The government cannot call the service sustainable simply because it takes turns being available. This is particularly important when we are talking about pregnancy and infant loss. For a woman experiencing a loss, having to travel a significant distance for care can add another layer of stress and trauma at an already devastating time. For city families, a change in hospital might mean another suburb. For regional families, it can mean another region and hours in a longer drive. Regional women deserve the same standard of care as women living in our capital cities. They deserve to have their local doctors and their communities properly consulted before the bringing in of such sweeping changes and they deserve to know that, if something goes wrong during pregnancy, help is available close to home.

This month makes us ask what more we can do to support women before, during and after pregnancy. That means investing in health care that works for our regions. That means making sure decisions about maternity services are made with them, not for them. Today I acknowledge every family who has experienced pregnancy or infant loss, and I acknowledge the healthcare workers who support families through some of the most difficult moments of their lives. When access to health care is being reduced, services are being centralised or regional families are being asked to travel further for care, I will continue to stand up for those families' right to receive quality health care closer to home. Where you live should never determine the quality of care you receive.

New Labor MP Aria Bolkus, a previous staffer to now health minister Mark Butler, said recently, 'Where you live should never determine the quality of health care you receive.' Well, Aria, get in your car, come and visit Crystal Brook, Wudinna and Streaky Bay and then tell me that we have the same access. We need action, not more spin and not more words.

October is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month, and Thursday 15 October is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day. More than 110,000 Australians experience a miscarriage each year, more than 2,000 experience stillbirths and almost 700 families lose a baby within the first 28 days.

For me and my husband, trying to become parents did not follow the well-worn path. We were trying and then my sister became pregnant. I was delighted for her and I remember thinking, 'Perhaps I'll be next.' Then a close friend became pregnant. Then my sister's close friend did. Of course, I was happy for them, but there was always the thought in the back of my mind: when is it going to be my turn? And then it was. I was pregnant. But what we didn't know was that that pregnancy was going to be the one in four that end in loss. Paul and I were overjoyed. We had plans and hopes and had already started imagining life with a new family. We went in for our first scan filled with excitement and anticipation. We were laughing a lot. That morning I remember noticing that I was not as hungry as I had been. The queasiness feeling had gone. I sort of felt normal again. I didn't know that my body was telling me something was wrong. During the scan, they started asking questions. 'How many weeks are you?' 'Are you sure?' 'Do you know that there are two babies?' We did not. Then the news hit us like a sledgehammer. The babies were dead, and the laughter stopped. This was my first experience of pregnancy loss.

We know that pregnancy loss is not evenly shared. Stillbirth rates are higher among First Nations women, some culturally diverse women and women living in rural and remote communities. The Albanese Labor government is acting to prevent these deaths. The National Stillbirth Action Implementation Plan is working to reduce stillbirth and improve the care families receive afterwards. Its work includes better clinical guidance, research and education, improved stillbirth investigations and the national implementation of the Safer Baby Bundle.

Our government has committed more than $75 million to measures to reduce stillbirth and preterm birth and support families affected by perinatal loss. The national preterm birth prevention program is a $19 million Commonwealth investment supporting a coordinated national approach to preventing babies being born prematurely, including clinical strategies, work across jurisdictions and public awareness.

More than $5.1 million has also supported improved bereavement care—and I know I needed it—including $3.2 million for Red Nose Australia Healing Through Community projects, $680,000 for health professional education and $850,000 for telehealth psychology for women and families in rural and remote Australia. The Red Nose program has also expanded support for First Nations, multicultural, refugee and migrant communities, people in rural and remote areas and younger women.

I know how hard it is to describe the grief that comes with pregnancy loss, especially when you lost something that, in some people's minds, never really was. For me, it was heavy, and yet the comments around me were often light hearted, reflecting a lack of understanding of how profound that loss was. Pregnancy loss can leave an enormous emotional toll, and, too often, the grief is invisible.

The government is addressing the mental health impacts of pregnancy loss and the broader prenatal period. Up to one in five women and one in 10 men experience anxiety and depression during this time, with almost 100,000 Australians estimated to be affected each year. The government is funding specialist perinatal mental health centres, providing parents with free mental health care, following a GP referral and mental healthcare plan. For a long time, pregnancy and infant loss was something people often dealt with privately. For me, there was no easy thing anyone could say to make that grief go away, and you can see it still hasn't, but, sometimes, people who are grieving don't need the right words. They just need their loss to be acknowledged and to know that they are not alone. I am thinking of everybody out there today, and I remind you that you're not alone. I commend the motion to the House.

I rise to speak to the motion today and to acknowledge International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month and Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day on 15 October. Human life and the inalienable rights that belong to it begin at conception. If that were not so, then recognising the death and loss of a prenatal human being would be no more meaningful than recognising the loss of hair, fingernails or any other clump of human cells.

From its earliest beginning, an unborn child is a distinct human life, developing in its own right, but, like every one of us, it is not independent. From conception to death, human life is never truly independent. At every stage, we rely upon others to survive, to grow and to flourish. To be human is to know vulnerability and need. There are times in every life when we depend upon the strength, care, patience and sacrifice of others, but that truth also carries a responsibility. Just as we have depended upon others, others will depend upon us. Nowhere is that responsibility felt more deeply than in family and, particularly, in parenthood. To become a parent is to experience, in its most profound form, what it means for another human life to depend upon you for protection, for provision for comfort and for love. That is why the loss of a child cuts so deeply.

More than 110,000 Australians experience miscarriage each year, more than 2,000 families experience stillbirth, and hundreds more lose a baby in the first weeks of life, but behind every one of those statistics is a child who was loved, a family whose hopes and dreams were changed forever and grief that can endure for years. A miscarriage is not simply the loss of a possibility or an expectation for grieving parents. It's the loss of their child, a son or daughter whose place in their family had already begun.

It was something I never truly understood until it happened to Sharon and me. Nearly 30 years ago, there was one moment, an image, a memory, that remains as vivid to me today as it was then—the expression on Sharon's face before she quietly said to me: 'Something's not right. I think I'm losing the baby.'

That's the nature of this grief. Time moves on, families grow and life continues, but the child who was lost remains a part of the story of that family. It is through family that we first learn what it means to belong to others and to have others belong to us. It's where responsibility becomes personal—a mother caring for her child, a father protecting his family, grandparents embracing a new generation and families standing together when tragedy comes.

So today I acknowledge those who have experienced miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of a baby in the first weeks of life. I acknowledge the grandparents, siblings, extended family members, friends and healthcare workers who carry part of that grief also. Whatever differences may exist in our broader public debate, when a family loses a baby, we instinctively understand that something precious has been lost.

Every child matters, every human life has value and every grieving family deserves compassion and appropriate support. Parents remember the due date. They remember the moment they received the news. They remember the child they never had the opportunity to watch grow. Today, this chamber remembers with them. We recognise their grief, we acknowledge the life that was lost and we honour the families who carry those children in their hearts. I commend the motion.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Gun Control

I move:

That this House:

(1) calls on the Government to:

(a) repeal the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026, and reverse laws that were rushed through the Parliament in January, in response to the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack; and

(b) support the Firearms Legislation Amendment (Repealing Unfair Gun Laws) Bill 2026, moved by the Member for Maranoa, to:

(i) restore Commonwealth firearms and importation law to its position before the passage of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026;

(ii) abolish the Government's failed National Gun Buyback Scheme; and

(iii) retain the changes to the prohibition of hate symbols and background checks, which operationally remain at the discretion of the states; and

(2) acknowledges that:

(a) the perpetrators of the Bondi terrorist attack should never have had access to a firearm under the laws that already existed;

(b) how they obtained firearms is a question for the Royal Commission, not an excuse to punish farmers, sporting shooters and hunters who follow the rules;

(c) the National Gun Buyback Scheme targets lawful gunowners, who depend on their firearms for their livelihoods and for healthy recreation, both in metropolitan areas and all over regional, rural and remote Australia, instead of addressing antisemitism which is being fuelled by Islamic extremism;

(d) hardworking, small business owners are being forced to pay the price for crimes they did not commit; and

(e) firearms shop owners and small businesses have been left with unsold stock, cancelled orders, collapsing sales and enormous uncertainty, forcing some to close their doors altogether, while the Government's proposed support will not come close to covering their losses.

Today I rise to call on the Albanese government to finally let common sense prevail. This government rushed through gun laws back in January, and there has been confusion ever since. From the time the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act was squeezed through the Albanese government's lawmaking sausage factory, a mechanism that works without stakeholder engagement and without due consideration for the Australians that it impacts, more than a million law-abiding gun owners have been hung out to dry. Australians deserve answers about what will come next through the introduction of these new, unworkable gun laws. There is too much confusion and no consultation. Businesses are struggling, clubs are uncertain and farmers are at a loss as to how to comply with these laws.

Recently, I met with David Thwaites, who, together with his wife, Nancy, owns Walgett Hunt Camp Fish and newsagency. For David and Nancy, Labor's rushed firearms laws and gun buyback are not just bad policy; they are a huge threat to their livelihoods. Gun shop owners have been left with unsold stock, cancelled orders, collapsed sales and enormous uncertainty while Labor's proposed 'support' will not even come close to covering their losses. New South Wales Labor's new buyback deal, brokered with the federal Labor government, thinks $25,000 will cover the millions of dollars worth of losses for these businesses. That's an insult. It won't even go close.

The Albanese government is shooting itself in the foot by dealing a serious blow to gun shops throughout regional Australia, the licensed operators who help keep this industry safe. These are hardworking small-business owners being forced to pay the price for a crime that they did not commit. All law-abiding gun owners are being forced to pay the price for the actions of two terrorists.

I rise today to call on the Albanese government to listen to Australia, to repeal its unfair federal firearms laws, to restore Commonwealth firearms and importation laws to where they stood before the Labor changes and to abolish the National Gun Buyback Scheme. We should target terrorists and criminals, not punish law-abiding firearm owners and the regional businesses that support them.

The proposed National Gun Buyback Scheme is a failure. It failed to meet the deadlines. It failed again to meet the agreement of all the states and territories. It has failed to address the issues that sparked the kneejerk reaction. The Albanese government promised agreement from the states and territories by March and the legislation by 1 July this year. Neither have happened. South Australia has joined the list of states and territories who will no longer take part in the buyback. Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have also said no—no deal. Only New South Wales and the ACT have signed up and announced grossly inadequate buyback arrangements. New South Wales Labor has 32 members in this parliament. What are they doing to represent and support all of their constituents?

Now that the bullet has been fired by this government, they've walked away without waiting to see where it has hit. In my electorate, I'm hearing every day about Australians who have been caught in the crossfire. Australia has heard from the interim report of the royal commission that no state or territory agency reported the laws that were already in place were insufficient to stop this attack in Bondi. These new rushed Labor laws were a quick fix that were never going to work. A Shooters Union Australia report has estimated the buyback scheme would cost $15 million.

In the meantime, Australians are being left with no direction, no details, no certainty and very little compensation. Sporting clubs are wondering whether they are viable and whether their sport can continue. Farmers are trying to work out what firearms they can keep and what works best for their farm. Gun shop owners such as Sam and Sharnah Tomlinson, who own 2 Rivers Guns & Ammo in Moree, are facing incredible challenges. The Tomlinsons have recently announced that their family business will close. I say to the Prime Minister and to those opposite: you made the call, you found the scapegoat and you rushed through the legislation. What happens next?

Gun shop owners like David and Nancy deserve fair compensation, gun owners deserve certainty and Australia deserves to know just how this huge change will work for them. They deserve to be heard.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

This motion should be opposed, and it just shows exactly why from that presentation from the member for Parkes, which was void of facts and void of actual reality. This motion being put forward by the opposition is very concerning and flies in the proud history of the coalition actually doing something about gun ownership and making sure that Australia doesn't have the mass casualties that we see in the United States.

In 1996, in Port Arthur, Tasmania, 35 people were killed, two of which were Alannah and Madeline and their mother, Nanette. The Alannah & Madeline Foundation, which exists in my electorate and whose badge I'm wearing today in the chamber, is an amazing organisation that advocates for the rights of children to be safe in this country. It has also advocated after the leader and the founder of that organisation, the father of these two incredible young girls, wrote to the then prime minister, John Howard. The series of letters back and forth stand in history in this country as one of the finest moments of civilian advocacy and also responsibility taken by a prime minister. They have even been displayed here in this building. They offer an insight into the pain of a father mourning the death of his children but also the compassion and the action taken by our country after.

What happened after the Port Arthur massacre was that 650,000 firearms were bought back in the National Firearms Agreement. The member for Parkes cited a $15 million figure. Well, actually, John Howard and Tim Fischer raised $230 million to buy back those firearms, and they installed a 28-day waiting period. They installed the notion that people can own firearms if they have a genuine reason for doing so, which laid the foundation for a lot of our firearms laws across the country. They also started buying back and created amnesty for gun owners.

Fast forward to Bondi, where 15 people were killed for attending a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney. What happened after that is that we came to this place and we instilled and passed legislation that was going to target those people who potentially could cause damage and the pain and the terror that we saw in Bondi. There is no confusion. There is no grey area. Licences are given by states and territories. If there is confusion from the member for Parkes, then he should go and speak to a state or territory government, not the federal government. We do not set the licensing agreements. The national buyback scheme is based on the fact that people can continue to have firearms if they have licences and if they can demonstrate that they have a genuine reason for doing so—the test that John Howard and Tim Fischer set. States and territories already have arrangements for hunting and recreational shooting per state and territory government.

There is no confusion here. This is the National Party jumping at shadows and forgetting one of the finest moments in their history where they showed leadership following one of the worst-ever incidents on Australian soil, where 35 people were killed by semiautomatic weapons. The National Party joined and faced people who were deeply impacted and deeply affected by this—gun owners themselves—and had the strength of conviction and courage, knowing that it was in Australia's interest to do so. But that is not what we see in the National Party today. That is not what we see in the coalition today. They are desperate to try and be some poor imitation of the National Rifle Association in the United States, trying to weaken our gun laws, and Australians will pay the price.

Previously, ASIO was not consulted by a firearms registry about whether to issue a firearms licence. Now, thanks to our legislation, ASIO has an active role. Background checks were only conducted initially, but now they can be conducted if new information comes to hand. Previously, citizenship was never a factor in owning a licence in this country, but now it is.

I'm not sure exactly what those opposite are putting forward here, but if they have an issue with licences they should go and speak to the states and territories. If they think ASIO should have a lesser role in the issuing of firearm licences, they can go and speak to ASIO. But we have a different view. Australia has a proud history of firearm control. We have fewer murders, fewer mass attacks and less killing as a result, and we should maintain these strong laws in Australia's national interest.

I've effectively been guillotined on speaking on this motion. In January, I was guillotined on speaking on the actual legislation. That was disgraceful then, and it is disgraceful of the Selection Committee to only allow a couple of speakers to speak on this important motion. This motion matters. These are bad laws.

Labor thinks every gun owner in Australia is either a terrorist or a potential Martin Bryant. That is simply not the case. There are millions of Australians who are lawful gun owners who respect the law, the process and the privilege and responsibility of owning and using guns and firearms. Yet Labor wants to silence them all, not attack the problem. Let's be clear here: guns were not the fundamental problem in December with the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi; people were—people motivated by hatred, people embracing violent extremism—along with the failure of a system that was supposed to stop dangerous individuals accessing firearms.

The evidence before the royal commission that raised serious questions around existing laws was clear. As my colleague the member for Parkes said, there has not been any evidence presented that says we need additional laws. The answer to a failure to enforce existing laws is not to punish people who already obey them, but that is exactly what the government has done. I can tell you that people in my electorate, in my gun club—the Taree Wingham SSAA gun club—are angry and mad not just because of the gun laws but because almost everything this Labor government touches is destroying their lives if they're in small business, if they're a retiree, if they're a pensioner. Labor is chasing Australians down the road for the last $2 in their back pocket. If you're a lawful gun owner, they've got a bigger target on your back with this policy.

These are terrible laws. They should be repealed. I'm very pleased the National Party is standing up for rural people, for hunters, for sporting shooters and for people in small businesses. I've got a gun shop owner, a small business, in my electorate. He has not sold a gun in three months. He is on his knees. He doesn't deserve this.

The member for Lyne will resume her seat. I'm sorry about this, but I am bound by the standing orders and it is a hard deadline on a Monday for 1.30. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:00

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Artificial Intelligence

We cannot trust OpenAI, Anthropic and other AI companies to regulate themselves, and we can't trust the US government to do it either. This is my clear takeaway from the first week of hearings in the newly established Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence. OpenAI's breaches of Australian government websites and the Hugging Face hack have shown the level of risk and the insufficiency of internal safeguards within these companies. Australia cannot manage all of the risks, but we can take meaningful steps to improve our chances of making AI a positive force, rather than a dystopian one.

For me, three no-brainers came out of the first week of hearings. The first is increasing investment in the Australian AI Safety Institute so we have a credible and useful voice in international standard setting and can futureproof our own regulations. The second is requiring AI companies to monitor and report key incidents so we know when something goes wrong, rather than waiting months for the companies to decide to tell us. The third is requiring screening of imported nucleic acid sequences to reduce the threat of a terrorist using AI to produce a new virus or pandemic. More will come out of this committee, but the government needs to move quickly to keep up with the escalating risks. These three actions are no-brainers, Prime Minister; it's time to act.

Newcastle Electorate: Newcastle Knights

I rise to congratulate the Newcastle Knights on an extraordinary season. While the result of the grand final wasn't what Novocastrians had hoped for, this team gave our city something truly special. They defied the odds, fought their way through the season and earned their place on the biggest stage in rugby league. But perhaps their greatest achievement happened off the field. The Knights brought our community together. Across Newcastle, Novocastrians donned their Knights jerseys, red-and-blue flags flew from homes and businesses, cars and houses were painted in the team colours and shopfronts proudly displayed their support. Families, friends and entire neighbourhoods came together to cheer on the team.

That sense of community has been especially important in recent days, following the tragic incident at Wallsend, which left a number of people injured. My thoughts remain with those affected, their families and loved ones and everyone who witnessed the incident. I wish all of those affected a full and speedy recovery. I also thank the paramedics, police, firefighters, hospital staff and emergency workers who responded so quickly and professionally.

In difficult times, Novocastrians look after one another, and this Knights team gave our community a reason to come together to celebrate and show that spirit. To the Newcastle Knights: thank you. You made Newcastle proud.

Rural, Regional and Remote Australia: Services

Regional Australia is being buried alive, and the people who dug the grave won't pay for the funeral. The government didn't stumble into this; it built it. For decades, policy has gutted regional Australia, reallocated productive resources, killed industry and stripped communities of opportunity and any reason to believe in a better future. You cannot drain a town's economic lifeblood and then act surprised when something moves in to fill the void. Into communities already hollowed out comes ice, and it finishes the job. Parents are lost to addiction, grandparents raise children and children grow up amongst violence and trauma that will follow them for the rest of their lives. Domestic violence, family collapse, psychosis, depression, suicide and drug fuelled crimes are tearing through the regions like an unattended bushfire.

So what are the services we require? We require treatment, and we require mental health professionals, not families waiting months for services that take too long to come. The government presided over the economic death of these communities, and it has failed to fund the undertaker. We need to restore economic productivity. We need water. We need to get our processing assets back. We need our logistics running again. We need our wholesaling and distribution businesses up and running again. This will give us the opportunity to do exports.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

Raise Our Voice is a fantastic campaign that invites young people to submit a speech to their MP. Today I want to give a speech on behalf of Olive, the 15-year-old winner from my electorate, who is here in the gallery today. Olive said:

Everywhere I look, our education system treats knowledge as a race. It seems letters on a page are valued more than the learning itself.

My friends and peers, each brilliant in their own way, seem to be constantly discussing our next assessment. But I only wish they could enjoy the learning. It tears me apart to hear them say "You don't understand Olive; I just don't have a maths brain," or "I'm just too dumb for this."

The system teaches us to be terrified of challenges because a test is always coming. Yet, challenges spark intellectual curiosity. We must give students a place to face them without the fear of failing. Education is more than just information transfer. The information follows naturally once a student cares.

I ask Parliament to take meaningful action. The federal government should work with states to reduce administrative testing requirements so teachers have more time to teach. Additionally, we should reduce competitive testing and instead allow students to pursue self-directed, curiosity-led projects during school hours. We should place value on creative problem-solving and portfolios alongside traditional exams.

I wish the system would remember that we're all learning together. At the end of the day, the learning done matters more than the fact that we measured it.

Congratulations again, Olive, on your very thoughtful speech and to the Raise Our Voice campaign for giving voice to young people across the country.

Bathurst 1000

Yesterday the eyes of the nation, and of millions of viewers around the world, were glued to another incredible great race at Mount Panorama. A massive crowd of over 204,000 fans made it the largest Bathurst 1000 since 2018. I want to extend a vote of thanks to Bathurst Regional Council, led by Mayor Ben Fry, Supercars and all of the volunteers, businesses and community members who made it all happen. This event puts Australian motorsport on the world stage. But, amidst the high-octane excitement, the race weekend also highlighted serious challenges with the track.

As I was watching the coverage at the race with Mayor Ben Fry, the commentators were highlighting how the track was cracking up in places, and they were actually showing examples of it on live TV. The Mount Panorama track surface is showing its age and it is under immense strain. If New South Wales and Australia want to keep the mountain as the physical and spiritual home of motorsport in Australia, state and federal governments are going to have to put down serious funding to repair the track and undertake badly needed upgrades.

Mount Panorama is an international motorsport icon. The drivers love it, the fans love it and, in order to keep the track's racing accreditation, our governments need to show some love for it as well. That means opening the wallets and the chequebooks and backing in the Bathurst 1000. Back Bathurst. Back the track. Make it happen. State and federal governments, I'm talking to you.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

I rise to give a speech I selected from entries in the Raise Our Voice competition from 11-year-old Royce in my electorate of Isaacs. It reads:

I would like to share why I think the government should take more action on domestic violence against women and children.

In Australia, one in four women experience domestic violence from a family member or someone known to them.

Domestic violence is increasing every year, and women and children are losing their lives.

The Australian Government needs to educate itself so that it can recognise the signs that someone is experiencing some form of domestic violence, because not all violence is physical and it can be difficult to see.

I think the government could learn a lot by listening to and speaking with domestic violence survivors in Australia. By listening to survivors, the government could hopefully make changes and lower the statistics.

I think that people who work in places that may come into contact with victims, should be educated by survivors and professionals about domestic violence.

I hope that this country will start taking domestic violence more seriously so that we can reduce these statistics and, most importantly, save lives.

I have been exposed to domestic violence when I was little, involving my mum, and it was not very nice and can be very scary. I now live with my mum in our home, and I am happy. But I sometimes think about other kids and women who are in the same situation, and that makes me sad.

I hope that this is taken seriously.

Royce, thank you.

I'm delivering this statement today on behalf of 13-year-old Davey from the electorate of Indi as part of the Raise Our Voice program. Davey says:

It started with harsh, public mockery of quirky online posts.

It is a shocking backwards step in the quest for equality for adolescents.

I'm talking about the "Bring Back Bullying" trend that is becoming popular on social media.

Ninety per cent of the Australian population rejects bullying behaviours, viewing it as a serious social issue.

But there are around 210,000 people who are using this trend to gain more followers on their social media.

And there are also people defending this online behaviour, which is appalling!

The actual definition of bullying in the dictionary is: repeated, intentional, aggressive behaviour that involves an imbalance of power or strength, aiming to hurt, frighten or humiliate another person.

There is a direct link between sustained cyberbullying and a dramatic increase in suicidal thinking and self-harm among the young in Australia.

When that problem is fixed, we should see a rapid improvement in mental health and people feeling safe on a device.

This issue affects everyone in this country. It is better if we are all feeling safe, than afraid.

Davey asks:

So what will the government do to fix this problem?

Thank you, Davey, for raising this important issue. We should all be thinking about what more each and every one of us can do to stop online bullying.

This year, students in the Hunter took part in the Raise Our Voice campaign. Today I'm sharing a speech from Hannah:

The reality is stark: Australia is facing a significant cost-of-living issue.

Many Australians are finding it difficult to make ends meet.

Families are cutting back on essentials, skipping meals and doing whatever it takes to survive.

In a land that prides itself on being 'one and free', we shouldn't have to resort to this.

Changing this would benefit Australians nationwide.

There are various measures we can put in place to ease the pressure on everyday Australians.

We have the power to change this.

By strengthening and expanding universal healthcare, closing the gender pay gap and reducing the tax burden on ordinary Australians, we can put more money back into the pockets of the people who need it most.

I urge parliament and politicians to take action before it's too late.

If this continues, we won't be supporting the younger generation of this country.

No Australian deserves to be forced to live pay cheque to pay cheque just to survive.

Thank you, Hannah. Young people deserve to be heard, and your message about the pressures facing Australian families is clear. Your generation has an important voice in our parliament. These are real concerns for families right across the Hunter, and they deserve our attention and our action as well. Thank you, Hannah. Keep speaking up and keep being yourself. Cheers.

Migration

Since Labor was elected, we've seen more than 1½ million people arrive in Australia. That's a population roughly the size of Adelaide. Under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the numbers have been too high and the standards have been too low, and it has been a disaster for our country. I hear it all the time from the young people of the south-west. They're working hard, but they just can't seem to get ahead. Many can't get into a home of their own, let alone find a rental, and I just don't think that that's right. Labor doesn't get it, but we need skilled migration, not mass migration.

The Liberals will deliver the biggest cut to migration in our nation's history. We'll bring in people with the skills that we need who share our values and want to be part of our country. A temporary visa should be that—temporary—because Australia is a country and not just a campground, as some are treating it. If you respect our laws, our freedoms and our democracy, you're most welcome here. If you don't, you won't be staying, under a Liberal government, and the door will be quickly shut behind you.

Labor has lost control of our migration program, and the Liberals are the only team that can fix it, with a plan that doesn't tank the economy and protects our way of life whilst restoring our economy back to the growth that we need.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

Today I want to share the words of 17-year-old Sam, as part of Raise Our Voice in Parliament. Sam is a local from my part of the world, on Brisbane's southside in Moreton, and in a few short weeks, like so many other young people, he will be graduating from year 12. These are his words:

My mates and I talk about what we will get up to once we leave high school, the places we'll visit, the suburbs we'll live in, the gigs we'll see. But hanging over everything is one huge asterisk; how we will afford it.

Cost of living has always been stressful for young people. My parents lived on microwave meals in share houses when they were young.

The problem is that it's getting worse.

Since 2005, when my parents bought their first house, Brisbane property prices have increased at twice the rate of wages. Renting is no easier—I'll have to fork over 66 per cent of my weekly wage if I want to live in share house.

The point of this speech is not to list statistics that you already know, nor to blame anyone. The point is to send the message that we believe in the Australian Dream just as much as you did.

Because this country is at its best when the government cooperates with us, rewards our hard work, and gives us a fair go.

Nicholls Electorate: Raise Our Voice Australia

Dougal from my electorate is a 15-year-old, and I want to read his contribution to Raise Our Voice. He wrote:

As someone living with Type 1 Diabetes, I want to alert you to a very important issue for our community. It is about affordability and access to insulin pumps.

To be able to access this technology you need to either purchase a pump outright—my pump currently costs $8,574—or have Private Health Insurance—something that is beyond the reach of many Australians currently.

There are estimated to be up to 70% of people within our community that can't access this care simply because of cost.

There is a lot of scientific evidence to back the fact that insulin pumps change lives.

Combined with the use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) the benefits are amplified. CGMs are already supported by the government through the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS) for type 1 diabetics (Thank You).

Together these 2 devices have changed my life and provide an alternative management option to many within the T1D community.

I know that living with Type 1 Diabetes is relentless. I'm lucky that I have my family, my friends and my team around me to support me each and every day.

Management options for Type 1 Diabetes should not be dictated by financial status, geographical location, age, gender or race.

Diabetics. We are all different. Options create freedom—something that my diabetes often takes away from me. My insulin pump and my CGM have enabled me to be that carefree 15 year old growing up in Nicholls—and I hope that with your support other Type 1 Diabetics, both young and old, are able to be afforded those opportunities too.

Tertiary Education and Training

The best lessons in a trade aren't learnt from a textbook. They're learnt from someone who has spent 20 years on the tools, knows the tricks of the trade and has probably made a few mistakes along the way. That's exactly why the Albanese Labor government is investing $5 million to help experienced electricians and construction workers become qualified for TAFE and vocational teachers. I absolutely love TAFE teachers and not just because my mum was one. Under this new program, tradies complete their Certificate IV in Training and Assessment for free. What that means is that, with mentoring and practical support, it will help our tradies of the future move from worksite to the classroom, and, in Bonner, that matters.

From the manufacturing businesses in Tingalpa and Wakerley to the industrial precincts around the Port of Brisbane, skilled tradespeople are the backbone of our local economy. They are building our homes, maintaining our infrastructure and keeping local businesses running. With major projects like the $85 million federally funded Lindum rail crossing progressing in the next few months, we know that demand for skilled workers isn't slowing down. This builds on our government's investment in fee-free TAFE and our commitment to strengthening Australia's vocational education system. Whether it's building more homes in Bonner, upgrading our local infrastructure or powering Australia's energy future, we need the next generation ready for work and this program will do exactly that.

Banking and Financial Services

Labor should be backing small business not breaking it, but, instead, we see another ATO credit card ban circus, a stay of execution funded by taxpayers. Labor is handing out a taxpayer funded bailout to the taxmen while 30 small businesses go bust every single day. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are telling our small businesses to cough up, shut up and close up. This credit card surcharge spin is no different. Australians aren't mugs. You can't abolish the real cost with a social media post. If a local cafe can't pass on a credit card surcharge, that cost gets built straight into higher prices for hardworking consumers.

This is part of a broader pattern of government that has completely lost control of the budget and the economy. Under Labor, gas prices are up 44 per cent. Families are staring down the highest interest rates in 15 years. The national debt has passed $1 trillion. On top of that, we are waking another $11 billion tax grab on the private health insurance industry that hits 1.2 million pensioners and floods our already struggling public hospitals. While Canberra keeps spending, small businesses and regional families are paying the price, and it's time for Labor to stop hiding the cops, stop penalising small business and start putting Australians first.

Tuckwell Scholarship Program

The Tuckwell Scholarship Program is an undergraduate scholarship program in Australia awarded to up to 25 school leavers each year. It offers talented and motivated students the opportunity to realise their potential by providing financial support for three to five years of undergraduate study at ANU. This year, one of the recipients was Gigi Osborne, a year 12 student at Saint Ignatius College at Athelstone in my electorate of Sturt. I was not surprised that a student from Saint Ignatius was awarded the Tuckwell Scholarship. I have spent time at the college with the year 11 and 12 politics students and can attest that, under the leadership of principal Lauren Brooks and senior teacher Simon Butler, the school is nurturing young adults who are intelligent, confident, empathetic and curious about the world.

Gigi, you being awarded the Tuckwell Scholarship is a recognition of not only your academic excellence and your prowess in debating, as evidenced by you winning the Todd Golding Medal as best speaker in the SA debating team, but also your genuine commitment to your school community, as illustrated by your role as college captain. Your selection is not only a credit to you; it is a credit to your family, your teachers and the wider Saint Ignatius College community. Gigi, good luck as you study law and international relations in our nation's capital. I'm sure we will hear more about you in the years to come, and maybe we will even see you in this place one day.

Coomera Cutters Rugby League Club

It's with a heavy heart that I rise to deliver a condolence message to the Coomera Cutters Rugby League Club family. To the president, Joe Smith, and all of the members of that club, I am terribly sad for your unimaginable loss of two young boys in the last week. Treyvon Bradshaw, aged 13, a current player, died by suicide on 26 September. He was remembered by his family for his kind heart, loving nature and passion for footy and sport. Kaiyah Kennedy, aged 12, an alumni of the club, died on 2 October. He was in year 7 at Upper Coomera State College. He was remembered by his family as a beloved middle child, a mischievous and loving brother and a bright light whose energy could fill any room.

This is a club I know well. Back on 20 May 2017, we opened a clubhouse there. It was the birth of something very special for our northern Gold Coast community. But the club is in shock as a result of these two young boys who have lost their lives. My heartfelt sympathy goes to their families and friends.

It's a terrible and timely reminder of our suicide rate in this country, which at last count was 3,326 in a single year, 2,529 of which were male. This is a shocking statistic and one that I hope we can improve so that clubs and families are no longer impacted like these families were.

Griffith Electorate: Community Events

Last weekend, I had the pleasure of joining Brisbane's Cypriot community for the Cyprus Halloumi Cultural Festival, hosted by the Cypriot Community Association of Queensland at Cyprus House in West End. There was plenty of delicious halloumi, souvla and loukoumades, accompanied by traditional music and dancing. It was particularly wonderful to see people from the Cypriot Youth Brisbane Dance Group proudly sharing their culture. Australia is home to the world's second-largest Cypriot diaspora, and our nations share a longstanding friendship built on strong community ties and shared values. Australia remains a strong supporter of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus. I want to congratulate the Cypriot Community Association of Queensland and its volunteers for another wonderful festival, and I look forward to returning next year.

Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of joining the festivities for Oktoberfest at the Brisbane German Club in Kangaroo Point. With traditional German music, delicious food, colourful costumes and plenty of good cheer, it was another fantastic celebration of culture and community. The Brisbane German Club has been part of our local community for more than 140 years, bringing people together and sharing German culture and traditions with generations of Queenslanders. Since 1975, Oktoberfest has been a much-loved part of the club's calendar. I am so proud to have this longstanding institution in my electorate of Griffith. Community organisations such as the Brisbane German Club play an important role in preserving cultural traditions and bringing people together. I want to thank the Brisbane German Club, its members and the many volunteers whose hard work makes Oktoberfest such a wonderful celebration.

Parkes Electorate: Community Events

It's a blessing to be the member for the Parkes electorate, which covers 51 per cent of the great state of New South Wales. It means that every month, every day, in just about every community, there are milestones to celebrate. From late September through to October, there are many anniversaries and events, including the Cobar Miners Memorial weekend, the Tooraweenah Show, the Goin' to Gil weekend and the Narromine Dolly Parton Festival, which celebrates the late, great Dolly Parton. Dubbo also has something going on every single day, including the launch of its very own edition of Monopoly and the 110th anniversary of the Dubbo Scouts Group. A big congratulations to the Barwon group of the CWA, who are celebrating a 100-year anniversary in Pilliga next month. The Parkes Musical & Dramatic Society is marking its 75th year with a show called ICONIC. Australia's first distance education, the Broken Hill School of the Air is having its 70th birthday this month, which is an anniversary dinner and dance. In Narrabri, the Chamber of Commerce held its business awards over the weekend, recognising those who helped make Narrabri a great place to live, work and do business. West Wyalong Lions marked their 10-year anniversary charity concert on 10 October. I'd like to pay tribute to a man who knows the Darling River better than anybody, Scott Gladman, who is swimming 1,650 kilometres for his mates and families fighting MND and Parkinson's disease. Well done, Scott, and well done to the Parkes electorate.

Alkimos Aquatic and Recreation Centre

() (): The incorporated speech read as follows—

I am thrilled to see the Alkimos Aquatic and Recreation Centre finally nearing its opening later this year. For many years, I have been a strong advocate for this much-needed facility, knowing how vital it would be for our rapidly growing northern suburbs. As the former mayor of Wanneroo, I moved a motion on notice in 2018 to bring forward the construction of the aquatic centre for the northern corridor and continued championing the project at every opportunity. In 2020, I sought additional Commonwealth funding, and in 2022 I secured a $25 million commitment through the Australian government's Priority Community Infrastructure Program. A further $5 million was secured via the federal government's Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream.

Throughout design and construction, I have continued advocating for the AARC as the federal member for Pearce. Now, with water flowing into the 50-metre pool and finishing touches being applied, the dream is becoming reality. This $88 million centre will provide indoor and outdoor pools, a fully equipped gym, fitness studios, multipurpose sports courts, basketball courts, a creche, cafe and contemporary and accessible change rooms. The AARC represents a significant investment in our community's future, giving families greater access to swimming, recreation and fitness closer to home. It will create new opportunities for local schools, sporting clubs, seniors and community groups to participate in activities within their own neighbourhood. I cannot wait to see residents in the Pearce community enjoying this world-class facility when it opens in late 2026.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

The Raise Our Voice Australia campaign allows our young people to express their vision and their priorities for the Australian parliament. Today I'm thrilled to speak on behalf of Chloe, who is a 16-year-old young lady from Kingaroy in the electorate of Maranoa. Chloe writes:

One of the biggest issues shaping my future is the lack of affordable housing.

As someone who lives in a regional town, going to university in the city is complicated by the lack of affordable rentals.

How can we be expected to afford to find a place to live, on top of other living expenses?

I'm in year 11 and will soon be considering the move to a metropolitan area, although the cost of living is going to heavily influence the outcome.

If there is not a solution, the rental prices will put a hold onto my future.

Even if there are ways for me to get some help, like youth allowance, most are reliant on my parent's net worth, which limits the amount of help that I will be offered. How am I meant to get a higher education if I can barely support myself?

I understand that some will have their parents backing them, but unlike them, I must work extremely hard. I would propose that parliament consider allocating funds for students who must support themselves.

If the issue was fixed, so many people from poorer backgrounds would be able to afford to leave home and support themselves, providing them with an equal opportunity to a higher education.

Chloe could not have articulated that better. The challenges of regional students in having to leave home to go and get an education that many in metropolitan areas don't understand.

I will now read a speech from a girl in my community of Aston as part of the Raise Our Voice competition. Sanvi was the winner of this competition. It reads:

Dear Parliament, my name is Sanvi and I'm a 16 year old student from Melbourne.

I am writing to express my concern about an issue shaping my generation's future, the rapid development of artificial intelligence.

AI has enormous potential to improve education, healthcare and the way we work, so I don't believe the answer is to simply restrict it.

Instead, Parliament should invest in AI education and establish clear guidelines for its responsible use, particularly in schools.

Young people should be taught how to use AI as a resource while still developing independent thinking, creativity and digital literacy.

AI will most likely become a major part of our lives, and we have an opportunity to use it to our advantage. But we also need to ask, what happens if AI changes the jobs we are preparing for?

If technology can do more of what we are learning, how do we ensure our education remains meaningful?

We cannot stop AI from developing, but we can prepare ourselves for it.

I urge Parliament to invest in comprehensive AI education and introduce clear, practical guidelines for its responsible use in schools, ensuring my generation is prepared to work alongside AI and shape the future it creates.

Those are the words of 16-year-old Sanvi from Aston, and I congratulate her.

Citizenship

At every citizenship ceremony I attend, I ask the same thing of our newest local citizens. That is: 'Please find a way to give back to the community you have chosen to be a part of.' Today I'd like to highlight an example of someone who has done just that. Port Macquarie local Raja Devine migrated from Lebanon in 1956 and is the embodiment of a community minded Australian. Raja is a member of the Rotary Club of Port Macquarie Sunrise and helped spearhead their local Dishes for Dignity initiative. Every week, Raja lovingly prepares around 150 meals for the homeless. In the 2½ years that the program has been running, she has personally cooked over 10,000 meals, and that's not just her time that she's donated. After the first few weeks of getting everything prepped and out the door, she realised her small home kitchen wasn't cutting it, so she spent her own money to expand it. If that wasn't enough, when the ingredients that Coles supermarket kindly donates aren't quite cutting it, Raja purchases additional ingredients herself. When she's not in the kitchen, she's volunteering at the gift shop of our local koala hospital and raising funds. Did I mention she's 75? I'm exhausted thinking about it! Raja, I wanted to say thank you on behalf of our community. We are so very lucky to have you.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

This speech was written by 14-year-old Alexandra in my electorate as part of the Raise Our Voice Australia campaign:

Many teenagers experience bullying, anxiety, depression, and thoughts of self-harm.

Tragically, some lose their lives to suicide.

Since COVID-19, rates of depression and anxiety amongst young people have risen dramatically, making this an issue we can no longer ignore.

Many adults do not realise how common mental health struggles are.

Last year, a close friend of mine attempted suicide, showing me that these challenges can affect anyone.

There were 94 deaths by suicide among Australians 17 and under last year, with most between ages 15 and 17.

Suicide remains a leading cause of death for Australians aged 15 to 24, accounting for over 30 per cent of deaths.

Many suicides are linked to bullying, social isolation and difficult home environments.

While crisis services exist, we must focus on prevention before young people reach a breaking point.

Schools have a responsibility to support student wellbeing.

Academic pressure is a major source of stress, and many students identify school as a significant factor affecting their mental health.

I believe mental health education should be mandatory, with greater access to counselling services and a dedicated Mental Health Day each term.

Stronger action is also needed to reduce harmful online content.

Parliament must take stronger action to support teenagers' mental health.

Every young person deserves the opportunity to grow up healthy, safe and supported.

Mort's Mates Gala Fundraising Dinner 2026, Young Australians, Groom Electorate: Artificial Intelligence

A quick shout-out to Charlie Moreton and the iconic brand of Moreton & Co. for the Mort's Mates fundraiser we held in our region. It's a great night out, the third iteration of it. They raised money for the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, which is a brain research centre that particularly focuses on the impacts on mental health. I think it's such an important and crucial conversation we're having. Thank you very much, Charlie, Merida and the team.

What do you want to change about Australia? It's a question that I ask everywhere I go when I knock on doors throughout my electorate. What heartens me is when I speak to the older generation. What they say is they want a better future for the younger generations. They want there to be structural advantages for being Australians. That's why I'm here, and I think we can bring about that change that Australia needs.

I want to raise my concerns and the concerns of many people that I've met doorknocking around not just the AI data centre that's being proposed for Dalby but the actual impact of AI on our community. These are genuine concerns from people in my electorate. Firstly, on AI, we've seen blue-collar jobs stripped from our regions and I just want to raise their voice. I'm concerned that if we aren't in control of this change we'll see white-collar jobs stripped from our region. I'm all for good jobs and good pay, and these are genuine concerns of people in my electorate. Speaking with regard to the data centre itself, whilst there are concerns around water, it's a 2.1-gigawatt data centre. If you want to give me 2.1 gigawatts of extra data, I think I'd probably spend it on something more useful.

Parent Pathways

Too many parents who are ready to work are held back by barriers outside of their control. Parent Pathways in Cannington in my electorate of Swan is helping change that. This service has helped 195 local parents and carers, many of whom are women and single parents from diverse backgrounds. This support can range from child care to grocery costs to helping getting them their licence. On a visit, I met a fabulous mum called Taqwaa and her son. Taqwaa called the program 'a safe space where you're not judged'. Her mentor, Caroline, helped her change her goals to best suit her life, and she now runs her own photography business, is studying to become an education assistant and is also doing jiu-jitsu. I also met Irene, a former medical researcher who spent two years feeling lost as a stay-at-home mum. Her mentor helped her get a laptop and finish her resume. Today, Irene is a mentor herself and says that the best part of her job is watching her clients achieve their goals.

I thank program manager Kelly, CEO Adrius and Irene and Taqwaa, who shared their inspiring stories with me. It's a practical way that the Albanese Labor government is investing in programs to ensure that we change the lives of people to make sure that they can get into paid work.

Whyalla Steelworks

You can't understand what Whyalla is going through from Canberra or New York; you have to show up. As a local member, that's why I demanded shadow minister for energy Dan Tehan and South Australian Liberal leader Ashton Hurn come and hear directly from the people living through the closure of the blast furnace. After 20 months of administration, $1 billion of taxpayer money spent and countless promises broken by Labor, more than 800 jobs have now been lost at the steelworks. These are people who have developed their skills, raised families and kept Whyalla going. The impact reaches every local business and sporting club. Another 200 jobs have been lost at the Buzzard Mine, which is an iron ore mine near Coober Pedy associated with the steelworks. Workers and their families need certainty, and in regional South Australia Labor is delivering bugger all. Extending the timeline of the sale up to six months is pushing skilled tradespeople and steelworkers out of Whyalla for good. Once those skills leave, they are hard to bring back.

The community deserves to know when a deal will be done. If we don't get back our sovereign capability in regional South Australia, we will see more of this. To everyone affected, you are not alone. My office is here to help.

Prime Minister's Spelling Bee 2026

Aarika Harsha is a hardworking year 6 student from Holsworthy Public School in my electorate in southern Sydney, and she has just won the years 5 to 6 category of the 2026 Prime Minister's Spelling Bee. Aarika scored an outstanding 29 out of 30 in 64.6 seconds in her first time entering the competition. She wasn't expecting to win and was simply competing to the best of her abilities. She was shocked when her teacher revealed the result of her hard work and dedication to learning—a result that is worth celebrating.

Aarika recently came to Canberra to meet the Prime Minister and recognise her achievement, as well as test the Prime Minister's own spelling skills with tricky words. Aarika loves the book Exit Through the Gift Shop, by Australian author Maryam Master, as well as the Harry Potter series. She is an enthusiastic reader who looks up unfamiliar words and tries to use them in her own speaking and writing—an insatiable curiosity that many of us grown-ups could learn a thing or two from.

Eighteen other Holsworthy students made the top 500 in New South Wales to qualify for the state final. Nearly 100,000 students got involved in this year's spelling bee—a fantastic opportunity to build confidence, literacy and a love of learning. A big congratulations to Aarika for her excellent achievement and to all the students from Holsworthy Public School and beyond who took the chance to put their spelling skills to the test.

Woolgoolga Wolves

I congratulate the Woolgoolga Wolves on winning the 2026 North Coast Football Men's Premier League grand final. The Wolves won 1-0 in a hard-fought grand final at Coffs International Stadium. Tai Smith found the back of the net in the 99th minute to get Woopi across the line. Tai was also named Men's Premier League Player of the Year and won the Golden Boot. It capped off an incredible year for Woolgoolga United, which was named the North Coast Football Club of the Year and was the region's largest club, with nearly 600 registered players. Of its 20 competitive teams, 15 made the finals, seven reached grand finals and four won premierships. Six premier league players were also named in the North Coast Football Team of the Year.

I congratulate the premiership winning team: Alex Byrne, Mitchell Brewster, Jamie Arthur, Weston Bodnar, Jacob Vidler, Liam Davidson, Nick Mallet, Tai Smith, Gurvir Virk, James Palmer, Adam Watkin, Liam Murphy, Fraser Duryea, Taj Bennett, James Gorrie and Jack Wujcik. Congratulations also obviously to the coach, Joel Finlayson, and the assistant coach, Michael Jackson, and also to the executive: President, Jada Johnson; vice presidents Rob Baarsalaar and Kim Batty; Secretary, Vanessa Talbot; Treasurer, Paul Johnston; and to the whole committee. Congratulations on a great season for the Woopi Wolves.

Blak Cede

October is Indigenous Business Month, an opportunity to celebrate the incredible work of Indigenous businesses right across our country. On Thursday, I popped into the Blak Cede Gunyah cafe in Nowra—an Aboriginal women-led social and cultural enterprise that cultivates traditional bush foods in their community garden and creates the most delicious food and a variety of take-home produce. Blak Cede continues to thrive in our area, with a hugely popular catering service and their new shop, Bindhi Ya Gunyah, set to open next week.

Blak Cede is just one of many innovative Indigenous businesses providing employment and training opportunities for young, local First Nations people in our region, helping to strengthen our economy and supporting our community. This year's theme is 'Local and Connected'. It's a chance for all of us to get to know our Indigenous businesses, to support their work and build important connections. I want to thank the team at Blak Cede for sharing their culture and knowledge and for providing an amazing space for people to enjoy food with family and friends. I was lucky to get a sneak peek at the new retail store and arts hub, which will feature 30 Indigenous artists and a huge variety of locally sourced products. It's sure to become a unique cultural destination for locals and visitors to the New South Wales South Coast.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

Today, as part of the Raise Our Voice initiative, I'll be reading the words of 17-year-old Jordan from the electorate of Moncrieff:

The biggest issue shaping my future isn't one policy area. It's whether young people get a genuine seat at the table when decisions about our future are made. As a Member in the Queensland Youth Parliament and a Student Ambassador, I've seen how much insight young people have, and how often that insight never reaches the people making the decisions.

On the STORM Committee this year, we drafted a bill addressing inconsistent trunk infrastructure charges that are quietly driving up housing costs across Queensland, an issue affecting my generation's ability to ever own a home. We researched it, consulted on it and built real legislation around it. That work proved young people don't just have opinions on the issues that will shape our future. We can do the policy work too, if we're given the chance.

I want Parliament to commit to genuine co-design with young people: funded, ongoing youth advisory structures with a direct line to decision-makers and a requirement that our input is documented and responded to, not just collected.

We're not asking to be heard for the sake of it. We're asking because we have something worth hearing.

Congratulations to Jordan for your contribution to the Australian parliament.

Blair Electorate: Nepalese Community

On Saturday, I was delighted to attend the Nepalese Association of Queensland, or NAQ, multicultural celebration. This is a 20-year milestone for the organisation, and it was terrific to welcome so many people on the occasion. I congratulate President Tikaram Sarma and everyone associated with the Nepalese Association of Queensland. There were so many people there from Ripley, Spring Mountain, Springfield Central and Springfield Lakes in my electorate. Congratulations also those individuals who got the Queensland excellence awards. I want to thank the NAQ for having me there and congratulate them for their wonderful contribution and on the launch of the publication Nepalese in Queensland, which documents the history, achievements and contribution of the Nepalese community to not just the local community but the state of Queensland.

Of course Australia continues to support Nepal's recovery and rebuilding. I congratulate the Albanese government on the $26 million we provided for immediate response efforts. The NAQ recently wrote to me and other Queensland MPs to thank the government for the support. President Tikaram Sarma wrote that the compassion, solidarity and support extended to those affected by the flood was deeply appreciated. A roundtable was held recently with Assistant Minister Julian Hill with the Ripley Nepalese association in my community, and this was reinforced once again. Congratulations to the Nepalese Association of Queensland on a wonderful milestone last Saturday night.

There being no further statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called on.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Electric Vehicles

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) the record uptake of electric vehicles in Australia, with more Australians choosing cleaner and cheaper-to-run cars;

(b) Australians now have access to a greater range of electric vehicles at more affordable price points; and

(c) electric vehicles can deliver significant savings for households through lower fuel and running costs;

(2) recognises that the Government has supported this record uptake by:

(a) delivering the Electric Car Discount, making eligible electric vehicles more affordable for working Australians;

(b) introducing Australia's first New Vehicle Efficiency Standard, supporting greater choice and bringing more efficient vehicles to the Australian market;

(c) delivering the National Electric Vehicle Strategy;

(d) investing in charging infrastructure across metropolitan, regional and remote Australia; and

(e) supporting greater competition and consumer choice while reducing Australia's reliance on imported fuel; and

(3) welcomes the record uptake of electric vehicles, which is lowering household costs, expanding consumer choice and reducing Australia's emissions.

Electric vehicles are a great example of how the Albanese Labor government is helping Australians to save money, giving people more choice and taking practical action on climate change. At the moment, Australians are responding in record numbers. In September alone, more than 26,000 fully electric vehicles were sold in Australia. That's more than double the number sold in September last year. For the second month running, Australians bought more fully electric cars than petrol or diesel cars. One-in-four new cars sold in September were fully electric.

When we took office in 2022, there were around 83,000 electric vehicles on Australian roads. Today there are more than 612,000. That's more than seven times as many. Back in 2022, Australians could choose from around 70 electric vehicle models. Today, there are almost 200. When Labor came to government, there wasn't a single electric vehicle model available for under $45,000. Today there are eight. That is an extraordinary change in just a few years, and it is not hard to understand why.

We are at a time when household budgets are under real pressure. The cost of filling up at the petrol station really matters at the moment. Electric vehicles can be significantly cheaper to run, particularly for households that can charge at home, with lower servicing and maintenance costs as well. For families in our outer suburbs and our regions who often have further to travel, these savings make a real difference, and we are seeing uptake in our suburbs and our regions. That's why the Albanese Labor government has also been working to make electric vehicles more affordable and accessible. We've delivered the electric car discount, helping working Australians to get behind the wheel of an eligible electric vehicle. Almost 100,000 vehicles have already used this discount. We've introduced Australia's first New Vehicle Efficiency Standard, encouraging manufacturers to bring more efficient vehicles to Australia and giving consumers greater choice. We've delivered a national electric vehicle strategy, and we're investing in charging infrastructure right around the country. Australia now has more than 4,200 public EV charging locations and 11,600 charging connectors. Through our Driving the Nation Fund, we're investing more than $500 million in charging infrastructure and new EV technologies.

We didn't get here by accident, and this progress wasn't inevitable, because it certainly wasn't all that long ago that the former Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison was telling Australians that electric vehicles would end the weekend. We all remember that. But now we see, as I said, people in our suburbs and our regions buying electric vehicles, because they understand that they give them a reliable, cheaper source of getting around, including on the weekend. According to then prime minister Morrison, under Labor Australians wouldn't be able to tow their boats. They wouldn't be able to take their families camping or enjoy a weekend away. I am pleased to report that the weekend is still here. Australians are still heading away on holidays. They're going camping, they're enjoying everything our wonderful country has to offer, and more and more of them are doing it in electric vehicles.

While the former coalition government spent years arguing about climate science and the action that governments needed to take, Australians were actually missing out on this very real choice, a cost-of-living choice for them. Now we see that the current Liberals want to wind back the very policies that have helped to bring more affordable, cheaper-to-run cars to Australia. They've said they want to scrap the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard, which would mean fewer efficient cars and higher fuel costs for Australian families. We've seen from One Nation that they are just as busy opposing the policies that would give Australians more choice. We have different parties here, but a very similar song sheet and certainly the same old negativity, which time after time when it comes to this space is being proved wrong and proved wrong by Australians, who are making choices about what is good for them and their household budgets and who are being supported in those choices by this government. That's because, as a government, we understand how important it is that we reduce emissions while making sure that Australians benefit from the transition to a clean energy future. For households with rooftop solar, a home battery and an electric vehicle, there are opportunities to use more of the energy they generate themselves, including now to charge their EV.

Less reliance on petrol, greater control over energy use and more household savings—the Albanese Labor government is delivering Australian families very real support here. It's fantastic to see this uptake.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

This motion does indeed celebrate record electric vehicle sales, and the numbers are certainly striking. In August, Australians bought 27,078 battery electric vehicles—almost a quarter of all new cars sold. And, this week, we've learned of a new proposal to tax all Australians who drive combustion engines, to fund new kerbside charging stations, which will add to costs and inflation. While the government has its foot down on electric vehicles, it has left national security and consumer protections in the garage.

Let's be honest about why the government is not on track to meet its own climate targets. Electric vehicles represent close to 10 per cent of the emissions reduction it needs, so it is chasing them relentlessly. The Climate Change Authority says meeting the 2035 target would require half of all new light vehicles sold to be electric. And who is footing the bill? The tradies and farmers in my electorate of Monash who rely on a diesel ute to get to the paddock or the factory are subsidising millionaires who can afford to buy their own electric vehicles and should be paying for them.

The cheapest electric vehicles on the market are Chinese made, and that is why they are selling so quickly. In August, every one of the eight best-selling electric vehicles in this country sold was built in China, and Huawei supplies the computer systems in most of these vehicles. That is where the government's climate ambitions are colliding with our own national interest.

Connected vehicles—that means new, late-model combustion vehicles as well—are linked to the internet through embedded SIM cards or Bluetooth. In effect, they're rolling data centres or computers on wheels. Australia now trails the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand in mitigating these risks. Our Five Eyes partners are moving to keep high-risk software out of their vehicles. In the United States, it was former president Joe Biden who introduced the first ban on Chinese and Russian hardware and software in connected vehicles, with the rules taking effect from 2027. So I think it's fair to say former president Biden is still more up to date on national security and technology than our current prime minister, Mr Albanese. This country rightly kept high-risk vendors out of our 5G network, yet the same technology we bipartisanly judged too dangerous for our mobile towers is now parked in Australian driveways. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has called our approach a game of whack-a-mole.

The risks are not only strategic. Modern vehicles collect enormous amounts of personal data—voice recordings, location, geolocation tracking, how we drive—and the CSIRO research done recently on this has warned of serious privacy risks and the potential for remote exploitation. Overseas, one manufacturer sold drivers' data to insurers without those drivers' knowledge or consent. Our own Information Commissioner is now examining whether manufacturers ever obtained proper consent to use everyday Australians' data in this way. ASIO has reportedly advised members of parliament not to drive Chinese made cars, yet there are a number of ministers who ignore this advice.

There's a human cost as well that I want to touch on. The Privacy Commissioner has warned that perpetrators of family violence are using manufacturer apps to track victims' locations, unlock their cars remotely or interfere with the alarms and climate controls. The New York Times has done extensive work on this issue. There have been some Australian articles as well. This is a very serious issue which this federal government is not treating with significant concern. In many vehicles, there's no simple way to cut off that access. There's no privacy by design. If someone needs to leave quickly, that can be the difference between being safe and being trapped.

Meanwhile, the department of infrastructure told Senate estimates last year that consultation with industry on a national framework for automated driving was imminent. Industry is still waiting, and I want to call out the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for her lack of interest and lack of action on this.

Our partners across the globe have moved. The United States has had data protections in law since 2024. The United Kingdom has legislated vehicle cybersecurity requirements. Where Washington and London can demand a full audit of the code running in any vehicles, Australians are left exposed and underprepared, and I condemn this federal government for its lack of action.

I'm not a car person. I bought my current car in 2016 because it was blue, because it had a good air conditioner and because, when the car I was borrowing before I purchased my current vehicle broke down, I asked the mechanic what car he would buy his wife on the basis of safety. That's how I made my decision. I still love driving this car, but it's starting to slow down. The radio doesn't work, the front passenger door doesn't open from the outside and there is something going on in the engine, given the frequency with which I must top up the oil. So my car is on its last legs. But, unlike last time, I've already decided what type of car I will buy next, and that is an electric vehicle, an EV, because like thousands of Australians I recognise that there is a cleaner option that is also cheaper to run.

The Electric Vehicle Council report State of electric vehicles 2026 was released on 30 September 2026, and it noted that an EV is bought in Australia, on average, every 100 seconds. Put another way, Australia's EV transition shows 157,957 EVs were sold in the first six months of 2026 alone. There is now also more choice for the consumer, with model availability being expanded to 196 total EV models this year, up from 153 models last year. Importantly, there's also been an expansion of charging infrastructure in this country, with Australia's public charging footprint expanded to 4,268 public charging locations, which is an increase of 235 per cent from June 2025, and 11,602 public connectors, an increase of 175 per cent from June 2025. What this all means is that the three key objectives of the National Electric Vehicle Strategy are on track. These objectives are to increase the supply of affordable and accessible EVs; to establish the resources, systems and infrastructure to enable rapid EV uptake; and to encourage increased EV demand.

Reducing emissions within the transport industry is a critical part of Australia's journey to net zero. Globally, transport consistently makes up nearly a quarter of total emissions and has the highest reliance on fossil fuels of any sector. Road transport contributes around 75 per cent of that share, and so, clearly, decarbonising our transport system will help reverse this trend. Secondary emissions from charging an EV from the electricity grid are already lower than emissions from equivalent vehicles powered by internal combustion engines and will reduce further as our electricity grid decarbonises. We are aiming by 2030 to generate 82 per cent of Australia's electricity from renewables. My home state of South Australia is already there, and evolving technology, lower operating costs and energy flexibility will help us push this further.

For households, EVs offer substantially lower operating costs, and they reduce exposure to increasingly volatile global fuel prices, noting that there is no sign that these will abate or stabilise in the near to medium term. The National Electric Vehicle Strategy also notes that, on average, a petrol car consumes around 10 litres per 100 kilometres and costs $2,400 to fuel each year. The average EV, in stark contrast, consumes around $400 of electricity each year. EVs can turn electricity into drive-train energy very efficiently, converting over 77 per cent of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. They also use regenerative braking, which lowers energy costs.

The environmental case for EVs is clear, but so is the economic case, with the transition to EVs presenting a significant opportunity to develop new jobs and skills in Australia. Across the supply chain, from manufacturing through to maintenance, new skills will be needed to support the rollout of EVs. We also have the mineral resources, capital and capability to maximise this opportunity. The International Energy Agency forecasts that demand for critical minerals to use in EVs and battery storage could grow at least 30 times by 2040, and this includes lithium, copper, nickel and magnesium. Already about half of all raw materials used in battery production are mined in Australia, meaning globally significant deposits of vanadium, cobalt, lithium and other essential minerals. Australia has the opportunity to make the EV batteries used domestically and create jobs by exporting them to the world, resulting in an annual contribution worth billions of dollars to our economy.

I thank the member for Jagajaga for raising this motion on the topic of electric vehicle sales and use in Australia. As we've heard, the uptake of electric vehicles is at record highs, driven by two key changes. One is the rising global oil prices that have encouraged consumers to consider electric cars as a practical way to reduce their household costs. After many years of waiting, Australians have finally been able to access more affordable electric cars as a result of several policies, many of which were pushed for and supported by Independents on the crossbench, including me. These policies include the electric car discount, the introduction of the new vehicle efficiency standards and the National Electric Vehicle Strategy. I congratulate the government on moving these important policy measures which have allowed Australians to start catching up with the rest of the world when it comes to driving cleaner, more efficient cars. Prior to the introduction of this suite of policies, Australia, along with Russia, was the dumping ground for some of the world's most polluting cars.

But, while there has been real progress in the passenger vehicle market, the same cannot be said for trucks and vans. The transition in heavy vehicles has barely begun. While electric cars are becoming increasingly common on our roads, electric vans and trucks represent only a tiny share of new sales. This represents a huge missed opportunity. Truck electrification can substantially reduce freight emissions and our reliance on imported oil. But the regulatory framework is not enough to drive the transition at the pace required. Other countries are demonstrating that much faster change is possible. China, for example, has shown that, with clear policy direction and investment, the uptake of electric trucks can occur rapidly and at scale. Australia now needs a dedicated national focus on freight electrification.

With repeated, serious and prolonged oil price shocks due to international events, this is a critical cost-of-living measure for all Australians. Australia is again falling behind. We need an ambitious road map for truck and freight vehicle electrification. It means setting a clear goal of achieving 100 per cent electric truck sales by 2040. It means providing targeted fiscal incentives, such as temporary import tax exemptions and other measures that will help reduce the upfront cost of electric trucks. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada have recognised this challenge and are providing financial incentives to support such a transition. It also means supporting local electric truck manufacturing, such as Drop Truck in my electorate of Mackellar, which can provide electric trucks at similar or even cheaper prices than diesel trucks. It also means prioritising major freight corridors so that businesses can operate electric vehicles with confidence.

Importantly, we need to recognise who will be making this transition. Across Australia, there are countless owner-drivers and small family trucking businesses. If we want them to make the switch, government support is essential. The benefits would be enormous. As the Electric Vehicle Council has noted, an electric truck can displace up to 45,000 litres of diesel every year, cutting fleet fuel costs by up to 70 per cent and reducing exposure to volatile global oil markets. At scale, 50,000 electric trucks on Australian roads could eliminate the need for 2.25 billion litres of imported diesel annually, keeping almost $7 billion in the Australian economy rather than sending it overseas. A recent Mandala report found that a strong suite of freight decarbonisation policies could accelerate Australia to 1.5 million battery electric trucks by 2050 and generate $138 billion in economic growth.

We are now well beyond the stage of asking whether this technology works. Trials by ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation have demonstrated that electric freight vehicles can operate reliably in Australian conditions. Electrifying freight is an opportunity to cut emissions, strengthen energy security, lower business costs and create new economic opportunities in Australia. The technology is ready. The benefits are clear. It's time for the same policy focus we had for electric cars.

I've spent a fair bit of my working life as an electrician. I've worked on construction sites, in the mining industry and with some pretty serious electrical equipment, so I can tell you something about electricity. It's not new technology. We've been using it for quite a while now. In fact, some of us have even worked out a way to make a living out of it. But, listening to some of those opposite talk about electric vehicles, you'd think someone had just discovered electricity last Tuesday, and, judging by some of their policies, they're still not entirely convinced it's going to catch on.

The Liberal Party's relationship with electric vehicles is extraordinary. They don't like electric cars. They don't like the policies making electric cars cheaper. They don't like charging infrastructure. I'm beginning to suspect that if someone invented the electric kettle today they'd call it a threat to the Australian way of life. Here is the problem with the coalition: Australians aren't listening to them. In September, Australia passed half a million battery electric vehicles sold since the beginning of 2021. For the second month running, Australians bought more fully electric cars than petrol cars—more than diesel cars, too. One in four cars sold in September was fully electric, and electric vehicle sales have more than doubled compared with September last year.

I know those opposite don't particularly like evidence when it interferes with a good culture war, but the numbers are pretty hard to argue with. Australians are voting with their wallets—not because someone in Canberra ordered them to buy an electric car, not because they're all suddenly environmental activists, but because Australians can work out when something is going to save them money. Apparently that has become a controversial concept in the Liberal Party.

I represent Moore in Perth's northern suburbs. People in my electorate drive to work, take their kids to school, do the shopping and spend a fair bit of their life sitting in traffic. What do they want? They want a car that's reliable, affordable and cheap to run. Some will choose petrol. Some will choose diesel. Some will choose a hybrid, and, increasingly, some will choose electric. That's their decision. The Albanese Labor government's job is to give them more choice.

In May 2022, Australians had precisely zero electric car models available for under $45,000. Today there are eight. That's what happens when you bring Australia into line with modern vehicle efficiency standards. Manufacturers start sending us the cars they're already selling in other developed countries. It's a remarkable concept: Australia getting access to technology that the rest of the world already enjoys.

The coalition have a different approach. Their plan is to scrap the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. They want to get rid of the electric car discount. When it comes to helping Australians reduce their energy bills, they seem to be determined to find a reason to oppose that too. It's almost as if they looked at the future and said: 'No. No thanks. We want to go back to 1998.' Though, to be fair, in 1998 at least the Liberal Party knew who its leader was!

There is another part of this debate I find particularly interesting. Those opposite spent years calling electric vehicles expensive toys for wealthy Australians, so Labor introduced a tax discount to help more working Australians afford them. Now the coalition want to get rid of the discount. Apparently electric cars are too expensive, but making them cheaper is also unacceptable. That is not an energy policy. That is a dog chasing its own tail.

The Albanese government is continuing to improve the policy. We have reviewed the electric car discount and are progressively targeting the tax benefits towards more affordable vehicles while making the scheme more financially sustainable. We're also investing in charging infrastructure, including in regional areas where access remains a challenge, because we understand something pretty basic: if Australians are going to have more choice about what they drive, they need both the vehicles and the infrastructure to support them. As a former electrician, I can assure the House that building electrical infrastructure is something Australia is perfectly capable of doing. We've been pretty good at it for more than a century.

Nobody in this government is suggesting that everyone has to buy an electric car tomorrow. If someone wants a diesel ute, good luck to them. If someone wants a petrol car, that's their choice, and, if someone wants an electric vehicle because it's cheaper to run, why on earth would the government stand in their way? The difference between Labor and the coalition is simple: we want Australians to have more choices and lower running costs. They want to turn the family car into another culture war. While they're busy arguing about whether electric vehicles should exist, Australians are buying them in record numbers. The future has arrived. Someone might want to run an extension cord across the— (Time expired)

In the 12 months up to 30 June this year, sales of EVs doubled—157,000 EV sales in the first six months of the year, which is more than all of the EVs sold in the whole of last year. One in four new cars are now EVs, and that growth is absolutely incredible, and the weekends keep getting better. Until not too long ago, you could find only a small number of new EV models on the market, and most were really expensive compared to petrol cars. Now, there are 196 models to choose from, many of them on the affordable end of the market, including one new model being offered brand new for under $20,000.

Some of us are buying them because they're good for the climate, but many people are buying EVs for a whole host of reasons. We're looking at the war in the Middle East. We're looking at the petrol prices going up and thinking, 'Enough's enough.' We're realising that driving an EV is one of the best ways to save money. Of course, what you save depends on how much you drive and the price at the pump, but, on average, Australian drivers of EVs are saving $3,000 a year on fuel—$3,000 a year! It's incredibly liberating—I'm an EV driver—to have that experience of not paying more, to drop the kids off at school or to get to work, because of decisions that are made by foreign leaders and wars over which we have no control. With an EV, we're taking back control of our energy and our freedom.

We shouldn't attribute all the growth of EVs to the war in the Middle East though. The government has certainly made some good policy decisions over the last few years. The electric car discount and lowering the upfront cost of EVs through the fringe benefits tax exemptions have helped many more Australians both drive and ultimately purchase EVs. The fuel efficiency standards introduced by the government last term have helped increase EV supply and bring more models into Australia, giving Aussies more choice. Although the standards could be more ambitious, they've made a real difference, but there's still so much more to do.

Firstly, the efficiency standards don't set targets beyond 2029, and that's a problem because business investment cycles don't happen over three years. That's just too short. We need to build on this policy success and extend and strengthen those targets to at least 2035. Secondly, we could do more to help everyone benefit from EVs not just the people on higher incomes. At the moment, those who can benefit most from EVs are the ones who can least afford to buy them. The government could explore equity based incentives, like targeted subsidies or social leasing schemes, like they do in France, to make EVs available to more people.

Next, let's talk trucks. Trucks and vans are way behind passenger cars, and this is a huge risk. The longer our food supply chain runs on diesel, the longer we're vulnerable to society grinding to a halt when the next overseas crisis hits or worse, and this, frankly, is also pretty bad for inflation. Australia is doing far worse than comparable countries on electric truck uptake, and there's no more money available to help small businesses move from diesel trucks to electric ones. We need some financial incentives to help mum-and-dad freight operators afford the upfront cost of an electric truck. This is a national priority. Governments need to get together and work together on this. The more truckies that switch to electric, the more resilient our economy becomes.

Charging infrastructure also needs a big boost. As EV uptake accelerates, we need to ensure there are enough chargers in our homes, our streets, our shopping centres and our workplaces and along major freight corridors to support all these new electric vehicles. It's going to take some strategic thinking and careful planning. The government should develop a national EV charging road map to identify where we need chargers most and to guide cost-effective public and private investment in chargers.

We also need better data on EVs. Unlike New Zealand or the EU, we still don't have an independent database tracking EV uptake. Our data is fragmented, delayed and locked behind paywalls. Governments also need to ensure that road user charges are not poorly designed so as to disincentivise EV uptake. The road user charge scheduled to commence in New South Wales next year risks doing exactly that. We need new funding sources for road infrastructure as more EVs enter the market, but we should be designing this new system very carefully and, ideally, at the federal level rather than through fragmented state and territory schemes.

Going electric means lower bills, more freedom and more security. We're on the right track, we're moving fast, but now we've got to put our pedal to the metal.

We know people are looking at their fuel bills, daily commute and costs of maintaining a car. They're looking at more affordable ways to get to work, drop the kids off at school and go and buy groceries. There is a better way to go—that is, to go electric.

More Australians than ever are making the switch to electric vehicles, helping power a cleaner, greener future for our nation. In fact, last month Australia passed half a million battery electric car sales since 2021. According to the Electric Vehicle Council, battery electric vehicles represented approximately one-quarter of new car sales just this past September. When you add those plug-in hybrids, that share reaches around a third. That shows how substantially the market has shifted.

While this is encouraging to see, let's not forget Australia is still playing catch-up. Under the previous coalition government, there was a decade of climate denial and ridiculous scare campaigns. We'll never forget how the EV was going to ruin the weekend. But under Labor we recognise the important role electric vehicles play not just for our families but for our community and the longevity of our society. When we were elected in 2022, Labor set a clear course for Australia's electric vehicle future, removing longstanding barriers to uptake and providing the certainty needed to unlock investment, innovation and consumer choice—better technology, stronger competition and new cars hitting the Australian market. Those days of seeing that one same brand of electric vehicle over and over again are gone.

One important step to encourage uptake is the electric car discount. By exempting eligible electric cars provided through employment arrangements such as a fringe benefits tax, electric vehicles are more financially accessible to eligible workers, including through salary sacrificing. That doesn't mean all leases are good; we have to take into consideration finance costs and insurance—and, of course, fees still matter. But reducing the tax barrier gives more Australians a realistic opportunity to consider an electric vehicle. The government has also announced a transition towards a smaller, permanent concession, with support for more affordable eligible vehicles to be retained for longer. That reflects an important principle—a policy can establish a market, then change as the market progresses.

A second major reform we have implemented is the new vehicle efficiency standard. Its emissions obligations began applying to new vehicles supplied from 1 July 2025. It requires manufacturers to meet progressively lower average emissions targets across the vehicles they supply. Manufacturers can still sell petrol cars, diesel vehicles, four-wheel drives et cetera, but the standard encourages them to bring Australians a wider selection of efficient and low-emissions vehicles alongside those models. For consumers, that matters, because choice and competition are important and essential to affordability. Australians should have access to modern vehicles across different price points and needs, and the government should help create a market where manufacturers compete to deliver that choice.

Then there's charging. A household needs confidence that an electric vehicle can be charged and will fit into their everyday life. This means reliable charging, understandable prices and infrastructure beyond the centres of our largest cities. Our government's Driving the Nation Fund is investing over $500 million in EV charging infrastructure and innovation in EV technologies. We recently expanded this fund to include an additional $40 million for nationwide public, kerbside and fast EV charging points, particularly in regional blackspots. This was part of the government's Net Zero Plan. This funding will help unlock the potential for electricity networks to facilitate an accelerated rollout of EV charging, including on kerbsides and in areas where there are still black holes.

There's still a lot of work to do. We know that, and we know that apartment residents can face complex approval processes and that regional drivers need dependable infrastructure along the routes they use as well. But there is a national benefit. Electric vehicles give Australians more opportunity to power transport with locally generated electricity. As more electric vehicles enter our fleets, more will eventually become second-hand vehicles. That's crucial because our transition must reach all Australians, some of whom will never ever buy a brand new car. It has helped lower barriers, improve vehicle choice and support the infrastructure needed for change. Labor has introduced electric vehicles because we believe they should become a practical option for ordinary Australian households. They should be affordable to buy and dependable to charge. (Time expired)

Here we go again—another motion from this Albanese Labor government desperately trying to convince Australians they are doing a good job. Once again, we have the rhetoric. Once again, the divergence from reality is as plain as rain on a window pane. The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard is setting emission targets on the new vehicles car makers are bringing into Australia. The mechanism is forcing car makers to earn or trade credits to meet emission targets. This is nothing short of an emissions trading scheme. Car makers who fail to meet targets face penalties. A penalty is otherwise known as a tax—a carbon tax.

By jacking up the price of petrol and diesel cars, Labor is trying to force Australians into EVs. EVs may be suitable for Australians living in capital cities, but, for the regional, rural and remote Australians that I represent, they are not practical. That is exactly the issue with Labor's approach to policy making. They don't consider anybody outside of inner city Sydney when they draw up these shoddy policies. If those opposite are so sure Australians back their green ideology, then they have nothing to fear with the free market. Let people choose the car they want to drive. Let us not forget that, earlier this year, the Labor government bought an electric prime mover and said, 'Great, diesel is dead.' I'll get to that one later.

The electric car discount is a policy shipwreck. It is a boondoggle from start to finish. The scheme is costing taxpayers—costing you—15 times what the Treasury forecasted, and most people using it are high-income earners. The Labor government is saying: 'We don't care that you can't see a GP. We don't care that we've closed birthing services in Jamestown and Crystal Brook. We don't care about manufacturing jobs in Whyalla, in Port Augusta or in Port Pirie. But look, here is a shiny new EV that's cheap and it's made in China. Look how good we are.' Give me a break!

ATO data shows that more than 50 per cent of people claiming the discount earn over $135,000 a year, and it is now costing taxpayers $1.4 billion each and every year. Every Australian loves a discount. I love a discount. But, when the government gives us one, we must not forget it is taking from another. High-income earners should not have their EVs subsidised by their fellow Australians. This scheme does not pass the pub test, and it should be scrapped. Under a Taylor coalition government, it will go.

But what does the industry think? Well, in April the chief executive of Kia Australia, whose brand has benefited from rising EV sales, called for the scheme to be scrapped. He said:

There's a bit of middle-class welfare going on, and I think it's just inequitable.

When the people selling the cars say, 'Scrap it,' the government should listen. I don't care what type of car you want to buy; taxpayers should not subsidise one type of car and be taxed for buying another, especially when EVs simply don't work for people that drive long distances in the bush. It is not the government's job to pick winners and losers, but that is what this government seems to do. At this rate, you won't be able to turn a corner without the energy minister telling you which way to go.

Back to the electric truck—when the Prime Minister brought an EV truck from Sydney to Canberra and said, 'Diesel is dead.' Well, diesel is not dead. Diesel is what gets the grain off the paddock. Diesel is what gets the food on your plate. Fifty-two per cent of the energy consumed in this nation is still liquid fuels. The electric-car discount is a policy shipwreck.

In relation to the electric truck, I did some research. The biggest electric prime mover has a 700-megawatt-hour battery. If I put that prime mover on one of our loaded road trains on the farm, the range is somewhere between 150 and 300 kilometres. On that stat alone, it is completely unfit for purpose. But it gets worse. If I plug that truck into a five-kilowatt SWER line on the farm and turn off all our appliances, it takes 5.5 days to charge. It just does not work, especially now as we're coming into harvest.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Private Health Insurance

I move:

That this House:

(1) condemns the Government's $3 billion cut to the private health insurance rebate, with almost $1.6 billion of that cost falling directly on age pensioners;

(2) notes over 1 million pensioners with private health insurance will be affected by the age-based rebate cuts from April 2027;

(3) calls out the Government for failing to properly assess who would bear the cost of the policy and for keeping its modelling from the Australian public;

(4) expresses serious concern that at least 44,000 Australians are expected to drop their private health cover and several hundred thousand more are expected to downgrade their cover, placing further pressure on already stretched public hospitals and taxpayers; and

(5) calls on the Government to scrap the rebate cuts and protect older Australians, pensioners and the public hospital system from the consequences of this policy.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I want to talk about the Albanese Labor government's cruel $3 billion private health insurance rebate cuts. Almost $1.6 billion of those cuts will fall directly on age pensioners. More than one million pensioners will be affected from April next year. These are Australians who've worked hard, paid their taxes and contributed to this country for decades. They've done the right thing for decades.

I remember, when I was a young fella in my 20s, the Howard government stood up and said: 'We need to get more people on private health insurance. If you go on private health insurance and you make those payments, you'll get a rebate when you turn 65. We'll look after you when you need it most. If you don't, for every year that you don't get into private health insurance, you'll pay a premium when you're over the age of 30.' So lots of people piled into private health insurance. I was one of them. I couldn't afford it at the time, but, like many other people, my family and I prioritised private health insurance. We paid our premiums, like many other people, for the last 30 or 40 years. That commitment was satisfied; it was met by governments, both blue and red, for decades. Now, the Albanese government comes in and, in a cruel twist, seeks to rip those rebates away from people over the age of 65.

As to what impact this will have on Australians, anybody over the age of 65 and on gold cover for a couple will have to put their hands in their pockets for the sum of $1,614. This is another kick in the guts of Australians, particularly senior Australians, who are having to find more money. This is after they are having to pay more money for their rates, their insurance, their electricity, their rent or their mortgages. This is another blow to people who are suffering under the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis. It is simply unacceptable that this government wants to effectively charge $3 billion to people over the age of 65 just so they can get the health care under the commitment that was offered years and years and years ago.

Today's Australian newspaper has exposed just how misleading the government's claims have been. For months the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, has told Australians that 44,000 older people would be expected to leave private health insurance because of these cuts. What we now know is that that figure is somewhere around 78,000 by 2029-30. The impact of these cuts will mean that more seniors will go onto the public health system and will clog up the already jammed public health system. The health ministers of South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales have all said that this is a retrograde step. This is cost shifting from the Commonwealth onto the state health budgets. It is unfair to pensioners and it's unfair to the health systems of the states. It's also unfair to the millions of Australians who are on the public health system and couldn't possibly afford to go onto the private health system.

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

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I would like to speak against this motion because it misrepresents the policy and undermines a reform that is fair, necessary and long overdue. This House is being asked to condemn a $3 billion change to the private health insurance rebate. But let us be clear: this is not the abolition of the rebate. The rebate remains. From April 2027, the higher age based rebate for people aged 65 and over will end, and the rebate will instead be determined by income. Under the current system, two people on the same income can receive different rebates simply because one is older. A person aged 70 or over in the base tier currently receives a 32.158 per cent rebate, while someone under 65 in the same tier receives 24.118 per cent. From April 2027, both will be treated the same. That is not removing support; it is removing an inequity.

The Albanese Labor government expects the measure to save around $3 billion over four years, with those savings to be reinvested in aged care. In my electorate of Pearce, and across Western Australia, we know what it means when families struggle to find aged care places or wait for Support at Home. Investment in residential care and home support matters directly to older Australians and their families.

The motion argues that pensioners will bear a significant share of the cost. Yes, age pension recipients with private health insurance who currently benefit from the age based uplift will be affected. But they will not lose the private health insurance rebate altogether. The rebate remains income tested; what changes is the additional age based component. Many of those same older Australians also stand to benefit from greater investment in aged care. That broader context cannot simply be ignored.

The motion also warns that people will drop or downgrade their private cover, placing pressure on public hospitals. The government's modelling estimates around 44,000 fewer people aged 65 and over will hold private health insurance by 2028-29 than would otherwise have been expected. That is around 0.4 per cent fewer insured people than under the existing arrangements. That deserves scrutiny, but it does not justify claims of a mass exodus from private health insurance. The motion further accuses the government of failing to assess the impact of the change and of hiding its modelling. Yet the legislation is accompanied by an impact analysis, and the Parliamentary Budget Office has separately examined the distribution of the savings. The figures are available for scrutiny. They should be debated in full context, not selectively presented as evidence of catastrophe.

At its heart, this reform raises a question of intergenerational equity. For more than two decades, the system has provided a higher rebate to older Australians, even where people are in the same income tier. At the same time, Australia faces growing pressure on aged care, including demand for residential places and support that allows older people to remain in their homes. It is reasonable to ask whether age alone should determine a higher private health insurance rebate or whether support should be based on income and scarce public funds directed towards services of greatest need. The Albanese Labor government has chosen the latter approach.

If this House wants to protect older Australians, then we should focus on reducing aged-care waiting times, expanding access to home support, supporting carers and ensuring public hospitals are not being used because appropriate aged care is unavailable. This reform removes the decades-old age based uplift, leaves the rebate to be determined by income rather than age and, under the government's commitment, redirects substantial savings into aged care. I cannot support a motion that condemns that approach. I am speaking against this motion. I do so because this debate should be based on the full evidence and on a fair assessment of where public funding can deliver the greatest benefit. The rebate remains. Support remains. But the age based top-up will end, and the savings will help fund services older Australians rely upon now and in the future.

I stand in strong support of the member for Fisher's motion and urge the Albanese Labor government to scrap this cruel and damaging policy. The Albanese government's move to strip $3 billion from the private health insurance rebate, including nearly $1.6 billion from age pensioners, stands as one of the most cynical and unjust policies ever presented to this parliament. This is the very definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Labor claims it needs the money to fund aged care. How about starting with its lavish net zero spending spree, rather than cutting the health and care of Australia's seniors?

The people of Lyne are absolutely furious. I've been inundated with phone calls, emails, letters and heartfelt pleas from older Australians who feel utterly betrayed. The outrage was so overwhelming that I launched a parliamentary e-petition demanding the government reverse these cuts. Over 3,300 people signed that e-petition, and thousands more have added their names to a paper petition I will be submitting to this parliament soon. Thousands in my own electorate are demanding that this government listen. These aren't wealthy Australians; Lyne has one of the lowest socioeconomic groups in the country. These are pensioners, retirees and people on fixed incomes who've made decades of sacrifices to maintain their private health insurance. They don't have any room in their budgets to make any further sacrifice. These are people like Warren from North Haven, who told me that these cuts would be the final straw, forcing him to give up his private health insurance entirely, and Lorraine from Forster-Tuncurry, who thought she was doing the right thing but now feels totally betrayed and misguided by this government. Their sense of betrayal is completely justified.

The consequences reach far beyond individual households. Analysis from the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, obtained under a freedom-of-information request, reveals that a widely claimed government figure that only 44,000 Australians will dump private health insurance is set to significantly blow out. The minister has only ever told Australians the 44,000 figure, but we now know that he's been told that it is far larger—that it's well over 78,000 people. This suggests the minister is deliberately deceiving Australians about the implications of these cuts. Independent modelling suggests the number is even higher. Catholic Health Australia has warned that over 200,000 people could downgrade their cover, with additional costs to public hospitals potentially reaching $675 million every year. Just consider how absurd that is. The government slashes support for private health insurance, pushes people into the public system and then expects taxpayers and state governments to foot the bill. The patient remains. The illness remains. The cost remains. It simply shifts elsewhere.

In regional communities like mine, this is especially dangerous. Take Manning Base Hospital, which is already stretched to its limits. People struggle to attract specialists. People travel great distances for care, and elective surgery waiting lists are far too long. Regional Australia doesn't need a policy that undermines private hospitals and floods the public system with even more patients. The warnings could not be clearer. National Seniors Australia opposes these cuts. The Australian Medical Association has serious concerns. Private hospitals, health funds and consumer organisations have all warned of the consequences. Even Labor's state governments have objected and said: 'Stop. Do not move forward with this policy.'

What, I have to say, has incensed me more than anything is this Labor led Senate committee that, with all the submissions it received, still recommended the parliament proceed with this legislation. What extraordinary arrogance from this Albanese Labor government. The coalition's dissenting report has rightly rejected this approach, yet the government still refuses to release the detailed modelling needed to truly understand who will pay and what the real consequences will be. If Labor is truly confident in this policy, lay the evidence on the table.

Health care and aged care should not compete for funding. We should strengthen both not weaken one to prop up the other. There is nothing sensible about making health care costlier for pensioners. There is nothing fair about punishing those who've done the right thing, and there is nothing responsible about piling more costs onto already overstretched public hospitals. Older Australians of Lyne will remember this betrayal, and I'll keep fighting alongside them until this government abandons this disgraceful policy.

I rise to speak on the member for Fisher's motion on private health insurance. The problem with this motion is that it presents the government's reforms as though they are designed to target older Australians. I want to speak on some terms I think we can all agree on. All of us here in this place respect older Australians and the country they have built for all of us, and we are only here because of their contributions. My concern is ensuring that our aged-care system can support them as they age and as their needs become much more complex. That is why we need the modest changes, with savings directly going to essential services for the aged-care sector.

The government's approach on the private health insurance rebate is so that the same rules apply to everyone. From 1 April 2027, the rebate will be determined by income not age. Australians on the same income will therefore receive the same level of government support. People aged 65 and over will still receive significant government subsidised discounts of up to 24 per cent, and, if you earn $101,000 or less as a single person or $202,000 or less as a family, you will receive the highest rebate, and that support will be available on the same basis to every eligible Australian, regardless of age. I think that's the pertinent point.

The government expects the average impact to be around $250 per person each year, less than a dollar a day, and it expects only a very small reduction of 0.4 per cent in private health insurance membership. Most importantly, every dollar saved through these changes will be directed into aged care. It's going back to the people. It will help deliver more residential aged-care beds, more Support at Home packages, shorter wait times and better care for older Australians, but the reality is that this government must substantially expand aged-care services. Australia's population is ageing at a rate we have not seen before. If we don't invest now, the pressures on families, workers and the entire care system will become much greater.

These reforms are also fundamentally about fairness. The private health insurance rebate is funded by all taxpayers, including younger people, renters, families under cost-of-living pressures and Australians who do not hold private cover at all. It is reasonable that public support be targeted according to a person's capacity to pay rather than increase automatically because they have reached a particular age.

That does not diminish the contribution of older Australians. On the contrary, it ensures that government investment follows need. Many older Australians depend on residential care, home support, carers and clinical services, and those services are already under pressure. Redirecting savings towards them is a practical way to improve dignity and choice and quality of life. It's also important to be honest about what these reforms do not do. They do not abolish the rebate, do not prevent anyone from keeping private health insurance and do not remove Medicare or undermine universal health care. They simply remove an age based loading from a means-tested subsidy while preserving assistance for Australians on lower and middle incomes.

Those opposite cannot demand stronger aged-care services while opposing every reasonable measure that helps actually fund them. Government is about choices. Our choice is to protect support for people who need it most and invest in care that will benefit older Australians directly. These reforms are measured. They are very much targeted and responsible. They maintain meaningful assistance for private health insurance, improve intergenerational fairness and support the long-term sustainability of aged care. That is the honest case for these reforms.

I rise in support of the member for Fisher's private member's motion and the excellent work that he has done now for such a long period of time to represent senior people not only in his electorate but right throughout this country.

There are many people throughout Australia who are suffering at the hands of this Albanese Labor government's out-of-control cost of living—young people, families, small-business owners, employees, mum-and-dad investors. But the people who are likely to be suffering the most are also the least likely to be able to do anything about it. Our older Australians, the same people who sat around the kitchen table trying to make ends meet in the days before we had mobile phones, the internet, streaming or five-bedroom homes, are the ones who are targeted by the Albanese government's private health insurance rebate cuts. The same people who weathered the extreme measures needed to feed their families during World War II, who grew up in hand-me-down clothes and who stretched $10 to feed big families for a week are the ones that are being targeted with this legislation. People who have done as the government wanted them to do, who have put money away for health insurance all of their lives, are now being told the additional private health insurance rebate for people aged 65 and over will be cut. Disgraceful—yet another cut for the most vulnerable Australians.

Make no mistake, Australians don't want this. The vast majority of the more than 600 submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee have said this will have significant consequences. The extra cost for single people over 70 on gold hospital cover will be $408 a year. For those on silver cover, it will be $324 more a year. As the shadow minister for health and aged care, Senator Anne Ruston, has said, about two million of the 3.2 million Australians likely to be hit by the cuts already live on less than $37,000 a year. They simply can't afford it. Every cent counts. Every extra cent, every extra dollar—$10 or $408—will take food out of their mouths, heating out of their homes and fuel out of their cars. It is a decision some Australians know they simply cannot afford.

National Seniors Australia have said their research shows 76.2 per cent of full-rate age pensioners will drop their private health insurance if premiums increase. These are the people who need it the most. Forty-four thousand Australians are expected to drop their private health cover, and several hundred thousand more are expected to downgrade the cover that they currently have. If these people no longer have private health insurance, what will happen to them? An 80-year-old woman in Broken Hill might not seek medical assistance that she desperately needs. A 72-year-old man in Forbes might be too worried about the money, the cost, to let his family know about his real health issues. A 66-year-old person in Moree might, after 40 years of paying for private health insurance, find themselves sick at the bottom of the list for the public health system.

These vulnerable people—who will no longer be able to afford private health, where the rates are already rising all the time—will then become part of the public health system. This will in turn be paid for by all Australians and add to the already dysfunctional system that is groaning under the pressure and under the weight. This is not a saving; this is simply a cost shifting. It's not a fix. It's not even a bandaid. It's a recipe for disaster. This is not only an accident waiting to happen but an accident waiting to happen with no medical assistance at the other end. No state or territory has supported this bill. Most of them have warned of longer elective surgery waiting and millions in extra costs to state taxpayers.

We cannot leave older Australians to fall through the system. That seems to be planned under this Albanese Labor government. This bill must not be passed. Already, this Albanese Labor government is asking too much of them. Let these Australians who have worked hard, who have saved and who have paid their dues be allowed to access the services that they've already paid for.

The member for Parkes, representing that large western New South Wales seat, has just summed it up. This is not a saving; this is cost shifting. Truer words were never said. This is cost shifting. What this is going to do is push those who once were private patients onto the state public hospital system, and this is so unfair. It's so ill thought out and so shortsighted. I commend the member for Fisher for bringing this motion forward, because as an opposition we must keep this awful federal Labor government to account. Why they are turning the blowtorch onto our pensioners, onto older Australians, is anybody's guess.

The member for Fisher, the member for Parkes and I know how many older Australians are so concerned by the fact that they just cannot make ends meet. Some of these older Australians put on the uniform for Australia, have gone and fought for Australia and have protected Australia. Many of them have done the hard yards in hard jobs where physical labour was the order of the day. They just wonder why—in their twilight years, when they should be able to enjoy their life, pay for the things that matter, give the grandkids or the great grandkids some extra presents around the tree at Christmas time—they have to struggle just to meet the ordinary costs of everyday living.

Every time they get their power bill, it's gone north from the last bill, the previous bill. Every time they go to the supermarket, they find that they have less in their trolley for the money that they once spent. Every time they fill their car, they find that it's difficult to pay that bowser bill, and it's all on Labor's watch. When Labor has a chance to fix things up, make amends and try to at least look after those older Australians, they turn their backs on them. Almost 78,000 Australians aged 65 and over are now expected to drop their private health cover by 2030 according to new Department of Health, Disability and Ageing analysis—78,000 older Australians. Why this is the case is anybody's guess.

The Albanese government is imposing a $3 billion cut to the private health insurance rebate, with almost $1.6 billion of that cost falling directly on age pensioners. All politics is local. We know that. I asked my staff some weeks ago to keep a note particularly of those people who complained about this. Sometimes it takes a lot of these older Australians to pick the phone up and whinge. Many of them were people who had never complained to a federal member's office before, but Anne from Gooloogong said:

I have had private health insurance since I started work 15 years old now am 81 and will have to be a public patient if these changes are made have always paid my way and now it will be impossible .

Gaye from Lockhart said:

As a resident of the Riverina is it not enough that we have to travel many miles to see a Specialist, go to hospital, get services like CTs, ultrasounds, X-rays etc. Not to mention the cost of petrol and the high charges for appointments to see the specialist in the first instance as none take Medicare only here in the country locations and any charge an inflated price for the privilege of a visit.

We can remember the Prime Minister going around pulling out the green and gold card saying: 'This is a Medicare card. This is all you'll need.' That is bunkum. That is rubbish. But it wasn't just Anne from Goolagong and Gaye from Lockhart. It was Lyn from Kooringal. It was Robert from Cowra. It was Luke from Cootamundra, David from Grenfell and Michael from Murrumbateman. It was Ross, Geoff and Allen from Wagga Wagga. They all phoned my office and all had deep concerns about this policy, about this impost, about this inequity and about this unfairness. Labor talks about inequity. I have to say, this has been in place for years and years. Why does this government have such a tin ear to fairness? Why does this government have such a tin ear to the needs, wants and expectations of older Australians? Why?

I would like to thank the member for Fisher for tabling his report and also the member for Riverina for encouraging me to talk on this topic. Over the weekend, I was at a street stall in Dunkley, and I had a number of older people come and speak to me about this particular issue and their concern. One of the things that I noted was that people weren't aware that those people that were over 65 are actually still going to receive a rebate if they earn less than $101,000. They're still going to receive a 24 per cent rebate for their private health. We're levelling the playing field for people earning less than $101,000 a year. Everyone, regardless of their age and regardless of their circumstances, is still going to actually receive a benefit from the federal government.

I understand there is concern about the cost and how much this is going to impact people's back pocket, but the thing that we are also doing is we're investing the money that we were giving to older people in increasing the number of home-care packages and aged-care packages for older people. That is a really good thing, because we've got lots of demand. We've got an ageing population in this country, and we're trying to keep people in their home for longer. We need more home-care packages.

For me, when I'm looking at equity and fairness, I feel that this legislation that we're looking to pass is actually going to benefit more people. It's more equitable, and it's more just. That is the Labor way, and that's why I'm a Labor MP. I would like to acknowledge that, yes—to the older people in the community of Dunkley, we hear you, and you still do have access to a rebate of 24 per cent.

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Employment

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that workers should be able to use their skills, change jobs, and pursue better opportunities without unreasonable restraints on their mobility;

(2) welcomes the Government's decision to ban non-compete clauses from 1 January 2027 for workers earning below the high-income threshold in the Fair Work Act, currently $190,100, covering around nine in ten Australian workers;

(3) notes that:

(a) non-compete clauses can make it harder for workers to move to a better job, negotiate higher wages, or start their own business;

(b) greater job mobility helps skills, knowledge, and ideas move through the economy;

(c) removing unnecessary restraints encourages employers to compete for workers through better wages, conditions, and opportunities; and

(d) the Government has estimated that reforming non-compete clauses could lift the wages of workers covered by them by up to $2,500 a year;

(4) further welcomes the Government's reforms to prohibit wage-fixing and no-poach agreements between employers, which restrict competition for workers; and

(5) supports a labour market in which businesses compete for talent, and Australians are free to take their skills to the jobs where they can make the greatest contribution.

Right now, more than three million Australian workers have a non-compete clause in their contract. That is over 20 per cent of the nation's working population. To the average Australian, I'm sure when they hear the words 'non-compete clause' they picture someone in a corner office. We've seen them mentioned in films and TV shows, usually in the context of a senior executive or a high-profile lawyer being told that they can't walk the company's secrets or clients across the road to a rival. While some of them are similar to these examples, this is not the reality for the majority of the three million Australian workers. These clauses turn up in the contracts of hairdressers, construction workers and early childhood educators. Unions and their workers, many on the minimum wage, presented to the Treasury's competition review. Some of them told us that they were being sued by their former employers or that they were threatened with legal action because they had found a better job and wanted to take it.

This week I'll be meeting with early childhood educators who are coming to this parliament to continue to fight for a fairer and more inclusive early education system. They are part of a workforce that fought for years to be paid what they are worth, and they won a 15 per cent pay rise. But a pay rise only go goes so far if you can't take your skills to the centre down the road that may pay better.

What makes me angry is that plenty of these clauses that are embedded in the contracts of low-income workers and workers where English is their second language wouldn't even stand up in court. But, you see, that doesn't matter. The threat does work. People read the letter and they think about months without pay and they stay put. Because working people are already doing it tough, they aren't in a position to take a risk like that.

In my local community, I think of the dominant professions—education and healthcare work. That's over 20,000 people sitting where they are because of something they signed on their first day in the job. So there's a fairness argument here, and it's a strong one. Of course, there's an economic one too. The most ordinary bit of bargaining power any worker has is being able to say, 'I've had a better offer.' Take that away and an employer has a lot less reason to lift pay. The research suggests ending these clauses could lift wages for affected workers up to four per cent. On the median wage, that's about $2,500 dollars a year.

This is huge for people who want to work for themselves as well. I think straightaway about hairdressers, especially those I've met in my community. We know they spend many years building up a client base, and I'm sure many of them have dreams of opening their own salon. Then, on the flip side, there are tradies who want to go out on their own. These clauses are a handbrake on their aspirations.

The Productivity Commission's modelling suggests these changes could add $5 billion a year to the economy and help bring down inflation, which is not bad for a clause that, sadly, most workers never read before they sign their contract. So from 1 January 2027 we're banning non-compete clauses for workers earning under the high-income threshold in the Fair Work Act. That's currently $190,100. We're also closing the loopholes that let businesses quietly cap wages through arrangements their own workers never agreed to. We're shutting down the no-poach deals that stopped competitors hiring each other's staff. These changes bring us into line with a lot of other advanced economies. It sits alongside a tough new merger regime and the next phase of our National Competition Policy.

Our government takes competition seriously, which is more than you can say for the decade those opposite occupied the government benches. Under them, we had the slowest decade of productivity growth in 60 years. Markets got more concentrated and mark-ups went up. They blocked sensible competition reform at just about every turn. This ban means the educator can take a better job at the centre down the road. It allows a hairdresser to realise her dream of opening her own salon. It means the apprentice with a better offer can just say yes to it.

Our government made a promise to build Australia's future. That future centres around working people. Our aim is to give them the best opportunities— (Time expired)

Is there a seconder?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak to this bill in relation to the government's changes or proposed changes to non-compete clauses, and it's worth noting that the coalition will carefully examine the bill after it's introduced into the parliament and determine whether or not it's something that we consider worthy of our support.

I think it's fair to say that, if the reaction from the business community is anything to go by, we should approach this debate with a cautious sense of concern. I say that because, if you look at what some of the business groups are saying—if you look at COSBOA, if you look at the Australian Industry Group—the warnings are considerable and the warnings are real. We have seen too many examples of this government announcing policies without properly considering the consequences of those policies. I take the comments of the previous member, the member for Maribyrnong, who spoke about the consequences of this on the wages of employees and how it could possibly increase the wages of employees, but I will say also that there's no point lifting wages if no business is left to pay them, and that's why we need to make sure in this debate that it is balanced and that we do consider both sides. If businesses don't do well, it's very difficult for employees to do well.

It's worth going back to why these clauses actually exist. They exist because it's recognition of the amount of effort and investment that small businesses across this country put in to employees, especially when you're considering small and medium or family sized businesses. These are people who invest a lot of money, a lot of time and a lot of opportunity cost into their employees, into skilling them and into training them. The purpose of these clauses is to, in effect, provide not only an incentive to do so but some sort of security for that business to say, if you do this, there is a quid pro quo where that employee is able to contribute to the fullest extent to your business without fear of them taking their training and going elsewhere.

There are still ways that employees can move, of course. Those are rights that are protected within the framework of the current legislation. If you look at, for example, what COSBOA have said, they have raised some of the concerns on small business. They've spoken about small businesses who are trying to protect their workforce. They're trying to protect their goodwill, and, very importantly—I, before coming to this place, was a lawyer—it's all about that customer goodwill and that customer relationship and the value that has been built over many years, sometimes over many decades. I think we just need to be careful in approaching this proposal as to whether or not it's going to disproportionately affect small businesses to the extent that it becomes prohibitive to employ people, but we also don't want to interfere with that culture between the employer and the employee. That's just a note of concern that I think the government needs to take. I think the government needs to recognise that there are these legitimate concerns from organisations who do represent businesses across the Australian economy, and those concerns do need to be taken seriously.

I say, within the framework of this government's approach, they do have a record of, unfortunately, not testing these ideas effectively with the people who are going to be affected by the policies. I recognise that there was a consultation period, but, as with everything with government, we need to make sure that that consultation is meaningful and that it actually gets to the mum-and-dad small businesses and gets to the family run businesses, because I think they will find, similar to what we've seen in terms of the ATO credit card surcharge changes in terms of the changes to the treatment of trusts, in terms of some of the changes to capital gains tax—we've seen the way that the business community has been disproportionately affected in this country. I'd suggest to the government that they consider the views of those different stakeholder groups fully and wholly in coming to their final position on this legislation. I understand part of the intent of what the government's saying; however, I will say that there is another side to this, and that is the employers. I will say, again, there's no point lifting wages if there is no business left to pay them.

The work of the Albanese Labor government is underpinned by a simple belief: every Aussie deserves a fair go. We said this when we introduced five per cent deposits for all first home buyers, giving Australians a fair go at owning their own home. We said this when we introduced fee-free TAFE, giving young Australians the opportunity to pursue a trade and build their family's future. We say it again as we ban unfair non-compete clauses, which are holding Australian workers back from switching to better, higher-paying jobs. If you can get a better job and a higher wage or have a crack at starting your own business in Australia, you shouldn't be held back. That's why from 2027 we're banning non-competes for workers earning under $190,000.

I'm proud to speak on this motion, put forward by my friend the member for Maribyrnong, welcoming the government's decision to ban non-compete clauses from next year and recognising that workers should be able to use their skills to change jobs and pursue better opportunities without unreasonable restraints on their mobility. At the moment, more than three million Australians are covered by non-compete clauses—that's one in five workers. Non-compete clauses restrict these workers' ability to work for a competitor or to start their own business. They disrupt job mobility, stagnate wages, hamper productivity, prevent aspiration and handcuff workers to their current job when there are better opportunities available to them.

Australians should be able to earn a better income when the opportunity arises, and they should be supported in aspiring towards that. Our changes will make sure that that's the case. We are making it easier for workers to switch to a better job. This will lift the wages of affected workers by up to four per cent, or about 2½ thousand dollars per year. We will also close loopholes in competition law, including those that currently allow businesses to fix wages with anticompetition arrangements that cap workers' pay and conditions without the knowledge and agreement of affected workers, as well as closing the no-poach agreements which block staff from being hired by competitors.

Our changes are all part of our government's economic plan to make sure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. It's not just good for workers and families; it's good for the Australian economy. It means working towards an Australian economy which is more dynamic and competitive—an economy which is moving forward, not just standing still—and it means bringing Australia in line with many other nations.

Meanwhile, the Liberals and the Nationals over on that side want to make people work longer and harder for less, while they block sensible competition reform at every turn. They can talk about economic management all they want, but it's just that: talk. The fact is, under the coalition, productivity fell for seven consecutive quarters in the lead-up to the pandemic. Meanwhile, we are delivering the broadest productivity agenda since the nineties, cutting regulatory costs by $10.2 billion every year and boosting GDP by $13 million every year with our most recent budget. We are building a stronger and more productive economy focused on boosting productivity and increasing wages. We are on the side of aspiration and a fair go. We're on the side of Australian workers, and we always have been.

I have known this since the day I joined the Labor Party as a teenager, when I was getting underpaid by my employer in my very first job. This Labor government has delivered 'same job, same pay', closed loopholes that undermine wages and conditions and strengthened protections against wage theft. I want my community in Melbourne's western suburbs to know that, when it comes to their rights at work, we are delivering real worker protections, and, when it comes to their families, who they're working hard to plan a future for, we are putting in the work to deliver real wage growth.

We are a government that has delivered the biggest workplace reforms in a generation. We have closed loopholes, we have strengthened job security and now we are helping Australians take the next step in their careers by securing better pay and taking their skills to where they are valued most. I commend this motion to the House.

Over the last two weeks, I've been back in Dawson and my diary has been full, travelling from Townsville to Mackay and everywhere in between. I've been meeting small-business owners, coffee-shop owners, travel agents, manufacturers and tourism operators—different businesses but with the same message: they are at breaking point. They're asking themselves how much more pressure they can absorb before something finally gives. I've heard the strain in these business owners' voices. They're asking this Labor government to stop making their lives harder. Small businesses create jobs, train workers and keep communities across Dawson alive. Workers deserve opportunity. Employers deserve fairness. This motion fails to give proper weight to either, and that is why I oppose it.

Small businesses are the people sponsoring junior sport, supporting local charities and giving young Australians their first jobs. They're working long hours, employing locals and doing everything possible just to keep their doors open. But rising mortgages, higher power bills, increasing insurance, higher rent and more compliance costs are eating away at their margin. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry recently found that 63 per cent of small businesses identified rising costs as their biggest challenge, and the Reserve Bank has warned that businesses in hospitality and the retail sector face even greater cash-flow pressure. These are the businesses the government should be listening to. Instead, Labor is celebrating another change that will leave them with less protection.

When a small business recruits someone, it makes an investment. There are advertising costs, interviews, training, supervision and months spent teaching the skills needed for their individual businesses. A Mackay manufacturer might train an employee on specialised processes and then trust them with pricing, customers and commercially sensitive information. A travel agency might spend years building client relationships and then share those contacts with a new recruit. Those employees should be able to move forward in their careers, but surely the businesses deserve reasonable protection against the misuse of the intellectual property that they own. Non-compete clauses serve that purpose where they are limited and justified. Existing law already requires restraints to be reasonable and to be enforceable.

Labor's proposed ban would apply to workers earning below the high-income threshold—currently $190,100. That's around nine in 10 Australian workers. The government talks about possible wage gains of up to $2½ thousand a year, but that's an estimate, not a guaranteed pay rise. And it doesn't answer the question I hear from employers: who pays when a trained worker leaves and that business must start again? Labor says confidently that non-solicitation provisions can still protect businesses. But the small-business ombudsman has called for clearer guidelines so legitimate protections aren't swept aside. A family business shouldn't need an expensive lawyer just to understand their rights. These owners of small businesses have had enough uncertainty.

Just last week, after a backlash from small businesses, the Albanese Labor government was forced into yet another embarrassing backflip, delaying the ATO's plan to stop accepting credit card payments for tax bills. Labor only delayed the ban until June 2026—delayed, not cancelled. Frankly, the number of backflips since the budget has been nauseating: announce a change, ignore the warnings, face the backlash and then scramble in retreat. Why not listen first? Why not consult with small business? That would save small businesses time, money and more anxiety.

I want workers to thrive, but I want employers competing to offer good wages and good conditions. But a coffee shop, a tourism operator or an engineering firm isn't a giant corporation with a legal department. One bad hire, one lost client or one unexpected compliance bill can have serious consequences.

I've always found it fascinating that the Liberal Party calls itself the party of freedom. Freedom of choice, freedom of enterprise, freedom of the market—they absolutely love freedom. That is, of course, unless you're a worker who wants a better job. Then, suddenly, freedom gets a little bit more complicated. Apparently, businesses should be free to compete, employers should be free to make a profit and markets should be free to operate, but, if you're a hairdresser who wants to work at the salon down the road—well, steady on! We can't have people wandering around exercising their economic freedom!

Welcome to the wonderful world of non-compete clauses. These are conditions in employment contracts that can stop workers from joining a competitor or starting their own business. And we're not just talking about senior executives on multimillion-dollar salaries. We're talking about hairdressers, childcare workers, construction workers and people earning minimum wage. More than three million Australian workers are covered by these restrictions. A lot of Australians are being told they are free to leave their jobs but not necessarily free to find another one.

As I like to say, I've worked as an electrician and as an industrial lawyer, and I've seen some pretty interesting employment contracts. Some employers seem to believe that paying someone a wage means they've purchased exclusive rights to that person's future, as though hiring an electrician means you own the rights to electricity. Imagine if I finished my apprenticeship and my boss said, 'Tom, you're welcome to resign, but you can't work for another electrical contractor.' I'd have to say, 'Mate, what do you want me to do—become a plumber?' Frankly, I have standards, but this is exactly the sort of restriction Australian workers have been dealing with. Some of these clauses might not even be legally enforceable, but that doesn't stop employers from threatening legal action. And, when you've got a mortgage and kids to feed, hiring a lawyer to argue about whether you can accept another job isn't particularly appealing.

Australians shouldn't need legal advice to accept a pay rise, and that is why the Albanese Labor government is taking action. From 1 January 2027, we're banning non-compete clauses for workers earning below the relevant high-income threshold, currently around $190,000. We're also tackling arrangements where businesses agree not to hire each other's workers or to make deals to hold down wages, because, apparently, some employers have decided that, if competing for customers is difficult, perhaps they can agree to not compete for employees. And we're supposed to call that the free market.

I can almost hear the arguments coming from those opposite: What about business confidence? What about employer certainty? What about the sacred right of a business owner to stop someone getting a better job? Well, what about the worker? What about the apprentice who wants to earn more? What about the childcare educator offered better conditions across town or the experienced tradie who wants to start a business? Workers have ambitions too. Surely, for the party that has spent decades lecturing Australians about entrepreneurship, this is something they should support. That is unless their vision of entrepreneurship is that you're welcome to start a business provided it doesn't compete with an existing one, which is a rather unusual interpretation of capitalism.

These reforms aren't just good for workers; they are good for the economy. Research suggests affected workers could see wage increases of up to four per cent, and the Productivity Commission modelling suggests these reforms could add around $5 billion to the economy annually. More competition, more business creation, better wages, higher productivity—it almost sounds like the economic reform those opposite used to claim they believed in. The coalition spent nearly a decade telling Australians that wages would rise if we improved productivity. Then they presided over the slowest decade of productivity growth in 60 years. Now, Labor is delivering reforms designed to improve productivity and lift wages. Who would have thought that giving workers more opportunities might actually be good for the economy!

The principle is simple. If an employer wants to keep a good worker, there is a straightforward way to do it: pay them properly, treat them well and give them opportunities to develop. Don't threaten to sue them because somebody down the road has offered them an extra $5 an hour. That's not employee retention; that is a hostage negotiation with a pay slip.

A competitive economy should work for everyone—not just for business owners but for people who turn up every morning and keep those businesses running. If those opposite genuinely believe in freedom, competition and enterprise, here's the opportunity to demonstrate it, because workers deserve the freedom to pursue a better life. It's called the free market, not the free market for everyone except the people doing the work.

Every day all of us depend on small business in some way, whether it's for our accounting or for our morning coffee, to fix our plumbing or to get a medical check—

And the plumbers!

Yes, I stand up for the plumbers, unlike the member for Moore, who has just left the chamber. Small businesses are absolutely critical not only in keeping our economy running but in keeping all of us running in this country. There are 2.7 million small businesses in Australia. More than 28,000 of them are in the Parkes electorate. They make up more than 97 per cent of all businesses in this country and employ more than five million people. These employees are ordinary Australians, workers who are trying to get by—trying to make a quid, save a quid, buy a home, send their kids to school and have somewhere to live when they get older. These are basic needs that are getting harder and harder under this Albanese Labor government.

Twenty-eight thousand small businesses have become insolvent in the past two years, leaving, at the very least, tens of thousands of Australians without a job. That figure of 28,000 might be familiar. That is because, as I've just said, that is exactly equal to the entire number of small businesses in my electorate of Parkes: 28,000. Picture that in one place. In my electorate of Parkes, say, which is 51 per cent of New South Wales, that is every small builder, every hairdresser, every cafe and just about every dentist, physio and GP gone in the past two years. That is more than three times the rate when the coalition was last in government.

We need to protect our workers, but we also need to give our small businesses a fighting chance, or those workers will also lose their jobs. That is why we need to achieve a balance that works for everyone and still supports a strong economy. We will need to take a very close look at the treasury laws amendment bill when the details are introduced because it's apparent that the business community has serious concerns. Small businesses are already groaning under the weight of this government's bad decisions: the credit card surcharge ban, the rushed rollout of payday super, the new taxes on discretionary trusts and capital gains, just to name a few. These decisions have been made without looking ahead at the consequences, and they've been made when our whole economy is already under enormous pressure. It seems to be a surprise to this government, every morning when they wake up, to find their policies have slashed yet another tyre of the small businesses that keep this country on the road. Today's front page of the Daily Telegraph says it all: 'We're not your ATM, Jim', 'Furious small businesses in fresh blitz on Labor taxes'.

We have always been the country of great ideas that start with small business. Now, getting that small business off the ground is something any ingenious Australian would have to think twice about before even starting. Our small businesses cannot afford any more hits. The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has already warned about this draft legislation. It has warned that it has the potential to impact all small businesses, who need to protect their own workforce and the goodwill, customer relations and value of their business that they have spent years building. It has warned that high penalties and legal uncertainty could follow the impacts of this legislation. The Australian Industry Group has warned that these changes could threaten confidentiality, commercial relationships and workforce stability. It could also discourage employers from investing in training and development. Even everyday business transactions could become more difficult, according to the Business Council of Australia. These are the business experts. Those opposite are not; that much is apparent. We have already seen more than enough economic mismanagement from the government, which has put our country $1 trillion in debt. How about we leave this one to the experts?

I rise today to speak in support of this motion regarding the banning of non-compete clauses for workers earning below the high-income threshold in the Fair Work Act, which will be $190,100 per annum from 2027. What this means is that nine in 10 Australian workers will enjoy a new right to be free of non-compete terms. A non-compete term will be defined. In short, employers will be prohibited from including non-compete terms in employment arrangements and contracts and those terms will be deemed unenforceable if they are included in circumstances where employees have the right to be free of non-compete terms.

In examining the merits of this motion and the underlying reforms it champions, it's important to understand the existing background and the context to non-compete clauses in Australia. It's important to understand this background so that no oxygen is given to the suggestion that these non-compete reforms are an impost on small business or an unfair restriction on how businesses recruit and retain workers. The current position in Australia is that non-compete clauses are legal, but they are currently presumed by the courts to be invalid unless an employer can prove that they are reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.

Non-compete clauses do not currently provide fail-safe levels of protection for employers, which is what many people think is the case and what we have heard from many contributions in this chamber this evening. The reason for this presumption of invalidity is that the typical levels of unequal bargaining power between employer and employee when it comes to the employment contract exist. That is not malicious on the part of the employer. It is just how it is. The employee wants the job. The employer is offering it and as part of the offer is the author of the employment contract. They have to be because although employment contracts need to be legally compliant they also need to be tailored to the nature and requirements of the business and the nature and requirements of the role being filled.

As the author of the employment contract, including any non-compete clause, the burden must fall on the employer to justify each element of it, including the time period, the activities and the geographic scope of any non-compete clause. If a non-compete clause is challenged—and they often aren't—and an employer cannot demonstrate a genuine business reason, not just the premise that they don't want competitors hiring their people, the clause will fail. That is the current position under Australian law. This is why currently so many non-competes never get enforced. Employers know their clauses wouldn't survive court scrutiny, so they rely on employees not understanding the presumption and not understanding their rights.

I once had a non-compete clause in a contract that defined the geographic scope of the clause as the entire country of Australia. It did not define the prohibited activities beyond naming the relevant industry and included a time limitation of three months or six months or 12 months. This is clearly very uncertain, very unclear, with a potentially very broad and restrictive application. It was widely accepted within the organisation that this clause, which many people had in their employment contracts, was not enforceable.

The organisation eventually wised up to this issue and began including additional wording in employment contracts to the effect that the employee agreed that the non-compete was fair and reasonable, thus removing any right on the part of the employee to challenge the clause but still leaving the employee with a broad and restrictive non-compete clause preventing the ease of movement in the labour market and creating stress and uncertainty for employees who may have needed to change jobs because of family reasons, like a spouse getting a job in another state, and preventing employees from taking up a job with subjectively more suitable or improved conditions.

This example is what is driving the Albanese Labor government's non-compete reforms. These clauses will still be legal for high-income employees, who arguably have a stronger bargaining and negotiating position and who may actually present a legitimate commercial or competition risk to a business by virtue of their seniority.

I come from a family of small businesses. In fact, I'm proud to stand here and say my parents have employed people who worked for my parents their entire working life. Those people are now retired. I think I can speak with some confidence about what small business does and how it operates. The one fallacy I would love to break down in this place that some who make contributions opposite seem to want to subscribe to—the member for Moore was very much of this mantra. I acknowledge the member for Sturt was not—that there is this clash between bosses or business owners and employees. I don't think a greater fallacy was ever spoken in this place. Employers will do everything they can to hold on to good employees. That is certainly my experience in business.

But, of course, we're here talking about non-compete clauses. I'm grateful for the member for Sturt because she was academically honest about the law as it relates to these clauses that are included in employment contracts in Australia. They are deemed illegitimate by the courts, save and except for where an employer can establish they are reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, so it's not, as some might suggest in this place, that every hairdresser, every plumber or every electrician has these provisions in their contract, because, quite frankly, if they do, unless an employer can establish that they're 'reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interests', then they're illegal. I want to make it very clear the coalition will assess this legislation when it has an opportunity to consider it, but that's the starting point. The starting point is what the law says today.

Why might a business have a legitimate reason to protect itself in a non-compete clause? Let me give you an example that comes from regional South Australia. A land and stock agent might want to work for a stock agency. That person might be introduced to clients of the agency. That person will develop a rapport with those staff. It is fair and reasonable for the business that has curated that relationship over a decade or more to have the protection that, should an employee wish to move to another agency, they are not then in a position to take those employees with them, so they want that protection. Let me give you another example. What about a technical trade where a business has access to particular processes or procedures? Obviously, there would be a reasonable and necessary protection to protect their legitimate business interests.

A situation where we're simply going to make this effectively illegal for anyone earning under $190,000 would take away the protections that small businesses may otherwise legitimately have and ones that they can establish before a court. That might be the reason why COSBOA has raised concerns about the fact that the draft exposure bill goes a lot further than the original announcement. It might also be why other peaks have expressed their concern as well. To be honest, I'm not going to sit here and take a lecture from those opposite about what small business needs in the shadow of the credit card surcharges ban fiasco.

Like members before me, can I reiterate we will take the opportunity to consider this proposal in detail. We'll do it with the benefit of the hundreds of years of experience in small business that we enjoy within the coalition, and we'll do it against the background of a deep understanding of what the law says today and what is required. This idea that we're setting up bosses against workers is a straw man, and I wish those opposite would stop it, because, quite frankly, small business will do everything it can to work with and maintain relationships with good employees.

If you're a high-income earner being required to take what is often euphemistically known as gardening leave before you switch to a competitor or set up as a competitor to your original employer it probably isn't a huge surprise, and it probably isn't a huge financial stretch either. You've got the choice. However, if you're on the minimum award wage or even above the award and decide that there's nowhere to move up in the business you're working in, realising that your contract may have a non-compete clause or a post-employment restraint-of-trade clause can be a real shock. These are terms in a contract that stop or restrict an employee from working in competition with a previous employer for a certain period after their employment with them ends. These clauses may also stop or restrict an employee from working in a particular location or area. Workers who want to switch to a nearby firm can find themselves barred from moving unless they take months off work.

Just sorting out what's what, for a worker, can be tricky. At the moment, the Fair Work Act doesn't set any rules for non-compete clauses in employment contracts. Therefore, the Fair Work Ombudsman can't advise on non-compete clauses. If someone has questions about a non-compete clause in their employment contract, they have to seek formal advice from their union or get their own legal advice.

Right now, more than three million Australian workers are covered by these clauses. Non-compete clauses apply not just to senior executives but to many low-wage workers, including in construction, hairdressing and early childhood education. The Treasury's competition review heard troubling accounts about the misuse of non-compete clauses, including minimum-wage workers being sued by former employers and workers being threatened with legal action if they switched jobs. Australians shouldn't need a lawyer to go to a higher paying job. Even when non-compete clauses are legally unenforceable, they can still make people feel stuck in their current role. As my parliamentary colleague Assistant Minister Leigh put it when interviewed on this, a lot of workers don't have $100,000 and a lawyer sitting around waiting to take their case, so even an unenforceable non-compete clause has a chilling effect, stopping workers from moving to a better job because they're scared by the black and white of their employment agreement.

So what's the change? From 2027, Labor's ban on non-compete clauses will apply to workers earning less than the high-income threshold in the Fair Work Act. That's currently at $190,100 a year. We'll also close loopholes in competition law that currently allow businesses to fix wages by making anti-competitive arrangements that cap workers' pay and conditions without the knowledge and agreement of affected workers. The reforms also ban no-poach agreements, where employers agree not to hire each other's workers. Banning non-compete clauses is about encouraging aspiration, unlocking opportunity, lifting wages and making Australia's economy more dynamic and competitive. Reforming these anti-competitive business agreements will bring Australia into line with many other advanced nations and ensure a fairer, more competitive job market.

I've been an employer in small business for a quarter of a century, and I know how hard it is to lose an employee who has ambitions greater than those your business can provide for. I've invested many hours in training members of a team and watched them grow and blossom, and sometimes they outgrow the role and you don't have the ability to expand to meet their ambition or they see a way that they want to do it differently. I can see why an employer might want to tie their staff member beyond the time that they want to stay, but that has its downsides too. More than anything, it's reducing the take-home pay for a worker who might get more in another role and reducing the productivity of the country.

This important step is just part of the government's broad and ambitious competition agenda, including progressing a national licensing scheme for electrical tradespeople, a tough new merger regime and a new phase of national competition policy to lower barriers for new entrants and new ideas. By unbinding workers from non-competes, we can restore freedom, fairness and dynamism and give Australians the chance to move forward, not stand still.

The previous speaker, the member for Macquarie, spoke of the importance of achieving a dynamic and a competitive economy, and I think that's something that all sides of the parliament would agree we absolutely want. I suppose where the difference is is where we draw that balance to try to achieve that. One of the great pleasures of my role—and I'm sure every member of this place enjoys this—is the opportunity to doorknock local businesses and speak to local business owners about the challenges they're facing but also where government might be able to make their lives easier or give them more opportunity for success. I dedicate quite a lot of time to going through the small-business precincts of my electorate, and I try to speak to as many business owners as I possibly can about how things are going. And I don't think it's any secret; I think all sides of the parliament would agree that small businesses are doing it very, very tough at the moment. Confidence is definitely down.

The attitude that makes me concerned, from speaking to local business owners, is that the risk appetite is down considerably. People who once upon a time might have been very excited about opportunities to grow their business are now telling me, 'I've got this way to grow or I could grow this way, or I could do this to get a new opportunity, but it's all too risky,' and, in many of these discussions, the biggest risk is around putting on new staff. What these small businesses tell me is that they need confidence and certainty in order to invest, and we need to ensure that any action we take on non-compete clauses maintains confidence and certainty for small business, particularly at a time like this, when they are struggling in such a bad way.

The coalition believe Australians should be able to get ahead and use their skills and pursue better jobs and earn higher wages, but we need to find a balance. We need to balance that with the need of Australian businesses to protect their legitimate commercial interests. I'll give you the example of a local real estate firm who contacted me, concerned about what the government was pursuing in this area. Obviously, a real estate firm is one in which your market intelligence, your access and your contacts mean everything. If a local realtor employs someone within their firm who could walk out the next day and go work for a competitor, that is a significant risk for their operations. It just means that they're taking fewer risks around adding more employees to their books. The results, unfortunately, if we get this wrong, will be that businesses will employ less and we're going to have fewer jobs created. We need to get the balance right. Unfortunately, too often we're seeing this government getting the balance wrong. That's why real wages are down five per cent. At the same time, we've had over 28,000 small-business insolvencies in the last two years.

We note that the government released an exposure draft of the non-compete legislation in September. Consultation closed on 2 October. The coalition, of course, will carefully examine this bill, as we do with every bit of legislation once it's introduced into the parliament. But we're concerned by what we're hearing from the business community, and I wanted to read some of the comments that have been made publicly by some of the business groups. COSBOA have noted in their press release that the bill 'goes much further than the reform originally announced by the government and could create significant new costs and challenges for small businesses'. They said:

For many small business owners, their business is the asset that they spent decades building …

When they sell, the goodwill, customer relationships and knowledge built up over those years are part of what the buyer is paying for.

They go on to note:

This legislation needs to target genuinely unfair non-competes without exposing ordinary small businesses to disproportionate penalties, undermining the value of their businesses—

and often they've spent a lifetime building that. This would be creating significant legal uncertainty, which COSBOA are ringing the bell about. The Australian Industry Group have said:

The changes introduced banning non-compete clauses for many workers are unnecessary and will result in predictable problematic consequences for many in industry.

The government needs to explain why its proposed policies go well beyond what was originally announced and how it intends to protect those legitimate business interests that those groups have highlighted. Getting the balance right here is absolutely critical, and that's what the coalition will be seeking as we assess and address this bill and potentially move amendments as well. We're keeping a close eye on this, and we're really keen to ensure that balance is achieved.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Cost of Living

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for McPherson and to highlight the continuing financial hardship experienced by Australian households under the Albanese Labor government. Across Capricornia, families are working harder, paying more and increasingly wondering why, after years of promises from this government, it is becoming harder to get ahead. Food on the table, a roof over their heads and fuel in the car are necessities Australians cannot go without—particularly in regional Queensland, where travelling considerable distances for work, education and healthcare is a fact of life.

Economists say households have little choice but to keep buying these essentials even when prices rise, because families cannot simply stop eating, paying their mortgage or putting fuel in the car. The latest figures demonstrate the extent of the pressure, with annual inflation climbing to four per cent in August, up from 3.5 per cent in July. Housing costs have risen 5.7 per cent, food prices three per cent, health costs 3.9 per cent and education costs 4.7 per cent over the year to August. Electricity prices alone have increased 13.2 per cent over the same period, placing further pressure on household budgets.

Behind these figures are everyday Australians across Capricornia, from families in Rockhampton struggling with rising grocery prices to pensioners in Yeppoon trying to make their fixed income stretch further and young families in Sarina facing mounting pressure from mortgage repayments, child care and electricity costs. October is Seniors Month in Queensland, and only last week I attended a seniors meeting at CARV in Yeppoon alongside my state colleague, the member for Keppel, Nigel Hutton. What we heard firsthand was deeply concerning, with older Australians desperate for respite from relentless cost-of-living pressures that continue to erode their financial security.

These are people who have worked hard, raised families, paid taxes and contributed to our communities for decades, yet rising living costs are placing increasing pressure on their ability to afford everyday essentials. Unlike working Australians, pensioners generally have limited opportunities to supplement their incomes, leaving them particularly vulnerable to rising prices. This pressure is being compounded by the Albanese government cutting the private health insurance rebate while approving an average premium increase of 4.41 per cent from April, up from the 3.73 per cent in 2025.

The impact is clear. Over the year to June, living costs rose 4.7 per cent for age pensioner households, compared with 3.7 per cent for employee households. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and Treasurer continue boasting about the savings they claim to be delivering for Australians while overlooking a fundamental economic reality: savings account for nothing when swallowed up by an out-of-control government spending elsewhere. This is the problem with the current government celebrating modest savings while failing to rein in spending, adding to inflationary pressures, eroding household purchasing power and contributing to the decline in Australian living standards.

For Australians who were around in the '90s, these circumstances may feel painfully reminiscent of former Labor prime minister Paul Keating's infamous declaration that Australia was experiencing the recession we 'had to have'. The pensioners I speak to across Central Queensland have no appetite for another economic lesson delivered at the expense of their household budgets. Mortgage holders are also feeling the strain, with four interest rate rises in 2026 and a total of 16 interest rate rises under the Albanese government.

In regional communities, fuel is another unavoidable expense. Farmers rely on diesel, transport operators move the goods our communities depend on, and families travel significant distances for work, school and medical appointments. This is why the coalition has proposed its fuel price shield, which would automatically halve fuel excise when the two-week average price of Brent crude exceeds $100 a barrel, providing approximately 27 cents a litre in potential relief, or around $15 on a typical tank. The proposal would also temporarily reduce the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero, recognising the flow-on impact of freight costs on groceries and other household essentials.

While governments cannot control global oil prices or international instability, they can establish practical mechanisms to cushion Australians against sudden price shocks. The people of Capricornia are resilient and hardworking. They are not asking government to solve every problem, but they are entitled to expect responsible economic management that allows them to get ahead rather than watching every saving disappear into another bill. Our seniors deserve to enjoy retirement with dignity, while younger families deserve the opportunity to build financial security for the future.

Australians are working hard, and we know that they're doing it tough right now. While our economy already faced an inflation challenge coming out of the pandemic, the global instability, most notably the re-escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, is making things significantly harder. This renewed conflict is pushing up global energy prices, fuel costs and inflation right across the globe, and Australia is not immune. The latest ABS data shows that, while our underlying inflation remains stable, the annual headline inflation ticked up in August, driven almost entirely by higher global fuel costs and the unwinding of previous energy rebates. The market is pricing in rate rises across every major advanced economy. Australian workers didn't choose this war, but they are paying a heavy price for it. From an economic and moral point of view, an end to this conflict cannot come soon enough.

In times of global uncertainty, responsible government matters more than ever. We take our full share of responsibility in the fight against inflation by managing the budget carefully and living within our means. Let's look at our track record. Real spending growth over our four years in office has averaged just two per cent, less than half of what our predecessors averaged and well below the 30-year average. When we came to office, spending was nearly a third of the economy. We brought that down to 25 per cent to 26 per cent, roughly a quarter. We have found nearly $180 billion in savings and reprioritisations across our budgets and updates. In our most recent budget alone, we are reforming structural savings, including $38 billion, by restoring the NDIS to its original intent and billions more cutting back on expensive external contractors and targeted reductions in green energy programs. Because of this discipline, our latest budget outcome is $22 billion better than estimated, nearly half the deficit of what we inherited. Gross debt is nearly $200 billion lower than when we took office, saving taxpayers $70 billion in interest costs over the decade. That's why Australia remains one of nine countries across the globe with the AAA credit rating from all three major international ratings agencies.

Because we are managing the nation's books responsibly, we are able to roll out continuous, meaningful cost-of-living relief for everyday Australians. We're helping people keep more of what they earn. We have delivered income tax five times in five different ways, putting nearly $3,000 a year back into the pockets of the average worker by 2028. This includes a new $250 working Australians tax offset and a $1,000 instant tax deduction. We have made medicines cheaper, expanded bulk-billing and urgent care clinics and raised the Medicare low-income threshold so over a million low-income earners pay little to no levy. We've backed higher wages, lifting the national minimum wage to help our lowest paid workers to keep pace. And, through our tax and housing reforms, we're helping more than 75,000 Australians realise the dream of homeownership by making the property market fairer while safeguarding existing investments.

The coalition left office with an inflation rate north of six per cent and rapidly rising, alongside $600 billion in debt accumulated before the pandemic even hit. Today they are promising to the public $110 billion in unfunded commitments. But, when the time came to support working families and fix the housing markets, what did they do? The coalition voted against our plan to cut income taxes, they voted against making the housing market fairer, and they voted against more cost-of-living relief, cheaper medicines and wages growth. By their own economic logic, their approach of bigger deficits and higher spending would pump inflation and force interest rates even higher and leave Australian workers significantly worse off.

This government will not waver. We will continue to deliver responsible fiscal management, ease cost-of-living pressures and build a stronger, fairer economy for every Australian. We welcome the opposition's support for cost-of-living measures.

It never ceases to amaze me how different the thinking is in this building to what I hear when I go back to my electorate and speak to locals in the Redlands. You could be forgiven for thinking you were living in an alternate reality if you compared the feedback I receive on the ground in my electorate from locals who are doing it incredibly tough under this cost-of-living crisis, with higher interest rates, negative equity and small businesses going under, to the narrative that you hear in government talking points.

I just heard from the last speaker about bulk-billing. Let me let me read an excerpt from an email that I received from someone in my electorate this week. We just heard that bulk-billing has been all resolved. Beverly from Cleveland said: 'After all the ads in the media advertising bulk-billing and saying doctors are more accessible, can you please explain why it is actually harder to access bulk-billing clinics in the Redlands area? Doctors who I've been going to for over 30 years are no longer bulk-billing.' That's the reality on the ground.

We also just heard about the impact of the housing reforms. I want to read you this account from Trevor. Trevor is from Cleveland in my electorate, where my electorate office is. He's written me one of the most interesting emails I've had in the course of my four years in this place. Let me read a few excerpts here. He said: 'Twelve months ago, my family made the decision to buy a home. We weren't investors or speculators. We were simply trying to secure a roof over our heads after being forced to move repeatedly. Every move costs us money. We've now been left in a position where our home's value has fallen significantly. We now find ourselves with approximately $150,000 in negative equity. Today my wife works six days a week. My daughter works incredibly hard as well. I work around 60 hours over five days. We are all earning fairly average wages. Yet, despite all that effort, it feels as though we are going backwards. I was raised to believe that, if you worked hard, lived responsibly and played by the rules, you would eventually get ahead. That is what my parents taught me. But, right now, what I see is our nest egg shrinking, our financial security disappearing and our family's confidence in the future being shaken.' I could go on. It's quite a lengthy email.

That's the reality on the ground. That's what people are seeing. That is the direct consequence of the policies that are being implemented by this government. We have had the worst collapse in living standards of any advanced economy in the world under this government. That's the reality. That's what's happening out there in the real world. We hear from those opposite about how it's all going great or, if it's not going great, it's Donald Trump's fault or the ayatollah's fault. It's everyone's fault except for this government and this Treasurer. We've just had the 16th rise in interest rates under this government. People are absolutely doing it tough out there. I've been inundated. I've got more cases here I could read from. It is, to me, quite concerning that we've got a government who are so out of touch. When they are going back to their electorates, I don't know who they're talking to.

But do you know what? I get the sense that they actually do understand the reality on the ground. We saw that article from Paul Sakkal a couple of weeks ago where we had three backbenchers quoted concerned about the approach that the government is taking in relation to the economy. This is a direct result of where this government is leading us. Labor's record spending means the budget is now forecast to be in deficit for the next 40 years. Debt has passed $1 trillion as well. We just heard, 'If you go back 4½ years and you look at the projections sideways and with one eye closed, we're actually performing a lot better than what we could have been doing under a former coalition government.' You guys have been in power for 4½ years. I've got a son who's actually spent nearly his entire life under a Labor government. You didn't come down in the last shower.

Can I give you a little bit of friendly advice? The public opinion around 'you can just blame the last guys' runs out at about the 4½-year mark. I really encourage you guys. I know some of you like to talk to Sakkal after a few drinks and have a chat off the record. Let me tell you this. Why don't you go on the record and tell your constituents what you actually think about the economic management of your government, because I can guarantee you that you guys are hearing the exact same stories I've been hearing and that I've just read out to you. This isn't good enough. Australia's going backwards at a rate of knots. We've absolutely got to have a change of government at the next election, because I can't see you guys getting any better.

We know that, for many, the cost of living is a weekly calculation. It's the groceries, it's the rent or the mortgage, it's the prescriptions and it's that unexpected bill that comes in before pay day. Labor understand this, which is why we are responding with practical help. It's why the priority for the 2026 budget was to continue to roll out cost-of-living measures.

At the same time, though, we are trying to make the economy more resilient by introducing some big reforms that start to address intergenerational inequalities. This Labor government is cutting taxes five times for 13 million workers, so the average Australian will be $2,800 better off every year across all our taxes; the latest was in July this year. We've also taken $250 off Australians' tax bills permanently, and there's the $1,000 instant tax deduction without receipts. On top of this, don't forget that we provided fuel tax relief earlier this year to help people as they fill up at the bowser.

We're also making health care more affordable. A sudden fever or an unexpected injury can turn your bills into something you weren't ready for. That's why we're making free urgent care clinics a permanent part of our Medicare system. We're delivering a record boost to public hospitals and we're making life-changing medicines cheaper. Don't forget—25 bucks a script under Labor.

Young people are telling us that they feel that the dream of owning their own home is disappearing for them. When you work hard and save hard, you should be able to buy that home of your own. We've already delivered the five per cent deposit scheme for first home buyers, and we're building 100,000 homes specifically for them. In fact, around Brisbane, 32,000 people are now in homes of their own as a result of the five per cent deposit. We've also got Help to Buy, which is a joint equity scheme to support homeownership. The reality is that first home buyers were being priced out of the market by property investors backed by tax breaks like negative gearing. So what have we done? We've made the tax system fairer so that that doesn't happen. Making housing more affordable also means building more homes, which is why we've put billions of dollars into building the necessary infrastructure—water, electricity, power, roads.

Those opposite need to let the facts speak for themselves. Labor is doing so much hard work to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to get ahead. That's why we've delivered a pay rise for all minimum and award wage workers, taking the total increase under Labor to $9,000. Paid parental leave is now 24 weeks, and there is now super being paid on top of that. There's a $10,000 bonus for housing apprentices to top up their wages. There's 30 per cent off home batteries to help permanently cut power bills. There's paid prac for nurses, teachers, social workers, occupational therapists and more. We're boosting Medicare with $1.8 billion in extra hospital funding. There's more choice, lower cost and high-quality health care for Australian women with our record spending in women's health. We've expanded the five per cent deposit to all first home buyers, with more than 280,000 first home buyers now accessing the scheme. There is another pay rise to aged-care nurses following the first instalment in March.

I'm going to keep going, because we are doing a lot to help people with the cost of living. We've expanded bulk-billing so more people can see a GP for free. There's a freeze on the draft beer excise indexation for two years. There's a 20 per cent cut to student debt, with an average saving of $5½ thousand. Fifty more urgent care clinics have opened—including one in the heart of the Brisbane electorate which I was so proud to deliver—providing more than two million Australians with free urgent health care. From 1 January we delivered the next stage in our plan to make the biggest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the PBS: all PBS medicines are $25 or less. This will make medicines the cheapest in over two decades.

Labor always has been and always will be the government of fairness in Australia. We understand the importance of addressing disadvantage, promoting economic inclusion and supporting the most vulnerable in our community, which includes those on low and fixed incomes. This government is doing everything it can to support Australians with the cost of living. Just imagine how much harder it would have been under those opposite; they voted against every one of the measures we've introduced. It would have been difficult for people to get even further ahead. While the LNP and, frankly, One Nation continue to focus on themselves and vote against Labor's cost of living, let's not forget that it's Labor that is delivering for the people in my electorate, the people of Brisbane and across Australia.

Families across my electorate of Mackellar are hurting. The cost-of-living crisis is stretching household budgets far beyond their limits, and this has gone on for way too long. Hardworking Australians are trying to keep their heads above water as they are hit from all angles. Whether it's buying groceries, filling up at the bowser, renewing insurance or paying a mortgage, households are facing increasing costs that are putting them under enormous pressure. With Australia's annual inflation reaching the highest rate in almost three years in March, with fuel, housing and food costs continuing to rise, Hiten from Frenchs Forest told me that his household, like many others on the Northern Beaches, is struggling.

To combat inflation, the Reserve Bank of Australia raised interest rates again last month—the fourth increase in the cash rate this year. It now stands at 4.6 per cent, the highest since 2011. Even before the latest increase, the average interest rate on outstanding owner-occupier housing loans reached 6.21 per cent in July. For families with mortgages, this means more pain and more decisions—decisions like whether to pull kids out-of-after-school sport or to skip or lower a level of insurance, postpone seeing the doctor or perhaps even sell the house.

Catherine from Belrose told me she's working two jobs taking care of elderly patients and facing imminent housing and food security issues. She rightly points out that she is not alone. Many working- and middle-class families are struggling with rising interest rates, increasing living costs and the real risk of losing their homes. The latest ABS figures illustrate why our communities are drowning. Inflation climbed back to four per cent in August. Underlying inflation remains at 3.6 per cent. Food is three per cent more expensive than a year ago. Transport costs are up 5.6 per cent. Housing costs are up 5.7 per cent, and insurance is up 3.5 per cent. The prices of everyday essentials have also increased, with milk up 8.9 per cent, fruit up 6.9 per cent and coffee and tea up more than five per cent over the year. Add to that increases in rent, child care, water, health care, electricity and education.

It's not only households that are hurting. Businesses in my electorate are just hanging on. They are angry and frustrated at the lack of support. Natalie, who runs an allied health practice on the Northern Beaches with her husband, wrote to me recently. She echoed what many small-business owners have told me—that running a small business right now is harder than it has ever been. Wages, rent, insurance, energy and compliance costs have all gone up, while their patients are more careful with every dollar they spend. Natalie said they cannot simply pass every cost increase onto the people they look after. Every month, they make careful decisions to keep their doors open, their staff employed and their patients cared for. This is the story for so many small businesses around Australia.

This year's annual Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Small Business Conditions Survey found that 63 per cent of small businesses cited increased costs as their biggest challenge, and the ACCI CEO, Andrew McKellar, put it plainly: Australia's small businesses are right on the brink. They are stretched, and they have extremely limited capacity to absorb additional costs. From talking to businesses all around my own electorate of Mackellar, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Constituents and small-business owners in my electorate are asking, rightly so, 'When will there be relief?' However, with the ongoing wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, inflationary pressures are not likely to ease any time in the near future, but, right now, Australians need tangible everyday relief, including more affordable child care, health care, education, housing and support for Australian businesses.

There is one really clear action the government could take right now so that they could invest in such services, and that is to ensure that Australians get a fair return for the export sale of our gas by introducing a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. Research from the Australia Institute estimates that a 25 per cent gas export tax could raise $17 billion annually. Norway established a sovereign wealth fund in 1990 to invest revenue from its oil and gas resources for the benefit of its own population—for the Norwegians. It's now worth $3 trillion. It's time Australians reap that same benefit from the sale of our own resources. (Time expired)

Those opposite have a lot to say about the economy, but there's one part of the economic story they conveniently leave out: their own record. When the coalition left government, inflation was running above six per cent and rising. Before those opposite lecture this parliament about inflation, they should explain to Australians how it got so high on their watch.

Food inflation was twice what it is now, while the cost of health and education increased by 35 per cent under their government. Their economic record put enormous pressure on the essentials Australian families rely on every day. When they were in government they doubled Australia's gross debt, even before COVID, and racked up $600 billion of debt before we came to office—almost two-thirds of total gross debt. Debt went from $257 billion in 2013-14 to $542 billion in 2018-19 before COVID. At the last election, the coalition proposed bigger deficits and more debt. Since then, they have made more than $110 billion in unfunded commitments. Under their plans, gross debt will be more than half a trillion dollars higher by the end of the decade. Their approach means bigger deficits, more debt and greater risks to inflation and interest rates.

Our government has identified almost $180 billion in savings, with more than a third included in our most recent budget. They cannot credibly lecture Australians about fiscal responsibility while opposing our budget savings measures and at the same time refusing to explain what they will cut, so let's ask some obvious questions. Will they cut access to free GPs and bulk billing? Will they cut the three-day childcare guarantee that helps parents return to work while giving children a strong start in early education? Will they cut cheaper medicines, our investments in Medicare, free TAFE, paid parental leave, housing or a future made in Australia? These are the measures Australians rely on, and they are precisely the areas the coalition must explain if it intends to criticise while proposing more debt.

We recognise the cost-of-living pressures inflation continues to place on families. That is why our government has acted to help Australians keep more of what they earn, access essential services and build a more secure future. We expanded paid parental leave and introduced superannuation payments on parental leave for the first time. We mandated payday super, and, while they want Australians to raid their super, we are strengthening retirement savings so more Australians can retire with dignity. We delivered further permanent income tax cuts and cut income taxes five times in five different ways, putting nearly $3,000 a year into the pockets of an average-income worker by 2028. We are backing workers through increases to minimum and award wages while supporting small businesses with loss refundability, a permanent $20,000 instant asset write-off and simpler tax arrangements. By investing in skills recognition education, we are helping businesses find the workers they need and opening doors to better employment opportunities and higher wages.

Cost-of-living relief also means making health care more affordable and accessible. In my community, our investments in Medicare have helped more than double the number of fully bulk-billing GP clinics to over 94 per cent, with 49 Medicare bulk-billing practices now serving our community. Under Labor's cheaper medicines policy, more than two million cheaper scripts have been issued locally, helping residents access the medicines they need at a lower cost. Nearly 5,000 people have purchased their first home thanks to our five per cent deposit scheme. We have pursued these measures while maintaining budget responsibility and improving our fiscal position. We have found almost $180 billion in savings across our budgets and budget updates, including substantial savings in our most recent budget.

By contrast, the coalition delivered no budget surpluses in nearly a decade in government—and that record matters. Australians deserve an honest debate about the economy. That means acknowledging the pressures families face, being transparent about the costs of government policies and explaining how those policies will be funded. After nine coalition budgets that delivered zero surpluses, the Australian people deserve better than lectures from those opposite without an honest account of their record and a clear explanation of what they will cut. The Albanese Labor government will continue working to ease cost-of-living pressures and deliver practical support for working Australians and for families and communities like mine.

Our country is in bad shape, and it hurts. Australia is in the grip of a cost-of-living crisis affecting just about every Australian across this great country. People are frustrated. They're getting desperate and, understandably, they're very angry. We are at the point where we are taxed not only on our income but on our hard earned savings, on our super, on any investments people might be lucky enough to have and on any money they might make when they sell these investments. Inflation continues to rise. Rents are rising. Power bills are rising. Food seems to cost more at the supermarket with every single shop. Over the past year food prices have gone up 3.2 per cent, health costs have risen 3.8 per cent and education costs have gone up 4.8 per cent. It costs more to insure your car, and it costs more to fill up your car.

I don't know where it is that the members of this Albanese Labor government are walking, driving or shopping, or where they're talking to people, but they seem unable to hear what all regional Australians are saying to me. Let me tell you what I'm hearing on the ground. A teacher from my electorate in Parkes has written to me about the strain she is seeing in her school community:

These financial stresses are not just abstract concerns; they are visible in the day-to-day lives of our students. We see it in their conversations, in occasional lateness to school, in the contents—or absence—of lunchboxes, and in the challenges some families face in maintaining school uniforms.

Then there's the 68-year-old woman from Brewarrina who has had to go back to full-time work because she can no longer afford to pay her rent. In Tomingley, a farmer has written describing energy price rises as 'another kick in the guts'.

Every day, in every community, I am made aware of people who are struggling, and it's apparent that, in living memory, times may never have been this tough. Interest rates are at a 15-year high, which, combined with the rising cost of everything, has made rents and buying a house out of reach for many Australians. While hard workers and those who have made this country are hurting, this Albanese Labor government continues to spend and spend. Government spending is at a 40-year high, outside the pandemic, and debt is over $1 trillion. And yet our seniors, in the often modest homes they've paid off through scrimping and saving while raising a family, are told they must tighten their belts even more—that they must buy margarine instead of butter, drop their private health insurance, catch one of the buses that simply don't exist in regional communities instead of filling up their car, or, if they have to drive, pump their tyres up a little bit more and get rid of the roof racks. Air is free. Small-business owners are being told, yes, they can pay more tax. It is getting harder and harder to help the next generation get ahead. In other words, do as I say, not as I do.

The people Australians trust to manage our country are clearly failing, and it's time for a change. The Nationals, in a coalition, are the only people who care about regional Australians and who are listening. We have a plan. We have a way forward. It involves lowering taxes, cheaper power, more sensible migration and putting Australians first. It involves common sense. We will even establish a Future Generations Fund to pay down Labor's trillion dollar debt and invest in long-lasting nation-building infrastructure in roads, ports, energy and water. This government needs to stand up and take responsibility today. It needs to account for the dreams it has taken away from everyday Australians.

So many Australians are doing it tough right now. Global instability—including the war in Iran—is pushing up fuel costs, inflation and interest rates across the world. Australia is not immune to these pressures, nor are we unique in the inflation challenge we are now confronting. The government know this, and we're taking action. The Albanese Labor government is strengthening the budget, getting inflation down and continuing to deliver real cost-of-living relief for everyday Australians. In the face of great global forces, our focus is where Labor governments' focus always is: on getting costs down for families, providing targeted relief and helping Australians' pay packets keep up with the cost of living.

We know the strain that household budgets are under. Just as families are making tough choices at kitchen tables and in living rooms, the government is making tough choices around the cabinet table and in the caucus room—tough, principled choices to rein in the growth of the NDIS; to reform the unfair, age based private health insurance rebate; and to cut spending on external contractors and non-wage benefits. We are putting downward pressure on inflation through fiscal discipline and targeted support to those who need it the most.

When we came to office, the coalition had left Australians with inflation that was north of six per cent and rising. Grocery prices were rising at almost twice the current rate, and the cost of essential health care had increased by almost 35 per cent, forcing many to cut back on care and put off seeing their GPs. The 2025-26 final budget outcome proved that our bottom line is far better than what we inherited. It is better than what was forecast at the last election, and it has only improved since. Average real spending growth is less than half of what our predecessors averaged. It is lower than their pre-pandemic average, and it is well below the 30-year average. Forecast debt is almost a quarter of a trillion dollars better than what we were left with, thanks to four years of spending restraint under this government.

The coalition took a promise of bigger deficits and more debt to the last election, and it seems that they are yet to learn anything, with over $110 billion in unfunded thought bubbles thus far this term. We are providing fiscal restraint without smashing the labour market and throwing thousands of working Australians into unemployment. Those opposite take a different approach, and they are shameless about it. Instead of getting inflation down through spending discipline, sensible reform and paying down debt, those opposite would trade hundreds of thousands of jobs and make savage cuts to services in chasing the most reckless path to low inflation.

The difference between our approach and theirs is clear: a balanced fiscal strategy based on spending discipline and targeted cost-of-living relief versus a 'slash and burn' approach of mass unemployment and cuts to services that everyday Australians rely upon. Unemployment breaks up families. It has scarring effects on skills and lifetime earnings, and it hits school leavers and low-skilled workers the hardest. High levels of unemployment and a slack labour market make it harder for those in work to get a pay rise that keeps up with the cost of living. It's exactly the kind of extreme approach you would expect from those opposite. Forcing down wages and cutting essential services is in their DNA.

Just last week, the Leader of the Opposition announced the coalition's latest great idea: taking a blowtorch to aged care by slashing temporary migration in the sector. The coalition's sweeping cuts would hit aged-care workers and older Australians across my community the hardest, in places like BaptistCare in Bangor, John Paul Village in Heathcote and HammondCare in Hammondville. How many fewer aged-care workers would there be under those opposite? The Leader of the Opposition doesn't have the exact number, nor will the coalition tell Australians how many fewer doctors, nurses and construction workers there would be. Nowhere in their policy is there a place for temporary workers who provide essential care to older Australians across my community every day.

Like a dog chasing its own tail, all that the three right-wing parties seem to care about is going lower than the others in a twisted game of limbo: Who can cut services the hardest? Who can slash more jobs? Come right up and see how low you can go! While those opposite continue to outdo themselves in lowering the bar, our balanced fiscal strategy is getting inflation down and delivering targeted relief without crushing the labour market or cutting the health and aged-care services on which Australians rely. We are indexing payments and thresholds for 2.6 million Australians, helping young Australians into their first homes, saving families thousands on cheaper medicines and cutting taxes again and again for every Australian taxpayer. Relief today and reform for tomorrow— (Time expired)

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 24